Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

Yeah, trying to list the top battles is a bit like arguing over who the better villain is; lector or vader

Especially when it's clearly Tarkin.

youbedead wrote:Yeah, trying to list the top battles is a bit like arguing over who the better villain is; lector or vader

Vader.

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.

Bromsy wrote:

youbedead wrote:Yeah, trying to list the top battles is a bit like arguing over who the better villain is; lector or vader

Vader.

It's the cape

Decisive sea battles is another subject.

Kilkrazy wrote:Decisive sea battles is another subject.

It definitely should be, and Salamis should be on the list.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Battle of Trafalgar. . .

I can never read this without first thinking Tralfamador.

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.

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.

A lot of french nobles also died there...
That did hurt France in the long term but nothing they couldn't come back from...

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.

Surely they were dominant in being European?

MrDwhitey wrote:Surely they were dominant in being European?

They were quite good at that.

RaptorsTallon wrote:On top of that, 1500 french nobles were captured.

purplefood wrote:A lot of french nobles also died there...

Well of course, Harry ordered that the prisoners be killed after the battle.

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

Stop trying to diminish our greatest achievements, LordofHats.

We're on to your game.

Glorioski wrote:

RaptorsTallon wrote:On top of that, 1500 french nobles were captured.

purplefood wrote:A lot of french nobles also died there...

Well of course, Harry ordered that the prisoners be killed after the battle.

Nah, loads died mid-battle.
That's apparently what caused larger numbers of regular soldiers to surrender...

MrDwhitey wrote:Stop trying to diminish our greatest achievements, LordofHats.

We're on to your game.

I suddenly have this image of a bunch of English gentry in Victorian dress calmly debating whose the most European in the room

LordofHats wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:Stop trying to diminish our greatest achievements, LordofHats.

We're on to your game.

I suddenly have this image of a bunch of English gentry in Victorian dress calmly debating whose the most European in the room

And by Jove we'll prove we're the finest Europeans to ever stride this great globe!

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

Americans don't sleep with Bald Eagles.

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...

Come comments on the list:


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.