The Greatest Decisive Battle In Whole History

In all eras previous to modern times Jews and Muslims got on.

And nowhere in this thread did I show resentment for what happened as you insinuate for whatever reason, all I said is that as far as history is concerned (in my opinion) Qadasiya was the most decisive in shaping today's world.

Yes, but if the Caliphate had not been, then there would not have been a proliferation of highly advanced science into Western Europe through Cordoba.

Originally posted by Zagros Yes, but if the Caliphate had not been, then there would not have been a proliferation of highly advanced science into Western Europe through Cordoba.

That doesnt mean there would be none, just that it would be delayed. Perhpas they would try harder from Europe to get their hands on Chinese science as well?

Gaugmela was not that big of a deal. Alexander was a good general, but his troops were very elite, and if they were not, I do not think Alexander would have one. His effect was lasting for a while, sure. In the end, the Persians push back Hellenistic culture, so not much was changed.

 Think people have to realise to that the Persian army left alot to be desired, its cavalry was very good aswell as its archers but its infantry was largely shockingly poor, men pulled from their farms given a spear a wicker shield and told to stand against a macedonian phalanx.

 An army of 250,000 men should be able to smash an army of 40,000, it surely points to a problem with a large portion of the Persian army, I dont doubt Alexander was a better general, but had the Persian army or atleast more of it had been even relatively decent quality then sheer weight of numbers would eventually have crushed the much smaller Macedonian army.

 Personally I dont see the big deal about routing an army that was filled with largely unwilling or poor quality troops who would much rather of been at home than fighting for the King of Kings, with an army that was full of battle hardened veterans who were infinitely superior in almost every way.

The 'what-ifs' are entertaining to debate, albeit the conjecture of what
would have commenced is very open.

If the Persians triumphed at Marathon in 490 B.C., would Europe had
become a vassal of eastern kingdoms rather than states governed by its
citizens? Of note - without the great naval victory 10 years later at
Salamis over Xerxes' fleet, Marathon would be insignificant in terms
of historical influence, thus we have to consider military history's 'ripple'
effects. However, it wouldn't mean anyhting if not for Themistocles'
huge naval victory 10 years later at Salamis.

What if the Athenians had triumphed at Syracuse over Gylippus'
Spartans. What would have become of the growing city states of Rome
and Carthage?

The battle of Actium determined that Europe's cultural axis, so to speak,
would not be turned toward the East, and the Roman Empire, in name,
was born.

If the Muslim naval contingent had won at Diu (western India) in 1509,
they would have had control of the trade routes with the Far East. Instead,
Francisco de Almeida established a Portuguese foothold, followed
by the rest of the European colonial powers, in the Far East. The immense
source of wealth provided by the Indies trade routes came under
European control for subsequent centuries. That was incredibly
significant.

What if Hasdrubal had linked up with Hannibal in 207 B.C.?
Claudius Nero's extraordinary march to the Metaurus, keeping
Hannibal in the dark of his actions, was one of the decisive
campaigns in miltary history. Hasdrubal had also been thwarted in
his attempt to march to Italy 1 year after Cannae at Dertosa, in
northeastern Iberia, by Gnaeus Scipio 8 years before the Metaurus.

If Alexander had been stopped at Gaugamela, Hellenism may not
have had the far reaching effects it did.

Saladin's great victory at Hattin in 1187 established Muslim
presence in the Near East. That presence was never, until 1948,
substantially threatened.

What if the Saxons repelled William at Hastings? Would England had
been shaped by the Scandavian mainstream?

Gonzalo de Cordoba's victory over the French at Cerignola in 1503
witnessed the first time, on a substantial scale, in history in which
gunpowdered small arms was the key factor.

Charles Martel's victory at Tours was of colossal influence.

Crecy, in which the longbow made its striking effect, was probably the
beginning of the end of chivalry.

Bunker Hill prevented the American Revolution from becoming stillborn,
and Saratoga cemented their determination. France, followed by Spain
and Holland, turned the revolution into a world conflict.
In the American Civil War, the Battle of Antietam pretty much turned from
merely a war to preserve the Union to becoming a crusade to end slavery
in America, being that Lincoln gave his galvanizing address after
many wanted to end the war and allow the South to break away.
Gettysburg marked the beginning of the end for the Confederate States.

In 1221, if the able Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu, trying to lure the
Mongols into hilly terrain as he had successfuly done a year earlier at
Parwan, in which he crushed a Mongol force, held off Genghis Khan
at the Indus River? This would have grinded a halt, at least for a while, the
Mongol swath of destruction, giving hundreds of thousands stronger
resolve to resist a now not-invincible Mongol juggernaut. How different
would the cultural structure of the world have been? remember, the
Mongols streamlined the trade routes linking the East and West.

Would Xiang yu, if victorious over Liu Bang at Kai-hsia, had
prevented the cultural unity which has remained in China ever since. He
seemed to be interested in creating seperate kingdoms during his rise.

What if Belisarius had not suppressed the Nika Riots in
Constantinople in 532? Would Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis,
the foundation of law practised in most of Continenatl Europe today, been
published?

What if the Luftwaffe had not abandoned the onslaught of the RAF
airfields in September 1940? To no consolation to the poor citizens of
London and Coventry, Hitler's unleashing the fury of his air force
upon England's cities allowed for the RAF to regroup, who seemed at the
end of its capacity to endure.
Hitler could have captured both the Caucasus oilfields and
Stalingrad in the summer of 1942, just not at the same time.

There are so many others, such as Zama, Magnesia, Carrhae, Teutoberger
Wald, Lechfeld, Tenochtitlan, Sekigahara, Waterloo, Sedan, the Brusilov
Offensive, and the Tet Offensive (from a political standpoint).

How about smaller battles, but of huge consequence, such as
Mohammed's victory at Badr in 624? Or the numerous times
Constantinople was the juncture of conflicting empires? Vienna in 1529?

Thanks, Spartan JKM

Edited by Spartan

umm no its not, the code systems of Europe are based on Roman law but English Coomon is not.

Persian army always was in a bad state. Persians sometimes employed Greek mercenary forces because in Alexanders time Macedonian and Greek army were much better.

Not only the quality of the Persian army was not good. The Persian army was a bit old-fashioned, they had chariots and light cavalry, but they didn't have enough heavy infantry and heavy cavalry.

The Persian army had the numbers but not quality.Proof?The result.They were defeated.