I don't think you can ever call a civilizational "civil war", like an intra-European war, responsible for the most important battles. Not much would have changed if one power or another won in such cases, in terms of overall way of life. But inter-civilizational wars have much more lasting effects.

Were the Mayans around to spectate?

ask the autocorrect

"I don't think you can ever call a civilizational "civil war", like an intra-European war, responsible for the most important battles. Not much would have changed if one power or another won in such cases, in terms of overall way of life. But inter-civilizational wars have much more lasting effects. "

I agree mostly, but some intra civilizational wars have profound effects. In the seven years example, Britain gained control over the vast majority of North America having profound effects over world history.

On the other hand, while I study the American revolution, I would hesitate to add something from that war.

Lepanto? You people crazy. Read up on your Ottoman history Lepanto was to the turks what Waterloo was to Napoleon-inevitable. The Jannissary corps had become so tradition bound and powerful they wouldn't accept wide spread use of gunpowder and were thus doomed to slow retreat. Also they were fighting over control of a trade route that no longer matter owing to the ability to sail to the AMerica's or around the horn to India. Much of the turks power was acting as a middle man between europe and india/china.

Did Putin really misread Gaugamela for Guatemala or is he kidding? I can't tell. Not giving him the benefit of the doubt though: HAHA. ;-)

The bloodiest war in America's history, on a per capita basis, took place in New England in 1675. http://www.tauntonriver.org/kingphilipwar.htm

The most significant battle in that war was the Great Swamp Massacre http://00002u9.previewcoxhosting.com/history.htm

If things had gone the other way the newly established colonies in New England would likely have been abandoned.

No, Guatemala is not my doing.

America is rather irrelevant in terms of world history. Most of this area has never played a major role in world events and the US has only emerged as an economic and world power in the past 100 years. That's much too short to matter. If America's hegemony lasts a couple of centuries then maybe we can speak of a power that was more relevant than Armenia under Tigranes the Great.

Tigranes developed an equivalent to the Apollo program as well?

Alright, time I made my list, so here they are in no particular order.

1) Marathon (490 BC) -Platea (479 BC) -Salamis (480 BC) - each of these battles accomplished the same thing and it would be unfair to include one without the other. Had the Greeks lost any of these, the world would have turned out very, very differently.

2) Gaugamela (331 BC) - far more important imo than Issus, Granicus, or the Siege of Tyre. It was the last straw for the Persian Empire, and Alexander's forces were outnumbered and had a very stretched supply line.

3) Adrianople (378 CE) - this caused the collapse of the Roman Empire. I think that the Roman Empire and its collapse are probably the two biggest events that shaped Western European history.

4) Yarmouk - (636 CE) - had the Byzantines won this one, this little religion called Islam would be a very marginal thing at best, and the wars of the Calpihates would never have happened. No Battle of Tours, no Moors in Spain, nothing. in my opinion, this is more important than the siege of constantinople that would occur in the next decade(s?). This battle ties in closely with my next one.

5) Manzikert (1071) - this battle was the reason the Byzantine Empire collapsed and the Turks remained in control of the Muslim world. This is far, far more important than the Siege of Constantinople 400 years later.

6) Kulikovo (1380)/ Ugra River (1480) - I'm not sure which of these more properly fits the bill, but together they created the Russian Empire and overthrew the Golden Horde.

7) Siege of Vienna (1529/1683) - the first one I think is the most important one, though the second siege of vienna should not be discounted. Moreso than the naval victory at Lepanto, this land battle was the high water mark for the Ottoman Empire.

8) Spanish Armada (1588) - this propelled England from an average sized European state into a superpower. The destruction of the Spanish - at the time the most powerful Empire in europe - was more than significant, and its consequences allowed England to begin colonization.

9) Trafalgar (1805) - this is here because of the consequences Europe would have faced if the English had lost. Napoleon's continental system would have been enforced, England would have been marginalized, and who knows how long Europe would have lingered under Napoleon's control?

10) Operation Market Garden (Sept. 1944) - now hear me out. Of all the battles in World War 2, why pick this one? Think of post-war ramifications. In August 1944, the Wehrmacht was routed in France, in the worst of ways. Had the Allies succeeded and bridged the Rhine in autumn 1944, imagine the consequences! First, the Wehrmacht wouldn't have had time to re-group, and second the major industrial base of Germany - the Ruhr - would have been taken by years end. Imagine the huge leg-up this would have given the western powers in the post-war scenario, of British, French, and American soldiers taking Berlin in the spring rather than the Soviets, of an undivided post-war Germany. There would still have been an "iron curtain" but perhaps it would have been pushed back a bit farther.

Honorable mentions:

Agincourt (1415) - this (along with some earlier battles) was the end of cavalry as the dominant military force, as well as a significant English victory. But the military strategic shift Agincourt caused (as well as Crecy and few earlier battles with the Dutch) was very significant.

Cannae (216 BC) - now this one might seem odd, since Carthage didn't win the war, right? Well, I put this one up here because of the changes it caused in how Rome conducted warfare. After this, Rome fully mobilized its entire population and more importantly changed military strategies. Instead of big army vs big army battles, Rome adapted and went for many smaller - but still sizable - armies which would take strongpoints and cut supply routes and win over individual city states. It is this strategy that forced Hannibal to retreat to Carthage and forced the Battle of Zama, and it is this strategy that the Romans kept throughout their empire.

Carrhae (53 BC) - it marked the farthest the Romans would go in the Middle East and let this little guy known as Julius Ceasar to come and become Emperor and turn the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.

Teutoberg Forest (9 CE) - the destruction of three legions by barbarians was a pretty momentous event, and it prevented Rome from expanding past the Rhine.

Poltava (1709) - this could have been the end for Peter the Great's Russia, and Sweden could have been the major power in northern europe for a long while more

Failed invasion of Japan (and Java) by Kublai Khan (late 1200s)

Failed invasion of Korea by Japan (1500s)

Saratoga (1777) - this was the decisive battle and turning point in the American revolution and the creation of the USA

Hastings (1066) - the ramifications of having Norman kings would drive England out of isolation and into European affairs

Tsushima Straights (1905) - The rise of the modern steel battleship as well as the Japanese nation

Verdun (1916) - this more than anything else broke the back of the German army in WW1. The failure to capture this series of French fortresses was of more consequence than Somme, Ypres, Marne, or any of the other major German offensives

And many, many more

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Siege and Sack of Constantinople (1204). The Byzantine Empire never recovered from this (while it did recover, for the most part, from Manzikert).

"4) Yarmouk"

An excellent pick, but I would argue that Qadisiyah was more important. The Byzantines survived Yarmouk and continued to impede the advance of the Caliphate, but the Sassanids did not survive Qadisiyah.

I would strongly argue that they didn't recover from Manzikert, rather it was a steady downhill tumble for them after that. I agree that they recovered from Yarmouk, but I put Yarmouk in there because it is doubtful that Islam would have recovered had the Arabs lost

Byzantium in 1204 was a shell of its former self. Manzikert ended the resurgence and hastened political instability, which in part led to the capture of Constantinople in the first place.

I think the spanish armada was probably one of the most important, leading to the modern era. If not for that, I severely doubt english would be the dominant language it is in the world today. That battle solidified the english navy as the world's leading naval superpower up until the 20th century.

"Manzikert ended the resurgence and hastened political instability"

It was Byzantine military decline and political instability that led to the loss at Manzikert, not vice versa. The Komnenoi did a pretty credible job of reviving Byzantine fortunes in the 12th century (all those rampaging Latins tearing through Muslim territory in the Levant certainly didn't hurt).

To adress two quick points about my list...to whoever said them:

1. I put Tours instead of the Siege of Vienna because Tours happened first, really, so if that battle was lost, Islam might have spread earlier and there wouldn't have been Vienna...really, either one works, I just put Tours because it came first, so that was the tiebreaker.

2. I disagree that Cortez' fight with the Aztecs could be bumped to the11-20s...arguably, that's the battle that seals the doom of two whole continents' worth of people, as this validates the conquistador idea and spurs the rest of Europe on to colonize and kill off the natives as well...if Cortez and his men had lost and were killed, it would've played like "Heart of Darkness"/"Apocalypse Now" to Europeans at the time, ie, a group go on a trip across a water body, and...the horror...the horror...and it doesn't seem quite as appealing anymore. It might not have saved the Aztecs, Europe (or maybe Asia...? THERE'S an interesting thought) would probably have colonized anyway, but later, and perhaps more warily. On the flip side, Cortez's victory produced two new continents to colonize, out of which dozens of nations--some of them pretty damn important in 19th, 20th, and 21st century affairs--would spring up, while, conversely, smallpox being introduced would have a catastrophic, Black Death-like effect on the population of the Americas' natives. That's a pretty big impact...I think it warrants Top 10 standing.

agree with obiwan about the fall of the Aztecs, it's gotta be up at the very top

The fact that defeats of Muslims are viewed as historically decisive but victories of Muslims are not - as expressed by most of these lists - is absolutely fascinating. I've never heard a European complain about the triumph of Christianity over paganism. Is this Eurocentrism, or Islamophobia? Or both?

well, at the very least the surge of Catholicism over the Moors in late 15th century Spain, whether theologically right or graceful or otherwise criticized, certainly had an incredibly major and forever lasting impact on the owrld

@Tolstoy - you are equating histroically significant with good. These two are not necessarily equal. The meteor crashing into the earth and killing the dinosaurs and triggering an ice age was very significant, but I doubt the dinosaurs would call it a good thing.

I don't think it's Isamophobia so much as just a Western bias...which is understandable, as we live in the WEst and are children of the West in large part. :)

Again, I don't know many Muslim vs. Muslim battles, so I can't place them up there...they're not significant to me as I don't have knowledge I'd need about them to even start to make them significant, I can't rank what I don't have knowledge of...

I imagine a Muslim would probably have Saladin and Tamerlane and others on this list somewhere...I just don't have the context needed to rank them, and I don't connect with them as much, so they didn't make the lsit not out of a fear/hatred of Muslims, but just an incomplete understanding of them.



And unlike many politicians and pundits...

When I don't understand a culture adequately enough to pass judgement, I keep my mouth shut, rather than offend a whole group pf people with my sheer ignorance, as ignorance verbalized is idiocy (case in point--TC.) ;)

"The fact that defeats of Muslims are viewed as historically decisive but victories of Muslims are not - as expressed by most of these lists - is absolutely fascinating. I've never heard a European complain about the triumph of Christianity over paganism. Is this Eurocentrism, or Islamophobia? Or both?"


Just to show that Tolstoy is full of shit, Ive taken the liberty of fact checking it

Obi-
0 Victory
1 Def

Putin-
3 Muslim victorys
2 Muslim defeats

Semck-
0 Victory
1 Def

Santa-
2 victory
2 defeat

Goldfinger-
2 Victory
1 Defeat

3 of the 5 that have posted a top 10 list have included Muslim victories. How is it that you came up with that statement?

I guess the question is what causes you to make up evidence in your head that contradicts reality and portrays the members of this board as narrow minded bigots

"well, at the very least the surge of Catholicism over the Moors in late 15th century Spain, whether theologically right or graceful or otherwise criticized, certainly had an incredibly major and forever lasting impact on the owrld"

I can't argue with this. But the fall of Granada (or Toledo, which was more significant but happened centuries earlier) has not been picked in *any* of these lists. Instead the battles that have been mentioned are the same ones that are frequently mentioned in the currently popular canon of Islamophobic historiography. (one Muslim-hating blog is even titled "Gates of Vienna").

The Reconquista is hugely important, but none of the battles therein have been mentioned here - instead giving way to Lepanto, Siege of Vienna 1/2, and the fall of Constantinople. These are all historically significant, but why has not a single battle of the Spanish Reconquista not been mentioned, which was historically more important than any of them (giving birth to a very major world power which dominated Europe and the Americas for over a century, not to mention facilitating the diffusion of knowledge in Europe)? Is the English-speaking world's view of history influenced more by the modern Islamophobia industry, or simply excluding vitally important historical narratives that are not well covered in English-speaking historiography?

I cannot help but observe with great irony that victories against the relatively moderate/tolerant Ottoman Turks are celebrated today, but victories against the Almohads (the Taliban of the 13th century) are forgotten.

actually Semck mentioned Covadonga, try again

@ Obi -What did the fall of the Aztecs do?? They were already fucked from the moment Europeans made contact with them because of all the diseases that would spread. Whether he won or not, the diseases would have continued to wipe out the Aztecs, much like they decimated the populations of Indians along the east coast of the US decades before any permanent settlement was founded. Plus, the population that was "doomed" as a result is pitiful in comparison to the populations affected by other battles mentioned here. The combined population of both continents was around 30 million people, but after a century, there was an 80% decline in population. So whether or not Cortez succeeded, 24 million(ish) people would have died. Besides, Spain got most of its gold from the Incas and South America.

Tours was merely a raiding party. It wasn't a conquest. Yes, conquests could have followed it but it was by no means an army like the Huns, Mongols, or Turks, who meant to settle down and rule the place

Tolstoy sees "Islamophobia" behind every corner. It's the only form of 'bigotry' he's ever shown a concern about. It grew tiring a long time ago. I'm not convinced he didn't convert to Islam. Granada isn't celebrated as much because the emirate of Granada was a vassal of Spain anyway, so the fact that the last presence of the already very weak Moors was vanquished in a relatively minor battle isn't that big of a deal.

Aztecs would have been conquered by the rival Mesoamericans anyway (indeed they did most of the heavy lifting of the campaign). Most welcomed their fall.

I think none of the battles of the Reconquista are mentioned because it was a gradual thing, happening over the course of several centuries, while the formation of other nations was rather quick and instantaneous (ie, formation of the modern English nation - Hastings, Russia - Ugra River, etc). Yes, Spain had a huge impact on Europe, but its formation was rather...dull. The fall of Grenada was more symbolic than anything else, since Grenada was the last remaining Moorish territory. I mean, none of the crusades have been mentioned save the 4th crusade which sacked Constantinople, yet they occupied Muslim areas just as the Reconquista did.