Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
What were the most important battles EVER to be fought in the history of warfare? Everyone take a guess.
The Most Important Battle(s) Ever in Warfare
- Thread starter Meteor Man
- Start date
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
A quick warning: anyone who says Ayn Jalut, Tours (Poitiers), or Lepanto gets taken out back and beaten.
I would say that Carrhae is among the most important battles of all time. It was because of Carrhae that the Silk Road began, when Roman soldiers saw the billowing silk standards, they told stories of it, and demand for the substance grew. It also led to the first Sino-Roman relations, when captives of the battle were sent to guard duty in Transoxiana. Even further, Crassus' death meant the fall of the Triumvirate, Caesar's victory in the Civil War, and the subsequent fall of the Roman Republic (and thus rise of the Empire).
I would say that Carrhae is among the most important battles of all time. It was because of Carrhae that the Silk Road began, when Roman soldiers saw the billowing silk standards, they told stories of it, and demand for the substance grew. It also led to the first Sino-Roman relations, when captives of the battle were sent to guard duty in Transoxiana. Even further, Crassus' death meant the fall of the Triumvirate, Caesar's victory in the Civil War, and the subsequent fall of the Roman Republic (and thus rise of the Empire).
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
Lepanto, naw just kiddin.
I would say Gettysburg, but the Confederacy was going down the drain anyway.
I would have to say Fort Union, because if the Confederate army had won that battle, then they would have had control of all of the west's gold, and might have, presumably, won the war.
I would say Gettysburg, but the Confederacy was going down the drain anyway.
I would have to say Fort Union, because if the Confederate army had won that battle, then they would have had control of all of the west's gold, and might have, presumably, won the war.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Boy you really do get off on that whole 'South winning' thing, don't you?
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Battle of Milvian Bridge is what launched Christianity from a small, despised cult into the world's most influential religion.
I'd put up Ipsos, Chalons, the Metaurus River, the 480 BC Battle of Salamis, and the 415-413 BC siege of Syrakousai as good candidates for important battles.
Minor nitpick...the Silk Road had already existed for quite a while...certainly for the Hellenistic states (the Greek is keleuthos bombykike I think). It was awfully important for the pre-Indo-Greek Kingdom Baktrian economy, anyway, and it was a prime motivator in the Seleukids' early attempts to hold onto such faraway towns as Marakanda, Antiochia-Margiane, and Alexandria-Eschate. Pahlava was largely maintained by Silk Road trade as well. But its extension to Roma was in itself extremely important, as were the other Sino-Roman contacts and the Roman political ramifications.
Meteor Man
Cylindropuntia imbricata
The civil war has always intrigued me, though I am NOT a person who WHISHES the confeds won the civil war...far from it.
Onionsoilder
Reaver
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,173
World War I. I don't think I need to explain my choice.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
That's more than one battle, you know....
Turkish_Aries
Bawwww!!
1st Waterloo
Runner up Fall Of Constantinople
Runner up Fall Of Constantinople
There are no "most important battle" but I can think of several which are very significant: (in rough chronological order) Salamis, Zama, Milvian Bridge, Badr, Yarmuk, Manzikert, Tenochtitlan, Panipat(s), Hansan-Do, Saratoga, Tsushima, Tannenberg, Stalingrad, etc.
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
You left Marathon off that list. Most overrated "battle" ever.
Dreadnought
Deity
Saratoga is one. American victory = French support, French support = France bankrupt, France Bankrupt = French Revolution, French Revolution = Napoleon; you can then follow it up later.
These are direct results, not indirectly linking them.
These are direct results, not indirectly linking them.
Yeah, 'cause Napoleon in the Hundred Days really had a chance.
Same as above: a hundred thousand plus Turks with technological superiority were not about to lose to less than ten thousand Genovese mercenaries and Roman citizens.Turkish_Aries said:
Props for everybody who included the Battle of the Pons Milvius.
As for Marathon, I think it's important mostly because it saved the city-state of Athens, flower of the classical Greek culture that is the foundation of Western civilization, from going the way of Eretria. (And Sardis.) Sure, the Persians weren't going to conquer Greece with twenty thousand guys. They didn't need to. With Athenian democracy and culture stillborn, the Western world becomes a lot more SUCK.
Julian Delphiki
Anton's key
Agh vs. Ugh ca. 100000 bce. 
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
There was a second?
Yeah, 'cause Napoleon in the Hundred Days really had a chance.
Since I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, I'm going to treat it as if you are not, and proceed to argue the point that Napoleon could have won at the series of battles at Waterloo.
There were many things which worked against him, impeding him from victory. The first thing was the driving rain that characterized the first two days of battle, which directly impeded Napoleon's advance on Blucher's army, who he engaged first. Though he gave the Prussians a thrashing, and ran them from the field at Ligny, it was Blucher's - and most Prussians' - capability to reorganize his army in only 48 hours, and give battle again at Waterloo that was the second thing working against Napoleon. The Prussian re-entry to the battle drew 20,000 of the Armee du Nord to stall them, at a moment when even Wellington was surprised the British line did not break. Thirdly and most importantly, the absence of Geraud Duroc, Napoleon's former aide-de-camp, known for being able to take Napoleon's often confusing orders and make them happen the way Napoleon intended them to, seriously hurt Napoleon, and resulted in such mishaps as the deployment of batteries at Waterloo both beyond their effective range, and undefended enough that the Union Brigade was able to reach and rout them.
I think he was ranking it as the most important.
I was kidding (hence the smiley), but thanks for shining a light on the tactical and operational unlikelihood of a French victory at Waterloo. It's always nice to see someone else who's retained their common sense.Cheezy the Wiz said:
In addition to the tactical-level improbabilities, Napoleon didn't just have to fight Wellington and Old Forward. There were Austrian and Russian troops converging on the Netherlands as well, and he would have had to engage even more allied troops had he somehow pulled a victory out at Waterloo. And by that time the nations of Europe had completely tired of Napoleon's shenanigans and destructive behavior, and were completely determined to keep him out of power. No peace would be made with the Emperor, even had he been victorious in a few battles, because the entire rest of the Continent was against him and was more implacable than ever.
Not bringing Davout along was a stupid idea too.
Agh vs. Ugh ca. 100000 bce.
Yeah, 'cause Agh really had a chance.
Have you seen the size disparity?sydhe
King of Kongs
Hastings, but only because Salamis and Plataea share the honors for the Greco-Persian war.
There doesn't seem to be a single most important battle in the Qin or Sui unifications of China, but Gaixia was the crucial battle establishing the Han Dynasty.
There doesn't seem to be a single most important battle in the Qin or Sui unifications of China, but Gaixia was the crucial battle establishing the Han Dynasty.
alcal
surfin'
Hastings and the war between Dutch and English.
Similar threads
