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.

LordofHats I'm laughing so hard along with my wife on that pic

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.

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.

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.

Amaya wrote:LoH, you can't stop the self hatred some of these people have.

I love me and it's obvious you didn't follow the discussion particularly closely.

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talas

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

ShumaGorath wrote:

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talas

Nice. I was not familair with that battle. Too bad detaisl on it seem a bit sketchy, and hinged ont eh defection of key troops.

LordofHats wrote:My List:

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

I think we're all just struggling against the fact that the most important battle in human history is entirely fictional. And jawesome.

Melissia wrote:No Stalingrad?

The list was made in the 1850's. But yeah I'd put Stalingrad up there.

Dark Scipio wrote:Kursk was a try but failed.

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..

sebster wrote:

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.

Sorry, I don't see Agincourt on the list as "decisive".

Does it make a great story? Sure?

However, it had zero impact outside of national myth.

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.

As others have said the Battle of Trafalgar was incredibly important. Probably the main reason the English Language is so dominant today.