The choice of Adrianople is interesting, could you provide some explanation please.


I wanted to have some battle representing the fall of the Roman Empire in the west.
the crossing of the Rhine is not quite battle-ish. Of course, Adrianople is in the east, and one could argue this choice, but I think it gave the Goths much more self-assurance (on the cost of the Romans) as well as the events that led to the battle deteriorated the germanic-roman relations. And it allowed the future gothic march to the west.


Manzikert was not that important of a battle, since the Byzantine Empire was already in decline. The result of the battle was loss of gold due to ransom and the opening of the frontier to various Turkish tribes. The opening of the frontier during this time is not very important since the "Franks" sacked Constantinople before the "Turks."


I disagree. Perhaps it's not important militarily, because Turks were raiding Asia Minor before, etc, but it's very important for the internal dynamic of Byzantium. It gave Seljuks the armenian fortresses, which opened the way to inner Anatolia to turkish nomads. In fact, all the other border lines were holding even 11 years after Mantzikert. It started a serie of civil wars that harmed Byzantium, and the contestors were using turkish mercenaries in the cities, which allowed them to keep them later on (nomadic Turks weren't used to siege warfare).


Just a quick question, which Siege of Vienna (assuming you are referring to Ottoman-Hapsburg conflicts), since there were two?

I thought about 1683, but now I think I've exagerrated. Even turkish victory wouldn't change much at this point. It was my polish patriotism probably.

Going back to the debate on Gettysburg:

The point when Britain shows the most support for the South was between 2nd Bull Run and Antietam. Palmerston and his Foreign Secretary Russell seriously considered it if the South had won another major victory, that never came about so they backed away from their first tentative steps towards intervention.

Support for the south in general further fell away with the emancipation proclamation but also because of the hard work of people like Charles Francis Adams. The British government was relatively happy to turn a blind eye to ship building and purchase in Britain so long as the Confederacy weren't too obvious about it. What Adams did was expose this hypocrisy and produce sufficient proof that ships like Alabama had been produced with the shipbuilder (in this case Laird's) knowing full well that it would be a ship of war, probably destined for the Confederacy. Eventually he forced Britain's hand by threatening war if the Laird rams were allowed to leave the Mersey. Its quite probable that had the North been weaker at this point due to loosing Gettysburg Adams may not have been as forceful in his objections but its hard to see those two ships turning the tide of the Naval conflict.

I personally think that Palmerston and Russell basically wanted to intervene but only if they thought that the war was virtually over anyway. In mid 1862 Palmerston seemed to want to try offering peace negotiations first (which implies a position whereby the South can realistically offer terms), and if rejected recognition for the South. This cautious approach tends to suggest that a victory at Gettysburg alone would not have been sufficient to force intervention. Unless something very drastic happened to Meade's army it is unlikely that Lee could have exploited a victory enough to threaten Washington (by 1863 ringed by a major series of forts and batteries) after all. Russell was more pragmatic and realised that it would probably lead to war and tended to be more cautious because of that.

Without knowing how the Confederates "won" Gettysburg in this alternative history its difficult to speculate on what effect it would have on the Civil War but probably the only things it would get from Europe is perhaps a few more ships and some lukewarm words of support, neither of which would have turned the tide of the war.

Battle of Vienna - The Ottoman Empire had effectively pulverized Europe and was intent on taking Rome itself. The Holy League Established by The Holy Roman Empire, the Poles, and the Venetians effectively ended Ottoman expansion into Europe. The battle was also cool for that big Calvary charge by Sobieski.

Battle of Vienna - The Ottoman Empire had effectively pulverized Europe and was intent on taking Rome itself. The Holy League Established by The Holy Roman Empire, the Poles, and the Venetians effectively ended Ottoman expansion into Europe. The battle was also cool for that big Calvary charge by Sobieski.

Im so tired of people hyping up these Christianity Vs Islam battles as if they stopped some massive floodgate from opening. By 1683, the bureaucratic system of the Ottoman Empire was already undergoing the process of being obsolete, corruption in the government increasing, increasingly powerful Janissary Groups and palace Eunuchs, loose provinces were getting looser and a string of weak Emperors (except for Murad IV) came to the throne. The Empire started to stagnant, it started to decline.

Even if the Ottomans did capture Vienna, chances are, they dont have the resources to occupy a highly resistant large city on the hinterlands of their overly large empire with plenty of enemies to retake the city from the Turks as the homeland is wracked with more domestic problems.

Meh, I'll maintain that the best psychological/diplomatic victory the Confederates could of had was squandered by Bragg after Chichamauga. With the ability to reverse the Union gains in the west for the entire war up to that point, Bragg could have forced Lincoln out of office in '64.

Quoted from the General Questions thread.

I was happy to have seen this thread die. I am now unhappy to see it zombified.

Zombie Marx is reborn!

Every time you complain, you give the thread new life. Besides, if someone set up a new thread like this, you'd just be complaining that we already have a thread like this.

Even if the Ottomans did capture Vienna, chances are, they dont have the resources to occupy a highly resistant large city on the hinterlands of their overly large empire with plenty of enemies to retake the city from the Turks as the homeland is wracked with more domestic problems.

But observe the butterfly effect: the Battle of Vienna is what popularized coffee in the western world, and therefore cafes, and therefore cafe intellectuals, and ultimately Trotskyism.

But observe the butterfly effect: the Battle of Vienna is what popularized coffee in the western world, and therefore cafes, and therefore cafe intellectuals, and ultimately Trotskyism.

Probably not. Many different nations discovered Coffee from India/Muslim World/Americas independently.

Coffee houses would have spread regardless of the battle.

Or would they?

Actually, I dunno. I just wanted to make that point.

But observe the butterfly effect: the Battle of Vienna is what popularized coffee in the western world, and therefore cafes, and therefore cafe intellectuals, and ultimately Trotskyism.

We can also, therefore, blame the Turks for French chauvinism and souffles.

But observe the butterfly effect: the Battle of Vienna is what popularized coffee in the western world, and therefore cafes, and therefore cafe intellectuals, and ultimately Trotskyism.

What doing is no better than titling with imaginary windmills: and its not materially any different from me dismissing the whole discipline of history as popular dross on the basis of what I see on the shelves at my local bookstore. If I trusted that my local bookshop was representative of all history had to offer the only logical conclusion I could arrive at would be that "Constantine I destroyed Paganism!1!1" So, if you want to keep stereotyping, I'm more than willing to play but if you want have even a shred of intellectual credibility left go read Dachs Titanomachia (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322735)or something because its obvious that Dachs' historical knoweldge far outstrips your own and yet he doesn't seem to have quite the same issues you have.

What doing is no better than titling with imaginary windmills: and its not materially any different from me dismissing the whole discipline of history as popular dross on the basis of what I see on the shelves at my local bookstore. If I trusted that my local bookshop was representative of all history had to offer the only logical conclusion I could arrive at would be that "Constantine I destroyed Paganism!1!1" So, if you want to keep stereotyping, I'm more than willing to play but if you want have even a shred of intellectual credibility left go read Dachs Titanomachia (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322735)or something because its obvious that Dachs' historical knoweldge far outstrips your own and yet he doesn't seem to have quite the same issues you have.

Apparently my satire should be more conspicuous next time.

Apparently my satire should be more conspicuous next time.

The near constant: "ALT HISTORY IS EVAL" subtext in a great many of your posts was much to subtle for this dumb Maori, I'll admit.

The most important battles of all time are the ones with Zheng He in it.

The most important battles of all time are the ones with Zheng He in it.

That reminds me I shall have to cover Zheng He's biography too.
It's too bad we couldn't do an alt-hist with Zheng He vs. Nelson, but we could probably stage a Portuguese-Spanish confrontation with Almeida in the Indian Ocean.

1. Siege of Tenochtitlan.
2. Battle of Gravelines (1588)
3. Battle of the Plains of Abraham
4. Battle of Trafalgar
5. Spring Offensive, 1918

Which battles(not wars) do you think effected the outcome of human civilization the most?

5. Soviet(or allied) victory at stalingrad

IMO, Kursk was more important... The Nazy still had some chances of winning before that battle. Plus if i'm not mistaken, it was the largest battle mankind ever experienced.. each side had nearly a million man concentrated in a farely small area.

At some point, they were over a 1000 tanks fighting in a 3 sq Km area!

2.) Wolfes victory at Quebec in 1759


Overrated :P the French didnt really fight... for them Quebec was lost anyway and a minor battlefield. Plus Wolf was plain stupid.. he went on a suicide mission and won only cause they let them win. Beside, it most be the only 10 minutes fight where BOTH general died. :P


3.) Charles Martel's Franks defeating the Moors at Tours


This wasnt a real battle either. Charles Martel who NEEDED legitimacy, mainly cause he put himself in power plundering churchs claimed to save christianity... in fact the invasion was a razzia of a "few" Moors who where looking to get some bounty at Tours St-Martin rich church (in lack of a better word in english). Arab we're strongly out number in Spain, barely able to keep themself in power AND the razzia was motivated by the arab General cause one of his officer had went rogue. Even the Roman church denied the "heroic" deed of Martel at first, but after thing went sour with the Constantinople patriarch.. Rome (who seeked Charlemagne protection) needed a Historical Hero and started the "propaganda". Then came the Crusade and then the building of the "French" nationalism.... (Source Levi-Provençal)



5.)1453 Constantinople: Fall of Byzantines led to flow of knowledge westwards, thus being one factor in the "Renaissance"


Yup, that was big... but I would had the incredible tolerance of the Ottomans... they didnt burn or destroyed anything that didnt make it in the byzantine exode, thus keeping it alive. They even barely "translate" the actual name of Constatinople which the local (like it had been the case for Rome) called their city... THE City (Urbs) which translate into Istanbul.

1. Siege of Tenochtitlan.

Personally I think that the Aztecs would have eventually have been conquered by Spain regardless of what happened here. The technology gap was just to great for the Aztecs to ever successfully resist the tide of colonization.

3. Battle of the Plains of Abraham

See above post^

But I would like to add that the British have alreay owned the Naval end of the war with Hawke's victory at Quieberon (sp) Bay. The French really lost any chance of winning the 7 years war after that.

4. Battle of Trafalgar

This has already been discussed. Check Top Ten Greatest Generals of all time thread.

5. Spring Offensive, 1918

This was desperation on the German's part. They had already pretty much lost the war at this point. Although this contains one of my favorite battles of all time: Belleau Wood. Yay Marines!

The French only lost seven ships at Quiberon Bay. Not a catastrophic loss by any means. It was the Siege of Louisbourg that sealed the fate of New France.

The most important battle in history was the Battle of the Urgh and Ahhr tribes in 190,000 BC.

The French only lost seven ships at Quiberon Bay. Not a catastrophic loss by any means. It was the Siege of Louisbourg that sealed the fate of New France.

The most important battle in history was the Battle of the Urgh and Ahhr tribes in 190,000 BC.

Although you are right about the siege of Louisburg, Quiberon Bay was pretty important. Up until that point the British Navy was on the Defensive. This battle turned the Naval war around a gave them momentum. It also ended the French hope of blockading the British mainland.

IMO, Kursk was more important... The Nazy still had some chances of winning before that battle. Plus if i'm not mistaken, it was the largest battle mankind ever experienced.. each side had nearly a million man concentrated in a farely small area.

At some point, they were over a 1000 tanks fighting in a 3 sq Km area!

Kursk was more crazy and desparate than Stalingrad, and shouldn't have happened if they pulled out in time. Pretty epic though.

Overrated :P the French didnt really fight... for them Quebec was lost anyway and a minor battlefield. Plus Wolf was plain stupid.. he went on a suicide mission and won only cause they let them win.
:lol:
erm, yes France didn't exactly support its colony.

Beside, it most be the only 10 minutes fight where BOTH general died. :P

10 minutes between a couple thousand underfed musketmen is probably all it takes, but it decided a long campaign with some interesting twists.


This wasnt a real battle either. Charles Martel who NEEDED legitimacy, mainly cause he put himself in power plundering churchs claimed to save christianity... in fact the invasion was a razzia of a "few" Moors who where looking to get some bounty at Tours St-Martin rich church (in lack of a better word in english). Arab we're strongly out number in Spain, barely able to keep themself in power AND the razzia was motivated by the arab General cause one of his officer had went rogue. Even the Roman church denied the "heroic" deed of Martel at first, but after thing went sour with the Constantinople patriarch.. Rome (who seeked Charlemagne protection) needed a Historical Hero and started the "propaganda". Then came the Crusade and then the building of the "French" nationalism.... (Source Levi-Provençal)

dude, you should study both Arab and French ethnic history some more.

Yup, that was big... but I would had the incredible tolerance of the Ottomans... they didnt burn or destroyed anything that didnt make it in the byzantine exode, thus keeping it alive. They even barely "translate" the actual name of Constatinople which the local (like it had been the case for Rome) called their city... THE City (Urbs) which translate into Istanbul.

how so big ? It was closure, but the 'flow to the west' had already started. Development would have continued in parallel.
And sure why wouldn't the Ottomans take a prize city as their capital, they already had for Bursa and Adrianople.

One battle that I have to mention is Sekigahara (1600.) This determined who would rule Japan, the Toyotomi's or the Tokugawa's. Had the Toyotomi's won, it's likely Japan would've had a very different foreign policy from Toku's closed-door. The shape of Japanese history would've been completely different, meaning, Japan might not have turned into the aggressive imperialists it was at the start of the 20th century, meaning, a major component of world war 2 might not have happened. Not the most important battle in history, but I'd say in the top 10 or 15.

The siege of Constantinople in 1453 was important, but I believe the Byzantines were already weak by that time, so it was really more symbolic than it was important. I'd say the Battle of Manzikert was more important.

Yup, that was big... but I would had the incredible tolerance of the Ottomans... they didnt burn or destroyed anything that didnt make it in the byzantine exode, thus keeping it alive. They even barely "translate" the actual name of Constatinople which the local (like it had been the case for Rome) called their city... THE City (Urbs) which translate into Istanbul.

That's false.

The Sultan let his men pillage Constantinople for three days prescribed my Muslim tradition for a city that had resisted capture. They ransacked most of the Churches, houses and shops, destroying as much as they stole. They killed many of the citizens, particularly the remaining Italians, before starting to enslave the rest. Only two districts in the northwest and southwest, the quarters of Phanar ("Lighthouse) and Studius, were evidently allowed to surrender and remain intact, along with Genoese Galta. Their inhabitants ransomed some of the captives. The Sultan freed a few others, but executed the highest Byzantine officials.

Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society.

The siege of Constantinople in 1453 was important, but I believe the Byzantines were already weak by that time, so it was really more symbolic than it was important. I'd say the Battle of Manzikert was more important.

It was only important because it set off a civil war which gutted the empire. The actual battle was comparatively unimportant and the winner didn't do much to capitalize on it.

IMO, Kursk was more important... The Nazy still had some chances of winning before that battle. Plus if i'm not mistaken, it was the largest battle mankind ever experienced.. each side had nearly a million man concentrated in a farely small area.
While Kursk may have been strategically more important, the effects of Stalingrad went much deeper. The morale affects of destroying the German 6th Army cannot be ignored, from a Soviet, German, or Western position.

While Kursk may have been strategically more important, the effects of Stalingrad went much deeper. The morale affects of destroying the German 6th Army cannot be ignored, from a Soviet, German, or Western position.

The effects of being close to annihilating a Soviet army and then being pulled away at the last moment is also pretty damaging to the officers' collective morale.

You surely aren't referring to Kursk with that statement. Both Manstein and von Kluge were hopelessly and utterly screwed before anything even began.

You surely aren't referring to Kursk with that statement. Both Manstein and von Kluge were hopelessly and utterly screwed before anything even began.

Not according to Manstein himself. I believe he went as far as to say that had Hitler not attempted to micromanage it, the Axis could've won the Eastern Front.

Whether or not that's true is highly disputable, but nevertheless it had a large blow to the morale of the German officer corps.

Yeah, Manstein would totally have said that. He was also screwed before the battle started.

Not according to Manstein himself. I believe he went as far as to say that had Hitler not attempted to micromanage it, the Axis could've won the Eastern Front.

What Manstein was talking about was that Hitler refused to let the generals play their own game. Manstein, for example, heavily favored an elastic defense, while Hitler, for propagandistic reasons, adamantly refused to let soldiers retreat or withdraw. When Manstein was actually able to do this, like at Third Kharkov, it worked spectularly. Its no surprise that Hitler essentially ignored this Riposte because Manstein had disobeyed him.

The fact is, however, that Manstein in his memoirs could not see both sides of the field. We know from Soviet records that the deck was stacked before the battle even began. The salient was filled with layers of concentric defenses, and the troops therein fresh and fully supplied. It was quite obvious (and further helped by espionage) that the assault would come in two pincers, near the "base" of the salient. The plan was to let the Germans break against this wall, so to speak, and then hit them in their own flanks in what would then become two mini-salients. For von Kluge, this happened nearly immediately, as the entirety of the Bryansk Front immediately fell under assault when Kursk began. He hardly even made it into the salient before his drive stopped, because of the excessive demand at all other fronts, but especially around Orel, near the base of his own salient. While Manstein performed much much better (Zhukov even commented that he was surprised by Manstein's progress), he had essentially ground to a halt himself by the time Hitler ordered the operation ended. He had essentially no chance of ever uniting with von Kluge, primarily because Kluge had already folded and Orel had already fallen. Further, Zhukov had seven full Soviet armies waiting near Voronezh to begin the counteroffensive, and when these entered the battle, they proved how walloped the Germans had been during the assault.

It just occurred to me that you (or he) could also be talking about the plan for an earlier offensive. I remember that Manstein wanted to begin more than a month earlier, to keep the Soviets on their heels after Kharkov, but was told to wait for shipments of the new Panther and Tiger tanks before beginning. We know from looking at Zhukov's memoirs, however, that he did not begin building the concentric defensive works until after Manstein's originally proposed assault date. So maybe its concievable that he would have done better had he been able to hit faster. But, then, it is also true that he would not have had the force he did IRL. I don't think Tamerlane's observation about troop strength holds much weight, really, so I'm inclined to think that Manstein was wet-dreaming when he thought he could beat the Soviets by this point.

Whether or not that's true is highly disputable, but nevertheless it had a large blow to the morale of the German officer corps.

Hitler certainly fired many capable commanders in favor of unquestionably loyal ones. Ironic that most of those he fired were those who initiated (Guderian) or proposed (Manstein, Bock) retreat, or who resigned when Hitler would not let them play how they wanted to (Leeb).

Does anyone else consider Zama to be an important battle?

To be fair, I think Manstein's speculation on what could have been, is if the general command had complete control from before Stalingrad. He still intended to fight on as best he could and hope for a miracle, but felt frustrated in doing so. And it is interesting that after penetrating the farthest on the southern flank of the salient, he broke a Russian counterattack in the largest tank battle in history. He took a pounding but had local superiority for awhile, and refused for a few days Hitler's order to retreat, which was a twist. He must have thought he could do some more damage, or at least that's how I look at it.



Does anyone else consider Zama to be an important battle?

Its hard to say what would have happened if Masinissa's Numidian mercenaries, had decided to double cross the Romans. I think Hannibal needed a better battle plan too, but if he had his old cavalry superiority he would have won this one. Given their supreme effort of survival after Cannae, Rome would not let this one go. Marcellus was dead and without Scipio, Nero would have been the best general they had left. Hannibal's reputation would have emerged tenfold. Carthage may have gotten a critical breathing spell, again assuming they still had allies. But it probably would have ended in their destruction a little bit earlier than it did. Carthage just didn't have enough friends and didn't have a fleet. So one man's action or inaction in this case could make a difference, but I wouldn't give them high odds of having a substantially different outcome.

it is safe to say that we know nothing of the "most important battles of all times". The earlier the battle the more impact it would have.

Yeah, it was probably 20 guys with clubs vs 15 guys with rocks.

Was Zheng He in it, though?

Oh, here's one: the Battle of Bailén. It inspired Spanish patriotism to such a degree that Joseph Bonaparte's reign became untenable, thus turning Spain into a mire that slowly drained French resources, largely contributing to Napoleon's downfall.

Yeah, it was probably 20 guys with clubs vs 15 guys with rocks.

Was Zheng He in it, though?

One of those guys reincarnated as Zheng He.

Lepanto is hardly important, it just signified what was to come in the future, of Muslim(Read: Ottoman) decline, infact, the Ottomans rebuilt every ship they lost, and more a few years after Lepanto. It's only importance was as a first sign of what's to come.

IMO, without details:

1. Stalingrad
2. Tannenberg Forest
3. Manzikert
4. Siege of Vienna
5. No battles spring to my mind specifically, but the original Otto-Balkan wars pre-1453 IMO

As you can see, I consider Rome and the Ottoman Empire the pinnacles of world changers. I don't know enough about history to comment anything farther east then Baghdad sadly.

Lepanto is hardly important, it just signified what was to come in the future, of Muslim(Read: Ottoman) decline, infact, the Ottomans rebuilt every ship they lost, and more a few years after Lepanto. It's only importance was as a first sign of what's to come.

This logic seems to me to be rather dubious. Perhaps the 16th century was the apex of Ottoman power because of their loss of naval supremacy over the Mediterranean (it is true that they rebuilt their navy quickly, but they lost their experienced sailors; the Habsburgs dominated maritime trade from that point on), rather than their loss of naval supremacy being a symptom of their decline.

But what truly matters to the Ottoman Empire, more than Med. Domination, is Aegan domination, which wouldn't be. Challenged until Galipoli. Although by Hapsburg, you mean Spanish? We can't really know that, seeing as the Ottomans weren't challenged navally again post-Lepanto, AFAIK. Typing from an Itouch, don't judge my grammar.

The 17th Century Ottoman occupation of Crete turned into a 20 year debacle, while the Venetian navy, no longer rowing galleys, inflicted a series of crippling defeats on the Ottoman navy. They closed the Dardanelles for awhile, causing hardship in Constantinople as well as the soldiers on Crete. The Turks eventually got the island though.

One single battle laid the ground for the world as we know it today. In 701 bc, the king of Assyria, Sennacherib sent an army to destroy the kingdom of Judah. Hezekiah, king of Judah appealed to Egypt's military commander at the time, Taharqa for aid. Taharqa marched a Kushite army to Judah, defeated the Assyrians and saved Jerusalem from annihilation. Had this not happened, the Assyrian empire would have eradicated the Hebrews, effectively wiping out Judaism. Whithout Judaism, Christianity would never be birthed and subsequently neither would Islam. A world without these three religions would be scarcely recognizable to us today. Imagine that if you can.

One single battle laid the ground for the world as we know it today. In 701 bc, the king of Assyria, Sennacherib sent an army to destroy the kingdom of Judah. Hezekiah, king of Judah appealed to Egypt's military commander at the time, Taharqa for aid. Taharqa marched a Kushite army to Judah, defeated the Assyrians and saved Jerusalem from annihilation. Had this not happened, the Assyrian empire would have eradicated the Hebrews, effectively wiping out Judaism. Whithout Judaism, Christianity would never be birthed and subsequently neither would Islam. A world without these three religions would be scarcely recognizable to us today. Imagine that if you can.

:eek: Oh noes indeed. Thankfully the Jews are God's chosen people and were therefore incapable of losing.

Cough... Nebuchadnezzar II... cough.

Necroed thread closed.

Please feel free to start a new one, if you want to continue the discussion. Thank you.