The battles that changed history

This is tough; no battle in recorded history is 'trivial', but the specific
question is, what would have happened if the
result of a battle was reversed?

If the Persians triumphed at Marathon, would Europe had become a vassal
of eastern kingdoms rather than states governed by its citizens?

If the Muslims won at Diu (India) in 1509, they would have had control of
the trade routes with the Far East. Instead, Francisco de Almeida
established Portuguese foothold, followed by the rest of the European
colonial powers, in the Far East. That was incredibly significant.

If Alexander had been stopped at Gaugamela, economic and
military power would not have been shifted to the West.

Saladin's great victory at Hattin in 1187 established Muslim
presence in the Near East, never, to this day, to be substantially
threatened.

What if the Saxons repelled William at Hastings?

If the able Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu held off Genghis Khan at
the Indus River?

What if Belisarius had not suppressed the Nika Riots in
Constantinople in 532? Would Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis
been published. That would be the foundation of law practiced in most of
continental Europe today.

Gosh, there are so many others, such as Zama, Carrhae, Tenochtitlan and
Waterloo.

I could list so many. Your thoughts, fellow posters?


Edited by Spartan

I have to agree. Going that far back in history, and the 'future ripple' it would send out, it has to be Marathon. If Athens had fallen, there would (probably) have been no further revolts, persian power would have been secured, and with no seperate greek civilisation would the mediterranian have been a Persian gateway to the rest of Europe?

For a more easily seen impact though, I would have to go for Britain (1940). Either a failure at Dunkirk or the "battle of britain" would quite probably have seen Hitler able to concentrate fully on Russia (with his rear secure). And seeing as he nearly defeated Russia even with the distraction of the second front and the vast amount of US lend-lease aid the russians received...well. You work it out! 

Yes.�f the ottomans had conquered vienna all balances would be altered in Europe.History wold have changed.

I guess if you go all the way to Marathon this is true, but who says if the Athenians were defeated, that the Spartans that were on the way couldn't just boot them out also, cause I believe they were on their way. Im just saying victory could be achieved. But, what if the Athenians won the Pelleponesian War? Then their couild be some differences in the world..

Originally posted by strategos I guess if you go all the way to Marathon this is true, but who says if the Athenians were defeated, that the Spartans that were on the way couldn't just boot them out also, cause I believe they were on their way. Im just saying victory could be achieved. But, what if the Athenians won the Pelleponesian War? Then their couild be some differences in the world..

Yes spartans might have won.if the Athenians won the peloponesian war not much wuold have changed.Because the rough and tough sparta softened like Athens after the war.not much would have changed.

You forgot Waterloo, and I vote for that one.

Great stuff, posters.

Tours was definitely a big one Master of Disaster. Another huge battle was Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212. Moorish power collapsed in Spain with
the victory of Alfonso VIII and Pedro II (I think a third leader was prominent here). The Muslims were not completely driven from Spain until Ferdinand and Isabella vanquished them from Grenada in 1491. The Spanish looked for new worlds to conquer. They found them across the Atlantic.

Salamis in 480 B.C. was probably as important as Marathon, but wouldn't have happened if not for Miltiades' victory, in which the Spartans were indeed tardy and missed the battle. Xerxes had to delay furthur ground attacks on Greece because of his defeat at Salamis, which gave the necessary time to be prepared.

No question though - Thermopylae, lauded greaty down the ages, was an historic stand. Leonidas' force, originally some 7,000 or so hoplites, didn't budge after 3 days. we all know the famous story; the traitor Ephialtes, looking to deepen his pockets, showed the Persians a flanking route through another pass. To give the main body of hoplites time to withdraw, the 300 died to the last man. Greece was given time to mobilize and crushed the Persians at Salamis and, a year later, at Plataea and Mycale. The persian threat ended, and Eurymedon in 466 B.C. put a stamp on that threat.

In 394 B.C., Agesilaus showed that hoplites could defeat Persian forces in Asia, but Persian money towards the Athenian and Theban cause amid the civil strife forced him back. Agesilaus could have been an influence upon Philip II of Macedon.

Lannes mentioned the Roman battles. I agree, and would add Veii in 396
B.C. Etruscan power ended and Rome would cast an increasingly longer
shadow from this time onwards.
In 390 B.C., the Gauls under Brennus, who had sacked Rome, where
soundly defeated after being lured into the countryside by Marcus Furius Camilus. He designed a new military system known as the legion.
The Battle of Populonia in 282 B.C.(?) ended Etruscan resistance for good.

Thanks, Spartan (JKM)   

Edited by Spartan

 Saratoga. Seems that few people here know about it, or underestimate it's importance.

The success at Normandy was indeed very instrumental to victory in WWII
for the Allies, but Germany in mid-1944 was not going to win, even if
they had repulsed the landings. Sure, things would have been delayed,
but the industrial might of the United States and Soviet Union was too
much.

I agree regarding Saratoga, dark_one; it was the turning point in the
American Revolution. It cemented American determination to win their
full freedom, and France, Spain and the Netherlands joined their cause.

I think Bunker Hill, however, might have been just as decisive from the
viewpoint that this moral victory gave the Americans confidence and
prevented the revolution from being stillborn. Once the colonists decided
they were going to fight all-out, Britain faced a hopeless situation (in
retrospect). The colonies were a land mass 1,000 miles wide and deep.
The population was growing fast with each decade, and they were largely
self-sufficient. There was not yet a vital center, though Philadelphia was, I
think, larger than any English speaking city than London in the world.
In short, it was too big to be conquered by any force available to any
administered empire at the time.

Another huge win was Manila Bay in 1898. George Dewey's victory
over Spanish established in the eyes of the rest of the world what should
have been realized after the American Civil War - the United States was a
great power.

Thanks, Spartan (JKM)

Edited by Spartan

I would say, with the battles listed, the Spanish Armada 1588 A.D. had the greatest impact.
It was a Holy War supported by the Pope to annilate the Prostestant movement in England, which was conidered a heresy by the Catholics.
I read a huge volume on it but darn If I can remember the historians name, he is very famous.

If they had succeeded it would have changed the course of history as we know it today.

Most of the battles listed would have made a huge difference in the course of history, especially the battle of Marathon but I vote for Spanish Armada.
Given the time to study the effects of each battle on the course of history I may change my mind.