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

My 5 are:

1. Greek victory at Salamas
2. Greek Victory at marathon
3. Roman Victory at Zama
4. American victory at saratoga
5. Soviet(or allied) victory at stalingrad

------------------
Join me in World Conquest (http://www.geocities.com/conquestbob/index.html)

<FONT COLOR="blue"><FONT face="lucida handwriting">Hold on through today means that there will be a tommorrow
</FONT c></FONT f>
Check out Arcade Portal (http://www.arcade-gaming.com) and

Interesting. No real order here, but:
1.) I would have to agree on Salamis, but the whole Greek victory in that campaign: Thermopylae and Platae as well were important components
2.) Wolfes victory at Quebec in 1759
3.) Charles Martel's Franks defeating the Moors at Tours
4.) Stalingrad of course; probably the pivotal moment of the war
5.)1453 Constantinople: Fall of Byzantines led to flow of knowledge westwards, thus being one factor in the "Renaissance"
6.) Turkish siege of Vienna in mid 1600s(?). Signified the high water mark of Ottoman expansion into Europe. It was a touch and go thing until the relief forces of Polish cavalry under King John Sobieski arrived.
Likewise, the naval victory over the Ottomans at Lepanto in 1632 was important.
Honourable Mentions: Midway 1942 and the battles over the Kokoda Trail in New Guinea - both were arguably representative of the halting of Japanese offensive action.

I know that is 6 or more, but one could not split these. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
- N.S.Khrushchev

Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo?

Ever since, the French have been absolutely worthless in war. They have mastered the art of 'showing belly' to any aggressor.

The English stand against the Zulus?

Admittedly, it didn't have much impact off the Dark Continent, but it sure as hell ruined the lives of millions of Africans for generations to follow.

Pearl Harbor-admittedly more of a raid than a battle.

It got America directly involved in WWII. 'Nuff said?

So I guess you skipped a couple. I even considered Charlemaign's victory in 1066, but that wasn't a specific battle.

1066? You mean William the Conqueror's victory at the Battle of Hastings? That was a specific battle, and it certainly was an important one. It created England as we know it and screwed up the English language forever. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif Charlemagne was two hundred fifty years dead by then.

whoops.

1. Midway.
2. Marathon, indeed.
3. Austerlitz.
4. Dien Bien Phu http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tongue.gif
5. If I said 1515, nobody excepted ALL French people and Az would know. That's the most famous date that all the French know (and I do say everyone, no exception, surprisingly. Never understood why). So I'll just say Valmy Victory. This unexpected French Rebels victory over the rest of Tory Europe lead to the birth or Democracy. This Democracy then slowly spread over the other Europe countries. If this is not a great battle for mankind...

------------------
Genghis K.

i think 1st the battle of waterloo
2nd Stalingrad
3rd battle of britain
4th D-day (maybe)
5th battle of the river plate (ok i dont know many and it was first to come to mind and it was newzealand biggest navel battle maybe it needs about 700th)

also the battle of sterling and galipole (cant spell) were big

No GenghisK I have to disagree with you Austerlitz wasn't all that important a victory. The most important battle of the Napoleon wars was the defeat of the French navy at Trafalga. Had he not been defeated there then he would have invaded England and there was no way in hell they could have beaten him.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/snipersmilie.gif

------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.

Coolbook:
Håkan Eriksson, Stormerne, vladmir_illych_lenin, Cunobelin Of Hippo, vanillacube.

Whilst Dien Bien Phu, Gallipoli, and even Isandlwhana in 1879 were important battles where many thousands of brave soldiers lost their lives, did they, in the words of the topic "effect the outcome of human civilization".
IMHO, no. Dien Bien Phu signified the end of the French interest and deployment in Indochina, but this was followed by US and allied engagement, which in the end only resulted in more deaths and a unified Vietnam. Significant, yes. Big tragedy, yes.
But not of destiny shaping impact. (Yet..)
Gallipoli was in the end, an Allied defeat that was a strategic mistake that probably wouldn't of been of that much impact anyway.( Aimed at knocking out Turkey to get supplies to Russia, whic was on verge of revolution anyway) What it did do was turn into an ANZAC legend that helped shape a nation's perception of its fighting men and women.
Isandlwhana marked the last hurrah of the Zulus. British dominance was a foregone conclusion, and although it put the frighteners up 'em, it only made them retreat the other two columns, get reinforcements, and kick butt at Ulundi.
Well, I though I'd add a few cents worth.

In terms of some of the bravest stands in history, I only need say two words: Thermopylae and Cameroon (Foreign Legion in Mehico)

------------------
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
- N.S.Khrushchev

Two points:

Firstly, we first discussed a similar topic to this while ago, and you all may like to look what was said then. Check out...
http://forums.civfanatics.com/Forum8/HTML/000194.html

Secondly, and to repeat what I wrote then, I would like to mention the battle of Teutoberg in the year 9 CE. Three Roman legions led by Quintilius Varus were destroyed by German hosts led by Arminius (Hermann) of the Cherusci (an Old Saxon tribe) at Teutobergiensis saltus (now Teutobergenwald near Detmold). Varus was militarily inept and so the battle was not "great" by that yardstick. But it was great in the sense that it was a major turning point in history, and his defeat halted Rome's push from the Rhine to the Elbe, turning the tide against any possibile annexation by the Roman Empire of many Germanic tribal lands. Since it was from these same lands that the Angles and Saxons came to colonise England some four and half centuries later, I believe that the battle of Teutoberg was key to our modern history and I'd include it in my five. The other four I'll have to work on...



------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

1. 2nd Battle against the Death Star (finally the death of the Emperor and Darth Vader)
2. Battle of the Pelennor Fields (The stand of Minas Tirith and the timely arrival of Theoden with the Riders of Rohan and later Aragorn)
3. Battle at Domani's Well (sp? -- Rescue of the Dragon Reborn, first battle involving Ash'amen, Rand demanding fealty from Aes Sedai -- anyone else read the "Wheel of Time" series by Jordan?)
4. King Arthur's failed charge on that French-occupied castle. Had the cops not shown up I would have liked to see those taunting Frenchmen skewered. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif (Who hasn't seen Monty Python?)
5. The first battle between pre-humans where that one group of pre-humans used bones as clubs and beat up the leader of the other group. (First use of weapons and a pretty cool obelisk).

Sorry... you all know so much about ACTUAL battles some of which I probably couldn't even tell you who was fighting whom. I had to go with what I knew.

I have trouble defferentiating between fantasy and reality anyway. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/crazyeyes.gif

------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock

http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/lol.gif
BTW, what's Pelenor Fields? I don't know that... And you forgot to mention the final battle against Hades in Saint Seiya http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Genghis K.

Originally posted by GenghisK:
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/lol.gif" border=0>
BTW, what's Pelenor Fields? I don't know that... And you forgot to mention the final battle against Hades in Saint Seiya <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>



The Battle of the Pelennor Fields was from Tolkien - Return of the King.

And you'll have to forgive me as I do not know the reference to Hades and Saint Seiya.

I don't get why no one else except me mentioned the Roman Victory at Zama. That was the decisive victory during the punic wars. Had Carthage won, our heritage now would have been more distincitly carthaginian.

Yes, tours was important. Now the fall of the Byzatine empire was going to happen sooner or later so one certain battle wasn't important.



------------------
Join me in World Conquest (http://www.geocities.com/conquestbob/index.html)

<FONT COLOR="blue"><FONT face="lucida handwriting">Hold on through today means that there will be a tommorrow
</FONT c></FONT f>
Check out Arcade Portal (http://www.arcade-gaming.com) and

Battle of Yorktown(revolutionary war)---i think this was the battle that the british surrendered and american gained its independence
Battle of Waterloo
Battle of Verdun(the battle that saved Paris?) I do know some 1million british/french died in the battle
Battle of Ghettysburg(turning poitn in civil war for Union)
Battle of StalinGrad
Battle of El Alamein
Battle of Midway---destroyed 4 japanese carriers
Hiroshima and Nagasaki---introduction of Nuclear Weapons
Battle of Jutland---biggest naval battle with some 130 british ships and 90+ german ships
Battle of the Atlantic----allowed US supplies to Britain and Soviet Union HELPING TO WIN THE WAR http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
Battle of Coral Sea----stopped japanese advance on Australia
Battle of Berlin----guess! http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tongue.gif

------------------
Civilization God of War & Economic Prosperity
http://www.civfanatics.com Staff and forum moderator

<IMG SRC="http://www.homestead.com/house_of_lux/files/suntzu1.gif" border=0>

I'm going to mention the ones I find important, and yes, I will miss some.

1. Battle of Salmis: Saved Greek Civ.

2. Battle of Hastings. Completely changed England, a new line of kings.

3. The Defeat of the Spanish Armada (circa 1500's): If not for this, we'd all be speaking spanish now, because England's army was in no shape to fight what was then the dominant power.

4. Lexington and Concord: The war started with a rebel win. If the British units had wone, the whole affair would be referred to as the disturbance of 1775. P.S. Any battle in the revolutionary war where Washington escaped with the army intact is key.

5. Battle of Trafalgar: Stopped Napolean from invading England, once again the land army couldn't stop him.

6. Battle of Moscow: Not so much that the Russian's won, but that Napoleon lost his entire army to the weather in his Russian adventure. It proved he was not invincible, and his vassal states rose up against him. Hitler studied Napolean, knew the Russian winter was bad, but proceeded anyway.

7. Gettysburg: Lee's greatest mistake, ordering that charge.

8. First Battle of the Marne: The Germans were executing the Schlieffan plan very well until they detatched a corps to go fight the Russians. The plan called for a hook through the low countries and then to hook around and take Paris. But the hook was too short, and thus France was saved from an initial knockout blow.

9. Battle of Britain: Never was so many owed to so few. If Britain had fallen, Hitler would have had enough time to finish off the Soviets (He would not have needed to invade Yugoslavia and Greece, and thus Barbarossa would have started on time, and they would have reached Moscow before the snow fell.)

10. Battle of Moscow: Advanced German troops saw the spires of the Kremlin. Had they taken Moscow in 1941, Russia would have been kaput. This is of equal importance with Stalingrad, and also to a lesser known battle, Kursk. Kursk is important because it stopped a German offensive before it could get started. The Germans never regained the momentum after that.

Top five battles:

1. My friend, Brian, punching Vanilla Ice right in the back during a concert. Oh man, you guys should have seen that one. Nothing is more beautiful than watching Vanilla Ice get his a** kicked.
2. "Civ 3 RPG"
3. "Affirmative Action is Racist"
4. Ron Jeremy vs. Tommy Lee Celebrity Death Match.
5. "Something to avoid in Civ 3"

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="red">NON</FONT c><FONT COLOR="blue"> FACETE AMARIS; FACETE PUGNANS!</FONT c>
<FONT size="1">(do not make love; make war)</FONT s><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/2ar15smilie.gif" border=0>

The battle of Adrianople (378 A.D.). This defeat of the Roman infantry by a cavalry force (using stirrups and improved saddles) resulted in a revolution in the art of war.

The battle of Crecy (1346 A.D.).The decisive factor was the destruction of the French heavy cavalry by the English longbowmen. The long-term result was the decline of the military power (and therefor the political power) of the armored knights.

The first battle of the Marne (1914). A German victory in this battle would probably have spared Europe the catastrophe of World War I and its aftermath. Unfortunately, however, the "good guys" won this battle!

The battle of Britain (1940). The crucial battle of World War II.

The nuclear attack on Hiroshima (1945). We are still living under that mushroom cloud.

Uh, thought FAL did say 5 (five)only http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Genghis K.

The most important SWEDISH battels is this ones, aranged in chronological order:


The battle of Breitenfeld 1631 - King Gustav II Adolf
The battle of Lützen 1632 - King Gustav II Adolf
The battle of Narva 1700 - King Karl XII
The battle of Poltava 1709 - King Karl XII
The battle of Fraustadt 1706 - King Karl XII
The battle of Helsingborg 1710 - General Stenbock



Btw, this is a link to a intersesting site about the military ranks in Sweden, UK and USA: http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/regementen_military%20ranks.htm


------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>

1) Stalin Grad
2) D-Day
3) The Fall Of Rome (not really a Battle but it had much effeckt on Europe
4) Midway
5) Vietnam

You said Vietnam but you know there were so many battles and war that we don't know the one you're speaking about. I thinkg you should state your mind more clearly.

------------------
Genghis K.

1) Stalingrad
2) Midway
3) D-Day
4) Pusan
5) I have to agree with Kev, the battle of Endor was pretty damn important.


------------------
Thou who goes to bed with an itchy butt wakes up with a smelly finger.

Originally posted by Kev:
4. King Arthur's failed charge on that French-occupied castle. Had the cops not shown up I would have liked to see those taunting Frenchmen skewered. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

Don't forget the great battle at the Cave of Caerbannog!

------------------
DEATH awaits you all...with nasty, big, pointy teeth.

i don´t remember the date nor the place, but when charlemaign saved europe from being arabic in spain?

Five Most Importants Battles in Western History.

1) Salamis, 480 B.C. Of the Greek victories during the Persian, this was most important in that it broke Persian naval supremacy in Aegean, rendering it almost impossible for the Persians to continue land operations in Europe.

2) Zama, 202 B.C. The decisive victory of Rome over Carthage, thus establishing whose Empire would rule the Mediterranean World and so shape the end of the Classical Era of Western history.

3) Adrianople, 718 A.D. This battle resulted in the first successful defense of Constantinople, and thus is probably more important than its western equivalent, the Battle of Tours, 732 A.D. The loss of Constantinople -- at the time the largest city in Christiandom -- would have allowed rapid Moslem expansion through the Balkans and into central Europe and Italy.

4) Trafalgar, 1805 A.D. Decisive defeat of the Napoleon's Navy guaranteed Britain's ability to continue the war against Napoleon up to its conclusion at Waterloo.

5) Battle of Britain, 1940 A.D. Had the Germans won the battle and established air superiority over Britain, it is likely that they could have knocked Britain out of the war, rendering U.S. intervention all but impossible and allowing Hitler to invade Russia with full forces (and, as we know, Hitler came close to victory in Russia in 1941).

"i don´t remember the date nor the place, but when charlemaign saved europe from being arabic in spain?"

This also wasn't Charlemagne. It was Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne. The battle was at Poitiers, if I'm not mistaken.

Edit: The Battle of Tours, that was it. Near Poitiers, but not at Poitiers.

[This message has been edited by Loaf Warden (edited May 02, 2001).]

Originally posted by Loaf Warden:
"i don´t remember the date nor the place, but when charlemaign saved europe from being arabic in spain?"

This also wasn't Charlemagne. It was Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne. The battle was at Poitiers, if I'm not mistaken.

Edit: The Battle of Tours, that was it. Near Poitiers, but not at Poitiers.

[This message has been edited by Loaf Warden (edited May 02, 2001).]

Charles the Hammer ("Martel"), grandfather of Charles the Great.

Animepornstar (any chance I can convince your to change your name???): you are probably thinking of the Battle of Roncesvalles (778 a.d), from The Song of Roland . A lot of that medieval epic poem is based on the Battle of Tours ... And I'll will always accept the Archbishop Turpin to fight at my side.



[This message has been edited by Andu Indorin (edited May 03, 2001).]

Originally posted by GenghisK:
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/lol.gif" border=0>
BTW, what's Pelenor Fields? I don't know that... And you forgot to mention the final battle against Hades in Saint Seiya <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>



"Death, death, death! Death takes us all!"
-- Eomer Eadig, Marshall of the Mark

(Part I of LOTR, in December!!!)




[This message has been edited by Andu Indorin (edited May 03, 2001).]

Originally posted by Håkan Eriksson:
The most important SWEDISH battels is this ones, aranged in chronological order:


The battle of Breitenfeld 1631 - King Gustav II Adolf
The battle of Lützen 1632 - King Gustav II Adolf
The battle of Narva 1700 - King Karl XII
The battle of Poltava 1709 - King Karl XII
The battle of Fraustadt 1706 - King Karl XII
The battle of Helsingborg 1710 - General Stenbock



Btw, this is a link to a intersesting site about the military ranks in Sweden, UK and USA: http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/regementen_military%20ranks.htm





Haakan: A trivia question: The Battle of Lutzen (1632) stands out in military history
for a rare occurance. What is that occurance?

Originally posted by Andu Indorin:

Haakan: A trivia question: The Battle of Lutzen (1632) stands out in military history
for a rare occurance. What is that occurance?

I am not sure if it's wath yuou maen but The Swedish King Gustav II Adolf got killed during the battle. But when his troops heard about it they did not surender. Instead they fhought evenb harder and defeted the enemy army.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>

unfortunatly we don´t read about charlemagne in school in sweden. i don´t know why.

But at least you know who he is. That's already a good point. Perhaps you're European.
I can remember once, I talked to an American tourist in Paris who asked me in French who was Charles de Gaulle. I answered in English of course... Anyway no comment on American people please http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif Fortunately, all the other American are quite great. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Genghis K.

history in swedish school is focused on the social life of some reason. americans... i don´t think they even know who zidane is. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

I took an Advanced Placement European History class in high school, so I do have some little education on the subject, despite being American.

On another note, does anybody else think Charles "the Hammer" Martel would be a great name for a professional wrestler?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/lol.gif
I'm kidding, of course. No flames, please. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Originally posted by Håkan Eriksson:
I am not sure if it's wath yuou maen but The Swedish King Gustav II Adolf got killed during the battle. But when his troops heard about it they did not surender. Instead they fhought evenb harder and defeted the enemy army.



Yes, that's pretty much the unique aspect of the battle. In military history (prior to 19th century), whenever a leader is slain in battle, the armies suffers a severe drop in morale, and will often rout as a consequence. That the army of Gustavus Adolphus took up the cry of revenge and preceded to win a battle that they were actually losing at the time of Adolphus's death is special tribute to the "Lion of the North" as one of the great leaders in military history; this in addition to his contributions to military organization, battlefield tactics, and military technology.

Agreed, Andu Indorin, I think of Gustavus Adolphus as the first 'modern' general.

Lutzen was also notable for the combination of the onset of fog and Gustav Adolf's death stopping the completion of what was until then a perfect example of turning the flank, and subsequent encirclement.
"The tactic of enveloping a single flank entails engaging the enemy's attention with diversions, such as skirmishing or artillery fire, in one sector of the field before launching the main attack elsewhere...at Lutzen, Gustavus's initial succes could not be exploited at the crucial moment, when the manoeuvre seemed on the point of achieving its aim, because fog suddenly came down."
(Battles of the Great Commanders,Anthony Livesey,p.56)
Thus we see that the tactic of encirlement, as best done at Cannae by Hannibal, has been successfully and unsuccessfully emulated throughout history. Has there ever been such a battle that spawned such a change in tactics and warfare? Opinions please.

------------------
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
- N.S.Khrushchev

Originally posted by Magnus:
Agreed, Andu Indorin, I think of Gustavus Adolphus as the first 'modern' general.

Agreed. Arguably, the general who defined modern tactics. Adjustments to the musket, admustments and standardization to field artillery, and the developemant formations to start exploit the firepower of the musket (i.e., linear tactics) ... way ahead of his time, and defining the future of warfare. All the more credit to his leadership and an army that raised the cry of vengence.

Originally posted by Simon Darksdale: Lutzen was also notable for the combination of the onset of fog and Gustav Adolf's death stopping the completion of what was until then a perfect example of turning the flank, and subsequent encirclement.
"The tactic of enveloping a single flank entails engaging the enemy's attention with diversions, such as skirmishing or artillery fire, in one sector of the field before launching the main attack elsewhere...at Lutzen, Gustavus's initial succes could not be exploited at the crucial moment, when the manoeuvre seemed on the point of achieving its aim, because fog suddenly came down."
(Battles of the Great Commanders,Anthony Livesey,p.56)
Thus we see that the tactic of encirlement, as best done at Cannae by Hannibal, has been successfully and unsuccessfully emulated throughout history. Has there ever been such a battle that spawned such a change in tactics and warfare? Opinions please.

Agreed as well.

Wallerstein's Imperial army was more or less entrenched (winter quarters); and still, the Swedes -- outnumbered against an entrenched enemy -- managed to win the battle. (As far as I've read, Thirty Years War politics and logistics more or less required Gustavus Adolphus -- "The Midnight Lion" -- to attack what was essentially an entrenched position; and the battle was won over one of the more enterprising, and tactically compatent, bastard's -- Wallerstein -- in the history of warfare. Another reason that the Battle of Lutzen will never repeated in annales of military history again.



[This message has been edited by Andu Indorin (edited May 05, 2001).]

could gustav II adolf be a viking war hero, or what ever firaxis calls them, in civ3 or isn´t he viking enough?

Saratoga
Thermopolye
Midway

Most Important Three Battles

Good lord man!

:egypt:If you keep digging up these old threads you will awaken an ancient curse...:egypt:

Moscow+Zana+Montreal(where Wolfe captures Montreal).

I don't understand why some people are putting such importance on the zulu battle's. why was that pivotal other than the fact it broke up africa into 13 or so smaller countries, I wouldn't call that a "earth shaking" incident.

1. Battle of Manzikert (1078) The Byzantines lost most of their important territories to the Islamic Turks. The result was that the Crusades happened, and the Ottomans united the Turks and conquered Constantinople (1453) who then spread technology to Europe allowing the Renaissance.

2. Battle of Stalingrad (1943) Turned the tide of World War 2. The world would be a lot different had the Russians not won.

3. Battle of Adrianople (378) Ended Romes dominance of the battlefield once and for all. The Eastern Empire reformed and survived. The Western Empire didn't change a thing and died off.

4. Battle of Kadesh (1270? BC) First ever peace treaty signed following it between the Hittites and Egypt. Syria was divided. The middle east would be relatively peaceful until the arrival of the Sea People.

5. Battle of the River Granicus (335BC) Alexander the Great got a foothold on Asia and could conquer Persia, and do all the stuff he and the 'Successors' did.

Good choices MC, except Granicus. The Battle of Yarmuk is certainly up there, if the Byzantines had not fought this battle or won it, it'd be a very different world today.

Here are mine:

1. Battle of Yarmuk

2. Batle of Catalunyan Fields

3. Battle of Waterloo

4. Battle of Ipsus

5. Battle of Adrianople

Good choices everybody, but nobody calls the Battle of Poitiers / Tours on the 10th of October 732 AD. Bad thing, because that battle certainly belongs to the list of the five most important battles of world history.

OK i'll do this differently. I'm going to list what in my opinion are the 5 most significant battles in fiction and real-life. Why include fictional battles? Well, i don't take many things seriously, including this topic.

Real-life:

1. Battle of Marathon
2. Battle of Hastings
3. Battle of Trafalgar
4. Battle of Britain
5. Battle of Midway

Honorable mentions to: Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Carthage during third Punic War and Battle of the Somme.

Fiction:

1. The destruction of both the Time Lords and the Daleks at the hands of the Doctor. From Doctor Who.*
2. The destruction of the second Death Star during the Rebellion/Empire war from Star-Wars.
3. The final Wraith siege of Atlantis during the Wraith/Lantean war from Stargate:Atlantis.
4. Battle of Earth during the Earth/Minbari war from Babylon Five.
5. Battle of Cardassia Prime during the Dominion war from Star-Trek:deep space nine.

*Strictly speaking, this was not a battle. But it brought an end to The Last Great Time War and is the most significant event in the history of the Doctor Who universe.

Wow. That is some necromancy.

Twas my first post and i thought i'd make an effort lol. :goodjob:

While i'm here i'd like to give another honorable mention to the Battle of the Imjin River. I just saw a documentary about it.

No WWII battle, especially not Stalingrad, should be on this list. As important as they were in a detailed view of the war, they should not be viewed as important in the overall picture of the war, much less human history. Instead the battles serve as marking stones for an innevitable outcome. For example, Midway: Americ would have won the war no matter the outcome of Midway. You could rip the chapter on Midway out of a narrative of the war and nothing truely unexpected would have happened. America simply outproduced Japan far too much to ever loose an extended conflict with thems. Total War is not decided by battles, or even armies, but by whole nations.
If I wanted to name a definitive battle for the twentieth century, the only ones I can think of would be Tannenburg or perhaps Tsushima, but neither are that major to be on the list.
I'm surprised the battle of Vienna hasn't been mentioned yet...

The Battle of Vienna. ;)

In all seriousness, Battles such as Stalingrad, The Battle of Britain and even Midway ARE important battles. You say that wars are decided by whole nations, i agree. But what if the Russian/Soviets had lost the battle of Stalingrad? It would have had a massive psychological effect on both sides. It easily could have lead to a a collapse in moral of the Russian military, people and leadership, which may have resulted in eventual German victory.

Wars are indeed decided by whole nations. But the ability and more importantly, the willingness for nations to fight wars is decided by the outcomes of battles.

The most important SWEDISH battels is this ones, aranged in chronological order:


The battle of Breitenfeld 1631 - King Gustav II Adolf
The battle of Lützen 1632 - King Gustav II Adolf
The battle of Narva 1700 - King Karl XII
The battle of Poltava 1709 - King Karl XII
The battle of Fraustadt 1706 - King Karl XII
The battle of Helsingborg 1710 - General Stenbock



Btw, this is a link to a intersesting site about the military ranks in Sweden, UK and USA: http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/regementen_military%20ranks.htm


------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>

Breitenfeld deserves mention among the important battles of European history, on par with Waterloo easily. It radically reshaped the course of the northern half of Europe.

J

5. Battle of Vienna
4. Battle of Ain Jalut
3. Battle of Salamis
2. Battle of Zama
1. Battle of Stalingrad

No WWII battle, especially not Stalingrad, should be on this list. As important as they were in a detailed view of the war, they should not be viewed as important in the overall picture of the war, much less human history. Instead the battles serve as marking stones for an innevitable outcome. For example, Midway: Americ would have won the war no matter the outcome of Midway. You could rip the chapter on Midway out of a narrative of the war and nothing truely unexpected would have happened. America simply outproduced Japan far too much to ever loose an extended conflict with thems. Total War is not decided by battles, or even armies, but by whole nations.
If I wanted to name a definitive battle for the twentieth century, the only ones I can think of would be Tannenburg or perhaps Tsushima, but neither are that major to be on the list.
I'm surprised the battle of Vienna hasn't been mentioned yet...

I applaud your sense in this matter. Truly decisive battles in human history are where religions stopped their spread, or where whole identities were forged or destroyed. Frankly, just about everything in the last couple centuries has been the result of the buildup due to the earlier decisive battles.

My list reflects that notion. Some people here have it right, and have mentioned some of the battles on my list. However, anyone that selects 20th century battles, heavens forbid more than one, needs a lesson in history.

Salamis, 480 BCE: Although Thermopylae gets all the attention for the glorious stand of the 300 Spartans, this is the battle that turned Xerxes back. Persian dreams of conquest in Greece were shattered following Themistocles' victory: this had a vital impact on history. Greece had a great number of influential politicians, scientists, philosophers, and more that have had such an incredible impact on the human experience that I could not begin to describe them all, and many of these voices could have been silenced forcibly by a Persia fearing Greek revolt. Also, the Persians could have pushed further into Europe, and there were no other organized European peoples that could have stood up to the Persians, especially Persians supplemented by Greek vassals. Even nascent Rome may have felt the wrath of the Persians...

Teutoburg, 9 CE: For the impact of separating the Latin from the German, this battle deserves mention. This battle has already been discussed above, so I won't go into too much detail. The simple existence of the Germans, and the Saxons, as an independent faction and not Roman pawns...Germany and Britain, to an extent, owe their existence to this battle. The WW2 battles are not nearly as important as the battle which shaped those countries and the forces that caused their existence.

Constantinople, 718 CE; Tours (Poitiers), 732 CE: These two battles, which I have lumped together for their combined outcome, limited Muslim expansion into Europe. The Byzantines in the East and the Franks in the West both insured that Europe would remain Christian against the growing strength of the Muslims, setting up the scene for the Crusades and the religious landscape until the modern day. Not to mention the Europeans, following this, began to adopt heavy cavalry into their armies, changing the face of warfare for centuries to come, until the advent of gunpowder. Constantinople is included because it is the first truly disastrous loss the Muslims faced--reportedly, 180,000 troops and all but 5 ships were lost. The religious consequences, without an East Orthodox church, are virtually unimaginable in their impact on East European and especially Russian history.

Hastings, 1066 CE: Imagine for a second a world without England. Not the land, but the country and English identity. This was forged by William's conquest in the 11th century, who transformed the islands from a loose confederation of nobles and an assortment of various peoples into a strong kingdom, eventually coming to dominate the British Isles and a quarter of the world. The nation of England, with all its influence throughout the years, from colonization to representative government to WW2, would have been different had William lost this battle.

Ain Jalut, 1260 CE: I would have thought more people would have brought up the stopping (or at least stalling) of the Mongolian conquests. This battle deserves a slot due to the importance of saving civilization in general. Unlike other peoples warring, the Mongolians are essentially "the anti-civilization", an incredibly well-organized and disciplined group of nomads who decided that everyone shall submit to them or be slaughtered. And slaughter and destroy the Mongols did. Yes, the Mongolian internecine feuding was the ultimate cause of their demise, but this battle is essentially the Middle Eastern version of Tours, with Islam's head on the line instead of Christianity. You can probably guess why it has made mention.


There are many honorable mentions, but I think this selection is solid. Of course, post away--that's what the forums are for. ;)

Antilogic, while I can't argue about Salamis, Constantinople/Tours and Hastings: the Teutoburg Forest and Ain Jalut? The Teutoburg Forest was not the decisive battle between between Rome and the Germanic tribes it was made out to be. Rome's failure to expand into modern Germany could almost be considered a foregone conclusion after the Gallic Wars. Ain Jalut itself was a minor battle - Mongol expansion by-and-large had abated to be replaced by squabbling and in-fighting. The Mongol horde was really only defeated by disease, internal problems and natural disasters. See the failed invasions of Japan and Java, or the invasion of Hungary.

In all seriousness, Battles such as Stalingrad, The Battle of Britain and even Midway ARE important battles. You say that wars are decided by whole nations, i agree. But what if the Russian/Soviets had lost the battle of Stalingrad?
Germany would have gained a strategically insignificant city on the Volga and would have still been producing half as many tanks as Russia and of poorer quality, and would have been pushed back and lost the war no matter what. Stalingrad, though important part of the war, was not a battle that defined the outcome of the war nevermind human history. Even Tannenburg did in the first world war, or Tsushima did in the Russo-Japanese wars, did more to define the outcome of the conflict, and therefor, to a greater extent, human history.
Even in WWII, there are more strategically vital battles than Stalingrad or Midway, but have left a much smaller hagiography behind them. Surely you would think it odd to include the Battle of Tunisia, or the Marianas Islands, as the most significant battles in history, but these were even more decisive then Stalingrad or Midway.

What I'm surprised to see is that all these battles are considered important by the winners of the war, but this is something of a mistake. If I had to pick the most important battle of WWII, it would be the Fall of Singapore, because it heralded the end of colonialism world wide.

I'm not going to attempt a list of all of Human History, because my focus of study is to narrow. I will put out the list of the most influential battles of the twentieth century, as I see it.

1.The Battle of Tannenburg- The very image of a decisive victory. Prevented an early defeat of Germany in 1914, that could have resulted in the war ending by 1915 or 16. But most importantly it Brought about the collapse of the much feared Russian Army, and ultimately led to the single defining event of the Twentieth Century, the creation of the Soviet Union.

2. The Battle of Tsushima Straights - I feel rather sorry for the Russians, putting the two major battles of the century as stunning defeats for them. But these were the battles that achieved decisive change. Tsushima of course, was the first time a non-white nation had defeated a white nation in a major conflict since the Turks threatened Europe. Additionally, without this battle, Japan would have lost the war. Had Russia declared control of the sea lost, and limited the conflict to Manchuria and the Russian Far East, they would have soon won. Japan was going bankrupt and could not reinforce its troops, while trains carrying Russian troops were finally making their way east.
However the decision to deploy the Baltic Fleet to Asia resulted in the decisive victory the Japanese needed to sue for peace.
This had numerous outcomes important for the twentieth century. First, while it did not herald the fall of colonialism the way Singapore did, it did show that Europe no longer maintained a strategic monopoly on power, and that not only was Japan to be considered a major power, but that Asians could assume power, and therefor a re-estimation of China's strategic value.
Second, it did catch the attention of nationalists around Asia. However in a different way then Singapore later would. Tsushima made sure that the Meiji restoration: rejuvination of sciences, abandoning of traditional confines, and crash industrialization, would serve as a model for nationalist movements.
Third, it had a major impact on the domestic front for Tsar Nicholas II, and led to the unrests of 1905, and the beginnings of many revolutionary movements.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly,it had a fundamental effect on the outlook of the IJA and IJN. For them, Tsushima reinforced the point they had taken from the first Sino-Japanese War and made it explicitly clear to them. They had won the war, but had victory taken from them at the peace table. Japan gained no foothold in Manchuria, was denied Port Arthur, and Vladivostok did not become demilitarized. For many, this would be the defining turn from the Prussian style nationalism of the Meiji Era, to the virulent Ultranationalism that would brook no compromise of the Showa Era, the implications of which do not need to be outlined.

3. Battle of Verdun I joke sometimes that the Battle of Verdun was the battle that made France loose the second world war, but its true. The fighting at Verdun, though not particularly more brutal than at say, the Somme was important for two main reasons. First of all, there was the cycling of troops. This was an important way to keep morale high, during the long battle, but it also created a fundamental change in the way war impacted the populace. For the first time in war, the vast majority of troops engaged in some of the worst fighting. There were virtually no isolated troops serving on quiet fronts, as troops began circulating in and out of Verdun. So many troops being involved in the fighting had an immense role in shaping postwar attitudes about war and a future conflict.
Second, it made Phillipe Petain a heroic figure in French politics, and ensured that he would have suitable clout to form a government later. If you want to understand the collapse of France in the Spring of 1940, you must begin in 1916.

4. The Fall of Singapore
The fall of Singapore, as afforementioned, heralded the end of the British Empire. At her strongest point, at the place she claimed to be invulnerable, she was defeated by an outnumbered Asian power, only shortly after Japanese Naval Aircraft sunk Force Z. For the first time the imperialists were layed low, and though the Japanese were not truly fighting for Asian freedom, the implication was clear to leaders around Asia: the Europeans are very mortal, and their time has passed.

5. The Attack on Pearl Harbor
This battle (and it was a Battle) defined how WWII would be fought. Pearl Harbor ensured that for Germany and Japan would only be allowed absolute, unconditional surrender (the decision to apply the same to Italy would come much, much later, at the rather bone-headed insistence of Anthony Eden). Had the Japanese merely attacked the Phillipines, or Malaysia, there may have been some room for a brokered peace with them. However the Surprise attack on Pearl Harbor had such an impact on the American Psyche, that unconditional surrender was the only outcome possible, heralding the nuclear age.

Antilogic, while I can't argue about Salamis, Constantinople/Tours and Hastings: the Teutoburg Forest and Ain Jalut? The Teutoburg Forest was not the decisive battle between between Rome and the Germanic tribes it was made out to be. Rome's failure to expand into modern Germany could almost be considered a foregone conclusion after the Gallic Wars. Ain Jalut itself was a minor battle - Mongol expansion by-and-large had abated to be replaced by squabbling and in-fighting. The Mongol horde was really only defeated by disease, internal problems and natural disasters. See the failed invasions of Japan and Java, or the invasion of Hungary.

I'm tired, and I picked some memorable ones. I'll come up with some more tomorrow. Vienna, the second siege of Constantinople (because of the hilarity of Constantine XI's defense), and others are also quite important.

1.The battle of Salamis - If lost, No Greek Culture, no romans to copy it, no reinassance

2.Battle of Hastings 1066AD - Created the "new" England

3.Defeat of the Spanish Armada 1588AD - Like Salamis, If lost, England would have been destroyed and never become a world superpower.

4.Battle of Tours - Muslim Moors stop expansion into France and Europe

5.Bombing of Pearl Harbour 1941AD - America joins WW2 with its military muscle.

6.Battle of Stalingrad 1942AD - Nazi's beaten back, russian advance to Berlin begins

7. First Crusade 1095AD - Europe exposed to things like spice and mirrors

1. Midway.
2. Marathon, indeed.
3. Austerlitz.
4. Dien Bien Phu http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tongue.gif
5. If I said 1515, nobody excepted ALL French people and Az would know. That's the most famous date that all the French know (and I do say everyone, no exception, surprisingly. Never understood why). So I'll just say Valmy Victory. This unexpected French Rebels victory over the rest of Tory Europe lead to the birth or Democracy. This Democracy then slowly spread over the other Europe countries. If this is not a great battle for mankind...

------------------
Genghis K.

Battle of Valmy was 1792, not 1515 as you wrote, that is plain wrong.

I would say when the Male Cavemen defeated the Female Cavemen, thus affecting all of human history, names, and languages that will ever be.

I think 1515 refers to the Battle of Marignano, but I don't know why anybody would put that among the five most important battles of all time. Or Austerlitz or Dien Bien Phu for that matter.

I would list up the following battles of importance to geopolitics and civilization spread:

Landbattles:

Ancient

The Battle of Actium, Allowing Augustus to unite the Roman Empire and create the civilizational basis we still see today.

Dark Ages

Battle of Mutah - 4 Arab Generals die in succession in this battle against Eastern Roman Empire, until Khalid ibn Al Walid takes over and becomes the greatest Islamic general. Without this battle, the arabs would be locked to the Arab Peninsula, which would be of global importance.

"The Muslims attacked the Byzantines at their camp by the village of Musharif and then withdrew towards Mu'tah. It was here that the two armies fought. During the battle, all three Muslim leaders fell one after the other as they took command of the force: first, Zayd ibn Haritha, then Jafar ibn Abi Talib, then Abdullah ibn Rawaha. Al-Bukhari reported that there were fifty stab wounds in Jafar's body, none of them in the back. After the death of the latter, the troops asked Thabit ibn Arkan to assume command; however, he declined and asked Khalid ibn al-Walid to take the lead.[5]"

Medieval Age

Sacking of Bagdad 1258 - Hulagu ruined the Arab psychology for all posterity by massacring more people than the Black Plague in the region, and removing most of what had been the Arab Golden Age.

Age of Discovery

Battle of Mexico city, allowing the Spanish Empire to dominate North America, thanks to Cortez, the demographics changed in the entire region

Age of Industrialization

Battle of Moscow - fundamentally ending the French domination in Europe, allowing Great Britain to dominate Earth with the ascending USA.

Modern Age

Battle of Stalingrad - fundamentally ending the German attempt to contest Anglo-American domination throughout the early 20th century

Marathon , any of the important Alexander the Great battles (i.e Gaugamela) , Salamis sea battle...Battle of Manzikert , Sicelean Campaign.(Not a battle but anyway).

Marathon
Saratoga
Stalingrad
Battle of Peking, 1930's
Pearl Harbor or Shanghai, can't decide which. Pearl Harbor propelled America into WWII and secured its place as the next superpower, along with blood sucking commies in the USSR, but Shanghai secured the fall of the british empire...hmmm...

Marathon
Saratoga
Stalingrad
Battle of Peking, 1930's
Pearl Harbor or Shanghai, can't decide which. Pearl Harbor propelled America into WWII and secured its place as the next superpower, along with blood sucking commies in the USSR, but Shanghai secured the fall of the british empire...hmmm...
Oh god, where to begin.
The battle of Peking was an unimportant battle, even in the context of the Sino-Japanese War. I can't even begin to fathom why its there.
Stalingrad I've discussed previously.
The Battle of Shanghai was important, but not at all for the reason you mentioned, which is flat out untrue.

Time and time again I say how pathetically unimportant the Battle of Marathon was. It is even a stretch to call it a battle. The Persians had a jolly good time plundering and looting Attica and surrounding lands. They then got on their ships and left. The Greeks then massacred the few remaining undisciplined, untrained levies.

I'd put Teutoberg above Marathon. At least that marked the end of serious Roman movement into Germany, however small and mismanaged the battle was.

Marathon bolstered the Athenian reputation, but the decisive battle of the Persian Wars was Salamis. Marathon wasn't decisive because it wasn't enough of a defeat to prevent the Persians from returning (which they did). Marathon is nothing more than a really good story, with a modern type of race named after it because of Phillipedes.

The individual lists of each poster tell you more about scope of knowledge, interests and the ideological inclinations possessed by each poster. I.e. popular history for Westerners consists of Greece and Rome and the modern period in Europe and its colonies and ex-colonies, with some excursions depending on how these have left an impression on the popular mind in the West.

But I don't think any of the battles mentioned had much impact on the course of civilization. I mean, I don't think battles tend to have much impact on that kind of thing. Potentially, I suppose, if Constantine the Great had died at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, there may have been no Universal Christian religion and no Islam, but another Roman emperor may have converted later, as Christianity was growing anyway in all the important places and had an inbuilt mechanisms which arguably guaranteed its dominance so long as no other religions had those mechanism.

Really, the question is an unfair one to ask, since our society (never mind any individual civfanatics poster) doesn't have the knowledge or ability to evaluate the matter. Most historical events are not known, the trail of cause and effect through history will only ever be vaguely understood and alternative courses will never ever be known at all.

The question should really be rephrased "Among the battles you know about, which five do you hold (to the extent you've ever thought about it) as being most important?". ;) Even then, the only benefit any reader will get is a knowledge of the respondent's historical awareness and inclinations; his understanding of history is unlikely to increase.

Of course, dozens of battles were mentioned, but I'll add another:

Cerignola, 1503. The first battle ever decided solely by firepower

Here's one list. I'm sure I'll think of a different one in an hour

1) Hastings
2) Adrianople
3) Tenochtitlan
4) Salamis
5) Saratoga

What was the battle where the Russians finally drove out Mongolia? That was pretty important. It marked the beginning of the end of their empire, and the end of their influence on the west.

Simply due to the time and cascade of events, more ancient battles typically have far more implications than modern ones. However, ancient battles also typically are important because they decide the clash of cultures, which have been rather few in the modern era. So here's my top five.

Okay, top six. So I couldn't narrow it down.

Salamis (480 BC): Everyone knows about this, obviously. The defense of western civilization against the evil menace of the East. Rather melodramatized, but still extremely important.

Talas River (751): The Chinese had quite the Central Asian Empire before the Arabs came along and had to ruin it. This one might have gone the other way, until a horde of mercenaries switched sides and helped kick the Chinese out of Soghdiana. China would never really recover overland dominance for some time, and went into something of a more seafaring focus.

Fall of Tenochtitlan (1521): I'm sure you all know about this one. Cortez conquers the Aztecs. Well, the truth is rather more complex than the tale everyone likes to weave: few Aztecs actually viewed Cortez as a god. They didn't attack him mostly because he didn't seem that much of a threat: it was a ragged band of a thousand men. The Aztecs had hundreds of times as many. It was only when Cortez became a rallying point for anti-Aztec sentiment that it became competitive. The battle was actually quite in the balance for a while here, and was mostly a native vs. native struggle. In the end, the Spanish won.

Tours/Poitiers (732): Very well known; the Franks stop the Arabs. While not significant in numbers, it blunted the advance, and the Arab raids from then on were just that: raids. Not forces which might be turned to conquest.

Siege of Constantinope (the earlier one, from 674-678. Constantinople, being a rather strategic point to put it lightly, actually underwent multiple sieges; this was the second major one): The Arabs were unable to breach the walls of Constantinople, and the Byzantines invented Greek Fire shortly thereafter. This marked a long series of failures of the Arabs to conquer Europe from the East. Not until 1453 did that bulwark of Constantinople fall.

Battle of Tarain (1192): This one will probably be a relative unknown. The Muslims from Persia, under Muhammad of Ghor, were invading India for the second time. Through clever tactics, Muhammad defeated Prithviraj, the Rajput commander. India's first defense line failed, and the Arabs gained a permanent foothold on the Indus. The raids throughout northern India that followed the Muslim victory were devastating for Hindu culture: temples were ransacked and torn to pieces. Immense treasure was lost, and confidence as well. Furthermore, India would be starkly divided by religion for a long while afterwards.

By the way, excellent thread to necromance.

Oops, I can't read.

Wouldn't Yarmouk be more significant than Tarain?

Battle of Moscow - fundamentally ending the French domination in Europe, allowing Great Britain to dominate Earth with the ascending USA.

What battle of Moscow?

1812 Moscow, where Napoleon lost.

1812 Moscow, where Napoleon lost.
Check your history book. First, there was no battle of Moscow. The closest was Borodino, which was a French victory.
Napoleon did not lost the battle, he lost the campaign.
There was no real battle in Moscow, their was a large fire, and the French had to withdraw as the Russians refused to battle (they fought only at Borodino). And the retreat proved catastrophic for Napoleon: disease, lack of supply, constant harrassing by the Russians lead to a melting of the Grand Armee.

Check your history book. First, there was no battle of Moscow. The closest was Borodino, which was a French victory.
Napoleon did not lost the battle, he lost the campaign.
There was no real battle in Moscow, their was a large fire, and the French had to withdraw as the Russians refused to battle (they fought only at Borodino). And the retreat proved catastrophic for Napoleon: disease, lack of supply, constant harrassing by the Russians lead to a melting of the Grand Armee.

Dont forget the winter! The famous sterotypical Russian winter that added the special cherry to the lists of horrible horrible luck. :)

Check your history book. First, there was no battle of Moscow. The closest was Borodino, which was a French victory.
Napoleon did not lost the battle, he lost the campaign.
There was no real battle in Moscow, their was a large fire, and the French had to withdraw as the Russians refused to battle (they fought only at Borodino). And the retreat proved catastrophic for Napoleon: disease, lack of supply, constant harrassing by the Russians lead to a melting of the Grand Armee.

Goes to show, you only take the field against a stronger, impermanent army if you are a complete idiot. Napoleon would have loved the Russians to have put out a full army against him, but they didn't. Cossacks bunking in Paris a few years later tells the story. :goodjob:

Goes to show, you only take the field against a stronger, impermanent army if you are a complete idiot.
Like in Austerlitz for instance?

Most important battles from 1000-2000 according to The World Almanac and Book of facts 2000:

1. Battle of Hastings
2. Battle of Ain Jalut (Mamluks stop Mongols from going further in the Middle East)
3. Battle of Hakata Bay (Mongol invasion of Japan fails due to Divine Wind, or storm)
4. Battle of Constantinople
5. Battle of Yorktown

Now to chronicle the most important battles in countries (Not overseas however)

America

1. Yorktown OR Saratoga
2. Yorktown OR Saratoga
3. Gettysburg
4. Indian Wars in general
5. Battle of Midway/Pearl Harbor (Convinced America to use carriers)

England

1. Battle of Hastings
2. Battle of Britain
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?

France

1. Battle of Waterloo?
2. Verdun
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?

Germany

1. Reformation?
2. D-Day? (Influenced Germany, caused fall of Third Reich)
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?

Spain

1. Fall of Spanish Armada
2. Latin America colonization
3. Losing Latin America
4. ?
5. The Spanish Inquisition?

Wouldn't Yarmouk be more significant than Tarain?

No, but it might be more significant than the Siege of Constantinople, Poitiers, or the River Talas. Tarain was the defining battle in Indian history, which, while overlooked by many historians, is still very important (in my opinion). Yarmouk would probably be a good one to include with Poitiers, River Talas, and Constantinople in the Arabic campaigns, but putting four battles from the Muslim expansion in a list of the seven most decisive would be a little skewed, I think. As it is, my list is very biased towards certain periods of history.

Most important battles from 1000-2000 according to The World Almanac and Book of facts 2000:

3. Battle of Hakata Bay (Mongol invasion of Japan fails due to Divine Wind, or storm)

The Mongols weren't that bad, and a conquest of Japan would have been short lived, and not changed much. This shouldn't even be in the top twenty.

5. Battle of Yorktown

Much less important than Saratoga. Saratoga was a turning point; Yorktown was a rather more inevitable affair.

2. Verdun

This was a battle where both sides bled themselves dry, hardly a decisive one. Unless you mean that both the French and the Germans lost so many troops that it ensured a longer stalemate.

1. Reformation?

Battle?

Wow, The World Almanac and Book of facts 2000 was written by some real dumbarses :lol: Three very unimportant battles.

Wow, The World Almanac and Book of facts 2000 was written by some real dumbarses :lol: Three very unimportant battles.

Indeed, and considering the Reformation and Inquisition as "battles" is just way too much. Plus it wasn't D-Day that caused the fall of the Third Reich but rather the Battle of Berlin. Plus Latin American colonization did not consist mostly of major battles (except in Mexico).

Here's my choice for French battles

(1) Bouvines. Confirmed the conquests of English possessions in northern France and made the King of France dominant in his own country. Also crucial in the weakening of the Holy Roman Empire, which was France's chief rival in continental Europe.

(2) Orleans. Everyone knows what happened there.

*Tours. Not numbered because it's a battle of the Frankish Empire. The defeat of Arab sieges of Constantinople were more important in stopping the advance of the Caliphate.

(3) Leipzig.

(4) First battle of the Marne.

(5) Rocroi. Pretty much ended Spain's period as a great power.

Honorable mention: Crecy, which established the temporary dominance of the longbow.
Castillon, for its role in the development of artillery.
Sedan.
Blenheim. Did show Louis XIV's armies were vincible, but France recovered a lot before the end of the war.
Verdun.

Much less important than Saratoga. Saratoga was a turning point; Yorktown was a rather more inevitable affair.





While Saratoga was a major victory, it didn't guarantee victory. The British had several major victories towards the end of the war, and the war could of easily gone their way if not for York Town.

While Saratoga was a major victory, it didn't guarantee victory. The British had several major victories towards the end of the war, and the war could of easily gone their way if not for York Town.

Could have. However, it was unlikely that if the British won, or if the battle hadn't been fought, that they would have peacefully taken over the colonies. It would have been a bloody, long drawn-out affair. Saratoga, on the other hand, was probably the most decisive battle in that war. If we had lost that, then the French most likely never would have helped, and America would never have become independent.

How about the Battle of Sedan?

What about the Stand of Ugra River or the Battle of Kulikovo? If it weren't for them, the Mongols might have conquered the entire known world.

What about the Stand of Ugra River or the Battle of Kulikovo? If it weren't for them, the Mongols might have conquered the entire known world.

They conquered such a big piece of the world and I dont see myself speaking Mongolian. The mongol empire would collaspe anyway under its huge size

From what I know, Mongolia was pretty stable despite its enormous size. It was the division of their loyalties into the separate hordes, and thus the military defeats that ended them.

From what I know, Mongolia was pretty stable despite its enormous size. It was the division of their loyalties into the separate hordes, and thus the military defeats that ended them.

Well it was that BIG! Even the mighty roman empire could not support guarding of the borders after a while, the strain of the pays given put the empire in finacial problems and when someone invaded, every solider is too busy defending the border than actually kicking the enemy out. Surely sooner it will meet the same doom of the Roman empire from its sheer size

Yeah, well, there was also resistance to Mongol rule. Imagine if the Mongols lived in western Russia rather than east Asia, perhaps they could've conquered Europe. ;)

Yeah, well, there was also resistance to Mongol rule. Imagine if the Mongols lived in western Russia rather than east Asia, perhaps they could've conquered Europe. ;)

no, they needed to steal, I mean borrow technology of gunpowder and city sieging from china

Yeah, well, there was also resistance to Mongol rule. Imagine if the Mongols lived in western Russia rather than east Asia, perhaps they could've conquered Europe. ;)

Also, western europe might have been invaded if Ögedei Khan had not died during Mongol conquest of europe (which led Mongols return to his burial); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96gedei_Khan

Also, western europe might have been invaded if Ögedei Khan had not died during Mongol conquest of europe (which led Mongols return to his burial); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96gedei_Khan

West Europe has been spared twice, once when Genghis died, other when Ogedei died. Lucky bastards. The mongols should have crush the atempts to be enlighten!!!

It is difficult to name only 5 battles which were so important. Anyway I try it. But all are already mentioned though.

1. Salamis: Greek independence and culture would have been in severe troubles if the battle was lost.
2. Battle of Zama: A Roman defeat could have brought an end to the Roman expansion.
3. Teutoburg Forest: Although only the starting of a whole campaign leading eventually to the stop of Roman expansion in Germany. Indeed there were several other battles later and only because of other heavy defeats the Romans retreated finally. A Roman victory would have lead to a further expansion of the empire in Germany with the Elbe river as next step. And even further?
4. Poitiers: The Arab expansion into Europe was stopped.
5. Conquest of Jerusalem in the First Crusade: The contact with oriental things influenced European civilization dramatically.
6. Manzikert: The loss of vast areas in Anatolia lead to the end of the East Roman Empire in 1453 and the eventual rise of Islam in Europe and the Near East.
7. Liegnitz: Well the defeat of a German Polish army actually happened and only the death of Ögedei lead to the end of Mongol expansion in Europe.
8. Second Siege of Vienna: Stop of Ottoman expansion in Europe.
9. Mollwitz 1741: Actually only the first battle in a series of 3 wars over the rulership of Silesia. But it gave Frederic the Great the possibility of holding the province in three wars making Prussia a power and leading to an eventual counter power of Austria in Germany. (Although here were more battles to name like Leuthen or Roßbach or Hohenfriedberg, but none of them really deciding).
10. Valley Forge: The turning point of the American War of Independence.
11. Jena and Auerstedt: Leading to the end of the Ancien régime in Prussia and to reforms of Prussia to defeat eventually Napoleon later.
12. Leipzig 1813: The Vielvölkerschlacht, the end of Napoleon power. His campaign in 1815 was doomed even if he won Waterloo, as neither the Swedes, Austrians and Russians engaged him.
13. Antietam: Leading to the end of slavery in North America and a morale propaganda bonus to the USA, although the battle was more ending indecisive.
14. Königgrätz: The elimination of Austria as dominant power in Germany leading to a united Germany under Prussian dominance.
15. Vionville: The French Marshall Bazaine was unable to break through thin German lines and could not join the French main army group. That lead to the end of his Rhine Army and was a massive setback for the French defeat, which eventually came at Sedan.
16. Tsushima: Well, that Russian squadron was doomed, the war already decided. It is only mentioned as symbol of the decline of the Czarist empire and the rise of the Rising Sun.
17. Tannenberg 1914: The loss of that battle lead to the end of all Russian offenses on German soil for over 30 years. It was also the first step to the end of the Russian czarist empire in 1917.
18. Marne, 1914: The loss of that battle would have meant the fall of Paris and the French defeat ending ww1 in a few weeks.
19. Kursk 1943: The end of German offensive abilities in the East and the true turning point of the war.
20. D-Day: Preventing half of Europe becoming communistic.

There are other battles to name and perhaps some you can discuss. But you see to name all most important battles you need much more than 5.

Adler

From what I know, Mongolia was pretty stable despite its enormous size. It was the division of their loyalties into the separate hordes, and thus the military defeats that ended them.

Mongolia was only really stable because most of the land it occupied was steppe: which is exactly the home terrain that they were used to. In every other place (China, Iran, etc.), they lost ground as they were rapidly assimilated.

Generally the further you go back in time the more impact events have on the present day.

Zama wasn't all that important a battle, as Carthage had already been virtually defeated at the time. Metaurus, however, stopped Hannibal from being reinforced in Italy and effectively ended any threat on Rome itself (the only way Carthage could win the war).

My personal top five:

Salamis
Gaugamela
Metaurus
Actium
Adrianople