The five most important battles of all times.

[Knighterror1013]

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.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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.

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.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Heh, I rather stupidly forgot about the Hetairoi.

 

[generalstaff]

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."

 

[Masada]

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

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

 

[civiijkw]

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.

 

[Bugfatty300]

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

 

[LightSpectra]

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

Because criticism is what makes it fun.

 

[LightSpectra]

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.

 

[Teeninvestor]

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.

 

[W|M]

The siege of Tenchtítlán ensured the Spanish conquest of Mexico.

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

 

[LightSpectra]

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.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[LightSpectra]

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.

 

[Godwynn]

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)

 

[Dachs]

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?