Which battles were the most important battles in history?

>>2494006
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World

>inb4 Tours is important

>>2494012
>all Euro

I mean I know that Europe is the most important place in the world bar-none but still.

>>2494012
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World

Creasy has an incredible talent for picking important conflicts and then the memeist of meme tier battles. Why Marathon and not the actual battles that mattered in the Greco-Persian wars, like Salamis and Platea? Why Waterloo and not Leipzig, a far more important defeat for Napoelon's ambitions? Why the large raid of Tours if you want to pick something for the early Christian-Muslim wars, and not one of the huge sieges of Constantinople, or something like Lalakon, far bigger struggles between "Christendom" and the Umayyads? Why does he claim that Teutoberg forest "forever secured the independence of the Tuetonic Race", when Germanicus would in fact go on to trample all over them. Why does he claim that Metaurus was the defining moment of crisis between Rome and Carthage, and not something from the first Punic War? (Not to mention that even if Hannibal had gotten reinforcement, Rome was well recovered from battles like Cannae, which was almost a decade prior)

Creasy's book is shit. And if you think it's a guide stone to anything, you're severely ignorant.

File: 47a9e5a91fa8e0820bd92d5fc5810174.png (244KB, 314x870px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 314x870px

>>2494006

File: 1463806859184.jpg (33KB, 337x275px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 337x275px

>>2494012

>Battle of Waterloo

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusilov_Offensive
The Brusilov offensive. One of the most important battles of the Grea War and one of the bloodiest battles of all time.

I would say, for the past 2500 years:

490 BC: Marathon
333 BC: Issus
202 BC: Zama
52 BC: Alesia
31 BC: Actium
451: Châlons
732: Tours
1066: Hastings
1214: Bouvines
1258: Baghdad
1260: Ain Jalut
1356: Poitiers
1429: Orléans
1453: Constantinople
1643: Rocroi
1683: Vienna
1792: Valmy
1805: Austerlitz
1813: Leipzig
1870: Sedan
1918: Marne
1942: Stalingrad

>>2494049
>1918: Marne

More like 1914

>>2494041
>eastern front
'no'

>>2494052
No I mean the second battle of the Marne, the one that broke the German spring offensive and launched the counter-offensive that won the war.

Although the first one was important too but I didn't want to put more than one for the same war.

>>2494053
What do you mean by "no"?

>>2494049
Pretty good list desu.

>>2494031
>>2494035

Waterloo?

Brits loose Waterloo and Napoleon gets crushed 4 weeks later by a combined Russian-Austrian army.

>>2494049
Pretty much this.

>>2494060
It also introduced tank warfare.

>>2494006
Battle of the Marne is up there.

>>2494049
Too Eurocentric.

Koan, Yehulingand, and Mukden are much more worthy of a spot than shit like Poitiers.

>>2494206
Literally who?

Not trying to be a dick but there's a reason nobody ever heard of the ones you posted. Because what happened in East Asia barely affected anything outside of East Asia in any major way. We're also not going to start including whatever battles happened between Mayans and Aztecs, because they changed nothing to the way the world is today.

It's a Western world, time to make your peace with it.

im guessing someone has just read a bit of Creasy or Hanson?

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (92KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1920x1080px

>>2494035
RALLY ALL THE CLANS
ENGLISHMEN ADVANCE

>>2494219
how did Hastings affect anything outside of Europe in a major way?

>>2494219

You are wrong on so many levels.
For example, if the aztecs had never been the hegemon of mesoamerica, somebody else would, and they would have behaved very different towards the spanish, maybe postponing the conquest of Mexico some decades. Spain would have been changed by that, and then all of Europe.

>>2494049
>1813: Leipzig
supposedly it was the largest battle to point, must have been crazy

>>2494049
What happened at Rocroi? I recognize all but that one, during the thirty years war? otherwise i got nothing.

I thought the name for Napoleon's 1813 defeat was The Battle of Nations.

>not a single mention of lepanto

Son i am disappoint

>>2494006
Battle of Warsaw
Battle of Berlin
The Alamo
Saratoga

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gallabat

>mahdi is the prophesied leader of all islam
>invades ethiopia
>ethiopian emperor fights to death
>proto-isis casualties so severe they never actually recover

>>2494383

>The Alamo

lulz. The USA would have annexed Texas anyway during the wars with Mexico.

File: 1488859834192.png (100KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x281px

>Excerpt: ... the ancient Persian empire, which once subjugated all the nations of the earth, was defeated when Alexander had won his victory at Arbela.

>>2494408
>Mahdi's direct descendant winds up playing the best doctor of Star Trek
I'd say it was the best outcome.

>>2494006
Battle of Zama

Way too eurocentric in this thread.

And no,
>b-but I don't know about that battle!
isn't an argument

>>2494330
>What happened at Rocroi?
Spanish uncontested superiority in Europe becomes French uncontested superiority until 1815.

>>2494318
It made England what it is. Without Hastings, no Britain.

>>2494319
Spain would have just steamrolled whatever was there.

File: John_Churchill,_1st_Duke_of_Marlborough.png (423KB, 476x600px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 476x600px

>>2495363
>Europe becomes French uncontested superiority until 1815.
hmmmm

File: cmz.png (184KB, 320x667px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 320x667px

>>2495488
When you need a coalition of four great powers to almost win (and eventually lose it all in one battle), it means you're facing the uncontestably superior power
Superior means superior to any other powers, not necessqarily to all other powers combined (although it was the case there given what happened at Denain)

>>2495488
He is right, brits always were the shittiest infantry in Europe, even more in the XVI and XVII

>>2495507
But it was contested wasnt it?
Last time I looked France lost the 7 years war despite its "superiority"

>>2495509
True, but you can't deny that Malborough was a genius commander
Then again, the troops he commanded were mostly Germans and Dutch, had they been British, even his genius couldnt have granted him victory

>>2495514
Yeah, the 7 Years War is the one reason I'd disagree with "uncontested superiority until 1815"

Not because of the shitshow Brits pulled in America, the fact the French resisted for a whole decade there despite being outnumbered 4 to 1 proves how superior to Brits they were.
But in Europe, France couldnt do shit against lone Prussia despite being allied with Austria and Russia

So although it's true that most wars between Rocroi and 1815 saw the French dominate in Europe, the 7YW was an exception to that, as Prussia was clearly the superior country in that conflict (while France fared quite badly on the European theater)

>>2494031
Tours wasn't "just a raid", that was an invention of Arab Historians to justify the fact that Martel BTFO'd them and consigned them to below the Pyrenees.

Tours really was an incredibly important battle, as was the Second Siege of Constantinople.

>>2495524
But the Seven Years War went status quo ante bellum in Europe. Prussia didn't win shit.

>>2495192
Can you name some non-european battles?

>>2494510
He's using hyperbolic language in the same way ancient historians did, to make it more entertaining.

Modern historians are boring faggots who can't into prose and consequently write TERRIBLY.

>>2495541
The Third Battle of M'boko's Shaft between the Empire of Mali and the Oggobooga Villages Confederation

File: 1476841721445.jpg (98KB, 530x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 530x720px

>>2494006
Stalingrad

File: 1437691499329.jpg (97KB, 596x628px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 596x628px

>>2495550
>Ooga booga confederation

>>2494049
>Alesia

My nigger!

File: Accounts of the conquistadors.png (75KB, 935x553px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 935x553px

>>2495481
>Spain would have just steamrolled whatever was there.
Had the Aztecs not been "honor"fags obsessed with not killing the enemy but capturing it alive, things would have been quite different. Cortes himself was captured twice but rescued in retaliations at the expense of many lives.
Besides, the battle of Otumba was literally the first time the Aztecs faced the Spanish and their cavalry.

>The wheel of fortune now suddenly turned against Cortes, and the joyous feelings of victory were changed into bitter mourning; for while he was eager in pursuit of the enemy, with every appearance of victory, it so happened that his officers never thought to fill up the large opening which they had crossed. The Mexicans had taken care to lessen the width of the causeway, which in some places was covered with water, and at others with a great depth of mud and mire. When the Mexicans saw that Cortes had passed the fatal opening without filling it up, their object was gained. An immense body of troops, with numbers of canoes, which lay concealed for this purpose in places where the brigantines could not get at them, now suddenly rushed forth from their hiding places, and fell upon this ill-fated division with incredible fierceness, accompanied by the most fearful yells. It was impossible for the men to make any stand against this overwhelming power, and nothing now remained for our men but to close their ranks firmly, and commence a retreat. But the enemy kept rushing on in such crowds, that our men, just as they had retreated as far back as the dangerous opening, gave up all further resistance, and fled precipitately. Now the awful consequences of the neglect to fill up the opening in the causeway began to show themselves. In front of the narrow path, which the canoes had now broken down, the Mexicans wounded Cortes in the leg, took sixty Spaniards prisoners, and killed six horses.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter CLII

File: Cortes third letter to Charles V.jpg (169KB, 490x572px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 490x572px

>>2495820
>Cortes himself was captured twice but rescued in retaliations at the expense of many lives.
And rescued before being captured many other times.

>>2494077
~20 A7V's vs ~1000 Mark V's/FT-17's
"tank warfare"

>>2495548

Some of the last truly entertaining history documentaries were Michael Wood's back in the 80s. Not coincidentally he made them before he was a professor.

>>2494359
Very disappoint.
Also kebab cannot into cannon #1571BestYearOfMyPopeLife

>>2494408
Proto-Isis? Explain pls

>>2494412
this tbqh

>>2495529
No it fucking wasn't. Before Tours you had years of fighting in Aquataine, and after Tours you had years of fighting in Aquataine. It changed literally nothing.

>>2495567
The Germans couldn't have won against the USSR AND Britain

File: Screenshot_20170312-112653.jpg (969KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 1536x2048px

>>2494006
Assured Hannibal's defeat and the evental Roman victory.

>>2494049

Replace Tours with the Second Siege of Constantinople, and replace the 1453 Siege with Kosovo Field imo.

>>2494342
Different names for the same battle.

File: Screenshot from 2017-03-12 17-49-46.png (197KB, 322x832px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 322x832px

>>2494006
back in the days when my Hungary wasn't a big joke

someone post the isonzo

>>2495893

They proclaimed a caliphate, defeated the Egyptians, Turks, and British, invaded neighboring countries, and generally threatened the world.

>>2495524

The French army would undergo significant reforms after this war.

>>2494330
honestly if you are going to include one from the 30 years war then breitenfield makes more sense.

>>2495507
but the french 'won' the sanish succession only in the sense that once the austrian claimants elder brother died and he became the heir to austria as well as spain the british decided that victory on those terms was not something they desired, they forced fairly strong territorial concessions out of france and spain and accomplished the objective of preventing a french and spanish union.

>>2495509
you mean best.

often with poor generals but from blenheim to minden and fortenoy to waterloo and beyond it was acknowledged that british infantry oon a battalion basis would stand with the best

File: 1478368852105.jpg (6KB, 160x64px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 160x64px

>>2494012
>Waterloo
>Not Trafalgar

File: 2.jpg (652KB, 2048x1252px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 2048x1252px

>>2494219
>. Because what happened in East Asia barely affected anything outside of East Asia in any major way.

What happened in China (which is bigger than all of Europe in both population and area) affected all of Asia, meanwhile Poitiers didn't have jack shit of an effect outside of England/France. On Yehulingand, that battle is also what basically confirmed that there WOULD be a Mongol Empire.

>>2496817

It barely affected France. Honestly, the most important part of Tours is how it paved the way for the Carolingian dynasty, not anything to do with fighting the Arabs.

>>2494219
>Not trying to be a dick but there's a reason nobody ever heard of the ones you posted

It depends on where you live. If you asked the average Japanese person or average Japanese amateur /his/-tier buff about Mukden or Tsushima, he'll know what you're talking about. Probably most Russians would as well. I guarantee you he'll have no idea what Bouvines or Rocroi are.

>>2496817
>>2496822
The battle of Poitiers meant France fell into a hundred years of civil war and lost its position as cultural and political hegemon. As a result the centre of the West split and shifted away from France and to Italy and Germany, leading to the Renaissance and the Reformation. This affected the entire world including Asia. Meanwhile whatever happened in China didn't affect anything outside China.

This isn't a democracy. The cold hard truth is that a billion Chinese had less of an impact on world history than 50 million Europeans.

Battle of Vienna.

>>2494006
Battle of Midway

>>2495192
Okay, how about Tsushima or Dien Bien Phu?

>>2495192
Yeah, except Europe ended up dominating the entire world, so battles that shaped it hold more importance than the 87th sino-japanese murder-cannibal-rape of Tongping

>>2494049
To be fair if you put Rocroi then put Pavia or St Quentin too

>>2494065
i mean the eastern front was irrelevant

>>2495481

>Spain would have just steamrolled whatever was there

They didnt "steamroll" anything. The final battle of the aztecs involved 1000 spaniards and 100,000 thousand indian allies who hated the aztecs. This is historical fact not revisionism or wewuzism.

If the hegemon empire had behaved differently towards friend and foe, things would have changed a lot. Anyway, just so you know, Spain didnt invade the aztecs. The entire project was organized by Cortes and the government even tried to stop him many times.

>>2498248
No, it was not. Hundreds of thousands of troops were sent by AH and Germany to the eastern front instead of being sent to the west. 1/6 of the Austrian army was lost because of Brusilov's offensive. Maybe it was not as important as the western front but it was still really important.

>>2495539
>Prussia didn't win shit

Prussia secured its place as one of the Great Powers in Europe, even though it had relatively little land. Additionally, the status quo ante bellum, which was a huge deal because it meant Prussia had undisputed ownership of Silesia. This ultimately paved the way for greater and greater Prussian influence in Germany, culminating in the unification of Germany in the 1870s.

Tours

File: navas de tolosa.png (96KB, 213x585px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 213x585px

Obviously /his/ faggots are totally clueless.This single battle had a bigger impact on the world that we are living today than 90% of the memes posted in this thread

>>2494282
BLOOD OF BANOCKBURN
POINT OF NO RETURN

Since people are asking for less eurocentric answers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai

>>2500095
Honestly surprised it has taken THIS long until someone posted a battle from the Reconquista.