Most influential battles in World History (1 Viewer)

[Bull Dozier]

Thermopyle (sp)

 

[Porkchop Express]

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest essentially stopped Roman expansion.

The Siege of Barad-Dur destroyed Sauron's physical form and ended the Last Alliance.

There is some discussion on this. There are some historians that point out the Romans exacted revenge for what happened and the the Rhine makes a natural demarcation. Further IIRC weren't the kings in the area Roman appointees after the Romans kicked the Germans butt over and over again?

There is not doubt the Romans still kicked butt and had much influence but their plans to settle the areas and turn them into provinces never came to fruition. It did create the Rhine as a boundary and saved northern Germany and Scandinavia (the same people who would later take over Britain and keep the old Teutonic common laws) from Roman influence. For a civilization that was dependent on constant expansion and colonization this was a huge impact.

 

[kentric]

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest essentially stopped Roman expansion.

The Siege of Barad-Dur destroyed Sauron's physical form and ended the Last Alliance.

There is some discussion on this. There are some historians that point out the Romans exacted revenge for what happened and the the Rhine makes a natural demarcation. Further IIRC weren't the kings in the area Roman appointees after the Romans kicked the Germans butt over and over again?

There is not doubt the Romans still kicked butt and had much influence but their plans to settle the areas and turn them into provinces never came to fruition. It did create the Rhine as a boundary and saved northern Germany and Scandinavia (the same people who would later take over Britain and keep the old Teutonic common laws) from Roman influence. For a civilization that was dependent on constant expansion and colonization this was a huge impact.

While we're on the Romans, I think the battle of Alesia (mentioned previously) may be more important as it was a major contributor to giving power to Julius Caesar and altered the Roman way of government.

 

[Quint]

Battle of Hastings - 1066

we're not speaking/writing/reading English (as we know it) without a Norman victory.

 

[Eephus]

Battle of Hastings - 1066

we're not speaking/writing/reading English (as we know it) without a Norman victory.

Boomer Esiason's nickname would be Sax

 

[timschochet]

The Seige of Malta. Stopped Islam in its tracks.

 

[timschochet]

Also- the Miracle of the Marne in 1914 turned WWI into a stalemate- otherwise the Germans win quickly.

 

[Mad Cow]

Battle of the sexes.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The Seige of Malta. Stopped Islam in its tracks.

If you saw my post above, it could have been stopped before it even started.

 

[Thunderlips]

Also- the Miracle of the Marne in 1914 turned WWI into a stalemate- otherwise the Germans win quickly.

That might not have been a bad thing.

 

[Insein]

Thermopyle (sp)

I often wonder how much of it is true and what has been turned into propaganda over the generations. 300 vs legions seems like quite an exaggeration.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also- the Miracle of the Marne in 1914 turned WWI into a stalemate- otherwise the Germans win quickly.

That might not have been a bad thing.

Hell of a statement, but yeah, interesting - would have spared a lot of blood, prevented the communists from coming to power in Russia, and maybe prevented the nazis from coming to power as well. By consequence, we may have seen the Ottomans hang on and the rise of terrorism never take place. Maybe no Pol Pot, no Ma Tse Tung, no North Korea and the Kims, no Vietnam War.

Possibly the most important battle of the 20th century, and maybe of the 21st so far as well; and the "good" guys winning might have meant the rise of some of the most evil regimes the world has ever known.

 

[Eephus]

Also- the Miracle of the Marne in 1914 turned WWI into a stalemate- otherwise the Germans win quickly.

That might not have been a bad thing.

Hell of a statement, but yeah, interesting - would have spared a lot of blood, prevented the communists from coming to power in Russia, and maybe prevented the nazis from coming to power as well. By consequence, we may have seen the Ottomans hang on and the rise of terrorism never take place. Maybe no Pol Pot, no Ma Tse Tung, no North Korea and the Kims, no Vietnam War.

Possibly the most important battle of the 20th century, and maybe of the 21st so far as well; and the "good" guys winning might have meant the rise of some of the most evil regimes the world has ever known.

That chain of causation gets pretty tenuous quickly. Your scenario is pretty much a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War. It led to political changes in both countries but not full annexation of France. Some overseas colonies would have changed hands and reparations paide but that's probably about it. The Germans would still have to execute Phase II of the Schlieffen Plan to deal with Russia. The War in the East would still probably have been enough to topple the Romanovs, Hapsburgs and Ottomans.

Britain's war would be finished with them relatively unscathed with some showdown with Germany deferred to the future. The Kaiser would have hung around for a while longer but monarchies were already anachronisms by 1914.

An argument could be made that Ludendorff's defeat of the Russians at Tannenberg in Aug 1914 was as pivotal as the Marne. If the Russians had won, they would have threatened East Prussia. Germany would have had to withdraw more troops from the west, weakening their position on both fronts. The Russians would have probably screwed up somewhere else on the road to Berlin though.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also- the Miracle of the Marne in 1914 turned WWI into a stalemate- otherwise the Germans win quickly.

That might not have been a bad thing.

Hell of a statement, but yeah, interesting - would have spared a lot of blood, prevented the communists from coming to power in Russia, and maybe prevented the nazis from coming to power as well. By consequence, we may have seen the Ottomans hang on and the rise of terrorism never take place. Maybe no Pol Pot, no Ma Tse Tung, no North Korea and the Kims, no Vietnam War.

Possibly the most important battle of the 20th century, and maybe of the 21st so far as well; and the "good" guys winning might have meant the rise of some of the most evil regimes the world has ever known.

That chain of causation gets pretty tenuous quickly. Your scenario is pretty much a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War. It led to political changes in both countries but not full annexation of France. Some overseas colonies would have changed hands and reparations paide but that's probably about it. The Germans would still have to execute Phase II of the Schlieffen Plan to deal with Russia. The War in the East would still probably have been enough to topple the Romanovs, Hapsburgs and Ottomans.

Britain's war would be finished with them relatively unscathed with some showdown with Germany deferred to the future. The Kaiser would have hung around for a while longer but monarchies were already anachronisms by 1914.

An argument could be made that Ludendorff's defeat of the Russians at Tannenberg in Aug 1914 was as pivotal as the Marne. If the Russians had won, they would have threatened East Prussia. Germany would have had to withdraw more troops from the west, weakening their position on both fronts. The Russians would have probably screwed up somewhere else on the road to Berlin though.

Yeah I'm going to admit to wishful thinking there.

So sad all the harm that flowed out out of WW1, I do think we're still dealing with the consequences though.

There are a lot of what-ifs - Wilhelm cancelled the old strategic partnership with Russia before WW1, that's one which led to the partnership between France and Russia and ultimately England. There was the murder of Franz Josef and his wife, that was no sure thing; apparently they escaped the assassination attempt earlier, and it was only when they ventured back out to see the wounded that they got caught by sheer bad luck by a nationalist.

Wilhelm, Victoria and Nicholas were all cousins, at a minimum you'd think they would travel directly to talk sense into Wilhelm and call the whole thing off. Stupid idiots.

 

[DiStefano]

Hannibals campaign in italy and spartacuses slave rebellion were significant

Hannibal merely postponed the inevitable. Spartacus was insignificant, in the end.

 

[dparker713]

Thermopyle (sp)

I often wonder how much of it is true and what has been turned into propaganda over the generations. 300 vs legions seems like quite an exaggeration.

The Greeks were also greatly outnumbered at the concurrent naval battle of Artemisium. Numbers from those days are bound to be unreliable, but its fairly certain that there was a huge numbers disparity between the two sides.

 

[DiStefano]

The Battle of Lepanto also stopped the expansion of the Ottomans.

Waterloo was significant because it heralded almost 100 years of Pax Brittanica.

But to my mind, Hastings was the most important battle for the English speaking world. It brought England fully into Europe, decisively changed the language, customs and culture of Britain, and eventually led to the rise of Britain in world history.

 

[DiStefano]

I might also mention the battle of Yuan, in which the Japanese stopped the second attempt by Kublai Khan to invade Japan with a force of 140,000; which was aided by a typhoon which destroyed most of the invading force. They never tried again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I might also mention the battle of Yuan, in which the Japanese stopped the second attempt by Kublai Khan to invade Japan with a force of 140,000; which was aided by a typhoon which destroyed most of the invading force. They never tried again.

True, a lot of this is going down as most influential battles in western history.

 

[Thunderlips]

I might also mention the battle of Yuan, in which the Japanese stopped the second attempt by Kublai Khan to invade Japan with a force of 140,000; which was aided by a typhoon which destroyed most of the invading force. They never tried again.

You sure?....I thought Kublai's sister Chaka tried something?

 

[dparker713]

I might also mention the battle of Yuan, in which the Japanese stopped the second attempt by Kublai Khan to invade Japan with a force of 140,000; which was aided by a typhoon which destroyed most of the invading force. They never tried again.

True, a lot of this is going down as most influential battles in western history.

Seeing as the west has won to this point, of course it is.

 

[Ursa M]

Stalingrad is a pretty fascinating battle.

IMO, the most fascinating of them all. An encirclement attempt leaving the would be encirclers encircled. Utterly brutal no prisoners taken on either side until Von Paulus surrendered the 6th Army. Germany lost a mind boggling 600,000 men killed or captured and still managed to fight on two and a half more years.

 

[Ursa M]

Kursk might have been significant had the Germans won in 1943 but by that time they probably lacked the ability to turn the Russians back even if they'd won.

 

[Ursa M]

The Battle of Trafalgar victory in 1805 over France and Spain combined left Britain in undisputed control of the seas

 

[Andrew74]

Battle of the Teutoburg Forest essentially stopped Roman expansion.

The Siege of Barad-Dur destroyed Sauron's physical form and ended the Last Alliance.

There is some discussion on this. There are some historians that point out the Romans exacted revenge for what happened and the the Rhine makes a natural demarcation. Further IIRC weren't the kings in the area Roman appointees after the Romans kicked the Germans butt over and over again?

There is not doubt the Romans still kicked butt and had much influence but their plans to settle the areas and turn them into provinces never came to fruition. It did create the Rhine as a boundary and saved northern Germany and Scandinavia (the same people who would later take over Britain and keep the old Teutonic common laws) from Roman influence. For a civilization that was dependent on constant expansion and colonization this was a huge impact.

Wasn't Teutoburg what cause Augustus to decide to stop expanding the empire? And that was adhered to basically by all the emperors, save Trajan? I'd say that's pretty big.

 

[timschochet]

Wanted to throw in Iyeyasu's victory at Seikagawa. Not as important as some of the others but it did turn Japan into a nation.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Yavin

 

[DiStefano]

Stalingrad is a pretty fascinating battle.

IMO, the most fascinating of them all. An encirclement attempt leaving the would be encirclers encircled. Utterly brutal no prisoners taken on either side until Von Paulus surrendered the 6th Army. Germany lost a mind boggling 600,000 men killed or captured and still managed to fight on two and a half more years.

True, but so was Alesia. Only in this case Caesar's legions deliberately encircled themselves to have protection against the relief force coming, and were able to force the surrender of Vercingetorix and the Celtic tribes. His most brilliant victory, in my estimation.

 

[dparker713]

Yavin

It did say world history, not the history of the Republic/Empire.

 

[joffer]

I might also mention the battle of Yuan, in which the Japanese stopped the second attempt by Kublai Khan to invade Japan with a force of 140,000; which was aided by a typhoon which destroyed most of the invading force. They never tried again.

True, a lot of this is going down as most influential battles in western history.

that's what I'm looking for

 

[Ursa M]

As far as non-western battles go, Huai-Hai, the battle that ended the Chinese Civil War, is certainly extremely influential in shaping the future.

 

[Apple Jack]

 

[T Bell]

Also- the Miracle of the Marne in 1914 turned WWI into a stalemate- otherwise the Germans win quickly.

That might not have been a bad thing.

We're almost at the 100-year anniversary.

 

[T Bell]

Kursk might have been significant had the Germans won in 1943 but by that time they probably lacked the ability to turn the Russians back even if they'd won.

A victory around Kursk in 1943 would have bought the Germans time, but nothing more. The Russians still had a massive amount of additional manpower to throw at Germany even if the German strategic encirclement had happened. As it happened, it merely brought about the end sooner for Germany.

 

[T Bell]

Also- the Miracle of the Marne in 1914 turned WWI into a stalemate- otherwise the Germans win quickly.

That might not have been a bad thing.

Hell of a statement, but yeah, interesting - would have spared a lot of blood, prevented the communists from coming to power in Russia, and maybe prevented the nazis from coming to power as well. By consequence, we may have seen the Ottomans hang on and the rise of terrorism never take place. Maybe no Pol Pot, no Ma Tse Tung, no North Korea and the Kims, no Vietnam War.

Possibly the most important battle of the 20th century, and maybe of the 21st so far as well; and the "good" guys winning might have meant the rise of some of the most evil regimes the world has ever known.

That chain of causation gets pretty tenuous quickly. Your scenario is pretty much a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War. It led to political changes in both countries but not full annexation of France. Some overseas colonies would have changed hands and reparations paide but that's probably about it. The Germans would still have to execute Phase II of the Schlieffen Plan to deal with Russia. The War in the East would still probably have been enough to topple the Romanovs, Hapsburgs and Ottomans.

Britain's war would be finished with them relatively unscathed with some showdown with Germany deferred to the future. The Kaiser would have hung around for a while longer but monarchies were already anachronisms by 1914.

An argument could be made that Ludendorff's defeat of the Russians at Tannenberg in Aug 1914 was as pivotal as the Marne. If the Russians had won, they would have threatened East Prussia. Germany would have had to withdraw more troops from the west, weakening their position on both fronts. The Russians would have probably screwed up somewhere else on the road to Berlin though.

Yeah I'm going to admit to wishful thinking there.

So sad all the harm that flowed out out of WW1, I do think we're still dealing with the consequences though.

There are a lot of what-ifs - Wilhelm cancelled the old strategic partnership with Russia before WW1, that's one which led to the partnership between France and Russia and ultimately England. There was the murder of Franz Josef and his wife, that was no sure thing; apparently they escaped the assassination attempt earlier, and it was only when they ventured back out to see the wounded that they got caught by sheer bad luck by a nationalist.

Wilhelm, Victoria and Nicholas were all cousins, at a minimum you'd think they would travel directly to talk sense into Wilhelm and call the whole thing off. Stupid idiots.

You guys are looking to singular events as if they caused the enormous dynamics behind the 20th Century's wars. There would have ultimately been a revolution in Russia even without defeat in WWI. There would ultimately have been a conflict in Central Europe between ultra-nationalism and communism, and between democracy and autocracy, imperialism and detante, regardless of the outcome of WWI. That war, huge as it was, merely changed the when, where, how and who of all of that, but not that it happened at all.

 

[thecatch]

This website names Yorktown as the most influential battle in history.

I wholeheartedly support that selection.

In unrelated news, I drafted Yorktown 1.03 in the Military Battle Draft. (Can't believe that was almost 9 years ago...I've been on this website for too long).

 

[Ursa M]

Kursk might have been significant had the Germans won in 1943 but by that time they probably lacked the ability to turn the Russians back even if they'd won.

A victory around Kursk in 1943 would have bought the Germans time, but nothing more. The Russians still had a massive amount of additional manpower to throw at Germany even if the German strategic encirclement had happened. As it happened, it merely brought about the end sooner for Germany.

Guderian was opposed to the whole idea, stating that no-one would care about whether the Germans took Kursk or not. He considered it a colossal waste of men and materials because the Russians were totally prepared for the battle and, of course, he was right.

 

[Ilov80s]

I'd include Stalingrad in there. Also another French/English war in Agincourt.

Agincourt still may be the greatest British victory due to the seemingly certain defeat they faced against overwhelming French numbers. It was important for showing what the longbow was capable of. In the course of history though, it's not that significant. Many of the victories of Henry V were undone not long after his death.ETA I would rank the Siege of Orleans ahead of it. Agincourt was about conquest. If Joan of Arc isn't victorious, the French may lost all independence and been oppressed like the Irish or Scots.

 

[timschochet]

Wanted to give an honorable mention to Dien Bien Phu- probably the key battle of the second half of the 20th century.

 

[T Bell]

Kursk might have been significant had the Germans won in 1943 but by that time they probably lacked the ability to turn the Russians back even if they'd won.

A victory around Kursk in 1943 would have bought the Germans time, but nothing more. The Russians still had a massive amount of additional manpower to throw at Germany even if the German strategic encirclement had happened. As it happened, it merely brought about the end sooner for Germany.

Guderian was opposed to the whole idea, stating that no-one would care about whether the Germans took Kursk or not. He considered it a colossal waste of men and materials because the Russians were totally prepared for the battle and, of course, he was right.

The point of the exercise wasn't Kursk itself but pinching off the large Soviet salient that had formed around it.

Manstein wanted to attack it when it first formed around March or so, while the Germans still had the initiative, albeit with some tired armies. Hitler instead kept pushing back the date to allow greater numbers of the brand new (and little tested) Tiger and Panther tank to be delivered, and he overrode Manstein.

This was a double debacle as it both allowed the Russians to massively reinforce and fortify the salient, and it also made the Germans heavily reliant upon tanks that were not yet reliable in the field and which as a consequence suffered massive breakdowns. I believe, in what was for a long time to have given rise to the largest tank battle in history, about as many of those new tanks were lost to mechanical failure as to actual battle damage.

And all of that for a temporary advantage.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Also- the Miracle of the Marne in 1914 turned WWI into a stalemate- otherwise the Germans win quickly.

That might not have been a bad thing.

Hell of a statement, but yeah, interesting - would have spared a lot of blood, prevented the communists from coming to power in Russia, and maybe prevented the nazis from coming to power as well. By consequence, we may have seen the Ottomans hang on and the rise of terrorism never take place. Maybe no Pol Pot, no Ma Tse Tung, no North Korea and the Kims, no Vietnam War.

Possibly the most important battle of the 20th century, and maybe of the 21st so far as well; and the "good" guys winning might have meant the rise of some of the most evil regimes the world has ever known.

That chain of causation gets pretty tenuous quickly. Your scenario is pretty much a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War. It led to political changes in both countries but not full annexation of France. Some overseas colonies would have changed hands and reparations paide but that's probably about it. The Germans would still have to execute Phase II of the Schlieffen Plan to deal with Russia. The War in the East would still probably have been enough to topple the Romanovs, Hapsburgs and Ottomans.

Britain's war would be finished with them relatively unscathed with some showdown with Germany deferred to the future. The Kaiser would have hung around for a while longer but monarchies were already anachronisms by 1914.

An argument could be made that Ludendorff's defeat of the Russians at Tannenberg in Aug 1914 was as pivotal as the Marne. If the Russians had won, they would have threatened East Prussia. Germany would have had to withdraw more troops from the west, weakening their position on both fronts. The Russians would have probably screwed up somewhere else on the road to Berlin though.

Yeah I'm going to admit to wishful thinking there.

So sad all the harm that flowed out out of WW1, I do think we're still dealing with the consequences though.

There are a lot of what-ifs - Wilhelm cancelled the old strategic partnership with Russia before WW1, that's one which led to the partnership between France and Russia and ultimately England. There was the murder of Franz Josef and his wife, that was no sure thing; apparently they escaped the assassination attempt earlier, and it was only when they ventured back out to see the wounded that they got caught by sheer bad luck by a nationalist.

Wilhelm, Victoria and Nicholas were all cousins, at a minimum you'd think they would travel directly to talk sense into Wilhelm and call the whole thing off. Stupid idiots.

You guys are looking to singular events as if they caused the enormous dynamics behind the 20th Century's wars. There would have ultimately been a revolution in Russia even without defeat in WWI. There would ultimately have been a conflict in Central Europe between ultra-nationalism and communism, and between democracy and autocracy, imperialism and detante, regardless of the outcome of WWI. That war, huge as it was, merely changed the when, where, how and who of all of that, but not that it happened at all.

In Russia, there may have been a revolution, but it would likely not have been a bolshevik communist revolution. The Germans sent Lenin back to St. Petersburg just at a particular moment under particular circumstances that led to the the rise of the USSR, Stalin and all that. The war warped everything in Russia. Before the war, the economy was growing and reforms were taking hold. The Romanovs would have been railroaded out of the way eventually but we may have seen a social democratic group like the Kadets basically take over, this would have been the normal course of things.

In Germany, the Nazis barely got to take the parliament as it was; without WW1 (or with it ending shortly and successfully) it's very likely their economy does not fall into utter and completely unrecoverable debt, there is no nationalistic resentment for the way the war ended, etc., etc., the conditions would not have been there for the Nazis. Heck if not for WW1, Hitler does not get gassed, he doesn't end up a penniless war veteran (maybe he ends up like his dad, an officious bureaucrat who liked to wear uniforms and abuse citizens), he doesn't end up in broke, racist Vienna where he learned all his nasty tricks (or maybe he does land in Vienna but old imperial Vienna and he becomes a crappy street artist), he doesn't end up in Munich spying on former veterans groups and one particular extremist group which was lopping together themes from socialism and nationalism (and maybe that group never forms in the first place, because it was feeding off the effects of the war), etc., etc.

Even the Depression might have been different if the wealth and energies of the great powers had not been so badly depleted by the war. Maybe they would have been there to balance us out when we went under instead of our dragging them down even further.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wanted to give an honorable mention to Dien Bien Phu- probably the key battle of the second half of the 20th century.

Which one? The first or the second?

 

[timschochet]

Wanted to give an honorable mention to Dien Bien Phu- probably the key battle of the second half of the 20th century.

Which one? The first or the second?

Not sure. Which one was the early 50s?

 

[jamny]

The Battle of Yonkers

 

[Mad Cow]

The Battle of Yonkers

I would counter and say the Battle of Hope was far more influential, proving the tactics to be utilized with the SIR.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wanted to give an honorable mention to Dien Bien Phu- probably the key battle of the second half of the 20th century.

Which one? The first or the second?

Not sure. Which one was the early 50s?

That was the first one; there was another in 1968 which gets lumped in with the Tet Offensive, which is where I thought you were going.

 

[jamny]

The Battle of Yonkers

I would counter and say the Battle of Hope was far more influential, proving the tactics to be utilized with the SIR.

True, but the lessons learned at Yonkers made Hope possible.

 

[timschochet]

Wanted to give an honorable mention to Dien Bien Phu- probably the key battle of the second half of the 20th century.

Which one? The first or the second?

Not sure. Which one was the early 50s?

That was the first one; there was another in 1968 which gets lumped in with the Tet Offensive, which is where I thought you were going.

No- definitely the first one then.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wanted to give an honorable mention to Dien Bien Phu- probably the key battle of the second half of the 20th century.

Which one? The first or the second?

Not sure. Which one was the early 50s?

That was the first one; there was another in 1968 which gets lumped in with the Tet Offensive, which is where I thought you were going.

No- definitely the first one then.

Ho Chi Minh was an interesting guy, I think he actually worked as a pastry chef or something similar at the Waldorf in NYC, and other hotels.

I wonder sometimes, what if he had just gotten a promotion?

 

[Mad Cow]

The Battle of Yonkers

I would counter and say the Battle of Hope was far more influential, proving the tactics to be utilized with the SIR.

True, but the lessons learned at Yonkers made Hope possible.

Yonkers was a bloodbath in the wrong direction. Hope turned the tide for good, thus INFLUENTIAL.