NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the greatest Battle in History?

By Greatness I mean:

1. Importance of the battle to the different sides of the conflict
2. Size of the battle in terms of manpower, casualties etc considering the population and technology of the times
3. Impact of the battle on the world

So......

What is the greatest Battle in History?



EDIT: Please provide a link about said battle...like Wiki or something...

Possibly the following debate...*studies thread*

That one time when Pirates and Ninjas actually fought each other. Both sides lost.

Lepanto?

The one where Homo Sapiens eradicated the Neanderthals.

Everything that came after was gravy.

Unless, of course, you realize that perhaps, just perhaps, the wrong sub-species won.

Well, this one's greatest in my book. The Battle of Nineveh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nineveh_%28627%29)

Soldiers speaking Greek met soldiers speaking Persian one last time in, the final climactic capstone on a 1000 year long series of battles, stretching all the way back to the Battle of Marathon.

The Sassanid Empire was broken from its defeat at the hands of the Byzantines, and the weakned shell that remained afterwards was quickly conquered by the first Islamic Caliphate.

The one where Homo Sapiens eradicated the Neanderthals.

Everything that came after was gravy.

Unless, of course, you realize that perhaps, just perhaps, the wrong sub-species won.

okay...but I don't think that the eradication of Neanderthals would have occurred in one single battle...Anyways, I read that Neanderthals may have naturally died out because of their 12-month birth cycle...or something like that...

Well, this one's greatest in my book. The Battle of Nineveh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nineveh_%28627%29)

Soldiers speaking Greek met soldiers speaking Persian one last time in, the final climactic capstone on a 1000 year long series of battles, stretching all the way back to the Battle of Marathon.

The Sassanid Empire was broken from its defeat at the hands of the Byzantines, and the weakned shell that remained afterwards was quickly conquered by the first Islamic Caliphate.

Interesting, I've never heard of that battle before

okay...but I don't think that the eradication of Neanderthals would have occurred in one single battle...

That would've been pretty cool though.

What is the greatest Battle in History?

By Greatness I mean:

1. Importance of the battle to the different sides of the conflict
2. Size of the battle in terms of manpower, casualties etc considering the population and technology of the times
3. Impact of the battle on the world

So......

What is the greatest Battle in History?



EDIT: Please provide a link about said battle...like Wiki or something...

Salamis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis).

Battle of Suomussalmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi)

Casualties:
Finland 420

Soviet Union 30,000

The battle of antioch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Antioch

Teutobergerwald

The battle of the Teutoberg Forest (in English), a Classicaly ()meaning, by Romans) trained Germanic chieftan led Germanic 'barbarians' to victory over I believe it was six Roman legions in 6 A.D.

That was the stopping point of Roman expansion in the area, and part of what allowed such mass 'barbarian' Germanic migration into the empire in the ensuing decades, causing the Empires collapse.

This event is why "Varus, give me back my leigons!" is ascribed (though in Latin... of course....) to Augustus Caesar... changed the shape of both German, and Roman history, dramatically altering all of European, then Western, then world history.

Greatest Battle in History eh? That's a tough one, after all, history is pretty big.

Personally, I'd have to say Stalingrad. Arguably the biggest conflict of World War Two and the turning point of the European campaign, Stalingrad saw a technological superpower take on a determined bunch with some clever ideas, and the determined mob, by the end, had won.

Furthermore, Stalingrad was a great display of Dictatorship by both sides. The City of Stalingrad was of little strategic importance to either side, yet both Hitler and Stalin, the most notorious Dictators to ever live, poured so many resources into it. The reason? It bore Stalin's name. Stalin refused to let the city of his namesake fall, and Hitler refused to let him keep it. This was a great example of Hitler's War of Propaganda, and Stalin's fierce determination to achieve his desire regardless of the cost to his people.

Stalingrad saw the invention of the cocktail molotov and the rocket truck, along with many other revolutionary inventions. It was the first true example of full-scale urban warfare. It was also very symbolic; the Nazis fighting the Soviets, the greatest clash of right-wing vs. left-wing, and its outcome arguably the basis of the Cold War to come later. The total death toll of this battle is estimated to be 2 million people, a figure that rivals the number of Jews to die in Germany during the Holocaust. Stalingrad saw the German super-engineered weapons come across quick, inventive throw-togethers (eg. German Panzer Divisions facing T-34s, the latter being later called the best tank ever made).

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

If this isnt enough, try this direct quote from wilipedia: "The battle of Stalingrad was the largest single battle in human history..."

This conflict marked the beginning of the end for the Nazis. It was the decisive battle of World War Two, the biggest war in history, and if this battle had not taken place the way it did, we may all be speaking German or Japanese today, our schoolchildren singing praises to Hitler, the Great Visionary.

Stalingrad saw the invention of the cocktail molotov

The molotov cocktail was first used (I believe) in the Spanish Civil War, and got its current name during the Winter War

Edit: Yeah, I might go for Stalingrad. It was a massive turning point in a massive war.

I have got to go with Austerlitz, Napoleons greatest triumph. I think that Napoleons personal ability to presume what the moves of the enemy would be, was extremely useful, and contriduted greatly to the enormous success of his empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz

The molotov cocktail was first used (I believe) in the Spanish Civil War, and got its current name during the Winter War

Edit: Yeah, I might go for Stalingrad. It was a massive turning point in a massive war.

But, the greatest battle ever? Throughout all of human history? Waht about a battle who's outcome, had it been different, woudl have negated WWII?

Thats not a single battle dude. If you define that as a battle, then i argue the battle between good and evil is the Greatest Battle in History

Good and evil? Care to define the terms of your post?
*thread careens off track*

Well, this one's greatest in my book. The Battle of Nineveh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nineveh_%28627%29)

Soldiers speaking Greek met soldiers speaking Persian one last time in, the final climactic capstone on a 1000 year long series of battles, stretching all the way back to the Battle of Marathon.

The Sassanid Empire was broken from its defeat at the hands of the Byzantines, and the weakned shell that remained afterwards was quickly conquered by the first Islamic Caliphate.

Thats not a single battle dude. If you define that as a battle, then i argue the battle between good and evil is the Greatest Battle in History

Thats not a single battle dude. If you define that as a battle, then i argue the battle between good and evil is the Greatest Battle in History

Except it never happened.

Every Battle in the American Revolution.

My vote goes for Stalingrad. Hitler lost a whole army there and it broke the back of the wehrmacht.

(referring to the battle between good and evil) Except it never happened.

Depends on what you call the battle between good and evil. If it refers to everything that anyone ever claimed to be a battle between good and evil, its an ongoing battle, and pretty much every battle ever fought. Thats what i was referring to.

Every Battle in the American Revolution.

Sorry dude, but thats a dumb claim if i ever heard one

Most important-Marathon/Themopolye(sp). These two battles shaped the fate of the western world, and ensured the creation of democracy as we know it.
Largest-Stalingrad

But, the greatest battle ever? Throughout all of human history? Waht about a battle who's outcome, had it been different, woudl have negated WWII?

But surely that just means going for the oldest possible battle? Because even a caveman winning a battle with his cavewoman wife over where to put the mammoth skin rug would probably have made the world a more different place today than anything mentioned here. Chaos theory is like that.

Depends on what you call the battle between good and evil. If it refers to everything that anyone ever claimed to be a battle between good and evil, its an ongoing battle, and pretty much every battle ever fought. Thats what i was referring to.

No battle is ever purely good vs evil. Nothing is.

(referring to Stalingrad) But, the greatest battle ever? Throughout all of human history? Waht about a battle who's outcome, had it been different, woudl have negated WWII?

Firstly, i believe i said 'id say... stalingrad', not 'its stalingrad and youre all stupid if you disagree'. Besides, look at the definition given by New Manvir.

'1. Importance of the battle to the different sides of the conflict
2. Size of the battle in terms of manpower, casualties etc considering the population and technology of the times
3. Impact of the battle on the world'

1. this battle saw the Nazis and the Axis fall. If the Germans succeeded, it would have seen the Soviets fall. It was crucial to both of them, therefore as important as it could possibly be to both sides of the conflict.

2. It was the biggest battle ever fought in terms of manpower.

The third point is far more arguable of course, but two out of three aint bad.

Personally i dont feel that you can claim a battle before it may have negated this one, therefore making the earlier battle greater. If you're claiming that, then maybe it was the battle in World War One in which a German trench was bombed, and Hitler only survived by running from it in pursuit of his dog. Or perhaps it was the first human being's first attempt to hunt an animal, in which he or she may have been killed and thus wiped out humanity altogether.

No battle is ever purely good vs evil. Nothing is.

of course, youre right. it was just an extreme example

Thats not a single battle dude. If you define that as a battle, then i argue the battle between good and evil is the Greatest Battle in History

I was talking only about the Battle of Nineveh, and I merely remarked at its significance as the last clash between classical Greek and Persian cultures.

I'm not putting a link here, as everyone should know this one.

At least for recent history, I have to say June 6, 1944 (Normandy).

Say it failed. It is entirely possible the Internet would not exist, I for one would be living in Europe (if I was alive), and WW2 would pretty much have to be rewritten June 7-on.

New York and/or Washington DC would not exist, London (and most of Britain and Wales) would be gone/extremely radiated....

*waiting for arguments*

The Battle of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_britain). Had the British lost, the course of the 20th century would have been very different.

I'm not putting a link here, as everyone should know this one.

At least for recent history, I have to say June 6, 1944 (Normandy).

Say it failed. It is entirely possible the Internet would not exist, I for one would be living in Europe (if I was alive), and WW2 would pretty much have to be rewritten June 7-on.

New York and/or Washington DC would not exist, London (and most of Britain and Wales) would be gone/extremely radiated....

*waiting for arguments*

Not really, the Allies would just have come up through Italy, Germany was collapsing, Normandy was mostly a pr stunt to convince the Russian we were committed so they would attack.

What is the greatest Battle in History?

By Greatness I mean:

1. Importance of the battle to the different sides of the conflict
2. Size of the battle in terms of manpower, casualties etc considering the population and technology of the times
3. Impact of the battle on the world

So......


Stalingrad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_war_in_Soviet_Union%2C_1941-1943
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_lethal_battles_in_world_history

excerpts

The Battle of Stalingrad was a battle between Germany and its allies and the Soviet Union for the Soviet city of Stalingrad (today known as Volgograd) that took place between August 21, 1942 and February 2, 1943, as part of World War II. It is often considered the turning point of World War II in the European Theater and was arguably the bloodiest battle in human history, with combined casualties estimated above 1.5 million. The battle was marked by brutality and disregard for military and civilian casualties on both sides. The battle is taken to include the German siege of Stalingrad, the battle inside the city, and the Soviet counter-offensive which eventually trapped and destroyed the German Sixth Army and other Axis forces around the city.

Various scholars have estimated the Axis suffered 850,000 casualties of all types (wounded, killed, captured...etc) among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies, many of which were POWs who died in Soviet captivity between 1943 and 1955,: 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians, and 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or captured[5]. Of all of the German POWs taken at Stalingrad, only 5,000 returned to Germany in 1955. All of the rest of the POWs died in Soviet captivity[9]. The Germans were also harsh on Russian POWs. In addition, as many as 50,000 ex-Soviets Hiwis (local volunteers incorporated into the German forces in supporting capacities) were killed or captured by the Red Army. According to archival figures, the Red Army suffered a total of 1,129,619 total casualties; 478,741 men killed and captured and 650,878 wounded. These numbers, however, include a wide scope of operations. Also, more than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs during a single week of aerial bombing as the German Fourth Panzer and Sixth armies approached the city; the total number of civilians killed in the regions outside the city is unknown. In all, the battle resulted in an estimated total of 1.7 million to 2 million Axis and Soviet casualties.

So great were Soviet losses that at times, the life expectancy of a newly arrived soldier was less than a day,[3] and life expectancy of Soviet officer was three days.

The Sixth (German) Army was the largest unit of this type in the world, almost twice as large as a regular German army.

The Sixth Army slowly starved. Pilots were shocked to find the troops assigned to offloading the planes too exhausted and hungry to unload food. General Zeitzler, moved by the troops' plight at Stalingrad, began to limit himself to their slim rations at meal times. After a few weeks of such a diet he'd grown so emaciated that Hitler, annoyed, personally ordered him to start eating regular meals again.

The strain on both military commanders was immense: Paulus developed an uncontrollable tic in his eye, while Chuikov experienced an outbreak of eczema that required him to bandage his hands completely.

The trapped Germans rapidly ran out of heating fuel and medical supplies, and thousands started dying of frostbite, malnutrition and disease.

German military doctrine was based on the principle of combined-arms teams and close cooperation by tanks, infantry, engineers, artillery, and ground-attack aircraft. To counter this, Soviet commanders adopted the simple expedient of always keeping the front lines as close together as physically possible. Chuikov called this tactic "hugging" the Germans. This forced the German infantry to either fight on their own or risk taking casualties from their own supporting fire; it neutralized close German air support and weakened artillery support. Bitter fighting raged for every street, every factory, every house, basement and staircase. The Germans, calling this unseen urban warfare Rattenkrieg ("rat war"), bitterly joked about capturing the kitchen but still fighting for the living-room.

Soviet snipers also successfully used the ruins to inflict heavy casualties on the Germans. The most successful sniper was Ivan Mikhailovich Sidorenko of the Soviet 1122nd Rifle Regiment, who had made approximately 500 kills by the end of the war. [1] [2]. Vasiliy Grigor´yevich Zaytsev was credited with 242 kills during the battle.

The battles for the Red October Steel Factory, the Dzerzhinsky tractor factory and the Barrikady gun factory became world famous. While Soviet soldiers defended their positions and took the Germans under fire, factory workers repaired damaged Soviet tanks and other weapons close to the battlefield, sometimes on the battlefield itself.

Even today, one may find bones and rusty metal splinters on Mamayev Kurgan, symbols of both the human suffering during the battle and the successful yet costly resistance against the German invasion.

The extreme conditions of the battle, including the paralyzing Soviet winter that precipitated massive German fatalities due to starvation and freezing, have been immortalized in several films of German, Russian, and American origin. The struggle is also remembered and reflected upon in countless books, for its significance in thwarting the German invasion, as well as its significance as a landmark of military barbarism and human suffering in which the loss of life was unprecedented.

A number of communities in France have streets or avenues named after Stalingrad, hence Place de la Bataille de Stalingrad in Paris and the eponymous Paris Métro station of Stalingrad.

For the heroism shown during the battle, Stalingrad was awarded the title Hero City in 1945, and King George VI of the United Kingdom awarded the citizens of Stalingrad a jewelled sword in appreciation of the bravery that they had shown.

about Italian Army in Russia:
On 26 January 1943, after heavy struggles culminating in the epic and desperate Battle of Nikolajewka, the Alpini remnants breached the encirclement and reached new defensive positions set up to the west by the Wehrmacht. But by this time the only unit with some fighting force still operating was the Tridentina division, who had led the final assault at Nikolajewka, and the escapees were frostbitten, critically ill and deeply demoralized. When they were evacuated to Italy, the Fascist regime tried to hide them from the populace, so appalling was their appearance after surviving the Russian Front hell.

The disaster in Russia was a fierce blow to the power and popularity of the dictator. Both sank as the gloomy news soon reached the public in Italy. Survivors blamed the fascist political elite and the Army Generals. The survivors said they both had acted irresponsible by sending a poorly prepared, ill-equipped, and inadequately armed military force to the Russian front. The German commanders were accused of sacrificing the Italian divisions, whose withdrawal was supposedly delayed after the Soviet breakthrough, in order to rescue their own troops.[5]

(One of my grandparents fought at Nikolajewka; he was a radio & telephone engineer attached to the Alpini corps, Julia division, and one of the few of the Julia to make it back to Italy. I have his accounts of the harshness of the fighting and general conditions of soldiers on the Eastern Front. my note)


This list includes major operations, i.e. prolonged battles or offensive operations fought over a large area.

Operation Conflict Casualties Year
Operation Barbarossa Eastern Front, World War II 2,700,000 2,700,000+ killed #1941
Battle of the Dnieper Eastern Front, World War II 2,700,000 2,000,000-2,750,000 total casualties #1943 Brusilov Offensive Eastern Front, World War I 1,825,000 1,825,000 killed or wounded #1916
Battle of Kursk Eastern Front, World War II 1,338,000 1,338,000 killed or wounded #1943
Battle of Moscow Eastern Front, World War II 0,900,000 900,000-1,700,000+ killed #1941–1942 Battle of the Somme Western Front, World War I 1,058,422 1,058,422 killed and 164,055 missing #1916
Napoleon's Invasion of Russia Napoleonic Wars 0,750,000 750,000 killed or wounded #1812
Battle of Changping Warring States 0,700,000 700,000+ killed !9739 260 BC
Battle of Lemberg Eastern Front, World War I 0,500,000 500,000+ killed #1914

Battle of Gallipoli Middle Eastern Theatre, World War I 0,450,000 450,000+ killed #1915–1916
Operation Bagration Eastern Front, World War II 0,360,000 360,000 killed #1944
Battle of Kiev Eastern Front, World War II 0,313,600 313,600 killed or wounded #1941
Battle of Verdun Western Front, World War I 0,305,440 305,440 killed and missing #1916
Battle of France Western Front, World War II 0,185,000 185,000 killed or missing #1940
Battle of Passchendaele Western Front, World War I 0,130,000 130,000 killed and missing #1917
Battle of Okinawa Pacific War, World War II 0,125,000 125,000 killed and missing #1945
Operation Mars Eastern Front, World War II 0,120,000 ~120,000–270,000 killed #1942
First Battle of the Marne Western Front, World War I 0,100,000 100,000 killed #1914
Battle of Cambrai Western Front, World War I 0,100,000 100,000 killed #1917
Battle of Leipzig Napoleonic Wars 0,090,000 90,000 killed #1813
Invasion of Poland World War II 0,083,639 83,639 killed #1939

(op.Mars was closely linked with the Battle of Stalingrad, note mine)

[edit] Sieges and urban combat
This list includes sieges, as well as modern battles that were fought almost exclusively in urban areas. Such battles were often very bloody, resulting in high loss of life. Battles that involved sieges or attacks on cities as secondary to the main operation are listed under "operations".

Siege Conflict Casualties Year
Battle of Stalingrad Eastern Front, World War II 1,530,000 1,530,000+ killed or wounded #1942–1943
Siege of Leningrad Eastern Front, World War II 1,500,000 1,500,000 killed #1941–1944
Battle of Kursk Eastern Front, World War II 0,230,000 1,100,000+ killed, wounded or captured #1943
Battle of Smolensk Eastern Front, World War II 0,230,000 650,000-700,000 killed, wounded or captured #1943
Battle of Berlin Eastern Front, World War II 0,230,000 540,000+ killed #1945 Battle of Wuhan Second Sino-Japanese War, World War II 0,540,000 540,000 casualties #1938
Siege of Betar Bar Kokhba's revolt 0,500,000 500,000 casualties #0135
Warsaw Uprising World War II 0,250,000 250,000+ killed #1944
Fall of Tenochtitlan Spanish conquest of Mexico 0,220,000 220,000+ killed #1521
Battle of Okinawa Pacific War, World War II 0,218,000 218,000 killed (some missing) #1945
Battle of Shanghai Second Sino-Japanese War, World War II 0,200,000 200,000+ killed #1937

(these two lists show that the main theatre of operations of the most lethal war of all times, WWII, was the Eastern Front - Axis assault on CCCP. note mine)

I was talking only about the Battle of Nineveh, and I merely remarked at its significance as the last clash between classical Greek and Persian cultures.

Yeah sorry about that man, i realised that too late, and by that time people had already quoted me so i couldnt delete the post.

Other than stalingrad, i think so far the best claim has been Teutobergerwald
by Der Teutoniker. Teutobergerwald saw brilliant use of strategy to break the Roman advance, and was the trigger to the fall of Rome, human history's greatest and longest living empire. Furthermore it brought about the Dark Ages; as the different barbarian clans (particularly the Vandals) burned hundred of Roman libraries, meaning much knowledge was lost, and the fall of Rome plunged all of Europe into a power vacuum. Furthermore, it was the collapse of the Roman Empire that brought about the Roman Catholic Church.

Stalingrad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_war_in_Soviet_Union%2C_1941-1943
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_lethal_battles_in_world_history

excerpts
(goes on to quote almost the whole wikipedia page)


Why quote the whole page when youve already provided links? No one is going to read that entire post, and if they were interested in reading it all they could just follow the links.

Besides, if you read the posts in the topic beforehand youd know stalingrad has already been posted, and a link to that passage already provided. Furthermore, a lot of that cut and paste job isnt relevant to stalingrad or the topic. However, thanks for the additional three links

This thread should turn into "The greatest battle EVER...for the western world" judging by the posts so far.

Also if Im counting the amount of WW2 battles mentioned we should call it "The greatest battle ever...for the western world...since 1939.

As for D-day being important, I allready laughed my butt of when I saw that one in the guinness book of records. Germany was allready losing ground to Sovjet Russia so I dont think its appropriate to attribute that to the fall of the 3rd Reich. I did however made certain large parts of western europe were not under the Sovjet sphere of influence.

As for Stalingrad...meh...their main industry was still way back east and if the germans had won then it would have been phyrric at best if not even worse. Hindsight is 20/20 but Id like to think those gung-ho Ruskies would have bounced back....like they always do.

Battle of Suomussalmi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi)

Casualties:
Finland 420

Soviet Union 30,000


Amen.

Gonna have to go with the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. It's the reason we're not all speaking Latin right now.

Why quote the whole page when youve already provided links? No one is going to read that entire post, and if they were interested in reading it all they could just follow the links.

Besides, if you read the posts in the topic beforehand youd know stalingrad has already been posted, and a link to that passage already provided. Furthermore, a lot of that cut and paste job isnt relevant to stalingrad or the topic. However, thanks for the additional three links

Yep you're right, I know it wasn't proper NSG etiquette. However, since I was nominating a battle won by teh ebil kommiez, and as I know that it is likely that many people will try to diminish the importance of Stalingrad, I made all my points all in a single post.

Meh.

Gonna have to go with the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. It's the reason we're not all speaking Latin right now.

Sum.

I'll second the Battle of Marathon, but instead of Thermopylae I'll have to go with Salamis. Thermopylae is nice to talk about, but it really didn't do much strategically. Holding of the Persians for a few days was nice, and it was a hell of an inspiration, but Salamis might (probably would have) happened even without Leonidas' holding action. Plataea might have gone a bit differently though...

But I digress. Marathon and Salamis. Those two helped form 'the west' as we know it.

Sorry I can't find a link. I'll try again later.

The Battle of Salamis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis). This was a naval battle, Greeks (mostly Athenians, but many others were present - including SPARTAAAA!) v. Persia. The Persians were invading Greece (again), and they had already burned Athens. Salamis which resulted in the destruction of the Persian fleet, turned the tide of the war.

Had Salamis gone the other way, and Greece been conquered, Western civilization might have been destroyed by the Persians.

Oh, and for the Spartan fanboys, I'll provide a direct quote:
The fleet was effectively under [the Athenian] Themistocles, but nominally led by the Spartan Eurybiades.

I admit that I'm biased, but I think The Battle of Britain was probably the most influential modern war.

Stalingrad was certainly much larger, but at an idealogical level it was one brutal dictatorship versus another brutal dictatorship.
If Britain had been defeated then the US and Canada would also have been knocked out of the war in Europe. Germany would have gained control of the eastern Atlantic, followed by the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Middle East. Whether the Nazi's or the Communists eventually prevailed wouldn't make much difference to most people in Europe. Either way it would have been a brutal dictatorship.

Well, I'd argue that its imposible to have a "most important battle", as everything is so interdependant. Of course the Battle of Stalingrad was important, but without the battle of Kursk, the battle of the Somme, Verdun, Austerlitz, Thapsus, Salamis, etc. etc., it would never have happened...

That being said, my choices would be:

1. Stalingrad (for all the reasons above)

2. The Battle of Pharsalus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pharsalus), arguably the battle that defined the formation of the Roman Empire (and hence the western world), and also a great example of how superior tactics and disciplined troops can easily overcome enemy forces more than twice their number

Well, I'd argue that its imposible to have a "most important battle", as everything is so interdependant. Of course the Battle of Stalingrad was important, but without the battle of Kursk, the battle of the Somme, Verdun, Austerlitz, Thapsus, Salamis, etc. etc., it would never have happened...

Kursk (summer 1943) was AFTER Stalingrad (autumn 1942 to early spring 1943)

About Romans, I think that the most important feat of arms for the history of Roma were the Punic Wars (by all means, not puny). They dispatched their greatest competitors and placed themselves as the greatest military and commercial power in the Mediterranean by obliterating Carthage.

What is the greatest Battle in History?

By Greatness I mean:

1. Importance of the battle to the different sides of the conflict
2. Size of the battle in terms of manpower, casualties etc considering the population and technology of the times
3. Impact of the battle on the world

So......

What is the greatest Battle in History?
Erm quite plainly the Battle of Moscow, 1941. Showed that the Wehrmacht could be solidly beaten, involved around 3 million soldiers (less as of October 1941, a few more as of 1942) and resulted in 2 million casualities, containing a million deaths.

The impact was that Hitler realised that he could be beaten, and that Stalin started to rely on his generals after a few blunders on his part led to thousands of deaths - a lesson that Hitler never learnt.

Not to try and undermine the huge Soviet efforts at Stalingrad and Kursk, which, through the sheer destruction of German forces and the great improvement of Russian docrine, were the beginning of the end, but for Hitler, Moscow was the end of the beginning, which had a psychological effect just as large.

In terms of casualties, I think Somme is quite high on the list. About 1 million soldiers were killed, wounded or taken prisoners. That´s quite a pile of bodies.

Erm quite plainly the Battle of Moscow, 1941. Showed that the Wehrmacht could be solidly beaten (...)

You know, you have some point there, although the turning point was Stalingrad - after Stalingrad, the Nazis lost all battles on the Eastern Front, while after Moscow they still managed to advance.

Since it's unlikely anyone will mention this one...
Battle of Warsaw, 1920
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_%281920%29

The hastily assembled Polish forces stopped and then routed the Red Army.

1. Importance of the battle to the different sides of the conflict
For Poland it was all or nothing. The Poles were defending their independence won just two years earlier after 123 years of oppression.
For the Soviet Union - world revolution. For starters, they wanted to bring the revolutionary flame to all the nations of Europe, and at least in Germany they would have had most likely succeeded weren't they stopped in Poland.

2. Size of the battle in terms of manpower, casualties etc considering the population and technology of the times
About 250 000 troops were involved, total casualties were about 60 000. Not that big. Although the fact that both countries were exhausted after WW I should be considered.

3. Impact of the battle on the world
It's unlikely the world or even european communist revolution would have had succeeded. On the other hand initial success in Germany might have had the effect of mobilizing other european nations against the USSR and in case of another war the badly outstretched Red Army might have been defeated causing the collapse of the USSR. So I reckon the impact of the outcome of this battle on the world was pretty big.

the battle of hattin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin)

1. battle marked the end of crusader dominance in the east. and both sides fought fiercely for that cause. the franks had almost no survivors

2. franks had pretty much every soldier they could find at the battle, it wasn't an army. it was THE army

3. well its impossible to say what the long terms results are, but short term they where huge.

Kursk (summer 1943) was AFTER Stalingrad (autumn 1942 to early spring 1943)

About Romans, I think that the most important feat of arms for the history of Roma were the Punic Wars (by all means, not puny). They dispatched their greatest competitors and placed themselves as the greatest military and commercial power in the Mediterranean by obliterating Carthage.

You're quite right, my mistake.

And yes, I would agree that the Punic Wars were essential in the formation of the Roman Republic... although its a little harder to pin that one on any specific battle. The reason I chose Pharsalus was for the fact that it essentially spelt the end for the Republic and resulted in the formation of the Empire

You know, you have some point there, although the turning point was Stalingrad - after Stalingrad, the Nazis lost all battles on the Eastern Front, while after Moscow they still managed to advance.
Well, the turning point was really Kursk if we're talking when the Germans basically lost every time (yeah, fine, they mounted the odd counter-offensive, the territorial gains of which lasted about 20 minutes or so).

Stalingrad is somewhat overplayed for the whole "coolness" factor thing, but the far, far less glamourous Kursk was more important as a showing that Russian strategic doctrine was the equal, or indeed sometimes better than, anything the Germans had.

Stalingrad was basically about an extremely hard core of Soviet forces in the city's more urbanised areas holding up the Germans for a quite frankly ludicrous amount of time before being relieved. Kursk was a pitched battle, with a much more mobile element - essentially the Germans started being on the recieving end of what they termed Blitzkrieg, and what the Russians called Deep Battle.

STAMFORD BRIDGE

I think the greatest battles of all time needs to be put into context-sea, land air, and period.
My choice for those would be, in the relatively modern age:

Trafalgar 1805- I'm a bit bias here, but this battle made Britain the world's greatest world power for over a century, with no major rivals, such was the victory. It was also the final battle for one of the best warriors of his, or maybe, all time. If you're reading this and haven't heard of the Battle of Trafalgar- please do!

Normandy 1944- hard to decide upon, but if the Allies failed in Normandy, or didn't land at all, the Russians would have carried on to Berlin, and maybe to the French coast, with perhaps a very different post war world. the scale of the battle was also huge. This is an odd choice and I think it's a close call.

Britain 1940- simple, its the most major air battle yet to be fought. if the RAF was destroyed, who knows how well Britain would have done if the Germans had invaded. Some sources are both optimistic and some pesimistic, but the war would not have been the same.

Normandy 1944- hard to decide upon, but if the Allies failed in Normandy, or didn't land at all, the Russians would have carried on to Berlin
Err...

You realise that the Western Allies didn't get to Berlin until the Russians had been there for a couple of weeks, yeah?

Most important: Battle of Tours, 732 IIRC.

Runner's up (in no particular order): Thermopylae, Zama, Actium, Chalons (ancient times) Jerusalem (First Crusade), Lepanto, Siege of Vienna, (Middle Ages), Moscow (1812), Gettysburg (1863? IIRC) Metz/Sedan (1870), Marne (1914), Britain (1940), Moscow (1941). I don't think Stalingrad was as important because by then the wartime economies of the USA and the manpower potential of the Soviet Union was being put to good use. With the German economy being, comparatively speaking, about a fifth of the other two combined, there was little chance they'd had for a protracted war, anyway.

The Battle of Salamis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis). This was a naval battle, Greeks (mostly Athenians, but many others were present - including SPARTAAAA!) v. Persia. The Persians were invading Greece (again), and they had already burned Athens. Salamis which resulted in the destruction of the Persian fleet, turned the tide of the war.

Had Salamis gone the other way, and Greece been conquered, Western civilization might have been destroyed by the Persians.

I'm in Mirkanas boat (no pun intended). Had Salamis gone the other way the entirety of western history would have been unwritten. Let me break it down into the originally specified categories:

1. Importance of the battle to the different sides of the conflict:

Obviously Salamis was of critical importance to both sides. The Persians had to take Greece to continue their quest for domination. To the Greeks it meant saving their homeland (and independence) or being squashed under the heel of the Persian Empire and becoming merely a footnote in history.

2. Size of the battle in terms of manpower, casualties etc considering the population and technology of the times:

By a sheer numbers standpoint Salamis pales in comparison to Stalingrad. However, by percentage of populace (either side) involved in the battle it should be on about the same level. Remember that the total world population, and indeed the population of both Greece and Persia, were much lower than they would be/are today. There is no way to accurately judge the population at that time but 366 ships is quite a few even by todays standards.

3. Impact of the battle on the world

This is the most important thing to remember. It seems Stalingrad is being credited as the most important by many, so I'd like to point out that if the Greeks hadn't won Salamis then the battle of Stalingrad would have never taken place. In fact, there never would have been any Nazis to be attacking them. All of western History 480BC to present would have never taken place.

Let's put that into perspective. Greece falls, and Persia continues its conquest. There never would have been a Roman Empire. Therefore, all modern-day European countries would never have been founded. There would have been no crusades, because Christianity would not exist. There would have been no Renaissance. All of the most world-renown art, music, and literature would never have been created. Furthermore, there would not have been the same settlement of North America, and thereby there would be no USA. All battles & wars that have taken place since 490BC would have never existed and/or been replaced by completely different battles. The list goes on, but my brain hurts just trying to think of all the possible permutations of the outcome of a Persian victory.

All in all I'd have to say that's pretty damn important. Most casualties? No. Most crucial strategic battle ever fought? Probably not. Most important for shaping the course of world history? Without question.

Well, the turning point was really Kursk if we're talking when the Germans basically lost every time (yeah, fine, they mounted the odd counter-offensive, the territorial gains of which lasted about 20 minutes or so).

Stalingrad is somewhat overplayed for the whole "coolness" factor thing, but the far, far less glamourous Kursk was more important as a showing that Russian strategic doctrine was the equal, or indeed sometimes better than, anything the Germans had.

Stalingrad was basically about an extremely hard core of Soviet forces in the city's more urbanised areas holding up the Germans for a quite frankly ludicrous amount of time before being relieved. Kursk was a pitched battle, with a much more mobile element - essentially the Germans started being on the recieving end of what they termed Blitzkrieg, and what the Russians called Deep Battle.

I guess Stalingrad is a whole lot sexier to historians because of its uncertain outcome. The Red Army won in the end, after a frighteningly long struggle in which it teetered on the brink of defeat, with the threat of losing the oil fields of the Causacus hanging over everyone's heads.

Kursk was much much more one sided. The Red Army learned well from the Germans, and applied superior technology and tactics to the German blitzkreig. The T34 equipped tank divisions of the Red Army quickly outflanked and overran the much less mobile Panzer IV and Tiger tanks of the German Army Group Center. Largest tank battle ever, too.

Let's put that into perspective. Greece falls, and Persia continues its conquest. There never would have been a Roman Empire. Therefore, all modern-day European countries would never have been founded. There would have been no crusades, because Christianity would not exist. There would have been no Renaissance. All of the most world-renown art, music, and literature would never have been created. Furthermore, there would not have been the same settlement of North America, and thereby there would be no USA. All battles & wars that have taken place since 490BC would have never existed and/or been replaced by completely different battles. The list goes on, but my brain hurts just trying to think of all the possible permutations of the outcome of a Persian victory.

All in all I'd have to say that's pretty damn important. Most casualties? No. Most crucial strategic battle ever fought? Probably not. Most important for shaping the course of world history? Without question.

To be fair, I'm sure there are people in an alternative universe somewhere saying "Imagine what the world would be like if the Persians lost the Battle of Salamis".

There are so many ancient battles that would have changed history immensely.

I guess Stalingrad is a whole lot sexier to historians because of its uncertain outcome. The Red Army won in the end, after a frighteningly long struggle in which it teetered on the brink of defeat, with the threat of losing the oil fields of the Causacus hanging over everyone's heads.
It's also a lot sexier to historians because of the sheer mass of material available on it - pretty much everyone in the whole Sixth Army, and all of the various Russian formations seems to have kept a diary on it, which makes it extremely easy to research, which is always nice, plus cityfighting always has a kind of appeal to those who are into military history.
Kursk was much much more one sided. The Red Army learned well from the Germans, and applied superior technology and tactics to the German blitzkreig. The T34 equipped tank divisions of the Red Army quickly outflanked and overran the much less mobile Panzer IV and Tiger tanks of the German Army Group Center. Largest tank battle ever, too.
Yeah, quite. This is why it was really the beginning of the end - because the Red Army started learning how to win, and how to deal really definitively with the German heavies at the time, as well as using German doctrine and technology against them - for example essentially charging German tanks with T34s when they stopped to shoot.

http://www.ultimateshowdown.org/

okay...but I don't think that the eradication of Neanderthals would have occurred in one single battle...Anyways, I read that Neanderthals may have naturally died out because of their 12-month birth cycle...or something like that...

I was pretty sure they died out because their culture stagnated. They couldn't adapt to changing conditions.

Gonna have to go with the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. It's the reason we're not all speaking Latin right now.

Good, I was starting to think no one else was gonna say the same thing....

How 'bout the Battle of Borodino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Borodino), the reason we arent all speaking French right now? :P
Or maybe the 1854-55 Siege of Sevestopol? The reason we arent all speaking Russian right now ;)

It is, of course, the battle of Verdun. The battle was fought between France and the German Empire, in 1916. The battle lasted for many months, and resulted in a quarter of a million deaths and approximately half a million wounded. The French forces were commanded by General Philippe Pétain and Robert Georges Nivelle.
The Germans were led by Erich von Falkenhayn.

The French were initially vastly outnumbered by the Germans, but managed to hold firm until French reinforcements arrived. The Battle of Verdun was probably one of the most horrific battles of World War One. Few, if any, of the soldiers of the 20the century can match the sacrifice, determination and bravery of the defenders of that magnificent battle.

Well, the turning point was really Kursk if we're talking when the Germans basically lost every time (yeah, fine, they mounted the odd counter-offensive, the territorial gains of which lasted about 20 minutes or so).

Stalingrad is somewhat overplayed for the whole "coolness" factor thing, but the far, far less glamourous Kursk was more important as a showing that Russian strategic doctrine was the equal, or indeed sometimes better than, anything the Germans had.

Stalingrad was basically about an extremely hard core of Soviet forces in the city's more urbanised areas holding up the Germans for a quite frankly ludicrous amount of time before being relieved. Kursk was a pitched battle, with a much more mobile element - essentially the Germans started being on the recieving end of what they termed Blitzkrieg, and what the Russians called Deep Battle.

You do make a good point, and that is that if Stalingrad was the battle where the Russians showed they wouldn't lose, then Kursk was the battle where they showed they were more than capable of winning.

Clearly the two battles are both arguably the most crucial to the Eastern Front of the war, along with the Battle of Moscow. But, no discredit to your arguing or your opinion, my vote is still on stalingrad. This is mostly because of the length and variety of conflict in Stalingrad. Stalingrad involved tanks battling tanks, tanks battling infantry, it was arguably the first and biggest conflict of scoped sniper rifles. It saw technology meet improvisation; an army with all the strategies meeting one that to a large extent made up the rules on the fly.

Also, it was after Stalingrad that Goebbels stopped spreading propaganda that the Third Reich would dominate, and started instead telling the people they must be prepared to fight to the last for the Fuhrer. If a shift in Hitler's propaganda machine doesnt show the Nazis falling onto the back foot, doesnt show us the shift in the war, i dont know what does.

Lepanto. The Holy League crushes the savage Mohammed horde and stops them from pillaging Europe.

The one where Homo Sapiens eradicated the Neanderthals.

Everything that came after was gravy.

Unless, of course, you realize that perhaps, just perhaps, the wrong sub-species won.I dare say, your closing statement has roused my interest.

May I ask as to why you believe this to be so?

Lepanto. The Holy League crushes the savage Mohammed horde and stops them from pillaging Europe.

You need to get your slurs right. Its 'Mohammeden/din', depending on where youre from. I know its harder to spell than Ay-rabs, but please try.

And why not the Siege of Vienna? If you want Rightous Christian Smiting (tm) of Dirty Moslem Hordes (r), you cant do much better.

Gallipoli...The Allies got told!

Okay, I know this will sound America-centric, but the Battle of Gettysburg.

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

It was arguably the most decsive Battle of the Civil war, and consider the following:

If the U.S. hadn't remained united in the later half of the 19th century, then how would have the Monroe Doctrine (that Europe should stay out of the affairs of North and South America) have had any actual effect on world affairs? Consider the Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico, who had installed ben installed by the French in 1861 and lost his support from Napoleon the 3rd of France just as soon as the American civil war was over. If the CSA was recognized, the Monroe Doctrine would probably be John Quincy Adams' most pointless achievment (even eclipsing his presidency). Spanish-American war? Not a chance without Gettysburg having happened. Since Gettysburg, not a single battle was been waged in North or South America as large and deadly as Gettysburg, probably a result of U.S. dominance.

Or maybe I'm just saying this becasue my grandfather actually lives in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and I'm related to a Union soldier who actually fought in the battle (he also shares my first and last name). (My grandpa also has his rifle :p) I really think my subconcious might have influenced me to argue for Gettysburg.

If we're talking about America, maybe a better statment would be the Battle of Saratoga, considering it was the battle that convinced the French to support America against Britain (Now, if only the American public had paid attention to history class, we wouldn't have so much francophobia). But Saratoga was ridiculoulsy small in comparison to the rest of the battles that have been mentioned...

Will have to go with Stalingrad for all the reasons the earlier posters explained.

Operation Bagration is often shadowed by the popular battles(ie Stalingrad, Kursk) it eliminated Army Group Center as a threat. About 30 German Divisions ceased to exist......

Battle of Chi Bi -- Shu and Wu's unexpected victory shoved back the unification of earth's strongest country by a good ~70 years.

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

Let's put that into perspective. Greece falls, and Persia continues its conquest. There never would have been a Roman Empire. Therefore, all modern-day European countries would never have been founded. There would have been no crusades, because Christianity would not exist. There would have been no Renaissance. All of the most world-renown art, music, and literature would never have been created. Furthermore, there would not have been the same settlement of North America, and thereby there would be no USA. All battles & wars that have taken place since 490BC would have never existed and/or been replaced by completely different battles. The list goes on, but my brain hurts just trying to think of all the possible permutations of the outcome of a Persian victory.



Meh, and maybe they greeks would play nice for a decade and then kick the persians out again. Maybe the persians would stay and actually give the xenophobic greeks a good dose of their culture which was at least equal and some people find to be superior to the greeks. Maybe Europe would never rise and all sorts of weapons wouldnt have been invented. Maybe the native indians would invent hydrogen in the year 1800. Maybe...

Maybe the world isn't that much better after the greeks won in Salamis. Point is we will never know.

You need to get your slurs right. Its 'Mohammeden/din', depending on where youre from. I know its harder to spell than Ay-rabs, but please try.

And why not the Siege of Vienna? If you want Rightous Christian Smiting (tm) of Dirty Moslem Hordes (r), you cant do much better.

Way ahead of you. I already said Lepanto and Vienna. :p