Let's talk about history and battles. Some of us have probably read Creasy's famous "15 Most Decisive Battles" . He wrote his book in 1851 or so, therefore, his discussion stopped at 1850 or so. His focus was on how those battles changed the course of history, and less on casualty figures, territorial swaps, etc.
Here is his list:
1. Battle of Marathon
2. Battle of Syracuse
3. Arbela
4. Battle of Mataurus
5. Tuetenborg Forest
6. Battle of Chalons
7. Battle of Tours
8. Hastings
9. Orleans
10. Spanish Armada
11. Blenheim
12. Poltava
13. Saratoga
14. Valmy
15. Waterloo
This list has two major flaws in my mind. First, it is incredibly Euorcentric. Secondly, it ends in 180. Creasey couldn't do much about that last one. However, now we can. If you were making a list of the 10 or 15 most Decisive Battles, what battles would you consider and why?
Battle of Saarbrücken (kicked off the Franco-Prussian War, which would then indirectly lead to...)
Austria-Hungary's occupation of the Sanjak of Novibazar (which would then directly lead to about a hundred years of horror in the Balkans, including WWI, which was the cause of WWII and just about everything else)
Then the obvious ones:
Normandy D-Day invasion
Stalingrad
Nagasake <-- but is that really a 'battle'?
From the top of my head (before anybody corrects my mistakes )
1598 The Battle of Okehazama. Oda Nobunaga defeats Toyatomi Imagawa, thus paving the way for the unification of Japan.
300 AD or thereabout? Was it Cao Cao's campaign in China that paved the way to Chinese unification. It's been a few years since I played Dynasty Warriors
1314 The battle of Bannockburn. Scotland re-gains its independance, much to Matty's annoyance
401BC The battle of Cunaxa. Without this battle, no Walter Hill and the great film that is The Warriors.
Trafalgar?
I mean after that the French fleet was essentially non-existent and Britain had a free hand to build an empire...
I'm always unsure about Eurocentricism...
I mean i'm sure there were notable world changing events in other countries on other continents but i wouldn't be able to tell you what they are...
Purplefood, Agincourt is important for no other reason than it inspired one of the finest plays in English literature:
This day is called the Feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day and comes safe home
Will stand a-tiptoe when this day is named
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t' old age
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours
And say, "Tomorrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words —
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester —
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son,
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition.
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Purplefood, Agincourt is important for no other reason than it inspired one of the finest plays in English literature:
This day is called the Feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day and comes safe home
Will stand a-tiptoe when this day is named
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t' old age
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours
And say, "Tomorrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words —
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester —
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son,
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition.
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day.
It gets better every time you read it
Quite right. Once more to the breach bitches.
...anyway, how on earth is Agincourt not important? Because the French recovered a decade and a half later?
"Can we go in procession to boast of this victory?"
"Oh sorry Henry, unfortunately due to your idiot son losing france to some teenage girl who thinks she spoke to god this victory has been deemed unimportant."
Yeah but France still existed... AFAIK Britain (England i guess) didn't really do anything they wouldn't have been able to do anyway in the intervening time. It's not exactly a world changing battle... definitely memorable though...
It's Eurocentric because at the time, Europe was the dominant world power and the concept of multiculturalism wasn't exactly developed.
You could add major battles from ancient Mesopotamia to the list.
Japan's defeat of Russia solidified Imperial Japan as a major power and arguably the most powerful nation outside of Europe and America at the time.
Stalingrad and Midway were both turning points in WW2 in each respective front.
The Tet Offensive, while a failure in someways, was a massive success in that it led to increased anti war sentiment in America and was a major factor in America's withdrawal.
I think Vietnam was the last major war in the term of impact it had on global society.
Yes. A decisive victory for the weather. If this is here why aren't either divine winds? This list is ridiculously eurocentric and follows revisionist historical retellings (such as no one faulting the armada sinking due to weather for their loss).
Yes. A decisive victory for the weather. If this is here why aren't either divine winds? This list is ridiculously eurocentric and follows revisionist historical retellings (such as no one faulting the armada sinking due to weather for their loss).
The British ships did force them away from any safe ports and their rendezvous. That ultimately got them sunk because of the weather...
Yes. A decisive victory for the weather. If this is here why aren't either divine winds? This list is ridiculously eurocentric and follows revisionist historical retellings (such as no one faulting the armada sinking due to weather for their loss).
Erm? That's just one contributing part to a very long and complex battle. The armada had already given up on invasion anyway and were on their way back to Spain.
Yes. A decisive victory for the weather. If this is here why aren't either divine winds? This list is ridiculously eurocentric and follows revisionist historical retellings (such as no one faulting the armada sinking due to weather for their loss).
The British ships did force them away from any safe ports and their rendezvous. That ultimately got them sunk because of the weather...
The British sunk five ships to the skies sixty one. I doubt British meteorology was good enough in 1588 to really plan on that. The land invasion had already failed and without that there was no point to the armada at all. They wen't home because half of their plan was defunct and the armada lost ships because they didn't sacrifice anything to Poseidon. The most decisive part of the battle appears to be the part the water and smallpox played.
1. Battle of Issus
2. Battle of Cannae/Zama
3. Battle of Tours
4. Battle of Kursk
5. Waterloo
6. Spanish Armada
7. Battle of Chalons
8. Midway
9. Battle of Red Cliffs
10. Siege of Yorktown
Even now, the world is still somewhat Eurocentric. Europe dominated global politics for upwards of three hundred years. The battles that created that situation are naturally going to end up being more influencial than those won by the civilizations eventually subjugated to European rule.
1. Battle of Issus
2. Battle of Cannae/Zama
3. Battle of Tours
4. Battle of Kursk
5. Waterloo
6. Spanish Armada
7. Battle of Chalons
8. Midway
9. Battle of Red Cliffs
10. Siege of Yorktown
Even now, the world is still somewhat Eurocentric. Europe dominated global politics for upwards of three hundred years. The battles that created that situation are naturally going to end up being more influencial than those won by the civilizations eventually subjugated to European rule.
Given that the book was written in 1851 it's eurocentrism is a bit more striking than it could have been (though honestly, global historical knowledge was pretty shallow those days). China had been the dominant market force in global trade for nearly a millennium and had several intensively decisive military conflicts shaping its public and foreign policy. The list makes no mention of Mongolians at all, nor the federation and consolidation of the Russian states, nor the decisive conflicts that shaped japanese, korean, or indian influences around the world.
Seriously, any list on military conflicts that doesn't mention the Mongolions is just pandering to white dudes. They mention alexander, but they don't mention the khans who basically did the same thing but bigger, larger, and better.
Alexander has a major thing going for him in that debate, that he led that campaign from the front line as a remarkable soldier, while Khan lead from the back.
1. Battle of Issus
2. Battle of Cannae/Zama
3. Battle of Tours
4. Battle of Kursk
5. Waterloo
6. Spanish Armada
7. Battle of Chalons
8. Midway
9. Battle of Red Cliffs
10. Siege of Yorktown
No Gettysburg?
Even now, the world is still somewhat Eurocentric. Europe dominated global politics for upwards of three hundred years. The battles that created that situation are naturally going to end up being more influencial than those won by the civilizations eventually subjugated to European rule.
Sort of but not really. I honestly think its hard to draw any kind of line between Marathon, Syracuse and all the other various dicking around in Greece that made Creasy's list, and the modern world dominated by Europe. And even then, Greece is beyond irrelevant, outside of its ability to be the first and most minor part of a debt crisis.
Red Cliffs, which made your list, being a major factor in the unification of China, still has an importance to the modern world, whereas its pretty hard to imagine anything being meaningfully different had Syracuse gone the other way.
1. Battle of Issus
2. Battle of Cannae/Zama
3. Battle of Tours
4. Battle of Kursk
5. Waterloo
6. Spanish Armada
7. Battle of Chalons
8. Midway
9. Battle of Red Cliffs
10. Siege of Yorktown
No Gettysburg?
Even now, the world is still somewhat Eurocentric. Europe dominated global politics for upwards of three hundred years. The battles that created that situation are naturally going to end up being more influencial than those won by the civilizations eventually subjugated to European rule.
Sort of but not really. I honestly think its hard to draw any kind of line between Marathon, Syracuse and all the other various dicking around in Greece that made Creasy's list, and the modern world dominated by Europe. And even then, Greece is beyond irrelevant, outside of its ability to be the first and most minor part of a debt crisis.
Red Cliffs, which made your list, being a major factor in the unification of China, still has an importance to the modern world, whereas its pretty hard to imagine anything being meaningfully different had Syracuse gone the other way.
No individual battle of the Civil War really changed anything. If the South had won 'em all, then yeah, different world... but really, the enormous advantage the North had made any temporary advantage the South gained irrelevant, especially once they got the silver to kill the vampires.
sebster wrote:Yeah, its euro-centric, but you know, it was 1850, what else would anyone expect?
I think it's more weird that there is no decisive battle from the Crusades mentioned, surely Hattin ought to make the list?
Glorioski wrote:Where's Agincourt? Or does that come under Massacre rather than Battle.
Creasy's criteria was battles that changed the course of history, and Agincourt didn't do that. The English still lost the war.
It's why Orleans is in there instead, that changed the course of the 100 years war.
Agincourt had a massive influence on how warfare was conducted but had little long term impact on the course of history, in the same vein that that the first use of tanks altered warfare.
Glorioski wrote:Alexander has a major thing going for him in that debate, that he led that campaign from the front line as a remarkable soldier, while Khan lead from the back.
Yeah, it makes Alexander impressive as a general and well, just plain impressive in a 'holy gak that guy did a lot in just one life' kind of way.
But after his death he didn't leave behind any kind of kingdom, really. Things basically went back to being what they were before. By Creasy's own criteria 'battles that changed the course of history', there really wasn't that much of change to the economics and politics of the world.
Of course, Arbela still made Creasy's list because, you know, he wrote that list in 1850 so its all about European dudes.
Glorioski wrote:Alexander has a major thing going for him in that debate, that he led that campaign from the front line as a remarkable soldier, while Khan lead from the back.
Yeah, it makes Alexander impressive as a general and well, just plain impressive in a 'holy gak that guy did a lot in just one life' kind of way.
But after his death he didn't leave behind any kind of kingdom, really. Things basically went back to being what they were before. By Creasy's own criteria 'battles that changed the course of history', there really wasn't that much of change to the economics and politics of the world.
Of course, Arbela still made Creasy's list because, you know, he wrote that list in 1850 so its all about European dudes.
Well, just because Alexander didn't leave behind a unified kingdom doesn't mean he didn't spread Hellenistic culture and have a powerful influence beyond Greece. The Ptolemeys in Egypt, the Selucids, the Indo-Greeks... quite a legacy.
Glorioski wrote:Alexander has a major thing going for him in that debate, that he led that campaign from the front line as a remarkable soldier, while Khan lead from the back.
Yeah, it makes Alexander impressive as a general and well, just plain impressive in a 'holy gak that guy did a lot in just one life' kind of way.
But after his death he didn't leave behind any kind of kingdom, really. Things basically went back to being what they were before. By Creasy's own criteria 'battles that changed the course of history', there really wasn't that much of change to the economics and politics of the world.
Of course, Arbela still made Creasy's list because, you know, he wrote that list in 1850 so its all about European dudes.
The logic behind Alexander's battles is this.
Alexander established his empire through several notable battles. When he died, he left Greek ruled kingdoms (the successor states headed by his generals) all over the middle east which lasted until conquered by the Romans.
This led over the course of several hundred years to the establishment of the Eastern Roman Empire as a unified Christian polity, the core of which was the rump of the successor states.
The Eastern (Byzantine) Empire lasted until 1453 and influenced Mediaeval politics and strategy, including the effect on Europe of the rise of Islam, of the Mongols and the Ottoman Empire.
Obviously this is all hindsight.
Anyway this kind of list is like those Top 100 Generals or Top 100 Films kind of lists. The value is in generating discussion rather than reaching a definitive judgement about things.
I was a bit surprised the Manzikert wasn't on there?
You also see a lot of Greek/Roman Ancient battles represented because everyone back around the 1850s had to study the classics to be considered any kind of student.
From a British perspective the battle of Jutland Bank was extremely important, though this was not realised until later. Had we not sent the High Seas Fleet back to jail to resume its status as "a fleet in being" then I fear that we would have been on the losing side of that conflict.
Salamis -- Defeated Persian invasion of Attica and led to establishment of the Athenian Empire
Actium -- Victory over Mark Anthony allowed Augustus to establish himself as the first emperor of the Roman Empire.
Sluys -- Destroyed French fleet allowing the 100 Years War to take place mainly in France, which had long term effects on both British and French nation forming.
The Armada -- Destroyed Spanish fleet, alllowing England to remain a protestant nation.
Lepanto -- Destroyed the Ottoman fleet, preventing further naval incursion by Islam in the Mediterranean
Battle of the Chesapeake -- Ended British naval superiority in the American War of Independence, leading to the establishment of the USA.
Battle of the Nile -- Destroyed the French fleet and caused Napoleon to return to France and become First Consul and Emperor (eventually) thus setting up the Napoleonic Wars.
Battle of Trafalgar -- Destroyed the French and Spanish fleets. Established British naval supremacy for the rest of the 19th century.
Battle of Straits of Tsushima -- Destroyed the Russian fleet. Established Japan as a world power.
Battle of Jutland -- Prevented the German High Seas Fleet from leaving port for any more serious missions in WW1. Allowed the western allies to blockade Germany, leading to its defeat.
Midway -- First major victory over the Imperial Japanese Navy caused irreparable damage, changing the course of the Pacific War.
Battle of the Atlantic -- Enable the UK to stay in WW2.
Taken off the top of my head. Given in date order.
Glorioski wrote:Alexander has a major thing going for him in that debate, that he led that campaign from the front line as a remarkable soldier, while Khan lead from the back.
This is something of a misnomer. We idealize it now, but frankly, many commanders did that in ancient times for one reason: Once a battle began, communications were far to primitive to change the outcome. In ancient battles, you pretty much made your battle plan before the battle started, and that was it. There was little a commander could really do to issue immediate or timely orders, so they took to the field.
It wouldn't be until the Roman empire that we begin to see the formation of mobile "living" battlefields. In Alexanders time, effective subordinates were probably more important than at any other point in the history of warfare because if you told them "I need you to charge here when the time is right, or here if you get the chance" you need those men to not only be able to see the opportunity but to take full advantage of it when it comes cause you, as the supreme commander of the force, will be utterly incapable of telling them to do it or even knowing the opportunity is there.
sebster wrote:No Gettysburg?
Honestly, Gettysburg is probably the most overrated battle in US history. The Civil War was won at Vicksburg, a month before Gettysburg began. Once cut in half, the South was finished. Really the only reason the battle is so big is because its one of the few battles Lincoln actually went to in the aftermath, and thanks to a certain congressmen named Daniel Sickles who really overplayed and trumped up the role of the battle in the war.
Sort of but not really. I honestly think its hard to draw any kind of line between Marathon, Syracuse and all the other various dicking around in Greece that made Creasy's list, and the modern world dominated by Europe. And even then, Greece is beyond irrelevant, outside of its ability to be the first and most minor part of a debt crisis.
I guess it'll depend on how you look at history. To me, the ascension of Greece and Greek culture to dominance in the mediterranian is the beginning of the long road to European dominance, and as a starting point the battles that created it are very important. Likewise, the Punic Wars, which made Rome rather than Carthage, dominant is also very important.
EDIT: Of course, I say that while knowing that the Persians have had almost as much an impact on European historical development as the Greeks, I'm just not familiar enough with Persian history to really lay it out in a meaningful way.
Red Cliffs, which made your list, being a major factor in the unification of China, still has an importance to the modern world, whereas its pretty hard to imagine anything being meaningfully different had Syracuse gone the other way.
Part of this is that frankly, like most westerners I think, I'm largely unfamiliar with eastern history. I only know the Three Kingdoms era because of the Dynasty Warriors game series.
The english were outnumbered 6-1 and still managed to inflict 7000-10000 casualties whilst only losing 112 men. On top of that, 1500 french nobles were captured.
Agincourt really isn't that notable of a battle (its just bad ass, like Marathon or Platae) in the grand scheme of things. It was a political victory more than a military one.
Even the long heralded role of the long bow is highly overplayed. Charging the English through a field of mud got the French cavalry killed more than the superiority of English archery, something that becomes evident when examining other battles before and after Agincourt.
I guess it'll depend on how you look at history. To me, the ascension of Greece and Greek culture to dominance in the mediterranian is the beginning of the long road to European dominance, and as a starting point the battles that created it are very important. Likewise, the Punic Wars, which made Rome rather than Carthage, dominant is also very important.
EDIT: Of course, I say that while knowing that the Persians have had almost as much an impact on European historical development as the Greeks, I'm just not familiar enough with Persian history to really lay it out in a meaningful way
Europeans didn't become "dominant" in much of anything until the start of the industrial revolution.
ShumaGorath wrote:Europeans didn't become "dominant" in much of anything until the start of the industrial revolution.
The point isn't that they were always dominant but that their historical development eventually made them dominant. No country to the time can compare to the empire's being built by the late 18th century by England and France. Heck, even Spain kept hanging in there after self imploding their economy with all that American gold/silver.
China had a great head start and stayed ahead for a long time (and from my vague understanding India ain't something to scoff at either) but at the end of the time line Europe over took everyone... and then subjugated them to decades of oppression...
Anyway, my point is that today, even though Europe's empires are gone, the scientific, economic, and political models of the European states are pretty much those of the world. That's not to say other countries are European styled or anything, merely to say that more so than any other group, I think Europeans have at this current moment spread their influence across the globe in a way unmatched in history. You have to go pretty remote to find a place without their influencing hitting somewhere (of course who knows how that view will play out in, oh say, a century *stares at China and India*).
Surely they were dominant in being European?
Well to be fair its easy to win when you're the only horse in the race
What's up with the UK and lions anyway? There aren't any Lions in Britain. At least bald eagles live in the US. Shouldn't the UK's mascot be a sheep or something
LordofHats wrote:What's up with the UK and lions anyway? There aren't any Lions in Britain. At least bald eagles live in the US. Shouldn't the UK's mascot be a sheep or something
I guess it's imperial or something...
It's been on the royal coat of arms for donkey's...
If anything our mascot would be a badger...
Those things will you up...
1. Battle of Marathon - Check, though should that be shared with Salamis and Platea.
2. Battle of Syracuse
3. Arbela
4. Battle of Mataurus
5. Tuetenborg Forest - Halted the expansion of Rome, excepting only the Dacian campaign and the conquest of Britannia.
6. Battle of Chalons - Irrelevant, it was an impressive victory that halted the fall of Rome for but a brief time.
7. Battle of Tours - aka First battle of Poitiers, when Charles Martel stopped the expansion of Islam into western Europe cold. This deserves to make the list.
8. Hastings - Good choice, last successful conquest on England with results still extant nearly a thousand years later. Hastings was a fait accomplice 9. Orleans
10. Spanish Armada - Not really relevant, England wasnt under a great invasion threat, more like invasion hype. Spains supremacy was not really affected by the campaign.
11. Blenheim - This deserves to be on the list. It closed chapters.
12. Poltava
13. Saratoga
14. Valmy
15. Waterloo - Near the top of the list, ending the Napoleonic era, ushering in British dominance of the 19th century and securing Prussia, later Germany back towards being a major European power.
Missing:
Manzikert - Probably the single most important pivotal battle in human history, yet rarely remembered. It set the stage for the end of the Byzantine empire, the foundation of Turkey and the formation of an Islamic middle east. Its ramifications still echo today.
Trafalgar - Waterloo built on this victory, between the two the fixed the destiny of a whole century.
Midway - How to doom an empire inside of fifteen minutes.
Actium - Secured Augustus Caesar's ascent as first emperor of Rome.
First Battle of the Marne - Successful defense of Paris that prevented World War 1 from being a quick German victory as with the Franco Prussian War.
Sekigahara - Secured the Tokagawa shogunate and changed the outlook of Japan, leading to its closure. Had Japan not closed itself it may have become a quasi-European colonial power in the 18th and 19th century.
Not missing:
Stalingrad - Important but not really relevant as it was just the signiture of a larger campaign going exactly the same way.
Bannockburn - And the Scots did what with it? Culloden was more important.
Agincourt - Very decisive tactically, but Henry V's premature end robbed him of any victory.
This list has two major flaws in my mind. First, it is incredibly Euorcentric.
It ought to be mostly Eurocentric, that is where its at.
LordofHats wrote:What's up with the UK and lions anyway? There aren't any Lions in Britain. At least bald eagles live in the US. Shouldn't the UK's mascot be a sheep or something
I guess it's imperial or something...
It's been on the royal coat of arms for donkey's...
If anything our mascot would be a badger...
Those things will you up...
Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules,
Of Hector and Lysander and such great names as these!
But of all the worlds brave heroes there's none that can compare,
With the tow row row row row row, to the British Grenadiers!
The point isn't that they were always dominant but that their historical development eventually made them dominant. No country to the time can compare to the empire's being built by the late 18th century by England and France. Heck, even Spain kept hanging in there after self imploding their economy with all that American gold/silver.
China had a great head start and stayed ahead for a long time (and from my vague understanding India ain't something to scoff at either) but at the end of the time line Europe over took everyone... and then subjugated them to decades of oppression...
China still had a larger economy than any of the empires until the industrial revolution. They became inwardly focused and their development slowed during that period but it still took a long time for them to actually be usurped in any meaningful sense.
Anyway, my point is that today, even though Europe's empires are gone, the scientific, economic, and political models of the European states are pretty much those of the world. That's not to say other countries are European styled or anything, merely to say that more so than any other group, I think Europeans have at this current moment spread their influence across the globe in a way unmatched in history. You have to go pretty remote to find a place without their influencing hitting somewhere (of course who knows how that view will play out in, oh say, a century *stares at China and India*).
Most of that good occurred during the industrial revolution that kicked off 250 years ago. Half of Europe wasn't even democratic 60 years ago. The enlightenment occurred for and solely for land owning nobles primarily because of translated Arabic texts which recorded greek and roman history. It didn't create the just secular revolution Europe identifies itself with for hundreds of years (specifically the industrial revolution moving the world away from an agrarian economic model).
Europe was never a "group' until the EU. Its states didn't have the population to powerfully influence world populations until the 1700s when the potato led to a population explosion. Colonialism, smallpox, and the industrial revolution led to a world predominantly influenced by European culture for a few hundred years. It also resulted in the death of millions by disease, millions more by slavery, the extinction of millions of species, and the dissolution of several empires (mostly by smallpox deaths causing power struggles and economic collapses). America alone as a single nation is almost caught up to europes realistic chronological dominance which is mostly just British imperial dominance (the american century is almost over and mirrored the imperial one in some ways).
Europe overstates its contribution to history. It's amazing how much of Europes success can be attributed directly to smallpox.
ShumaGorath wrote:The enlightenment occurred for and solely for land owning nobles primarily because of translated Arabic texts which recorded greek and roman history. It didn't create the just secular revolution Europe identifies itself with for hundreds of years (specifically the industrial revolution moving the world away from an agrarian economic model).
While the role of the Arabs is often under appreciated historically, the role of the Byzantines is equally under appreciated, as is the role of Europeans themselves. No one cultural group can claim key credit of the European Renaissance and its aftermath (EDIT: And I'm extremely familiar with the mass importance of Ibn Al-Haytham).
Europe was never a "group' until the EU.
Being united is not relevant to whether a mass of people can be discussed as having a group influence.
Colonialism, smallpox, and the industrial revolution led to a world predominantly influenced by European culture for a few hundred years. It also resulted in the death of millions by disease, millions more by slavery, the extinction of millions of species, and the dissolution of several empires (mostly by smallpox deaths causing power struggles and economic collapses).
So is your problem that Eurocentrists overstate their case or that it wasn't pretty? Cause the former is probably true (but then, I have yet to find a historical school of thought that doesn't overstate its case). The later is just hyperbole.
Europe overstates its contribution to history. It's amazing how much of Europes success can be attributed directly to smallpox.
While the role of the Arabs is often under appreciated historically, the role of the Byzantines is equally under appreciated, as is the role of Europeans themselves. No one cultural group can claim key credit of the European Renaissance and its aftermath.
I like john greens argument that it didn't actually happen at all.
Being united is not relevant to whether a mass of people can be discussed as having a group influence.
If that's true than the Asiatic populations had every bit the influence that European ones did.
So is your problem that Eurocentrists overstate their case or that it wasn't pretty? Cause the former is probably true (but then, I have yet to find a historical school of thought that doesn't overstate its case). The later is just hyperbole.
The former. Also, I'd hardly consider the later hyperbole. The Colombian exchange resulted in one of the most egregious and systematic series of human rights abuses in the history of our species. No population has ever done worse. Did you know that only about one in twenty slaves shipped to the new world were sent to north america? The vast majority died in plantations in south america and the islands where their treatment was so poor they never actually increased in population (thus requiring further continuous shipments of fresh slaves).
ShumaGorath wrote:
Europe was never a "group' until the EU. Its states didn't have the population to powerfully influence world populations until the 1700s when the potato led to a population explosion.
There were in fact several European empires of varying longevity prior to the formation of the EU.
Roman Empire
Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire
Germanic Holy Roman Empire
Austrian Empire
Napoleonic Empire
Third Reich
ShumaGorath wrote:
Europe overstates its contribution to history. It's amazing how much of Europes success can be attributed directly to smallpox.
You think. Europe is the pivotal point of the modern age, and is still immensely powerful collectively and important enough with regards to isolated nation states, particularly the UK, France and Germany.
An interesting perspective, but really he's not arguing it didn't happen, just pointing out the obvious: Rich people get all the good stuff and that historical cultural shifts are not easily pinned down in a timeline. That's not really an argument it didn't happen, its stating the obvious.
He also ignores that scholarship was kind of dead in the Mid-East by the 14th century (Ottomans didn't come around till 15th fyi all) and most of the relevant documents were translated to Europe by the 13th (EDIT: Most of them through Byzantine intermediaries, and of course you can't ignore the role of Athenian scholars banished by Justianian in starting Islamic scientific achievements in the first place). Though I can tell our friend John has read George Saliba (since he quotes the section of Copernicus word for word) which is unfortunate.
Other than that I like his style
The Colombian exchange resulted in one of the most egregious and systematic series of human rights abuses in the history of our species.
Just cause I think Europeans have had a huge influence on the history of the world doesn't mean I think it was all good.
An interesting perspective, but really he's not arguing it didn't happen, just pointing out the obvious: Rich people get all the good stuff and that historical cultural shifts are not easily pinned down in a timeline. That's not really an argument it didn't happen, its stating the obvious.
Something that effects few people and occurs over hundreds of years probably shouldn't be called "the enlightenment".
He also ignores that scholarship was kind of dead in the Mid-East by the 14th century (Ottomans didn't come around till 15th fyi all) and most of the relevant documents were translated to Europe by the 13th (EDIT: Most of them through Byzantine intermediaries, and of course you can't ignore the role of Athenian scholars banished by Justianian in starting Islamic scientific achievements in the first place). Though I can tell our friend John has read George Saliba (since he quotes the section of Copernicus word for word) which is unfortunate.
He ignores it because the piece was specifically about the realistic efficacy of an "event" known as the "enlightenment". The sources of the enlightenment weren't so much his argument as the time frame and the fact that you could call any period in history with progressive technological and social advances as "the enlightenment" but we for some reason reserve that simply for when Europe pulled itself out of the gutter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just cause I think Europeans have had a huge influence on the history of the world doesn't mean I think it was all good.
No, but calling it hyperbolic when someone points out the fact that europe had very few good or just interactions with the surrounding world is.
ShumaGorath wrote:Something that effects few people and occurs over hundreds of years probably shouldn't be called "the enlightenment".
So his problem is that the name isn't apt? That's still not an argument that it didn't happen, just that our name for it isn't necessarily the best one but changing it at this point would be a pain in the ass for us and future scholars who then have to keep track of whatever the new name is and all the texts that call it the enlightenment.
We can thank the pre-Van Ranke historical schools for that but learning is a process
He ignores it because the piece was specifically about the realistic efficacy of an "event" known as the "enlightenment". The sources of the enlightenment weren't so much his argument as the time frame and the fact that you could call any period in history with progressive technological and social advances as "the enlightenment" but we for some reason reserve that simply for when Europe pulled itself out of the gutter.
Oh no, we reserve the phrase "the Enlightenment" for a specific thing in European history. Obviously it must be a unique all encompassing thing that never happened before anywhere else and will never happen again.
Come on. No one thinks that except for the plebs but who cares what they think (not congress, ZING!). They're wrong about almost everything. My college course of Recent US History had 86% of the class thinking Obama is muslim (18% of the American population still things he is, and 46% 'doesn't know'). I don't expect them to comprehend history in any meaningful context if they can't even bother to keep up with current events.
LordofHats wrote:My college course of Recent US History had 86% of the class thinking Obama is muslim (18% of the American population still things he is, and 46% 'doesn't know'). I don't expect them to comprehend history in any meaningful context if they can't even bother to keep up with current events.
A fair percentage could answer 'dont care' without being in any way ignorant. Obamas religious preferences should not be of relevance to whether he is an effective President.
So his problem is that the name isn't apt? That's still not an argument that it didn't happen, just that our name for it isn't necessarily the best one but changing it at this point would be a pain in the ass for us and future scholars who then have to keep track of whatever the new name is and all the texts that call it the enlightenment.
His problem is a eurocentric emphasis and the amount of mindshare given over to an event that didn't exist, start, or even really end and which has been mirrored in many places all over the world all throughout time. A lot of Greens emphasis in his crash course videos is in de emphasizing the eurocentric viewpoint in history because the world had another four fifths of it's population with a history all its own that needed to be talked about.
Oh no, we reserve the phrase "the Enlightenment" for a specific thing in European history. Obviously it must be a unique all encompassing thing that never happened before anywhere else and will never happen again.
That's how it was taught by a majority of history teachers since it started being taught, yeah.
Come on. No one thinks that except for the plebs but who cares what they think (not congress, ZING!). They're wrong about almost everything. My college course of Recent US History had 86% of the class thinking Obama is muslim (18% of the American population still things he is, and 46% 'doesn't know'). I don't expect them to comprehend history in any meaningful context if they can't even bother to keep up with current events.
Actually the professor gave us all a 10 question quiz at the start of the semester (fun stuff). Only three people in the class of 42 knew that 'Lusitania' wasn't the correct answer to 'Why did the US enter WWI?' to, so maybe I shouldn't be shocked they got most of the rest of a very simple quiz wrong.
And those numbers are from a recent US Gallup Poll (pulled from memory they are probably off a bit).
His problem is a eurocentric emphasis and the amount of mindshare given over to an event that didn't exist, start, or even really end and which has been mirrored in many places all over the world all throughout time.
I find that argument pointless, since there's a very clear pattern of cultural shifts and events to say it did. It happened. If the problem is the name I get it, but its the height of absurd revision to claim that it never happened. Any historian worth talking to knows that the Enlightenment and the Renaissance are not clear cut things that can be definitively described and pinned down to a time line, and that its role in history remains largely undefined, even just within the sphere of Europe. That's why we write books about it.
A lot of Greens emphasis in his crash course videos is in de emphasizing the eurocentric viewpoint in history because the world had another four fifths of it's population with a history all its own that needed to be talked about.
And it really shouldn't be shocking that Westerners focus and give emphasis to their own history. I'm sure the Chinese are much better with theirs and probably do the same thing, as does anywhere else with enough education to have academic scholarship in history. EDIT: Hell I say this graduating from a history department with 17 professors: 2 Russian historians, a global historian, one British Empire, one East Asia, one military historian, three environmental, a middle-east, and only two US history guys which is a pretty decent spread!
Global history is a comparatively new field, and frankly is so broad in its context that working with it is very difficult, especially since not everywhere documented things as well as Europe, ME, China, India, etc etc.
That's how it was taught by a majority of history teachers since it started being taught, yeah.
Maybe in high school, but I find history courses in high school to be horrible beyond discussing the Enlightenment. Lots of text books don't even have factually correct information (and thats before Texas started rewriting them).
I find that argument pointless, since there's a very clear pattern of cultural shifts and events to say it did. It happened. If the problem is the name I get it, but its the height of absurd revision to claim that it never happened. Any historian worth talking to knows that the Enlightenment and the Renaissance are not clear cut things that can be definitively described and pinned down to a time line. That's why we write books about it.
Then why is it a thing? If it's not clear cut, can't be defined, and has very difficult to trace effects than why is it considered an event? Why are similar periods of stable progressiveness in the Mideast, Africa, earlier periods of Europe, later periods of Europe, japan, or china not taught as well? There is a simple answer, and that is that history in the west is taught from a biased European perspective. It's the height of absurd to claim that something that effected 1% of a population, lasted hundreds of years, wasn't contiguous or interlinked, and didn't have it's effects felt until hundreds of years later by a meaningful proportion of European populations was an "event".
And it really shouldn't be shocking that Westerners focus and give emphasis to their own history. I'm sure the Chinese are much better with theirs and probably do the same thing, as does anywhere else with enough education to have academic scholarship in history.
The problem with having a history written and retold by your own people is that it's often full of lies, exaggerations, and tends to be full of holes (as western history has been until more recent globe-centric reforms in the last 20 years).
Maybe in high school, but I find history courses in high school to be horrible beyond discussing the Enlightenment. Lots of text books don't even have factually correct information (and thats before Texas started rewriting them).
And the majority of historical knowledge learned in america is learned during highschool. So yeah, there's that.
ShumaGorath wrote:Then why is it a thing? If it's not clear cut, can't be defined, and has very difficult to trace effects than why is it considered an event? Why are similar periods of stable progressiveness in the Mideast, Africa, earlier periods of Europe, later periods of Europe, japan, or china not taught as well? There is a simple answer, and that is that history in the west is taught from a biased European perspective. It's the height of absurd to claim that something that effected 1% of a population, lasted hundreds of years, wasn't contiguous or interlinked, and didn't have it's effects felt until hundreds of years later by a meaningful proportion of European populations was an "event".
Because we can't begin to examine the developments, origins, and effects of such a ting until we recognize it. The Enlightnment's 'uniqueness' is over-emphasized at times, but the marked shifts in art and culture can't be ignored. You think it was different elsewhere. Until about 500 years ago, the average life of the common peasant hadn't changed much for 4000 years. Most things of historical significance that we look at end up being focused primarily on the wealthy and the powerful because they're the chief actors in historical events (not that there isn't aren't entire fields dedicated to the study of common folk). Hellenism, the Islamic Golden Age, neo-Platonism? Common people didn't have the education or the time to care about anything other than getting fed and staying alive.
A lot of women's historical scholarship gets credited for focusing on 'grass roots' history that has long been ignored.
The problem with having a history written and retold by your own people is that it's often full of lies, exaggerations, and tends to be full of holes (as western history has been until more recent globe-centric reforms in the last 20 years).
I'd actually says the reforms go back to the 60's. Thats when we start seeing in Western Scholarship a real reform movement to get a more global perspective (and a reexamination of traditional narratives).
Unfortunately, the general public has a notable disinterest in academic history, being much more interested in folk history which tends to have poor emphasis on what actually needs emphasis.
And the majority of historical knowledge learned in america is learned during highschool. So yeah, there's that.
Because we can't begin to examine the developments, origins, and effects of such a ting until we recognize it. The Enlightnment's 'uniqueness' is over-emphasized at times, but the marked shifts in art and culture can't be ignored.
I agree, but they don't need to be conflated. The progression of art, progression (not establishment) of modern scientific principles, and expansion of philosophical thinking were more often than not done in isolation within their own fields. Much of it went entirely nowhere and the actual benefit to the population of Europe wasn't even felt until machines and production lines got them out of the farm (much later). By conflating slow progression in disparate fields and then implying it was actually beneficial to the populations of Europe (when the life expectancy was not at a historical highpoint) you show a willingness to participate in a form of historical revisionism for the sake of European grandeur. What matters is the truth, not the narrative. There is no narrative to the enlightenment, just a slow series of disparate events made possible by the influx of short term wealth to the nobility via sea trade.
Lordof hats, you've been warned before about mentioning Von Ranke and historical context. May the fleas of a thousand camels visit your doorstep
Anyway, back OT.
There is a reason why much of history is eurocentric, because Europe shaped the modern world. People can talk til the cows come home about Chinese dynasties, and other cultures, but Europeans went to North and South America, Africa, asia, Oz and new zealand, and the pacific too. Did any other continent do the same?
ShumaGorath wrote:What matters is the truth, not the narrative.
History is a narrative. Facts are just facts. Historical narratives pull them together so they mean something.
There is no narrative to the enlightenment, just a slow series of disparate events made possible by the influx of short term wealth to the nobility via sea trade.
Those events resulted in far reaching consequences for much of Europe. English Civil War, French Revolution, American Revolution, hell we can go back as far as the Protestant Reformation. Its hard to fully comprehend the aftermath looking at them in isolation.
History is not a sprint. Some things take centuries, and are disconnected within their own times before resulting in something later on. I doubt the Johannes Guttenburg realized what he'd unleashed in 1440 and how it would lead to the rejection of the Catholic Church mere decades later, or a rebellion on a continent he didn't even know existed in 1775. If we choose to connect all these events together for the purpose of forming the historical narrative, then that's what we choose to do. History is a construct fashioned to make sense of facts.
The construct of 'the Enlightenment' serves a useful and practical purpose because it links together numerous interdependent events to their preceding developments. To claim then that those things didn't happen on the basis that it was 'slow' and only effected the wealthy would invalidate most historical culture shifts. Not just those in Europe, but pretty much everywhere.
Its not a useful way of looking at things. Its historical nihilism.
Lordof hats, you've been warned before about mentioning Von Ranke and historical context. May the fleas of a thousand camels visit your doorstep
History is a narrative. Facts are just facts. Historical narratives pull them together so they mean something.
Narrative is a narrative, history is a series of events. Narratives can be pulled from history, and indeed in many cases they logically should be, but a narrative is a telling, not a happening. When you construct a narrative for the enlightenment you are constructing one that doesn't flow naturally. You are assembling something for "ease" that doesn't serve a truthful recollection of historical events. You are inventing an overall narrative by linking many separate ones, but historical tellings like that are little more than eurocentric propaganda.
Those events resulted in far reaching consequences for much of Europe. English Civil War, French Revolution, American Revolution, hell we can go back as far as the Protestant Reformation. Its hard to fully comprehend the aftermath looking at them in isolation.
Some of those events, yes. Not all of them. Not even most of them. Why conflate them when they are disparate? Not only are you doing a disservice to the direct reasons for things like the French and American revolutions, but you are misinforming people and leading them to draw false conclusions.
History is not a sprint. Some things take centuries, and are disconnected within their own times before resulting in something later on.
History is also not composed of chapters in a book. Trying to put start and end marks on a period of vague progressivism is bad form.
History is a construct fashioned to make sense of facts.
And I'm arguing that one particular construct is a disservice to those facts.
The construct of 'the Enlightenment' serves a useful and practical purpose because it links together numerous interdependent events to their preceding developments. To claim then that those things didn't happen on the basis that it was 'slow' and only effected the wealthy would invalidate most historical culture shifts. Not just those in Europe, but pretty much everywhere.
You clearly didn't understand any of my posts or the video. The argument has been that the enlightenment as an event didn't occur. That it's a useless and misinformative umbrella term interlinking disparate events and that it's narrative is damaging to truth. The things within the enlightenment happened, but the enlightenment itself is just a eurocentric bit of hype.
Its not a useful way of looking at things. Its historical nihilism.
I'll take that over historical revisionism and region specific propaganda.
ShumaGorath wrote:Narrative is a narrative, history is a series of events. Narratives can be pulled from history, and indeed in many cases they logically should be, but a narrative is a telling, not a happening.
Academic history does not deal in facts because facts are not disputed (thus there's no reason to debate them its why they're facts). History deals in narratives because a narrative is essentially what history is. History being 'stuff that happened' is one of the biggest misunderstandings between people who study history and people who just have an interest in it.
When you construct a narrative for the enlightenment you are constructing one that doesn't flow naturally.
That depends on how you define 'flow naturally.' The only problem I've ever had with the Enlightenment is the seeming unwillingness on part of historians to break the larger macro event down into sub-events, which would make its study much easier and allow for isolation of more specific event. But people seem content to treat the Enlightenment as a singular macro event and all the inner works get their specifics fleshed out on their own with marginal references to larger narrative.
You are inventing an overall narrative by linking many separate ones, but historical tellings like that are little more than eurocentric propaganda.
Your problem isn't with the narrative. it's with how the narrative is used in popular culture. Sadly there's very little that can be done with that.
Why conflate them when they are disparate?
Because they all play into one another and relate back to previous events. That's why the construct was created (or rather this is how it has been recreated).
Not only are you doing a disservice to the direct reasons for things like the French and American revolutions, but you are misinforming people and leading them to draw false conclusions.
Well, people do that in mass anyway.
History is also not composed of chapters in a book. Trying to put start and end marks on a period of vague progressivism is bad form.
History is unfortunately not a quantitative science, and does not benefit from the luxury of being able to always simply things down to lowest common denominator. Sometimes things need to be conflated to gain a full perspective on macro events. Its pretty much impossible to do global history without conflation as there wouldn't be enough pages or time to cover every single detail in any useful work. History has a very hard time juggling all the various emphasis and perspectives because of the scale of of its scope.
The argument has been that the enlightenment as an event didn't occur.
The problem is that it did. I know your saying it didn't, I just find that perspective to be entirely devoid of any usefulness and see no practical reason to accept it... That and it happened, so denying it just strikes me as absurd.
'll take that over historical revisionism and region specific propaganda.
Its funny how people treat revisionism as a negative thing when its pretty much par for the course in history on a daily basis. History is always being revised as new information comes to light. The reforms in the Western narratives are revisionist.
We can probably agree the Enlightenment gets abused by the some who like to toot their own horn, but that's not a valid reason for the annihilation of an important narrative for understanding European history.
The problem is that it did. I know your saying it didn't, I just find that perspective to be entirely devoid of any usefulness and see no practical reason to accept it... That and it happened, so denying it just strikes me as absurd.
Why? You yourself have stated that you find it annoying that people are reluctant to discuss the disparate events that make up the enlightenment. Why is the event as a narrative so important to you? How is it absurd that I dislike the co mingling of unrelated events into a eurocentric piece that in popular culture leads people to have the opinion that europe created the modern world order, science, and civilization? When a method of describing those events is that damaging to peoples understanding of history then it's bad and should be revised.
Its funny how people treat revisionism as a negative thing when its pretty much par for the course in history on a daily basis. History is always being revised as new information comes to light. The reforms in the Western narratives are revisionist.
That's why I conflated the revisionism with region specific propaganda. The enlightenment is revisionism with a purpose, it was meant to glorify the west and justify colonial and post colonial barbarity by framing history through a narrative of the enlightened European states sharing their gift with the savage other.
We can probably agree the Enlightenment gets abused by the some who like to toot their own horn, but that's not a valid reason for the annihilation of an important narrative for understanding European history.
I believe it is. If its a construct meant to aid in the understanding of history and it's having the reverse effect then it's a failed construct.
ShumaGorath wrote:You yourself have stated that you find it annoying that people are reluctant to discuss the disparate events that make up the enlightenment.
Oh they discuss them. My problem is that (and this is true of many other fields) there is a lot of disconnect between the micro and macro narratives. Few works connect the two, forcing me and others to read at least two works (likely more) to start getting the full prespective. EDIT: of course there's a good reason for that, namely that its very hard to do such a thing concisely, but not many people try anyway.
Why is the event as a narrative so important to you?
Probably because I'm a Eurocentrist (note that this term means something very different in historical circles than it does in the popular imagination). I study European history and I dabble with Middle Eastern history from time to time. Its what I do Read history books, play games, paint toy soldiers, and kill time on an internet forum when I have nothing better to do
How is it absurd that I dislike the co mingling of unrelated events into a eurocentric piece that in popular culture leads people to have the opinion that europe created the modern world order, science, and civilization?
Because that position strikes me as one of emotional outrage against European thick headed superiority complexes rather than being based in reasoned analysis.
When a method of describing those events is that damaging to peoples understanding of history then it's bad and should be revised.
People don't care, which is probably why I don't care that they don't get it. They want to live in their own little realities, they're welcome to it.
IThe enlightenment is revisionism with a purpose, it was meant to glorify the west and justify colonial and post colonial barbarity by framing history through a narrative of the enlightened European states sharing their gift with the savage other.
That's a rather old version of the narrative, circa early 20th century. These days it takes two forms; either a focus specifically on internal developments within Europe, or on the colonial effects beyond Europe. Few historians still subscribe to a 'Europe #1!' version of the narrative wholesale and no one listens to them anyway... Except for the masses but like I said, the masses are idiots and I don't care.
If its a construct meant to aid in the understanding of history and it's having the reverse effect then it's a failed construct.
Well that links in to the ongoing disconnect between academic history and folk history. But that's nothing new and its hardly something only history experiences. I prefer not to subject scholarly study to the whims of the mob.
Because that position strikes me as one of emotional outrage against European thick headed superiority complexes rather than being based in reasoned analysis.
The eurocentric analysis is also the popular american one of the same event. Regionally in south america, parts of Asia, Australia, and Africa too. It's an emotional outrage at a superiority complex that has been written into history books. It's an outrageous thing.
People don't care, which is probably why I don't care that they don't get it. They want to live in their own little realities, they're welcome to it.
I don't take to the idea that people have the right to delusions that are forced upon by a poorly constructed education system. Academics that prop up such systems do active harm. If they are aware of that fact and don't care then they are bad people.
That's a rather old version of the narrative, circa early 20th century. These days it takes two forms; either a focus specifically on internal developments within Europe, or on the colonial effects beyond Europe. Few historians still subscribe to a 'Europe #1!' version of the narrative wholesale and no one listens to them anyway... Except for the masses but like I said, the masses are idiots and I don't care.
I care, and the enlightenment narrative is an important cornerstone to their misinformation. The majority matters an awful lot.
Well that links in to the ongoing disconnect between academic history and folk history. But that's nothing new and its hardly something only history experiences. I prefer not to subject scholarly study to the whims of the mob.
I guess this is our fundamental difference. I have an expectation of everyone to want and demand truth. I'm constantly dissapointed, but I don't know if I'll ever stop wanting the world to work that way.
ShumaGorath wrote:I don't take to the idea that people have the right to delusions that are forced upon by a poorly constructed education system.
That's not a problem with the narrative either. Its a problem with the crappy educational system which didn't teach it right in the first place and just reinforces teaching it the wrong way so that they can get some more funding to keep teaching it the wrong way by teaching kids to fill in the circles on the scantron.
Academics that prop up such systems do active harm. If they are aware of that fact and don't care then they are bad people.
I'm familiar with the local school board in my area. They're three accountants, a lawyer, and home schooled paper pusher. The joys of politically appointing people who have no idea how to teach to run the education system.
I care, and the enlightenment narrative is an important cornerstone to their misinformation. What I don't care about is whether or not academics care that people are misinformed outside of their small circles. The majority matters an awful lot.
Academics produce thousands of pages a year about this subject. Its not their fault no one reads it or that school systems buy text books written by people who don't even have college degrees. I went o Barnes and Noble last week. They have a full eight racks of history books, most of them non scholarly junk texts. The rest of the store is self-help, fiction, and various how to texts. No one buys history, so fewer publishers print it, so fewer historians can afford to be historians. I read an entire article about how the general public will reject scholarly work if it doesn't fit their already cemented opinion about what is 'history.' Its a big problem. I just don't see any way for historians to fix it.
Distorting the truth to adhere to the expectations of people who don't care isn't a solution to me.
I guess this is our fundamental difference. I have an expectation of everyone to want and demand truth. I'm constantly dissapointed, but I don't know if I'll ever stop wanting the world to work that way.
Yep. I find life is easier when I don't have any expectations to be disappointed by. The difference is that you still have hope God speed.
I advocate creating the narrative that fits the facts and forms a useful means of understandings events which it does. I do not advocate throwing it out simply because I don't like how the masses interpret it.
I advocate creating the narrative that fits the facts and forms a useful means of understandings events which it does. I do not advocate throwing it out simply because I don't like how the masses interpret it.
How is it a useful narrative when it's massively misinterpreted?
Because it explains the interconnection of numerous smaller events.
If some other people want to take that narrative, look around, and scream Europe #1, I fail to see how that's the narrative's failure anymore than its science's failure that some people still think vaccines are more dangerous than the disease they vaccinate or that there are still people who think that a diet coke means they can eat anything and not gain a pound.
People don't care about truth. They care about what they want to be true. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, they just plug their ears and say "nah."
Because it explains the interconnection of numerous smaller events.
To who? The academics don't need it because they can already see the causal links and are familiar with the smaller events. If they don't need it and the masses are misinformed by it how is it helpful?
If some other people want to take that narrative, look around, and scream Europe #1, I fail to see how that's the narrative's failure anymore than its science's failure that some people still think vaccines are more dangerous than the disease they vaccinate or that there are still people who think that a diet coke means they can eat anything and not gain a pound.
Because science doesn't teach that. History academia does teach a eurocentric and pro west versioning of history.
People don't care about truth. They care about what they want to be true. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, they just plug their ears and say "nah."
And they're aided by people who refuse to reform because they see no need to do away with harmful traditions. I think we're done here. You don't care that it misinforms because people are dumb, I care that people are dumb because they're being misinformed. This isn't going to work itself out I suspect.
ShumaGorath wrote:To who? The academics don't need it because they can already see the causal links and are familiar with the smaller events. If they don't need it and the masses are misinformed by it how is it helpful?
... The academics see the links because they crafted a narrative to illustrate them... That way all the future academics don't have to spend their careers figuring it out cause its already been at least marginally mapped out for them.
History academia does teach a eurocentric and pro west versioning of history.
Which invalidates the existence of the Enlightenment how? Again, you aren't arguing the Enlightenment isn't real, your complaining that poorly educated people have no real clue what it is and blaming it on the experts those people ignore. You can't make a horse drink the water. I'm not talking about obscure state secrets. The views I've described, and dozens of others probably, are published on a regular basis. Its not the historians fault no one chooses to read their work except other historians.
And they're aided by people who refuse to reform because they see no need to do away with harmful traditions.
Yes. Because recognizing that a series of interlinked technological, philosophical, and social shifts taking place over a broad period of time had a noticeable and trackable influence on the course of human events in Europe and spilled over through the Imperial era with effects on non-Europeans is a harmful tradition. I mean, suggesting such a thing is clearly absurd and solely focused on making white people look awesome. There's no validity in it at all.
You don't care that it misinforms because people are dumb, I care that people are dumb because they're being misinformed.
As I find with most things, the truth is probably somewhere between the two. Just a wild guess based on past patterns
Yes. Because recognizing that a series of interlinked technological, philosophical, and social shifts taking place over a broad period of time had a noticeable and trackable influence on the course of human events in Europe
And which had no beginning, middle, or end, wasn't unique, is incorrectly represented as popularly beneficial, and was followed by the largest scale violation of human rights in the history of humans.
We call that in most circles " self aggrandizement". An "enlightened" people wouldn't kill or enslave the populations of two continents, force drug sales in another, and engage in nearly continuous warfare for hundreds of years.
is a harmful tradition.
Yes. I call it a harmful tradition. Institutionalized lies are often harmful.
I mean, suggesting such a thing is clearly absurd
This is a lot like an argument I got into with someone who liked the second full metal alchemist more than the first. The story was weaker, more full of plot holes, characters appeared and disappeared at random, the story meandered, and most of the story existed to prop up needless fights and unconnected events. It had a lot bigger budget though and it followed the traditional narrative, thus nothing in it could be wrong.
ShumaGorath wrote:And which is generally considered to have its origins in the mid 14th century, flourished in the 16th and 17th, and generally is considered to have ended in 1810-20, defines a broad intellectual development with far reaching consequences for society, culture, and science, is incorrectly represented as popularly beneficial, and was followed by the largest scale violation of human rights in the history of humans.
Fixed.
EDIT: And just cause I'm tired of this stupid word game, you aren't talking about the Enlightenment (which is a extremely specific and smaller event in the 17th and 18th century) you're talking about the European Renaissance. Why you insist on calling it the Enlightenment confuses me.
An "enlightened" people wouldn't kill or enslave the populations of two continents, force drug sales in another, and engage in nearly continuous warfare for hundreds of years.
And again, you have no reasoned analysis that supports a claim it didn't happen. You just don't like the name and nasty things that ended up happening all over the world. Which isn't an argument it didn't happen. The problem of course can easily be fixed by using the right name. I didn't feel like debating the naming of this thing because we were both talking about the same thing, but you can probably just start using the right name and get over it.
This is a lot like an argument I got into with someone who liked the second full metal alchemist more than the first. The story was weaker, more full of plot holes, characters appeared and disappeared at random, the story meandered, and most of the story existed to prop up needless fights and unconnected events.
Welcome to the world of Anime and Manga. Enjoy your stay
You sound like a fanboy.
You sound like some typically hippie professor who rages against mean old whity cause he didn't play nice with the other kids.
We know. Get over it. gak happened.
LordofHats I'm laughing so hard along with my wife on that pic
Yeah someone had egg on their face after that one.
EDIT: And just cause I'm tired of this stupid word game, you aren't talking about the Enlightenment (which is a extremely specific and smaller event in the 17th and 18th century) you're talking about the European Renaissance. Why you insist on calling it the Enlightenment confuses me.
12 hour long brain fart, my bad. I was indeed talking about the renaisance for the most part, of which the enlightenment was one of those smaller events in. Sorry.
And again, you have no reasoned analysis that supports a claim it didn't happen.
You're being willfully obtuse. The renaissance didn't happen because it wasn't an event. It's an unrepresentative umbrella term for thousands of separate events occurring across a continent and it's mostly just a line in the sand between two vague and as of yet not agreed upon dates. I have never said the events didn't happen, just that the renaisance linking them does little to further a reasonable and explanitory narrative of history. It just creates good guys (europe bringing the world forward) and bad guys (everyone else holding it back). It overly simplifies very complex things and harms the understanding of history. You have admitted so yourself repeatedly.
You just don't like the name and nasty things that ended up happening all over the world. Which isn't an argument it didn't happen.
No, you're just strawmaning a different sentiment. I dislike it because it aggrandizes European progressiveness for several centuries and uses it to prop up the bad parts of colonialism (bringing reason to savages was an oft used propaganda piece in those centuries and those that followed). I was getting terms mixed up, I admit to that, but this part was in fact intended for the "enlightenment".
The problem of course can easily be fixed by using the right name. I didn't feel like debating the naming of this thing because we were both talking about the same thing, but you can probably just start using the right name and get over it.
I'll use the right term from now on!
Welcome to the world of Anime and Manga. Enjoy your stay
The industry is dying under its poor content distribution models, the products produced are getting worse.
You sound like some typically hippie professor who rages against mean old whity cause he didn't play nice with the other kids.
No, I'm raging at whitey because he likes to pretend his gak don't stink and he takes credit for every advance in the last thousand years.
We know. Get over it. gak happened.
You know. Whitey doesn't. Stop trying to shelter him.
Yeah someone had egg on their face after that one.
I've always suspected that was someone making a very funny joke.
ShumaGorath wrote:It just creates good guys (europe bringing the world forward) and bad guys (everyone else holding it back). It overly simplifies very complex things and harms the understanding of history. You have admitted so yourself repeatedly.
And as I pointed out earlier that's an extremely old view. Ever since the 50's there's been renewed interest in the numerous negatives of the Early Modern era and in what ways the Renaissance aided in those events, especially where it comes to the Slave Trade and the the Wars of Religion/Inquisition.
The industry is dying under its poor content distribution models, the products produced are getting worse.
I don't think its changed much since the 80's. The thing for us Yanks is that in the 90's it was totally new to us, so we overlooked a lot of the negatives in Japanese styling and motif for the genre.
You know. Whitey doesn't. Stop trying to shelter him.
Like everyone else in the world, it's not just Westerners who live under the delusion of their own awesomeness.
've always suspected that was someone making a very funny joke.
I think its funnier when we just assume someone had a super brain far and forgot what a d was I've never had a brain fart that big but I've had some pretty awesome ones. Like when I completely forgot how to do addition, at random, for about twenty minutes in the middle of an algebra test But then I was never very good at math.
LoH, you can't stop the self hatred some of these people have.
I case Shuma hasn't noticed, no one ever argued in this thread that Europe and America have had a positive effect on the world. The claim has been that they have the largest impact on the shaping of the modern world.
Khalkhin Gol deterred the Japanese from intervening in the Soviet Union again; the Soviets were so confident as a result that the Japs wouldn't interfere in their war with Germany that they transferred divisions from the Far East to reinforce Moscow. If the Japs had won it's possible that the Soviets would have left their armies in place and the Germans might've had an easier time taking Moscow in '41.
Easy E wrote:So, the eurocentrism discussionis all well and good, but I'm still looking for some key battles that other people think are cool and important?
Easy E wrote:So, the eurocentrism discussionis all well and good, but I'm still looking for some key battles that other people think are cool and important?
Mexico City (what would be come it): Defeat of the Aztecs by the Spanish and Allies.
Dien Ben Phu: defeat of the French
Battle of Port Arthur: Defeat of the Russians by the Japanese setting up their Imperial ambitions.
Bolivar declaration and battles around that: effectively start of freeing Mexico and much of Latin America from Spain
Easy E wrote:So, the eurocentrism discussionis all well and good, but I'm still looking for some key battles that other people think are cool and important?
1. Battle of Issus
2. Battle of Cannae/Zama
3. Battle of Tours
4. Battle of Kursk
5. Waterloo
6. Spanish Armada
7. Battle of Chalons
8. Midway
9. Battle of Red Cliffs
10. Siege of Yorktown
Even now, the world is still somewhat Eurocentric. Europe dominated global politics for upwards of three hundred years. The battles that created that situation are naturally going to end up being more influencial than those won by the civilizations eventually subjugated to European rule.
What did they change in history?
Kursk was a try but failed.
While the Punic wars were perhaps some of the most important of history and are the starting point of europe raise to power, the battles of Cannae and Zama didnt changed anything.
It's not about whether Kursk's (German) objectives were achieved but, rather, what the outcome was; the total loss of initiative by the Axis on the Eastern Front.
Bromsy wrote:Well, just because Alexander didn't leave behind a unified kingdom doesn't mean he didn't spread Hellenistic culture and have a powerful influence beyond Greece. The Ptolemeys in Egypt, the Selucids, the Indo-Greeks... quite a legacy.
Fair point. Yet I don't see how the same logic doesn't apply to the Mongols, and yet they didn't make the list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:The logic behind Alexander's battles is this.
Alexander established his empire through several notable battles. When he died, he left Greek ruled kingdoms (the successor states headed by his generals) all over the middle east which lasted until conquered by the Romans.
This led over the course of several hundred years to the establishment of the Eastern Roman Empire as a unified Christian polity, the core of which was the rump of the successor states.
The Eastern (Byzantine) Empire lasted until 1453 and influenced Mediaeval politics and strategy, including the effect on Europe of the rise of Islam, of the Mongols and the Ottoman Empire.
Obviously this is all hindsight.
I don't think producing minor kingdoms that lay the foundation for future empires really makes the grade, in my mind. If it can only be recognised through the hindsight of the next few hundred years of history, I think it probably isn't really a decisive battle in and of itself.
Anyway this kind of list is like those Top 100 Generals or Top 100 Films kind of lists. The value is in generating discussion rather than reaching a definitive judgement about things.
Very true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Honestly, Gettysburg is probably the most overrated battle in US history. The Civil War was won at Vicksburg, a month before Gettysburg began. Once cut in half, the South was finished. Really the only reason the battle is so big is because its one of the few battles Lincoln actually went to in the aftermath, and thanks to a certain congressmen named Daniel Sickles who really overplayed and trumped up the role of the battle in the war.
The South was probably finished before the war started, population and manufacturing disparities were likely too great to ever give them a real chance of success.
But the battle really, truly made that defeat unavoidable was Gettysburg. Sure, other engagements made Gettysburg what it was, but that was the decisive battle of the war.
I guess it'll depend on how you look at history. To me, the ascension of Greece and Greek culture to dominance in the mediterranian is the beginning of the long road to European dominance, and as a starting point the battles that created it are very important. Likewise, the Punic Wars, which made Rome rather than Carthage, dominant is also very important.
That's a really long bow to draw. There was no steady march over a thousand years to make Europe dominant. Instead Europe continued on being just another region of the world, with the occassional very powerful empire, more or less comparable to the very powerful empires in China and India. That only changes with the Industrial Revolution, when world economic power shifts dramatically into Europe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RaptorsTallon wrote:Agincourt should most certainly be on the list.
The english were outnumbered 6-1 and still managed to inflict 7000-10000 casualties whilst only losing 112 men. On top of that, 1500 french nobles were captured.
But it didn't change the course of history. The English still lost the war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dark Scipio wrote:Kursk was a try but failed.
That's right, the Germans tried, expended an immense number of their ever dwindling resources, and failed. And from that point onwards the Germans were never able to launch a major offensive again.
While the battle itself was basically a mutual bloodbath, the result was a loss of resource Germany was never able to recover from.
1. Waterloo
2. Case Blue - A little more than Stalingrad...
3. Midway
4. Trafalgar
5. Pearl Harbor
6. Sherman's March - Without this the US would have likely made peace with the Confederates...
7. Gettysburg/Vicksburg... Same day death to hopes of intervention and severed Mississippi dooming Confederation.
8. Battle of Salamis
9. Battle of the Atlantic - Starve Britain and Germany wins.
10. Battle of Hastings
Kursk had such a huge political impact on the Western Powers that it may very well be one of the prime reasons that the Cold War became what it was, rather than just a period of tension. That and it ended any hope Germany had of winning the Western Front and established Russia as a super power.
While the Punic wars were perhaps some of the most important of history and are the starting point of europe raise to power, the battles of Cannae and Zama didnt changed anything.
Because either Cannae or Zama decided the outcome of the Punic Wars (depending on how you look at it). Cannae was a huge win for Hannibal, but the lessons Rome took from the battle played a key role in Rome's rise to power. Add in Zama, which finished Carthage by costing them the war and removing them as a threat to Roman expansion (and to be honest they were the only threat as the successor states at this point were rotting corpses), and we get a Mediterranean that became Greeco-Roman rather than Greeco-Phoenician. The entire history of Europe changes hinged on the outcome of those two battles.
But the battle really, truly made that defeat unavoidable was Gettysburg. Sure, other engagements made Gettysburg what it was, but that was the decisive battle of the war.
I would disagree. Assume Lee won at Gettysburg. In all likely hood he wouldn't have had the resources or the material to continue on to Harrisburg which by the end of the Gettysburg campaign was defended mainly by militia but capable fortified with a river that needed crossing. EDIT: His raids on South-Central Pennsylvania couldn't maintain his army for more than a week, which probably wouldn't have been enough time to siege the city. Maybe he could have sacked the Capital of a very important state (and won a battle on Northern soil), costing Lincoln political points, but so what? Grant and Sherman were already prepped to gut the South, and the South would still be in its death throws by the time Lincoln was up for reelection. The war was definitively over in 1864. The Overland Campaign is more important than Gettysburg, and I don't see its outcome changing.
Gettysburg really just wasn't that important. Numerous other factors come together and make its outcome kind of irrelevant for the course of the war. Even if Lincoln lost reelection (which is the big thing a lot of historians say makes Gettysburg important) big deal. The South would be on the verge of defeat and anyone who beat Lincoln isn't likely to just stop the war.
The biggest change I could see is an altered path for Reconstruction, as Johnson wouldn't have been VP when Lincoln was assassinated. But that's all pretending Lee could have even won. Compare the number of artillery in the battle and you realize the overwhelming fire superiority of the Union. Once all the guns were brought up, the North outnumbered Confederate artillery 3-1 (At the time, it wasn't the largest artillery battle in world history). Lee's only chance to win was on the first day, and he just didn't have the organized power to achieve that.
LordofHats wrote:I would disagree. Assume Lee won at Gettysburg.
There's no point assuming that. He didn't win and that's what matters. I agree with you that had he won then he still would have been very limited to push the advantage, and really would have had to hope for a sudden drop in political will in the North (which is very unlikely, at best).
The point is more that Lee's army had until that point fought well outside its weight class, much like the Nazis in the early war period. For different reasons neither army was able to push their early tactical advantages, and so it became a case of waiting for the battle from which they could not recover, and would thereafter spend the war on the defensive.
For the Confederates it was Gettyburg, like for the Nazis it was Kursk.
The Civil War was a foregone conclusion - no individual battle mattered. Lee would have had to win every battle, while concealing the attrition to his forces to change anything. And even provided they won, a generation later there would have been another war where the advantages of the North would have been multiplied leading to an even more terrible defeat for the South. Think WWI fought along the Mason Dixon - mustard gas beats out good fried chicken and tobacco.
... Unless, somehow Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith had teamed up. And hacked the computers. They would have rawked the North and rebuilt the south as a shining new Camelot.
sebster wrote:The point is more that Lee's army had until that point fought well outside its weight class, much like the Nazis in the early war period. For different reasons neither army was able to push their early tactical advantages, and so it became a case of waiting for the battle from which they could not recover, and would thereafter spend the war on the defensive.
For the Confederates it was Gettyburg, like for the Nazis it was Kursk.
I think the Overland Campaign did that more than Gettysburg. It's that point where Grant steps in and decides to just throw men at Lee that Lee and the ANV that Lee could no longer do anything, and that would have happened regardless of Gettysburg. Gettysburg is more analogous to Stalingrad than it is to Kursk. A loss to be sure, but not the nail in the coffin for any chance at victory (ignoring that the South was never gonna win). EDIT: And interestingly, Staliingrad and Gettysburg are both more well known than Kursk and the Overland Campaign.
imo
EDIT: I find the only thing remarkable about Gettysburg to be the debate about whether it was the first "modern" battle. The use of railways, massed artillery barrages, the definitive failure of Pickets Charge, and the manner in which terrain was used through out the battle lends to the idea, though I still say it was transitionary and not the first..
RaptorsTallon wrote:Agincourt should most certainly be on the list.
The english were outnumbered 6-1 and still managed to inflict 7000-10000 casualties whilst only losing 112 men. On top of that, 1500 french nobles were captured.
But it didn't change the course of history. The English still lost the war.
Who wins or looses a war isn't all that important.
The importance of Agincourt is in it's other effects.
1) It solidified Henry V's claim to the throne. Before Agincourt, he was viewed as something of a pretender to the throne, but with it's complete success, almost all of the resistance to his rule vanished. This, in turn, led to the legitimacy of the Lancasters as a whole, which immediately led to the Tudors (which includes Henry VIII and Elizabeth I).
2) The French nobility was fairly decimated. France, at the time, was still very much in a feudal state, and the monarch was not very powerful. With Agincourt leading to the death or imprisonment of most of the aristocracy, the path was open for Charles VI (and his heirs) to consolidate power in the monarch. They did this, which basically did away with feudalism in France, pushing the French aristocracy from being rulers, to being the idle rich. This ultimately led to the French Revolution.
Henners91 wrote:It's not about whether Kursk's (German) objectives were achieved but, rather, what the outcome was; the total loss of initiative by the Axis on the Eastern Front.
No, the Axis already lost it. Kursk was just a failed try to regain it.
LordofHats: I agree, that the conflicts are one of the motst important (as I said) but:
Rome won the conflicts, so ANY Carth. victory cant be important.
And Zama was at a time, where Rome was already winning.
Dark Scipio wrote:No, the Axis already lost it. Kursk was just a failed try to regain it.
No. They hadn't. They really hadn't. There was a very high probability the initiative could have been regained at Kursk but the offensive was poorly organized and executed so late that the Russians had radical numerical superiority. Kursk was the death blow to the Germans, it destroyed the Luftwaffe, wrecked the Panzer Divisions, and left Germany without the means to ever push back.
Rome won the conflicts, so ANY Carth. victory cant be important.
And Zama was at a time, where Rome was already winning.
If you actually read what I said, you'd see that my point is that from Cannae Rome took lessons and experiences that revolutionized their military, and indeed warfare in Europe. Hannibal won the battle but in doing so provided Rome tools that allowed an at the time obscure city state to dominate the Mediterranean centuries later. It was the point at which Rome completely abandoned the Alexandrian school war and began to develop the Roman school.
And no. Rome was not winning outright by the time of Zama. They'd seized Iberia, and resecured Italy (somewhat), but the war would have ended prematurely because the war party was losing power in Carthage and the Second Punic War would not have been the decisive conflict between Rome and Carthage. Hannibals return and the preparations for Zama returned the war party to power, and the war could have dragged on for years, draining vital resources that would later go into the Second Macedonian War.
Zama was an attempt by Rome to achieve total victory in a very long very costly war that could have dragged on for years more, and could have been won by Hannibal had his Numidian allies stuck to the battle plan rather than run off after the Roman cavalry after said cavalry had left the field of battle. Likewise, winning at Zama paved the way for the war of annihilation that was the Third Punic War, a war Carthage never had a chance of winning, but that gave Rome complete control of one of the most important trade points of the era.
Does it have to be a battle that changed the whole world, or just one area of it? If its just one area, the fighting in and around the Kokoda Track should be on the list. If we hadn't held, then the entire Pacific War would have been different, and Australia wouldn't be the same as it was nowadays.
You know, unless you subscribe to the 'Japan was going to stop there, that was enough land for it, their rapid advance was over, it totally was' school of thought.
LordofHats wrote:I think the Overland Campaign did that more than Gettysburg. It's that point where Grant steps in and decides to just throw men at Lee that Lee and the ANV that Lee could no longer do anything, and that would have happened regardless of Gettysburg. Gettysburg is more analogous to Stalingrad than it is to Kursk. A loss to be sure, but not the nail in the coffin for any chance at victory (ignoring that the South was never gonna win). EDIT: And interestingly, Staliingrad and Gettysburg are both more well known than Kursk and the Overland Campaign.
imo
Fair argument, well made. I'll muse on this some, and maybe reread some sources with this in mind. Do you have book recommendations on the issue?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:1) It solidified Henry V's claim to the throne. Before Agincourt, he was viewed as something of a pretender to the throne, but with it's complete success, almost all of the resistance to his rule vanished. This, in turn, led to the legitimacy of the Lancasters as a whole, which immediately led to the Tudors (which includes Henry VIII and Elizabeth I).
Someone would have been on the throne. That a distant relative happened to side with the Reformation wasn't a thing that happened because of Henry V's success.
Otherwise we're left arguing that Grug bonking Turg on the head was a decisive battle, because if that hadn't have happened then Grug would never have claimed Turg's wife as his own, and whole generations of people would never have been born.
2) The French nobility was fairly decimated. France, at the time, was still very much in a feudal state, and the monarch was not very powerful. With Agincourt leading to the death or imprisonment of most of the aristocracy, the path was open for Charles VI (and his heirs) to consolidate power in the monarch. They did this, which basically did away with feudalism in France, pushing the French aristocracy from being rulers, to being the idle rich. This ultimately led to the French Revolution.
Again, it's a pretty long bow (excuse the pun, which was a little bit on purpose I admit...) I think once you're arguing 'something major happened 350 years later' then it really can't qualify.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote:Does it have to be a battle that changed the whole world, or just one area of it? If its just one area, the fighting in and around the Kokoda Track should be on the list. If we hadn't held, then the entire Pacific War would have been different, and Australia wouldn't be the same as it was nowadays.
You know, unless you subscribe to the 'Japan was going to stop there, that was enough land for it, their rapid advance was over, it totally was' school of thought.
The Japanese were unable to supply the 1,000 odd troops they had fighting through Kokoda. Its the main reason their retreat turned largely into a collapse, and they were unable to inflict anything like the casualties on the Australian's that they had suffered at Australian hands.
Had they taken Port Morseby the fight would have been harder and bloodier, but undeniably the result would have been the same.
sebster wrote:Fair argument, well made. I'll muse on this some, and maybe reread some sources with this in mind. Do you have book recommendations on the issue?
Unfortunately no. I am not a Civil War scholar, I just spent a semester reading hordes of articles provided by my professor, and I have no idea where to get them. I still have copies but they're packed up in a box... somewhere...
EDIT: You can always try searching Jstor but that's a pain in the butt cause they're search function isn't the best.
Does it have to be a battle that changed the whole world, or just one area of it? If its just one area, the fighting in and around the Kokoda Track should be on the list. If we hadn't held, then the entire Pacific War would have been different, and Australia wouldn't be the same as it was nowadays.
You know, unless you subscribe to the 'Japan was going to stop there, that was enough land for it, their rapid advance was over, it totally was' school of thought.
The Japanese were unable to supply the 1,000 odd troops they had fighting through Kokoda. Its the main reason their retreat turned largely into a collapse, and they were unable to inflict anything like the casualties on the Australian's that they had suffered at Australian hands.
Had they taken Port Morseby the fight would have been harder and bloodier, but undeniably the result would have been the same.
I see your point, but I have to disagree, had they taken Port Moresby then supply wouldn't have been an issue, and they could have pushed south easily, once they had Darwin they would have had airfields and a port (and a whole mess of desert south of that, lol). But I do see your point, it probably shouldn't rate in the top 15. But Waterloo stays. Waterloo's gold.
The English Language is so dominant today because for the past 70 years the US is the leading economic power in the world. You wanna talk business, you talk english (also helps that before the US was large and in charge, the UK was busy showing everyone else how to control the world . Also helps our music and films are viewed all over the world, further spreading the language in direct and indirect ways, plus all the people who want to immigrate.
Don't worry though. In a century we'll all be speaking Chinese
My point being of course that winning a naval battle didn't have much to do with the spread of the English language compared to 200 years of world dominance owed to English speaking nations.
But that wasn't what I was saying at all... WHo invents something is usually not the same as who spreads it. There's a reason Henry Ford is more famous than Karl Benz... Well Karl Benz is probably more famous in Germany
LordofHats wrote:Of course. The ancient Germans did.
But that wasn't what I was saying at all... WHo invents something is usually not the same as who spreads it. There's a reason Henry Ford is more famous than Karl Benz... Well Karl Benz is probably more famous in Germany
Henry Ford deserves special mention above Karl Benz not because of design of automobiles but rethink of assembly line techniques. Henry Fords mass produiction menthodology transformed the way indistruial production worked.
Its not a USA vs Germany/Europe thing, its credit where its due.
If the majority of that credit is placed at Europes feet, that is because of where it belongs.
1. Battle of Issus
2. Battle of Cannae/Zama
3. Battle of Tours
4. Battle of Kursk
5. Waterloo
6. Spanish Armada
7. Battle of Chalons
8. Midway
9. Battle of Red Cliffs
10. Siege of Yorktown
Even now, the world is still somewhat Eurocentric. Europe dominated global politics for upwards of three hundred years. The battles that created that situation are naturally going to end up being more influencial than those won by the civilizations eventually subjugated to European rule.
Given that the book was written in 1851 it's eurocentrism is a bit more striking than it could have been (though honestly, global historical knowledge was pretty shallow those days). China had been the dominant market force in global trade for nearly a millennium and had several intensively decisive military conflicts shaping its public and foreign policy. The list makes no mention of Mongolians at all, nor the federation and consolidation of the Russian states, nor the decisive conflicts that shaped japanese, korean, or indian influences around the world.
Seriously, any list on military conflicts that doesn't mention the Mongolions is just pandering to white dudes. They mention alexander, but they don't mention the khans who basically did the same thing but bigger, larger, and better.
Then the British Empire topped the Khans, and while it no longer exists. It was the largest empire in human history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
People don't care about truth. They care about what they want to be true. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, they just plug their ears and say "nah."
Isn't that just a self fulfilling philosophy, when you know about it, it becomes true. For example by arguing against it you're just proving true.Yet, even when arguing for it you are just doing the same thing. For example, if you're confront by evidence such as stats of how often people change their opinion to suit the fact, and still hold the your original opinion . You are once again proving it true, and if you don't bother debating it you won't have that belief confronted, and thus it shall remain. Thus it becomes a no win, self fulling argument. Because what ever you do it shall prove itself true.
Also it is kinda of a cop out IMHO. Will yes, you never completely convert everybody to an idea, and sometimes it isn't worth bothering. But, you also miss the change to convert people. Because why bother debating if they won't listen. Even if they might.
I admit I am not that smart. So if I butcher the meaning of it please forgive me. Also I do realize that by arguing it I prove it true to those who believe it.
)
you up...
Read history books, play games, paint toy soldiers, and kill time on an internet forum when I have nothing better to do 
