Most Important Battle in History

[D.Durand]

Well, medieval Islam was MORE repressive than modern Iran, by a cosmic margin(and Iran is far less repressive than, say, Indonesia or countries in Arabian peninsula).
Iran is repressive, but can't do it as much is leaders want because the people here see itself as more civilized than Arabs (and is, but it's only my though) and is always near revolt. Add the Iran leaders don't even control the East of the countries (who is in the hands of the local mafias.)....

Searchers were despised (and still are) in medieval islam countries. Even peoples know today as "great muslims scientists or philosophers" were often not even muslim (for example, nearly all the progress made by the caliphate in VI-X century were made by christians and jews - and zoroastrians - and copying from byzantine texts - the famous "texts translated from greek" - by non-muslims as well).
And all, they always feared for their live, even the muslims ones (most of muslim philosophes were Greek fans and used ancient greek philosophy for build their own. Some paid with their live).

The "pure" muslim scientists were not really scientist in a modern sense, or even philosophers in a Grek sense.
Nearly always, their "science" was just "this is against the Coran, then it's false. This is as say the Coran, then it's true".


The Catholic Church was not more responsible than others for the progress in Europe. A lot of the progress were made by workers. In fact, the medieval era IS an era of insane progress in Europe. The XIII century was even call the Europen Golden Age.

It's the XIV century that was called "dark age" in comparison (and was really one).
Even in the Church, nearly all the progress were made in monasteries (but here there is a lot, that's true).

 

[innonimatu]

Well, medieval Islam was MORE repressive than modern Iran, by a cosmic margin(and Iran is far less repressive than, say, Indonesia or countries in Arabian peninsula).
Iran is repressive, but can't do it as much is leaders want because the people here see itself as more civilized than Arabs (and is, but it's only my though) and is always near revolt. Add the Iran leaders don't even control the East of the countries (who is in the hands of the local mafias.)....

Ah, but the leaders in medieval islamic kingdoms were also limited - by their own resources (always weal prior to the moder state) and the mix of populations they had to control, which included many non-islamic communities. They squeezed them, opressed them, but were limited in what they could do, arguably more that the modern rulers of, say, any modern country with a "99% islamic" population.

Searchers were despised (and still are) in medieval islam countries. Even peoples know today as "great muslims scientists or philosophers" were often not even muslim (for example, nearly all the progress made by the caliphate in VI-X century were made by christians and jews - and zoroastrians - and copying from byzantine texts - the famous "texts translated from greek" - by non-muslims as well).
And all, they always feared for their live, even the muslims ones (most of muslim philosophes were Greek fans and used ancient greek philosophy for build their own. Some paid with their live).
[...]
The Catholic Church was not more responsible than others for the progress in Europe. A lot of the progress were made by workers. In fact, the medieval era IS an era of insane progress in Europe. The XIII century was even call the Europen Golden Age.

It's the XIV century that was called "dark age" in comparison (and was really one).
Even in the Church, nearly all the progress were made in monasteries (but here there is a lot, that's true).

True. But I wouldn't call the XIV century a dark age either. Overpopulation and then the plague caused much misery, but the first was a result of the progress during the previous centuries and the second... solved that problem! Medieval standards of living probably rose after the plague, and until the late 15th century that even eased the social conflicts.



Wow, a 5 year necro! I thought I'd already seen a lot of "most important battle" threads...

 

[Quackers]

Battle of Britain.

 

[Dachs]

Battle of Britain.

'Don't Tread On Me' indeed.

 

[aronnax]

What do you think was the most important battle in history?

For example:

Stalingrad: If the Russians hadn't stopped the Germans, what would have happened?

Second choice: Tours: If the French hadn't stopped the Muslims, then Europe and the Americas would be all Islamic (!!!).

Bronze goes to: Midway: US destroyed much of the Japenese fleet there

I would like you to understand, exactly how much I despise this thread of yours and exactly how much I wish that all future and past creators of this type of threads, are sentenced to Heck for discussing the 2nd most annoying History thread after "Alexander Vs China". To do this, I will post this exact post I did in the last incarnation of this bloody topic.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=327583

Here we go again, the billionth thread on "Most Decisive Battles Ever". They are always reused again and again just in different names to make it seem that they are starting something original. And it is always the same routine. Firstly, some one would take some cliche battle that is highly misunderstood by school history and hollywood and see it as the Most important/Greatest/life-changing battle. And it is always the same few battles.
A) We have the "Save Europe from Islam" Battles:
1) Poiters/Tours
2) Siege of Vienna
3) Lepanto
4) Siege of Malta

B) And then the "Stop Mongol advance" Battles
1) Ain Jalut
2) Great stand on the Ugra river

C) Then there are the "Britain Saves the World" Battles
1) Waterloo
2) Trafalgar
3) Nile
4) Spanish Armada
5) Battle of Britain

C) Then there are the WWII Battles
1) D-Day
2) Stalingrad
3) Midway

D) Then there are the "America saves the World" Battles
1) Yorktown
2) Saratoga
3) Anything against Japan and Hitler
4) Gettysburg

E) Then there are the "Puny Greece versus Mighty Persia" Battles
1) Salamis (Everybody's personal favourite)
2) Marathon
3) Thermopylae (due to that damn movie)

And many more. Some will post battles of the neglected Asian nations in an attempt to sound worldly and well-read.
1) Sedan
2) Sekigahara
3) Fall of Constantinople
4) Talas
5) Your mom
And then people will squabble about Why is it not as decisive as it seems and why it is as decisive as it seems, and then some brilliant poster, usually Steph or Plotinus or Knight-Dragon swoops in and says this in a lengthy but awesome post that means basically this

"It is not possible to have a most decisive battle because all battles were influenced by battles before it and then later contribute to factors that lead to future battles. Due to the butterfly Effect, logic and common sense, the most decisive battle ever would be the first battle ever, which is probably when Ugg killed Thor with a rock."

And then people will ignore the brilliant message by Steph/Plotinius/Knight-Dragon and post cliche battles like the ones listed above.

Are we done with yet?

But why do I even bother? This is after all, the internet.

 

[Cobalt Command]

^^^

I love this post

 

[Lord Baal]

I would like you to understand, exactly how much I despise this thread of yours and exactly how much I wish that all future and past creators of this type of threads, are sentenced to Heck for discussing the 2nd most annoying History thread after "Alexander Vs China". To do this, I will post this exact post I did in the last incarnation of this bloody topic.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=327583



But why do I even bother? This is after all, the internet.

I agree with everything said here.

With all that said, I thnk the Battle of Britain was the most important battle ever.

 

[Luso]

The Reconquista with Portugal against Moors, and Aljubarrota Battle against Spain.

 

[Muntzer]

I'd say that military history is over rated, 99% of all battles has had very limited impact on long term history. I don't hold it for likely that the future of Europe has been decided in some battle against persians, germanic tribes, muslims, mongols or for that sake nazis.

 

[Dachs]

I'd say that military history is over rated, 99% of all battles has had very limited impact on long term history. I don't hold it for likely that the future of Europe has been decided in some battle against persians, germanic tribes, muslims, mongols or for that sake nazis.

Thank God military historians don't just focus on battles. That'd be like meteorologists only learning about rainstorms.

 

[D.Durand]

Ah, but the leaders in medieval islamic kingdoms were also limited - by their own resources (always weal prior to the moder state) and the mix of populations they had to control, which included many non-islamic communities. They squeezed them, opressed them, but were limited in what they could do, arguably more that the modern rulers of, say, any modern country with a "99% islamic" population.

Well, you forgot Islam is a civ where peoples have no right (at all), only the group have. If you don't go with the group ideas, you are as good as dead.
In theses types of civs, you don't have to rely much on yourself : Just "drive" the population as a group, and let them do the ugly job.

True. But I wouldn't call the XIV century a dark age either. Overpopulation and then the plague caused much misery, but the first was a result of the progress during the previous centuries and the second... solved that problem! Medieval standards of living probably rose after the plague, and until the late 15th century that even eased the social conflicts.

Well, XIV century was called the dark age (it's it the original "dark age") in comparison with the XIII, who was for most Europe a Golden Age (slow end of serves, big expansion of European commerce, excellent level in agriculture, etc.).

In the XIV century, you have :

- Slow extinction of the commerce with Far East (because the Turks don't like commerce).
- Mad climate, with wet and codd summer destroying harvest, nearly no navigation possible in winter because enormous tempests.
- The terrifying Century War in France.
- Theses three allow for the biggest financial crisis of all times, and a big famine.
- The black Death (1/3 to 1/2 of the European population dying. Around 25 Millions peoples died).

How our ancestors survived that without the collapse of their civilization is still seen of one of the biggest wonder of the world history.

Wow, a 5 year necro! I thought I'd already seen a lot of "most important battle" threads...

uh... woops ?

 

[D.Durand]

I'm not with thoses who don't like theses posts.

1° It's fun.

2° We all learn something.

3° If you change the outcome of some battles, you change the world, when for some others inertia can repair.

Example : The battle just before Alesia, when Gauls attacked a retreating caesar was really important, when Gergovia had, finally, less importance in the outcome of the war.

In fact, we all know battles are influenced by others things : No Alexander without Phillip. But they were the most important changes in history. That were, finally, the battles who changed the world.

 

[LightSpectra]

The Siege of Orléans, for the sheer amount of lulz involved in an uneducated teenage peasant girl routing the army that had conquered half of France.

 

[Masada]

Nah, I reserve my lulz for the Javanese Kingdoms of Majapahit and Singhasari driving away a Yuan army.

 

[Lord Baal]

Nah, I reserve my lulz for the Javanese Kingdoms of Majapahit and Singhasari driving away a Yuan army.

I find it quite lulsome that the Mongols even made a naval expedition to the tropics, regardless of what happened when they arrived. Be the equivalent of Eskimoes invading France.

@D.Durand:

the Turks don't like commerce

And that's just ONE of the many things wrong with that post!

 

[say1988]

To do this, I will post this exact post I did in the last incarnation of this bloody topic.

I loved that post the first time around

I'm not with thoses who don't like theses posts.

True, but aronnax basically sums up every one of these threads. If you get more specific, and less regular problem, it gets more unique and different.

 

[Mansa Musa]

Battle of Manzikert in 1071.

This led to the collapse of Byzantine Anatolia which led to the Emperor calling for a crusade against the Turks and eventually the entire Arab world, which culminated in the revival of Europe and the end of the Dark Ages, the destruction of the Byzantine Empire, the Renaissance because Byzantine knowledge was forced to move from Anatolia towards a land which had money at the time due to trade in Egypt (that place was Italy) and the battle also led to the discovery of the Americas because trade between the Orient and the Occident was controlled by Muslims. And all this led to the creation of the Modern World

 

[Dachs]

Yeah see that mostly works if you assert that Seljuq conquest of Anatolia and subsequent sustained Turkish settlement and political control there was inevitable after the Manzikert engagement. Which it wasn't.

 

[Mansa Musa]

Yeah see that mostly works if you assert that Seljuq conquest of Anatolia and subsequent sustained Turkish settlement and political control there was inevitable after the Manzikert engagement. Which it wasn't.

It wasn't inevitable..but it did occur over the long-term because the local Greek-speaking populations submitted to the Turkish arrivals after so does that make the outcome inevitable within that context? Who knows, but what happened-happened and history was forever changed. After that battle, century by century Anatolia was gradually taken over by Turks

 

[Dreadnought]

I would like you to understand, exactly how much I despise this thread of yours and exactly how much I wish that all future and past creators of this type of threads, are sentenced to Heck for discussing the 2nd most annoying History thread after "Alexander Vs China". To do this, I will post this exact post I did in the last incarnation of this bloody topic.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=327583



But why do I even bother? This is after all, the internet.

Joke's on you cause this thread is five years old!