Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Ponce de Leon
Caliph
Lonce De Peon
Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
|
Quote Reply
Topic: What was the worlds most important battle Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 21:27 |
OK, here is another one. The Punic wars. If Carthage won, then the entire history of Europe would have changed. The Carthaginians, not the Romans, would have been the sole super power controlling the mediterranean, and maybe extending it's empire further
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2006 at 15:58 |
Sorry for the previous post....![](smileys/smiley9.gif)
For the Thermopylae battle:
Thermopylae, by its self, did not save Western civilization in which other battles lay claim as it can easy be understood by now . It was of few battles that marked a crucial turn in human history. This battle changed the way one looks at warriors and their courage. The warriors that fought knew their limits, with the exception of the 300, that fought to the death against all odds. The battle of Thermopylae sets a point too everybody.
For the world's most important battle, each age must be studied separately:
Ancient times: By my opinion because of the victories of the Greeks against the Persian gave the opportunity to the Athenians (Golden Age of Pericles), mostly, to create something that after almost 2000 years inspirited people to get out of the dark ages and make some unique achievements in all fields... The result of the Persian wars changed the row of history big time, thats a fact.
Middle Age: The Ottoman-Turk continue invasion of Europe in the 16th & 17th centuries was stopped twice outside of Vienna, ending any attempts of Muslim expansion to the rest of Europe.
Closer to our time: And last but surely not least the Battle of Normandy fought in 1944 that was the beginning of the end of Hitler. Hitler could not fight both from west and east.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2006 at 15:41 |
For the lace w t="on">Thermopylaelace> battle:>>
lace w t="on">Thermopylaelace>, by its self, did not save Western civilization in which other battles lay claim as it can easy be understood by now . It was of few battles that marked a crucial turn in human history. This battle changed the way one looks at warriors and their courage. The soldiers that fought knew their limits, with the exception of the 300, that fought to the death against all odds. The battle of lace w t="on">Thermopylaelace> sets a point too everybody.>>
>For the world's most important battle, each age must be studied separately:>
>>Ancient times: By my opinion because of the victories of the Greeks against the Persian gave the opportunity to the Athenians (Golden Age of Pericles), mostly, to create something that after almost 2000 years inspirited people to get out of the dark ages and make some unique achievements in all fields... The result of the Persian wars changed the row of history big time, thats a fact. >>
>>Middle Age: The Ottoman-Turk continue invasion of Europe in the 16th & 17th centuries was stopped twice outside t="on">Vienna, ending any attempts of Muslim expansion to lace w t="on">Europelace>. >>
>>Closer to our time: And last but surely not least the Battle of Normandy fought in 1944 that was the beginning of the end of Hitler. Hitler could not fight both from west and east.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Iranian41ife
Arch Duke
Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 18:58 |
Originally posted by mamikon
Originally posted by Ponce de Leon
If the Greeks lost that battle without inflicting great amount of losses for the other side...the world would be completely different. I mean, western europe would be speaking arabic for the next 2000 years if the persians won lol |
that makes no sense whatsoever... |
not only does it make no sense, but we arent even arab. and if hte persians won, they just would nothing really would have happened, becase the greeks ended up destroying themselves later anyway.
so i dont see how the greek victories over the persians saved the west. but they were no doubt important for greece.
|
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
mamikon
Sultan
Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 18:55 |
Originally posted by Ponce de Leon
If the Greeks lost that battle without inflicting
great amount of losses for the other side...the world would be
completely different. I mean, western europe would be speaking arabic
for the next 2000 years if the persians won lol |
that makes no sense whatsoever...
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
turkos
Janissary
Joined: 04-Aug-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 18:02 |
Originally posted by mamikon
I think Gallipoli would fit the definition for Turkey not the world...
|
ok think on!but simply our some australian , indian or new zel. friends can say something
|
dont forget all events are repeating
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Ponce de Leon
Caliph
Lonce De Peon
Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 17:53 |
PEOPLE! PEOPLE! PEOPLE!!! are we forgetting one ancient battle that could have changed history for the past 2500 years???? The great Battle of Thermopylae!!! With 500 spartans against a horde of persians including the Immortals??? If the Greeks lost that battle without inflicting great amount of losses for the other side...the world would be completely different. I mean, western europe would be speaking arabic for the next 2000 years if the persians won lol
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
mamikon
Sultan
Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 17:06 |
I think Gallipoli would fit the definition for Turkey not the world...
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
turkos
Janissary
Joined: 04-Aug-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 17:03 |
i think we have to choose the most strategic battles or wars according its cultural , political and military influences which is changing the equilibrium of world. my choices are troy and gallipoli(troy-2 ![](smileys/smiley2.gif) ) wars in same place anakkale.this wars effected directly and indirectly to world history in all points.Fall of stanbul had just politic ,religional and economic results.Because there wasnt byzantine empire , it was just the city of constantinopolis. Troy was maybe the first world war.it was fighting of anatolia and greece.Still we can see its hellenization results in anatolia.Gallipoli was the first and most importand war of our recent world.it stopped emperialists and caused the nationalism.
|
dont forget all events are repeating
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
edgewaters
Sultan
Snake in the Grass-Banned
Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 05:11 |
Without a doubt, in terms of historical impact, I think I can safely say that almost any battle one can name pales in comparison to the impact of the Battle of Tenochtitlan. This basically set the stage for the conquest of the Americas, and after consideration of the accounts given by Diaz and other sources, I do not believe there was any inevitability about the outcome. Under anyone other than Cortes, things would have gone entirely differently. There was nothing automatic about winning over the vassal tribes or the Tlaxcala as allies, there was nothing automatic about convincing the men to attack Narvaez' forces when they came to arrest Cortes and end the expedition. I don't even think there was anything ultimately automatic about the conquest of the Aztecs. Many less organized native groups which were forewarned and forearmed about the European methods and tricks managed to persist for centuries in the thick of things (eg the Iroquois), even brokering for power they had not previously had. The Maya, forewarned by Guerrerro, managed to drive off early landings on several occasions, and ultimately took over a century to pacify (and not even in any complete sense, the Zapatista are still rebelling from time to time!). If the Aztecs had managed to treat with the first explorers like the Iroqouis did, and obtained guns and steel weapons, the whole history of the New World would have been much different. Even if they had managed to repulse initial explorations, it would set a precedent that might have discouraged future expeditions. Who knows? All that I know for sure is that I cannot think of any other battle that decided that fate of an entire civilization in one fell swoop, let alone that of an entire hemisphere.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Beowulf
Knight
Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 80
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 16:03 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
Very recent, but immensely important to the current state of the world, would be Stalingrad, had this been a crushing German victory instead of a humiliating and ultimately ruinous defeat of the German army then perhaps the war would of gone Hitlers way after all.
I think easily a contender for the most important battle of the 20th century atleast.
|
I agree. And I must add that Russians had the greatest of allies during the war - General Winter .
Edited by Beowulf
|
... Mornie utli (darkness has come)
Believe and you will find your way
Mornie alanti (darkness has fallen)
A promise lives within you now ...
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Maharbbal
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 21:34 |
Hi,
Funny game; here are my picks
1. Zama: Hannibal was invincible and... lost. Proof was made men could
fight fate and Gods will. (the same with Marathon, Thermopyles...)
2. The battles fought by Charles V against Protestants. Had he won: no
more heretics and then no capitalism consequently no "modern world".
3. Troy: the mother of all battles: thousands of deads, ten years lost in
vain, a city destroyed for not much, but yeah! nice souvenirs! (in the same
way I quite like Arnhem 1944 as well stupid general sending to certain
death elite troops for not much: and the soldiers enjoyed it!!!)
4. Munich 1972 (and a few others before): a complete new understanding
of what a "battle" is (let mention that in the same time US government
was understanding that the old fashion battle was not viable any longer).
Edited by Maharbbal
|
I am a free donkey!
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 16:49 |
While I am not sure of "Most Important" I think the battle of Marathon is probably closer than most others. The Greeks (western culture) defeated the seemingly invincible Persian Empire (eastern culture). This, more or less, established a rivallry between the east and west that has existed since that time. Before Marathon the Persian Empire, and by extension eastern culture, enjoyed a preponderance of power and a dominant postion in world relations (as they existed in the ancient world)
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Hannibal Barca
Pretorian
Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 20:45 |
Originally posted by Dampier
Originally posted by Hannibal Barca
Originally posted by benzs_s
It would have at least led to a titanic battle of some proportions, engulfing a great deal more of the Mediterranean than it had before. As far as conjecturing as to a result of this battle, it's pretty pointless, but I do wonder if Rome's interests in Greece (particularly the stresses in Macedonia) might have counted against them in a context of an extended 2nd Punic War?
I still maintain that the Battle would have changed a lot more than people would think.
|
I agree things would change, but I think things would change just about as much as things would have changed had Napoleon been victorious at Waterloo.![](smileys/smiley2.gif)
Not really. Napoleon had lost too many men already. If he'd won in Russia or not lost the Battle of the Nations then maybe. Waterloo was the final coffin. Also Spain had already been destroying him. Britain could create another army just as good and was invulnerable due to her fleet.
|
|
And Hannibal hadn't lost too many men? Come on man. Hannibal still would have been facing more than 100.000 troops had he attacked again.
|
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"
-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
The Canadian Guy
General
The Native Canuck
Joined: 24-Feb-2005
Location: IDK Im lost!
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 891
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 10:04 |
I think all battles are important, because they had changed the world. If Hitler would had controlled the world, we would live in a diffrent place today, and it would had suck. If Rome would not had fallen she would think of expanding overseas. If Europeans and Asians didn't fight for the Americas, the USA and Canada and many more countries wouldn't exist, and NA wouldn't be as advance as it is today. My point is, battles change history.
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 06:35 |
Originally posted by Hannibal Barca
Originally posted by benzs_s
It would have at least led to a titanic battle of some proportions, engulfing a great deal more of the Mediterranean than it had before. As far as conjecturing as to a result of this battle, it's pretty pointless, but I do wonder if Rome's interests in Greece (particularly the stresses in Macedonia) might have counted against them in a context of an extended 2nd Punic War?
I still maintain that the Battle would have changed a lot more than people would think.
|
I agree things would change, but I think things would change just about as much as things would have changed had Napoleon been victorious at Waterloo.![](smileys/smiley2.gif)
Not really. Napoleon had lost too many men already. If he'd won in Russia or not lost the Battle of the Nations then maybe. Waterloo was the final coffin. Also Spain had already been destroying him. Britain could create another army just as good and was invulnerable due to her fleet. |
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Hannibal Barca
Pretorian
Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 20:13 |
Originally posted by benzs_s
It would have at least led to a titanic battle of some proportions, engulfing a great deal more of the Mediterranean than it had before. As far as conjecturing as to a result of this battle, it's pretty pointless, but I do wonder if Rome's interests in Greece (particularly the stresses in Macedonia) might have counted against them in a context of an extended 2nd Punic War?
I still maintain that the Battle would have changed a lot more than people would think.
|
I agree things would change, but I think things would change just about as much as things would have changed had Napoleon been victorious at Waterloo.![](smileys/smiley2.gif)
|
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"
-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 17:23 |
Originally posted by Mameluke
Ikki your Russian casualty figures for Stalingrad have been
updated since glasnost and perestroika. According to the "Army book of
Land Battles" compiled by Colonel J.D. Morelock, 6th Army at the
beginning of Operation Blau numbered 330,000 men. When Paulus
surrendered, 91,000 men went into captivity. When the casualties for
the entire campaign are included, we come to a total Axis figure of
1,500,000 killed, wounded, missing, and captured. That includes
Germans, Italians, and Rumanians. Soviet casualties were certainly
higher. Recent figures released after the fall of the Soviet Union
indicate a staggering 1 million DEAD. The wounded and missing are
another story. However, a battle's decisiveness is not just measured by
casualties. The fact was that the Wehrmacht was still a formidable
fighting machine even after Stalingrad. It still managed some brilliant
victories such as Kiev and Kharkov. However after Kursk, the
Panzerwaffe, the spearhead of the German armed forces, was practically
gutted. Germany did not win any significant victories after that.
All the best, Mameluke
|
Thanks very much for the info, Mameluke.
You are right when say that the casualties don't say very much about
a battle, Passchendaele (WWI) was a huge battle with many casualties
but the effects wasn't very important.
But, when the people compare Stalingrad with other battles always
talk about the losses in men and equipment. Right, Stalingrad surpass
to all the battles in both concepts, and more important is more crucial
in the follow fields: morale, strategical situation. The own russians
of that time know it, that is the reason why they say "from Stalingrad
to Berlin", and not "from Kursk to Berln" or "from Minsk to Berln"
cheers
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 17:05 |
Ummm...I dont think you can say as what happened in Asia usually wont affect Europe.
Interesting people are saying D-Day. Because well, D-Day meant little. The Russians won WW2. Kursk is much more likely.
I'd argue the sieges of Constantinople becaus eif Islam had won than possibly we'd have a European Muslim Empire that could well have started going East. China Vs Islam would have been interesting.
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Mameluke
Janissary
Joined: 15-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 16:44 |
Originally posted by Ikki
Kursk was only the confirmation of the facts: the red army was now the more powerful. The turning point was Stalingrad, with near 250.000 germans deads and another 150.000 allieds, plus (+-) 400 hundred thousand russians, and i don' count the other casualties...; for Germany, the losses of equipment (in tanks, airplanes, truks... six months of production) and trained men was by far more heavy in Stalingrad than in Kursk, and more important, the moral shock was absolutelly terrible.
The only thing that Kursk overpass to Stalingrad is the size of the armies, but was only 2 weeks (yes, very intense), and Stalingrad was an effort of half year. This battle play in other league
Ikki your Russian casualty figures for Stalingrad have been updated since glasnost and perestroika. According to the "Army book of Land Battles" compiled by Colonel J.D. Morelock, 6th Army at the beginning of Operation Blau numbered 330,000 men. When Paulus surrendered, 91,000 men went into captivity. When the casualties for the entire campaign are included, we come to a total Axis figure of 1,500,000 killed, wounded, missing, and captured. That includes Germans, Italians, and Rumanians. Soviet casualties were certainly higher. Recent figures released after the fall of the Soviet Union indicate a staggering 1 million DEAD. The wounded and missing are another story. However, a battle's decisiveness is not just measured by casualties. The fact was that the Wehrmacht was still a formidable fighting machine even after Stalingrad. It still managed some brilliant victories such as Kiev and Kharkov. However after Kursk, the Panzerwaffe, the spearhead of the German armed forces, was practically gutted. Germany did not win any significant victories after that.
All the best, Mameluke
|
|
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |