Most Significant Battles in History

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

troopie
Posts: 644
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Directly above the centre of the Earth.

Post by troopie »

Kortrijk in 1301. The first nail in the coffin of the armoured knight.
Breitenfeld in 1631. Combined arms (infantry, cavalry, and artillery all in close co-operation) get a good shaking down.

troopie
Pamwe Chete
Dan in Toledo
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Toledo,oh

Post by Dan in Toledo »

Gen. Hoepner: Thanks for the info on the battles. Great point on Thermopolye. And don't worry about the language thing. My Italian is far worse. Deutche is the only other language I can come close to communicate in.

Troopie: A couple of interesting posts in this string and the Generals string.

I'm going to try to find some stuff on the internet on what different historians think.
Dan in Toledo
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Toledo,oh

Post by Dan in Toledo »

Just thought of one: Kosovo 1389

crushed the Serbian kingdom for 500 years
Supervisor
Posts: 5160
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am

Post by Supervisor »

Cool-I did that.
Some interesting stuff!
Thanx!!
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Drex:
Sorry Klaus, no URLs. I just entered "decisive battles" in my browser and this is what I came up with. Try it.
Tom1939
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Hungary

Post by Tom1939 »

Hi!

Maybe about nuber 8: 1456 Nádorfehérvár.

We hungarians beat the hell out of an army of 150.000 turks stoping the invasion against us and europe for nearly 70 years. We did it with largely inferior forces as a small medium power in europe, against an asiatic superpower.
Ecofact
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Montreal

Post by Ecofact »

Very interesting trend
Originally posted by Gen.Hoepner:
3-Portiers(?)-The moors are stopped by Charle Magne

Poitiers 732AD. It was not Charlemagne who defeated the Muslims but Charles Martel, his grandfather, founder of the Caroligians dynasty. Don't know what's the hype about that battle. I've learned in medieval history classes that this was a minor raid by the Maures. The Cordoba califate of Spain was at that time divided by internal bickering between the Arabs and the Berbers (North Africans) and they were taking a beating by spaniards and descendants of the Visigoths' nobility in the spanish region of the Asturias wich was the beggining of the Reconquista. Add the fact that western Europe was so poor at the time, then the Maures didn't the economic nor the millitary incentive to send a full scale invading army up north. Charlemagne close them the door by establishing the Spain's march around 810-812 and with the Reconquista in full swing, forget about Islamic threat. At that time Odin's followers were far more dangerous to West Europe then Allah's ones.
Ecofact
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Montreal

Post by Ecofact »

Originally posted by Dan in Toledo:
I forget about Quebec. Tell me what happened?

1760 Battle of the Plains of Abraham near Quebec city. English Gen. Wolfe vs French Gen. Montcalm. French defeat.

This battle decided the fate of New France wich was at that time a huge territory starting from Nova Scotia till Louisiana following the St-Lawrence, Great Lakes and Mississippi.

In fact the loss officially took place two years later when Louis XV sign the peace treaty with England. I think he choose to keep Guadalupe instead of New France. That island was more profitable to the French treasury but what a strategic mistake!

But anyway France didn't have the manpower or willingness to keep that territory from Britain or the 13 Colonies. The French state was going bankrupt because of the excesses of former Louis XIV and that led them to the 1789 revolution. French philosopher of the time, Voltaire, even mockingly called New France: Ces quelques arpents de neige, wich means; those few yards of snow

MAYBE I SHOULD START ANOTHER THREAD: TOP 100 BATTLES OF ALL TIME??

Yes please! I can't wait to read that!
Gen.Urquhart
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:00 am
Location: vicenza,italy

Post by Gen.Urquhart »

Originally posted by Ecofact:
Very interesting trend



Poitiers 732AD. It was not Charlemagne who defeated the Muslims but Charles Martel, his grandfather, founder of the Caroligians dynasty. Don't know what's the hype about that battle. I've learned in medieval history classes that this was a minor raid by the Maures. The Cordoba califate of Spain was at that time divided by internal bickering between the Arabs and the Berbers (North Africans) and they were taking a beating by spaniards and descendants of the Visigoths' nobility in the spanish region of the Asturias wich was the beggining of the Reconquista. Add the fact that western Europe was so poor at the time, then the Maures didn't the economic nor the millitary incentive to send a full scale invading army up north. Charlemagne close them the door by establishing the Spain's march around 810-812 and with the Reconquista in full swing, forget about Islamic threat. At that time Odin's followers were far more dangerous to West Europe then Allah's ones.

Yes,u're right!I should have remembered it!But probably i confused it with something else.I don't remember the name of the battle,but......ok,which of u remember something like a very famous trap in spain,made by the moors vs CharleMagne.....something like that.There's also a very important litterature about that....Chanson de Roland I think..... AnyWay:I'd Like to have studied better during my high school!!!!

<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Gen.Hoepner
Dan in Toledo
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Toledo,oh

Post by Dan in Toledo »

i have a quick question: what if Tours was a victory for the Moors? it would have opened the floodgates to Moorish expansion. Even if the Spanish state was divided then, it still would have created a power vacuum in France.
Ecofact
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Montreal

Post by Ecofact »

Originally posted by Gen.Urquhart:


Yes,u're right!I should have remembered it!But probably i confused it with something else.I don't remember the name of the battle,but......ok,which of u remember something like a very famous trap in spain,made by the moors vs CharleMagne.....something like that.There's also a very important litterature about that....Chanson de Roland I think..... AnyWay:I'd Like to have studied better during my high school!!!!

i have a quick question: what if Tours was a victory for the Moors? it would have opened the floodgates to Moorish expansion. Even if the Spanish state was divided then, it still would have created a power vacuum in France.

<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Gen.Hoepner

You're talking about the battle of Roncevaux 778 AD. It was the first campaign of Charlemagne against muslim Spain. He tried to capture Sarragossa but didn't succeed. During his retreat toward Gaul (the France entity didn't existed yet), his rear-guard was ambushed in the Roncevaux mountain pass. It was not by Arabs but by Basques who were attacking indicriminately anyone going through their lands. That's where Rolland died and that inspired the song La geste de Rolland.
i have a quick question: what if Tours was a victory for the Moors? it would have opened the floodgates to Moorish expansion. Even if the Spanish state was divided then, it still would have created a power vacuum in France.
Ya its a big what if. But the Cordoba Califate was so divided between rival Arab clans and North Africans that they cannot even crush the christian resistance in Spain's northern provinces that would proved to be the onset of the Reconquista.

Maybe if that attack succeeded they would have been able to raid concentration of wealth in Western Europe (mainly monastery) much like what the Vikings were doing by sea at that time.

The biggest what if is if Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, would have died in this battle. Then no Charlemagne, no France, no Holy Roman Germanic Empire (by extension, no Germany) and no Church State in Italy (no Pope?). Hehe maybe West Europe would have been split between Vikings and Muslims and the religion would have been Islam or Polytheistic Norse
<img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
Ecofact
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Montreal

Post by Ecofact »

Doh! Sorry Dan. I think I cited you under Gen. Urquhart comment. Apologies to both
<img src="redface.gif" border="0">
Dan in Toledo
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Toledo,oh

Post by Dan in Toledo »

here are some interesting links concerning Ancient Rome:

web page

web page
User avatar
GI Seve
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Oulu, Finland
Contact:

Post by GI Seve »

Originally posted by Dan from Toledo:
Here are my reasons:
5. Saratoga: allowed the Americans to recieve French help. Without it we would have lost. The world would have been deprived of the most powerful nation in human history.

Well I would correct that USA is one of the most powerful nations in the history and future of world,but there can be many different opinions about it being the most powerful nation. You have to think about concepts here like technology for example Romans didn't have nukes still they controlled really big part of Europe,nothern africa,eastern asia and on those days that nation was enormously powerful by using only hand to hand weapons(chariots were created but mainstay of roman army was heavily armed foot infantry : legionaires). There can be many other examples like that and some ppl more wiser than me can discuss about those.
HallelujaaGobble!
Matthias
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: College

Post by Matthias »

Just a thought. Maybe add El Alamein. Had Rommel not been stopped, and the Brits get knocked all the way out of North Africa, the Germans would have access to all of the oil in North Africa. Had they had these supplies, they would have been able to stockpile oil and such. They would have also had a much easier time defending Italy, because they would have only had to reduce Gibraltor to make entry into the Mediterranean Sea impossible. Without the distraction of Italy, D-day may never have happened, and Europe may have had to learn German.
User avatar
Drex
Posts: 2512
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Chico,california

Post by Drex »

They definitely would have access to the oil in Iran and Iraq ( no oil in North Africa yet) and Britain would have to travel around the Cape of Good Hope to reach India, which would make reinforcements incredibly difficult.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
vlar
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 10:00 am

Post by vlar »

I decided to bring this thread back just to post my thoughts. I think the battle of Metaurus was probably the single most important battle in history. It was a battle in the second punic war 9 years after Cannae and 5 years before Zama both of which were mentioned in this thread and I think it was more important than either one of them and even than the two combined.

Metaurus (207 BC)

In 208 B.C., Hasdrubal Barca (Hannibal&#8217;s brother) finally slipped out of Spain and moved to unite with his older brother in a maneuver designed to bring overwhelming Carthaginian superiority to bear on Rome and thus, hopefully, end the conflict. Since the Roman navy controlled the seas, Hasdrubal basically followed the path blazed by his brother into Northern Italy at the beginning of the war. In 207 B.C., Hasdrubal&#8217;s army began to move down the eastern coast, where it was intercepted and screened by a consular army under the Praetor for Gaul, L. Porcius Licinus. The Consul responsible for protecting Northern Italy was M. Livius Salinator, who now moved in with another consular army, which brought the opposing, forces to approximate parity.

C. Claudius Nero, the other consul for that year, was tasked with screening Hannibal&#8217;s army in the South. Nero realized from captured dispatches that Hannibal knew neither where Hasdrubal&#8217;s army was, nor its future plans. Once Hannibal figured out his brother&#8217;s intentions he would likely move north and join with him, creating a new Carthaginian juggernaught that could end the war. To prevent this, Nero used what would later become known as the Central Position to bring numerical superiority against one force while screening the other.

Nero took a small, but elite, part of his army (6,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry) and headed north. In an historic forced march, Nero covered the length of the peninsula in six days to unite with Livius and give the Roman forces local superiority over Hasdrubal. To maintain the surprise, Nero&#8217;s men entered the Roman camps at night, and the men doubled up until the morning. Livius was for waiting a day or so to let Nero&#8217;s men rest, but Nero feared for his command in the South if Hannibal ever figured out what was afoot. Nero&#8217;s theory prevailed, and the attack was launched, without rest, the next day.

The Romans &#8211; in one of those remarkably indicative instances of allowing ritual and procedure to overrule intelligence &#8211; then blew the surprise, literally, by using their standard horn signals to get their troops up and about. This let Hasdrubal, who knew the Roman signal system, to realize that an additional force was probably present in the Roman camps. When the Romans left their camps in battle array Hasdrubal followed suit; the sight of a large formation of men in dirty armor then confirmed his own, worst fears. He immediately knew that the Romans had numerical superiority, so he withdrew his forces back into camp.

That night Hasdrubal attempted to cross the Metaurus River and escape the Roman trap. However, the rain soaked Metaurus was uncrossable at most places, and the local guides deserted the Carthaginians in the night, leaving Hasdrubal high, dry, and on the wrong side of the river. At dawn Livius and Nero moved up in battle order leaving Hasdrubal no choice but to fight.

Where the battle was actually fought is still open to conjecture, but it was clearly not a location of Hasdrubal&#8217;s choosing. With an uncrossable river at his back, a large Roman army to his front, and his Gallic allies looking for the nearest bus out of town, the Carthaginians were in an unenviable position. From what we do know, Hasdrubal used the terrain on his left flank to almost literally prop up his Gauls (approximately 10,000), most of whom were drunk or hung over. In the center he placed his Ligurians (approximately 8,000) in deep formation because of the limited frontage afforded by the terrain. His best troops &#8211; his North African heavy infantry (trained to fight in the Roman manner) and his Iberians (approximately 14,000 total) &#8211; he placed on his right.

The Roman consular armies of Porcius and Livius moved forward to attack the Carthaginians, but the limited frontage imposed by the terrain kept the Roman numerical advantage from having an immediate impact. On the Roman right, Nero was having trouble traversing a ravine opposite the shaky Gauls. If he moved against the exposed left flank of the Carthaginian center he, being unaware of the lack of commitment on the Gauls&#8217; part, would in turn expose his own flank to a potential Gallic counterattack.

With the two armies fully engaged in the center, the Roman cavalry on the Left were able to drive off the small contingent of Numidians, thus exposing the Carthaginian right. (They appear to have avoided confrontation with the few elephants Hasdrubal had.) Nero, seeing the opportunity, took his best troops and countermarched across the field behind the Roman lines and around the heights to fall on the Carthaginian rear. The Carthaginian front line collapsed when their position was turned, and the traditional slaughter of the enemy began. The Carthaginians lost 10,000 men to the Roman 2,000. The Carthaginian losses would have been higher but the Romans let most of the Gauls flee back to their homes to spread the word that Rome was back in town. Hasdrubal, realizing that all was lost, rode, alone, into a Roman cohort to meet death in true Barcid fashion.

With the battle concluded, Nero immediately led his forces south to take up their old positions opposite Hannnibal&#8217;s army. Nero announced his victory by tossing Hasdrubal&#8217;s head into his brother&#8217;s camp. Shorn of any hope of reinforcement, Hannibal was soon called back to Carthage to defend the city from Scipio Africanus.

If Hasdrubal won and his army managed to link up with Hannibal they could conquer Rome itself and the roman empire would never have existed. Carthage would become a superpower in the mediteranean. Since the roman empire influenced the western civilization in countless ways it's impossible to imagine the world today if the romans lost the battle of Metaurus.
toundra
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2001 8:00 am
Location: France

Post by toundra »

Originally posted by Gen.Hoepner:
3-Portiers(?)-The moors are stopped by Charle Magne

Ouch!


Charles Martel not charlemagne...

By the way The battle as been won by an infantry army over a cavalry army, shield wall vs lance.

Also Guillaume le conquérant he is French he don't need a Brits name... <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Oops i just saw Ecofact message.

It was not really a minor raid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The struggle was not over after just one battle!! Arabs were just stoped near Poitier and not deafeated, the war against the arabians was long
Charles martel kicked them out of France after something like 30 years (not sure)

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Toundra ]</p>
vils
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by vils »

Originally posted by Dan in Toledo:
Zakhal: What is this Finnish/Swedish battle? I've never heard of it.

Me neither. And to correct it: there wasn't any Sweden nor Finland during that time (200-400 a.d.)

Maybe the local vikings got beaten by the woodmen from finland, but that is nothing i have ever heard of, which shows it's not of any importance at all <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

But Finland was part of the Svea Rike for many hundred years, but that is a completely different story.
Take Command! - Lewis E. Lyle
User avatar
ananias
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Finland

Post by ananias »

I´d say one quite important battle (at least from a Scandinavian and especially a Finnish viewpoint) was the battle of Tali-Ihantala, biggest battle ever fought in North Europe, where the Finnish army managed to stop the advence of the Red Army, thereby securing Finland´s independence and giving the rest of the Scandinavic nations a nice little bumper to that nasty bear nextdoor.

All my thanks to the men who fought there, and in other, minor, but still very important battles of that war.
"Man shouldn't have to live on carbohydrates alone, complex or otherwise." -Spike.
Ozgur
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 10:00 am
Location: &#304;Izmir,Turkey
Contact:

Post by Ozgur »

One interesting note from the battle of Uhud Muhammed is wounded and the musl&#305;ms were defetaed: The crucial flank attack made by Makkeian Cavalry was commanded by Khalid Bin Velid; a member of pagan forces that time; later accepted Islam and became one of the best known Muslim commanders in military history. Also a leading figure in the thread of "best generals of all time". Actually, aware of the flank attack Muhammed did employ 70 archers to a dominating hill however they abandoned their places in order to take their share from the victory which they thought imminent. That gave the Khalid the opportunity to attack muslim forces from behind.
"War does not decide who is right; but who is left" Bernard Shaw.

"I am not ordering you to fight; I am ordering you to die" Mustafa Kemal at Gallipoli
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”