ITT: Most decisive battles in world history

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

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

...

>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?

Actually it really is inflated and greatly over exaggerated numbers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Covadonga

Based Leo III the Syrian

You're joking, right?

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?

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).

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

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

>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

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.

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

Not very subtle.

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?

>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.

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

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

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.

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

OP here, Anglo shitposters need to leave.

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

Wiki says Umayyad Caliphate forces are unknown..

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

Is it about Midway?

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

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.

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.

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..

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.

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

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

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.

>won Trafalgar Square

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

Germany?

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

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.

>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.

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

>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

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.

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.

ENTIRE FORCE
N
T
I
R
E

Did Allah forsake them?

K:D RATIOOOOOOOOOOOO GET SHIT ON BROWNBOIS

>based desert kikes

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

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

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

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.

makes me cri evrytim

>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

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

Reconquista II when?

Based sword of Muhammad (PBUH)

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

>Charlemagne
Yeah, figures

>Khalid's victories
>credible numbers
Pick one

Zama
Asculum
Salamis
Adrianapole
Chalons
Guagamela

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

> unknown
A few hours ago it had some numbers

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

I didn't see any numbers

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

Catalaunian plains

...

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

>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

>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 Veeky Forums 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.

>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

>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

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

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.

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

only english speaking countrys are england-centric

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

what the fuck was their problem

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)

Battle of the Talas River

>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.

>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

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

>70,000

sup Nigel

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

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.

good one.

>Trafalgar square

Top lel chum