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

Here is my list. Its hard to pinpoint just 5. Overall I would say Kadesh, Salamis, Badr, Saratoga, and Hastings.



Kadesh 1274bc---had the Hittites won, the Holy Land wouldn't have ever been filled with Jews. All 3 great monotheistic religions trace their past back to the ancient Jewish people.

Salamis 480bc--saved the future of Western Civilization. Greek thought would have perished.

Pydna 148bc--forever made Greece a subordinate in the Mediterranean

Actium 31bc--forever made Rome an Empire and not a Republic

Teutoburg Forest 9ad--Had Rome conquered Germania and expanded its boundaries to the Elbe or the Oder, there may not have been a dark ages as the 'barbarians' would have become civilized.

Adrianople 379ad--beginning of the end for the Empire

Badr 624ad--probably the smallest great battle in terms of numbers but had Muhammed lost, he may not have been recognized as a prophet and may not have been able to unite the Arabian peninsula.

Yarmuk 636ad--The Eastern Roman Empire lost Syria for ever. Had they won at Yarmouk the Holy Land would have remained Christian.

Hastings 1054ad--brought England into the Continental fold. Before that it had been part of the Norse world. Without the Normanization of England, it never would have been the great power it was destined to become.

Manzikert 1070ad--destroyed the Byzantines in Anatolia and from then on, Asia Minor and eastern Europe would be conquered by the Turks.

Tenochtitlan 1521ad--had the Aztecs wiped the Spaniards out they could have reformed their empire using Spanish weapons and potentially made Mexico completely different than what we know today.

Saratoga 1777ad--turning point in the American revolution. The USA probably wouldn't be here had it not been for this battle

Waterloo 1815ad--doomed Napoleon and remade Europe

Stalingrad 1942ad--turning point in Russia. The USSR probably would not survived had it not been for the bungling of Paulus.

Pydna 148bc--forever made Greece a subordinate in the Mediterranean
Date is wrong here, it's 168 BC(E). And I think that Roman victory over Makedonia after Kynoskephalai was pretty much preordained, unless Antiochos III intervened; as it happened, his army was broken at Magnesia, in a rather close-run thing; hence I'd rate that battle higher than Pydna. Realistically, Perseus did about as well as he can have expected during the Third War; a victory at Pydna would not have changed things much in the long run. Makedonia was still unable to take the fight to Italia, much less the Roman Western Mediterranean empire.
Adrianople 379ad--beginning of the end for the Empire
378. :p And here, the victory was rather minor. It is rather difficult to claim that a defeat of the Eastern Roman military can have made the destruction of the Western Roman empire inevitable, hein?
Hastings 1054ad
1066 (and All That).
Waterloo 1815ad--doomed Napoleon and remade Europe
Leipzig was of greater import. The Hundred Days was a fluke, and there were more Allied armies on the way even if Wellington and Blücher had been defeated.

Leipzig was of greater import. The Hundred Days was a fluke, and there were more Allied armies on the way even if Wellington and Blücher had been defeated.
I agree, Leipzig was the real doom of Napoleon.
After that, everything was only the singing of the swan.

Apparently I never posted my own most important engagements. Hmm, that's a pretty glaring error. Time to rectify it. No, there is no order.

Battle of Magnesia, 190 BC(E) - The epic clash between the Seleukid dynasty, last of the powerful Hellenistic states, and the Roman republic and its allies, the Roman victory at Magnesia paved the way for the Roman assumption of dominance as arbiters of their Mare Nostrum. The third Antiochos, who was called Megas, held all the advantages going into battle; his soldiers were battle-hardened from campaigns that had seen them battle in Asia Mikra, Hellas, Syria, and even on Antiochos' great anabasis into Persia that saw him subdue and vassalize the Pahlavan and Baktria, as well as a treaty of concord with the Indian dynast Subhagasena. He had fearsome chariots, elephants, the cavalry advantage, and twenty thousand more men than his opponent. But he made a mistake in even fighting the battle at all, and a few critical errors in deployment - failing to keep his cavalry on a tight leash, as at Ipsos and Raphia, and misplacing his chariots - secured the Romani the victory and pushed his frontiers back to the Taurus Mountains.

Battle of Issos, 333 BC(E) - The first, and probably more decisive, engagement between Darayavahus III and the armies of the Korinthian koinon, led by the hegemon and Makedonian king Alexandros Megas. Having crushed the armies of the western satraps at the Granikos the previous year, Alexandros had liberated both the coast and the interior of Asia Mikra and was advancing towards the Levant when the Great King cut across his line of communications and forced him to engage in battle. Despite having a strategical disadvantage, and not doing so great in his tactical position, Alexandros, by a combination of his father's brilliant tactical system in the reorganization of the phalanx and his own daring cavalry maneuvers, won the day anyway, ensured the conquest of half the Persian empire, and ruined the cream of the royal Persian army. By comparison, his later victory of Gaugamela, fought against last-second levies and the cast-offs of the previous army, was nearly easy.

Battle of Salamis, 480 BC(E) - The last classical battle on the list (I promise!), featuring a great naval fight between the last fleet of the allied Hellenic poleis and the armada of the Persian Great King Xsayarsa. Crushing the last hope that the Eastern monarch had of subjugating Hellas, and probably by extension of quashing the first sparks of Western civilization (though that effect may be somewhat overrated: meh), Salamis also provided the springboard for Athenai to establish her great naval empire, which would last until the defeat of Syrakousai in 413 BC(E) ruined her naval supremacy and allowed Sparte to initiate the great Aigion revolts. The outnumbered Hellenic ships ably sprung a trap, by first inducing the Persians to dispatch some of their best squadrons off the battlefield by a ruse, and then drew the remainder into the straits between Salamis and Attika, whereupon the combination of a flank attack and the superb Hellenic hoplitai marines secured victory. So yeah: sparking the Hellenic Golden Age, and turning back the greatest land empire of the time - a pretty impressive fight.

Battle of Yarmuk, 636 - The fight by the Rashidun Caliphate to hold onto Syria from the Eastern Roman Empire, which obviously wanted it back, turned into a sign of much more than that; after the Arab victory at Yarmuuk, it was impossible to hold back the tide of Muslim conquest in the Middle East and North Africa. Despite being outnumbered, Khalid ibn al-Walid's superior generalship and then a Clausewitzian transit from defense to blistering offense on the final day of the battle, in which the exhausted Roman kataphraktoi were outmaneuvered by the lighter Arab shock cavalry, proved decisive in securing the victory. One of the largest and greatest empires in world history was ensured by the Rashidun victory here, though it would not prove to be the end of the defeated, either; the Romans began clawing their way back from the brink to reemerge fully following the great victory of Leon Isaurios in 717.

Battle of Chaldiran, 1514 - One of the largest-scale battles of its time (by its demographic impact alone it would be worthy of inclusion; I jest, but only partly), Chaldiran, fought between Selim the Grim's modern Ottoman army, and the Iranian levies of the Safavid shah Ismail I, proved the defining moment in Iran's perpetual westward struggles. Though the Safavids' qizilbash cavalry (which unlike the janissaries the Ottomans commanded, refused to use firearms) were shredded, and the battle was mostly not in doubt, it had tremendous implications both religiously and geopolitically. Iran, outside of a transitory greatness under the shahs Abbas I and later Nadr Qoli Beg, would not expand beyond the frontier delineated by Chaldiran; it remains, more or less, the boundary today. Too, Ismail, disheartened by the defeat and unable to seriously claim the mantle of Mahdi, put greater emphasis on Twelver Shi'ism, which gained even more ground in Iran, until it became the dominant ranch of Islam in the country as can be seen today.

God dammit. I just lost about an hours' worth of writing. Here are my five battles, maybe I'll come back and explain them when I cool down some more.

Battle of Kursk, 1943 AD.

Abbasid Civil War/Siege of Baghdad, 865 AD

Battle of Petrovaradin, 1716 AD

Sulla's First March on Rome, 88-87 BC

Battle of Chaeronea, 338 BC

Good list. I would be interested to see why Peterwardein is rated so highly.

1. Battle of Stalingrad (you must know everything about it if you live in Russia)
Comments: The Battle of Stalingrad was the Bloodiest Battle in history with a total of over 1 million lives lost. The Soviets Won and if it had been a loss Hitler Would Have Marched all over The World

Well Thats the only one that i think is Important

I agree, Leipzig was the real doom of Napoleon.
After that, everything was only the singing of the swan.
Well the loss at Leipzig was heavily determined by the terrible loss in Russia. Had Borodino been more decisive or had Napoleon stopped at Smolensk, or, better yet, had he never invaded history would have been very different.

Good list. I would be interested to see why Peterwardein is rated so highly.

I haven't the foggiest why I picked it actually. Let's swap it out for

Well the loss at Leipzig was heavily determined by the terrible loss in Russia. Had Borodino been more decisive or had Napoleon stopped at Smolensk, or, better yet, had he never invaded history would have been very different.

It's funny, really, because it was something as simple as the placement of the Russian guns; they were put at an odd place where they were only about to participate for about half the battle; after the French advanced past the first redoubt, they lost contact; for all the hell they gave the French (it was reported that they made entire batallions "simply disappear" by their fine gunnery), they could have done so much more had they been somewhere else.

D-Day
Gettysburg
capture of Yanjing
Tours (aka-Poitiers)
Poltava (important enough to get mentioned, IMO)

EDIT:

how could I forget

Warsaw-Poland stopped the Reds from invading Europe in the 20s

-Stalingrad- Nazi advance definitively pushed back, started the long retreat to Berlin

-Marne-Brought about the long and bloody WWI, influencing pretty much everything untill then

-Hastings-English kings, etc.

-Spanish Armada-began English naval supremacy

-Napoleon's march to Moscow-army shattered, big defeat, russia remains defiant to fight back (kind of tying with Trafalgar, with similar ramifications for Britain)

-honorable mention:Gettysburg, Lexington, El Alamein, whatever battle Alexander was injured (and eventually killed) in, Battle of Britain, Midway, Tenochlitan)
Unfortunately I'm not particularly familiar with ancient history, and I'm sure I'm missing something there.

-Spanish Armada-began English naval supremacy
That 'English naval supremacy' is highly overrated. Besides, the fleet of Elizabeth I was nowhere to be seen during the reigns of the Stuart kings, and had to be resurrected by the Commonwealth.
-Napoleon's march to Moscow-army shattered, big defeat, russia remains defiant to fight back (kind of tying with Trafalgar, with similar ramifications for Britain)
Any one single battle in that campaign you were thinking of? Borodino? The battles of Polotsk? The Berezina?

It's funny, really, because it was something as simple as the placement of the Russian guns; they were put at an odd place where they were only about to participate for about half the battle; after the French advanced past the first redoubt, they lost contact; for all the hell they gave the French (it was reported that they made entire batallions "simply disappear" by their fine gunnery), they could have done so much more had they been somewhere else.Borodino was "won" by the Russians through tenacious defense and a less than effective offensive by the French. The battlefield was a rather "cramped" one by typical standards of the day and favored the defense given the large armies on the field. The Russian artillery reserve, which was a huge collection of guns, was never properly deployed during the battle because its commander, Kutaisov, was killed early in the day leading a counter attack around the redoubt.

Well the loss at Leipzig was heavily determined by the terrible loss in Russia. Had Borodino been more decisive or had Napoleon stopped at Smolensk, or, better yet, had he never invaded history would have been very different.
I consider Leipzig more important, because of some events like the betrayal of Saxony right in the middle of the battle.

Russia was a great loss, that paved the way to Leipzig, the turning point.

India:

1. The First and Second Battles of Tararin
2. The three battles of Panipat
3. The Battle of Plassey
4. The Battle of Tailkota
5. The Seige of Delhi

Everyone seems to be listing only western battles. How about:

1. Sekigahara (1600) - effectively unified Japan under Tokugawa Ieyasu (although minor fighting would continue for another three years) and marked the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate.

2. The Long March Campaign (1934-35) - Basically a retreat, it saved the Chinese Red Army from destruction by the Kuomintang under Chang Kai Shek and marked the emergence of Mao Zedong as a major Chinese Communist leader.

I haven't the foggiest why I picked it actually. Let's swap it out for

I will amend this statement by substituting the 751 Battle of Talas, between the Abbasid and Tang Empires.

1.Termopyle - Greek stoping of Persian empire and western civilization beginning.
2.Battle of Zama - Roman turn point from a Republic to an empire
3.Battle of Tours - Stoping of Moor expansion by the Franks
4.Battle of Aljubarrota - Defeat of invading Spanish and beginning of the portuguese empire
5. Battle of the Chesapeake - French naval victory over British forces ensuring the end of The American Independance War and enabling the growth of a new world power.

I will amend this statement by substituting the 751 Battle of Talas, between the Abbasid and Tang Empires.
I was thinking about including that one instead of Chaldiran, but outside of the introduction of paper (admittedly a huge and rather important thing), I always heard that the situation in Turkestan didn't change all that much, politically; Ferghana sent troops to fight against An Lushan only a few years later, after all, so the Arabs failed to break the vassalization.

People keep mentioning the Battle of Tours as if it were somehow important. This is not the case. The Umayyad forces met there were a raiding party that was out to plunder parts of southern France and steal what they could, then hightail it back to Al-Andalus. They never had any intention of invading France or the rest of Europe; the first Muslims to do this were the Ottomans, nearly a millenia later.

Dachs, I seem to remember the Abbasids facing a revolt in the Hejaz early on (751 was only one year after Abu Muslim stormed Demashq), so that might explain why the subsequent operations in the Transoxiana-Altai area didn't get the attention they did before.

People keep mentioning the Battle of Tours as if it were somehow important. This is not the case. The Umayyad forces met there were a raiding party that was out to plunder parts of southern France and steal what they could, then hightail it back to Al-Andalus. They never had any intention of invading France or the rest of Europe; the first Muslims to do this were the Ottomans, nearly a millenia later.

Dachs, I seem to remember the Abbasids facing a revolt in the Hejaz early on (751 was only one year after Abu Muslim stormed Demashq), so that might explain why the subsequent operations in the Transoxiana-Altai area didn't get the attention they did before.

but it did boosted Karel Martel's prestige and Pippin the short could capitalise on it, especially with the pope.

Without the Normanization of England, it never would have been the great power it was destined to become.:mad::mad::mad:[pissed]


Chaldiran [...]Selim the Grim [...] janissaries[...] Ottomans

Surely you mean Çaldıran, Yavuz Sultan Selim, yeniçeri and Osmanlı. Or do Turks not warrant native names? ;)

Anyway:

Las Navas de Tolosa, 1212
The Reconquista was not yet a foregone conclusion. Half of Iberia was still Islamic, and twenty years earlier, Yaqub al-Mansur had inflicted upon the Christians their greatest defeat since Guadalete, and only luck saved Toledo. In 1211, al-Mansur's son was back, with an even larger army, to have another go. The Crusader force gathered to oppose him included contingents from every Christian power in Iberia, and significant trans-Pyreneean components. The Crusaders caught the Almohads by surprise and slaughtered them nearly to a man, with the Emir escaping by the skin of his teeth. The Almohads entered terminal decline, and the close duel between Muslim and Christian Iberia became a rout, as all Andalusia save Grenada fell to the Great Reconquest in the next forty years.

Nancy, 1477
In 1475, Burgundy was probably the most powerful state in Europe. The conquest of Lorraine and Alsace, to which Charles then turned his attentions, would have united the two halves of Burgundy, secured the entire length of the Rhine, assured Burgundy's place as the dominant power in both France and the HRE, and probably brought a crown. Of course, Lorraine allied with the Swiss. Charles and his splendid army met their end, as so many others, at the end of a Swiss pike, and instead Burgundy rapidly disintegrated. The Burgundian collapse completely altered the future shape of Europe, and the ramifications were not fully realized for at least another two hundred years.

Edington, 878
The winter attack by Guthrum's Vikings caught Alfred by surprise. He was nearly captured at Chippenham and had to run for it with a handful of followers. For somewhat more than three months, Alfred hid out in the Somerset Levels while the Danes had the possession of country. When spring arrived, Alfred summoned the militias of the country and crushed Guthrum. The victory saved Wessex and virtually established England; the consequences of defeat scarcely bear thinking about.

Lechfield, 955
Not so much for the battle itself. The Magyar threat had been receding for some time. The Lech campaign was something of a last gasp by the Magyar leadership, and if memory serves they'd gotten their arse kicked by the Bavarians a year or two earlier. What Lechfield did was firmly establish Otto as the de facto Emperor; Widukind of Corvey of course credited it entirely with his elevation. Had the battle not occurred, or had Otto lost, it seems likely that he would never have received the Imperial title. It need scarcely be said that without the Empire, and the vague oecumenical claims that came with it, the whole history of Germany and Europe would have been very different.

Lincoln, 1217
Bit of a wild card, and not really sure about it - Dover holding out might be more important. Anyway, Prince Louis of France, the future Louis VII, invaded England in 1216 at the invitation of the barons rebelling against King John - the Magna Carta having failed to quiet the situation. He quickly defeated the opposition and for a few months was the de facto King of England. John's death undermined the rebellion, and barons began returning to the young Henry III. Henry's regent, incidentally, was William Marshal, whose life story is one of the more interesting of the middle ages. Louis' forces were defeated by Marshal's at Lincoln, and the Frenchman was forced to abandon England.

Honorable Mentions: Pavia, Brunanburh, Diu, the Downs, Bosworth Field.

Plus Catalaunian Fields, Soissons, Tours, Lepanto, Vienna and Trafalgar, of course.

People keep mentioning the Battle of Tours as if it were somehow important. This is not the case. The Umayyad forces met there were a raiding party that was out to plunder parts of southern France and steal what they could, then hightail it back to Al-Andalus. They never had any intention of invading France or the rest of Europe; the first Muslims to do this were the Ottomans, nearly a millenia later.I agree in broad terms, but there are a couple of problems with this view. First, pretty much the same thing could be said about Tariq's initial expedition to Hispania. It was only intended to scope things out, really, but when it far exceeded its initial goals the Arabs took advantage. If Charles Martel loses at Tours, there is no other effective power in Francia, and no one to coordinate resistance. Do you really think the Arabs wouldn't have tried to take advantage? Also, the claim that it was a one-off raiding party is disingenuous in the extreme. After consolidating their rule in Hispania, the Arabs mounted a concerted effort to extend their rule north of the Pyrenees, starting with the conquest of the rump Visigothic state in 718-19, and continuing through the attacks on Odo of Aquitaine that forced him to run to Martel, and the conquest of Provence. Five years after Tours, the Umayyads were in Avignon. At the very least, Tours kept France's Mediterranean coastline out of Muslim hands.

but it did boosted Karel Martel's prestige and Pippin the short could capitalise on it, especially with the pope.

So did the Battle of Fornovo for Charles VIII of France, and they both had similar overall strategic results, yet it is not listed here.

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

I think you should at least have 10 battles. (But, on the other hand, I don't think battles decide history, so there you go.)

Surely you mean Çaldıran, Yavuz Sultan Selim, yeniçeri and Osmanlı. Or do Turks not warrant native names? ;)
That involves using non-Latin characters. ;)
Vienna
Which Vienna?
I think you should at least have 10 battles.
I don't think that the number should be set at any one specific number, and that the whole Creasyan tradition of "X Battles that Decided History" is silly.
(But, on the other hand, I don't think battles decide history, so there you go.)
That is because you are close-minded? :p While many battles do not have macrohistorical impact, and are simply the result of trends - the aforementioned ChÇaldıran probably being one of them - there are still instances of single events giving rise to major consequences. You cannot, for example, seriously claim that Roman dominance in the Mediterranean (Mesogeios? :p) would still have occurred had they been unable to force their will on the greatest of the Hellenistic princes, the third Antiochos himself. Defeat at Magnesia allowed the Romani to be certain of their position in the East (albeit briefly disturbed by the Third Makedonian War; that latter conflict was foregone, as far as I'm concerned, for Perseus was already running low on men and simply hadn't the resources that were at the disposal of Roma) for at least a century, allowed Euthydemos and his son Demetrios to recover from the humiliation of the Areios, and opened the door for the Pahlavan to begin their great conquest of Iran.

That involves using non-Latin characters. ;)

No, they are called diacritics. ;) K, y, j, u, w are non-Latin characters. :p

No, they are called diacritics. ;) K, y, j, w are non-Latin characters. :p
Fine. It involves something that I can't type on my keyboard without having to resort to weird codes, and since I don't have the ability to do alt-codes on this laptop (infuriatingly; I actually know many of those), I must recourse to "the closest transliteration I feel like using". Since the ctrl-codes aren't as easy to use as alt-codes are.

Don't worry. I was just being a smartass. :) Just felt like posting that because I think I know quite a lot about history of various characters and alphabets.

I don't think that the number should be set at any one specific number, and that the whole Creasyan tradition of "X Battles that Decided History" is silly.

That is because you are close-minded? :p While many battles do not have macrohistorical impact, and are simply the result of trends - the aforementioned ChÇaldıran probably being one of them - there are still instances of single events giving rise to major consequences. You cannot, for example, seriously claim that Roman dominance in the Mediterranean (Mesogeios? :p) would still have occurred had they been unable to force their will on the greatest of the Hellenistic princes, the third Antiochos himself. Defeat at Magnesia allowed the Romani to be certain of their position in the East (albeit briefly disturbed by the Third Makedonian War; that latter conflict was foregone, as far as I'm concerned, for Perseus was already running low on men and simply hadn't the resources that were at the disposal of Roma) for at least a century, allowed Euthydemos and his son Demetrios to recover from the humiliation of the Areios, and opened the door for the Pahlavan to begin their great conquest of Iran.

Battles are the result of military (tactical and/or strategic) superiority; it's that quality that decides the outcome of battles. (As Sun Tzu already noticed.)

id say mongol victory at samarkand because then then europe had a crossable bridge to china, india, indochina which was the spark that would set off european exploration

also hittite victory at babylon because it wiped out one of the most influential and culturally developed early civilizations

Battles are the result of military (tactical and/or strategic) superiority; it's that quality that decides the outcome of battles. (As Sun Tzu already noticed.)
Except not? The army of the Antigonoi at Ipsos had a larger and better trained phalanx, and the cavalry superiority as well; their enemies were divided in command, too. Antigonos had proved himself an excellent commander, as had his opponents, and it is generally agreed that based on the personalities of the respective commanders, it is impossible to judge one higher than the other. Yet, whether by a whim or caught up in the heat of the moment, his son Demetrios took the entire right wing of cavalry (in which was contained the greater part of the army's horsemen, having been reinforced specifically to win a local victory and then make capital off it) and chased the enemy left (under the first Antiochos) off the field, instead of using them to clear out the enemy light infantry and then outflank the allied phalanx. I fail to see how that indicates any sort of inherent tactical or strategic superiority on the part of the allied forces, and yet the outcome of the engagement had macrohistorical effects.

By the same token, the outcome at Magnesia was by no means predetermined. Megas Antiochos, it is generally agreed, would have crushed the Romani and their Pergamene allies had he not committed Demetrios' mistake and pursued his local enemy. The entire foundation of Roman superiority in the Eastern Mediterranean lay on that single battle; without its issue, the Seleukidai would have held Asia Mikra still, the troublesome easterners would be kept in their place, and you can hardly say that Antiochos IV would have been stopped at Eleusis from his conquest of the kingdom of the Ptolemaioi by a single Roman envoy with a walking stick.

This is getting tiresome. I have provided multiple examples where tactical decisionmaking, irrespective of the systems of war employed by the respective armies, has had macrohistorical impact; all I get in return is a parroting of Sun Tzu. Please cite how the Roman military machine was inherently superior to that of the Seleukidai, and how that guaranteed victory at the aforementioned Battle of Magnesia. Or cite an equivalent statistic for Ipsos. Perhaps you would deign to describe how, without the naval control Salamis guaranteed, the Hellenes in koine would have survived the onslaught of the armies and fleets of Xsayarsa - especially when those fleets were manned by some of the best sailors of the day, the 'purple people' of Canaan - and how that engagement was not decided by Themistokles' ruses, both operational and tactical. And I would be delighted to learn of how Aquae Sextiae was not the result of the maneuverings of Marius, but instead of an inherent superiority of the Romani system of war - the same system, I would have you know, that saw eighty thousand legionaries slaughtered at Arausio against the selfsame enemy. For that matter, describe how Arausio was the result of a Cimbri inherent, predictable superiority, instead of the decision of the patrician Q. Servilius Caepio to disregard his novus homo colleague.

You're quite versed in military history details, I'll grant you. I'll give you one example to explain: you mention yourself the superior Roman military machine - which is the deciding factor -; the Romans ususally won their battles (and if they didn't, they'd recover and try again). Now, the Seleucids weren't destroyed by Rome, but by the Parthians (who took over most of the Seleucid empire). The Romans just finished off the remains. Thinking there was any "decisive battle" in there is just missing the bigger picture; there wasn't any and the outcome was decided before any battle was fought. (Sorry, Sun Tzu again.)

If you think one example won't cut it, I can go on. (And on and on...)

People keep mentioning the Battle of Tours as if it were somehow important. This is not the case. The Umayyad forces met there were a raiding party that was out to plunder parts of southern France and steal what they could, then hightail it back to Al-Andalus. They never had any intention of invading France or the rest of Europe; the first Muslims to do this were the Ottomans, nearly a millenia later.

This is an eminently silly thing to say. The Arabs also never had any intention of conquering Spain; that campaign started out as a simple raid, meant to plunder the land. And what happened? Well, we all know what happened... Likewise, many other conquests started out as mere raids; Poitiers was the northernmost advance of Muslim forces for centuries, and deserves some recognition just for that fact.

id say mongol victory at samarkand because then then europe had a crossable bridge to china, india, indochina which was the spark that would set off european exploration

Eh, there were rather more decisive battles where the Mongols are concerned. And Samarkand wasn't ever in too much doubt.

The Umayyad forces met there were a raiding party that was out to plunder parts of southern France and steal what they could, then hightail it back to Al-Andalus.
Poitiers / Tours is a bit north for Southern France.

You're quite versed in military history details, I'll grant you. I'll give you one example to explain: you mention yourself the superior Roman military machine - which is the deciding factor -; the Romans ususally won their battles (and if they didn't, they'd recover and try again).
Except I said "superior Roman military machine" facetiously. Think of the Hellenistic system of war as a rainbow; the Romani only had a few colors of that rainbow. Roma had excellent flexible heavy infantry...but the Hellenic states did too. Ever hear about the thureophoroi and the later evolution of them, the thorakitai? The Romani called them 'imitation legionaries', but the tradition actually evolved out of the Iphikratid lighter hoplitai and the heavy peltastai skirmishers. Hellenistic cavalry was consistently better than that of the Romani, from the Thessalian cavalry employed by Makedonia to the Syrian household cavalry that the Seleukidai used. The phalanx, as is well known, is impenetrable from the front on flat ground. Essentially, the Romani were up against a combined-arms warfare tactical system that, if used properly, couldn't be defeated.

Stating that the Romani "usually won their battles" is also kind of disingenuous. For example, the history of the Third Makedonian War, in which Perseus was finally defeated and his kingdom broken up, is one in which several Roman armies were beaten (one of the things that induced the fourth Antiochos to invade the kingdom of the Ptolemaioi, and successfully), but one engagement - that of Pydna - went the Roman way, and ended up deciding the war. And of course, during the Second Punic War, they lost most of the engagements as well. Roma wasn't an unbeaten colossus at any time, and you acknowledged that; they learned from their mistakes, and you acknowledged that too. The Greeks, too, learned from their mistakes. After the defeat of Kynoskephalai, where the Makedonians were undone due to the rough terrain, which hindered their left wing's deployment, Philippos V instituted the system of the hysteroi pezhetairoi, which were better suited to mountain warfare. It was this force that aided the Makedonian victories in the third war, and it was their failure to be backed up by an effective cavalry force, as well as attrition in general, which spelled the Makedonian demise at Pydna.
Now, the Seleucids weren't destroyed by Rome, but by the Parthians (who took over most of the Seleucid empire). The Romans just finished off the remains.
And why were the Pahlavan able to beat up the Seleukidai? Why were they able to break free of the near-vassalship that Antiochos III had placed upon them during his great anabasis? Perhaps because the Seleukid phalanx was cut to pieces at Magnesia, following the absenting of the King and his cavalry from the field? :p
Thinking there was any "decisive battle" in there is just missing the bigger picture; there wasn't any and the outcome was decided before any battle was fought. (Sorry, Sun Tzu again.)
See, you quote these things and then pretend that they're proof. I don't see how the mutable and unproven dicta of a long-dead Chinese man has any effect on the fact that the Seleukids had the advantages at the Battle of Magnesia, yet they lost anyway. OOOooooOOOOOooo, Sun Tzu is wrong!
If you think one example won't cut it, I can go on. (And on and on...)
Please do, or modify your original example?

The Roman cavalry deficiency is a continuous feature of their army and got taken advantage of by various opponents (notably Hannibal and the Parthians). Curiously, they only mended this deficiency at a very late stage in the history of Rome.

Despite losing battle after battle, the Romans always came back - until the empire was stretched to the limit and they switched to a defensive strategy (around 117 AD).

The battle of Magnesia had little effect on the gradual absorption of Seleucid territory by the Parthians. (OooOOOooo, Sun Tzu was right all along!)

Now, why is Sun Tzu right when he says most battles are won before they're begun (to mention just one maxim)? I'll take Alexander's army as an example: Alexander usually took on a numerically stronger enemy, but being a great tactician, he consistently exploited any weak spot in the enemy army's deployment. Would Alexander's army have crushed the seemingly unstoppable Romans? Most definitely. (Lucky for the Romans, the hellenistic successor's armies development after Alexander gave them the edge they needed.)

Skipping some centuries now, let's have a look at the Mongols. It would seem their world conquest was stopped by the death of the Great Khan rather than by any battles lost. (Until the encounter with the Mamluks their expansion seemed quite unstoppable. However, was that a decisive battle or had they just reached the limits of their expansion?)

Now, why do I claim there aren't any decisive battles? For the same reason I can claim there aren't any decisive wars. (To name a 20th century example: WW I created the conditions for WW II. Was that a decisive war then? Not really, it created the conditions for the Cold War.)

And I still say there should be at least 10 most important battles of all times.

The Roman cavalry deficiency is a continuous feature of their army and got taken advantage of by various opponents (notably Hannibal and the Parthians). Curiously, they only mended this deficiency at a very late stage in the history of Rome.
Except for Zama, yes. And at Magnesia, they attempted to boost their numbers with Pergamene cavalry from their ally, Eumenes; it was these cavalry that took advantage of the unexpected gap Antiochos' headlong charge left.
The battle of Magnesia had little effect on the gradual absorption of Seleucid territory by the Parthians. (OooOOOooo, Sun Tzu was right all along!)
...

lolwut? The point is, for twenty years, from the anabasis to Magnesia, the Pahlavan were Seleukid vassals. They did not expand beyond Hekatompylos and their Parthyaian fastness. The Great King, Friapat, ceased to be beholden to the Seleukid state (as his father, the second Arshak, had been) following the destruction of the phalanx at Magnesia, and instead made gains in Khoarene and Gabiene. Long-term, the period of Pahlavan submission had relatively little impact, due to its short period; if Magnesia had gone the other way, though, Antiochos would have had the means to keep the system in place, checking the Pahlavan.

And that is even discounting the issue of Roman suzerainty, direct and indirect, in Asia Minor/Mikra, and the fact that the Baktrian descent into India - an enormous event of macrohistorical implications - "did not take place until Antiochos' power had been broken at Magnesia", as Tarn says, because beforehand Euthydemos (and by extension Demetrios) could hardly have been sure of his rear.
Now, why is Sun Tzu right when he says most battles are won before they're begun (to mention just one maxim)? I'll take Alexander's army as an example: Alexander usually took on a numerically stronger enemy, but being a great tactician, he consistently exploited any weak spot in the enemy army's deployment. Would Alexander's army have crushed the seemingly unstoppable Romans? Most definitely.
So you're saying that because of a quality that is only displayed during an engagement, and thus only pertinent to the engagement itself, Alexandros won. I don't see how this contradicts what I'm saying at all. :)

Declaring that Antiochos was a "bad tactician" doesn't work either. This is the same guy who smashed the Baktrian kataphraktoi at the Areios, who won a greater victory than Cannae at Panion - the latter of which hinged on him making the very maneuver that eluded him at Magnesia. There was no pre-battle indication that he would screw up; hence there was no way to determine that the battle
Skipping some centuries now, let's have a look at the Mongols. It would seem their world conquest was stopped by the death of the Great Khan rather than by any battles lost. (Until the encounter with the Mamluks their expansion seemed quite unstoppable. However, was that a decisive battle or had they just reached the limits of their expansion?)
I'm not saying that behind every trend is a decisive engagement. I'm saying that there are some decisive engagements that reverse or alter trends in ways that nothing else did or could have.
And I still say there should be at least 10 most important battles of all times.
That's nice. Wanna stay on topic and name them?

Seeing that history can easily be changed if I go back in time 500 years and punch the first person I see, The five most important battles will be the five first conflicts of Human history.

Seeing that history can easily be changed if I go back in time 500 years and punch the first person I see, The five most important battles will be the five first conflicts of Human history.
...except not. Not every conflict is of equal intrinsic magnitude, ceteris paribus; the battle of Megiddo is not more important by virtue of being earlier than, say, the First Marne. A different outcome for the former would simply result in a slightly different pattern in the transient, ephemeral, and often shifting Egyptian control over the southern Levant; a different outcome for the latter could have a tremendous outcome on the pattern of the entire twentieth century all over the world. And it would make Gavrilo Princip a screwup. :p

The thread title should be renamed as the five most important battles of all times of Europeans and Americans, because thats what most people listed

The thread title should be renamed as the five most important battles of all times of Europeans and Americans, because thats what most people listed

Thats what most people know. The rare post about Asian battles has just listed names of battles which unless you are familiar with them is even more pointless.

1. The First Siege of Jerusalem by Assyria : Showed the Jews their god was great, set the monotheistic precedent.
2. Poitiers : I would be writing this in Arabic right now if the Franks had lost.
3. The Teutoberg Forest Ambush : Perhaps Rome would have never fallen had they won?
4. The British repulse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 : No U.S., no Protestant Britain, even more powerful Spain.
5. The Battle of Midway : Would the U.S. have continued to fight had they lost?

The thread title should be renamed as the five most important battles of all times of Europeans and Americans, because thats what most people listed
Dude, four of my five listed engagements took place in the Middle East. Stop hatin'. :p

Indeed, I think one of mine took place on the European continent, and none in the New World.

EDIT: Nvm I can't even remember my own choices lol

Now, why is Sun Tzu right when he says most battles are won before they're begun (to mention just one maxim)? I'll take Alexander's army as an example: Alexander usually took on a numerically stronger enemy, but being a great tactician, he consistently exploited any weak spot in the enemy army's deployment. Would Alexander's army have crushed the seemingly unstoppable Romans? Most definitely.

It's easy to attribute victory to one side or the other retrospectively, you can shape all your elegant thesis based on the surety that this has already happened. You can't exactly "prove" it, you can however always shift the goalposts in one leap of logic to another in order to attempt to "prove" it. Now if we were really to test this logic, we should really recruit some armies, train them up in period weapons, keep to period tech go have a few slaughters on a variety of fields while trying to keep everything as similar as we can. We should before the battle starts try and predict the results, I have a sneaking suspicion that even experts in given scenarios would predict half right and half wrong. Random chance tends to make predicting accurately a bugger, note this gets progressively worse as we decrease participants on either side, since the effect of any given event is higher, while it increasingly gets impossible to make predictions the more participants we add because of the limited amount of processing power we have. Have a battle of 2 men of equal kit, strength, and skill, and tell me who is going to win [no retrospective cheating]. Now have an equal armies of 2 million soldiers with complex command, control, and logistics and tell me who is going to win and provide reasons. I'm not saying he's wrong per say, but I am saying that most battles might have applied to his period of history, but certainly not to a large swathe of history, random chance is an amusing side effect of large samples and small samples.

Not an expert on history, so forgive me if these choices are subpar:

1. Battle of Gaugamela, 331 B.C. - Cemented Alexander the Great's control over Persia, and initiated the Hellenistic period.

2. Battle of the Milvian Bridge, 312 A.D. - Ended a period of strife in Rome, consolidated power to the emperor, and legalized Christianity. If Constantine had lost here, Christianity would've passed away as another obscure cult.

3. Battle of Yarmouk, 636 A.D. - Saved Islam from domination by Byzantium.

4. Battle of Ain Jalut, 1260 - Curbed Mongolian influence. This is the Eastern version of Tours, but it's far more significant.

5. Battle of Leipzig, 1813 - Finished off the empire; though the Hundred Days were quite dramatic, the end of the Napoleonic Wars really happened right here.

Not an expert on history, so forgive me if these choices are subpar:

1. Battle of Gaugamela, 331 B.C. - Cemented Alexander the Great's control over Persia, and initiated the Hellenistic period.

2. Battle of the Milvian Bridge, 312 A.D. - Ended a period of strife in Rome, consolidated power to the emperor, and legalized Christianity. If Constantine had lost here, Christianity would've passed away as another obscure cult.

3. Battle of Yarmouk, 636 A.D. - Saved Islam from domination by Byzantium.

4. Battle of Ain Jalut, 1260 - Curbed Mongolian influence. This is the Eastern version of Tours, but it's far more significant.

5. Battle of Leipzig, 1813 - Finished off the empire; though the Hundred Days were quite dramatic, the end of the Napoleonic Wars really happened right here.

Ain Jalut is probably overratedand Darius had a better chance of stopping Alexander in Issus than in Gaugamela, but I really like your list!
The problem with this thread is the low limit. There were far more that 5 battles which could have gone differently and changed the world in a big way.

Also, I've been thinking about this for a bit; do you think the Russian Revolution might have been prevented if the Battle of Tannenberg weren't such a disaster? If the Tsar never withdrew from the war, then people's confidence in their government might have been better; and the annihilation of the Russian army at Tannenberg is, I think, the most likely factor in that.

Certainly the failure of the Kerensky Offensive, or the decision to even undertake it, was more pivotal than Tannenberg in facilitating the rise of the Bolsheviks.

The Battle of Stalingrad. (Soviet Union won against Third Reich, turned WWII around for Soviets)

The Battle of Thermopylae. (Greece won vs. Persia, slaughtered Persian army)


The Battle of El Almein (Allies won vs. Axis. Turnaround of war for French, British and Americans).

The Battle of Britain (Caused operation Sealion to not be able to take place, therefore severly endagering Britain, even with the Home guard).

The Battle of Thermopylae. (Greece won vs. Persia, slaughtered Persian army)


Please learn more of this battle, beyond what you saw in 300

The Battle of Britain (Caused operation Sealion to not be able to take place, therefore severly endagering Britain, even with the Home guard).

Germans would need large order of ASB just ot make it to the coast and thats if they won Battle of Britain.

The Battle of Stalingrad. (Soviet Union won against Third Reich, turned WWII around for Soviets)

Homework for tonight: Battle of Moscow, October-January 1941-42 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_moscow)

The Battle of Thermopylae. (Greece won vs. Persia, slaughtered Persian army)

Oh dear.

Perhaps you can enlighten us to the casualty rate of both sides?

The Battle of El Almein (Allies won vs. Axis. Turnaround of war for French, British and Americans).

Neither French nor American forces were involved in El Alamein. Nor was it particularly impressive; Monty had the luxury of building up massively superior force numbers while Rommel struggled with long supply lines extending across hundreds of miles of rough terrain and desert. It turned around the Africa campaign, sure, but then, so did Operation Compass, and then the Battle of El-Aghelia.

The Battle of Britain (Caused operation Sealion to not be able to take place, therefore severly endagering Britain, even with the Home guard).

Sea Lion was never anything more than a perverted dream by Hitler. Quite simply, the RAF was not going to lose nor was it on the verge of defeat at any time during The Blitz, but even in the highly unlikely event that it was, how were the Germans going to deal with the Royal Navy? How were they going to land and resupply a whole army group across the Channel? It quite simply was impossible. The most significant thing about The Blitz was that it demonstrated that Churchill was going to manage the War differently than Chamberlain.

That battle in 300
Battle of Yavin IV
World War I
That one where Tom Cruise led some Japs to kill some other Japs
That rap battle at the end of 8 Mile.

Tom Cruise killed Japs? I must see this!

Tom Cruise killed Japs? I must see this!

He was samurai too

Wow I totally forgot about that movie. That means it's time for bed! :lol:

The Battle of Thermopylae. (Greece won vs. Persia, slaughtered Persian army)

lmao fail

.

Certainly the failure of the Kerensky Offensive, or the decision to even undertake it, was more pivotal than Tannenberg in facilitating the rise of the Bolsheviks.

Wouldn't Kerensky have had a larger chance of success if the Russian army weren't wiped out in Tannenberg? (I'm not really an expert on World War I, so forgive me if that was silly.)

Wouldn't Kerensky have had a larger chance of success if the Russian army weren't wiped out in Tannenberg? (I'm not really an expert on World War I, so forgive me if that was silly.)

Tannenberg was in 1914, the Kerensky Offensive was in mid- 1917. The Russian Army had made multiple comebacks (see the Brusilov Offensive in the summer of 1916), but ultimately proved it could not stand against Germany forever. It was clear by the February Revolution that the people wanted out of The War; the Provisional Government's failure to deviate from Tsarist policy only gave the Petrograd Soviet more ammunition, enough that it was finally able to act in early November.

I don't know the name of the battle, but what about when the Royal Navy defeated the spanish Armada? That led to England becoming a superpower, freely establishing colonies in America, and ultimately the U.S. That changed history right there....

Now, why is Sun Tzu right when he says most battles are won before they're begun (to mention just one maxim)? I'll take Alexander's army as an example: Alexander usually took on a numerically stronger enemy, but being a great tactician, he consistently exploited any weak spot in the enemy army's deployment. Would Alexander's army have crushed the seemingly unstoppable Romans? Most definitely.

Don't know who said that, but that is very incorrect. The Romans under almost any General would have defeated Alexander in open battle (not a siege). For one thing, the Romans were better equipped. Every soldier had Javelins (atleast 3 or more) that could rip throw rows of men, the Greeks may have had a unit of Javeliners (if thats what you call them). Also, every legion rolled with Scorpios (I believe thats what they are called, think the machine gun of the ancient era) and Balistas. These were weapons that Alexander did not have. Roman soldiers were professionals and had tactics that were far better then the Greeks (think formations inside of Formations, such as the Wedge). Although the Greeks were very well trained, had Alexander been around 300 years later, he would be remembered as the king who lost Greece to Rome.

Perhaps the greatest advantage the legionaries had was speed. As brilliant as Alexander was, I doubt he could convince phalangite companies to maneuver as quickly as maniples of legionaries, it would be comparable to Gustavus Adolphus, and how he ran circles around the terricoes everyone else was using. Short of forming a schiltron, Alexander could and would be flanked, and repeatedly. Should they decide to close their line into a fighting square, the issue of superior Roman firepower has already been mentioned. Perhaps the rear ranks' sarissas can help deflect arrow paths, but they have no hope of contending with Ballista bolts.

Neither French nor American forces were involved in El Alamein.
Just nitpicking, to keep the record straight.:)

Free French forces were in fact involved in the second battle of El Alamein. A Free French division was holding the extreme end to the south of the line against a couple of Italian divisions. It wasn't a very active or decisive part of the engagement, but they were there. More action was seen by a Free French brigade attached to the otherwise British armoured 7th division. Greeks and Poles were involved as well.:scan:

I knew about the Greeks and Poles, and I knew the Free French enjoyed poking at Rommel's side from the desert, but I didn't know the latter were at Second El Alamein. :hatsoff:

3. Battle of Yarmouk, 636 A.D. - Saved Islam from domination by Byzantium.
Got that screwed up a bit: don't you mean "guaranteed the ability of the Rashidun Caliphate to expand at Byzantine expense"? Cause, you know, the Byzzies weren't about to take Mecca or anything like that.
Would Alexander's army have crushed the seemingly unstoppable Romans? Most definitely.
Ten days gone and everybody forgets I'm here. :p
For one thing, the Romans were better equipped.
Which Romans? I betcha Alexander could beat the contemporary Roman military, and comparing anything else, technologically, is intellectually dishonest, like comparing the Aztecs and the Spartans.
Every soldier had Javelins (atleast 3 or more) that could rip throw rows of men, the Greeks may have had a unit of Javeliners (if thats what you call them).
Again, check your time period, and note that missile weapons were of limited effectiveness against the syntagma. Due to it being protected from above and all.
Also, every legion rolled with Scorpios (I believe thats what they are called, think the machine gun of the ancient era) and Balistas. These were weapons that Alexander did not have.
Alex actually did have artillery, but its use is of limited effectiveness in set piece battles of the classical world.
Roman soldiers were professionals and had tactics that were far better then the Greeks (think formations inside of Formations, such as the Wedge).
The Romans used the quincunx almost exclusively, with scant variation, which had the admitted benefits of flexibility and a reserve. They had . .. .. .. . for cavalry though, and actually their use of the wedge - something that was essential to Alexander's shock cavalry - is not attested.
Although the Greeks were very well trained, had Alexander been around 300 years later, he would be remembered as the king who lost Greece to Rome.
Did you not read up much on Alexander at all, or the Hellenistic era in general? :(
Perhaps the greatest advantage the legionaries had was speed.
Flexibility. Speed belongs more to the later military of Julius Caesar and Marius, and was supplemented by the Roman engineering brilliance.
As brilliant as Alexander was, I doubt he could convince phalangite companies to maneuver as quickly as maniples of legionaries, it would be comparable to Gustavus Adolphus, and how he ran circles around the terricoes everyone else was using. Short of forming a schiltron, Alexander could and would be flanked, and repeatedly.
Uh, no? Alexander had infinitely better cavalry than anything the Romans could muster, and repeatedly relied on it in his victories. I have major problems envisioning the crappy Italian horse that the Romans got to use defeating and outflanking the Companions or even lonchophoroi light(er) cavalry.
Perhaps the rear ranks' sarissas can help deflect arrow paths, but they have no hope of contending with Ballista bolts.
Depends on what time period this is, but almost certainly there will be accuracy problems that will limit artillery effectiveness.

Seriously, though, if it's Alexander's army against a technologically comparable Roman force, then I envision, essentially, Cannae. Except with less casualties, so probably something more like Panium.

Heh, I rather stupidly forgot about the Hetairoi. :sad:

1. Fall of Tenochtitlan: Spanish conquest of Mexico. This leads to Spanish conquest of a large portion of Latin America which influenced language and culture, genocide of the natives of the Americas through war, displacement, and disease, and European colonization of the Americas.
2. Battle of Tours: Prevents Islam from spreading far into Europe, allowing the church to keep total control until the Protestant Reformation.
3. Battle of Stalingrad: Turning point on the eastern front during WWII, which in turn allowed Stalin to draw up eastern Europe as he saw fit.
4. Battle of Leipzig: Battle which Napoleon lost, which sent him to Elba. Although Waterloo sent him to St. Helena, I feel Leipzig is more important since the result showed that Europe would not tolerate Napoleon in power which led to Waterloo. The importance of either battle is the Congress of Vienna, which had a direct effect on German unification the concept of "balance of power."
5. Battle of Tsushima: Japan's victory against Russia showed the world the rise of an non-western power; it also helped create a culture of Japanese militarism which led to the rise of Fascism in Japan. Russia's defeat led the their increased aggression in the Balkans which was a direct cause of WWI being more than "the Third Balkan War."

Fall of Tenochtitlan

Would have happened anyway... the rather large death toll kind would have helped. It also caused the deaths, I thought microbes did that :p

Battle of Tours

Islam in France? Mass conversions... nope.

Battle of Stalingrad

Could equally be said of Kursk, Stalingrad bled the Germans of manpower, Kursk killed its tanks.

Battle of Tsushima

Now that deserves a placing... in maybe the top 100.

I don't know the name of the battle, but what about when the Royal Navy defeated the spanish Armada? That led to England becoming a superpower, freely establishing colonies in America, and ultimately the U.S. That changed history right there....

No.... that let England survive. Cromwell and the Anglo-Dutch wars led England to be a world class naval power... prior to that it was it didn't really have a Royal Navy, it leased most of the ships it used to fight the Spaniards who leased most of the ships they used. I would also argue that the Quakers and co settling in North America were inspite of the English crown :p

Sometimes the most important battles are the ones that don't happen. Some are:
the abortive Ethiopian invasion of Mecca shortly before the beginning of Islam;
the cancelled iMongol nvasion of the west when the hordes returned to elect a great khan;
the avoided invasion of Germany when Neville Chamberlain was able to secure "peace in our time";
the avoided conflict between GB and USA in 1861 after a US warship stopped a British ship to remove apparent CSA spies trying to run the US blockade.

Why should I bother posting mine if it's just going to be picked apart?

Why should I bother posting mine if it's just going to be picked apart?

Because criticism is what makes it fun.

Revised list, only counting European history, and going a bit past five:

331 BC - Battle of Gaugamela; Greek victory guaranteed Hellenization and new dynasties in Egypt and Persia that lasted a good while.
202 BC - Battle of Zama; Carthaginian subjugation to Rome opened the gates for Roman conquest of the Mediterranean.
312 AD - Battle of the Milvian Bridge; possibly the most important battle in human history. United the Roman Empire under one ruler and called for the legalization of Christianity.
1099 - Siege of Jerusalem; the astounding victory of the First Crusade that legitimized the concept of a united European expedition to the Middle East.
1571 - Battle of Lepanto; permanently curbed Ottoman maritime influence. Predicated Habsburg interests in southeastern Europe that would flow right up into World War I.
1631 - Battle of Breitenfeld; revolutionized early modern warfare. Put Swedish feet on Germany's land, which extended the conflict (contributing to the depopulation of Germany), further empowerment of Protestantism and the advent of the Swedish Empire.
1709 - Battle of Poltava; the control of St. Petersburg and other warm ports allowed for the proclamation of the Russian Empire.
1777 - Battles of Saratoga; finalized the American Revolution, thereby legitimizing the ideals of the Enlightenment, opening the doors for the French Revolution.
1813 - Battle of Leipzig; caused the collapse of Napoleonic hold on Europe.
1917 - Kerensky Offensive; the disastrous defeat of Russia hurried the Russian Revolution, denied them any spoils from the Allied WWI victory, and also indirectly allowed for Polish independence.

Extra that may or may not be important: Battle of Badr, 624 AD. Failure might have stifled Islam forever, but it is arguable that Muhammed was going to take over Arabia at some point anyway.

Incorporating Asian battles, and expanding to seven , and not in order of importance, I would write:

Battle of Fei river- saved South China from a large barbarian army which would have definitely destroyed the Chinese civilization had it succeeded at that point(or what was left of it). No paper, gunpowder, printing press, silk, compass, dim sum, General Tso's chicken, etc... China would be like Europe, with a bunch of tribes building new states on the ruins of the old. The Mongol and Manchu conquests of China did not destroy the Chinese civilization because then there were 100 million Chinese, and its hard to cull'em all. (also a fluke; the chinese army had only 1/3 of their enemies' size, and they won because the Chinese serving in the barbarian army yelled: "we are losing, lets retreat")

Battle of Platea- This was the battle that really saved the Greeks from the Persians. had the persians who here, and the greek army annihilated, Western Civilization would be profoundly changed. Although they are not the direct descendants of the Greeks, "Western" civilization was heavily influenced by them.

Crossing of the Rhine by the Alemmani- ensured the domination of the germanic tribes in Europe and the destruction of the Roman Empire, leading to western civilization.

Second siege of Constantinople- Ensured Islam would not advance past the Byzantines until 1453. Ensured the German kingdoms of Europe would not be conquered by the advancing Arab armies.

Battle of Xiangyang- Mongols conquered Song China after this point. This had two important effects. One it transmitted much Chinese knowledge(as a result of the conquest) such as gunpowder to the west. This helped West speed up its recovery from the dark ages. Second, it destroyed China's first oppurtunity to industrialize under the Song, who were very pro-business and capitalist.

Battle of Shanghaiguan- Manchus conquer China, Stifles China's second chance to industrialize under the Ming.

Battle of Trafalgar- Had the French destroyed Nelson's fleet and invaded Britain, history would have changed dramatically. As long as Britain dominated the seas Napoleon's Empire would have to collapse sometime(he was opposed by Austria, Prussia and Russia constantly and he could not destroy them all at the same time). Le francais would be the language of choice. And there MIGHT not be an industrial revolution because of France's lack of coal.

Note: I view the most significant battles as battles that change civilization for a long period of time, rather than battles that are only significant for a century or so. For example, had Napoleon be victorious in Lepizig, who knows how long his empire would have lasted after his death. Also, his enemies Austria and Britain would continue to survive. Stalingrad ensured it was an American century and not a German one. But battles like the Fei and Platea virtually changed history for centuries onwards.... History would be EXTREMELY DIFFERENT WITHOUT THEM. Technologically, economically, and others.

The siege of Tenchtítlán ensured the Spanish conquest of Mexico.

btw, I'm not exactly a historian...

The siege of Tenchtítlán ensured the Spanish conquest of Mexico.

Would have happened eventually, hence why it's not usually considered to be one of the most important battles in history.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but I think the Battle of Tsushima deserves an honourable mention, as it showed what power modern ships had, and it proved that Asian nations were not necessarily pushovers.

Battle of Trafalgar- Had the French destroyed Nelson's fleet and invaded Britain, history would have changed dramatically. As long as Britain dominated the seas Napoleon's Empire would have to collapse sometime(he was opposed by Austria, Prussia and Russia constantly and he could not destroy them all at the same time). Le francais would be the language of choice. And there MIGHT not be an industrial revolution because of France's lack of coal.
lolwut. This entire thing is kinda...disassociated from reality. Napoleon was already in Germany by the time Trafalgar happened; Villeneuve winning that engagement would have certainly dented British naval confidence and given France a better chance in the naval war overall, but I don't think that it would have ended up making a difference and certainly wouldn't have allowed Napoleon to invade Britain.

And France definitely had coal within the Napoleonic borders, which included the Rhineland and Saar. And it was not Britain that created the coalitions; they arose due to the relations between the powers concerned and France, not because the British offered them gold; that merely allowed the continuation and expediency of said wars. (Kagan, The End of the Old Order, spends a very long time on diplomatic correspondence and the myth of the British subsidies creating the coalitions.) Anyway, Trafalgar was important but it definitely didn't change the course of civilization or anything like that.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but I think the Battle of Tsushima deserves an honourable mention, as it showed what power modern ships had, and it proved that Asian nations were not necessarily pushovers.

The problem with mentioning Tsushima is that the Russians lost pretty much every battle of the war. It's not like a victory here would have changed anything. Even that considered, the Russian navy was so outdated at this point that a victory would have been a far-cry.

Battle of Weissenburg (1870)
Battle of Forbach (1870)
Battle of Wörth (1870)
Battle of Mars-La-Tour (1870)

Those are just the Honorable Mentions, here are the top 3...

3. Battle of Sedan (1870)
2. Siege of Metz (1870)
1. Siege of Paris (1870-1871)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/53/Siege_of_Paris.jpg/776px-Siege_of_Paris.jpg

Battle of Weissenburg (1870)
Battle of Forbach (1870)
Battle of Wörth (1870)
Battle of Mars-La-Tour (1870)

Those are just the Honorable Mentions, here are the top 3...

3. Battle of Sedan (1870)
2. Siege of Metz (1870)
1. Siege of Paris (1870-1871)
What about the Völkerschlacht, or Minden, or Blenheim, or Rossbach?

I think the most important battle of all time was the French defeat in the Ardennes in 1940. After all, if they hadn't been so quick to lose, Hitler would never have been able to massacre tens of millions of innocent people as the war would've been over much quicker and much more bloodlessly (of course they already had a chance to stop Hitler; keep reading).

The second would have to be the French defeat at the Battle of Waterloo. It confirmed the British as the supreme overlords of Europe, and ended Napoleon's delusions of empire once and for all. Not much else to say on that.

The third would be any battle during the Franco-Prussian War. The French lost again and gave rise to the German Empire, whose eventual fall would lead to the rise of Hitler. Therefore, the French are responsible for Adolf Hitler. Nice going, guys.

The fourth would be the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The French lost and this resulted in the British gaining control over all of North America (the parts worth having anyways), which paved the way for centuries of genocide against native people. Another French loss, leading to another genocide. These guys sure do have a lot of blood stains on their white flags.

The last would probably be the French Intervention in Mexico, for the French loss there ensured Mexico's independence. Without it, the Drug War as we know it today would never have occurred, and thousands upon thousands of innocent people would still be alive.

^---- a parody, right? ...right?

The second would have to be the French defeat at the Battle of Waterloo. It confirmed the British as the supreme overlords of Europe, and ended Napoleon's delusions of empire once and for all. Not much else to say on that.

It confirmed that Bonaparte was fighting with a subpar army against overwhelming odds. Even if teh British and Prussians had lost... Bonaparte wouldn't have been able to replace his losses and would have lost the very next battle probably against a combined Russo-British-Prussian army. It's not like the British interfered in the continent much after that... *ahem* the Crimea. They were content to keep a balance of power and keep aloof via the Royal Navy.

The third would be any battle during the Franco-Prussian War. The French lost again and gave rise to the German Empire, whose eventual fall would lead to the rise of Hitler. Therefore, the French are responsible for Adolf Hitler. Nice going, guys.

By that token logic, Jesus is responsible for Hitler because Hitler was Christian.

The fourth would be the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The French lost and this resulted in the British gaining control over all of North America (the parts worth having anyways), which paved the way for centuries of genocide against native people. Another French loss, leading to another genocide. These guys sure do have a lot of blood stains on their white flags.

By that token the Columbus caused the genocide by 'discovering' the Americas. All the countries of the New World existent have blood on their hands.

The last would probably be the French Intervention in Mexico, for the French loss there ensured Mexico's independence. Without it, the Drug War as we know it today would never have occurred, and thousands upon thousands of innocent people would still be alive.

Can we say the same about Columbia... and Britain letting Americans revolt?

^---- a parody, right? ...right?

I'm not sure if its a right wing parody or a left wing one... the pathological dislike of France fits into the right wing parody section.. but the concern for native Americans is so very left wing.

^---- a parody, right? ...right?

Not in the slightest. I'm dead serious.

Then i agree with Masada on all those points.

Not in the slightest. I'm dead serious.
Well then, please try to control your generalized outbursts against specific groups of people. At best you appear silly and uneducated; at worst you could be painted as a troll and infracted by a wandering moderator.

The problem with mentioning Tsushima is that the Russians lost pretty much every battle of the war. It's not like a victory here would have changed anything. Even that considered, the Russian navy was so outdated at this point that a victory would have been a far-cry.

Yeah, I refrained from mentioning, say, the Battle of Mukden, because there were quite a few land battles. However, the Battle of Tsushima was clearly the biggest naval battle. And this served to prove that the modern ship was so decisive in determining the outcome of a battle.

This, of course, made the world, particularly Britain and Germany, start to take notice of new ships, leading to the Dreadnought race, which was a cause of World War One. This, of course, resulted in the Treaty of Versailles, which caused an atmosphere susceptible to Hitler's rise. As you can see, it was clearly, directly, and absolutely Japan's early 20th century navy that caused the Holocaust.

Yeah, I refrained from mentioning, say, the Battle of Mukden, because there were quite a few land battles. However, the Battle of Tsushima was clearly the biggest naval battle. And this served to prove that the modern ship was so decisive in determining the outcome of a battle.
If the modern capital ship was so important to determining the outcome of engagements, why was Jutland not more decisive? The First World War's surface naval battles meant virtually nothing to the outcome of the war; no decisive engagements, and the entire massive arms race was virtually for naught. And then, in the Second World War, the surface navy stopped making as much of a difference as, say, the aircraft carriers or the submarines.

Last part was lulz.

virtually for naught. A pun Dachs?

Anyway, yeah i tend to agree with Dachs. If anything Tsushima showed a false image of what naval warfare would be like.

A pun Dachs?
You caught me. :D

If the modern capital ship was so important to determining the outcome of engagements, why was Jutland not more decisive? The First World War's surface naval battles meant virtually nothing to the outcome of the war; no decisive engagements, and the entire massive arms race was virtually for naught. And then, in the Second World War, the surface navy stopped making as much of a difference as, say, the aircraft carriers or the submarines.

Last part was lulz.

Yeah, fair enough, I 'spose. Perhaps it was more important for showing that an Asian country could pwn a European one. Contributed to end of imperialism in Asia, perhaps? Ended European hegemony, maybe?

Yeah, fair enough, I 'spose. Perhaps it was more important for showing that an Asian country could pwn a European one. Contributed to end of imperialism in Asia, perhaps? Ended European hegemony, maybe?

To borrow a word from Sharwood, the Japanese got uppity the rest of Asia was either a colony of a European power or a basket case.

To borrow a word from Sharwood, the Japanese got uppity the rest of Asia was either a colony of a European power or a basket case.

Despite the rest of Asia still being, well, not good, Japan was afforded concessions by the European powers, such as Britain, in Asia, such as the recognition of Japan's sphere of influence. So, it did, in a way, end the spread of European imperialism, although not so much imperialism itself.

Despite the rest of Asia still being, well, not good, Japan was afforded concessions by the European powers, such as Britain, in Asia, such as the recognition of Japan's sphere of influence. So, it did, in a way, end the spread of European imperialism, although not so much imperialism itself.

What Imperialism? It had already spread as far as was practical.

Not in the slightest. I'm dead serious.

Dammit, I genuinely thought it was a funny parody.

Why was Jutland not more decisive?

It was primarily because Admiral Scheer pooped his pants instead of going for the decisive battle.
German or rather, Tirpitz's naval strategy at the time was to engage Brits in a decisive naval battle. It didn't matter if the Germans lost because it would have meant that the Royal Navy would have to give ground elsewhere as long as the Grand Fleet was sufficiently hurt.
The Kaiser didn't really like this idea and told Tirpitz to keep it as a 'fleet in being' to prevent operations against the Baltic coast.

In addition to their own 'fleet in being' doctrine, Brit naval leadership at that point in time was pretty pathetic.

Thus, it was the 'fleet in being' doctrine that prevented epic showdowns - and the chance at a showdown (namely Jutland) was cut short by Admiral Scheer pulling back after the second exchange.

This is taken from Arthur Herman's To Rule the Waves and is apparently from Scheer's own memoirs (listed in the footnotes as "Keegan, Price of Admiralty" - no biblio and I"m not going to track down all the notes).
The English fleet had the advantage of looking back on a hundred years of proud tradition...
This was as opposed to the 2 years the High Seas Fleet had and in the heat of the moment (Herman argues), Scheer made the decision to turn around.

What Imperialism? It had already spread as far as was practical.

Completely destroying all Chinese autonomy? Invading Japan? There were many other possible future avenues of European imperialism in Asia before Japan asserted some power.

Completely destroying all Chinese autonomy? Invading Japan? There were many other possible future avenues of European imperialism in Asia before Japan asserted some power.

Practical... if you want to traipse around fantasy land you might as well suggest Great Britain invading France and occupying it in 1920. It suited all the major powers to have a tottering China both for the practical purpose of making money from it, as a useful counter to Japan [that was later] and because nobody wanted to be the first person to charge in and try and rule China wholesale (which was lets face it impossible short of a century or two of leisurely annexation). Most of the same applies to Japan, except you had a state which was probably going to be even more difficult to take over and occupy (and was population wise fairly homogeneous).

Britain backed off China with Japanese victory and increasing power. This has certainly had a great effect on the history of Asia, with the consequences including (although arguably) Japanese expansion into China in the 30's, and Chinese dominance in the region in the present day.

And let us not forget that this battle further caused unrest in Russia, and left her without a navy. Two other important things.

BTW, I don't think it should be in the top five, but I do think that it was a battle quite above average importance.

Britain backed off China with Japanese victory and increasing power. This has certainly had a great effect on the history of Asia, with the consequences including (although arguably) Japanese expansion into China in the 30's, and Chinese dominance in the region in the present day.

Proof. The British all the way up to World War Two could have convincingly trounced the Japanese, it was only after they had stripped away their fleet assets that the Japanese had a fighting chance at breaking British naval power (which was by then almost non-existent in the region). The Japanese also realized this, they were terrified of the Royal Navy, rightly so because who had trained them and sold them ships? Britain.

Japans expansion into China has more to do with China's collapse as a recognizable state, the Japanese could argue quite correctly that they were merely assisting Manchuria (a state all of its own) in restoring order or that they were striking out against the warlords. It's not like the Chinese helped themselves in the worlds eyes by siding with the invaders against each other.

And let us not forget that this battle further caused unrest in Russia, and left her without a navy. Two other important things.

The war itself led to major reform in the Russian army and a modernization program which worked nicely and culled some of the worst generals.

The Russian fleet would itself have been utterly no use in the First World War in any case... the Russians were cursed with a fleet which was going to face the Germans on its own because of the Kiel Canal if they came out of the Baltic, or they were going to have to go through the Dardanelles with Turkey, or they were going to sit impotently in Port Arthur penned in by Japan, or come from Arkhangelsk which was not practical at the time (it also had some serious safety issues for a fleet at anchor). That's why the relative strength of the Russian fleet to me in any time period (particularly the Cold War) needs to be reduced significantly because of the geographic bottlenecks they face. It also would have been next to useless against anyone aside from the Turks in World War One (and they would probably have sunk it in any case).

BTW, I don't think it should be in the top five, but I do think that it was a battle quite above average importance.

It showed that Russia could be beaten, but I'm sure if the Japanese angle is the correct one to be looking at. It certainly might have helped reinforce German thinking with regards to the Schlieffen Plan (however I couldn't tell you for sure).

the Japanese could argue quite correctly that they were merely assisting Manchuria (a state all of its own) in restoring order or that they were striking out against the warlords.

Manchukuo in the 1930s was like French Indochina at the same time. Bao Dai was Emperor of Vietnam, but everyone knew where the real power was.

Proof. The British all the way up to World War Two could have convincingly trounced the Japanese, it was only after they had stripped away their fleet assets that the Japanese had a fighting chance at breaking British naval power (which was by then almost non-existent in the region). The Japanese also realized this, they were terrified of the Royal Navy, rightly so because who had trained them and sold them ships? Britain.

But although Britain could have beaten Japan, they were scared of, or realised the risk would be greater than the reward, or something. It ended any European, particularly British, ambitions. So, in that sense, the Japanese victory at Tsushima was quite decisive in Asia's history.

I think the most important battle of all time was the French defeat in the Ardennes in 1940. After all, if they hadn't been so quick to lose, Hitler would never have been able to massacre tens of millions of innocent people as the war would've been over much quicker and much more bloodlessly (of course they already had a chance to stop Hitler; keep reading).

The second would have to be the French defeat at the Battle of Waterloo. It confirmed the British as the supreme overlords of Europe, and ended Napoleon's delusions of empire once and for all. Not much else to say on that.

The third would be any battle during the Franco-Prussian War. The French lost again and gave rise to the German Empire, whose eventual fall would lead to the rise of Hitler. Therefore, the French are responsible for Adolf Hitler. Nice going, guys.

The fourth would be the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. The French lost and this resulted in the British gaining control over all of North America (the parts worth having anyways), which paved the way for centuries of genocide against native people. Another French loss, leading to another genocide. These guys sure do have a lot of blood stains on their white flags.

The last would probably be the French Intervention in Mexico, for the French loss there ensured Mexico's independence. Without it, the Drug War as we know it today would never have occurred, and thousands upon thousands of innocent people would still be alive.

I don't care if this was serious or not, but I found it hilarious :goodjob:

It ended any European, particularly British, ambitions. So, in that sense, the Japanese victory at Tsushima was quite decisive in Asia's history.

Proof: What ambitions, your yet to show any.

As I said before, Japan won every battle of the Russo-Japanese War, so Tsushima wasn't at all decisive. Perhaps it was a bit influential in naval history and tactics, but calling it one of the most important battles in history is... ridiculous, to say the least.

Taking either "battle" or "all time" to their limits you can add:
Lucifer's defeat at the end of his revolt.
Armageddon.
The pope's suppression of Galaleo pushing scientific investigation more to protestant countries.
The political battle in early Rome resulting in the common people gaining some say in the Republic.

The pope's suppression of Galaleo pushing scientific investigation more to protestant countries.

I like this and way it can go.

It was primarily because Admiral Scheer pooped his pants instead of going for the decisive battle.
German or rather, Tirpitz's naval strategy at the time was to engage Brits in a decisive naval battle. It didn't matter if the Germans lost because it would have meant that the Royal Navy would have to give ground elsewhere as long as the Grand Fleet was sufficiently hurt.
The Kaiser didn't really like this idea and told Tirpitz to keep it as a 'fleet in being' to prevent operations against the Baltic coast.

In addition to their own 'fleet in being' doctrine, Brit naval leadership at that point in time was pretty pathetic.

Thus, it was the 'fleet in being' doctrine that prevented epic showdowns - and the chance at a showdown (namely Jutland) was cut short by Admiral Scheer pulling back after the second exchange.

This is taken from Arthur Herman's To Rule the Waves and is apparently from Scheer's own memoirs (listed in the footnotes as "Keegan, Price of Admiralty" - no biblio and I"m not going to track down all the notes).

This was as opposed to the 2 years the High Seas Fleet had and in the heat of the moment (Herman argues), Scheer made the decision to turn around.
Dude, I know that, I read Halpern's Naval History and Dreadnought and so forth. :p It was a rhetorical question, indicating that non-carrier surface assets ended up not being as important as Tsushima would have one think.
It ended any European, particularly British, ambitions.
What ambitions? Britain had just signed an alliance with Japan three years previously.

How about, the most important battles of Russian history? :p

1223 - Battle of Kalka River. Mongols overrun the Kievan Rus and subjugate them for two-hundred years.
1242 - Battle of the Ice. Defeat of the Teutonic Knights prevented a Catholic expansion into Russian territory, and possibly also Germanization.
1380 - Battle of Kulikovo. Russian rebellion against the Golden Horde predicates their collapse.
1480 - Great Stand of the Ulgra River. Ivan III claims independence of Moscow and begins acquiring Mongolian territory.
1709 - Battle of Poltava. Acquisition of Swedish imperial territory allowed the proclamation of the Russian empire.
1812 - Battle of Borodino. Napoleon's inability to decisively defeat the Russian armies contributed to his failure. Related is the Battle of Berezina where the French armies was decimated as it tries to escape Russia.
1920 - Battle of Warsaw prevents Soviet control over Poland until World War II.
1943 - Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. Decisive defeat of German invaders allowed for Russian occupation of Eastern Europe, setting the stage for the Cold War.

What ambitions? Britain had just signed an alliance with Japan three years previously.

Really, I have no idea, but I would assume an imperialistic nation would have some ambitions in Asia, even if they weren't very realistic or in the forefront of policy. And signing an alliance is not usually about helping the other nation, so much as helping yourself. Britain would've wanted Japan's help to stop Russian expansion in Asia, and to take them away from Europe a bit, maybe? This would be for her own advantage, or so the British would think, in the long run.

Really, I have no idea, but I would assume an imperialistic nation would have some ambitions in Asia, even if they weren't very realistic or in the forefront of policy. And signing an alliance is not usually about helping the other nation, so much as helping yourself. Britain would've wanted Japan's help to stop Russian expansion in Asia, and to take them away from Europe a bit, maybe? This would be for her own advantage, or so the British would think, in the long run.

The Anglo-Japanese was very relevant until the 1920s until the Americans forced the British to break it off. The British public rooted for "feisty little Japan" during the Russo-Japanese War and the Japanese were given a lock of Admiral Nelson's hair as a commemoration of their victory at the Battle of Tsushima. It is true that their spheres of influence in Southeast Asia would conflict later, but that's only after the alliance was broken after as a result of American interference, and the demise of mutual enemies that took precedence over their own clashing imperialist ambition (Russia, Germany).

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?)

Dumai's Wells.

Love WoT.



5. Battle of Cardassia Prime during the Dominion war from Star-Trek:deep space nine.

Excellent choice! But I will say that O'Brien's and Bashir's extraction of the plague cure from Sloan was just as decisive, if not more, to the outcome of the war.

And I would rank the battle at Narendra III in 2344 as the most significant in the Trek universe's canon history.



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.

Well, the thread title says "important", not "decisive". But I agree that Stalingrad is overrated.


First two from listening to a guy at work who's a history major:

1. Poitier, 732


2. Tsushima, 1905


And my original thoughts:

3. Kiev, 1941 - The Germans diverted huge numbers from Army Group Center for what was, essentially, a mop-up operation around Kiev. Although the operation was successful, the combination of human fatigue, combat losses, vehicular wear-and-tear, and six weeks delay (with the oncoming Russian winter) was responsible for the German defeat at Moscow.

The decision to turn aside changed the course of the war. Probably, Germany would have lost eventually (with U.S. involvement), but the war would have lasted longer; the Russian front would have been more of a scattered, partisan affair (like Yugoslavia on steriods); and the Soviets would have acquired less territory in Eastern Europe.


4. Monongahela Valley, 1794 - Not much fighting, but the repression of the Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the U.S. would be another nation-state rather than establishing a new political paradigm.


5. Stamford Bridge-Hastings, September-October 1066 - The battle in York was just as important as Hastings. First, it put Harold on a short schedule to reach Hastings, contributing to his defeat there; second, it destroyed the Viking forces, meaning William didn't have to share England with them.


Cheers,
J

First two from listening to a guy at work who's a history major:
1. Poitier, 732

Anyone who knows anything about the Battle of Poitiers knows that it is NOTHING AT ALL like the "breaking of the tide" of "evil invading Moor".

In fact by most sources (some off the top of my head include my own history lectures and French historians like Myriam Audebert) agree that the Battle of Poiters was something rather.. irrelevant.

The Moors could no go any further north for several reasons including them overstretching themselves and the fact that the Moors who crossed the Pyrenees were a bunch of splinters from the Ummayah Caliphate

In conclusion, that guy either doesn't do his history properly, or is just a <insert deragotary term here>

In fact by most sources (some off the top of my head include my own history lectures and French historians like Myriam Audebert) agree that the Battle of Poiters was something rather.. irrelevant.

Assuming we're talking about the Battle of Tours in the 8th century, there is one point of relevance here. Charles Martel likely would have been assassinated or excommunicated or something, after he did so much to annoy the Church and the people in France; Tours at least gave him the reputation necessary continue to rule.

Also, can people please stop listing Tsushima?

The Black Prince's Poitiers wasn't particularly important, either, impressive and cool though it was.

Anyone who knows anything about the Battle of Poitiers knows that it is NOTHING AT ALL like the "breaking of the tide" of "evil invading Moor".

Interesting quotes, but they aren't from me.


In fact by most sources (some off the top of my head include my own history lectures and French historians like Myriam Audebert) agree that the Battle of Poiters was something rather.. irrelevant.

The Moors could no go any further north for several reasons including them overstretching themselves and the fact that the Moors who crossed the Pyrenees were a bunch of splinters from the Ummayah Caliphate

That the Moors who scrossed the Pyrenees would have halted anyway (though certainly they were stopped sooner by being defeated) does not make the battle irrelevant. Other reasons are given for its significance, including reaction and perception in other parts of the Muslim world; further campaigns by Martel to root the Muslims out of Gaul; and the establishment of Martel's reputation, as noted by LightSpectra.


In conclusion, that guy either doesn't do his history properly, or is just a <insert deragotary term here>

More to the point: Historians disagree. So while I commend your passioned attack against the macrohistorical interpretation, I think it's rather uncharitable to make a personal attack on the competence of someone who agrees with reputable sources.

Anyone who knows anything about the Battle of Poitiers knows that it is NOTHING AT ALL like the "breaking of the tide" of "evil invading Moor".

In fact by most sources (some off the top of my head include my own history lectures and French historians like Myriam Audebert) agree that the Battle of Poiters was something rather.. irrelevant.

The Moors could no go any further north for several reasons including them overstretching themselves and the fact that the Moors who crossed the Pyrenees were a bunch of splinters from the Ummayah Caliphate

In conclusion, that guy either doesn't do his history properly, or is just a <insert deragotary term here>
Disregarding the Battle of Tours/Poitiers' macrohistorical role as a 'high tide' for Islam, it does have at least some import in elevating the family of Charles Martel to the foremost position in the Frankish Empire by eliminating one of the Carolingians' primary rivals in Odo of Aquitania.

I will definitely concede the establishment of the Martel family - which I did not realise entirely.

And I apologise for any offence caused

Anyone who knows anything about the Battle of Poitiers knows that it is NOTHING AT ALL like the "breaking of the tide" of "evil invading Moor".

In fact by most sources (some off the top of my head include my own history lectures and French historians like Myriam Audebert) agree that the Battle of Poiters was something rather.. irrelevant.

The Moors could no go any further north for several reasons including them overstretching themselves and the fact that the Moors who crossed the Pyrenees were a bunch of splinters from the Ummayah Caliphate

In conclusion, that guy either doesn't do his history properly, or is just a <insert deragotary term here>


I would disagree. While I agree that the Muslim force at Poitiers itself wasn't particularly, it was really merely testing the waters of France, to see if it would have been ripe for Moorish conquest. Obviously with a Christian loss, greater forces would have come.

I doubt that. Europe was pretty much the antithesis of nice weather for Arabs and Muslims from the South. Add to that the dismal conditions, smelly people, and general lack of things worth conquering, and you get bands of Umayyads in Al-Andalus interested in no more than raiding France and taking what they could back home. The force at Tours was more concerned about their booty than beating the Franks, which is why they stopped pressing the attack, and quickly withdrew the moment they even thought their camp was in danger, which it very vaguely was.

I doubt that. Europe was pretty much the antithesis of nice weather for Arabs and Muslims from the South. Add to that the dismal conditions, smelly people, and general lack of things worth conquering, and you get bands of Umayyads in Al-Andalus interested in no more than raiding France and taking what they could back home. The force at Tours was more concerned about their booty than beating the Franks, which is why they stopped pressing the attack, and quickly withdrew the moment they even thought their camp was in danger, which it very vaguely was.

Very true, heck the two armies never really actually fought. Small skirmishes and the Moors just withdrew cause they wasnt anything reason to fight.

The most decisive battle of all has yet to be fought;

RAGNAROK !
or Armageddon

I think the Battle of Toba-Fushimi should be a contender. The reactionary Tokugawa dynasty was ousted in favor of the imperial side because of the Boshin War, who were in favor of modernization; thus allowing Japan to become a world power.

I think the Battle of Toba-Fushimi should be a contender. The reactionary Tokugawa dynasty was ousted in favor of the imperial side because of the Boshin War, who were in favor of modernization; thus allowing Japan to become a world power.

This one had a lot riding on it, but was the trend overwhelmingly leading towards the deposition of the Shogun and old order amyway ? This benchmarks a momentous change in Japan, but it was a battle of relatively small professional armies. Change was happening in the daily lives of most Japanese already. Was it just a matter of short time before another attempt, or other social reform would take place anyway ?


There is an imprecise and probably inconsistent method to determining a battle's macrohistorical importance, but I don't claim to know it. One thing to me is, the battle itself had to be in significant doubt, if the victory was too lopsided from the outset then the issue would likely have been settled in the victor's favor eventually anyway. If we're down to 5 only this is one of my candidates:

Salamis 480 BC - definitely won against the odds. Marathon, Thermopylae would have meant nothing, and a 'Plataea' would likely never occur. Alexander and the Helenistic Age would not have happened, and likely both the Phoenecian/Carthaginian and Persian civilizations would have dominated the Mediterranean, and ultimately Europe.

Regarding Tours in 732, it's not in the top five but it should be in the top 20.

I doubt that. Europe was pretty much the antithesis of nice weather for Arabs and Muslims from the South. Add to that the dismal conditions, smelly people, and general lack of things worth conquering, and you get bands of Umayyads in Al-Andalus interested in no more than raiding France and taking what they could back home. The force at Tours was more concerned about their booty than beating the Franks, which is why they stopped pressing the attack, and quickly withdrew the moment they even thought their camp was in danger, which it very vaguely was.

Very true, heck the two armies never really actually fought. Small skirmishes and the Moors just withdrew cause they wasnt anything reason to fight.

Well since this thread is bumped, I have a bit of a problem with these comments. There was a lot happening in France at this time; they were on the road to becoming the Holy Roman Empire. The Umayyuds and subsequent dynasties from North Africa certainly found Spain more preferable to place their capital, and France is both generally more fertile, and southern France in particular has one of the most equitable climates in Europe. The smell ? well that was the reaction of Arabs later in the crusades after encountering armoured knights who sweated in their metal suits without the benefit of a wash after crossing desolate Anatolia and Syria, but I don't think it was a relevant factor in the Muslim decision to leave this battle prematurely.

Historians seem to be deeply divided now on this one - but the numbers according to the latest views are 30-50,000 each side, pretty significant for their time. Abd-al Rahman was a great general and wasn't here for just a plunder-and-run holiday. The so-called 'reconnaissance in force' had already happened 11 years earlier when Duke Odo (Eudes) repulsed about 20,000 Arab cavalrymen intent on conquering Acquitaine; Rahman wanted a rematch and he got it. Before Tours, Odo's army was wiped out on the Garonne. And if France didn't interest the Muslims, why did they continue to launch large scale attacks on France (which largely failed), and stubbornly cling to Narbonne and other pockets along the SE coast and Pyrennes for 27 more years ? But fall they did, largely to Charles Martel, after this battle.

Furthermore, this battle was a significant reversal of the trends of the day, Papal propaganda aside:

In one of the instances where medieval infantry stood up against cavalry charges, the disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square. "The Muslim horsemen dashed fierce and frequent forward against the battalions of the Franks, who resisted manfully, and many fell dead on either side."[26]

Despite this, the Franks did not break. It appears that the years of year-round training that Charles had bought with Church funds, paid off. His hard-trained soldiery accomplished what was not thought possible at that time: infantry withstood the Umayyad heavy cavalry. Paul Davis says the core of Charles's army was a professional infantry which was both highly disciplined and well motivated, "having campaigned with him all over Europe," buttressed by levies that Charles basically used to raid and disrupt his enemy, and gather food for his infantry.


Both sides and most historians agree this battle was hard fought, and Rahman was killed to boot. I think this one has to count as much as Teutoburgerwald in 9 AD.

I still think Çaldiran was insanely important. Actually, now that I know more about the period, it's gotten to be even more critical if anything.

I still think Çaldiran was insanely important. Actually, now that I know more about the period, it's gotten to be even more critical if anything.

Why? An ottoman defeat would have changed history, but it really appears unlikely. And they didn't expand eastward after it, did they?

The significance of Tours, again, was that it resulted in the Carolingian dynasty remaining in power. Charles was on the verge of being overthrown due to friction with the Church and military repossessions.

The significance of Tours, again, was that it resulted in the Carolingian dynasty remaining in power. Charles was on the verge of being overthrown due to friction with the Church and military repossessions.

Yes, but is that all ? I think it is an understatement when likely there would be no Frankish Kingdom, ie. the Islamic threat was bigger at that time than politics with the church.

Why? An ottoman defeat would have changed history, but it really appears unlikely. And they didn't expand eastward after it, did they?
Well, I suppose it's more for the circumstances leading to the battle and the reasons it was concluded in the fashion it was, not for the tactical result, because yeah, Isma'il's chance had pretty much been lost. But those Safaviyeh nearly drove the Ottomans out of Anatolia during the preceding years when they were hit hard with weak rulers, crop failures, and then suddenly BOOM here comes an insanely awesome grass-roots religious movement that's making warlords out of all these Anatolian clans and playing havoc with the Turks' very uncomfortable relationship with religious issues in general during this century (lol shaykh bedreddin) and even suborning some of the provincial governors. Even after Mehmed II fixed the mess that was around during the last years of Murad II, in other words, the Ottoman Empire was by no means solidly on its feet and was destructible. Fiddle with the circumstances leading up to Çaldiran - maybe get those Portuguese to actually give ma boi Ismai'l some guns ;) - and it's a whole new ballgame.

Regarding Tours in 732, it's not in the top five but it should be in the top 20.

Well since this thread is bumped, I have a bit of a problem with these comments. There was a lot happening in France at this time; they were on the road to becoming the Holy Roman Empire. The Umayyuds and subsequent dynasties from North Africa certainly found Spain more preferable to place their capital, and France is both generally more fertile, and southern France in particular has one of the most equitable climates in Europe. The smell ? well that was the reaction of Arabs later in the crusades after encountering armoured knights who sweated in their metal suits without the benefit of a wash after crossing desolate Anatolia and Syria, but I don't think it was a relevant factor in the Muslim decision to leave this battle prematurely.

Historians seem to be deeply divided now on this one - but the numbers according to the latest views are 30-50,000 each side, pretty significant for their time. Abd-al Rahman was a great general and wasn't here for just a plunder-and-run holiday. The so-called 'reconnaissance in force' had already happened 11 years earlier when Duke Odo (Eudes) repulsed about 20,000 Arab cavalrymen intent on conquering Acquitaine; Rahman wanted a rematch and he got it. Before Tours, Odo's army was wiped out on the Garonne. And if France didn't interest the Muslims, why did they continue to launch large scale attacks on France (which largely failed), and stubbornly cling to Narbonne and other pockets along the SE coast and Pyrennes for 27 more years ? But fall they did, largely to Charles Martel, after this battle.

Furthermore, this battle was a significant reversal of the trends of the day, Papal propaganda aside:


In one of the instances where medieval infantry stood up against cavalry charges, the disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square. "The Muslim horsemen dashed fierce and frequent forward against the battalions of the Franks, who resisted manfully, and many fell dead on either side."[26]

Despite this, the Franks did not break. It appears that the years of year-round training that Charles had bought with Church funds, paid off. His hard-trained soldiery accomplished what was not thought possible at that time: infantry withstood the Umayyad heavy cavalry. Paul Davis says the core of Charles's army was a professional infantry which was both highly disciplined and well motivated, "having campaigned with him all over Europe," buttressed by levies that Charles basically used to raid and disrupt his enemy, and gather food for his infantry.

Both sides and most historians agree this battle was hard fought, and Rahman was killed to boot. I think this one has to count as much as Teutoburgerwald in 9 AD.

Well the Umayyads retreated from the battle because their camp, and thus their massive amounts of plunder, were threatened by another group of Frankish troops, not because the Europeans were odorous. I meant that as a reason, among many, that they had no wish to conquer farther into Europe.

As for the Frankish infantry and their resilience against Umayyad cavalry, this is largely explained by the fact that they were standing on a wooded hill when receiving these cavalry assaults. They were charging uphill against the Franks, and in a broken formation, hardly ideal conditions for such a movement. It was Charles' absolute refusal to offer battle off of that hill that largely made the Umayyads consider saying "screw it" and going home. When their camp was threatened, they took the opportunity to evacuate France completely, there being little more to be gained from staying to fight, Charles proving willing to hold his high ground indefinitely, and the risk of more Frankish troops arriving.

And finally, the claim that the Arabs were there to conquer Aquitaine: says whom?

Well the Umayyads retreated from the battle because their camp, and thus their massive amounts of plunder, were threatened by another group of Frankish troops, not because the Europeans were odorous. I meant that as a reason, among many, that they had no wish to conquer farther into Europe.

As for the Frankish infantry and their resilience against Umayyad cavalry, this is largely explained by the fact that they were standing on a wooded hill when receiving these cavalry assaults. They were charging uphill against the Franks, and in a broken formation, hardly ideal conditions for such a movement. It was Charles' absolute refusal to offer battle off of that hill that largely made the Umayyads consider saying "screw it" and going home. When their camp was threatened, they took the opportunity to evacuate France completely, there being little more to be gained from staying to fight, Charles proving willing to hold his high ground indefinitely, and the risk of more Frankish troops arriving.

And finally, the claim that the Arabs were there to conquer Aquitaine: says whom?

Well, this is a little different than some of the earlier comments. But as to whether "they had no wish to conquer further into Europe", says who ? The 'odor' may have been true enough:ack:, but Tours put an end to the rapid Muslim expansion in Europe. A smaller Arab army had begun the conquest of Spain only 20 years earlier, and 10 years later they failed in their first attempt at Toulouse. Pretty recent memory, and revenge was another motivator.

Yes, medieval infantry usually chose hills to make their stand rather than valleys. OK, but it didn't always work, aka Hastings. But that doesn't take away from Charles' victory. Contrary to popular belief, this was not just a rabble.
Strategically, and tactically, Charles probably made the best decision he could in waiting until his enemies least expected him to intervene, and then marching by stealth to catch them by surprise at a battlefield of his choosing.


Yes, the Muslims were worried about an exaggerated threat to their camp, but that isn't the first time an army got their priorities wrong, a deliberate tactic exploited by Charles, and which Rahman did his best to undo before he was killed. The fact that they were failing miserably may have had something to do with the fact that what started as a few, wanted to salvage something before they lost it all, including their lives.

According to Muslim accounts of the battle, in the midst of the fighting on the second day (Frankish accounts have the battle lasting one day only), scouts from the Franks sent by Charles began to raid the camp and supply train (including slaves and other plunder).

Charles supposedly had sent scouts to cause chaos in the Umayyad base camp, and free as many of the slaves as possible, hoping to draw off part of his foe. This succeeded, as many of the Umayyad cavalry returned to their camp. To the rest of the Muslim army, this appeared to be a full-scale retreat, and soon it became one. Both Western and Muslim histories agree that while trying to stop the retreat, ‘Abd-al-Raḥmân became surrounded, which led to his death.


So while I don't disagree with some of your points, it's a matter of emphasis. I don't interpret it as an insignificant battle. How often were European foot soldiers successful against Umayyud cavalry ? If a large body of them and their leader were surrounded, the consequences must have been significant. This was the deepest penetration of western Europe, by the biggest army, and it was defeated decisively. They never seriously threatened France again.

And the Muslims did not evacuate France completely, they had to be driven out of the south in 2 subsequent generations, and they continued to launch major attacks, making strong plays for Sicily, Sardinia, Italy as well.

I could go on about the tactical, strategic, and macrohistorical importance of Tours, but just for a minute imagine if Charles' army had collapsed, would the Umayyad army go home and not return ? France as a nation would have been stillborn, the northern Germans would have made inroads, there would likely be no unified command against the Avars and Magyars, and Italy, well...what about that little pocket of northern Spain that held out ? Would the reconquista have occurred, and who would have discovered America ?

As to whether Count Odo defeated an earlier attempt at conquest, that would be my first hypothesis. I actually just repeated what was in wiki, but it was significant. Given the context, they would have on any of a number of occasions at this time.

there would likely be no unified command against the Avars and Magyars, and Italy
wat tenchar

I really think the importance of First Poitiers is underestimated. If the Muslims had won, and then felt that France was there for the taking, who doesn't say a larger invading force wouldn't have been possible? I remember reading in a textbook on world religions, the ultimate paradise of Islam would be a world where all follow the "One True Faith"

1. First Poitiers
2. Ain Jalut
3. Manzikert
4. Midway
5. Battle Of Lutzen

wat tenchar

Did you think I meant, against Italy, when you quoted this:

there would likely be no unified command against the Avars and Magyars, and Italy

The full phrase was actually: "and Italy, well...", meaning their position would probably have become pretty precarious. No Carolingian dynasty, barbarians, and saracens.
(bad grammar)

But without Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire, I think the Avars or Magyars might have been the next German dynasty.

Italy wasn't the important part of that quotation.

well I'm not sure then Dachs. Anyway,

I really think the importance of First Poitiers is underestimated. If the Muslims had won, and then felt that France was there for the taking, who doesn't say a larger invading force wouldn't have been possible?

Charles probably didn't know he was fighting one of history's decisive battles. But if Toulouse in 721 was just a raid, this could have been the conquest. They were stopped on their way back at Tours, that's only 80 km SW of Paris. (err, make that 120) A victory here and they might have stayed for awhile. (Though it probably was a bit damper and more frigid than they were used to.)

I change my mind every once in awhile, and here's what I'm thinking of this week. I'm going to confine my choices to 1500 AD and beyond, since really everything before that vastly shaped our world; but these particular battles stand out in the modern age as being the most influential.

1. Battle of Gravelines (1588) - the defeat of the supposedly invincible Spanish armada caused the gradual rise of Britain as a maritime empire and the decline of Spain.

2. Battle of the Nile (1789) - the decimation of the French navy meant that economically choking off Britain by holding the Suez Canal would be impossible. Britain's monopoly on naval power in the Napoleonic Wars and their trade deal with Russia are what sealed Bonaparte's fate.

3. Battle of Gettysburg (1863) - a Confederate victory would have garnered European support for their cause. After Lee's retreat, their war bonds fell to fifteen cents on the dollar. An inability to fund the war cause, in addition to Grant's taking of the Mississippi a day earlier, allowed for a Union invasion of the South, thus ensuring the survival of the Republic and the end of slavery.*

4. First Battle of the Marne (1914) - the failure of Germany to quickly subdue France lead to a very bloody two-front war, and an almost guaranteed Allied victory in World War I.

5. Battle of Moscow (1941) - Germany's inability to take the Soviet capital made the Eastern Front far too costly for any real chance of success. This significant defeat also tested Hitler's sanity, resulting in him impeding his competent officers' decisions with his own; most notably in the case of Manstein.

*I imagine that this is going to be debated, but my studies have given me the impression that if the Confederacy had survived the war, the credibility of popular republicanism would have been lost forever; thus likely changing the fate of France and World War I.

It's a very interesting list - with some good reasons. I just want to clarify on one:


2. Battle of the Nile (1789) - the decimation of the French navy meant that economically choking off Britain by holding the Suez Canal would be impossible. Britain's monopoly on naval power in the Napoleonic Wars and their trade deal with Russia are what sealed Bonaparte's fate.

The canal of course came 100 years later.

What's the opinion about the Battle of Plassey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_plassey) in important battles. It resulted in the British annexing Bengal, which was a great source of wealth allowing a great takeoff of the British Empire and the eventual colonization of India. However, tactically, it was not much a battle since most of the Bengali troops did not fight, meaning that the political dealings were more important than the battle itself in regards to its result.

2. Battle of the Nile (1789) - the decimation of the French navy meant that economically choking off Britain by holding the Suez Canal would be impossible. Britain's monopoly on naval power in the Napoleonic Wars and their trade deal with Russia are what sealed Bonaparte's fate.

As noted above, the Suez Canal did not exist yet, and the Battle of the Nile was in 1798. The threat of Napoleon being in Egypt was that he wished to march on India, something made very hard after The Nile. Still, he got as far as Jaffa.

3. Battle of Gettysburg (1863) - a Confederate victory would have garnered European support for their cause. After Lee's retreat, their war bonds fell to fifteen cents on the dollar. An inability to fund the war cause, in addition to Grant's taking of the Mississippi a day earlier, allowed for a Union invasion of the South, thus ensuring the survival of the Republic and the end of slavery.*

It was Antietam that proved Union capability to win, and kept the Europeans out of the war. By the point of Gettysburg, European nations were already confiscating Confederate ironclads being built abroad and delivering them to the North.

*I imagine that this is going to be debated, but my studies have given me the impression that if the Confederacy had survived the war, the credibility of popular republicanism would have been lost forever; thus likely changing the fate of France and World War I.

I think you should put Mr. Turtledove down for a bit. :)

What's the opinion about the Battle of Plassey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_plassey) in important battles. It resulted in the British annexing Bengal, which was a great source of wealth allowing a great takeoff of the British Empire and the eventual colonization of India. However, tactically, it was not much a battle since most of the Bengali troops did not fight, meaning that the political dealings were more important than the battle itself in regards to its result.

The big deal with Plassey was political, not militaristic. The Nawab of Bengal's betrayal of the French East India Company was more important than the British victory over the French in India, as it also removed him from being a potential future enemy, and gave the British a real foothold in India and more importantly around Calcutta, and access to not only French holdings there but also Dutch ones further inland in East Bengal.

My mistake regarding the Nile; though I still maintain that it was one of the most important battles in history, as it lead to Napoleon's eventual failure in the campaign.

As for Gettysburg, France and Britain were very close to supporting the Confederacy, just in order to end the war fast so they could start importing cotton again. Several records from Napoleon III and Lord Palmerston show that they were just waiting for one more victory to enter the cause, and that was supposed to be Gettysburg. The Emancipation Proclamation, which came from Antietam, would never have gone into effect had the Union not been able to mount an effective invasion of the South; so that was not properly the turning point of the war.

But this wasn't just significant for the U.S. but for the fate of republicanism. Europe was expecting the U.S. to tear themselves apart not 100 years after their birth. Letting the Confederacy survive, i.e., demolishing Lincoln's claim that it was simply a rebellion, would have been a confirmation of Hobbes' theories of absolute government in the eyes of Victorian Europe.

The Roebuck motion was already failing in Parliament before Gettysburg and Vicksburg due to the revelation that Russell and Drouyn de Lhuys weren't in contact about a Southern intervention.

The Roebuck motion was already failing in Parliament before Gettysburg and Vicksburg due to the revelation that Russell and Drouyn de Lhuys weren't in contact about a Southern intervention.

This is true, but wouldn't you agree that Franco-British intervention was likely had the war been going more smoothly for the Confederates; simply to spite the U.S. and acquire cotton?

I dunno. By 1863 they were largely shifted to Indian and Egyptian supplies anyway. Maybe if the Confederacy won at Gettysburg...

A strong case could be made for the Battle of Plassey not for its military merits... but for its future economic merits viz. industrialization.

Impossible to say, because we don't know the consequences... perhaps some battle between the seals and the Eskimos saved us from a creation of a great, Mongol-like eskimo empire.

But, well,

1) collectively - the battles between Alexander and the Persians

2) Zama

3) collectively - Yarmuk and Al-Qadisiyya

4) Adrianople?

also, Mantzikert, Vienna, Stalingrad.

2) Zama

4) Adrianople?

Very good choice of Zama, I wish I was more aware of Roman history to have put it in my list earlier in the thread.

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

Mantzikert,

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."

Vienna

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

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."
Yeah, Manzikert wasn't that important of a battle, but not for the reasons that you're claiming. The engagement itself didn't do all that much - lost a comparatively competent emperor, a relatively small portion of the army, and a bit of ransom. The civil war after that and the course of those events, combined with the Seljuq irruption into Anatolia, was what ruined the empire. For perspective: Romanos IV got together around 70,000 men during his reign for his various campaigns in the east, yet two decades later it's estimated that Alexios Komnenos only had 20,000 to 30,000 men in his entire army. It's frequently overlooked how badly the bloodletting civil wars and poor management of the post-Manzikert emperors ruined the state.

Of course, even with that in mind, Manzikert wasn't an empire-breaker by itself because during the 12th century, the empire did have the ability to recapture Anatolia, at least reclaiming the stable border of the seventh to ninth centuries. Its failure to do so can largely be laid on the heads of the Komnenian emperors, who squandered imperial resources fighting over the relatively unimportant Antioch and making expeditions into Italy to fight the bloody Normans for no possible gain while Seljuqs were occupying and solidifying their control of the critical old themata.

I'd say that the Byzantines were in decline only in the sense that they weren't at their 1025 or 540 peaks, not in the sense that it was a terminal decline. Certainly the emperors of the later Makedonian dynasty were less than competent in many cases (the rather atrocious demobilization of the Armeniakon Thema by that nitwit Konstantinos X being one of the most objectionable things), but since Basileios II, the Empire had actually expanded in the Caucasus, although losing some territory in Italy. It wasn't doomed by any stretch in 1070, or even afterwards, because they'd faced similar and worse setbacks before, to which competent emperors had responded...well, competently. Instead, foolish ones exacerbated a relatively small problem and turned it into the empire-destroying thing that it became.

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.

Valmy took place on September 20th, 1792, not 1515, but you are right about the rest. The battle was a cannonade, not a real battle however, and the Prussian Army retreated. This battle saved France, but if the Prussians had attacked, History as we know it may have changed. But I do not think we would have continued to live under Kings for long, there was too much oppression, further more, the world needed change for growth.

GenghisK did not say Valmy was in 1515. He said that instead of Marignan 1515, when the French defeated the Swiss, he would pick Valmy, without giving a date.

These are arranged throughout time.

1. Zamma
2. Battle of Tours (turning point of Moor invasion into Europe)
3. Waterloo
4. Battle of Britain (air battle, but nevertheless important because it kept Germany from being able to launch an assault on mainland Britain which would have allowed them to capture Middle East and link up with the Japanese in Eastern Asia).
5. Stalingrad (obvious choice as it was the turning point of WW2).