The five most important battles of all times.
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
- Status
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I think the Battle of Toba-Fushimi should be a contender. The reactionary Tokugawa dynasty was ousted in favor of the imperial side because of the Boshin War, who were in favor of modernization; thus allowing Japan to become a world power.
This one had a lot riding on it, but was the trend overwhelmingly leading towards the deposition of the Shogun and old order amyway ? This benchmarks a momentous change in Japan, but it was a battle of relatively small professional armies. Change was happening in the daily lives of most Japanese already. Was it just a matter of short time before another attempt, or other social reform would take place anyway ?
There is an imprecise and probably inconsistent method to determining a battle's macrohistorical importance, but I don't claim to know it. One thing to me is, the battle itself had to be in significant doubt, if the victory was too lopsided from the outset then the issue would likely have been settled in the victor's favor eventually anyway. If we're down to 5 only this is one of my candidates:
Salamis 480 BC - definitely won against the odds. Marathon, Thermopylae would have meant nothing, and a 'Plataea' would likely never occur. Alexander and the Helenistic Age would not have happened, and likely both the Phoenecian/Carthaginian and Persian civilizations would have dominated the Mediterranean, and ultimately Europe.
Regarding Tours in 732, it's not in the top five but it should be in the top 20.
Well since this thread is bumped, I have a bit of a problem with these comments. There was a lot happening in France at this time; they were on the road to becoming the Holy Roman Empire. The Umayyuds and subsequent dynasties from North Africa certainly found Spain more preferable to place their capital, and France is both generally more fertile, and southern France in particular has one of the most equitable climates in Europe. The smell ? well that was the reaction of Arabs later in the crusades after encountering armoured knights who sweated in their metal suits without the benefit of a wash after crossing desolate Anatolia and Syria, but I don't think it was a relevant factor in the Muslim decision to leave this battle prematurely.
Historians seem to be deeply divided now on this one - but the numbers according to the latest views are 30-50,000 each side, pretty significant for their time. Abd-al Rahman was a great general and wasn't here for just a plunder-and-run holiday. The so-called 'reconnaissance in force' had already happened 11 years earlier when Duke Odo (Eudes) repulsed about 20,000 Arab cavalrymen intent on conquering Acquitaine; Rahman wanted a rematch and he got it. Before Tours, Odo's army was wiped out on the Garonne. And if France didn't interest the Muslims, why did they continue to launch large scale attacks on France (which largely failed), and stubbornly cling to Narbonne and other pockets along the SE coast and Pyrennes for 27 more years ? But fall they did, largely to Charles Martel, after this battle.
Furthermore, this battle was a significant reversal of the trends of the day, Papal propaganda aside:
Both sides and most historians agree this battle was hard fought, and Rahman was killed to boot. I think this one has to count as much as Teutoburgerwald in 9 AD.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
Why? An ottoman defeat would have changed history, but it really appears unlikely. And they didn't expand eastward after it, did they?
LightSpectra
me autem minui
The significance of Tours, again, was that it resulted in the Carolingian dynasty remaining in power. Charles was on the verge of being overthrown due to friction with the Church and military repossessions.
Yes, but is that all ? I think it is an understatement when likely there would be no Frankish Kingdom, ie. the Islamic threat was bigger at that time than politics with the church.
Well, I suppose it's more for the circumstances leading to the battle and the reasons it was concluded in the fashion it was, not for the tactical result, because yeah, Isma'il's chance had pretty much been lost. But those Safaviyeh nearly drove the Ottomans out of Anatolia during the preceding years when they were hit hard with weak rulers, crop failures, and then suddenly BOOM here comes an insanely awesome grass-roots religious movement that's making warlords out of all these Anatolian clans and playing havoc with the Turks' very uncomfortable relationship with religious issues in general during this century (lol shaykh bedreddin) and even suborning some of the provincial governors. Even after Mehmed II fixed the mess that was around during the last years of Murad II, in other words, the Ottoman Empire was by no means solidly on its feet and was destructible. Fiddle with the circumstances leading up to Çaldiran - maybe get those Portuguese to actually give ma boi Ismai'l some guns
- and it's a whole new ballgame.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Well the Umayyads retreated from the battle because their camp, and thus their massive amounts of plunder, were threatened by another group of Frankish troops, not because the Europeans were odorous. I meant that as a reason, among many, that they had no wish to conquer farther into Europe.
As for the Frankish infantry and their resilience against Umayyad cavalry, this is largely explained by the fact that they were standing on a wooded hill when receiving these cavalry assaults. They were charging uphill against the Franks, and in a broken formation, hardly ideal conditions for such a movement. It was Charles' absolute refusal to offer battle off of that hill that largely made the Umayyads consider saying "screw it" and going home. When their camp was threatened, they took the opportunity to evacuate France completely, there being little more to be gained from staying to fight, Charles proving willing to hold his high ground indefinitely, and the risk of more Frankish troops arriving.
And finally, the claim that the Arabs were there to conquer Aquitaine: says whom?
Well, this is a little different than some of the earlier comments. But as to whether "they had no wish to conquer further into Europe", says who ? The 'odor' may have been true enough
, but Tours put an end to the rapid Muslim expansion in Europe. A smaller Arab army had begun the conquest of Spain only 20 years earlier, and 10 years later they failed in their first attempt at Toulouse. Pretty recent memory, and revenge was another motivator.Yes, medieval infantry usually chose hills to make their stand rather than valleys. OK, but it didn't always work, aka Hastings. But that doesn't take away from Charles' victory. Contrary to popular belief, this was not just a rabble.
Yes, the Muslims were worried about an exaggerated threat to their camp, but that isn't the first time an army got their priorities wrong, a deliberate tactic exploited by Charles, and which Rahman did his best to undo before he was killed. The fact that they were failing miserably may have had something to do with the fact that what started as a few, wanted to salvage something before they lost it all, including their lives.
So while I don't disagree with some of your points, it's a matter of emphasis. I don't interpret it as an insignificant battle. How often were European foot soldiers successful against Umayyud cavalry ? If a large body of them and their leader were surrounded, the consequences must have been significant. This was the deepest penetration of western Europe, by the biggest army, and it was defeated decisively. They never seriously threatened France again.
And the Muslims did not evacuate France completely, they had to be driven out of the south in 2 subsequent generations, and they continued to launch major attacks, making strong plays for Sicily, Sardinia, Italy as well.
I could go on about the tactical, strategic, and macrohistorical importance of Tours, but just for a minute imagine if Charles' army had collapsed, would the Umayyad army go home and not return ? France as a nation would have been stillborn, the northern Germans would have made inroads, there would likely be no unified command against the Avars and Magyars, and Italy, well...what about that little pocket of northern Spain that held out ? Would the reconquista have occurred, and who would have discovered America ?
As to whether Count Odo defeated an earlier attempt at conquest, that would be my first hypothesis. I actually just repeated what was in wiki, but it was significant. Given the context, they would have on any of a number of occasions at this time.
wat tenchar
I really think the importance of First Poitiers is underestimated. If the Muslims had won, and then felt that France was there for the taking, who doesn't say a larger invading force wouldn't have been possible? I remember reading in a textbook on world religions, the ultimate paradise of Islam would be a world where all follow the "One True Faith"
1. First Poitiers
2. Ain Jalut
3. Manzikert
4. Midway
5. Battle Of Lutzen
1. First Poitiers
2. Ain Jalut
3. Manzikert
4. Midway
5. Battle Of Lutzen
Did you think I meant, against Italy, when you quoted this:
The full phrase was actually: "and Italy, well...", meaning their position would probably have become pretty precarious. No Carolingian dynasty, barbarians, and saracens.
(bad grammar)
But without Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire, I think the Avars or Magyars might have been the next German dynasty.
well I'm not sure then Dachs. Anyway,
Charles probably didn't know he was fighting one of history's decisive battles. But if Toulouse in 721 was just a raid, this could have been the conquest. They were stopped on their way back at Tours, that's only 80 km SW of Paris. (err, make that 120) A victory here and they might have stayed for awhile. (Though it probably was a bit damper and more frigid than they were used to.)
Charles probably didn't know he was fighting one of history's decisive battles. But if Toulouse in 721 was just a raid, this could have been the conquest. They were stopped on their way back at Tours, that's only 80 km SW of Paris. (err, make that 120) A victory here and they might have stayed for awhile. (Though it probably was a bit damper and more frigid than they were used to.)
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I change my mind every once in awhile, and here's what I'm thinking of this week. I'm going to confine my choices to 1500 AD and beyond, since really everything before that vastly shaped our world; but these particular battles stand out in the modern age as being the most influential.
1. Battle of Gravelines (1588) - the defeat of the supposedly invincible Spanish armada caused the gradual rise of Britain as a maritime empire and the decline of Spain.
2. Battle of the Nile (1789) - the decimation of the French navy meant that economically choking off Britain by holding the Suez Canal would be impossible. Britain's monopoly on naval power in the Napoleonic Wars and their trade deal with Russia are what sealed Bonaparte's fate.
3. Battle of Gettysburg (1863) - a Confederate victory would have garnered European support for their cause. After Lee's retreat, their war bonds fell to fifteen cents on the dollar. An inability to fund the war cause, in addition to Grant's taking of the Mississippi a day earlier, allowed for a Union invasion of the South, thus ensuring the survival of the Republic and the end of slavery.*
4. First Battle of the Marne (1914) - the failure of Germany to quickly subdue France lead to a very bloody two-front war, and an almost guaranteed Allied victory in World War I.
5. Battle of Moscow (1941) - Germany's inability to take the Soviet capital made the Eastern Front far too costly for any real chance of success. This significant defeat also tested Hitler's sanity, resulting in him impeding his competent officers' decisions with his own; most notably in the case of Manstein.
*I imagine that this is going to be debated, but my studies have given me the impression that if the Confederacy had survived the war, the credibility of popular republicanism would have been lost forever; thus likely changing the fate of France and World War I.
1. Battle of Gravelines (1588) - the defeat of the supposedly invincible Spanish armada caused the gradual rise of Britain as a maritime empire and the decline of Spain.
2. Battle of the Nile (1789) - the decimation of the French navy meant that economically choking off Britain by holding the Suez Canal would be impossible. Britain's monopoly on naval power in the Napoleonic Wars and their trade deal with Russia are what sealed Bonaparte's fate.
3. Battle of Gettysburg (1863) - a Confederate victory would have garnered European support for their cause. After Lee's retreat, their war bonds fell to fifteen cents on the dollar. An inability to fund the war cause, in addition to Grant's taking of the Mississippi a day earlier, allowed for a Union invasion of the South, thus ensuring the survival of the Republic and the end of slavery.*
4. First Battle of the Marne (1914) - the failure of Germany to quickly subdue France lead to a very bloody two-front war, and an almost guaranteed Allied victory in World War I.
5. Battle of Moscow (1941) - Germany's inability to take the Soviet capital made the Eastern Front far too costly for any real chance of success. This significant defeat also tested Hitler's sanity, resulting in him impeding his competent officers' decisions with his own; most notably in the case of Manstein.
*I imagine that this is going to be debated, but my studies have given me the impression that if the Confederacy had survived the war, the credibility of popular republicanism would have been lost forever; thus likely changing the fate of France and World War I.
It's a very interesting list - with some good reasons. I just want to clarify on one:
The canal of course came 100 years later.
The canal of course came 100 years later.
generalstaff
Steadfast
What's the opinion about the Battle of Plassey in important battles. It resulted in the British annexing Bengal, which was a great source of wealth allowing a great takeoff of the British Empire and the eventual colonization of India. However, tactically, it was not much a battle since most of the Bengali troops did not fight, meaning that the political dealings were more important than the battle itself in regards to its result.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
As noted above, the Suez Canal did not exist yet, and the Battle of the Nile was in 1798. The threat of Napoleon being in Egypt was that he wished to march on India, something made very hard after The Nile. Still, he got as far as Jaffa.
It was Antietam that proved Union capability to win, and kept the Europeans out of the war. By the point of Gettysburg, European nations were already confiscating Confederate ironclads being built abroad and delivering them to the North.
I think you should put Mr. Turtledove down for a bit.
The big deal with Plassey was political, not militaristic. The Nawab of Bengal's betrayal of the French East India Company was more important than the British victory over the French in India, as it also removed him from being a potential future enemy, and gave the British a real foothold in India and more importantly around Calcutta, and access to not only French holdings there but also Dutch ones further inland in East Bengal.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
My mistake regarding the Nile; though I still maintain that it was one of the most important battles in history, as it lead to Napoleon's eventual failure in the campaign.
As for Gettysburg, France and Britain were very close to supporting the Confederacy, just in order to end the war fast so they could start importing cotton again. Several records from Napoleon III and Lord Palmerston show that they were just waiting for one more victory to enter the cause, and that was supposed to be Gettysburg. The Emancipation Proclamation, which came from Antietam, would never have gone into effect had the Union not been able to mount an effective invasion of the South; so that was not properly the turning point of the war.
But this wasn't just significant for the U.S. but for the fate of republicanism. Europe was expecting the U.S. to tear themselves apart not 100 years after their birth. Letting the Confederacy survive, i.e., demolishing Lincoln's claim that it was simply a rebellion, would have been a confirmation of Hobbes' theories of absolute government in the eyes of Victorian Europe.
As for Gettysburg, France and Britain were very close to supporting the Confederacy, just in order to end the war fast so they could start importing cotton again. Several records from Napoleon III and Lord Palmerston show that they were just waiting for one more victory to enter the cause, and that was supposed to be Gettysburg. The Emancipation Proclamation, which came from Antietam, would never have gone into effect had the Union not been able to mount an effective invasion of the South; so that was not properly the turning point of the war.
But this wasn't just significant for the U.S. but for the fate of republicanism. Europe was expecting the U.S. to tear themselves apart not 100 years after their birth. Letting the Confederacy survive, i.e., demolishing Lincoln's claim that it was simply a rebellion, would have been a confirmation of Hobbes' theories of absolute government in the eyes of Victorian Europe.
- Status
Similar threads
