What were the most important battles EVER to be fought in the history of warfare? Everyone take a guess.

A quick warning: anyone who says Ayn Jalut, Tours (Poitiers), or Lepanto gets taken out back and beaten.


I would say that Carrhae is among the most important battles of all time. It was because of Carrhae that the Silk Road began, when Roman soldiers saw the billowing silk standards, they told stories of it, and demand for the substance grew. It also led to the first Sino-Roman relations, when captives of the battle were sent to guard duty in Transoxiana. Even further, Crassus' death meant the fall of the Triumvirate, Caesar's victory in the Civil War, and the subsequent fall of the Roman Republic (and thus rise of the Empire).

Lepanto, naw just kiddin.

I would say Gettysburg, but the Confederacy was going down the drain anyway.
I would have to say Fort Union, because if the Confederate army had won that battle, then they would have had control of all of the west's gold, and might have, presumably, won the war.

Boy you really do get off on that whole 'South winning' thing, don't you?

Battle of Milvian Bridge is what launched Christianity from a small, despised cult into the world's most influential religion.

I'd put up Ipsos, Chalons, the Metaurus River, the 480 BC Battle of Salamis, and the 415-413 BC siege of Syrakousai as good candidates for important battles.
It was because of Carrhae that the Silk Road began, when Roman soldiers saw the billowing silk standards, they told stories of it, and demand for the substance grew.
Minor nitpick...the Silk Road had already existed for quite a while...certainly for the Hellenistic states (the Greek is keleuthos bombykike I think). It was awfully important for the pre-Indo-Greek Kingdom Baktrian economy, anyway, and it was a prime motivator in the Seleukids' early attempts to hold onto such faraway towns as Marakanda, Antiochia-Margiane, and Alexandria-Eschate. Pahlava was largely maintained by Silk Road trade as well. But its extension to Roma was in itself extremely important, as were the other Sino-Roman contacts and the Roman political ramifications.

Boy you really do get off on that whole 'South winning' thing, don't you?

The civil war has always intrigued me, though I am NOT a person who WHISHES the confeds won the civil war...far from it.

World War I. I don't think I need to explain my choice.

That's more than one battle, you know....

1st Waterloo

Runner up Fall Of Constantinople

There are no "most important battle" but I can think of several which are very significant: (in rough chronological order) Salamis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis), Zama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama), Milvian Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Milvian_Bridge), Badr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr), Yarmuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Of_Yarmuk), Manzikert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_manzikert), Tenochtitlan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tenochtitlan), Panipat(s) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panipat), Hansan-Do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hansando), Saratoga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saratoga), Tsushima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_tsushima), Tannenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tannenberg_%281914%29), Stalingrad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_stalingrad), etc.

A quick warning: anyone who says Ayn Jalut, Tours (Poitiers), or Lepanto gets taken out back and beaten.
You left Marathon off that list. Most overrated "battle" ever.

Saratoga is one. American victory = French support, French support = France bankrupt, France Bankrupt = French Revolution, French Revolution = Napoleon; you can then follow it up later.

These are direct results, not indirectly linking them.

1st Waterloo
Yeah, 'cause Napoleon in the Hundred Days really had a chance. :rolleyes:
Runner up Fall Of Constantinople
Same as above: a hundred thousand plus Turks with technological superiority were not about to lose to less than ten thousand Genovese mercenaries and Roman citizens.

Props for everybody who included the Battle of the Pons Milvius. :goodjob: As for Marathon, I think it's important mostly because it saved the city-state of Athens, flower of the classical Greek culture that is the foundation of Western civilization, from going the way of Eretria. (And Sardis.) Sure, the Persians weren't going to conquer Greece with twenty thousand guys. They didn't need to. With Athenian democracy and culture stillborn, the Western world becomes a lot more SUCK.

Agh vs. Ugh ca. 100000 bce. ;)

1st Waterloo

There was a second?

Yeah, 'cause Napoleon in the Hundred Days really had a chance. :rolleyes:

Since I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, I'm going to treat it as if you are not, and proceed to argue the point that Napoleon could have won at the series of battles at Waterloo.

There were many things which worked against him, impeding him from victory. The first thing was the driving rain that characterized the first two days of battle, which directly impeded Napoleon's advance on Blucher's army, who he engaged first. Though he gave the Prussians a thrashing, and ran them from the field at Ligny, it was Blucher's - and most Prussians' - capability to reorganize his army in only 48 hours, and give battle again at Waterloo that was the second thing working against Napoleon. The Prussian re-entry to the battle drew 20,000 of the Armee du Nord to stall them, at a moment when even Wellington was surprised the British line did not break. Thirdly and most importantly, the absence of Geraud Duroc, Napoleon's former aide-de-camp, known for being able to take Napoleon's often confusing orders and make them happen the way Napoleon intended them to, seriously hurt Napoleon, and resulted in such mishaps as the deployment of batteries at Waterloo both beyond their effective range, and undefended enough that the Union Brigade was able to reach and rout them.

There was a second?
I think he was ranking it as the most important.
Since I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, I'm going to treat it as if you are not, and proceed to argue the point that Napoleon could have won at the series of battles at Waterloo.
I was kidding (hence the smiley), but thanks for shining a light on the tactical and operational unlikelihood of a French victory at Waterloo. It's always nice to see someone else who's retained their common sense.

In addition to the tactical-level improbabilities, Napoleon didn't just have to fight Wellington and Old Forward. There were Austrian and Russian troops converging on the Netherlands as well, and he would have had to engage even more allied troops had he somehow pulled a victory out at Waterloo. And by that time the nations of Europe had completely tired of Napoleon's shenanigans and destructive behavior, and were completely determined to keep him out of power. No peace would be made with the Emperor, even had he been victorious in a few battles, because the entire rest of the Continent was against him and was more implacable than ever.

Not bringing Davout along was a stupid idea too. :p

Agh vs. Ugh ca. 100000 bce. ;)

Yeah, 'cause Agh really had a chance. :rolleyes: Have you seen the size disparity?

Hastings, but only because Salamis and Plataea share the honors for the Greco-Persian war.

There doesn't seem to be a single most important battle in the Qin or Sui unifications of China, but Gaixia was the crucial battle establishing the Han Dynasty.

Hastings and the war between Dutch and English.

How about the landing in Normandy?
or are we only talking here about classical battles of two armies lining up against each other?
In that case I'd like to suggest the battle of Actium, the final battle of the Roman republic, were Octavian/August defeated Marc Anthony and established the Roman Empire

Any battle at all, so normandy would be a good choice.

Saratoga is one. American victory = French support, French support = France bankrupt, France Bankrupt = French Revolution, French Revolution = Napoleon; you can then follow it up later.

These are direct results, not indirectly linking them.

Didn't french win that was and gain important colonial dominions?

How about the landing in Normandy?

This one is going to take some serious explaining.

or are we only talking here about classical battles of two armies lining up against each other?
In that case I'd like to suggest the battle of Actium, the final battle of the Roman republic, were Octavian/August defeated Marc Anthony and established the Roman Empire

The Republic was arguably defunct with Sulla's first march on Rome in 88 BC. Actium was simply the last event of several that led from Republic to Empire.

The Republic was arguably defunct with Sulla's first march on Rome in 88 BC. Actium was simply the last event of several that led from Republic to Empire.
I would trace it back even further, to the influx of Pergamene gold in 133 BC. That not only started the waves of Roman and Italian publicani going East to plunder Asia of its holdings (thus inestimably lowering the Mediterranean world's view of Roma) but also provided an impetus for the Gracchi to propose their reforms, leading to the first mob-driven riots in Roma since the patrician/plebeian struggle had last ended over a century before. So indirectly, it also contributed to the rise of Marius and the consequent enfranchisement and military reforms that turned the loyalty of the army from the Senate and People of Roma to the generals that shelled out their wages. Which was what allowed Sulla to make the aforementioned march on Roma.

Some lesser known but important battles include: Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, where the Germans defeated the Romans; Hakata Bay in 1281, where the Japanese defeated the Mongols; and the first battle of Panipat in 1526, where the Mughals conquered Hindustan. The siege of Constantinople in 1453 should also be considered.

Teutoburg Forest, unknown? :rotfl: I think anyone who's remotely studied ancient history knows of Varus and his three legio, and their grim fate at the hands of Arminius.

What I find ironic, yet very telling is that in German, the Battle of Teutoburg Forest is known as Varusschlact, or "the slaughter of Varus."

Perhaps that battle where the Germans whipped the Austrians. (needle guns, you know which one.) This led the way to german Unification, which dominated European (read- world) affairs for the next century.

Also, (again i forget the name) the battle where the Poles beat back the red Russians in the 20's..........think about that one!

Perhaps that battle where the Germans whipped the Austrians. (needle guns, you know which one.) This led the way to german Unification, which dominated European (read- world) affairs for the next century.
The Battle of Sadowa was put into the updated version of Creasy's "15 Decisive Battles of the World" (which extended the list to twenty, taking it to 1942 with Midway and Stalingrad). It's awfully famous. Which has made its importance somewhat inflated. The Prussians didn't have much chance of losing the Seven Weeks' War.
Also, (again i forget the name) the battle where the Poles beat back the red Russians in the 20's..........think about that one!
Warsaw? :p Yeah, not many people remember the Red Menace of '20. There wasn't much left in Tukhachevsky's way if he mowed down the Poles - since the Weimar Republic was not only battling its own communist and socialist enemies but also had a grand total of 100,000 men in its army...way to go Versailles...so yeah, Warsaw was awfully important but nobody remembers it either.

I would trace it back even further, to the influx of Pergamene gold in 133 BC.

You must have a pretty weird definition of "defunct," then. Doomed, maybe.

This website can help

http://www.lbdb.com/decisivebattles.cfm

Hakata Bay in 1281, where the Japanese defeated the Mongols;

Sure? I remember mongols won thank to explosives

The Battle of Warsaw 1920

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_%281920%29

In a big work about the twenty most important battles in history published before ww2 it was number twenty.

May not seem like much but considering that it is virtualy unknown nowadays (not mentioned in the lbdb link above) it is worth pointing out. At least as "the most important unkown battle in history".

Hastings and the war between Dutch and English.

What war? there's been tonnes.



Same as above: a hundred thousand plus Turks with technological superiority were not about to lose to less than ten thousand Genovese mercenaries and Roman citizens.


They'd managed to lose with far larger numbers many times before and the techical superiority did not count for that much when up against the walls of Constantinople, the defenders had managed to keep the walls intact by using just about anything to pad the walls and the sappers had been unable to bring the walls down after the defenders caught an Ottoman commander who told them where all the tunnels were being dug. Whilst the forever used tactic of just flooding the area with as many men didnt work and the Ottomans were only able to finally gain access after someone left a sally port open and the Commander of the city was finally injured and panic broke loose.

I don't think it was the most important battle anyways, its earlier successfull defences of sieges were probably more crucial to the growth of Western Europe.

Personally i'd go with Salamis.

What war? there's been tonnes.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo%E2%80%93Dutch_War

The first. It gave England the supremacy of sea and the controll of Dutch colonies in North America, very important for the birth of USA.

Huh? it may have given England slight supremacy of the seas around England itself but it hardly affected anywhere else. Just look at the boom of the VOC for how much the Dutch were really affected by it. Was there even much/any fighting done in North america? Whilst if your trying to think of New Amsterdam being switched over that wasn't until a few years later.

Whilst if your trying to think of New Amsterdam being switched over that wasn't until a few years later.

Which is a direct consequence of England's victory:

First Dutch-English war = New Amsterdam becomes New York = Major english influence in North America = United States of America

Also anglo-boers wars are important for 2 motives:

1) They gives England Naval controll of Indian Ocean = Bigger british influence in Asia

2) Diamonds of southern Africa were the key of further british victories

Which is a direct consequence of England's victory:

First Dutch-English war = New Amsterdam becomes New York = Major english influence in North America = United States of America

Thats ridiculous, New Amsterdam became New York in 1664, 10 years following the end of the first War by which point the English already had a presence in America, it was obviously not that highly valued as the Dutch preferred to trade for the Run. Not only all that but it is ridiculous to think that the capture of New York led to the creation of the United States, sure every little bit in History affects other bits but no way can we be as dramatic here as say the Mongols about turning at the Mohi river.

Also anglo-boers wars are important for 2 motives:

1) They gives England Naval controll of Indian Ocean = Bigger british influence in Asia

2) Diamonds of southern Africa were the key of further british victories

Now your confusing your wars dramatically. The Anglo-Dutch wars were a whole different kettle of fish than the Anglo-Boer Wars, key difference was that there was almost 200 years between them. That and if i recall correctly the Dutch were never as interested in India as Britain and France, certainly not the VOC who preferred Indonesia and the monopolies it could garner from its status there. Though i do fail to understand why English control of the seas around England mean control of the Indian Ocean? Also the struggle for Africa wasn't to happen for many many years following the Anglo-Dutch wars.

Sure the Anglo Dutch wars were a nice little sideshow to the seventeenth century but individually they were hardly groundshaking.

I am going to have to say the battle of Changping, it was one of the deadliest, and assured the tone of imperial China in at least the Qin dynasty, and partially all the way through the Han.

Thats ridiculous, New Amsterdam became New York in 1664, 10 years following the end of the first War by which point the English already had a presence in America, it was obviously not that highly valued as the Dutch preferred to trade for the Run. Not only all that but it is ridiculous to think that the capture of New York led to the creation of the United States, sure every little bit in History affects other bits but no way can we be as dramatic here as say the Mongols about turning at the Mohi river.

First of all, the conquest of New Amsterdam was always part of English- Dutch clash. Yes officially war was ended 10 years before, but colonial struggle has continued for several decades in different part of world.

Second New York is the biggest and most important port of east coast. Millions of english immigrants who created USA have passed for N.Y. and it's the commercial and financial earth of USA, if not the of atlantic ocean. Saying New York hasn't importance in American History is totally nonsense.

Now your confusing your wars dramatically. The Anglo-Dutch wars were a whole different kettle of fish than the Anglo-Boer Wars, key difference was that there was almost 200 years between them

That and if i recall correctly the Dutch were never as interested in India as Britain and France, certainly not the VOC who preferred Indonesia and the monopolies it could garner from its status there. Though i do fail to understand why English control of the seas around England mean control of the Indian Ocean? Also the struggle for Africa wasn't to happen for many many years following the Anglo-Dutch wars.

I've never said they were the same event, and however boers are always of dutch origin.

Sure the Anglo Dutch wars were a nice little sideshow to the seventeenth century but individually they were hardly groundshaking.

Read my previous responses to know how "not important" those wars were.

The Battle of Warsaw 1920

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_%281920%29

In a big work about the twenty most important battles in history published before ww2 it was number twenty.

May not seem like much but considering that it is virtualy unknown nowadays (not mentioned in the lbdb link above) it is worth pointing out. At least as "the most important unkown battle in history".The battle was not that important in the long run because the soviets eventually took poland anyway.

kinda of a cavalier way to look at it. Taking Poland in 1920 is VERY different then taking it (with Nazi aid) in 1939. Read some books, do you some good,lol

In deed taking Poland in 1920 would have been a big deal, because behind Poland Germany lay open after the struggle of WW1 and in a internal political turmoil, and the intent of the Bolsheviks was to bring Communism as they knew it to Berlin, Paris and finaly the world.

First of all, the conquest of New Amsterdam was always part of English- Dutch clash. Yes officially war was ended 10 years before, but colonial struggle has continued for several decades in different part of world.

Second New York is the biggest and most important port of east coast. Millions of english immigrants who created USA have passed for N.Y. and it's the commercial and financial earth of USA, if not the of atlantic ocean. Saying New York hasn't importance in American History is totally nonsense.[quote]

I never said it wasn't important, what i said was it wasnt as crucial in the making of history as other events and it is much more difficult to define the first Anglo-Dutch as the reason for the creation of the US. Officially By the time the transition happened we were already past the second Anglo-Dutch war and when New York finally became English it was at the end of the third war, presumably then they would be more important if that was your argument?


[QUOTE=alcal;7079076]
I've never said they were the same event, and however boers are always of dutch origin.

So what was the point in mentioning them if they were completly unconnected? It would be me like talking about the Holy Roman Empire and then commentating how the Nazi blitzkrieg dominated all!


Read my previous responses to know how "not important" those wars were.

I've read your statements and remain wholly unconvinced by your arguments, you offer no proof of anything you've said and rather stated that they are more important without justification.

as a side note to the other debate going on here...Philly was way more important then New York for many years (during the Rev. War it was the 2nd largest English speaking city in the world_

What I find ironic, yet very telling is that in German, the Battle of Teutoburg Forest is known as Varusschlact, or "the slaughter of Varus."

"Schlacht" doesn't have quite the same meaning as slaughter, atleast not in this context. "Varusschlacht" would be more apropriately translated as "Battle of Varus" or "Varusbattle".

I never said it wasn't important, what i said was it wasnt as crucial in the making of history as other events and it is much more difficult to define the first Anglo-Dutch as the reason for the creation of the US. Officially By the time the transition happened we were already past the second Anglo-Dutch war and when New York finally became English it was at the end of the third war, presumably then they would be more important if that was your argument?

Have idea about what you are saying. New York is important for US history but it's not as crucial for it's historyl!?!?!

Anglo-Dutch war or wars or clash(as you prefer)gave English the possibility to obtain New York, the second port of east coast. Without N.Y., not only all american history would have been totally different but the world history too.

So what was the point in mentioning them if they were completly unconnected? It would be me like talking about the Holy Roman Empire and then commentating how the Nazi blitzkrieg dominated all!

When will this your paranoia end? I posted them in 2 different posts and i've never said they are linked someway. Understood?

I've read your statements and remain wholly unconvinced by your arguments, you offer no proof of anything you've said and rather stated that they are more important without justification.

I've the impression you are making this discussion either for pride or for tediousness. If you don't understand my arguments, well it's a your fault not mine.

as a side note to the other debate going on here...Philly was way more important then New York for many years (during the Rev. War it was the 2nd largest English speaking city in the world_

Philly isn't a sea port. New York, as sea port, is the economical/commercial/cultural centre of America. Together with Baltimora And Boston, it played the protagonist role in US history. :)

Have idea about what you are saying. New York is important for US history but it's not as crucial for it's historyl!?!?!

Anglo-Dutch war or wars or clash(as you prefer)gave English the possibility to obtain New York, the second port of east coast. Without N.Y., not only all american history would have been totally different but the world history too.

Now who can't read, saying something important does not mean it is the most important thing ever. Your basically arguing that some poxy war that pretty much occured in the English Channel gave rise to America, whish is quite frankly ridiculous. Your even attempting to argue a connection that only vaguely exists, a better argument (though still very poor) would be that the second dutch war gave rise to America.



When will this your paranoia end? I posted them in 2 different posts and i've never said they are linked someway. Understood?

It's hardly paranoia, its simply poor english on your part. You write two consecutive posts starting the second one with 'Also', a conjunction. So its not my fault you have poor writing skills. Understood?



I've the impression you are making this discussion either for pride or for tediousness. If you don't understand my arguments, well it's a your fault not mine.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that you don't have an argument and your just arguing because your embaressed someone picked you up on this. You've done nothing since i asked what your argument was except re-state what you've already said, 'Anglo-Dutch war meant New Amsterdam became New York' and 'New York is awesome!!!!'. You've backed neither up at all and rather than attempt to back them up you've just resorted to questioning a 3rd year History student's ability to read a passage on History.

Edit- What do you mean Philly doesn't have a port? of course it does. Go and check Wiki if you need that clearing up!

Now who can't read, saying something important does not mean it is the most important thing ever. Your basically arguing that some poxy war that pretty much occured in the English Channel gave rise to America, whish is quite frankly ridiculous. Your even attempting to argue a connection that only vaguely exists, a better argument (though still very poor) would be that the second dutch war gave rise to America.

1) I've never said it's the most important at all, but it's played an important role.

2) Battle's location doesn't count anything. War World 1 was fought mainly in Europe but its consequences went further then european's borders.

3) Don't use such childish arguments with me. I've just said i am considering Anglo-Dutch wars in general and not only the first.

It's hardly paranoia, its simply poor english on your part. You write two consecutive posts starting the second one with 'Also', a conjunction. So its not my fault you have poor writing skills. Understood?

al·so Audio Help /ˈɔlsoʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awl-soh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb
1. in addition; too; besides; as well: He was thin, and he was also tall.
2. likewise; in the same manner: Since you're having another cup of coffee, I'll have one also.
–conjunction
3. and: He was mean, also ugly.
[Origin: 1125–75; ME; OE (e)alswā all (wholly or quite) so1; the meaning all so “wholly” thus implies replication, and therefore “additionally, besides”]

—Synonyms 1. moreover.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Taken from here

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/also

"My poor english" is not a good apology for your low IQ. Just example:

First Post : Hastings was an important battle

Second Post: Also Zama was one

That "also" means they both are 2 important battles and only a moron can believe they are the same event.

And however my english isn't perfet because this is not my first language. I would see you seaking my language.

Edit- What do you mean Philly doesn't have a port? of course it does. Go and check Wiki if you need that clearing up!

Phil is not a sea port!
Read well!

I'm beginning to get the feeling that you don't have an argument and your just arguing because your embaressed someone picked you up on this. You've done nothing since i asked what your argument was except re-state what you've already said, 'Anglo-Dutch war meant New Amsterdam became New York' and 'New York is awesome!!!!'. You've backed neither up at all and rather than attempt to back them up you've just resorted to questioning a 3rd year History student's ability to read a passage on History.

OMG How old are you? 12 or 13? As i've said before "the fact you don't understand my arguments it's not a my trouble. None here is paying me for teaching children, so you can also go playing with pokemon or seeing teletubbies."
Piss off!

Infraction for flaming. Pls watch it. Thks. - KD

You need a comma after the Also... but this is off topic. People stop spamming this thread or it is going to close.

1) I've never said it's the most important at all, but it's played an important role.

2) Battle's location doesn't count anything. War World 1 was fought mainly in Europe but its consequences went further then european's borders.

3) Don't use such childish arguments with me. I've just said i am considering Anglo-Dutch wars in general and not only the first.



Yes you have.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...80%93Dutch_War

The first. It gave England the supremacy of sea and the controll of Dutch colonies in North America, very important for the birth of USA.

And if this thread is about the most important, not about battles which are remotely worthwhile, you havent even mentioned a battle. Just a war. Battle location counts for quite a bit when the questions asks for the most important battle. Whilst you havent even mentioned other wars, infact i have talked more about them than you have.


Taken from here

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/also

"My poor english" is not a good apology for your low IQ. Just example:

First Post : Hastings was an important battle

Second Post: Also Zama was one

That "also" means they both are 2 important battles and only a moron can believe they are the same event.

And however my english isn't perfet because this is not my first language. I would see you seaking my language.




Your just digging yourself a bigger hole here. I appreciate that English is not many users first language here but it is not my fault if they use it incorrectly nor do i have any claim that i can speak whatever langauge you speak but i think if i made a mistake i'd probably apologise and correct it rather than arguing about it.



OMG How old are you? 12 or 13? As i've said before "the fact you don't understand my arguments it's not a my trouble. None here is paying me for teaching children, so you can also go playing with pokemon or seeing teletubbies."
Piss off!

You have indeed already said something similar, your childish antics are only serving to further my point that you don't have an argument. So :goodjob:, now obviously if you could read you'd have noticed in my last post where i said i was a third year History student, it'd be fairly tricky for a 12 year old to get that far. No-one would ever pay you to teach anyone anything i doubt so you don't have to worry about that. Finally what my age would have to do with proving you wrong is beyond me.


Phil is not a sea port!
Read well!


First of all, what would the difference mean? are you trying to say that London's port is worse than others because it wasn't on the sea?

Secondly, Oh, how mature. You realise everyone can see that you edited your post after i made my post? Whatever i'm not even going to bother arguing with you anymore, you seem incabable of producing an argument even when requested.


Back to the original topic though, i'd argue that the battle of Edgehill 1642 was fairly massive considering its eventual outcomes, halting the advance of the Royalist forces. In turn the process by which Parliament began its ascendancy over the Monarch till this very day. Something which very much affected the founding fathers of America. (as did the first barons war leading to the Magna Carta being confirmed by Henry III in 1225) Something which seems have got more press in America than it does in England.

Assaye? Important because it chose England over France in India.....that became important later?

(BTW, as a PA inhabintant. Philly IS a sea port, just like any other. Now New York has more tonnage, but Philly was more important for a long time.)

He said PHIL not Philly.

ah, missed that.....

There is a town called Phil?

guess so...

Alright, enough of flaming, threadjacking and spamming in this thread. Back on topic, pls. Thanks.