NationStates Jolt Archive

In your opinion what is the most important battle in world history?
I think D-Day obviuosly because we (the Allies) got so lucky we didnt git cut2 shreds on the beach and shit like that. It also was one of the final straws that broke the back of the Nazi war machine. (althought they werent going down without one great last offensive that drove the Allies to the brink of being pushed back.)

http://images.entertainmentearth.com/%5CAUTOIMAGES%5CFFBFOPMEGlg.jpg

"The most critical battle in western Europena histroy remains the battle of Marathon" ; historian I regrettably forget.

I would concur, without it we have no democracy, no hellenestic culture, therefore no recognisable Roman culture, and, conjecturally no Christianity. Persian hegemony would have altered history somewhat no?

Marathon is a biggie, although Yarmuck rivals it for importance.

Tours and Poitiers, 732 AD.

Had Charles Martel and his Franks messed up here, there may never have been a Western World.

Tours and Poitiers, 732 AD.

Had Charles Martel and his Franks messed up here, there may never have been a Western World.

Marathon is still greater in ramifications, as, incidentally, is the surrender at Yorktown.

DARN! I was going to nominate that one...
*joins the Marathon-slate*
runner-up: Poitiers.
If the French hadn't won, we'd now all be serving Qalif Osama Bin Laden.

Marathon, Tours, Poitiers, Vienna.

...no Christianity. Persian hegemony would have altered history somewhat no?
Well, its not like Rome welcomed the Christians for a long time. In fact, the Empire tried to use the firm hand of supression on Christianity for a very long time. And then there's the Gladiatoral events.

I don't know if Zorostorism would fare any better against Christianity than Roman paganism. I still think we'd have it, like a messiah wouldn't be born or something.

Other than that, since there are so many battles to choose from, I'll pick something along the lines of this:

The northernmost land action of the American Civil War took place in Vermont on October 19, 1864. In this incident, one of the most unusual in American history, Bennett H. Young led Confederate forces. Young had been captured in John Hunt Morgan's 1863 raid in Ohio, but escaped to Canada in the fall of that year. Morgan went to the south, where he proposed Canada-based raids on the Union as a means of building the Confederate treasury and forcing the Union army to protect their northern border as a diversion. Young was commissioned as a Lieutenant and returned to Canada, where he recruited other escaped rebels to participate in the October 19, 1864 raid on St. Albans, Vermont, a quiet town 15 miles from the Canadian border.

Young and two others checked into a local hotel on October 10, saying that they had come from St. John's in Canada for a "sporting vacation." Every day, two or three more young men arrived. By October 19, there was 21 men. Just before 3:00 p.m., the group simultaneously staged an armed robbery of the three banks in the town. They announced that they were Confederate soldiers and stole a total of $208,000. As the banks were being robbed, eight or nine of the Confederates held the townspeople prisoner on the village green as their horses were stolen. One townsperson was killed and another wounded. Young ordered his troops to burn the town down, but the four-ounce bottles of Greek fire they had brought failed to work.

Without that, history would be forever changed. :p

The 1916 Rising:

Definatly the most important battle for me because it was the first major attack by the Irish republicans. In effect it led to Ireland becoming a 'Free State' and then a REPUBLIC. It effectivally destroyed the 'British Empire' as after th Irish withdrew from the British comenwelth a lot of other countries followed its example

GO ON IRELAND

"The most critical battle in western Europena histroy remains the battle of Marathon" ; historian I regrettably forget.

I would concur, without it we have no democracy, no hellenestic culture, therefore no recognisable Roman culture, and, conjecturally no Christianity. Persian hegemony would have altered history somewhat no?
I disagree. Thermopylae is, in my opinion, for the same reasons you stated above. And, regardless of whether it was 'most ciritcal' or not, it's definitely my favorite battle.

Marathon is still greater in ramifications, as, incidentally, is the surrender at Yorktown.

I see your point, very valid indeed.

After all, all of this is speculative history. Who knows what would have happened if the Hittites had taken out Egypt at the Battle of Lagash.

When the first caveman threw a rock at another caveman, and projectile weaponry was born.

Trafalgar: Had the French won, they would have launched an invasion of Britain which likley would have been sucsessful. (Although mabye not, considering the sucsess the extremley effctive British army had against the conscripted French in the Iberian peninsula)
Had the French won the course of modern history would be totally different from what it is, in all parts of the world

Although Marathon also sounds good; on that note also Salamis and Platea

Depends on who you're talking about.

For Islam, there are three critical battles that set the stage for their massive decline into indolence.

The Sack of Baghdad, 1254 and the fall of the Caliphate.
The Battle of Lepanto (the last fight that might be considered an even match).
The Battle of Omdurman 1898 and the crushing of a major Arab force with modern weapons (the first of many such events).

the battle of britain. without that victory, russia would probably have fallen, and the usa would have signed a treaty with nazi germany, and hitlers perfect aryan world would have become a reality.

I disagree. Thermopylae is, in my opinion, for the same reasons you stated above. And, regardless of whether it was 'most ciritcal' or not, it's definitely my favorite battle.

How do you figure. Thermopylae (also my favorite battle) had almost no consequences, other than slowing the Persians down. A defeat of the Persian army was inconceivable, and the slaughter of the heroic Spartans was, ultimatly inconsequential.

I disagree. Thermopylae is, in my opinion, for the same reasons you stated above. And, regardless of whether it was 'most ciritcal' or not, it's definitely my favorite battle.

No, Thermopylae (literally "the gates of fire", awesome name for a battle) was an unmitigated failure. Granted it halted the Persian advance for a little, however Themistocles ahd already implemented the evacuation of Athens to Aegina by Themopylae, and the fleet was assembled at Salamis. If we are discussing the second Persian war against Xerxes, Salamis is of greater relevance than Thermopylae.

Incidentally, its mine too, pure heroism and impeccable tactics.

How do you figure. Thermopylae (also my favorite battle) had almost no consequences, other than slowing the Persians down. A defeat of the Persian army was inconceivable, and the slaughter of the heroic Spartans was, ultimatly inconsequential.

You beat me too it you cad!:)

How do you figure. Thermopylae (also my favorite battle) had almost no consequences, other than slowing the Persians down. A defeat of the Persian army was inconceivable, and the slaughter of the heroic Spartans was, ultimatly inconsequential.

Because it is quite likely that the heroic slaughter of the Spartans was what provided the moral for the Battle of Salamis to be a victory. They set such an example that it was highly unlikely the next battle would be lost, especially given a more even force distribution.

Hmmm?

The sinking of the Spanish Armada?

No, Thermopylae (literally "the gates of fire", awesome name for a battle) was an unmitigated failure. Granted it halted the Persian advance for a little, however Themistocles ahd already implemented the evacuation of Athens to Aegina by Themopylae, and the fleet was assembled at Salamis. If we are discussing the second Persian war against Xerxes, Salamis is of greater relevance than Thermopylae.

Incidentally, its mine too, pure heroism and impeccable tactics.

We won't get into the idiocy, and ultimately, the massive drain of military resources that comprised the Sicilian Expedition...

We won't get into the idiocy, and ultimately, the massive drain of military resources that comprised the Sicilian Expedition...
What was the book on that called, by Pressfield, about Alcibiades and the Athenian-Spartan war?

Hmmm?

The sinking of the Spanish Armada?

Would have only reverted Britain to Catholocism, and altered the nominal control of the colonial European empires, little else I daresay. However, I may well be wrong.

We won't get into the idiocy, and ultimately, the massive drain of military resources that comprised the Sicilian Expedition...

Indeed, a little akin to Dieppe, but so much more myopic, and frankly, one of the top 20 least inspired military ventures in history....

Depends on who you're talking about.

For Islam, there are three critical battles that set the stage for their massive decline into indolence.

The Sack of Baghdad, 1254 and the fall of the Caliphate.
The Battle of Lepanto (the last fight that might be considered an even match).
The Battle of Omdurman 1898 and the crushing of a major Arab force with modern weapons (the first of many such events).

I would put the Battle of Badr (624 CE) up there as well. It was a major victory for Muhammed when the odds were heavily stacked against him and it was the starting point of the islamic conquests.

What was the book on that called, by Pressfield, about Alcibiades and the Athenian-Spartan war?
I prefer the books by Donald Kagan.

Imagine if the US went to Iraq, invaded, and got their butts kicked so bad that most of the men were slaughtered, their equipment destroyed, and the remainder sold into slavery or held ransom.

By any historical stretch, the US hasn't really experienced a massive, crushing, ignominious defeat on the same proportional scale.

It would have to be like Dunkirk, without the rescue.

I prefer the books by Donald Kagan.

Imagine if the US went to Iraq, invaded, and got their butts kicked so bad that most of the men were slaughtered, their equipment destroyed, and the remainder sold into slavery or held ransom.

By any historical stretch, the US hasn't really experienced a massive, crushing, ignominious defeat on the same proportional scale.

It would have to be like Dunkirk, without the rescue.
Yeah, I know, but it was Alcibiades who inspired them, right? then was exiled to Sparta? it's been a while since I've read the book.

Admittedly, most battles mentioned here are a bit Western-centric, if there ever was such a word. Now there is. :p

This is justifiable in so far as the "West" happend to conquer and subdue most of the globe in the 19th century, with the effects of this conquest on the world as a whole lasting to this very day. Such global and long-term effects cannot be assigned to any battle in China, for example.

Islamic history has defined a huge region with one fifth of mankind in Western Asia, Northern Africa and also some parts of Europe, but never the whole world. This is changing right now. (What if Sassanians had kicked Arab butt in 642, at Nehavend, and not the other way round..I guess there would still have been the West.)

By any historical stretch, the US hasn't really experienced a massive, crushing, ignominious defeat on the same proportional scale.
No. Just no.

The Greeks were much better armed than the vast majority of Persians. Wicker baskets as shields? C'mon. Who had better training? Peasants or the militas of Greece? Sparta? And it doesn't help that no Persian leader was ever all that compitent. Comparing Persian to the USA is just uncalled for.

The only thing the Persians had against the Greeks was numbers.

But then again, I'm biased.

No. Just no.

The Greeks were much better armed than the vast majority of Persians. Wicker baskets as shields? C'mon. Who had better training? Peasants or the militas of Greece? Sparta? And it doesn't help that no Persian leader was ever all that compitent. Comparing Persian to the USA is just uncalled for.

The only thing the Persians had against the Greeks was numbers.

But then again, I'm biased.
I'm comparing the Athenians to the US.

No. Just no.

The Greeks were much better armed than the vast majority of Persians. Wicker baskets as shields? C'mon. Who had better training? Peasants or the militas of Greece? Sparta? And it doesn't help that no Persian leader was ever all that compitent. Comparing Persian to the USA is just uncalled for.

The only thing the Persians had against the Greeks was numbers.

But then again, I'm biased.
That's not what he/she was talking about, dude. He/she was talking about the Sicilian invasion by the Greeks.

Oh...well...yeah...probably should delete that then, but then again, its probably been quoted more since I started writing this.....

Sorry. :(

Constantine's victory over Maxentius at Milvian Bridge in 312

or....

King Kong VS. Godzilla: http://movies.monstrous.com/pictures/Godzilla_Movie_16.jpg

Tours and Poitiers, 732 AD.

Had Charles Martel and his Franks messed up here, there may never have been a Western World.

This would be my choice too. Stopped the muslim thrust into Western Europe.

This would be my choice too. Stopped the muslim thrust into Western Europe.

Was my first choice, but the Marathon/Salamis faction has convinced me.
Without Marathon/Salamis, there would have been no Western Europe for the Arabs to thrust into. Only some wild Germanic and Celtic tribes.

This would be my choice too. Stopped the muslim thrust into Western Europe.
If Genghis Khan had not died when he did, and if there had not been a rule amongst the Mongols that leaders had to return to the capital upon the death of the Khan, the "reconnaissance in force" by the Mongols that had decimated Samarkand, most of the Middle East, Russia, Poland, Hungary, etc., would have rolled all the way to France with little problem.

They even sent a nice letter to the King of France, but were never able to follow up on it.

"Send us your ambassadors; and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war... if you make war on us, the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
- Letter from Mangku Khan to King Louis IX of France, 1254.

We would all be speaking Chinese and eating rice...

"The most critical battle in western Europena histroy remains the battle of Marathon" ; historian I regrettably forget.

I would concur, without it we have no democracy, no hellenestic culture, therefore no recognisable Roman culture, and, conjecturally no Christianity. Persian hegemony would have altered history somewhat no?
Which would be a good thing.

Vienna, and the victory of the Germanic/Polish forces over the Turks. Maybe Stalingrad. Meh.

OR... San Jacinto(?), when the Texans routed the Mexican army under Santa Anna in under an hour. What would the 20th century have been like with a massive chunk of the Continental US still in the hands of the Empire of Mexico?

This would be my choice too. Stopped the muslim thrust into Western Europe.
For awhile, further thrusting stopped. :p

Muslims were is Spain for a long time, and then the Ottoman's made a number of thrusts also from an Easterly way. But I don't know if Austro-Hungary is technically considered "Western."

We would all be speaking Chinese and eating rice...
But, the Mongols weren't Chinese, they were Mongolian. Not to mention the Mongols are considered a Turkic peoples. And their steppe culture wasn't anything like China. I don't see your logic. Chinese engineers and soldiers were used, but they were never a big influence on the Horde. If they could manage to survive longer than they did, I'd expect to see some cultural blending of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, India, and the Middle East.

And I already eat rice on a normal basis. But mine is of a Spanish flavour. :p

We would all be speaking Chinese and eating rice...

No, we wouldn't. They held Persia and large parts of Western and Central Asia for centuries, under Timur and his successors, and nothing in those regions is left of them, politically, culturally or otherwise. The same can be said about Russia.

For awhile, further thrusting stopped. :p

Muslims were is Spain for a long time, and then the Ottoman's made a number of thrusts also from an Easterly way. But I don't know if Austro-Hungary is technically considered "Western."


But, the Mongols weren't Chinese, they were Mongolian. Not to mention the Mongols are considered a Turkic peoples. And their steppe culture wasn't anything like China. I don't see your logic. Chinese engineers and soldiers were used, but they were never a big influence on the Horde. If they could manage to survive longer than they did, I'd expect to see some cultural blending of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, India, and the Middle East.

And I already eat rice on a normal basis. But mine is of a Spanish flavour. :p

They brought Chinese administrators and scholars with their baggage train. As an example, before sacking Baghdad, their scholars went through the libraries for anything of value before burning every copy of the Koran. And their administrators were useful in identifying people to be killed outright or held for ransom, or left untouched (as in the case of the Nestorian Christians in Baghdad).

Admittedly, most battles mentioned here are a bit Western-centric, if there ever was such a word. Now there is. :p


True. I would have cited battle of Plassey and the Panipet wars (both shaped the outcome of the subcontinental history significantly) but I doubt anybody would have slightest knowledge of those wars here.

Islamic history has defined a huge region with one fifth of mankind in Western Asia, Northern Africa and also some parts of Europe, but never the whole world.

That is arguable. The fall of Persia, the fall of Delhi, the crusades and the flurry of exploration_innovation_development which led to the advancements in naval capabilities and war-making capabilities of western Europe resulting in sea routes to India and the new world etc..the age of colonialism...these did affect all of the world.

Which would be a good thing.

Personal analysis has no place within a historical debate, however, I whole heartedly concur.

That is arguable. The fall of Persia, the fall of Delhi, the crusades and the flurry of exploration_innovation_development which led to the advancements in naval capabilities and war-making capabilities of western Europe resulting in sea routes to India and the new world etc..the age of colonialism...these did affect all of the world.

From your perspective then, Timur had a great effect (as did the Mongols before him).

If Genghis Khan had not died when he did, and if there had not been a rule amongst the Mongols that leaders had to return to the capital upon the death of the Khan, the "reconnaissance in force" by the Mongols that had decimated Samarkand, most of the Middle East, Russia, Poland, Hungary, etc., would have rolled all the way to France with little problem.

They even sent a nice letter to the King of France, but were never able to follow up on it.

"Send us your ambassadors; and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war... if you make war on us, the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
- Letter from Mangku Khan to King Louis IX of France, 1254.

We would all be speaking Chinese and eating rice...

Interesting, but sort of irrelevant because too many "if" factors prevented it from happening.

They brought Chinese administrators and scholars with their baggage train. As an example, before sacking Baghdad, their scholars went through the libraries for anything of value before burning every copy of the Koran. And their administrators were useful in identifying people to be killed outright or held for ransom, or left untouched (as in the case of the Nestorian Christians in Baghdad).
Which is my point, they didn't have enough power to influence the Horde enough to make us speak Chinese. Nor they ever would. The Chinese were in a subordinate position to the Mongols for a good deal of time after the rise of the Horde. But, yes, they were useful for doing things a steppe warrior couldn't.

As the Mongols went along, they weren't called the Horde for no reason. They took people with them everywhere from where they conquered. As now [as in contemporary times], one warrior needed a good deal of support.

Interesting, but sort of irrelevant because too many "if" factors prevented it from happening.
Just making the point that an "un-battle" can have far greater effect than a battle.

From your perspective then, Timur had a great effect (as did the Mongols before him).

He did have an effect. The Islamic World, leading in science, military, politics and culture until the Mongols came, has never fully recovered from that blow.

Just making the point that an "un-battle" can have far greater effect than a battle.

Very true.

I hold with the Marathon-Salamis group, but other battles are critical as well.

The fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 AD: Had the Jews won, the Holy Land might be a Jewish theocracy, and Christianity might not exist. At the same time, the Jews would not have spread as quickly, so Europe might still be pagan.

If it ever happened (which it probably didn't):
The great Neanderthal-Human battle. Had homo sapiens lost the day, Europe might still be populated with Neanderthals.

The 1916 Rising:

Definatly the most important battle for me because it was the first major attack by the Irish republicans. In effect it led to Ireland becoming a 'Free State' and then a REPUBLIC. It effectivally destroyed the 'British Empire' as after th Irish withdrew from the British comenwelth a lot of other countries followed its example

GO ON IRELAND
I'm going to disagree (mainly because the battles most of the rest of the posters are talking about took place in bits of history I've yet to get around to). I'll probably get a lot wrong but what the hell...

It wasn't really the first major attack, they'd been trying since the son of Robert the Bruce (Edward I think) suggested they might want to rebel and rule themselves (Which he did to try and divert troops away from Scotland)

The British Empire died after WWI because Britain couldn't afford to keep it up, and they lost their world markets. Not because of anything Ireland did.

But if the Home Rule bill had been passed, then it would have saved an awful lot of trouble

Had homo sapiens lost the day, Europe might still be populated with Neanderthals.

...hehehe...I see it coming...

(dear USA-dwellers, before you start, remember where your ancestors are from. Afro-Americans exempt.)

From your perspective then, Timur had a great effect (as did the Mongols before him).

Probably. Timur did invade India and sacked Delhi (killed 100,000 Delhi residents in one day and literally made a mountain of skulls). He destroyed the reigning Tughlaq sultanate of Delhi. His descendant, Zahir-ud-din Muhammed (popularly known as Babar), is the founder of the Mughal dynasty, the major muslim dynasty to have ruled north India.

It wasn't really the first major attack, they'd been trying since the son of Robert the Bruce (Edward I think) suggested they might want to rebel and rule themselves (Which he did to try and divert troops away from Scotland)

The British Empire died after WWI because Britain couldn't afford to keep it up, and they lost their world markets. Not because of anything Ireland did.

But if the Home Rule bill had been passed, then it would have saved an awful lot of trouble

The idea that the fight for Irish independence was the brain-child of Robert Bruce is a non-runner. I believe you have him confused with Edward Bruce who invaded in 1315. There was resistance to Norman invasion from the outset that precedes both he and Robert, regardless.

There were many major battles over a 6-700 year period of far greater scale, and with more short term success than 1916. However the risings significance is that its efforts inspired the ultimately successful war of Independence 1919-1921. While the relative weakness of Britain at the time was certainly a factor in their agreement to withdraw following the Treaty, it was the use of force that was the determining one.

Actium. If Octavius had lost then Rome would probably have collapsed utterly before 0AD.

BTW, constantine was less Christian than Maxentius (?) before the battle.

As regards the main thread, I'm somewhat suprised that the battles of Stalingrad/Kursk have not been mentioned. I would have thought that the anti-russian bias would have faded from the public mindset by now.

As regards the main thread, I'm somewhat suprised that the battles of Stalingrad/Kursk have not been mentioned. I would have thought that the anti-russian bias would have faded from the public mindset by now.

Sowwy 'bout forgetting Stalingrad ( which was a great battle ) but the anti-russian bias, nor its root-causes, neither started nor ended with the USSR..

As regards the main thread, I'm somewhat suprised that the battles of Stalingrad/Kursk have not been mentioned. I would have thought that the anti-russian bias would have faded from the public mindset by now.

Tshilistye.

The idea that the fight for Irish independence was the brain-child of Robert Bruce is a non-runner. I believe you have him confused with Edward Bruce who invaded in 1315. There was resistance to Norman invasion from the outset that precedes both he and Robert, regardless.
You'll notice where I said "son of Robert the Bruce" namely on Edward Bruce.

And before him, the outpost at Ulster was slowly spreading and growing, without any real resistance.


There were many major battles over a 6-700 year period of far greater scale, and with more short term success than 1916. However the risings significance is that its efforts inspired the ultimately successful war of Independence 1919-1921. While the relative weakness of Britain at the time was certainly a factor in their agreement to withdraw following the Treaty, it was the use of force that was the determining one.
I wonder if it was the battle that did it, or the subsequent executions of the ring-leaders which was perceived as martyrdom that did it (to be fair to the British, rebellion in time of war can't be taken lightly). Or can you take that as part of the battle. But I think the original poster was overestimating the importance.

As regards the main thread, I'm somewhat suprised that the battles of Stalingrad/Kursk have not been mentioned. I would have thought that the anti-russian bias would have faded from the public mindset by now.
I was going to mention Kursk, but I feel that the defeat of Germany at Soviet hands was inevitable following Hitler's order to consolidate his forces short of Moscow.

If not Kursk, then somewhere else in Russia.

Kharkhov was a frightening battle as well.

Marathon or Thermopylae
Battle of Zarma (Scipio v Hannibal)
Stalingrad

It's all a matter of what's most important and without the Greeks we'd still have a soft version of Rome, without the Romans would we still have Europe though?

I'm going to try to go a different route though.

Teutonberg(sp?) forest: 60,000 Romans were slaughtered, had they won the battle though they would have expanded the boundries beyond the Rhine and into the rest of Germany. From there the romans perhaps could have driven even further. Then you could go into how that would have effected the Huns and the Vandals before they could even come to power and prevented the fall of Rome centuries later.

I could be a little off.

Because it is quite likely that the heroic slaughter of the Spartans was what provided the moral for the Battle of Salamis to be a victory. They set such an example that it was highly unlikely the next battle would be lost, especially given a more even force distribution.
You make a good point. Although I wonder if word even spread around Greece of the Spartan's heroism during the war. Were I Xerxes I would certainly have tried to quite the knowledge of the battle down... although mabye when the 4000 left they already knew enough to lift Greek moral. Who knows?

You'll notice where I said "son of Robert the Bruce" namely on Edward Bruce.

And before him, the outpost at Ulster was slowly spreading and growing, without any real resistance.


I wonder if it was the battle that did it, or the subsequent executions of the ring-leaders which was perceived as martyrdom that did it (to be fair to the British, rebellion in time of war can't be taken lightly). Or can you take that as part of the battle. But I think the original poster was overestimating the importance.


My apologies, I mis-read you. You are correct in your idea vis a vis martyr dom. As the oration of Pearse stated "Life springs from death; and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations."

I am unsure what you refer to with the "outpost at ulster".

The fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 AD: Had the Jews won, the Holy Land might be a Jewish theocracy, and Christianity might not exist. At the same time, the Jews would not have spread as quickly, so Europe might still be pagan. I think, given the history of ancient Israel, that the Jews would have been conquered many more times by other empires, and eventually one of the would have caused a diaspora

If it ever happened (which it probably didn't):
The great Neanderthal-Human battle. Had homo sapiens lost the day, Europe might still be populated with Neanderthals.
Clearly, europe is still populated by Neanderthals. Just kidding. I think that the "takeover" of europe by the homosapeins must have been more like when a tree takes up all of another trees light and then the small tree dies more than when a tree eats another tree (?)... if you get my drift

The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest). Europe would not have been the same without it...

The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest). Europe would not have been the same without it...

I'm amazed I almost spelled that right. I'm going to grab a cookie for that one :D

Clearly, europe is still populated by Neanderthals. Just kidding. I think that the "takeover" of europe by the homosapeins must have been more like when a tree takes up all of another trees light and then the small tree dies more than when a tree eats another tree (?)... if you get my drift

The Cro Magnon were actually slowly immigrating into Europe, gradually depriving the Neanderthal of their resources, especially food. Both species existed parallel in Europe for several thousand years before the Neanderthal became extinct. Some scientist believe that the two species might have interbred, too.


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandertal_interaction_with_Cro-Magnons)

I was going to mention Kursk, but I feel that the defeat of Germany at Soviet hands was inevitable following Hitler's order to consolidate his forces short of Moscow.

If not Kursk, then somewhere else in Russia.

Kharkhov was a frightening battle as well.
I mentioned Krusk in another thread about favorite battles.
All together though, to have 6000 or so tank blowing the hell out of each other, and having germany get its ass kicked really did do a lot for the allies!

I'm amazed I almost spelled that right. I'm going to grab a cookie for that one :D

I'm not much into military history, but that one fascinated me ever since I was a kid. I just love to see the underdog win :D

The Cro Magnon were actually slowly immigrating into Europe, gradually depriving the Neanderthal of their resources, especially food. Both species existed parallel in Europe for several thousand years before the Neanderthal became extinct. Some scientist believe that the two species might have interbred, too.
Thats what I said isnt it:confused:... I thought the breeding of homo sapiens sapiens and ....neanderthals had been discredited?

Thats what I said isnt it:confused:... I thought the breeding of homo sapiens sapiens and ....neanderthals had been discredited?

Has it? News to me...

Thats what I said isnt it:confused:... I thought the breeding of homo sapiens sapiens and ....neanderthals had been discredited?

It's been highly disputed, but as far as I know, not discredited yet.
I would imagine though that, had there actually been interbreeding, the offspring would have been incapable of reproduction, very much like modern day mules...

It's been highly disputed, but as far as I know, not discredited yet.
I would imagine though that, had there actually been interbreeding, the offspring would have been incapable of reproduction, very much like modern day mules...


For many years, professionals vigorously debated about whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. However, recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens. Still, some scientists argue that fossil evidence suggests that the two species interbred, and hence were the same biological species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

For many years, professionals vigorously debated about whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. However, recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens. Still, some scientists argue that fossil evidence suggests that the two species interbred, and hence were the same biological species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Interesting topic.... and worthy of a thread on it's own, I think. :)

I'm not much into military history, but that one fascinated me ever since I was a kid. I just love to see the underdog win :D

I studied it in Latin so I was kinda hoping the Legions would win, but alas General Varus was an imbecile. "Hey I'm gonna march these 60,000 roman soldiers down a pass that will fit 6 soldiers wide...it's almost too perfect against an ambush."

Give me back my Legions Varus!

Interesting topic.... and worthy of a thread on it's own, I think. :)

*grin*
I once had a girlfriend from Neanderthal ( yeah, it REALLY is a place ), so for aa while, I adopted the monnicker/callsign of Caveman. I'm kind of batty on that topic.

Another contender: battle of the Catalaunian fields.

I studied it in Latin so I was kinda hoping the Legions would win, but alas General Varus was an imbecile. "Hey I'm gonna march these 60,000 roman soldiers down a pass that will fit 6 soldiers wide...it's almost too perfect against an ambush."

Give me back my Legions Varus!

I remember the first time I came across this battle was in a childrens book, a story about a bunch of kids in ancient Rome during the reign of emperor Augustus :D

I remember the first time I came across this battle was in a childrens book, a story about a bunch of kids in ancient Rome during the reign of emperor Augustus :D

lmao I can imagine what it was like...

Messenger: "Here's a package from your dad?"
Boy: "Daddy got me something!?"
Messenger: "Oh I'm sorry, the package is your dad."
Boy: "Daddy? *whimper*"
Messenger: "Yeah those Germans don't mess around."

lmao I can imagine what it was like...

Messenger: "Here's a package from your dad?"
Boy: "Daddy got me something!?"
Messenger: "Oh I'm sorry, the package is your dad."
Boy: "Daddy? *whimper*"
Messenger: "Yeah those Germans don't mess around."

*lol
Not exactly, the battle was more or less a side note, a political event in the background really. The story was called "Caius is an idiot" and it was about a grafiti of those words on a temple wall, a criminal investigation into this vandalism and a political plot.
That grafiti does exist, btw. It was found on a wall in Pompeji ;)

Admittedly, most battles mentioned here are a bit Western-centric, if there ever was such a word. Now there is. :p

This is justifiable in so far as the "West" happend to conquer and subdue most of the globe in the 19th century, with the effects of this conquest on the world as a whole lasting to this very day. Such global and long-term effects cannot be assigned to any battle in China, for example.



This is why I don't agree with those who say "Marathon," etc. The purpose of battles is to resolve political questions, so I'm going to assume that what is meant by "most decisive" is defined in terms of its influence on politics. Capitalism (the imperialist stage of which is the dominant feature of our time) would've developed in the long run anyway, given the survival of our species, and would've created political structures that, given all their variations, would still be recognizable ... the nation-state, the 2-parent family as normative if not descriptive, representative democracy as the preferred form of rule, but with willingness to experiment with Jacobin-style democracy, Bonapartism, military-police dictatorship, and fascism. And the more the question becomes one of specific variations rather than general features, the more shorter-term influences predominate over longer-term influences.

Anyway, I vote for Gettysburg.

I disagree. Thermopylae is, in my opinion, for the same reasons you stated above. And, regardless of whether it was 'most ciritcal' or not, it's definitely my favorite battle.
Hell yeah! But more recently, Stalingrad and Khursk were very important battles. I think all truly critical battles cannot be distinguished as more critical than another, or there would only be one battle in all of history entitled The Critical Battle. A great number are critical in their own right and under the circumstances generated by all the previous battles which affected the region.

If there ever was a really critical battle it would have been the 1941/42 Battle of Moscow.

Conquering Stalingrad would not have helped the Germans one bit. The Soviets' vital industries were already moved, no really important supply lines would have been cut for any significant amount of time.
At Kursk the war was already lost. The whole exercise was little more than an attempt to slow down the inevitable defeat.

At Moscow however, the Germans still had the upper hand. Had they taken the place, I'd say Stalin's government would have collapsed. Unlike when Napoleon attacked Moscow, the Germans would have found the city intact, a perfect base for further operations.
Stalin would've had to flee into the Wilderness across the Urals, thus losing the last shred of credibility he'd left. Plus the Soviets had thrown pretty much everything they had into the defense of Moscow...had they lost that battle, they wouldn't have had anything left to fight on for any significant amount of time.

I studied it in Latin so I was kinda hoping the Legions would win, but alas General Varus was an imbecile. "Hey I'm gonna march these 60,000 roman soldiers down a pass that will fit 6 soldiers wide...it's almost too perfect against an ambush."

Give me back my Legions Varus!
Only 15000-ish soldiers. There were only three legions, whose numbers would never again be used for shame of their massacre. One Legion is four thousand to six thousand men. They were up against 18000 Germanic tribesmen, largely Cherusci, who were poorly armed and armored in comparison to Romes three finest legions. After that, no Roman army was so careless when raiding German lands. Of course, they hesitated to call another of them brother. The Cherusci commander of the ambush, Arminnius(or Hermann the German), was actually a citizen of the Empire and one of her generals. He had convinced Varus tribal villages were in dire need of protection from brigands, but left Varus's company to scout for any locals who would fight against the brigands just before the Legions entered a place in the road where the dense forests practically choke it off. Then Arminnius readied his men, and when the last of the Legionaries had entered the kill zone, the Germans cut off both escape routs and pressed in on the Legions before they could form up in good order. The Romans were murdered in a typical overwhelming victory for the Germans. Then again, many German armies crushed a few Roman armies each before being destroyed. :D

If there ever was a really critical battle it would have been the 1941/42 Battle of Moscow.

Conquering Stalingrad would not have helped the Germans one bit. The Soviets' vital industries were already moved, no really important supply lines would have been cut for any significant amount of time.
At Kursk the war was already lost. The whole exercise was little more than an attempt to slow down the inevitable defeat.

At Moscow however, the Germans still had the upper hand. Had they taken the place, I'd say Stalin's government would have collapsed. Unlike when Napoleon attacked Moscow, the Germans would have found the city intact, a perfect base for further operations.
Stalin would've had to flee into the Wilderness across the Urals, thus losing the last shred of credibility he'd left. Plus the Soviets had thrown pretty much everything they had into the defense of Moscow...had they lost that battle, they wouldn't have had anything left to fight on for any significant amount of time.

Moscow was more important strategically, but Stalingrad, the city of Great Comrade Stalin's namesake, was of greater morale importance. Many Red soldiers may have deserted or surrendered more readily if Stalingrad had been taken: they may have even surrendered Moscow with less resistance than if the Germans had gotten there. As it was, the Germans got within 60(?) miles of Moscow before the Soviet airforce and tank armies overwhelmed and practically routed the central German armies.

The 1916 Rising:

Definatly the most important battle for me because it was the first major attack by the Irish republicans. In effect it led to Ireland becoming a 'Free State' and then a REPUBLIC. It effectivally destroyed the 'British Empire' as after th Irish withdrew from the British comenwelth a lot of other countries followed its example

GO ON IRELAND

I really have to question your historical analysis. Admittedly, this use of violence was important but you seem to be forgetting that in 1911 the British Parliament had already granted home rule to Ireland. However the transfer of power was delayed by the outbreak of the Second World War. The violence itself was merely the outpouring of political tensions brought about by the delay in granting home rule, seen by many as the first step to a free Ireland.

Secondly, very few countries directly followed Ireland's example. Most of Britain's colonies were remarkably well behaved in comparison and generally received their freedom because it was no longer economically viable for Britain to maintain control after the truly devasating effects of two world wars.

As for important battles: I am going to vouch for the Conquest of Constantinople in 1204 by the members of the Fourth Crusade. I feel before this point there was still a good chance that the declining Byzantines could have turned things around - they still possessed large tracts of territory, the best medieval currency system, a highly effective bureaucracy and a virtually impregnable capital city. Under the right leadership, the Byzantines might have been able to push the Turks back across the Anatolian planes. However, the Fourth Crusade essentially smashed the Byzantine Empire into a bunch of weak westtern dominated kingdoms, mostly too busy fighting themselves to fight back the Turkish menance. Thus, Byzantine was reduced to a minor state and was unable to resisted the Turks in 1453, when Constantinople finally fell. The Turks were then able to get their hands on the Western provinces of the former Empire (essentially the Balklands and Greece). This brought about the highly tense racial and social conditions which resulted in a 19th century full of Balkland revolts. Those revolts forced the declining Ottomans to hand autonomy over to several small Balkland states, who proceeded to fight with each other and the near-by imperial powers, most notably Austria-Hungary. This ultimately resulted in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which triggered the right context for geo-political factors to explode into World War.

Moscow was more important strategically, but Stalingrad, the city of Great Comrade Stalin's namesake, was of greater morale importance.
Perhaps...but if a defeat had occured, don't you think Stalin would just have changed the emphasis?
They had the forces standing ready, who had already won battles in the previous Winter. As overstretched as the German lines were when they reached Stalingrad, even conquering the whole city would not have changed the fact that the troops and materials available were not enough to hold that long a front line for any length of time.

Many Red soldiers may have deserted or surrendered more readily if Stalingrad had been taken: they may have even surrendered Moscow with less resistance than if the Germans had gotten there.
As I said, I have my doubts. Stalin had ordered propaganda campaigns before and after about holding various places to the end, and when it didn't happen, he simply changed his tune.

As it was, the Germans got within 60(?) miles of Moscow before the Soviet airforce and tank armies overwhelmed and practically routed the central German armies.
Well, it wasn't so much the air force as the Siberian Reinforcements which had the equipment to deal with the climate. But I think that if the German attack would have happened a few weeks earlier, they could have reached Moscow when it wasn't all frozen up yet, thus taking the city and destroying the Soviet government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow

As for other important battles, I'd say Marathon and Tours. And one that wasn't even a battle...the death of the Mongol Khan when they'd just kicked the shit out of the Teutonic Knights.
I don't think Europe would've stood a chance against a Mongol Invasion.

Perhaps...but if a defeat had occured, don't you think Stalin would just have changed the emphasis?
They had the forces standing ready, who had already won battles in the previous Winter. As overstretched as the German lines were when they reached Stalingrad, even conquering the whole city would not have changed the fact that the troops and materials available were not enough to hold that long a front line for any length of time.


As I said, I have my doubts. Stalin had ordered propaganda campaigns before and after about holding various places to the end, and when it didn't happen, he simply changed his tune.


Well, it wasn't so much the air force as the Siberian Reinforcements which had the equipment to deal with the climate. But I think that if the German attack would have happened a few weeks earlier, they could have reached Moscow when it wasn't all frozen up yet, thus taking the city and destroying the Soviet government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow

As for other important battles, I'd say Marathon and Tours. And one that wasn't even a battle...the death of the Mongol Khan when they'd just kicked the shit out of the Teutonic Knights.
I don't think Europe would've stood a chance against a Mongol Invasion.
They wouldn't have to hold the front if the Germans could have terrified the Reds into a pro-German peace settlement. The Red Army may have been so demoralized at the loss of such an important city that they would have resisted death and surrender much less than before, which is what I meant in the surrender of Moscow after Stalingrad. Of course the battles for Moscow and Leningrad would still have been terribly costly for the overstretched Germans. While it's true the lack of German preparation for the Russian winter and the Siberian reinforcements, emphasis on the former, did greatly hinder the German advance, they really just slowed the German advance until the Soviet tanks, also better designed than the German tanks for Russian winter war, and Il-2 Sturmovicks could overwhelm and destroy the German Tigers and Panzer IV's and their infantry support. Tanks were a very decisive factor for the Soviets, along with their superior heavy artillery. In fact, some of the most decisive factors for the Soviet victory were manpower, artillery, centuries of extreme climate experience, and the advent of mass-produced fighters and fighter-bombers, the latter of which outclassed the German Stuka divebombers, which were outdated by that point in the war.

However, you may well be right about them taking Moscow if they had pressed forward a few weeks earlier.

They wouldn't have to hold the front if the Germans could have terrified the Reds into a pro-German peace settlement.
I have my doubts that taking Stalingrad would have been all that terrifying to the Soviets. They took much worse blows and kept going, because the government and organisaiton was kept intact.

The Red Army may have been so demoralized at the loss of such an important city that they would have resisted death and surrender much less than before, which is what I meant in the surrender of Moscow after Stalingrad.
Well, first the Germans would've had to make their way back to Moscow. When Stalingrad happened, German Forces were a fair way back, and the Russian Front was fairly stable in that area.
All German Reserves were put into the push towards Baku, so there wouldn't have been anything to attack with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eastern_Front_1942-05_to_1942-11.png

While it's true the lack of German preparation for the Russian winter and the Siberian reinforcements, emphasis on the former, did greatly hinder the German advance, they really just slowed the German advance until the Soviet tanks, also better designed than the German tanks for Russian winter war, and Il-2 Sturmovicks could overwhelm and destroy the German Tigers and Panzer IV's and their infantry support.
The Siberian Divisions were the ones with the T-34s with wider tracks and all the rest of it. They were AFAIK the first ones to use them successfully on a larger scale.
As for the Sturmoviks...the Russian Air Force didn't play that much of a role until later in the war. The weather wasn't that great during much of the Battle for Moscow, and the IL-2s were very new and very few at that point. Plus the German Air Force had done a lot of damage early on.

And Tigers were nowhere to be seen by 1941.

I disagree. Germany had neither the economic nor military assets to conquer Russia - and Stalin knew that. He would have simply continued to withdraw east if Stalingrad and Moscow had fallen, waited until the Germans ran out of supplies, and overwhelmed them in their time of weakness.

I would like to split the question in three:

Most Important in terms of overall significance: I think Marathon has to get my vote here.

Most Important in terms of philosophical change: Yorktown.

Most Important in terms of altering the Modern World: I'd have to go with two here: Dunkerque and Midway. The former ensured that there was still someone to fight Germany through the dark days ahead, and bleed their air force white, instead of allowing them to concentrate on Russia; The latter dealt a blow to the IJN from which they never recovered, and signalled the end of Imperial Japan's expansion, a stopping confirmed in New Guinea.

Most Important Battle? Genghis Kahn versus Old Age. Changed the face of the world forever.

I disagree. Germany had neither the economic nor military assets to conquer Russia - and Stalin knew that. He would have simply continued to withdraw east if Stalingrad and Moscow had fallen, waited until the Germans ran out of supplies, and overwhelmed them in their time of weakness.
AFAIK Stalin had already run from Moscow in what seemed more like panic than strategic considerations. The idea was to defeat the Soviet Government and take control of the area up to the Urals. I'm not sure what would have happened then with the Partisans.
I don't think the "keep retreating" idea would still have worked in the times of mechanised warfare, especially if you keep getting your arse kicked along the way, as had happened with the Soviets in the first months of the invasion.

[Dunkirk] ensured that there was still someone to fight Germany through the dark days ahead, and bleed their air force white, instead of allowing them to concentrate on Russia...
I'm not so sure that having a bunch of unarmed refugees get to Britain helped the RAF that much though. Although they managed to present it as a victory somehow, which helped morale, I guess.

AFAIK Stalin had already run from Moscow in what seemed more like panic than strategic considerations. The idea was to defeat the Soviet Government and take control of the area up to the Urals. I'm not sure what would have happened then with the Partisans.
I don't think the "keep retreating" idea would still have worked in the times of mechanised warfare, especially if you keep getting your arse kicked along the way, as had happened with the Soviets in the first months of the invasion.


I'm not so sure that having a bunch of unarmed refugees get to Britain helped the RAF that much though. Although they managed to present it as a victory somehow, which helped morale, I guess.

If the Soviet Union was defeated, then we obviously know that eventually one of three things would happen:

-Concentration Worker uprisings eventually reaching control
-America developing another nuclear weapon and soon becomes a 'Berlin'
-Russian Winter freezes off supply lines

You must look at battles that pit civilizations against each other. Prior to civilizations, battles weren't large and decisive. The Earlier the battles are, the more significant they are, as they have profound effects on later important battles. Also they are more important when considering Western Culture, because during the 19th and 20th centuries it extended it's dominance over the entire world, with the Islamic World as a possible exception. I don't have a comprehensive enough knowledge of history to list these definitively, but these are big:

Marathon, The battle where Alexander defeated the Persian Army, the destruction of the Athenian fleet at Syracuse, the Battles of Yathrib(Medina) and Mecca, the battle where the Muslims defeated the former Greek and Persian masters of the east, The Battle of Tours, The battle of Vienna, Napolean's retreat from Moscow, The Russo-Japanese war, The battle of Stalingrad, Operation Overlord, Kursk, Battle of the Bulge, and the Tet offensive. In that order. The WWII battles really aren't that significant, but it's what I'm familiar with.

The Battle of Trenton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trenton). With out it there would probably be no USA and the world would be a different place.

Runners up: Waterloo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo), Battle of Pharsalus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pharsalus), and the Huai Hai Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huai_Hai_Campaign).

I would like to split the question in three:

Most Important in terms of overall significance: I think Marathon has to get my vote here.

Most Important in terms of philosophical change: Yorktown.

Most Important in terms of altering the Modern World: I'd have to go with two here: Dunkerque and Midway. The former ensured that there was still someone to fight Germany through the dark days ahead, and bleed their air force white, instead of allowing them to concentrate on Russia; The latter dealt a blow to the IJN from which they never recovered, and signalled the end of Imperial Japan's expansion, a stopping confirmed in New Guinea.

I don't know how you define these terms, but I appreciate the effort to add some clarity to the discussion--so I'll just define them as I will, and let people hash that out if they want to.

A: Gettysburg
B: Breitenfeld (1631)
C: Stalingrad

I studied it in Latin so I was kinda hoping the Legions would win, but alas General Varus was an imbecile. "Hey I'm gonna march these 60,000 roman soldiers down a pass that will fit 6 soldiers wide...it's almost too perfect against an ambush."

Give me back my Legions Varus!

A Roman Legion consisted of 4,000 to 6,000 men plus auxiliaries.

Where do you get 60,000 from?

15-20,000 altogether, more like it.

EDIT: beaten to it.

I'd say Trafalgar and talavera.

El Alamein or D-Day Landings of Operation Overlord.
Dunkirk wasn't a real battle in fact it was a lack of battle that mad it so succesful.
I'd almost put Stalingrad in there.
Midway was a bloody lucky thing for the US 1 measly catapult affected the Japanese operations.

Most important battle was Charles Martel fighting the islamic armies to a standstill - and subsequent retreat over the pyrenees - in 8th century France. If they'd won there, all of europe and its subsequent history would have been _totally_ different.

Elgesh']Most important battle was Charles Martel fighting the islamic armies to a standstill - and subsequent retreat over the pyrenees - in 8th century France. If they'd won there, all of europe and its subsequent history would have been _totally_ different.
Good point.
Tours Battle of.

D-Day.

Hands down.

Siege of Cartagena.
Yarrgh

Marathon is a biggie, although Yarmuck rivals it for importance.

The Battle of Salamis is so much more important than the Battle of Marathon. It's because of this battle that Xerxes turned tail and fled and left his general with a greatly reduced army to face the Greeks. The very fact that the Athenians gave up their city in order to fight the battle should tell you how important it was to defeating the persian empire and thus retaining the democratic and hellenistic way of life.

If we're after something really obscure (as these discussions always turn into a competition of who can name the most obscure battle), The Battle of Wattling Street is quite jolly. Boadiccea with a huge force of hyped up celts, small Roman force. Indiscipline versus discipline. Bash.
Meant that the Roman occupation was able continue unchallenged for quite some time, thus allowing them to lay the foundations for the middle ages.

If we're after something really obscure (as these discussions always turn into a competition of who can name the most obscure battle), The Battle of Wattling Street is quite jolly. Boadiccea with a huge force of hyped up celts, small Roman force. Indiscipline versus discipline. Bash.
Meant that the Roman occupation was able continue unchallenged for quite some time, thus allowing them to lay the foundations for the middle ages.
That was key, for Britian at least.

The Battle for Moscow: The German assault was halted just outside Moscow, due to stiff Soviet resistance and the winter weather. Had Moscow fallen, the Germans would have been in Moscow, a demoralising effect on the Soviets, Stalin may have fled the Soviet Union altogether.


Stalingrad. If the Germans had taken the city and smashed the Soviet 62nd Army, it would have been the opening of the door to the oil fields just beyond it, fuelling the Nazi War Machine further. There the Germans would have massed, and then thrust for a second assault on Moscow or other oil fields...we don't know what the result of that would be.


The Battle Of Britain: With the fall of Britain in 1940, the US and the allies would have found launching D-Day, the landings at Scily, North Africa longer to carry out, launching from the US armadas instead of Britain.

Trafalgar. With Britain safe from invasion and Russia undefeated, the defeat of the Bonepartist homogeny in Europe was virtually assured.

My apologies, I mis-read you. You are correct in your idea vis a vis martyr dom. As the oration of Pearse stated "Life springs from death; and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations."

I am unsure what you refer to with the "outpost at ulster".
As far as I remember, there was a military outpost in Ulster before Edward Bruce turned up to try to get Ireland to rebel.

Before he came it was growing in size and in influence, afterwards it wasn't.

In your opinion what is the most important battle in world history?
I think D-Day obviuosly because we (the Allies) got so lucky we didnt git cut2 shreds on the beach and shit like that. It also was one of the final straws that broke the back of the Nazi war machine. (althought they werent going down without one great last offensive that drove the Allies to the brink of being pushed back.)
Er, no. The D day invasion couldn't have happened if the bulk of the German army hadn't been demolished at Stalingrad and their armoured divisions hadn't been done over at the cauldron of steel (largest tank battle in history, I'm told), so those are both going to be a lot more important.

D-Day was almost an irrelevancy in terms of ending the war, the Russians would have done it sooner or later. The West just wanted to stop all of europe being taken by Stalin which was a more important result in the end (Imagine if France was taken by Stalin, Vietnam, Algeria and half the middle east would have been taken with them...).

D-Day was almost an irrelevancy in terms of ending the war, the Russians would have done it sooner or later. The West just wanted to stop all of europe being taken by Stalin which was a more important result in the end (Imagine if France was taken by Stalin, Vietnam, Algeria and half the middle east would have been taken with them...).

...which perhaps makes D-Day EXTREMELY relevant with regards to history post 1945?

A Roman Legion consisted of 4,000 to 6,000 men plus auxiliaries.

Where do you get 60,000 from?

15-20,000 altogether, more like it.

EDIT: beaten to it.

Nonetheless it compelled Augustus to withdraw and consolidate the empire along the Rhine, facilitating every Franco-Teutonic conflict that has ever transpired, radically altering the very nature, language and culture of Eastern Europe.

No Teutoberg forest...... no Franco-Prussian war 1871, feasibly no Lutherism since Christianoty would have entered the Teutonc realms an awful lot earlier, and been every inch as established as that in France, no world wars, no Hitler.

...which perhaps makes D-Day EXTREMELY relevant with regards to history post 1945?

And yet not as relevent therefore as the failure of operation Market Garden.

Er, no. The D day invasion couldn't have happened if the bulk of the German army hadn't been demolished at Stalingrad and their armoured divisions hadn't been done over at the cauldron of steel (largest tank battle in history, I'm told), so those are both going to be a lot more important.

Well. the D-Day invasion could have still happened, but with more German armour and more troops and more airpower, and with D-Day as it was in the balance over whether it succeeded, the landings would have been bloodier, and if they got beyond the beaches, the hedgerows would have been doubly if not triplely as bloody and ferocious, and the question would have been whether Churchill and Roosevelt and Einsenhower, without The Soviet Union, would have carrid it out in the face of a reinforced France, perhaps landing in Norway, which would have been risky, and a very long campaign indeed if the coastal defences were breached, and success no guarantee.

As for The Cauldron Of Steel, that was The Battle Of The Kursk in July 1943, initiated by the German offensive to avenge Stalingrad, was the largest tank battle in history, over a battlefield the size of Wales, and that's big.

It made The Battle Of The Bulge look like a mere skirmish in comparison, and that battle was no picnic in itself.

The Battle of Saratoga

It marked the turning point in the Revolutionary War. Had the revolutionary force led by Benedict Arnold lost this battle France would most likely not enter the war on the side of the Americans. Britain would also have had complete dominance of Northen America if they won. And the United States of America would not have been created.

Stalingrad - nuff said

In your opinion what is the most important battle in world history?
I think D-Day obviuosly because we (the Allies) got so lucky we didnt git cut2 shreds on the beach and shit like that. It also was one of the final straws that broke the back of the Nazi war machine. (althought they werent going down without one great last offensive that drove the Allies to the brink of being pushed back.)

Modern History, Stalingrad:: Why, if the germans had crossed the volga you'd all be talking german now. And HItler would have a 100 year reich, and with now controlling all of europe to the Urals, he would have kicked america's ass if they didn't become their puppet.

Older History:
Chalons: Couse the Last True Roman beat off the Huns and saved European civilization from becoming killed off and raped by the Hun(asians), and in many ways provented the etnich cleansing of europeans. caucasians, by the Huns...

In my view, Hitler defeating Russia and Britain would not result in Hitler conquering the world. It would merely lead to the destruction of Europe.

Path 1: US develops the Bomb. They build carriers in the Atlantic (or use British carriers) and bomb Europe into radioactive slag.

Path 2: Hitler invades Middle East. The German conquest of the Holy Land is one of the bloodiest battles of World War II, as the Palestinian Jews take two German divisions with them. To Hitler's disappointment, only a few hundred Jews are actually captured. In the process of demolishing the Western Wall, Hitler takes out the Dome of the Rock. Alternatively, German troops march into Mecca to declare their victory. Result: Jihad II. Europe destroyed by US-backed Muslim armies. After all, # of Nazis < # of Muslims.

Mind you, I doubt the Germans could have defeated the Russians. The Russians had a superweapon: Marshal Winter. Even if the Germans had taken Moscow, they would have frozen to death.

In my view, Hitler defeating Russia and Britain would not result in Hitler conquering the world. It would merely lead to the destruction of Europe.

Path 1: US develops the Bomb. They build carriers in the Atlantic (or use British carriers) and bomb Europe into radioactive slag.
And they'd have developed the bomb without the British Rutherford's work would they?

State Of It: the D Day landings might still have been attempted, you're right, but I'm very dubious that they would have actually succeeded if Stalin hadn't done such a thorough demolition job on the German military. It's also worth bearing in mind that he called off the planned invasion of the UK and pulled the plug on the Battle of Britain to do so, so the US forces would have needed another staging post to liberate Europe from. Ireland or Greenland, perhaps.

Mind you, I doubt the Germans could have defeated the Russians. The Russians had a superweapon: Marshal Winter. Even if the Germans had taken Moscow, they would have frozen to death.

A German army bolstered by control of all Europe, with no other military concerns to devote itself to, and an absence Allied bombing raids, would have destroyed Russia with alacrity, or, at the least, constrained Russia to its Eastern frontier.

A German army bolstered by control of all Europe, with no other military concerns to devote itself to, and an absence Allied bombing raids, would have destroyed Russia with alacrity, or, at the least, constrained Russia to its Eastern frontier.
Right. Just like Napolean did.

And they'd have developed the bomb without the British Rutherford's work would they?

State Of It: the D Day landings might still have been attempted, you're right, but I'm very dubious that they would have actually succeeded if Stalin hadn't done such a thorough demolition job on the German military. It's also worth bearing in mind that he called off the planned invasion of the UK and pulled the plug on the Battle of Britain to do so, so the US forces would have needed another staging post to liberate Europe from. Ireland or Greenland, perhaps.

I think that the Soviets had some advantage in having terrible winters, but the destruction of German forces was accomplished by two things:

1. Large numbers of men and large amounts of materiel (a good tank, the T-34, a good plane, the Shturmovik).
2. A willingness to sacrifice both in large numbers.

Even if the US had never invaded on D-Day, I believe that Germany would have been defeated.

As an aside, until hydrogen bombs came about, it would have taken a lot more bombs than people think to turn a continent into radioactive slag.

Right. Just like Napolean did.

No. Napoleon was indeed defeated by the Russian winter, however we must consider that he was but a turn from safety through marching south, whilst Hitler proved that Russia's foes habitually defeat themselves, neglecting to take an undefended Moscow, and committing Kesselring entirely to Stalingrad, when a fitting course would have seen the Nazi forces merely bypass Tsaritsyn. Furthermore, Napoleon was in no manner compelled to assualt Russia, he did so as an act of imperialism, not defence.

In my view, Hitler defeating Russia and Britain would not result in Hitler conquering the world. It would merely lead to the destruction of Europe.

Path 1: US develops the Bomb. They build carriers in the Atlantic (or use British carriers) and bomb Europe into radioactive slag..

Germany was also making the bomb! And would have been soon to follow, also not having to fight on the eastern fron, while getting the resorces from the was territory of russia would give them more speed in their bomb making.


Path 2: Hitler invades Middle East. The German conquest of the Holy Land is one of the bloodiest battles of World War II, as the Palestinian Jews take two German divisions with them. To Hitler's disappointment, only a few hundred Jews are actually captured. In the process of demolishing the Western Wall, Hitler takes out the Dome of the Rock. Alternatively, German troops march into Mecca to declare their victory. Result: Jihad II. Europe destroyed by US-backed Muslim armies. After all, # of Nazis < # of Muslims..
Quite silly.
I doubt that the arabs would have the means to defeat europe using the sticks and muskets against panzer7s and Nukes.
And why would they back some american british thing that has occupied them for so long..


Mind you, I doubt the Germans could have defeated the Russians. The Russians had a superweapon: Marshal Winter. Even if the Germans had taken Moscow, they would have frozen to death
In the battle of the defense of moscow the lowest temperature was -7 celsius
Look at what altitude and longtitude it is, a lot of poeple think that it is cold in stalingrad, but look where it is, this winter thing is just propaganda by the west after the war, to undermind the red army.

And if it was the winter, does this mean that populations with dominent slav genes are more resistant to cold then other whites:confused:

This winter thing is the dumbest myth of ww2

Germany was also making the bomb! And would have been soon to follow, also not having to fight on the eastern fron, while getting the resorces from the was territory of russia would give them more speed in their bomb making.


Apparently, Heisenberg and his fellow German scientists were a long, long way from being anywhere close to making a bomb.

And the Soviets would have defeated them before they ever finished making one.

I think that the Soviets had some advantage in having terrible winters, but the destruction of German forces was accomplished by two things:

1. Large numbers of men and large amounts of materiel (a good tank, the T-34, a good plane, the Shturmovik).
2. A willingness to sacrifice both in large numbers.

Even if the US had never invaded on D-Day, I believe that Germany would have been defeated.

As an aside, until hydrogen bombs came about, it would have taken a lot more bombs than people think to turn a continent into radioactive slag.

I mostley agree, but german soviet losses in men where 1-1.25 men through the war. And this taking acount that soviet POW where killed. So the Soviet hordes vs. 1 german elite dude is overrated. Soviet union lost 7 million troops, as KIA and POW, but since nazis are so nice poeple POW was quickley the same as KIA, Germany lost 5 million men+ what ever their allyes lost, i think somewhere in the lines of 1 million + -;)

I think that the Soviets had some advantage in having terrible winters, but the destruction of German forces was accomplished by two things:

1. Large numbers of men and large amounts of materiel (a good tank, the T-34, a good plane, the Shturmovik).
2. A willingness to sacrifice both in large numbers.
Precisely. The best panzers were probably far better machines than the T-34s, but the Russians had rather more of them, and sacrificed a lot of those in order to hobble the German armour. Let's face it, if the Germans had gone through Russia as easily as Hitler seemed to expect, they wouldn't have been in the country long enough for the winter to become a factor. Fortunately, that was never going to happen.

As an aside, until hydrogen bombs came about, it would have taken a lot more bombs than people think to turn a continent into radioactive slag.
Another good point. Even if Oppenheimer had been able to build the things without Rutherford's input (I'm not sure of the dates for this, so it may still have been viable if Germany had invaded Britain rather than Russia) I'm dubious that it would have been possible to construct very many of the things.

Apparently, Heisenberg and his fellow German scientists were a long, long way from being anywhere close to making a bomb.

And the Soviets would have defeated them before they ever finished making one.

No they would not have. The Nazi scientists were a damn sight closer than we would like to assume, and had Hitler not exiled the Jewish physicists in Germany, he would ahve possessed Nucleur weaponry prior to 1945, and hopefully dropped several, over Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad.

Apparently, Heisenberg and his fellow German scientists were a long, long way from being anywhere close to making a bomb.

And the Soviets would have defeated them before they ever finished making one.

But we were here talking if the soviets had lost

Apparently, Heisenberg and his fellow German scientists were a long, long way from being anywhere close to making a bomb.

And the Soviets would have defeated them before they ever finished making one.
Apparently this was an example of ideology getting in the way: it was decided not to pursue the notion because a jew had thought it up. Probably just as well, given that they could have got a lot of uranium from their African holdings.

Chris: Hitler had a nonagression treaty with Stalin when he invaded Russia. He didn't need to, and would have been a lot better off if he hadn't. That makes it the same MO as napolean used in my book.

No they would not have. The Nazi scientists were a damn sight closer than we would like to assume, and had Hitler not exiled the Jewish physicists in Germany, he would ahve possessed Nucleur weaponry prior to 1945, and hopefully dropped several, over Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad.

I'm saying that Germany was screwed out of the bomb by exiling the Jewish scientists. Heisenberg and his fellows were apparently surprised that the US had a working bomb at all - they were nowhere near where the US was at the time (per secret recordings of their conversations).

Apparently this was an example of ideology getting in the way: it was decided not to pursue the notion because a jew had thought it up. Probably just as well, given that they could have got a lot of uranium from their African holdings.

Chris: Hitler had a nonagression treaty with Stalin when he invaded Russia. He didn't need to, and would have been a lot better off if he hadn't. That makes it the same MO as napolean used in my book.

I am aware of the "Pact of Steel" von Ribbentrop engineered in 1939, however Hitler was ideologically compelled to invade Russia, since it was therein he intended to procure "lebensraum", and he abhorrred communism, however, strategically, he oughn't to have done so whilst at war with Britain.

Precisely. The best panzers were probably far better machines than the T-34s, but the Russians had rather more of them, and sacrificed a lot of those in order to hobble the German armour. Let's face it, if the Germans had gone through Russia as easily as Hitler seemed to expect, they wouldn't have been in the country long enough for the winter to become a factor. Fortunately, that was never going to happen.

Only the Tiger was better then the T-34s, the T-34-76 was equal to the Panther. But in battle the Panther often fucked it self up due to tech-fuck ups.

Bit the soviets had other heavy tanks to counter the Tiger the IS-2 IS-3.
And also the T-34s could penitrate the defences of the Tiger. So it was not some helppless cannon fodder.
The main german "tank" was some kind of jagdpanzer crossed with a panzerIII
but this was only effecitve in defencive opperation, more then 10.000 were buildt

I am aware of the "Pact of Steel" von Ribbentrop engineered in 1939, however Hitler was ideologically compelled to invade Russia, since it was therein he intended to procure "lebensraum", and he abhorrred communism, however, strategically, he oughn't to have done so whilst at war with Britain.
Also, the Soviets would have attacked germany anyways when they were weak enough from the war against the west, they tought the red army could do the task of getting to Berlin by the year 42-43

Only the Tiger was better then the T-34s, the T-34-76 was equal to the Panther. But in battle the Panther often fucked it self up due to tech-fuck ups.

Bit the soviets had other heavy tanks to counter the Tiger the IS-2 IS-3.
And also the T-34s could penitrate the defences of the Tiger. So it was not some helppless cannon fodder.
The main german "tank" was some kind of jagdpanzer crossed with a panzerIII
but this was only effecitve in defencive opperation, more then 10.000 were buildt
Right. I didn't know that. Thank you.

I'm saying that Germany was screwed out of the bomb by exiling the Jewish scientists. Heisenberg and his fellows were apparently surprised that the US had a working bomb at all - they were nowhere near where the US was at the time (per secret recordings of their conversations).

As was I incidentally.

Right. I didn't know that. Thank you.
Well the Panther was, hmm, reversed engeniered from T-34s. And was meant to be a buffed up T-34....

Also, the Soviets would have attacked germany anyways when they were weak enough from the war against the west, they tought the red army could do the task of getting to moscow by the year 42-43

Moscow is, indeed, the capital of the Soviet Union, ergo I would be a tad shocked if the red army could not reach Moscow.:rolleyes:

Moscow is, indeed, the capital of the Soviet Union, ergo I would be a tad shocked if the red army could not reach Moscow.:rolleyes:

:headbang: I am so stupid:p
I'll go back and edit that;)

:headbang: I am so stupid:p
I'll go back and edit that;)

I was a bit intruiged about that, I know Stalin was paranoid and neurotic, but surely was not so thoroughly purged that it could not read a map....:p

Well the Panther was, hmm, reversed engeniered from T-34s. And was meant to be a buffed up T-34....
That's interesting as well. I'd always been led to believe that the Germans had better tanks but the Russians had more of them. If the difference in quality between the hardware on both sides wasn't quite as pronounced, small wonder that the Russians kicked the shit out of the german armour...

I was a bit intruiged about that, I know Stalin was paranoid and neurotic, but surely was not so thoroughly purged that it could not read a map....:p
He was crazy, coused harm to the soviet union and its people, like POWing his own officers leaving the RKKA without any good tactitans at the start of the war, but even he had his limits:p

That's interesting as well. I'd always been led to believe that the Germans had better tanks but the Russians had more of them. If the difference in quality between the hardware on both sides wasn't quite as pronounced, small wonder that the Russians kicked the shit out of the german armour...

Thats more of a myht made after the war based on the first 6 months so that the west would feel better in the asumed next war on the Soviets;)
Like i said, true myth, but only until 42...

He was crazy, coused harm to the soviet union and its people, like POWing his own officers leaving the RKKA without any good tactitans at the start of the war, but even he had his limits:p

A razor and shaving oil not, evidently, being one of them:p

Thats more of a myht made after the war based on the first 6 months so that the west would feel better in the asumed next war on the Soviets;)
Like i said, true myth, but only until 42...
I always suspect the lage number of Americans who feel that they came in three years late and singlehandedly saved Europe from Hitler is something to do with this sort of disinformation, rather than arrogance: forget the fact that three out of every five wehrmacht casualties died in Russia, Patton is the reason these worthless Eurotrash democrats don't speak German...

I always suspect the lage number of Americans who feel that they came in three years late and singlehandedly saved Europe from Hitler is something to do with this sort of disinformation, rather than arrogance: forget the fact that three out of every five wehrmacht casualties died in Russia, Patton is the reason these worthless Eurotrash democrats don't speak German...
germany los 5 million troops on the eastern front...
+1 million german allies in the east.
Soviet lossed 7 million..
funny thing tough i have never found numbers on american losses in ww2

germany los 5 million troops on the eastern front...
+1 million allies.
Soviet lossed 7 million..
funny thing tough i have never found numbers on american losses in ww2
Funny that, isn't it?

Funny that, isn't it?
well, not funney, but what were the american losses during the war?

well, not funney, but what were the american losses during the war?
Rather less than everybody else's at a guess: they stayed out of Europe until the mopping up operation that started with the D day landings, nuked Japan rather than trying to invade the islands using infantry (possibly because they'd landed on the wrong beach during D Day) and then went to make films about how they saved the world for the next sixty odd years. I finsd this a bit offensive, to be honest.

Critical Battles, hmm. Too many to list, really. The Battle of Actium, which really established the tone of the Roman Empire and rang the death knell of the Republic. The Battle of Hastings which changed Enland forever. The Battle of Waterloo - self-explanatory. Pearl Harbor - which wasn't really a battle, but it brought America into WWII. I could go on.

Rather less than everybody else's at a guess: they stayed out of Europe until the mopping up operation that started with the D day landings, nuked Japan rather than trying to invade the islands using infantry (possibly because they'd landed on the wrong beach during D Day) and then went to make films about how they saved the world for the next sixty odd years. I finsd this a bit offensive, to be honest.
Quite offensive, yes.
Where you from might I add

Quite offensive, yes.
Where you from might I add
I'm from the UK. You're not an American yourself, I take it?

I'm from the UK. You're not an American yourself, I take it?
Bosnian, but in Norway at this point in time, for well, you know what happened in 92:(

Bosnian, but in Norway at this point in time, for well, you know what happened in 92:(
A lot of people left the country to get away from that, didn't they?

A lot of people left the country to get away from that, didn't they?
So it would seem.
Problem is, there is not much to come back to...

So it would seem.
Problem is, there is not much to come back to...
I can imagine. How are you getting on with Norway?

I can imagine. How are you getting on with Norway?
Well, ther are goods and bads to it, just as any other place.
We had some hard times when it came to jobs and money, but survived that i guess. My close family all survived the war. So I am better of then a lot of other ex-jugoslavs. I can't complain dough. But my childhood and early youth could have been a little less getting beaten up ish:p
I'm off to medschool in 2 years if i don't srew up high school, so at this point in time I can't complain. And I don't get any "racism" seeing that I'm European, as long as I don't say my funny sounding name, after that poeple say f"orginer" :p

But there were some Norwegians that helped us a lot when me as a child and my mother first came, and I owe them a lot...

Other then that I hope to go home after my education...

The 1916 Rising:

Definatly the most important battle for me because it was the first major attack by the Irish republicans. In effect it led to Ireland becoming a 'Free State' and then a REPUBLIC. It effectivally destroyed the 'British Empire' as after th Irish withdrew from the British comenwelth a lot of other countries followed its example

GO ON IRELAND


The up rising did not give Ireland it's indepence . The US persuaded it's ally Great Britain to give Irish indepence.

The Battle for Moscow: The German assault was halted just outside Moscow, due to stiff Soviet resistance and the winter weather. Had Moscow fallen, the Germans would have been in Moscow, a demoralising effect on the Soviets, Stalin may have fled the Soviet Union altogether..


Stalingrad. If the Germans had taken the city and smashed the Soviet 62nd Army, it would have been the opening of the door to the oil fields just beyond it, fuelling the Nazi War Machine further. There the Germans would have massed, and then thrust for a second assault on Moscow or other oil fields...we don't know what the result of that would be.
Knowing the Ruskies form they probably would have demolished and or set the oilfields ablaze.

The Battle Of Britain: With the fall of Britain in 1940, the US and the allies would have found launching D-Day, the landings at Scily, North Africa longer to carry out, launching from the US armadas instead of Britain
Many of the American troops were already on a one stop trip straight from america i don't think they stoped in Britain for Operation Torch.

The up rising did not give Ireland it's indepence . The US persuaded it's ally Great Britain to give Irish indepence.


Really? The same US that refused to meet the Irish delegation in 1918? This is news to me. I'd imagine its news to the rest of the planet as well.

Knowing the Ruskies form they probably would have demolished and or set the oilfields ablaze.
And those oil fields were not right behind Stalingrad. They were in the Caucasus, a thousand or more kilometres to the South East, in Baku.

===============================================

Incidentally, I have here an estimate for US Casualties from this website (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html). Says 300,000 killed, 300,000 wounded, making for a total of 600,000. No civilians.

Contrast with Germany with 3.5 million killed, 4.6 million wounded (among which is my grandfather) and 2 million civilians.

And the Soviets: 9 million killed, 18 million wounded and 19 million dead civilians.

Makes me sick to my stomach really.

Part of me wants to be obvious and say Stalingrad, part of me wants to be romantic and say Thermopylae and part of me wants to be patriotic and say Waterloo. But to be honest I just don't know.

well, not funney, but what were the american losses during the war?

Rather less than everybody else's at a guess: they stayed out of Europe until the mopping up operation that started with the D day landings.

Completely false.

July 10th, 1943 - Allies invade Sicily
September 3rd, 1943 - Allies invade Italy

The war continued for nearly a year after the D-Day landings. Hardly what I'd call a "mopping up" operation.

Strategic bombing, while not as important to the overall war effort as some suggest, still played an important role. Many RAF and USAAF bomber crews died in this campaign.

nuked Japan rather than trying to invade the islands using infantry (possibly because they'd landed on the wrong beach during D Day)

I suspect that D-Day had nothing to do with the decision. More likely it was because two of the last major ground battles of the Pacific war, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, had cost FAR more in terms of dead and wounded than any previous engagement the U.S had attempted during the Pacific war, with the possible exception of the Phillipines campaign.

and then went to make films about how they saved the world for the next sixty odd years. I finsd this a bit offensive, to be honest.

I can't argue there...Hollywood operates on it's own rules. However, it would be interesting to see the International box office figures for some of those films. :p

I do disagree with the perception that the U.S. was not absolutely vital to the Allied war effort.

The U.S. was the key adversary to the Japanese. Had the U.S. withdrawn, or failed to respond to Pearl Harbor, it is highly unlikely that anything could have prevented a Japanese invasion of India, further subjugation of the Chinese, and possible forays into Australia...and possibly even an invasion of the USSR, which might have spelled doom for Stalin had such a move been executed at the right time.

The British, Chinese, Australians, New Zealanders and Indians (along with others) were all vitally important to the Pacific war effort. It is extremely doubtful, however, that any of these nations had the capablity to actually defeat Japan, especially when the strongest, Britain, had a war closer to home to deal with.

The U.S. had also been providing important war materials to both the UK and the USSR through the Lend-Lease both before and after their entrance into the war. The U.S. sent Russia nearly 15,000 planes, 7,000 tanks, and over 400,000 trucks and jeeps over the course of the war. I won't call this effort "vital", it is entirely possible that the Soviets could have gotten along without it, but it would have only meant more destruction and more death, as the war would certainly have been longer.

The main three powers were all vital to the Allied war effort. You could not remove one, be it America, Russia or Britain, and expect victory. All three were needed to defeat the Axis war machine.

Thus, in a very real sense, all three of these nations "saved the world". :)

Completely false.

July 10th, 1943 - Allies invade Sicily
September 3rd, 1943 - Allies invade Italy

The war continued for nearly a year after the D-Day landings. Hardly what I'd call a "mopping up" operation.
November - February 1941: The German Invasion of the USSR fails.
War is for all intents and purposes over, all Germany does from now on just serves to make it last a little longer.

Strategic bombing, while not as important to the overall war effort as some suggest, still played an important role. Many RAF and USAAF bomber crews died in this campaign.
An important role maybe in that it gave the Allies a feeling of being able to pay back the defeats they had suffered.
The military productivity of Germany was not affected, nor did the German people break and overthrew their government. It did serve however to kill a lot of innocent people.

Personally, I don't really feel sorry if some of the bomber crews got themselves killed.

I had forgotten about Italy, Delator, you're right about that one.

I would probably say, Marathon and Tours.

Issus.

No Alexandrian conquest of Asia = no hellenistic kingdoms = no preservation of classical culture by the arabs = radically different interactions between east and west during and after the crusades etc. etc. etc.

In your opinion what is the most important battle in world history?
The Battle of Tours, between the Muslims under Abd-er Rahman, and the French under Charles Martel. The French victory halted the Northward advance of the Muslims, altering forever the course of history.

I had forgotten about Italy, Delator, you're right about that one.
Well, at least you didn't forget Poland. :p

Trying to get my burnt toast out of my now recked toaster this morning!

November - February 1941: The German Invasion of the USSR fails.
War is for all intents and purposes over, all Germany does from now on just serves to make it last a little longer.

So your saying that fact that the US and UK opened not one but TWO more fronts had nothing to do with Germanys defeat? Your saying that if America had chosen not to enter the war after Pearl Harbor that Japan wouldn't have eventually turned on the Soviets to save their German allies?

An important role maybe in that it gave the Allies a feeling of being able to pay back the defeats they had suffered.
The military productivity of Germany was not affected, nor did the German people break and overthrew their government. It did serve however to kill a lot of innocent people.

Personally, I don't really feel sorry if some of the bomber crews got themselves killed.

The military productivity of Germany was most certainly affected. People claim the fact that German productivity rose throughout the war is proof the bombing was ineffective. The productivity of nearly every nation rose: US, UK, USSR, Canada, Australia...all of which improved production much more rapidly than Germany.

The switch to the bombing of oil facilities late in the war is also credited with having shortened the length of the conflict.

Nobody thought the bombing would cause the German government to be overthrown...or at least not that I've ever heard. The Brits had already proved that bombing wouldn't break the spirit of the people. The point was to limit the Germans ability to wage war.

And of course the bombing killed innocent people. Both sides killed innocent people with strategic bombing. The pilots and bomber crews on both sides didn't pick the targets. They were just doing their job. You're saying their deaths were earned, or their actions mean their sacrifice was somehow less than that of others?

I would have to say the sea battle at Salamis, if the Greeks wouldn't have defeated the Persians there Greece would have become part of the Persian empire. But I think Hannibal's defeat by the Roman general Scropio at Zuma was also very important or any of the battles in the second Punic war. Imagine what would have happened if Carthage beat Rome and assumed power in the Mediterranian Sea

So your saying that fact that the US and UK opened not one but TWO more fronts had nothing to do with Germanys defeat? Your saying that if America had chosen not to enter the war after Pearl Harbor that Japan wouldn't have eventually turned on the Soviets to save their German allies?
Yes, that's pretty much what I am saying. Look at the number of troops Germany deployed in the Western Front, in Italy and then look at the Eastern Front.
Those few more divisions wouldn't have changed anything in the end.

As for the Japanese, they had their choice to attack Russia the day Germany did. They didn't want to then, because it would have required too many troops to capture areas that didn't seem worth it. And it wasn't getting any easier.

The military productivity of Germany was most certainly affected. People claim the fact that German productivity rose throughout the war is proof the bombing was ineffective. The productivity of nearly every nation rose: US, UK, USSR, Canada, Australia...all of which improved production much more rapidly than Germany.
But looking at what that productivity was before the war, compared to what was possible, Germany was starting at a much higher level than the Allies. No wonder that getting extra was not easy.
Nonetheless, in terms of total productivity, the outcome was not a success for the Allies. Their bombings simply were not accurate enough. It's easy to drop Phosphorus on a civilian area, but it's difficult to destory one particular building in a factory, which is what the Allies found out.

The switch to the bombing of oil facilities late in the war is also credited with having shortened the length of the conflict.
Of course, those bombings were useful. But as you said, that idea only came very late, and shortly after the Soviets were cutting off pretty much all supplies anyways.

Nobody thought the bombing would cause the German government to be overthrown...or at least not that I've ever heard. The Brits had already proved that bombing wouldn't break the spirit of the people. The point was to limit the Germans ability to wage war.
Well, look at the relevant orders from LeMay and Harris. They always talk about "psychological effects".
And those two knew too that their campaign wasn't limiting anything other than criticism that the Allies aren't doing anything in the war.

You're saying their deaths were earned, or their actions mean their sacrifice was somehow less than that of others?
Yes, I do.
The guys from the SS got their orders too. Hell, maybe they even agreed with the idea that you have to kill Slavs and Jews to protect mankind.
Same with the bomber pilots. Pretty much all of them still say it was "necessary", and excuse themselves that way. Didn't pull in Nuremberg, doesn't pull here. These men did agree with their orders sufficiently to follow them, and in my book that makes them just as bad as any other soldier who goes ahead and murders innocent civilians, no matter when, where and from which side.

I am sure New Zealand with all it's forces at home and supplies coming in could have beaten the Japanese.
However with only 6 rounds per man at the start of Japans expansion south and with no planes except for the greatest Plane ever (Brewster Buffalo:p ) we would have gotten a wopping.

But with our 6 Divisions(4 were a Home Defence) our 70,000 NZRAF, RAF and ARAF crews from the RN we could have halted them.
Assuming Lend Lease continued.

Barbarossa as a whole campaign, but Stalingrad to be specific. They trapped and captured the whole 6th Army, and von Paulus showed the other Generals that surrendering against the Fuhrer's will wasn't impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi

This is not save-the-whole-western-civilization kind of battle, but locally, it was very important. Had we lost, Finland would have been occupied and I would probably talk russian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala

This battle is the largest in Nordic history.

"For every 100-meter stretch of the Karelian Isthmus the Red Army placed no less than 10 pieces of artillery, in one sector all of 400 cannons over a distance of only one kilometer --- The Soviet artillery fire aimed at the Finnish targets has been described by some researchers as the most massive in the world military history."

Yet they lost.

EDIT: I should probably check what I have written before posting the message.

Thermopylae, Hastings, Trafalgar.

All had enormous ramifications, regardless of the real contest involved.

http://img137.echo.cx/img137/3058/battleoftheheroes8sd.jpg

obviously the battle of heroes is the most historically significant...without it Darth Vader would not be wearing that suit...geez people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi

This is not save-the-whole-western-civilization kind of battle, but locally, it was very important. Had we lost, Finland would have been occupied and I would probably talk russian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala

This battle is the largest in Nordic history.

"For every 100-meter stretch of the Karelian Isthmus the Red Army placed no less than 10 pieces of artillery, in one sector all of 400 cannons over a distance of only one kilometer --- The Soviet artillery fire aimed at the Finnish targets has been described by some researchers as the most massive in the world military history."

Yet they lost.

EDIT: I should probably check what I have written before posting the message.

Well, Finland lost, and they are not talking russian now are they, neither are the germans who lost ww2....

I'd just like to say that technicaly D-Day wasn't a battle. The Battle was for the surrounding area over the following months. The British and American (and Canadian and New Zealanders and Australian) troops didn't fight the Germans until, by sheer weight of numbers, they were past the main bunkers (if they'd paused to fire, they would have been shot)

I would have to say the sea battle at Salamis, if the Greeks wouldn't have defeated the Persians there Greece would have become part of the Persian empire. But I think Hannibal's defeat by the Roman general Scropio at Zuma was also very important or any of the battles in the second Punic war. Imagine what would have happened if Carthage beat Rome and assumed power in the Mediterranian Sea

Those 2 I think top the table, they were, save europe battles in their own way, from Carthage and The Persians repectivley....
:mp5:
Maybe the world would have been more advanced if Carthage had won, those semite basterd sure invented a lot of cool stuff, like glass, and some other things, and they sailed arounf the whole of afrika, and they did some amazing shit;)

I'd just like to say that technicaly D-Day wasn't a battle. The Battle was for the surrounding area over the following months. The British and American (and Canadian and New Zealanders and Australian) troops didn't fight the Germans until, by sheer weight of numbers, they were past the main bunkers (if they'd paused to fire, they would have been shot)
It was a battle, there were the airborn pople wh fought behind the lines, there were planes, tha landings were a battle, who would win, would the nazis stand firm, or would they be kicked from the shores og the mighty ocean

Well, Finland lost, and they are not talking russian now are they, neither are the germans who lost ww2....

If we had lost at Suomussalmi or Tali-Ihantala, Russians would have occupied Finland. Thanks to these victories Stalin decided that waging war to its end would have been too costly, and we managed to negotiate peace. True, russians did win both Winter War and Continuation War, but they got only pieces of our land, not whole Finland.

If we had lost at Suomussalmi or Tali-Ihantala, Russians would have occupied Finland. Thanks to these victories Stalin decided that waging war to its end would have been too costly, and we managed to negotiate peace. True, russians did win both Winter War and Continuation War, but they got only pieces of our land, not whole Finland.


Yep. Your lads were tough men.

For us Brits, Hastings 1066. If Harold had won we would be a much different nation.

Well, Finland lost, and they are not talking russian now are they, neither are the germans who lost ww2....
The Estonians do though.

the battle of britain. without that victory, russia would probably have fallen, and the usa would have signed a treaty with nazi germany, and hitlers perfect aryan world would have become a reality.

Are you against perfection??

Are you against perfection??

Against perfection in one man's eyes? Yes. Cause it's not perfection to others.

For us Brits, Hastings 1066. If Harold had won we would be a much different nation.
In that case, what about the Battle of Stamford Bridge, as it has been dubbed. What would have happened to you Brits if the Vikings had successfully defeated Harold and assumed the throne of England? Harald Hardraade may have been able to continue his alliance with some of the Irish and Scots to press the Normans out of England, eliminating the only other major contendor for the English throne. Had you considered a Viking England?

The up rising did not give Ireland it's indepence . The US persuaded it's ally Great Britain to give Irish indepence.

Bah. 6 counties of Ireland are still not independent.

ghandi's salt and cotton strikes.

=^^=
.../\...

In that case, what about the Battle of Stamford Bridge, as it has been dubbed. What would have happened to you Brits if the Vikings had successfully defeated Harold and assumed the throne of England? Harald Hardraade may have been able to continue his alliance with some of the Irish and Scots to press the Normans out of England, eliminating the only other major contendor for the English throne. Had you considered a Viking England?

Yes - one existed in 1020s and 1030s when Swein and Cnut finally managed to defeat the English after decades of fighting. The English were left to run their own affairs though - the system of Anglo-Saxon government left by Ethelred II was probably the best in Europe at the time and England's currency was second only in quality to Byzantine.

The up rising did not give Ireland it's indepence . The US persuaded it's ally Great Britain to give Irish indepence.

What absolute bollocks.

The US did jack shit to give the Irish Free State its birth. Britain was war weary, exhausted economically and militarily, fighting a guerrilla war was not their speciality and they signed a peace treaty to end their headache. The US was still of the mind of non interference in European affairs, especially 'internal' problems of the British Empire.

While the 1916 Rising did not give independence to the country it laid the groundwork for later work- more like the Boston Tea Party then the Battle of Lexington(?).

The Estonians do though.
Estonians speak Estonian.
They're good in Russian and German also.
Russian because they we're part of Russia, and Russia's right next door.
German because its something with their education system.

While the 1916 Rising did not give independence to the country it laid the groundwork for later work- more like the Boston Tea Party then the Battle of Lexington(?).
It works.

It works.

Thank you.... could never remember the name of that bloody battle.

In your opinion what is the most important battle in world history?
I think D-Day obviuosly because we (the Allies) got so lucky we didnt git cut2 shreds on the beach and shit like that. It also was one of the final straws that broke the back of the Nazi war machine. (althought they werent going down without one great last offensive that drove the Allies to the brink of being pushed back.)


Fair point...but the battle of Zama between rome and Carthage was even more critical as it ushered in a period of dominance for Rome in the Med, Africa, the middle east, western europe, the balkans and central europe for the next 500 years.

I'm going to be a little bit Americentric here, but oh well.

In the American Civil War, the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg were amazingly important, in that they stopped a major invasion of the North and cut the South in two along the Mississippi River. Without victories there for the North, it's very possible that there could be two Countries where America is today. Consider the effect of that on global politics for a moment.

Thank you.... could never remember the name of that bloody battle.
*checks*

I was just running on memory when I first posted.
Anyhow, it does work.
The Battle of Lexington started the entire American revolution.
And in the way I interpreted your post, it works.

You are welcome!

Depends on who you're talking about.

For Islam, there are three critical battles that set the stage for their massive decline into indolence.

The Sack of Baghdad, 1254 and the fall of the Caliphate.
The Battle of Lepanto (the last fight that might be considered an even match).
The Battle of Omdurman 1898 and the crushing of a major Arab force with modern weapons (the first of many such events).
The 2 failed sieges of Vienna.

Fair point...but the battle of Zama between rome and Carthage was even more critical as it ushered in a period of dominance for Rome in the Med, Africa, the middle east, western europe, the balkans and central europe for the next 500 years.
It marks a nice turning point to be sure. But surely the Punic wars demonstrated that unlike the Hellenistic kingdoms that came before, the Romans weren't going to let their destiny be decided on the outcome of one battle. I mean how many legions did they lose to Hannibal before they finally subdued him?

It was a battle, there were the airborn pople wh fought behind the lines, there were planes, tha landings were a battle, who would win, would the nazis stand firm, or would they be kicked from the shores og the mighty ocean

Kind of true. Before and after the actual process of landing troops certainly was a battle (not the most critical, Battle of Britain was. It stopped the Germans from putting Sealion into effect and gave the allies a foothold from which to launch an assault on the Atlantic Wall) But in the actual process of getting out of the landing craft, running from the beach to the cliffs and scaling the cliffs was just running around under fire. The battle began when the allies started clearing the defences. Remember: a battle in which the enemy doesn't fight back is known as a massacre.

most important battle of this melenium has got to be peral harbor. If japan never attacked america would not have entered. germany would have finished britan and then been able to turn more twoards russia. Our forces helped bring back up the exausted british troops enought to top germanys forces.

The Battle of Britian.

For the simple reason that without our heroic fighter pilots up there smashing german planes Britian would be under German control. So would Russia. And North Africa. The world would have been very different if it werent for those brave pilots.

Battle Of Little Round Top, Hands Down. If The Confederates HAD Won That Battle, It Would Be The Confederacy Of The States Of America Now. That Would Mean That We'd All Be Dumb Souther Hicks, So We Wouldn't Help Out In WWI Or WWII. Infact, We'd Probably Be A Communist Country Right Now, So That Would Mean That The World Would Be Communist!

Edit: Not Saying That The U.S. Today Is Dominating, Just If It Was Communist, It Would Probably Decide "Hey Guys, I Want More Land, LETS CONQUER!

*checks*

I was just running on memory when I first posted.
Anyhow, it does work.
The Battle of Lexington started the entire American revolution.
And in the way I interpreted your post, it works.

You are welcome!

Dude, If The Battle Of Lexington Hadn't Happened, Another Battle Would've Started The American Revolution. Maybe It Would've Been A Battle We Won?

Thermopylae
Charles Matel beating the Islamic push from Spain
Sacking of Constanipole
Defeat of Chinese Armies in Eurasia at Talas by the Arabs... if the Chinese had expanded slightly further and maitained a strong hold gunpowder may have reached the west a lot sooner and would have increased impact of Mongol invasions. Would also have changed power balance in the Middle East as Zoastrasim may have remained the Persian relgion and would have created diiferent political sitaution.
Battle of Britian
Don't really know the battles but the American indepance war and the American civil war.
Breaking of the Hindenburg line
Sinkning of the spanish Amarda
Defeat of the Kummintang by the Commie chinese
Pearl Harbour, the failure of the Japanese to destory the air craft carrier and the entrance of the US into WWII
The end of the one hudred years war, finally broke churches power over Europe and set premises for modern states ie the treaty of Westphalia
Waterloo

Piekrom']most important battle of this melenium has got to be peral harbor. If japan never attacked america would not have entered. germany would have finished britan and then been able to turn more twoards russia. Our forces helped bring back up the exausted british troops enought to top germanys forces.

by the time Pearl Habour happened the Battle of Britian had been one. More significant was the US fight against the Japs and thier aid during the liberation of Europe. Without D Day it is possible that the Russians may have taken all of Europe.

B Rabbitt's final battle in 8 mile. He innovated the strategy of using all of the opposition's ammo against yourself thereby leaving them unarmed. Brilliant.

Personal analysis has no place within a historical debate, however, I whole heartedly concur.


with out christianity this country wouldnt exist or we would be a bunch of wild hevens. this countries laws is kinda based on christianity. seperation of church and state really wasnt an original concept of our founding fathers and didnt come around until later.:sniper:

Battle Of Little Round Top, Hands Down. If The Confederates HAD Won That Battle, It Would Be The Confederacy Of The States Of America Now. That Would Mean That We'd All Be Dumb Souther Hicks, So We Wouldn't Help Out In WWI Or WWII. Infact, We'd Probably Be A Communist Country Right Now, So That Would Mean That The World Would Be Communist!

Edit: Not Saying That The U.S. Today Is Dominating, Just If It Was Communist, It Would Probably Decide "Hey Guys, I Want More Land, LETS CONQUER!

I seriously hope this was sarcastic. If not, you do know that the CSA had no intention of occupying the US? They didn't want one CSA, they wanted both a USA and a CSA to exist on the North American continent.

Also, Communism was about as far from the Confederate ideology as you can get.

Anyway, this is definately the most important battle in the history of the world.

April 26: About noon on Sunday the Michigan posse moved in on the surveying party. Thrown into a panic, the line-runners made a quick retreat for the border. A remaining party of nine Ohio guardsmen took shelter in a small log cabin on Phillip’s property and barricaded themselves inside.
They were promptly surrounded by the posse and commanded to give themselves up. This they did after much delay. But no sooner had they lined up for arrest than their leader started a stampede for the woods. McNair's men fired a volley over the heads of the escaping Ohioans, wounding none but capturing all. They took the prisoners to the Tecumseh jail. Six entered bail, two were released and one was retained for refusing bail on principle.
The first shots of the war had been fired at the so-called Battle of Phillips Corner, a term sometimes used to describe the whole of the Toledo War.

the battle of britain. without that victory, russia would probably have fallen, and the usa would have signed a treaty with nazi germany, and hitlers perfect aryan world would have become a reality.


Whilst the "Battle Of Britain" was indeed important it was not a "Battle" per se. Battles do not last for the thick end of a year.

Piekrom: I think the U.S. would still have gotten involved in WWII if not for Pearl Harbor. It was fighting Japan over the question of which nation would dominate China and the rest of the Far East ... and its leaders intrigued skillfully to get Japan to initiate hostilities.

Brantor: Are you sure you mean the 100 Years' War and not the 30 Years' War?

MyYass/Wallonochia: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels followed the U.S. Civil War very closely and wrote a number of intelligent analyses ... in which Marx, at least, argued that a Confederate victory would mean the extension of the C.S.A.'s dominion--and slavery--to all of the U.S. except New England ... basing this on the C.S.A.'s obvious expansionist bent, its constitutional provisions allowing any U.S. state to affiliate, the expansion of slavery as the sticking point prompting secession, etc. I already cast my vote here for the battle of Gettysburg, not only because I think the U.S. victory advanced the communist movement's strength immeasurably, but also because a Confederate victory would've put the U.S.--which, as it turns out, would become the most powerful country on earth--decades behind, say, Argentina, in terms of productivity, "free trade," emancipation of labor, etc.

Piekrom: I think the U.S. would still have gotten involved in WWII if not for Pearl Harbor. It was fighting Japan over the question of which nation would dominate China and the rest of the Far East ... and its leaders intrigued skillfully to get Japan to initiate hostilities.

Brantor: Are you sure you mean the 100 Years' War and not the 30 Years' War?

MyYass/Wallonochia: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels followed the U.S. Civil War very closely and wrote a number of intelligent analyses ... in which Marx, at least, argued that a Confederate victory would mean the extension of the C.S.A.'s dominion--and slavery--to all of the U.S. except New England ... basing this on the C.S.A.'s obvious expansionist bent, its constitutional provisions allowing any U.S. state to affiliate, the expansion of slavery as the sticking point prompting secession, etc. I already cast my vote here for the battle of Gettysburg, not only because I think the U.S. victory advanced the communist movement's strength immeasurably, but also because a Confederate victory would've put the U.S.--which, as it turns out, would become the most powerful country on earth--decades behind, say, Argentina, in terms of productivity, "free trade," emancipation of labor, etc.

Are you capable of disattaching historical alaysis from political prediliction? Evidently not.

A history bereft of a hellenestic victory at Marathon and Salamis is one wherein no "Gettysburg" occurs, nor any recognisable western civilisation.

snip

The CSA had only two chances at being able to win the war. Winning being defined here as not being conquered. The first was at the battle of Antietam, where the British decided the CSA couldn't win the war, and thus decided they wouldn't enter the war on their side. The other being the election in 1864, if McClellan had won they would have had a better chance at negotiating a ceasefire. There wasn't really any way the CSA could have beat the USA in a stand up fight.

Being that as it was, there was no way that the CSA could have expanded into the other states. Yes, the CS Constitution stated that other US states would be let in on the slave trade, but only Delaware, Missourri, and New Jersey had legalized slavery at the time, although I believe there was a pro-slave movement in California. There's also a good chance the 13th Amendment would have been passed even without the 11 Confederate states. And the CSA would have been unable to militarily attack the United States, as they were so much weaker. The only thing that would possibly keep the USA from crushing them would have been European intervention. Yes, the CSA would have introduced slavery into the territories they took with them, but they wouldn't have gotten into the other states.

And I will agree with you that a US victory was probably the best thing, if seen through the prism of communism. However, as Chris noted not everyone sees the world that way. Now don't take this to mean that I'm a completely laissez faire capitalist, but I'm not a Marxist either.

Estonians speak Estonian.
Trust me to pick the wrong country...:p

Are you capable of disattaching historical alaysis from political prediliction? Evidently not.

A history bereft of a hellenestic victory at Marathon and Salamis is one wherein no "Gettysburg" occurs, nor any recognisable western civilisation.

The point is that regardless of whether or not I agree with it, the rise of communism and the rise of the United States are the salient features of the modern epoch.

As for your second point, I addressed that in an earlier post. Basically, my idea is that once society developed to a comparable level economically, similar enough political structures to be recognizable would've been developed. You can go back a few pages for more detail. Your argument basically is the same as saying that the battle of Ft. Sumter was more important than the battle of Gettysburg because without Ft. Sumter there would've been no Gettysburg. Sure, there wouldn't have, but there would've been something similar.

Wallonochia: The entire Civil War was a military attack on the U.S. by the CSA. But to get into more concrete details: Georgia probably seceded with the support of a minority of the population, because of the secessionists' skill in politics. The pro-Union government of Texas was overthrown by pro-Confederate forces. Ft. Sumter, which began the war, was an attack on U.S. territory. Tennessee was dragged kicking and screaming into the Confederacy by military occupation forces, who, with the help of local sympathizers, tried to do the same, not only in Maryland (Antietam), Missouri, Delaware, and West Virginia, but also in Pennsylvania (Gettysburg), New Mexico, and Kansas. There was also a conspiracy to work with Canadian Confederate sympathizers to attack New York, cutting off New England from the rest of the U.S., leaving the Copperheads free to link up with the Confederacy.

It stands to reason that if the election of 1864 was a potential turning point in the war, then a decisive battle that took place earlier was also a potential turning point.

I would say the battle of manzikert, as it broke Byzantine power(for as long as it always does), help set off the Crusades and turned European expansion to the sea.

probably one form far back would have the most impact.

i thnk the punic wars were pretty damn important. sack of carthage, and what not.

Are you capable of disattaching historical alaysis from political prediliction? Evidently not.

A history bereft of a hellenestic victory at Marathon and Salamis is one wherein no "Gettysburg" occurs, nor any recognisable western civilisation.
You seem to have forgotten about the Battle of Thermopylae before Marathon. If the Greeks, especially the Spartans, hadn't held the Persians at bay so long as they did, Marathon may not have occurred at all or may have had a vastly different outcome.

Are you capable of disattaching historical alaysis from political prediliction? Evidently not.

A history bereft of a hellenestic victory at Marathon and Salamis is one wherein no "Gettysburg" occurs, nor any recognisable western civilisation.

Which means that neither they, nor Thermopylae, can apply for "most important battle in history" as those battles had no direct effect on Eastern civilization for centuries.

Which means that neither they, nor Thermopylae, can apply for "most important battle in history" as those battles had no direct effect on Eastern civilization for centuries.
BUt westerm civilization had a great inpact on eastern

BUt westerm civilization had a great inpact on eastern

And vice versa. Especially vice versa.

Rome fell because some Chinese Emperor decided to build a wall.

Columbus landed in the Americas in the vain search for the Mongol Empire.

The Mongol Empire's trade routes facilitated the rapid movement of the Black Plague from China to Europe.

And vice versa. Especially vice versa.

Rome fell because some Chinese Emperor decided to build a wall.


Hmm... That's new to me. Could you post a link to this?

*doesn't read topic*

Tours and Vienna. If we had lost those, we'd all be speaking that mahakkanah hakkanah **** right now.

Rome fell because some Chinese Emperor decided to build a wall.

No dude. Just... no.

Assuming that we're talking about true Rome, Rome fell because they we're getting too friendly with the Germanians, who decided to turn on the Romans and kick their ass.

How about Adrianople?
Without that, the western Roman Empire would probably have continued long after its historical fall (incidently, removing the relevence of the Frankish/Moorish battles mentioned earlier; as the Muslim forces had enough difficulty facing off against just the Eastern empire. Had the western emperors been around to march to their countrymens' aid, Islam would probably have not spread outside Arabia.)
If this had happened, the face of Europe would have been radically altered, as the Roman legion would have remained the western world's most well-equipped and effective fighting force, and would have avoided the crippling loss of manpower that neccessitated the introduction of barbarian mercenaries (of dubious loyalty and effectivness)
Incidently, the battle itself hinged upon just a few key moments. for example: if emperor Valerian (I think it was him) had waited for re-enforcement from the Eastern army, or if he had permitted his troops to regroup and rest before the attack, or if he had spotted the Gothic cavalry waiting in ambush, the battle could well have ended ion a completely different result. (unlike Trafalgar, which, considering the condition of the Franko-Spanish fleet, was never in doubt as to the final result, the only real variables being how much damage the British fleet sustained, and how much of the French fleet could escape.)

Would have only reverted Britain to Catholocism, and altered the nominal control of the colonial European empires, little else I daresay. However, I may well be wrong.

In regerd, to the possibility of a Catholic England, I have to ask:
1:)would such a place have tolerated the scientific freedom which produced Robert Hook, Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton?
2:) would such a place have tolerated the production of works such as those of Marlowe and Shakespere? After all, they were often Protocentric, (in case you wonder, I have just invented that term, and I hereby claim complete ownership of it and all of its applications) and were critical of of catholocism (especially Marlowe: just look for the hidden symbolism in faustus!)
3:) without the victory over the armada, there would be no British naval tradition, radically altering Britsh foreign policy.
4:) without England to supply them with money and arms, the dutch rebels would probably have faced eventual defeat, re-establishing a Spanish imperial presence in Northern europe, postponing their decline as a world superpower, and preventing France from rising to principle power later in the 16th century.
5:) without a Protestant England, there would have been no need to amalgamate the kingdoms of england and scotland, with a decendent of the Spanish Hapsburg dynasty secure on their northern throne. no United Kingdom also means no scottish plantation in Ulster, radicaly shifting power and political centres in Ireland.
6:) Perhaps most importantly, no Protestant England: no USA. the north American continent would have remained a Spanish/French costal settlement (the Spanish having too much on their plates with the "more profitable" south & central Americas to bother conquering it) with possibly a French Quebec streching west to Hudson bay.

There are several more implications that I do not have time to go into right now, but the notable author Harry Turtledove has written a novel on this very subject, called "Ruled Britannia"

Galleron']In regerd, to the possibility of a Catholic England, I have to ask:
1:)would such a place have tolerated the scientific freedom which produced Robert Hook, Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton?
2:) would such a place have tolerated the production of works such as those of Marlowe and Shakespere? After all, they were often Protocentric, (in case you wonder, I have just invented that term, and I hereby claim complete ownership of it and all of its applications) and were critical of of catholocism (especially Marlowe: just look for the hidden symbolism in faustus!)
3:) without the victory over the armada, there would be no British naval tradition, radically altering Britsh foreign policy.
4:) without England to supply them with money and arms, the dutch rebels would probably have faced eventual defeat, re-establishing a Spanish imperial presence in Northern europe, postponing their decline as a world superpower, and preventing France from rising to principle power later in the 16th century.
5:) without a Protestant England, there would have been no need to amalgamate the kingdoms of england and scotland, with a decendent of the Spanish Hapsburg dynasty secure on their northern throne. no United Kingdom also means no scottish plantation in Ulster, radicaly shifting power and political centres in Ireland.
6:) Perhaps most importantly, no Protestant England: no USA. the north American continent would have remained a Spanish/French costal settlement (the Spanish having too much on their plates with the "more profitable" south & central Americas to bother conquering it) with possibly a French Quebec streching west to Hudson bay.

There are several more implications that I do not have time to go into right now, but the notable author Harry Turtledove has written a novel on this very subject, called "Ruled Britannia"

Entirely conjectural though, retrospective histroy is essentially justified personal sentiemnt.

Assuming that we're talking about true Rome, Rome fell because they we're getting too friendly with the Germanians, who decided to turn on the Romans and kick their ass.
And why do you think the German Tribes suddenly decided that way?
Because they were fleeing somewhere and needed a place to stay. Why were they fleeing?
That's right, because of the Huns. And why did the Huns come to Europe?

Entirely conjectural though, retrospective histroy is essentially justified personal sentiemnt.

I can see your point, although it could be said that all history is influenced by the context and personal opinion of those wo tell it.
when I pointed out the alterations to world history that would have occured had England fallen to the Spanish Armada, I was not trying to rubbish your opinion in any way, I was mearley trying to point out that without a protestant monarch, England's role in 17th century politics would have been radically different.

Anyway, I have to say that this is pretty much a moot point anyway, I am throwing my weight behind salamis as the most crucial battle, as without it, the whole of "western" culture would have re-oriented to face East, taking its lead from Persian, Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures.
I would say that that is a pretty radical change.
As for Thermopolye, although it slowed down the Persian advance and bought the Greek cities time to prepare, without Salamis, the Greeks would have been forced to fight a war of attrition against the Persians, who would have kept on attacking with the support of their fleet, until Greek resistance had been worn down.

I'd just like to say that technicaly D-Day wasn't a battle. The Battle was for the surrounding area over the following months. The British and American (and Canadian and New Zealanders and Australian) troops didn't fight the Germans until, by sheer weight of numbers, they were past the main bunkers (if they'd paused to fire, they would have been shot)
Hmmmm i guess you are right technically.

But New Zealand nor Australia didn't realy have troops(Units) on the ground on or after D-Day of Operation Overlord.

The 2nd New Zealand Infantry Division was one of the first units Monty wanted for his plan to invade Western Europe but it was decided they should stay in Italy as the only original member of 8th Army.

Australia pulled most of their troops out of the Northern Hemisphere to combat the Nips after El Alamien.

Although many Aussie and Kiwi Airmen and Naval personel played their part bombing the crap out of Axis positions prior and during the offensives.

No dude. Just... no.

Assuming that we're talking about true Rome, Rome fell because they we're getting too friendly with the Germanians, who decided to turn on the Romans and kick their ass.

Atilla the Hun sacked Rome. Attila was born and raised in the nation today known as Mongolia. He belonged to one of the tribes which regularly raided the Chinese. They built the wall. In response, they went West in search of greener pastures. What did they find? The decadent, corrupt, and collapsing Roman Empire. No walls. Few armies. And they "pwned" the Romans.

EDIT: What Neu Leonstein said.

Atilla the Hun sacked Rome. Attila was born and raised in the nation today known as Mongolia. He belonged to one of the tribes which regularly raided the Chinese. They built the wall. In response, they went West in search of greener pastures. What did they find? The decadent, corrupt, and collapsing Roman Empire. No walls. Few armies. And they "pwned" the Romans.

EDIT: What Neu Leonstein said.
Atilla did not sack Rome.
The Pope scared him away.

Atilla did not sack Rome.
The Pope scared him away.

The plague did that, actually. Atilla didn't need to sack Rome.

The WWII battles really aren't that significant, but it's what I'm familiar with.

I have to take issue with this. WWII as a whole is of macrohistorical importance. It was the largest and deadliest war in history. About 60 MILLION people died during the conflict, not to mention the God-alone-knows how many who died directly and indirectly because of it after the hostilities ceased.

The sheer number of deaths alone must make it significant. And, in terms of future effects, how many of those people who died could have been another Ghandi, an Einstein, a Hitler or a Stalin? How much, in economic terms, was lost in the actual destruction and in the loss of production? How much potential economic gain (which directly translates into wealth, science progress etc) was erased in four or five years?

And, of course, WWII was one of the biggest ideological clashes of all time. Roughly (and I do mean roughly, before everyone jumps on my back), most wars were about territory and conquest under the old aristocratic order. This was pretty much a war for the future soul of mankind - would it be Socialist/Communist, Fascist, Nazi, democratic, Capitalist some other thing?

It was also the war in which humanity demonstrated for the first time, through dropping two nuclear bombs, that it had the means and the will to destroy just about everyone one and everything on the planet.

I could go on and on. But won't.

The plague did that, actually. Atilla didn't need to sack Rome.
Yes but it was the Power of the Pope which brought on Atilla's fear.

Yes but it was the Power of the Pope which brought on Atilla's fear.

Yes. The power of the Pope being humble for the first and last time in the history of the Papacy....

Gettysburg. If the South wins, Britain enters in their favor. Then America is slit. The 20th century would be interesting under those circumstances. Would the US enter WWI on Germany's side seeing how they would never ally with a Britian that fought with the south?

(Note I'm assuming the red necks in the South would just continue to be all farming and never really advance like the North would.)

Gettysburg. If the South wins, Britain enters in their favor. Then America is slit. The 20th century would be interesting under those circumstances. Would the US enter WWI on Germany's side seeing how they would never ally with a Britian that fought with the south?

(Note I'm assuming the red necks in the South would just continue to be all farming and never really advance like the North would.)

I dissagree. In my opinion, the 1862 Antietem campeign was more critical. If the "lost orders" had not been lost, McClellan would have been in the dark to were Lee was concentrating his forces. If Lee was able to win the 1862 campeign, he could have literally walked into Washington since that entire area had been stripped of troops to make the army to stop Lee. If Lee had won Gettysburg, he would have had to contend with a sizable garrison at Washington and the war would have dragged on longer. Brittain would have still stayed out of it becuase of the Confederates had their slaves, so France would have been more likely to intervene than Brittain. And also, if Lee had won the 1862 Antietem campaign, Braggs campaign in Kentuky would have been more succesfull.

For battles I think are critical:

Marathon
Battle of Long Island- Or rather the retreat from it. If Washington had not had the boats to retreat, his entire army would have been captured. Many of Washington's vitories happend after this battle.

I dissagree. In my opinion, the 1862 Antietem campeign was more critical. If the "lost orders" had not been lost, McClellan would have been in the dark to were Lee was concentrating his forces. If Lee was able to win the 1862 campeign, he could have literally walked into Washington since that entire area had been stripped of troops to make the army to stop Lee. If Lee had won Gettysburg, he would have had to contend with a sizable garrison at Washington and the war would have dragged on longer. Brittain would have still stayed out of it becuase of the Confederates had their slaves, so France would have been more likely to intervene than Brittain. And also, if Lee had won the 1862 Antietem campaign, Braggs campaign in Kentuky would have been more succesfull.

For battles I think are critical:

Marathon
Battle of Long Island- Or rather the retreat from it. If Washington had not had the boats to retreat, his entire army would have been captured. Many of Washington's vitories happend after this battle.

Yes, but the colonies didn't win the revolutionary war by waging successful battles. They did it by showing that keeping the colonies was going to be more costly to britain than simply letting them go and benifiting from good trade relations, which were quickly sought after once the British surrendered. Frankly, no battle in the revolutionary war was particularly significant, because it wasn't battles that decided the war.

Yes, but the colonies didn't win the revolutionary war by waging successful battles. They did it by showing that keeping the colonies was going to be more costly to britain than simply letting them go and benifiting from good trade relations, which were quickly sought after once the British surrendered. Frankly, no battle in the revolutionary war was particularly significant, because it wasn't battles that decided the war.

I'm pretty sure that the battle in which the British were surrounded by Colonials and cut-off by the French wasn't important at all.

Yes. The power of the Pope being humble for the first and last time in the history of the Papacy....
Are you being silly?

Rourkes Drift.

Are you being silly?

Rourkes Drift.

How can a battle from the Zulu War be considered the most critical in history?

I say Thermopyle or Marathon.

don't know about critical, but my favorite is The Boer War.

I'm pretty sure that the battle in which the British were surrounded by Colonials and cut-off by the French wasn't important at all.

No, it wasn't. It occupies a significant place in the narritive of the Revolutionary War, but the battle over which the British ultimatly decided their surrender provided not the incentive, but the excuse. The numbers in any given army were insignificant, because there were several British armies in the war at any given time.

They negotiated surrender over 8,000 troops (if memory serves, I'm not going back to my paper library to look this up.) at a time in which they could mobilize 40,000 troops at will in a war to which they were not particularly commited.

Just because the battle occupies a significant place in the story doesn't mean it was significant. If it didn't happen, then that place would have been filled by another battle.

Yes, but the colonies didn't win the revolutionary war by waging successful battles. They did it by showing that keeping the colonies was going to be more costly to britain than simply letting them go and benifiting from good trade relations, which were quickly sought after once the British surrendered. Frankly, no battle in the revolutionary war was particularly significant, because it wasn't battles that decided the war.

So you are saying that it is not important if Washington's entire army was captured or not? If they had not been able to escape, the colonists would have had trouble fighting the Brittish.

So you are saying that it is not important if Washington's entire army was captured or not? If they had not been able to escape, the colonists would have had trouble fighting the Brittish.

You're forgetting about the "Swamp Fox", who led a much more successful campaign against the British.

You're forgetting about the "Swamp Fox", who led a much more successful campaign against the British.

Yes I am aware there were other armies, but without Washington's army the colonists would not have had much to fight the Brittish in PA and New Jersy. Freeing up the men that would have been fighting Washington to fight elseware, like upstate New York and the Carolinas.

But the American Revolution never would have happened if not for Thermopylae....:p