Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Gavriel
Pretorian
Joined: 17-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151
|
Quote Reply
Topic: What was the worlds most important battle Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 10:02 |
York was founded by Roman veterans,it was only later occupied by the Danes.But i agree Stamford bridge is an important battle (not sure it made much difference to the World though).Harald Godwinsons men marched an amazing 180 miles in 4 days!(45miles a day,beat that Rome!) and still beat Hardrada's fresh men.
And then having to march all the way back to Hastings to fight that Dog William the Conqueror.He very nearly won the battle of Hastings too but thats a different thread.
|
|
cebeci
Samurai
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 16:21 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
Originally posted by cebeci
Originally posted by Ikki
The empire was saved |
saved and?
|
Do you see no relevance in the Arabs not overcoming the only obstacle to them overrunning the Balkans and beyond? Byzantine victory prevented a dramatic change in history, took about 800 years until the empire was finally destroyed and the Turks established themselves in Europe, proper. Had the Arabs achieved what the Ottomans did all those centuries earlier theres no reason to assume the Arabs would of stopped at the Balkans, but just kept on going westward.
|
if your and Ikki's arguments are valid then why not counting battle of poitiers (spelling may be incorrect) BW arabs and franks, which should be much more important than the two sieges just because of potential inevitable advance of arabs against weak mid-western european states rather than byzantines which was far more powerful than them?
|
history is just a repetation of itself
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 18:30 |
Originally posted by cebeci
Originally posted by Heraclius
Originally posted by cebeci
Originally posted by Ikki
The empire was saved |
saved and?
|
Do you see no relevance in the Arabs not overcoming the only obstacle to them overrunning the Balkans and beyond? Byzantine victory prevented a dramatic change in history, took about 800 years until the empire was finally destroyed and the Turks established themselves in Europe, proper. Had the Arabs achieved what the Ottomans did all those centuries earlier theres no reason to assume the Arabs would of stopped at the Balkans, but just kept on going westward.
|
if your and Ikki's arguments are valid then why not counting battle of poitiers (spelling may be incorrect) BW arabs and franks, which should be much more important than the two sieges just because of potential inevitable advance of arabs against weak mid-western european states rather than byzantines which was far more powerful than them?
|
Because Poiters is overrated. France easily had the manpower to defeat an invasion larger than that, infact the Muslim forces at Poiters were little better than a scout/raiding force. Invading Europe via Spain was just too much of a strain on the Muslim's line of supply and communications. You cannot seriously compare the Muslim force besieging Constantinople in 717 (over 80,000 ground troops outside the city, plus marines and rowers for 1,400 ships blockading at sea) to a small scout force.
The Muslim attacks on Byzantium were attacks on their nextdoor neighbour, they could throw their main military force against Byzantium. because they could not defeat Byzantium, the main invasion route to Europe via the south was closed. Tens of thousands of troops who could have marched into Europe and converted it at swordpoint were detained in the East fighting a Byzantine Empire which proved itself especially adaptable and stubborn. By the time Byzantium was defeated, Western Europe was made up of strong nation states rather than weak and divided feudal warlords.
|
|
Otho
Immortal Guard
Joined: 08-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2006 at 05:38 |
Originally posted by Gavriel
York was founded by Roman veterans,it was only later
occupied by the Danes.But i agree Stamford bridge is an important
battle (not sure it made much difference to the World though).Harald
Godwinsons men marched an amazing 180 miles in 4 days!(45miles a
day,beat that Rome!) and still beat Hardrada's fresh men.
And
then having to march all the way back to Hastings to fight that Dog
William the Conqueror.He very nearly won the battle of Hastings too but
thats a different thread.
|
I had no idea York was founded by Romans--knew they left ruins there
but had always heard it was the Norse that created York. Cheers
for that.
Like I said, it's clearly not the most important battle, but Stamford bridge to me is the most surprising one.
|
Ignis aurum probat, miseria fortes viros
Qualis artifex pereo
|
|
Decebal
Arch Duke
Digital Prometheus
Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2006 at 16:09 |
People, we've had this discussion before.....
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=76&P N=4
Anyway, here are my top battles:
Gaugamela (323BC) - Alexander's victory meant the collapse of the Persian Empire and the spread of Hellenistic civilization in Asia.
Yarmuk (636)- Byzantine defeat resulting in the first great wave of Muslim conquests
Manzikert 1071 -lost Anatolia for the Byzantines and opened the door for the Turks to dominate the Near East and parts of Europe
Plessy (1757) - ensured British domination of India; This enabled Britain to become the most powerful country in the world for the next 2 centuries
Waterloo 1815 - defeat of Napoleon changed fate of Europe and the world
Stalingrad 1943 - see above only replace Napoleon with Hitler
Tenochtitlan 1521 - allowed Spain to conquer Mexico; this combined with Cajamarca and the conquest of Peru (1534) eventually raised Europe from the status of backwater to the preeminent region in the world for the next 4 and half centuries
Edited by Decebal
|
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2006 at 17:29 |
Originally posted by cebeci
Originally posted by Heraclius
Originally posted by cebeci
Originally posted by Ikki
The empire was saved |
saved and?
|
Do you see no relevance in the Arabs not overcoming the only obstacle to them overrunning the Balkans and beyond? Byzantine victory prevented a dramatic change in history, took about 800 years until the empire was finally destroyed and the Turks established themselves in Europe, proper. Had the Arabs achieved what the Ottomans did all those centuries earlier theres no reason to assume the Arabs would of stopped at the Balkans, but just kept on going westward.
|
if your and Ikki's arguments are valid then why not counting battle of poitiers (spelling may be incorrect) BW arabs and franks, which should be much more important than the two sieges just because of potential inevitable advance of arabs against weak mid-western european states rather than byzantines which was far more powerful than them?
|
If your correct in saying "weak mid-western european states" then you show the importance of the sieges of Constantinople, had the Arabs been given easy access to Europe they could of steamrolled these weaker nations. Instead as Constantine XI pointed out they had to go to the other end of the continent just to get a foothold in Europe, stretching their resources to an effective limit.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Voyager
Pretorian
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Feb-2006 at 17:40 |
The most important battle in history was the first fought between those monkeys who call themselves humans in the night of prehistory. It set the standard for future battles.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 03:32 |
My picks:
1. Battle of Stalingrad: Remember Soviets lost 23 million lives to
protect mother Russia. This was the major defeat of WW2. Much greater
than D-Day as this turned the tide of the war. USSR had thier national
parade at Moscow and the troops after the parade marched straight to
Stalingrad.....amazing battle.
2. Battle of Yarmuk: This sealed fate of syria and it catipluated into muslim hands under Khalid bin Walid
3. Battle of Badr: Small it may be but it made sure nascent Islam survived.
4. First Battle of Panipat: took place in northern place in India and marked the start of Mughal rule.
5. Battle of Poitiers: Charles Marltel defeted the Muslims and stopped further advance of muslims into Europe.
Edited by hexed
|
|
Abyssmal Fiend
Shogun
Joined: 18-Aug-2004
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 233
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 00:19 |
One battle that shaped the world? Hmm... The Siege of Peking by the British and French around 1860. They torched the Emperor's Summer Palace and that marked the beginning of absolute western domination over China and the East, convinced Japan to isolate itself, and turned the Colonial Powers away from Africa... For the time being.
|
Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
|
|
Asparuh
Immortal Guard
Joined: 30-Jan-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Feb-2006 at 09:45 |
I fullly agree with hexed!
|
|
mamikon
Sultan
Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Feb-2006 at 15:22 |
What about the Battle of Leipzbig?
|
|
Mameluke
Janissary
Joined: 15-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Feb-2006 at 17:09 |
I cannot believe how many people mentioned Stalingrad in this thread. Only one German army was destroyed and the Wehrmacht still had formidable kicking power after that battle. Note Mannstein's brilliant victory at Kharkov and how long it took to push the Germans out after Stalingrad. Actually Kursk was the major turning point in the Eastern Front. Germany's Panzerwaffe was practically gutted in that monster of a battle. Hitler's army never really recovered from that one. That is why it is known as "the Death ride of the Panzers"
All the best, Mameluke
|
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war
|
|
armenica
Knight
Joined: 06-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 93
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 02:16 |
I would go with the battle at Manizkert, Armenia, in 1071 where Alp Arsalan defeated Romanus IV
Diogenes: the beginning to the end of the Byzantine Empire and the
subsequent move of the European-Asian border 1500km eastward, from
Caucasus to the Bosporus.
|
|
azimuth
Caliph
SlaYer'S SlaYer
Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 02:38 |
Originally posted by Heraclius
Originally posted by cebeci
Originally posted by Heraclius
Originally posted by cebeci
Originally posted by Ikki
The empire was saved |
saved and?
|
Do you see no relevance in the Arabs not overcoming the only obstacle to them overrunning the Balkans and beyond? Byzantine victory prevented a dramatic change in history, took about 800 years until the empire was finally destroyed and the Turks established themselves in Europe, proper. Had the Arabs achieved what the Ottomans did all those centuries earlier theres no reason to assume the Arabs would of stopped at the Balkans, but just kept on going westward.
|
if your and Ikki's arguments are valid then why not counting battle of poitiers (spelling may be incorrect) BW arabs and franks, which should be much more important than the two sieges just because of potential inevitable advance of arabs against weak mid-western european states rather than byzantines which was far more powerful than them?
|
If your correct in saying "weak mid-western european states" then you show the importance of the sieges of Constantinople, had the Arabs been given easy access to Europe they could of steamrolled these weaker nations. Instead as Constantine XI pointed out they had to go to the other end of the continent just to get a foothold in Europe, stretching their resources to an effective limit.
|
about connstantinople, afaik arabs had the chance to invade it but they didnt and setteled for a peacefull agreement that the queen to pay an amount of gold each year for this treaty.
this was somewhere in the 800s AD.
i guess the Abbasid Caliphate didnt plan to keep invading more lands as the Umayyad did.
if Umayyad stayed in power they might tried invading europe more without treaties.
|
|
|
demon
Chieftain
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 03:11 |
The on going war against gravity!
Just kidding. I would say the battle of Tours, because Western Civilization would have been Islamified if the battle was to be lost, and all would have followed.
|
Grrr..
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 11:18 |
In my opinon the most important battle in World History was the Battle Of Britain, if the British hadnt have pulled of that victory who knows what would have happened to Europe.
The Nazis would have an absolute strangle hold on the continent.
Edited by cpalace82
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 04:09 |
Mantzikert, undoubtedly (in my opinion). The Byzantine defeat, a result of treachery, deceit, and plain poor generaling by Romanus Diogenes resulted in a catastrophe that enabled the Turks to establish control over most of Anatolia, thus destroying what was left of the thematic system. Had Manuel Comnenus not decided to delay in dealing with the Turks, however, most of the damage may have been repaired--but he did, oh those lucky Turks . Still, my answer is Mantzikert.
-Akolouthos
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 04:48 |
think Midway is really important. Americans beat the stronger japs. and they got the advantage in pacific.
|
|
avar
Immortal Guard
Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 12:34 |
yes, lucky turks but luck loves strongs
Originally posted by Akolouthos
Mantzikert, undoubtedly (in my opinion). The Byzantine defeat, a result of treachery, deceit, and plain poor generaling by Romanus Diogenes resulted in a catastrophe that enabled the Turks to establish control over most of Anatolia, thus destroying what was left of the thematic system. Had Manuel Comnenus not decided to delay in dealing with the Turks, however, most of the damage may have been repaired--but he did, oh those lucky Turks . Still, my answer is Mantzikert.
-Akolouthos |
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 14:34 |
I fully agree with Mameluke Stalingrad is not as important as Kursk
1kursk,2.battle of britain,3.stalingrad.///ps dday is probaly 10 lol
|
|