Single most important battle in History?

[vb1]

I say Cannae and Hannibal's decision not to besiege Rome.
Had he been successful at taking Rome, there would be no Roman empire with all following consequences.
I read a book in which such a scenario was described, according to the author this would lead to dominance of the Celtic culture later on, as there would be no Romans to invade Gaul and Britain. The Celts would also possibly have resisted the barbarian invasions which resulted in most European countries that we know today.

 

[Quildavyr]

Lets see...If The battle would not fought, CHinese Presence would have increased and remain in Central Asia. Who knows, maybe a Sinonized Central Asia may appear and push forward and west into Europe for control of Trade Routes and Diplomatic Dominance. However this would alarm the Caliphate which would most likely fight China, which would lead to a battle at the edge of both empires which bewteen two Giants which may end in total defeat on both sides, which may end both Chinese and Islamic presence in the region.

Without this battle, paper may not been transferred over to the Arabs who subsequently wont transfer to Europe. No paper, no need for the printing press, slower Reinassce, no quick spread of the Reformation, no Protestant England, no protestant England, no extremist protestant English running to America to escape them, no english colony founded, no American Nation.

Conclusion, Huge effects

Turks were still shamanist people,no Ottoman or Seldjuk empire,Byzantine was a still living country.A smaller Russia..

 

[Brighteye]

I was being facetious. Thermopylae made for a good film.

 

[holy king]

This confuses and hurts Elta's brain

In any case yes, I had heard from the discovery channel that in between 70k and 100k we went through an extreme population bottle neck where we were whittled down to like 50 people.

wasnt there something about at least 128 (or something similar, a bit over a hundred for sure) individuals needed in order to provide a sufficient gene pool?

 

[Elta]

wasnt there something about at least 128 (or something similar, a bit over a hundred for sure) individuals needed in order to provide a sufficient gene pool?

Well the guess for 50 is because they figure since all women came from one women 100,000 years ago and all men from one man 70,000 years ago.

It's not inconceivable that there were 100s and they all got some nasty disease and the only men to survive were the boys of this one guy.

So yeah it's possible that there were more people.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Again, with both Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam, as they are called, they weren't the only ancestors of ours at that time. Although every male (for example) gets his Y chromosome from this male 70,000 years ago, that just means he was our father's father's . . . etc., only considering males. But then, the grandson of Y Chromosome Adam must have mated with a woman who had male ancestors; we just don't get our Y chromosome from them.

 

[Elta]

Again, with both Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam, as they are called, they weren't the only ancestors of ours at that time. Although every male (for example) gets his Y chromosome from this male 70,000 years ago, that just means he was our father's father's . . . etc., only considering males. But then, the grandson of Y Chromosome Adam must have mated with a woman who had male ancestors; we just don't get our Y chromosome from them.

What he said ( it made more sense that time )

 

[Sofista]

Seems nobody mentions Lepanto.

 

[Arwon]

I did. Well, only as more important than Trafalgar.

 

[Archbob]

I say Cannae and Hannibal's decision not to besiege Rome.
Had he been successful at taking Rome, there would be no Roman empire with all following consequences.
I read a book in which such a scenario was described, according to the author this would lead to dominance of the Celtic culture later on, as there would be no Romans to invade Gaul and Britain. The Celts would also possibly have resisted the barbarian invasions which resulted in most European countries that we know today.

I disagree. If Hannibal had won at Zama, I believe things in the mediterranian would be alot different than it is now. The three victories that Hannibal won were great but Zama was the deciding victory.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Seems nobody mentions Lepanto.

Why should they? The Ottoman Empire hardly flinched.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Seems nobody mentions Lepanto.

Why should they? The Ottoman Empire hardly flinched.

Exactly though they dealt a crushing defeat the holy alliance was so indecisive and divided they did nothing with their victory and the Ottomans were very easily able to recover from it.

Talas, first siege of vienna, siege of constantinople in 1453, panipat, yarmuk, qadisiyah and the battle of chains, gravelines(well maybe not so much as a significant beginning in a change in power from spain to england), etc.

 

[shortguy]

I disagree. If Hannibal had won at Zama, I believe things in the mediterranian would be alot different than it is now. The three victories that Hannibal won were great but Zama was the deciding victory.

I don't think even an opposite result at Zama could have reversed the fortunes of Carthage and Rome. Rome lost something like 1/3 of its population in the 2nd Punic War, but they were in a major war again within two years. The Romans of this era simply would not countenance defeat, no matter how many men they lost.

 

[Archbob]

I don't think even an opposite result at Zama could have reversed the fortunes of Carthage and Rome. Rome lost something like 1/3 of its population in the 2nd Punic War, but they were in a major war again within two years. The Romans of this era simply would not countenance defeat, no matter how many men they lost.

They'll run out of men if they keep losing. Carthage would not have sued for peace if Zama had been won.

 

[Chief McRae]

It's too easy I think to consider modern conflicts as being the most important, but I imagine something as ancient as the Battle of Zama because if punic culture wasn't defeated or maybe even prevailed, latin culture would never have travelled the degree it is. It is reasonable to assume that Carthage would not have had an empire in the same way Rome did, so really, Christanity, and in turn all abrahamic tradition could have just been another lost cult. You could also imagine Celtic culture surviving on mainland Europe (not to mention Britain) It would completely change the nature of every nation alive today.

 

[MilesGregarius]

I say Battle of Stalingrad was more important than Battle of Britian in WWII.

I agree that Stalingrad trumps the Battle of Britain, but I'd say the battle for Moscow in 1941 was more important than Stalingrad. Hitler outbungled Stalin and lost the Third Reich's best chance to decisively cripple the Soviet Union.

The Battle of Singapore was pretty important.

It help thrash the image that the Europeans were "Invinceble" leading to sucessive independence of several countries.

Tsushima did more to dispel the myth of white invincibility, at least in non-white eyes. It also allowed Japan to be the first non-white power to break into the ranks of the Great Powers, and contributed to the destabilization of Tsarist Russia and the eventual fall of the Romanovs/rise of the Bolsheviks.

battle of Stalingrad
siege of Costantinople
battle of Yorktown
battle of El- Alamein

I'd put Saratoga well ahead of Yorktown. No Saratoga means no French help to the Continentals means no Yorktown.

 

[Archbob]

El-Alamein wasn't that important. The European theatre is where the most importat stuff happened.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'd put Saratoga well ahead of Yorktown. No Saratoga means no French help to the Continentals means no Yorktown.

Definitely. Saratoga was the crucial battle in that war. I would consider it the second most important battle in American history.

 

[Archbob]

Trenton and Princenton were also very important during the revolutionary war

 

[Dachs]

Turks were still shamanist people

Actually, they were Tengriist. That's a huge difference. Besides, "shamanist" is sort of a misnomer - use "animist" or "primal religion" instead.