The five most important battles of all times.

[puglover]

Saratoga
Thermopolye
Midway

Most Important Three Battles

 

[joespaniel]

Good lord man!

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

 

[West German]

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

 

[sabo]

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.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

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.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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

 

[LionQ]

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.

 

[DragonEd]

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.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Wow. That is some necromancy.

 

[DragonEd]

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

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.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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...

 

[DragonEd]

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.

 

[onejayhawk]

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

 

[Tee Kay]

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

 

[Antilogic]

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.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

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.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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]

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.

 

[aronnax]

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

 

[Provolution]

1. Midway.
2. Marathon, indeed.
3. Austerlitz.
4. Dien Bien Phu

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.