The five most important battles of all times.
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
- Status
LightSpectra
me autem minui
This is true, but wouldn't you agree that Franco-British intervention was likely had the war been going more smoothly for the Confederates; simply to spite the U.S. and acquire cotton?
Impossible to say, because we don't know the consequences... perhaps some battle between the seals and the Eskimos saved us from a creation of a great, Mongol-like eskimo empire.
But, well,
1) collectively - the battles between Alexander and the Persians
2) Zama
3) collectively - Yarmuk and Al-Qadisiyya
4) Adrianople?
also, Mantzikert, Vienna, Stalingrad.
But, well,
1) collectively - the battles between Alexander and the Persians
2) Zama
3) collectively - Yarmuk and Al-Qadisiyya
4) Adrianople?
also, Mantzikert, Vienna, Stalingrad.
generalstaff
Steadfast
Very good choice of Zama, I wish I was more aware of Roman history to have put it in my list earlier in the thread.
The choice of Adrianople is interesting, could you provide some explanation please.
Manzikert was not that important of a battle, since the Byzantine Empire was already in decline. The result of the battle was loss of gold due to ransom and the opening of the frontier to various Turkish tribes. The opening of the frontier during this time is not very important since the "Franks" sacked Constantinople before the "Turks."
Just a quick question, which Siege of Vienna (assuming you are referring to Ottoman-Hapsburg conflicts), since there were two?
Yeah, Manzikert wasn't that important of a battle, but not for the reasons that you're claiming. The engagement itself didn't do all that much - lost a comparatively competent emperor, a relatively small portion of the army, and a bit of ransom. The civil war after that and the course of those events, combined with the Seljuq irruption into Anatolia, was what ruined the empire. For perspective: Romanos IV got together around 70,000 men during his reign for his various campaigns in the east, yet two decades later it's estimated that Alexios Komnenos only had 20,000 to 30,000 men in his entire army. It's frequently overlooked how badly the bloodletting civil wars and poor management of the post-Manzikert emperors ruined the state.
Of course, even with that in mind, Manzikert wasn't an empire-breaker by itself because during the 12th century, the empire did have the ability to recapture Anatolia, at least reclaiming the stable border of the seventh to ninth centuries. Its failure to do so can largely be laid on the heads of the Komnenian emperors, who squandered imperial resources fighting over the relatively unimportant Antioch and making expeditions into Italy to fight the bloody Normans for no possible gain while Seljuqs were occupying and solidifying their control of the critical old themata.
I'd say that the Byzantines were in decline only in the sense that they weren't at their 1025 or 540 peaks, not in the sense that it was a terminal decline. Certainly the emperors of the later Makedonian dynasty were less than competent in many cases (the rather atrocious demobilization of the Armeniakon Thema by that nitwit Konstantinos X being one of the most objectionable things), but since Basileios II, the Empire had actually expanded in the Caucasus, although losing some territory in Italy. It wasn't doomed by any stretch in 1070, or even afterwards, because they'd faced similar and worse setbacks before, to which competent emperors had responded...well, competently. Instead, foolish ones exacerbated a relatively small problem and turned it into the empire-destroying thing that it became.
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.
Valmy took place on September 20th, 1792, not 1515, but you are right about the rest. The battle was a cannonade, not a real battle however, and the Prussian Army retreated. This battle saved France, but if the Prussians had attacked, History as we know it may have changed. But I do not think we would have continued to live under Kings for long, there was too much oppression, further more, the world needed change for growth.
GenghisK did not say Valmy was in 1515. He said that instead of Marignan 1515, when the French defeated the Swiss, he would pick Valmy, without giving a date.
These are arranged throughout time.
1. Zamma
2. Battle of Tours (turning point of Moor invasion into Europe)
3. Waterloo
4. Battle of Britain (air battle, but nevertheless important because it kept Germany from being able to launch an assault on mainland Britain which would have allowed them to capture Middle East and link up with the Japanese in Eastern Asia).
5. Stalingrad (obvious choice as it was the turning point of WW2).
1. Zamma
2. Battle of Tours (turning point of Moor invasion into Europe)
3. Waterloo
4. Battle of Britain (air battle, but nevertheless important because it kept Germany from being able to launch an assault on mainland Britain which would have allowed them to capture Middle East and link up with the Japanese in Eastern Asia).
5. Stalingrad (obvious choice as it was the turning point of WW2).
I wanted to have some battle representing the fall of the Roman Empire in the west.
the crossing of the Rhine is not quite battle-ish. Of course, Adrianople is in the east, and one could argue this choice, but I think it gave the Goths much more self-assurance (on the cost of the Romans) as well as the events that led to the battle deteriorated the germanic-roman relations. And it allowed the future gothic march to the west.
I disagree. Perhaps it's not important militarily, because Turks were raiding Asia Minor before, etc, but it's very important for the internal dynamic of Byzantium. It gave Seljuks the armenian fortresses, which opened the way to inner Anatolia to turkish nomads. In fact, all the other border lines were holding even 11 years after Mantzikert. It started a serie of civil wars that harmed Byzantium, and the contestors were using turkish mercenaries in the cities, which allowed them to keep them later on (nomadic Turks weren't used to siege warfare).
I thought about 1683, but now I think I've exagerrated. Even turkish victory wouldn't change much at this point. It was my polish patriotism probably.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Going back to the debate on Gettysburg:
The point when Britain shows the most support for the South was between 2nd Bull Run and Antietam. Palmerston and his Foreign Secretary Russell seriously considered it if the South had won another major victory, that never came about so they backed away from their first tentative steps towards intervention.
Support for the south in general further fell away with the emancipation proclamation but also because of the hard work of people like Charles Francis Adams. The British government was relatively happy to turn a blind eye to ship building and purchase in Britain so long as the Confederacy weren't too obvious about it. What Adams did was expose this hypocrisy and produce sufficient proof that ships like Alabama had been produced with the shipbuilder (in this case Laird's) knowing full well that it would be a ship of war, probably destined for the Confederacy. Eventually he forced Britain's hand by threatening war if the Laird rams were allowed to leave the Mersey. Its quite probable that had the North been weaker at this point due to loosing Gettysburg Adams may not have been as forceful in his objections but its hard to see those two ships turning the tide of the Naval conflict.
I personally think that Palmerston and Russell basically wanted to intervene but only if they thought that the war was virtually over anyway. In mid 1862 Palmerston seemed to want to try offering peace negotiations first (which implies a position whereby the South can realistically offer terms), and if rejected recognition for the South. This cautious approach tends to suggest that a victory at Gettysburg alone would not have been sufficient to force intervention. Unless something very drastic happened to Meade's army it is unlikely that Lee could have exploited a victory enough to threaten Washington (by 1863 ringed by a major series of forts and batteries) after all. Russell was more pragmatic and realised that it would probably lead to war and tended to be more cautious because of that.
Without knowing how the Confederates "won" Gettysburg in this alternative history its difficult to speculate on what effect it would have on the Civil War but probably the only things it would get from Europe is perhaps a few more ships and some lukewarm words of support, neither of which would have turned the tide of the war.
The point when Britain shows the most support for the South was between 2nd Bull Run and Antietam. Palmerston and his Foreign Secretary Russell seriously considered it if the South had won another major victory, that never came about so they backed away from their first tentative steps towards intervention.
Support for the south in general further fell away with the emancipation proclamation but also because of the hard work of people like Charles Francis Adams. The British government was relatively happy to turn a blind eye to ship building and purchase in Britain so long as the Confederacy weren't too obvious about it. What Adams did was expose this hypocrisy and produce sufficient proof that ships like Alabama had been produced with the shipbuilder (in this case Laird's) knowing full well that it would be a ship of war, probably destined for the Confederacy. Eventually he forced Britain's hand by threatening war if the Laird rams were allowed to leave the Mersey. Its quite probable that had the North been weaker at this point due to loosing Gettysburg Adams may not have been as forceful in his objections but its hard to see those two ships turning the tide of the Naval conflict.
I personally think that Palmerston and Russell basically wanted to intervene but only if they thought that the war was virtually over anyway. In mid 1862 Palmerston seemed to want to try offering peace negotiations first (which implies a position whereby the South can realistically offer terms), and if rejected recognition for the South. This cautious approach tends to suggest that a victory at Gettysburg alone would not have been sufficient to force intervention. Unless something very drastic happened to Meade's army it is unlikely that Lee could have exploited a victory enough to threaten Washington (by 1863 ringed by a major series of forts and batteries) after all. Russell was more pragmatic and realised that it would probably lead to war and tended to be more cautious because of that.
Without knowing how the Confederates "won" Gettysburg in this alternative history its difficult to speculate on what effect it would have on the Civil War but probably the only things it would get from Europe is perhaps a few more ships and some lukewarm words of support, neither of which would have turned the tide of the war.
Battle of Vienna - The Ottoman Empire had effectively pulverized Europe and was intent on taking Rome itself. The Holy League Established by The Holy Roman Empire, the Poles, and the Venetians effectively ended Ottoman expansion into Europe. The battle was also cool for that big Calvary charge by Sobieski.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Im so tired of people hyping up these Christianity Vs Islam battles as if they stopped some massive floodgate from opening. By 1683, the bureaucratic system of the Ottoman Empire was already undergoing the process of being obsolete, corruption in the government increasing, increasingly powerful Janissary Groups and palace Eunuchs, loose provinces were getting looser and a string of weak Emperors (except for Murad IV) came to the throne. The Empire started to stagnant, it started to decline.
Even if the Ottomans did capture Vienna, chances are, they dont have the resources to occupy a highly resistant large city on the hinterlands of their overly large empire with plenty of enemies to retake the city from the Turks as the homeland is wracked with more domestic problems.
Dreadnought
Deity
Dreadnought said:
Quoted from the General Questions thread.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I was happy to have seen this thread die. I am now unhappy to see it zombified.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
But observe the butterfly effect: the Battle of Vienna is what popularized coffee in the western world, and therefore cafes, and therefore cafe intellectuals, and ultimately Trotskyism.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Probably not. Many different nations discovered Coffee from India/Muslim World/Americas independently.
Coffee houses would have spread regardless of the battle.
- Status
Similar threads
