Please slect your choice from the ones below.

I'm watching "The Longest Day" on AMC while posting. :)

For Western Civilization in the 20th Century, I would have to go with June 6th, 1944.

Have you considered Teutoberger Wald, 9 AD? The Roman XVII, XVIII, and XIX legions annihilated by the Germanic tribes. That resulted in their inability to ever colonize Germania.

I have considered that, but I feel that Rome would have fallen at about the same time anyways because they still would have expanded too much and made even more enemies in the process.

Battle of Brittain. If the Germans had won, England would have been conquered, so the attack on Russia would not have been a second front and Germany would have been able to commit all of it's resources there because russia would have been it's only remaining opponent (US entered the war in 1943), and they might have won that...

I don't think a single battle could have such great importance. I prefer looking at history as a single process, not as a collection of important events. And from this point of view it seems all great turn overs (midway, stalingrad, etc) were innevitable, and as such had to happen - if not in this battle then in another.

Originally posted by Zouave
Have you considered Teutoberger Wald, 9 AD? The Roman XVII, XVIII, and XIX legions annihilated by the Germanic tribes. That resulted in their inability to ever colonize Germania.

I'm with the battle of britain thing. I think that D-day had a huge impact, but if Adolf didn't force the luftwaffe to bomb london, consequently losing the airbattle, d-day wouldn't even be possible.

About varus: I saw a documentary on this some weeks ago, and apparently this battle was farther to the north than previously supposed.

From recent history, I would have to say Stalingrad.

I was tempted to vote for the fall of Constantinople. When the Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Ottoman Turks, it sent shockwaves through Europe. The trade routes to India and China were now totally controlled by a hostile Muslim power. It was this desire to cut out the Turkish middlemen that encouraged Spain and Portugal to look for alternate routes to the Orient. This, in turn, led to Columbus's voyage, the Age of Exploration, and the colonization of the Western hemisphere.

"Have you considered Teutoberger Wald, 9 AD? The Roman XVII, XVIII, and XIX legions annihilated by the Germanic tribes. That resulted in their inability to ever colonize Germania."

I've heard a lot about a so-called plan to colonise what was basically West Germany in the cold war period - giving the Romans a better, shorter, frontier to defend - Elbe-Danube compared with Rhine-Danube which this battle put paid to, but I dont buy it.

If you look at the territory itself I cant see how the Romans could have hoped to hold this down - there is NOTHING there. No cities, no roads. Nothing. What would be the point of an essentially urban society using up massive resources and manpower to conquer a large tract of wilderness? Granted, Britain was in a similar state when conquered but such a small place required few troops to hold it down in comparison. There would be so little profit from the venture I cant imagine it would have been pursued for much longer even if 9AD had never happened. Expansion in the East (Pathia) would have reaped HUGE rewards and involved fantastically rich cities/territories being conquered. plus it would have settled a long standing grudge match between the two Empires - much more glorious!

You've missed out two of my top five:
Vienna (apex of islamic conquest of Europe in the 17th century)
and Salamis (destruction of Persian fleet and prservation of Greek - and hence Roman - culture)

Tours is top for me, followed by Stalingrad and then Hastings. All lked to major changes in the cultural, as well as political, trend of history.

Hastings, 1066.
Who knows what the world would look like today if the normans didn't conquer britain.

Battle of Salamis or the Battle of Yarmuk.

BTW, that's a silly list of battles. Adrianople, Stalingrad and Waterloo are the only battles on your list that go anywhere near being candidates. How can you have almost half of your list devoted to one recent war, when the question refers to the whole of history?

I'm going to have to go with Constantinople. While any of the above battles would have heavily impacted my existance, the catalyzation of exploration that said battle led simply had too many benefits.

I've got to say that any of the very first muslim battles in Arabia can be considered pivotal.. These were relatively small battles where the number of warriors were in the hundreds or few thousands with the muslims usually outnumbered.. If the prophet Mohammed had been killed (which could have happened easily; there were a few close calls) his teachings would have ended very abruptly and Islam as we know it would not have spread.. We would be living in a very different world if that had happened..

Battle of Britain, like Darkness said, with only one front, the Germans i think, would've beaten the Soviets, because they wouldn't have to worry too much about an invasion because where could the Americans invade from if they didn't have Ireland/England as a staging point....
Other than BoB i'd have to say D-Day...

Im going to go with Tours

Tours, if you consider all the events in history and the world today based on religious fundamentalist views..

Tours is another TOTALLY overrated battle! This wasn't an invading Arab army that the Franks were dealing with - it was a raiding party whose aim was no more than short term profit from looting etc. Look at the territory conquered by Arabs up until then - almost exclusively medditerranean terrain - what would they want with somewhere like France?

The Battle of Zana. If the Carthaginians won, it would be the Carathaginian Empire, not the Roman Empire.

Originally posted by Rodgers
Tours is another TOTALLY overrated battle! This wasn't an invading Arab army that the Franks were dealing with - it was a raiding party whose aim was no more than short term profit from looting etc.

I couldn't agree more. :goodjob:
It sicks me all the time I hear how important this was, how it saved Christianity, etc. What saved Christianity during these times were the Bizantines in the other side of the Mediterranean.

My vote would go perhaps to the battles of the Persian Wars, with Salamis at the head.

Salamis, easy peesy. Without it, western culture as we know it would never have existed. It's almost to scary to think about.

From that list though, probably Hastings 1066. Without that battle English history, and consequently world history, would have taken a far seperated path.

Salamis, or Mycale, for the reasons already stated. :)

I will give the nod to Hastings.

It created the England and eventually the English language we know and love all over the world, that spawned the Magna Carta and spelled doom for Dictators, that gave us America among her proud children...

I should've included Salamis. I was tired and using my 50 Battles that changed history book. My surprise is that Salamis is unmentioned in there.

Manikert in 1071 was far more critical -- insofar as being a more critical link in the chain of events leading up to Constantinople's fall. The result was the lost of almost all of Anatolia (modern Turkey) and the true end of Byzantine significance in the larger world.

-Oz

Welcome back Ozymandias! Very long time no see!

I am amazed at the number of people who are posting with Crusade related battles.

I suppose the fate of the world (unified as Muslims or diversified as is) was in the balance then. I have always wondered: what if the Moors had discovered the new world. Their being driven from Grenada in the months before Columbus' first voyage always kind of wed the two in my mind. Like maybe knowledge of the New World existed as a secret carefully guarded from the Moors. Just an interesting speculation.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Welcome back Ozymandias! Very long time no see!

I am amazed at the number of people who are posting with Crusade related battles.

I suppose the fate of the world (unified as Muslims or diversified as is) was in the balance then. I have always wondered: what if the Moors had discovered the new world. Their being driven from Grenada in the months before Columbus' first voyage always kind of wed the two in my mind. Like maybe knowledge of the New World existed as a secret carefully guarded from the Moors. Just an interesting speculation.

Ah, Most Esteemed Sultan!

A few stray thoughts etc. --

Along these New World lines -- the Chinese junk would have been capable of trans-Pacific journeying (meditiating upon bamboo -- quite seriously! -- led to observations and nautical designs involving integral water-tight compartments). I always wonder what it would have been like if the Chinese met the MesoAMericans first.

Also -- in various scattered postings on various boards while I gather data on the Mephistophelean workings of the PTW editor -- I am setting about work on my "1050CE" mod -- actually 1070, after the Norman Conquest and before Manzikert -- but 1000 years of play sounds catchy, and, now that we can vary the length of game turns, we can have the same number as the original.

I think you will be entertained. I'm trying to find someone to provide graphics for mosques. There will be two (well, more than, but, for example's sake, two) types of Monarchy, "Christian Monarchy" and "Islamic Caliphate". The first will have the construction of Cathedrals tied to it; the latter of course mosques ... and a change in Gov causes Gov-specific improvements to vanish ...

Anyway, my goal is to attempt a much more realistic AND interesting AND informative AND fun tech-tree etc. to see how the world might have otherwise played out ...

Abraxas,

Oz

Originally posted by Crimson Sunrise
Salamis, or Mycale, for the reasons already stated. :)

Agreed but let us not forget that these would have been moot but for Thermopylae --

I mention this only because IMHO there are just too many branching paths to determine a single most important battle--

For example, which was the most important for the founding of the United States? -- Yorktown? Plassey? The Armada? Hastings? Tours?

... I'm sure you all get the drift ...

As Ever,

Oz

This is a tricky choice in a lot of ways. Most influential means many possible things. If we borrow from Physics and say that since we are here the conditions which created us are necessary, then we should look to those conditions. but in truth we dont know what they are.

For example Greek philosphy has been crucial to our way of viewing the world. But did the stand against Persia really determine the course of the river we call time? Rivers are easily diverted in their head waters, but sometimes impossible to divert as they approach the ocean.

That being said, Tours is likely important outside its scale, because of the stirring efect it had on the southern half of Europe. On the other hand Hastings may have minimal import, since the annexation of the BI by the more advanced French was inevitable. Cannae may have been insignificant since Rome won the war, but may have been crucial due to the stirring effect that it had on what was becoming a moribund society. Who can tell. Was the Pax Romana a good thing in the long run, or did it make the Dark Ages worse? The impact of Viking raiding is clearly signifiant, but is any one battle?

Putting it all together, and Assuming that the goal is to have a civilization at least as technically advanced as ours at this point in the planetary history, I am inclined to Thermopolye/Salamis/Mycale with a nod to the Blitzkrieg of France.

J

Originally posted by onejayhawk
This is a tricky choice in a lot of ways. Most influential means many possible things. If we borrow from Physics and say that since we are here the conditions which created us are necessary, then we should look to those conditions. but in truth we dont know what they are.
J

Okay, gotta go OT here simply because that's the most succinct -- i.e., best -- summary I've EVER heard for the "Anthropomorphic Principal".

... BTW, while we're OT my Latin's rusty, but isn't your signature quote a twisting of the -- I think! -- RAF's "Per Aspera Ad Astra"?

-- Back On-T, your subtle question about the desired end-result being the most technologically advanced society is, to put it extremely mildly and blandly, one worth pondering -- and one which I plan to have some savagely wry fun with in modding.

"Ave" and all that,

Oz

Originally posted by naervod
I have considered that, but I feel that Rome would have fallen at about the same time anyways because they still would have expanded too much and made even more enemies in the process.

It wasn't about Rome. It was about Germania and the great changes that would have been made in it had Rome colonized and Romanized it for, say, three centuries.

How could you not have put either Gettysburg or the battle of the bulge up there? i find both of these to very important battles, otherwise the world could be drastically different.

I am biased to WW2, all other wars seem so trivial, anyway I think the Battle of Brittian was possibly the most important victory of modern times. If Brittian falls it paints a completely different picture for that war.

I disagree with Bunker Hill on the poll. Bunker hill was not pivatol. It proved that the Americans could resist to Britains trained troops, sure. But it was Saratoga since thats when France, Spain, and the Dutch joined the war against Britain.

As for which battle was most, I would not know. A lot of these are quite important.

Originally posted by ozymandias


Okay, gotta go OT here simply because that's the most succinct -- i.e., best -- summary I've EVER heard for the "Anthropomorphic Principal".

... BTW, while we're OT my Latin's rusty, but isn't your signature quote a twisting of the -- I think! -- RAF's "Per Aspera Ad Astra"?

-- Back On-T, your subtle question about the desired end-result being the most technologically advanced society is, to put it extremely mildly and blandly, one worth pondering -- and one which I plan to have some savagely wry fun with in modding.

"Ave" and all that,

Oz
Thanks. I refer to it as the Anthropic Principal, but we seem to be on the same page.

Ad astra per aspera was coined by John J Ingalls, no relation to Laura Ingalls Wilder, who was "An orator, scholar, lawyer, and statesman, known for his keen sarcasm and quick wit...at age 26, a primary force behind the Wyandotte Constitutional Convention that brought about Kansas statehood." http://www.kshs.org/features/feat102.htm It is the state motto of my beloved Jayhawks.

As to the rest, lay on and damn be him who first cries "Hold. Enough."

the battle of chalons in 451 was a clash between civilization and "civilization destroyers". a massive battle that was Huns against the Romans and Visigoths. If the Romans won, attila would be defeated, and the greatest threat to civilization would be driven away. If the Huns Won, rome would never survive his assault along with civilization. Had the romans lost, there would be little remaining of goverment infastructure or architecture.

Definately Byzantine vs. Ottomans because it changed the face of the balkans which is basically the dumps of Europe. And Constantiploline was the gateway to Europe so if not for stronger resistance, Europe would be Islam.

Clearly the battles of the Persian-Greek wars with Salamis on the head.If i.e. Marathon would have been lost by the Greeks,there would still have been a chance for the Greeks but with a defeat at Salamis Greek culture had fallen.

I don't see much significance in Cannae as the Carthaginians were doomed from the beginning in this war.If the Romans had won there and killed Hannibal,Carthage would have fallen more quickly and possibly the Romans would have expanded to Gaul and Greece earlier,but that's it.

well WW2 is the most recent and i don't know much about other wars, so i'll vote for :
Kursk, battle of Kursk 1943

That's the battle that really won the war in europe (500(?) German tanks lost in 7 days) had the Russians lost, I might be living in Nazi third Riech now. The thought makes me shiver.

Originally posted by William528
Kursk 1943
500(?) German tanks lost in 7 days
Alot more than that.

Both lost an estimated 500,000 men each.
Russia could barely withstand that, Germany absolutely could not.

Siege of Vienna 1683
But for this, IMO most of Eastern Europe (if not most of Europe) would be muslim.
That's my theory anyway.

I voted for Tours. I would agree with the Tours detractors that the battle itself is often overrated. However, if you take Tours as symbolic of the larger Frankish success of containing the spread of Islam to the Iberian penensula then it had a great impact on history (Yes the Byzantines et. al. were just as important in achieving this). However, the importance of Tours goes beyond the defeat of an Arab army, it also helped strengthen the Merovingian dynasty and Frankish power in south-west Europe. This eventually led to the establishment of the Caroligian dynasty/Holy Roman Empire which had a significant impact on how Western Europe developed over the next several centuries.

That's my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Zouave
Have you considered Teutoberger Wald, 9 AD? The Roman XVII, XVIII, and XIX legions annihilated by the Germanic tribes. That resulted in their inability to ever colonize Germania.

yeah, this was a critical battle.
what if rome destroyed the germans? the world wouldnt have been the same.
no germanic tribes, no arrianism, no arrian germanic generals under catholic roman emperor...all too different

Originally posted by onejayhawk
On the other hand Hastings may have minimal import, since the annexation of the BI by the more advanced French was inevitable.

What? More advanced how? The old chestnut of inevitability of Norman victory because the Normans had stirrups was canned a while back.

William's victory was by no means inevitable and came about through a combination of luck (sailing and landing after the English army had demobilised for winter and then been hurredly and only partially regrouped to fight a major battle 200 miles to the north) and Harold's misjudgement (he left no siblings behind to carry on if he fell, nor did he wait for reinforcements - he had about 25,000 troops overall at his disposal, William had 8,000 and a winter to get through with no food on a tiny peninsula - he could have simply starved him out).

As for advanced - Normandy and the Normans were simply the most savagely warlike society in Europe, but they were primitive in social terms. The English had an Anglo-Saxon liturgy, married priests, only a loose affiliation to the pope, monarchs elected by the nobility, land held by right of title rather than by grant of the king, and a complex web of rights and obligations far more advanmced than the basic feudal society that replaced it.

I would argue Europe would have been much different had Harold won or even achieved a stalemate at Hastings.

Definitely bunker hill - if that didn't happen, America wouldn't be a world superpower today.

Two little corrections :

1) It's not Tours, it's Poitiers.

2) What did you call the "Battle of France" in 1918 ? :confused:


Now, for the battle :

Very few battles can be said to have been truly "pivotal". Many were "decisive" and some were "symbolic", but TRUE "pivotal" ones are extremely rare.

A true pivotal battle is when the outcome of a single battle can change the whole history.

Constantinople in 1453 was not pivotal : Byzantine Empire was doomed since more than a century. In fact, it has already pushed back several sieges. This one was just one more. The Ottomans could have taken Constantinople 40 years before, or being contained for 20 more years, the history would barely have changed.

Poitiers, Lepante were decisive, because they broke a continuous advance from Islamic countries. But even if these battle were lost against the Muslims, there would have been several other opportunities to stop them. Hence they were not "pivotal".

In fact, a true pivotal battle can only happen if a whole civilization was in danger of total exctinction against a foe, won against the odds, and happened to thrive and influence the whole world after that. And that the victory was obtained through a single capital battle.

I can only think at the battle of Salamis that fills all the criteria : Athenians were truly about to be erased from history, and they were nearly the last standing greek military force. And they lately influenced the whole world.
Hence, I can only vote for Salamis. All other battles I know about were at best decisive, but never "pivotal to history".

I would have to agree that, given the criteria here, that Salamis was perhaps the most pivotal battle we can agree upon.

But I don't think battles, per se, are that pivotal in the historical sense. Take, for example, the Battle of Britian. Marvelous history -- brave outnumbered RAF aircrews battling the might Luftwaffe, Hitler's screwy decision to stop bombing airfields, etc. -- but even if the RAF had lost, it is impossible to believe the Germans could have ever conquered the British Isles. There were already orders drawn up that the Royal Navy would have sacrificed every last warship in the Channel to prevent a crossing, and the German navy, even with air support, wasn't going to get the job done.

Manzikert is another possiblity, because it an agreed point by historians for the final decline of the Byzantines. But what about the campaigns of Heraculius against the Persians in the 8th (or 9th?) century. He took an empire that was reeling and strengthened it enough to withstand the explosion of the Muslim wars in the next few decades.

Battles, even wars, must be seen in their geo-political context.

But if you really want a decisive battle, use the defeat of the Incas by the Spanish conquistidors (sp??) in the 16th Century. In this one battle, with about 200 European troops, the Spanish empire secured itself roughly two-thirds of the western hemisphere, which enabled it to fund its armies and dominate Europe until the latter half of the 17th Century, while permanently altering the fate of the native MesoAmericans for the rest of their history.

But, great discussion from all of you! Hard to disagree with any of it.

Tours IMHO, the Muslims goal was to conquer The whole world, Thought maybe not with the army that attacked at Tours. But it still was miportant, the Battle held the Muslims in chess, they continued to live in Spain, settled down and became less agressive.

The Battle itself was genius. The French Army stood with their pike's pointing out, and the Muslims rode right into it, and they were massacrated.

not genius, Saruman. just plain old uncommon sense on the part of the Arabs

Trafalgar, certainly the most pivotal sea battle, it ruined french invasion plans and lead to years of domination by the royal navy

Ellie

One of the most important battles that is not on your list is the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759 outside of Quebec City between the French and British. Before the defeat of the French in North America, they not only controled Quebec but had the upper hand in the interior. With their indian allies, they made life very dangerous and tenuous for British North America. It was only after their defeat that American independence became thinkable. With France defeated, the colonists no longer needed the mother country to defend tham. It was the taxes the British levied to pay for this campaign that triggered the beginning of the American Revolution. A world without the United States would be a very different place. So would a world where Britain still controled the bulk of North America or where North America was carved up into many small nations. Certainly the most important battle in North American history and perhaps the world.

Battle of the Atlantic, The UK would have been blockaded into submission had it been lost