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.
The five most important battles of all times.
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
- Status
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?
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?
Dude, four of my five listed engagements took place in the Middle East. Stop hatin'.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
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
EDIT: Nvm I can't even remember my own choices lol
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
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.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
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.
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.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
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.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
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.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
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)
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).
Please learn more of this battle, beyond what you saw in 300
Germans would need large order of ASB just ot make it to the coast and thats if they won Battle of Britain.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Homework for tonight: Battle of Moscow, October-January 1941-42
Oh dear.
Perhaps you can enlighten us to the casualty rate of both sides?
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.
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.
Perfection
The Great Head.
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.
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.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Tom Cruise killed Japs? I must see this!
He was samurai too
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Wow I totally forgot about that movie. That means it's time for bed! 
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,524
LightSpectra
me autem minui
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.)
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
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.
Knighterror1013
Chieftain
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....
- Status
Similar threads
