What individual battles would have drastically changed the course of history had they gone different?

What individual battles would have drastically changed the course of history had they gone different?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amiens
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Maybe the battle of teutonburger wald. If Romans came prepared and would've beat the germanic urpising maybe they wouldn't have retreated from germania and hold it as they held gaul?

revolt of the Macabees against selucid empire, retaking their temple from the laxed jews embracing hellenism. What they celebrate Hannukah over. If they hadn't won this revolt, I don't think Judaism, Christianity, or Islam would exist today

Kursk. Hitler probably wouldn't have been able to win the war, but might have forced the allies into either nuking Germany or settle for a favorable, but not complete, victory. The Soviet Unions power would also had been severely compromised, and the union might even have dissolved.

The Romans were a sinking ship anyways with all of the instability.

Inb4 muh battle tours

Vienna, if Sillyman had cracked it Italy and central Europe would've been Islamized

Without a doubt, the Battle of the Marne.

If the French don't stop the Germans there, the Schlieffen Plan succeeds and the French are knocked out of the war early. Britain probably never enters the war in full. Russia gets its ass kicked. The USA and many minor countries never enter; Turkey and Italy possibly still enter to grab some concessions from France/Russia while Germany mauls them. Germany probably establishes a hegemon over the continent with France and Russia both thoroughly neutered.

The effects this would have on world history from then on would be absolutely enormous. The world would become completely unrecognizable from what it is today.

Trafalgar.

Although the French ended up winning the war anyway, a loss for Britain at Trafalgar would have meant a French invasion was inevitable.

To add to this, it would have basically knocked the Royal Navy on its arse permanently and the French would be unchallenged at sea. This would have likely resulted in a much greater French Empire and Britain losing all of its shit abroad.

Vienna was not that important back then, neither for the Habsburgs nor the HRE.
And he couldnt crack it, because it was on the very end of the possible supply lines, so its very unlikely that the Turks would have gone further west.

>This would have likely resulted in a much greater French Empire

On the contrary
Britain invaded in 1805 = no more wars in Europe (since Britain was the country starting or fueling them) = France remains contened within its borders with Napoleon as enlightened peaceful ruler

Wasnt it only a part of the Royal Navy involved? And the french navy at that point had already fallen back quite a lot from its heigh days.

And, the Grand Armee was at the same time busy dealing with the Russians, Austrians and possibly the Prussians, so its not like France could have used any naval victory either way.

>Britain was the country starting or fueling them

Let's remind ourselves how the Napoleonic Wars started

>Matters reached a diplomatic crisis point when the British rejected the idea of mediation by Tsar Alexander, and instead on 10 May ordered Whitworth to withdraw from Paris if the French did not accede to their demands in 36 hours.[42] Last minute attempts at negotiation by Talleyrand failed, and Whitworth left France on 13 May. Britain declared war on France on 18 May, thus starting the Napoleonic Wars that would rage in Europe for the following 12 years.[43]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amiens

>The British were increasingly angered by Napoleon's re-ordering of the international system in Western Europe, especially in Switzerland, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Kagan argues that Britain was irritated in particular by Napoleon's assertion of control over Switzerland. Furthermore, Britons felt insulted when Napoleon stated that their country deserved no voice in European affairs, even though King George III was an elector of the Holy Roman Empire. For its part, Russia decided that the intervention in Switzerland indicated that Napoleon was not looking toward a peaceful resolution of his differences with the other European powers.

Basically, Napoleon acting like a fucking sperg trying to push Britain off the continent because he wanted it for himself.

But nah, he was gud boi, din du nuffin

>Let's remind ourselves how the Napoleonic Wars started
yeah, "peaceful" napoleon peacefully interfering in the trade and political affairs of sovereign states

but he was contented within france's borders right?

No way, Teutoberg forest was centuries before Rome began to crumble, and in the considering how Rome lost Gaul, why would holding Germany change that?

Also, barely a few years after Teutoberg Forest, the Romans swept through South Germany anyway, crushing all the tribes in the region.

>Britain doesn't respect the terms of the Treaty of Amiens (between France and Britain) while France does
>Britain spergs out because France doesn't respect the terms of the Treaty of Luneville (between France and the HRE)

Fucking hilarous
The pot getting butthurt at the kettle for being black

The intervention in Switzerland was not part of the Napoleonic Wars.

Also, french armies first entered on invitation of swiss revolutionaries to prevent them being crushed by the european monarchies and use Switzerland as invasion route into France.

All Napoleon did was unfuck their failed dysfunctional confederation and form it into a modern one and when the Swiss later made it clear that they prefer the previous order, he allowed it and left them alone.
Its pretty much the definition of a benevolent intervention.

It was still a breach in the Treaty of Luneville, but Britain had nothing to do or say about this treaty since it was exclusively between France and the HRE
Them getting mad about it was uncalled for (especially when they themselves didn't respect the terms of the Amiens Treaty)

The 1st Revolutionary War started with a european invasion of France. The second with a european/russian attack on France.
The Napoleonic Wars started with a declaration of war by Russia, Austria, GB and mighty Naples and multisided attack on France.
It continued by Prussia joining the russian-british war effort to invade over the Rhine.
Only the later wars were at least partly french attacks and even those were justified to some degree.

>but he was contented within france's borders right?
Their natural border of course.

Battle of Badr - No Islam if the other side won.

Battle of the Milvian Bridge - Possibly no Christian Roman Empire if the other side won.

Battle of Dalan Balzhut - If Genghis died, no Mongol Empire

Battle of the Granicus or Issus - in either battle, if the Persians won, the Empire would probably remain for some time

>Vienna was not that important back then
Vienna was fucking important back then

The general seat of power for the Habsburgs was in Madrid.

For austria, Prague was a lot larger and better situated. The austrian habsburgs even voluntarily moved their capital there a couple of years later.
I mean sure, losing your second city wouldnt be nice, but also nothing too shattering.

Vienna was a lot more important when the second turkish siege happened some 150 years later, but at that point the Ottoman Empire had already clearly fallen behind the european powers.

I would say Vienna really truely grew into a european metropole during the 18th century, way after the turkish sieges

If Valens had waited for Gratian's reinforcements instead of rushing to Adrianople in search of personal glory, the Romans would have won and stomped the Goths before shit hit the fan.

The WRE may very well have survived the 5th century had this occurred.