What was the worlds most important battle

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. 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.

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. 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.

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

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.

I think Gallipoli would fit the definition for Turkey not the world...

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

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.

Sorry for the previous post....

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, that�s 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.