ITT: Most decisive battles in world history

>>3138984

Nader Shah was a fucking madman.

https://en.bywiki.com/wiki/Battle_of_Yeghev%C4%81rd

>Persian advance guard stumbles upon the full might of the Ottoman army
>outnumbered 1:5
>absolutely wreck the Ottomans before your main army even shows up

His campaign in India was even more one-sided.

File: Timur_reconstruction03.jpg (72KB, 1115x1371px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1115x1371px

>>3139012
Didn't he want to LARP as Tamerlane?

>>3139029

Yeah, he was inspired by Timur. He became batshit and paranoid towards the end of his life.

>>3138984
And a proper Byzantine thank you afterward. Make him an honorary citizen of Tsarigrad. Honor a pagan by allowing him to sit right next to you during a liturgy in Hagia Sophia, give him the title of Caesar. Then attack his lands.

>>3138984
They're listed here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World#Chapters

>>3139079
Some of those are decisive, but some of them are literally nothing. The only thing the destruction of Varus' legions did was force the Romans to further plunder Germany. They never wanted to conquer it or had any plans to do so.

>>3139079
>Tours
>No Ain Jalut
>no 717 Siege
>No Yourmouk
Anglo wankery

>>3139109
How the fuck? Are the numbers inflated?

File: good_post.png (144KB, 492x399px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 492x399px

>>3139109
Woah.....so this is the power of Spainposting.

File: smug.jpg (61KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 560x560px

>>3139123
>Are those numbers inflated
No they are totally 100% real

File: shitpost.jpg (58KB, 499x485px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 499x485px

>>3139109

>>3139079
>Country United Kingdom
>Language English
>Subject History
>Publication date
>1851

Nigger please, are you implying that anything academic might come out in mid 19th century when the world was going crazy over nationalism?

>>3139123
>>3139145
Actually it really is inflated and greatly over exaggerated numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Covadonga

>>3138984
Based Leo III the Syrian

>>3139160
You're joking, right?

>>3139160
To be fair the Anglos did put a couple of battles of them getting btfo, but they also included a couple of the reverse.

Historians' list.


Creasy:
1. Battle of Marathon (490 BC)
2. Syracuse Campaign (413 BC)
3. Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC)
4. Battle of the Metaurus (207 BC)
5. Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (9)
6. Battle of Châlons (451)
7. Battle of Poitiers (732)
8. Battle of Hastings (1066)
9. Siege of Orléans (1429)
10. Spanish Armada (1588)
11. Battle of Blenheim (1704)
12. Battle of Poltava (1709)
13. Battles of Saratoga (1777)
14. Battle of Valmy (1792)
15. Battle of Waterloo (1815)

Added by D'Abernon:

16. Battle of Sedan (1870)
17. First Battle of the Marne (1914)
18. Battle of Warsaw (1920)

Added by Mitchell
16. Vicksburg Campaign (1863)
17. Battle of Sadowa (1866) (instead of Sedan I suppose)
18. First Battle of the Marne (1914) (like on the previous list)
19. Battle of Midway (1942)
20. Battle of Stalingrad (1943)

Which ones do you think are just a well-known battles and shouldn't be on the list?

>>3139181
I'm surprised no one listed Constantinopole considering the importance of the Ottoman Empire.

How you can tell a list is Anglo: It lists Waterloo (where Napoleon attempted to seize power again) instead of Leipzig (where Napoleon's Empire was actually defeated and dissolved).

>>3139193
Also true. Or listing Wellesley among the greatest. Creasy was biased. Armada could considered a symbolic victory but it wasn't the battle that gave England the edge in the race for colonies. If anything some important battle of the Seven Years War should be listed.p

>>3139181
New to the thread, but

>Marathon: While the Greco-Persian wars were very important, Marathon was a tiny sideshow next to the Xerxes invasion, and battles like Salamis or Platea ware much better chocies.
>Gaugamela; Again, Alexander's conquest of Persia was a big deal, but the main battle that broke the hold of the Achmaenid dynasty was Issus, not Gaugamela, where Darius was essentially arming his subject peoples and hoping they would stave things off for a day.
>Metaurus: Hannibal wasn't able to press his advnantage after the crushing victory at Cannae, and still had no supply train; even if he had linked up with his reinforcements, his ability to actually press home and crush Rome is extremely dubious, to assert that it would change the tide of the 2nd Punic war is idiotic.
>Teutoberg forest: An ambush that did nothing on a strategic level, as the Romans trampled through Germany afterwards.
>Chalons: Attila and the Huns were not Genghis Khan and the Mongols. The idea of a Hunnic Empire on the ashes of the Roman one is non-feasible, given how quickly and thoroughly the Hunnic confederation collapsed with Attila's death.
>Orleans: Patay was way more important for breaking the British's momentum in the HYW; and it's hard to credit that degree of importance; we see things like Charlges the Fifth or the other Hapsburg united crowns failing to unite the countries, and it's hard to say why something different would happen in France, especially with the War of the Roses madness.
>Poiters: Another of those "right war, wrong battle" ones. Odo had been holding the Umayyids off for a while, and and only collapsed whe Martel attacked him; in any way, far less relevant than the battles around Byzantium.
>Spanish Armada: The Spanish could win battles, but they couldn't even occupy the Netherlands, which was a much easier task; what makes you think they could have overrun England and kept it?

1/2

>>3139181

>Waterloo: Again, important war(s) (Napoleonic), but a battle after Napoleon had already been essentially defeated. Leipzig is a way better bet.

And then for the non-Creasy ones:

>Warsaw. Seriously, the Russian Civil War hadn't even finished yet. The idea that the Soviets would have swung forward and crushed all of Europe into Bolshevik tyranny if they weren't stopped at Poland is pretty dumb.

>Midway. Was not decisive in any sense of the word. It didn't destroy Japan, it didn't end the war, and it certainldy didn't alter the long term projections that would happen in the pacific, with or without the battle. It ended an offensive, but it was an offensive that would have ended with or without the battle.
>Stalingrad; similar reasons to Midway,and in some ways even less important to the shifting of momentum. Stalingrad more reflected growing Soviet power, won in production yards and army reorganizations, than it actively changed it. Plus, it wasn't even the entirety of Blue, which was a much bigger operation than Stalingrad.
2/2

>>3139239
The mostake a lot of people who don't live in the region make is to assume that Bolsheviks were a Russian army. The whole thing was supposed to be international and join Germany which was in a revolutionary mood at the time.

>>3138984
Basically
>Agincourt
>Crecy
>vernueill
>Blenheim
>Trafaglar square
>Salamanca
>Waterloo
>Battle of the Somme
>El Alamein
Just to name a few of the most important battles in human history

>>3139288

Not very subtle.

>>3139288
What's the origin of this meme? No doubt French or Italians... ok maybe not Italians but a lot of people like to focus on their country's victories but why is this mostly associated with the British? Is it because most history books and documetnaries that people read and watch is made by them?

File: 1500451203622.jpg (156KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1080x1350px

>>3139236
>where Darius was essentially arming his subject peoples and hoping they would stave things off for a day.

This is such a shit understanding of the Persian strategy at Issus.

>>3139187

That's because the Byzantine empire was already essentially gone by that point. The loss of Constantinople was more symbolic than anything else. The Turks already controlled all the area surrounding it for hundreds of miles

File: Lone Star Don Troiani Battle of Antietam.jpg (377KB, 1400x1042px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1400x1042px

>>3138984

Unlikely candidate but if you've read the Southern Victory series by Harry Turtledove, you'd understand why.

>>3139304
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in how I phrased things.

Issues was the main Persian throw, and the destruction of the Persian army there was probably a death knell for the Achmaenids, even if they somehow managed to prevail at Gaugamela. Gaugamela, not Issus, was the one where Darius III went to arming the various "vassal" peoples to such an extent that they could resist the core Persian demographic.

>>3139187
Well the Ottomans were snowballing by 1453 and had already conquered or Vassalized much of the Balkans.

File: Anglo butthurt.png (429KB, 680x1089px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 680x1089px

OP here, Anglo shitposters need to leave.

>>3139310

That cleared it up, and I'm sorry for lashing out like that.

>>3139109
Wiki says Umayyad Caliphate forces are unknown..

>>3139236
>>3139239

Fucking retard. How much SJW girlcock do you suck to have such a cucked view?

>>3139396
Is it about Midway?

>>3139408
No, it's about Chalons and Tours, mostly, but his whole retardation is fucking apparent.

>>3139421
Tours is still overrated, literally a raid, whereas both Christian and Arab sources openly talk about how much of a disaster the siege of Constantinople was.

>>3139328
It's a good thing we English bravely burned that teenage girl to death. Imagine how insufferable the French would be if Joan had lived and gone on to even greater achievements.

>>3138984
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Norfolk

Rather decisive modern battle. Destroyed many Iraqi tank battalions and Persian Gulf War was 'ended' the next day..

>>3139302
Because of the time period and how well-known Britain's history is
They're seen as the best because
>Won trafaglar square, Waterloo, El Alamein, the Somme. British media publicises this in tv and documentaries, ehich id important because English is proficient acriss the western world
Britain's involvement in the world wars and the napoleonic wars as victors in the end is the most fouced upon.
Other than that, continentials just need to stop being shit at making historical documentaries.

>>3139447
>t.Muhammed
Just think, your caliphate could've stretched from Madrid to Hamburg if the Franks had lost

>>3139328
HAHAHAHA I remember that thread. Is there a nation more butthurt than the French?

>>3139507
I'm Serb Orthodox you retard, and you honestly think that an Arab force of only 30,000 light cavalry could have conquered Western Europe? Its important but completely overrated compared to 717, which would have had very long term effects on the Future of Europe if the Byzantines had lost.

>>3139498
>won Trafalgar Square

Depends on the point of view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1887)

>>3139514
Germany?

>>3139514
Ger...
>>3139524
This. It's a fuel for their inferiority complex.

>>3139521
Mate the Franks were the only major power in Europe other than the crumbling Byzantine empire.
This was before any crusade in Europe. The Frankish empire pretty much represented the greatest extent of christianity, Charlemange's defeat would've surrendered the whole of modern day France to islamic rule.
Its hard to say because its a big whst if, 10 years down the line a random nephew could've ascended to the throne of the German territories and launched a crusade all the way to gibraltar. But the Franks would've lost immrnse territory, and there would've been no christian kingdoms in Iberia to start the reconquista.
Christianity would've lingered on in thr Byzantine empire and the British isles, the world would've been an islamic one.

>>3139181
>First Battle of the Marne (1914)
>45 French and British Divisions just barely halt less than 30 German Divisions a couple of miles from paris
>take 20k more casualties than the krauts
>is dubbed "the miracle at the marne"
>the closest battle of the war bei g decisive in any way

Caporetto was decisive, Marne wasn't.

>>3139708
If the Germans had overrun Paris, a potential French surrender would've won Germany the war.

>>3139498
>Other than that, continentials just need to stop being shit at making historical documentaries.

Due to US cultural dominance, British cultural products get much more spotlight than say, French, Russian or German ones
Not to mention that even Americans tend to overrate Britain in their own products due to their affection for their "father" country

>>3140083
This. If in next few hunderd years powers on Earth change and current ones will start to be irrelevant, so the perception of history will.
Why are 16th and 17th Centuries so much skipped in mainstream media? Because England was uneventful shithole back then. You can even see that in fucking games, like civilization V-VI, where after Medieval period you have retarded jump to industrialization.
When comparing Eastern Europe to Western or Northern on various periods, each time you will get the same reaction(EE was poor and undeveloped), completely ignoring, for example, that Norway was poorest European region for most of the history, just because it is successful now. Or Paris at some point was middle of nowhere compared to Kiev. But it doesn't count, because Ukraine is Africa tier now.

>>3140409
This guy get it.
Look at Poland at their PLC.
It was at time really powerful confederation and culturally important center that effect whole East Europe and thanks o grain exports even the West. It was rich and free.
It get first constitution in Europe and 2nd in world and religious liberty and peace when west was killing each other in religiousness wars.
Heck Germany at the time was poor shithole from people flee whatever they can and whenever they can to Hungary, Russia, Poland.

File: 1e35f3b.jpg (25KB, 317x337px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 317x337px

ENTIRE FORCE
N
T
I
R
E

File: 1446681636481.png (58KB, 316x473px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 316x473px

Did Allah forsake them?

>>3139109
K:D RATIOOOOOOOOOOOO GET SHIT ON BROWNBOIS

>>3142042

>based desert kikes

>>3139079
>hastings
>jean or arc
>spanish armada
should be renamed to decisive battles of England

>>3142042
its the fall before rise, this time we make sure the infidels are properly extinguished.

File: The_defeat_of_Shipka_Peak,_Bulgarian_War_of_Independence.jpg (889KB, 1134x827px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 1134x827px

Shipka pass 1877
Literally led to the creation of 4 new states on the Balkans when the Turks got BTFO'd. Also Bulgarian wewuzing destroys the epicness of the said battle

>>3139708
What the fuck are you talking about? It being close doesn't make it any less decisive, you retard. The outcome was that the Germans were prevented from taking Paris and the war on the Western Front was bogged down for a further four years, thus shaping WW1 as we know it. Caporetto had no greater significance beyond the immediate years following it, yet had the Allies lost the Battle of the Marne, the whole of WW1 (and subsequently the entire course of 20th century history) could've drastically changed.

>>3139305
makes me cri evrytim

>>3139181
>Guagamela
Issus was way more important. Unless Guagamela was a utterly crushing defeat, Alexander had a fallback position and cash to raise more troops, and the Persians no longer had the ability to coordinate with Greece. Conversely, even an indecisive victory at Issue would have crippled Alexander's campaign due to his lack of funds and the threatening position of the Persian Navy

>Waterloo
That should be Leipzig, or maybe Dresden

>>3139187
Manzikert, Forth Crusade and Varna were all far more decesivie in determining the future of ERE than the siege of Constantinople which, despite its protracted length and near run nature, was really just putting down an already crippled horse

>>3139305
Reconquista II when?

>>3142037
Based sword of Muhammad (PBUH)

>>3139565
>crumbling Byzamtine Empire
>in 717
You don't know what you're talking about

>Charlemagne
Yeah, figures

>>3142037
>Khalid's victories
>credible numbers
Pick one

Zama
Asculum
Salamis
Adrianapole
Chalons
Guagamela

>>3139708
Marne was the most decisive battle in WW1,its on par with Stalingrad or Leipzig

>>3139163
> unknown
A few hours ago it had some numbers

>>3143640

> Balkan nations
> relevant in anyway besides dragging larger nations into their shitty wars.

>>3147600
I didn't see any numbers

>>3147642
Well if it's irrelevant why do larger nations incite wars there?

Catalaunian plains

File: 19113781_763246143857304_2281056010145669403_n.jpg (134KB, 960x738px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 960x738px

>>3138984

>>3147619
Best list.

Decisive does not mean spectacular or one-sided. There are battles who's names no one remembers which have shaped the course of subsequent history more than Crecy or Leipzig

>>3148225
>Make it all the way to Constantinople
>Dang, mane, there's like a wall 'n' shiet
>*goes home and empire disintegrates in 200 years*
Meanwhile, a blind 90 year old has no trouble 600 years later when the Empire is actually strong

>>3147536
>crippled
More like dead, rotting and pecked to the bone by vultures. By that point the Byzantine Empire was nothing more than a handful of sparse villages living in squalor behind the Theodosian Walls. as well as a vague royal title passed from monarch to monarch throughout Europe for the next 400 years.
As much as /pol/ and /his/ like to meme on about "Constantinople reconquista soon" the Ottomans we're unironically the best thing to happen to Constantinople since Justinian I; despite irreversibly changing it.

>>3147595
>Byzantium
It doesnt matter what state Byzantium is in because we know that regardless of the outcome of Tours Byzantium will inevitably be conquered by the muslims anywat.
>Charlemagne
I dont understand what you're trying to tell me

>>3148425
>It doesnt matter what state Byzantium is in because we know that regardless of the outcome of Tours Byzantium will inevitably be conquered by the muslims anywat.
you fucking brainlet

yes it will be conquered almost a 1000 years later after dozens of christian powers have been established to counter the muslims

>>3139029
Yes, Genghis too. And he was great at LARPing.

>>3139302
It's because only italians have to suffer italo-centrism, only french (mostly) have to suffer franco-centrism, etc. But everyone has to suffer anglo-centrism thanks to the USA. Exactly, it's not even Britain's fault, of course they're gonna be anglo-centric. But then it gets into the USA (because it's in their language) and they eat it and regurgitate it because they're the world hegemon and, if it makes it into america, it will be translated and exported to the rest of the world. Also often the first step (brits exporting stuff to the USA) is not even necessary since american media is already tainted by brit anglo-centrism, specially in history since they don't have it before the modern era.

>>3148464
nah, every country studies it's own history and centers on it

only english speaking countrys are england-centric

File: Anglosphere_Geometry.svg.png (192KB, 1280x650px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1280x650px

>>3148530
Probably because most English speaking countries have had the UK be a major influence on them at one point in those counties' history.

>>3139070

what the fuck was their problem

>>3148672
He was still a barbarian to them and the the son of the man who conquered Byzantine territories not 20 years ago. Even if he helped saved Constantinople the Byzantines never forgot

Here's a proper top 20 list, for the past 2500 years:

- Marathon (490 BC) (or possibly Salamis)
- Issus (333 BC)
- Zama (202 BC)
- Alesia (52 BC)
- Actium (31 BC)
- Soissons (486)
- Tours (732)
- Hastings (1066)
- Bouvines (1214)
- Baghdad (1258)
- Poitiers (1356)
- Rocroi (1643)
- Vienna (1683)
- Yorktown (1781)
- Valmy (1792)
- Austerlitz (1805)
- Leipzig (1813)
- Sedan (1870)
- Marne (1914)
- Stalingrad (1943)

>>3139181
Battle of the Talas River

>>3148702
>China, India, Africa, Americas don't exist
I mean, I realize we have almost no sources on Africa, and not many battles happened in Americas, but at least Gettysburg and several Chinese battles should be on the list.

>>3150705
>I mean, I realize we have almost no sources on Africa

Better its irrelevant as shit and has always been
Might as well care about Moldova's important battles

>>3150705
Well, Zama and the Destruction of Carthago was kinda of big.

>>3147658
>70,000

>>3139288
sup Nigel

>>3148530
But a certaim couple of this countries exports massive amounts of media, including historical, to all the world.

>>3148530
Well this thing should tell us that they're important. But I still don't get why battle of Gettysburg should be included in any list. Battle of the American Revolution sure but not the Civil War.

>>3150675
good one.

>>3139288
>Trafalgar square

Top lel chum

>>3138984
>name caliphate "umad" essentially
>karma fucks you for 400 years

They deserved it

Battle of Chaldiran anyone?
If the Ottomans had lost they would have lost Anatolia to the Safavids who where keen on taking Syria as well. Ottomans would never have snowballed but there might have been a huge Persia with a now weakened Ottomans and no other strong neighbours to challenge them.

However the Persian defeat essentially halted all Safavid growth

do sieges count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)

>>3139193
agreed, If he is gonna put in Metaurus instead of zama he has no excuse for putting in Waterloo instead of Leipzig.

>>3148425
There is a clear difference between Europe in the 8th century and europe in th 15th century. In the former the only major european powers were the Frankish Empire and the Byzantine Empire. Had the Byzantine empire fallen sooner, the Arabs would've marched through Europe without much resistance since there were still backwater tribes living there. At least in 15th century Europe you had strong countries to counter the Ottomans like Hungary, Poland and the HRE.

Also Charlemagne didn't fight in Tours, Charles Martel did

>>3148702
other than Baghdad it's literally just western shit

File: 1494856522852.jpg (62KB, 538x445px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 538x445px

>>3139181
>>3139079
>>3148702
How to tell if a list is shit and should be instantly discarded
>lists Tours
>doesn't list any of the Arab sieges of Constantinople
>doesn't list any battle involving the Byzantine Empire

>>3150705
>>3153436
>>3153443

>muh irrelevant nigger battles nobody ever heard of should be on the list because muh political correctness

>>3153678
>knowing about world history is political correctness
I hate niggers too but gawddayum.

>>3139109
>muh 6 trillion moors

>>3139163
Kek mudslimes and their cuck slaves mad about that K:D

>>3139521
Brate ako su muslimane pobedili Tours bi ohrabrilo druge muslimane.

Oprosti za bilo kakve jezicne greske jer mi nije prvi jezik

>>3147815
For shits and giggles.

File: Lepanto_battle.jpg (61KB, 510x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 510x800px

Battle of Lepanto

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

>>3152430

The US has been incredibly influential on world history since WW1/2. Union victory is a formative moment for the US. The US Civil War in general is often considered the first industrial war/last Napoleonic style war, so including arguably the most decisive battle makes sense.

Its considered a turning point, and had the Union been forced to come to a negotiated settlement with the South the course of world events would be very different.

>>3139181
>LE ANGLO HISTORY
denied.

>>3154073
While a cool battle, it wasnt really decisive at all. Ottomans lost their navy but they never really were using it in the first place.

Szigetvar 1566

File: battle of ongal.jpg (99KB, 315x789px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 315x789px

>>3138984

>>3155607
It was extremely decisive. The navy was neccisary to maintain control over ottoman territory in Egypt effectively, to pressure the Italian states who eternally pestered them. Further the losses of money, men, material, and most importantly trained military archers lost in the battle severely damaged their military. It;s hard to overstate how badly losing those trained men were, it took them decades to replace.

>>3157303
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kleidion

>>3157581
But they werent using their fleet for that. Most they did was promote pirate raids against the genoese and venice, trying to disrupt their trade as it was the source of their power. Ottomans were a land based power and didnt know much about the navy or seemed to care enough to learn. The fleet was back up the very next year, winning some small skirmishes against Venetian traders, which isnt to say they were back to their strength pre-Lepanto but they got back to what they were doing before, just on even smaller scale, It wasnt decisive in that sense, if anything it hypothetically stopped the Ottomans learning to use and have a powerful navy along with a powerful land army.

>>3157822
They got back to doing home-water raids against Venice, but they lost sufficient strength to kill any power projection outside of them. I think the European powers failed to really capitalize on the battle and push the naval power vacuum they created at the battle. Any Mediterranean power is vulnerable to the sea; the fastest way to the outer parts of the Ottoman Empire were by sea, cutting that communication channel would have been mighty annoying and economically damaging. And they still lost substantial land troops at the battle, specialty troops at that which were not easily replaced. I think Lepanto was only not decisive in the sense that the European powers didn't have huge interest in pressing into a full on land war with the advantage they earned, so the Ottomans recovered in the ensuing decade.

File: krum.jpg (71KB, 489x342px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 489x342px

>>3157660
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pliska

>>3157893
Well the failure of the Europeans to capitalize on the victory at Lepanto is also one of the reason the battle itself wasn't decisive.

Cool battle from historical perspective though. Last large naval battle with galleys and not far from that spot the last large battle with ships with sails also happened.

>>3157922
Yeah I suppose we're into sematics on 'decisive' here, and I do agree it cant be considered the most decisive battle of history. Curiously enough I'm reading Don Quixote, and it's interesting to see the legacy it left in Europe.

>>3157942
Well it made an impression on Cervantes because he fought at Lepanto. Might have lost an arm there too, but I may have misremembered that.

>>3148334
>just walls

Nigga fucking Antioch had walls. Constantinople has THE WALLS.

>>3139288
Checked

File: IMG_8708.jpg (66KB, 934x625px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 934x625px

>>3139288
>>3158299
Some SERIOUS digits going on here

File: IMG_8709.jpg (34KB, 252x249px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 252x249px

>>3139288
>>3158299
>>3158311
SOMEBODY STOP THIS GUY

>>3139478
There is at least some justice in the world.

File: vers25_gerard_001f.jpg (181KB, 1396x694px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1396x694px

No mention of the Battle of the 3 Emperors?

>>3158374
Waterloo and Trafalgar are the only battles that mattered

>>3158413
>Waterloo is more important than Leipzig

>>3148702
10/10

>>3153678
>ignoring the Byantine empire all together even though it was also part of European history because muh dark ages narrative

Battle of Tara has gotta be up there.

File: Arabian Desert of Saudi Arabia.jpg (305KB, 1600x1064px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1600x1064px

>>3138984
>>120,000 Man Arab army

Christians really do love inflating the number of enemy armies. There's no possible way Arabs (in this case Ummayads) could field over 50 000 men.

THE DESERT CANNOT SUPPORT THAT MUCH LIFE. Armies would number 15 to 30k at most.

Abbasids are an exception because they had Iranians and Turkic soldiers. Ummayds are very insular and would field pretty much their own men.

Question everything. Stop thinking everything in wiki is true and stop thinking sources written hundreds of years after an event are accurate, especially when they go against logic.

>>3153431
Byzantine barely counts as a European power. It was mostly situated in the middle east. Its wealth was mostly derived from there. Its power was mostly situated there in the 8th century.

>>3139070
the Khan was a christian

File: 1501302140529.png (90KB, 179x172px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 179x172px

>>3158980
>Byzantine barely counts as a European power.
>literally the eastern part of the Roman Empire
>main languages were European
>the capital is in Europe

>>3158994
Capital is half Europe, half Asia. Language is European but language isn't everything. It was the Roman empire but in the 8th century, it barely had any European lands.
It was a European faction in blood. But it was situated in the Middle East and its many interests were there.

>>3159083
>Capital is half Europe, half Asia.
Wrong, it was only in Europe. It's the Ottomans who then expanded in to Anatolia as well.
>It was the Roman empire but in the 8th century, it barely had any European lands.
It had parts of Italy, Greece and Anatolia could've also been categorised as European if it hadn't been invaded by Turks
>It was a European faction in blood. But it was situated in the Middle East and its many interests were there.
The Byzantine Empire spent fighting in Europe and Middle East equally, sure they may not be western but to say they aren't European is absurd

>>3158964
The Umayyads didn't live in fucking desert tents.

>>3139478
She was burned by the French, and it's precisely because she was executed that she became a symbol, otherwise she would have been rather forgotten.

>>3139288
No Schellenberg, no Blenheim.

>>3158511
The Byzantine Empire was completely irrelevant. Any interest in it is just pure autist wankery.

>>3160504
So this is the power of american education...

>>3160504
Read an alt-hist short story called "Islands in the Sea". Basically, what if Constantinople fell in the 700's. Islam has basically nothing stopping it from converting the slavs and Bulgars, which then opens the door for taking basically all of eastern Europe and Scandinavia, leaving Christianity as an island composing of western Europe only.

>>3158980
>Byzantine barely counts as a European power. It was mostly situated in the middle east.
How is it possible to be this fucking ignorant?

File: byzantine territories since the fall of the west.png (628KB, 1600x899px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1600x899px

>>3159083
>Capital is half Europe, half Asia.
You literally cannot find a map of Europe that does not have Constantinople/Istanbul within its borders. It doesn't matter how far back you go.
>It was the Roman empire but in the 8th century, it barely had any European lands.
Pic related, you uneducated swine. I guess according to you, Italy and the Balkans are not European? In fact the Byzantine Empire held on to its European territories far longer than it did its African or Middle Eastern territories. Because Europe was always the true core of the Empire and where it drew most of its strength from.

Why you persist in talking about this topic when you clearly know nothing about it is beyond me.

>>3139288
muh british history

>>3139109
seems totally legit

>>3160618
So? Literally what changes? What difference does it make for Western Europe that Slavs are Orthodox or Muslim?

File: 1498381910049.jpg (65KB, 640x736px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x736px

>>3161095
>having a bunch of followers of an expansionist religion near you when it's at its peak
you're right, what could go wrong

>>3161095
Perpetual west vs east wars, reasons for Muslims to conquer further west etc. Europe would be surrounded on 3 sides by Islam.

>>3161157
>he thinks that wasn't already the case
Fucking hell man

>>3161364
So like exactly what actually happened?

>>3161494
Not really. Russia usually took the side of France in European conflicts, and Poland was mostly interested in fighting off steppe nomads and Muslims.

>>3139079
>of the world
Of the Western World

>>3161677
The west quickly became the most important and influential culture.

>>3161494
Yes anon, I too remember when Western Europe was facing Islam from Spain, the Balkans, Poland and Scandinavia.

>>3147619
>Adrianapole
which one;^)

>>3163448
>what is the Reconquista
>what is the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans
>what are the Baltic Crusades

>>3161677
Yes sorry it doesn't include the incredibly important battle of Ouagadougou between the Bongo-Bongos and the Ooga-Boogas, world-changing stuff right there.

>>3163642
Why are you mentioning events that happened from 1000AD+ when we are talking about the time when the only powers in Europe were the Frankish Empire and the Byzantine Empire while the rest of it were backward places?

>>3163642
what did Balltic Crusades have to do with islam?

>>3163642
Wow you're really fucking stupid

>>3163649
>>3163650
Nice goalpost shifting

Russia or whatever being Muslim wouldn't have changed jack shit for Western Europe, deal with it.

>>3164038
"durr im retarded"
thats you

>>3139160
t. Selfhating pathetic white "man"

>>3139181
While stalingrad was a massive crushing disaster for the Axis i dont think it costed them the war. Their failed invasion of the Soviet Union and the assumption it would collapse after a few months of fighting lost the Axis powers the war. I mean by the end of 1941 the German army was already exhausted battered with no reserves left and horrific logistics. It was only a matter of time before the allies overwhelmed them.

>>3138984
What battle are we talking out?

>>3142037
It is commonly known that these sources for early Byzantine loses to the muslim Caliphate are unreliable It is unlikely the Byzantines would be able to repeatedly raise a forces of such numbers.

>>3139181
Teutoburg is definitely not that big. Germanicus's campaigns against the Germans showed that it didn't hinder Roman expansions into Germany, it was instead internal conflicts in the Empire that caused no substantial gains in territory.

File: 1473214838521.jpg (251KB, 850x561px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 850x561px

>>3148225
>>3142037
It is commonly known that these sources for early Byzantine loses to the muslim Caliphate are unreliable It is unlikely the Byzantines would be able to repeatedly raise a forces of such numbers.

>>3164683
Well, that and the fact that they had gained pretty much everything they could easily access and would be viable/economical to rule anyway.

>>3138984
That time the WRE and ERE tried to kick the Vandals out of Africa but entrusted command to a retard who let Genseric build up a fleet of fire ships and completely destroy almost the entire Roman navy in one fell swoop.

>>3139079
It's all anglo shit

>spanish armada
>battle
Against who, the storm?

>>3166102
>losing a battle against nothing
Spaniggers btfo.

>>3139288
>Agincourt
>Crecy

You know you cunts still lost the war, right? Orleans and Castillon happened

>>3166183
You realise it's a joke post, right? You dumb cunt

File: british military history.jpg (480KB, 1294x3932px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1294x3932px

>>3166181
Glorious British history!!

>>3139305
Constantinople was in fact an important point in the Turkish conquest of eastern Europe, as it greatly eased the movement of troops from Anatolia to Europe.

>>3166183
can't hear you over the ownage inflicted by english greatness. francophiles btfo, go back to corsica frog and give us back our rightful continental holdings

File: 1419438186594.jpg (154KB, 968x626px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 968x626px

>>3166188

>>3139181
The Battle of Britain 1940. The RAF hold off superior numbers and delay Germany's planned invasion long enough for it to be abandoned.