But although Britain could have beaten Japan, they were scared of, or realised the risk would be greater than the reward, or something. It ended any European, particularly British, ambitions. So, in that sense, the Japanese victory at Tsushima was quite decisive in Asia's history.
The five most important battles of all times.
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
- Status
But although Britain could have beaten Japan, they were scared of, or realised the risk would be greater than the reward, or something. It ended any European, particularly British, ambitions. So, in that sense, the Japanese victory at Tsushima was quite decisive in Asia's history.
Kraznaya
Princeps
LightSpectra
me autem minui
As I said before, Japan won every battle of the Russo-Japanese War, so Tsushima wasn't at all decisive. Perhaps it was a bit influential in naval history and tactics, but calling it one of the most important battles in history is... ridiculous, to say the least.
Taking either "battle" or "all time" to their limits you can add:
Lucifer's defeat at the end of his revolt.
Armageddon.
The pope's suppression of Galaleo pushing scientific investigation more to protestant countries.
The political battle in early Rome resulting in the common people gaining some say in the Republic.
Lucifer's defeat at the end of his revolt.
Armageddon.
The pope's suppression of Galaleo pushing scientific investigation more to protestant countries.
The political battle in early Rome resulting in the common people gaining some say in the Republic.
I like this and way it can go.
Dude, I know that, I read Halpern's Naval History and Dreadnought and so forth.
It was a rhetorical question, indicating that non-carrier surface assets ended up not being as important as Tsushima would have one think.What ambitions? Britain had just signed an alliance with Japan three years previously.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
How about, the most important battles of Russian history?
1223 - Battle of Kalka River. Mongols overrun the Kievan Rus and subjugate them for two-hundred years.
1242 - Battle of the Ice. Defeat of the Teutonic Knights prevented a Catholic expansion into Russian territory, and possibly also Germanization.
1380 - Battle of Kulikovo. Russian rebellion against the Golden Horde predicates their collapse.
1480 - Great Stand of the Ulgra River. Ivan III claims independence of Moscow and begins acquiring Mongolian territory.
1709 - Battle of Poltava. Acquisition of Swedish imperial territory allowed the proclamation of the Russian empire.
1812 - Battle of Borodino. Napoleon's inability to decisively defeat the Russian armies contributed to his failure. Related is the Battle of Berezina where the French armies was decimated as it tries to escape Russia.
1920 - Battle of Warsaw prevents Soviet control over Poland until World War II.
1943 - Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. Decisive defeat of German invaders allowed for Russian occupation of Eastern Europe, setting the stage for the Cold War.
1223 - Battle of Kalka River. Mongols overrun the Kievan Rus and subjugate them for two-hundred years.
1242 - Battle of the Ice. Defeat of the Teutonic Knights prevented a Catholic expansion into Russian territory, and possibly also Germanization.
1380 - Battle of Kulikovo. Russian rebellion against the Golden Horde predicates their collapse.
1480 - Great Stand of the Ulgra River. Ivan III claims independence of Moscow and begins acquiring Mongolian territory.
1709 - Battle of Poltava. Acquisition of Swedish imperial territory allowed the proclamation of the Russian empire.
1812 - Battle of Borodino. Napoleon's inability to decisively defeat the Russian armies contributed to his failure. Related is the Battle of Berezina where the French armies was decimated as it tries to escape Russia.
1920 - Battle of Warsaw prevents Soviet control over Poland until World War II.
1943 - Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk. Decisive defeat of German invaders allowed for Russian occupation of Eastern Europe, setting the stage for the Cold War.
Really, I have no idea, but I would assume an imperialistic nation would have some ambitions in Asia, even if they weren't very realistic or in the forefront of policy. And signing an alliance is not usually about helping the other nation, so much as helping yourself. Britain would've wanted Japan's help to stop Russian expansion in Asia, and to take them away from Europe a bit, maybe? This would be for her own advantage, or so the British would think, in the long run.
Kraznaya
Princeps
The Anglo-Japanese was very relevant until the 1920s until the Americans forced the British to break it off. The British public rooted for "feisty little Japan" during the Russo-Japanese War and the Japanese were given a lock of Admiral Nelson's hair as a commemoration of their victory at the Battle of Tsushima. It is true that their spheres of influence in Southeast Asia would conflict later, but that's only after the alliance was broken after as a result of American interference, and the demise of mutual enemies that took precedence over their own clashing imperialist ambition (Russia, Germany).
Dumai's Wells.
Love WoT.
Excellent choice! But I will say that O'Brien's and Bashir's extraction of the plague cure from Sloan was just as decisive, if not more, to the outcome of the war.
And I would rank the battle at Narendra III in 2344 as the most significant in the Trek universe's canon history.
Well, the thread title says "important", not "decisive". But I agree that Stalingrad is overrated.
First two from listening to a guy at work who's a history major:
1. Poitier, 732
2. Tsushima, 1905
And my original thoughts:
3. Kiev, 1941 - The Germans diverted huge numbers from Army Group Center for what was, essentially, a mop-up operation around Kiev. Although the operation was successful, the combination of human fatigue, combat losses, vehicular wear-and-tear, and six weeks delay (with the oncoming Russian winter) was responsible for the German defeat at Moscow.
The decision to turn aside changed the course of the war. Probably, Germany would have lost eventually (with U.S. involvement), but the war would have lasted longer; the Russian front would have been more of a scattered, partisan affair (like Yugoslavia on steriods); and the Soviets would have acquired less territory in Eastern Europe.
4. Monongahela Valley, 1794 - Not much fighting, but the repression of the Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the U.S. would be another nation-state rather than establishing a new political paradigm.
5. Stamford Bridge-Hastings, September-October 1066 - The battle in York was just as important as Hastings. First, it put Harold on a short schedule to reach Hastings, contributing to his defeat there; second, it destroyed the Viking forces, meaning William didn't have to share England with them.
Cheers,
J
Anyone who knows anything about the Battle of Poitiers knows that it is NOTHING AT ALL like the "breaking of the tide" of "evil invading Moor".
In fact by most sources (some off the top of my head include my own history lectures and French historians like Myriam Audebert) agree that the Battle of Poiters was something rather.. irrelevant.
The Moors could no go any further north for several reasons including them overstretching themselves and the fact that the Moors who crossed the Pyrenees were a bunch of splinters from the Ummayah Caliphate
In conclusion, that guy either doesn't do his history properly, or is just a <insert deragotary term here>
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Assuming we're talking about the Battle of Tours in the 8th century, there is one point of relevance here. Charles Martel likely would have been assassinated or excommunicated or something, after he did so much to annoy the Church and the people in France; Tours at least gave him the reputation necessary continue to rule.
Also, can people please stop listing Tsushima?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The Black Prince's Poitiers wasn't particularly important, either, impressive and cool though it was.
Interesting quotes, but they aren't from me.
That the Moors who scrossed the Pyrenees would have halted anyway (though certainly they were stopped sooner by being defeated) does not make the battle irrelevant. Other reasons are given for its significance, including reaction and perception in other parts of the Muslim world; further campaigns by Martel to root the Muslims out of Gaul; and the establishment of Martel's reputation, as noted by LightSpectra.
More to the point: Historians disagree. So while I commend your passioned attack against the macrohistorical interpretation, I think it's rather uncharitable to make a personal attack on the competence of someone who agrees with reputable sources.
Disregarding the Battle of Tours/Poitiers' macrohistorical role as a 'high tide' for Islam, it does have at least some import in elevating the family of Charles Martel to the foremost position in the Frankish Empire by eliminating one of the Carolingians' primary rivals in Odo of Aquitania.
I would disagree. While I agree that the Muslim force at Poitiers itself wasn't particularly, it was really merely testing the waters of France, to see if it would have been ripe for Moorish conquest. Obviously with a Christian loss, greater forces would have come.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I doubt that. Europe was pretty much the antithesis of nice weather for Arabs and Muslims from the South. Add to that the dismal conditions, smelly people, and general lack of things worth conquering, and you get bands of Umayyads in Al-Andalus interested in no more than raiding France and taking what they could back home. The force at Tours was more concerned about their booty than beating the Franks, which is why they stopped pressing the attack, and quickly withdrew the moment they even thought their camp was in danger, which it very vaguely was.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Very true, heck the two armies never really actually fought. Small skirmishes and the Moors just withdrew cause they wasnt anything reason to fight.
- Status
Similar threads
