| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Battles that Changed History
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Battles that Changed History

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Battles that Changed History
    Posted: 27 Sep 2009 at 04:41
Hello to you all
 
The discussion about decisive battles in history has been ongoing for centuries. Sir Edward Creasy was among the first to write about this and many others followed him but unfortunately these battles remained largely euro-centric or western based battles even those lists compiled by so called "great" historians.
 
I want a discussion here about these battles and their effects on the world and I have put some criteria as well as a tentative list of these battles and I hope that you will help me in this list.
 
The criteria I think are sufficient for a battle to be classified as a "history changer" are listed below:
 
1- The battles should be of course a turning point in a certain struggle, that is it either switches the course of a war of seals it completely.
 
2- The battles should either lead to a rise of a superpower out of obscurity or near defeat or lead to a total distruction of an established superpower for good.
 
3- The cultural effect. Battles should have an everlasting cultural/social effect that continues to this day.
 
4- The historical scope of such battles should be global not local.
 
My list of such battles is as following but I must warn you, my limited knowledge about the far eastern history means I excluded this region until one may contribute to it:
 
1- Guagamela: Alexander ended the Persian supremacy on the old world for good and ended the status of sole superpower in that region for the next 1000 years. This battle also defines the end of the ancient history and the rise of modern history.
 
2-Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The rise of Christianity and the end of Rome as an empire.
 
3- Battle of Al-Khandaq or the Trench: The most decisive in my opinion. Islam was confined to the besieged Madinah which was full of collaborators both jews and disgruntled Arabs. The town nearly fell which if it did Islam would have gone extinct. It didn't and Islam is the 2nd religion on earth.
 
4- Nihavand: The Sassanids still had a strong chance to return and liberate their territory occupied by the Arabs. Already half the conquered areas were in full rebellion and an army larger than that in Qadisiyyah faced a much weakenedand thinned army smaller than that in Qadisiyyah. The total distruction of the Sassanids ended not only an empire, but almost an entire civilization and helped build a hybrid new one.
 
5-Battle of Stanilesti (1711) (the name of the place don't know if it has a real name of the battle): After winning the war against sweden, Peter the great thought he could pull a one against the Turks. His army was routed in this battle and the Ottomans could have easily killed him or took him prisoner. Sweden's Charles XII residing in Constantinople wanted such a fate for the heirless Peter who foolishly dispanded all authority of boyars and left it for a senate before going to war. The Poles didn't mind such fate either because they will inherit the cast expanses of Russia nor the Cossacks of the Ukraine who hated the guy. What happened next is for history. Russia got away with a slap in the wrist, the Swedish-Turkish-Polish alliance was distroyed, Cossacks would join Russia for good and Russia would rise to the status of a world power. Peter rebuilt the alliance against the  Swedes and distroyed them. His successors would build alliances that would distroy both the Ottoman and Polish empires.
 
6-The Spanish Armada (1588): Little doubt exist in my mind at least that England would have lost the war if the Spaniards managed to land. England was half stauchly catholic, half half-heartedly Anglican. Most nobility and especially Gentry were staunchly catholic as well. It had no army, no real navy and led by a woman. Yet they defeated the mighty Spaniards, established a formal navy, colonised America and united as a one nation to fight the enemy.
 
7-Gettysburg: Had the Union lost the battle the superpowers then would have recognised the South and distroyed American union for good and maybe even lead to a return of the colonial powers to the American continent.
 
8- Mukden. The first time in 200 years centuries that a european superpower was humiliated like this. Neither Russia nor Japan will ever be the same after this battle.
 
Please feel free to join the discussion and suggest battles. Thank you.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Frederick Roger View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 739
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Frederick Roger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2009 at 07:37
Nationalism aside, I really think the Battle of Aljubarrota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aljubarrota - not a bad article, but short of the analysis of the aftermath) could be in that list, as it complies with the criteria offered:
 
1- The battles should be of course a turning point in a certain struggle, that is it either switches the course of a war of seals it completely.
 
It was the decisive battle of the 1383-85 Portuguese Crisis of Succession. After Portugal's victory Castille was no longer a threat to its independence.  
 
2- The battles should either lead to a rise of a superpower out of obscurity or near defeat or lead to a total distruction of an established superpower for good.
 
Most of the old nobility of Portugal sided with Castille against the King of Portugal. Their defeat and killing off in the battle created a void in the highest order, and allowed for the estabilishment of the Crown's political autonomy and stability under a new centralized power - in other words, it nearly killed off feudalism and brought in a form of pre-absolutism. The King was now free to create a new high nobility through the elevation of his supporters. Since is source of power was in newly gained land, he choose not give it away but rather set the new nobility's sights on a different endeavour - war with Castille was now over, but overseas North Africa was ripe for conquest. This marked the beggining of the Portuguese expansion overseas, with known results.
 
3- The cultural effect. Battles should have an everlasting cultural/social effect that continues to this day.
 
The cultural effect is, I assume, mostly local, but the battle's name lives on and is a household word. In military history it is a bit more studied on the academic level, as another instance in the rise of infantry against cavalry, much like other battles occuring in France at the time in the scope of the 100 Years War.
 
4- The historical scope of such battles should be global not local.
 
This battle was a key element in directing Portugal to a world beyond the Iberian Peninsula. Portugal's defeat and loss of autonomy would have most likely given way to a closed feudal regime in Castille without much time or need for maritime endeavours. The Age of Discovery could therefore be extremely delayed and/or follow a different course altogheter.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2009 at 09:02
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
5-Battle of Stanilesti (1711) (the name of the place don't know if it has a real name of the battle): After winning the war against sweden, Peter the great thought he could pull a one against the Turks. His army was routed in this battle and the Ottomans could have easily killed him or took him prisoner. Sweden's Charles XII residing in Constantinople wanted such a fate for the heirless Peter who foolishly dispanded all authority of boyars and left it for a senate before going to war. The Poles didn't mind such fate either because they will inherit the cast expanses of Russia nor the Cossacks of the Ukraine who hated the guy. What happened next is for history. Russia got away with a slap in the wrist, the Swedish-Turkish-Polish alliance was distroyed, Cossacks would join Russia for good and Russia would rise to the status of a world power. Peter rebuilt the alliance against the  Swedes and distroyed them. His successors would build alliances that would distroy both the Ottoman and Polish empires.
 
While the battle itself was decisive. The description here is not very accurate. In fact, Russian army by no military means was routed there. Turks surrounded the Russian camp and made about 5 attacks all of which were defeated with very high casualties (around 8 thousand dead), Russians for comparison lost about 800 dead.
 
However, the Russian army still was complitely surrounded by a much larger Turkich and Tatar forces and lack of supplies and ammunition made its defeat certain.
 
At the same time, Turks were exhausted. Janissaries refused to attack again and threatened to rebell,  that was added by the Russian request to conclude an immediate peace, otherwise the Russian threatened to attack. Given the circumstances Turkish vizier Baltadji Mehmed pasha decided to start the negotiations with the Russians, skillfull intrigues and promise of a huge bribe to the vizier allowed the Russian to escape.
 
That was, apparently, a huge misculculation by the vizier. In fact, Turks didn't even need to attack, the Russian situation was desperate and the lack of supplies would have finished the Russian army anyway.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2009 at 09:18
Hello Sarmat
 
The sources I read about the battle from say otherwise plus routed doesn't mean a massive defeat and a massacre of the opponents solider, it just means the Russian lost every chance of victory in that battle and indeed that war. The Russians strangely escaped unscathed which never happened before in Turkish history or Russian history. The effect of this battle were global indeed which is why I listed it.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2009 at 09:27
What exactly do your sources say?
 
The very reason, why Turks had the inncentive to conclude the peace with the Russians was their inability to decisively finish them once and for all. In fact, the vezier refused to negotiate any terms with the Russians untill the janissary unrest started. Only that can expain this bizare outcome. 
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Location: Livonia
Status: Offline
Points: 1176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2009 at 17:10
Battle of Mohacs 1526
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohács
The king Luiss II of Hungary is killed at the battle thus ending the Jagellonian dynasty in the thrones of Hungary and Bohemia. The thrones now pass to Habsburg dynasty making the groundwork for Austrian empire in future. The kingdom of Hungary itself collapses into three parts (Turk, Habsburg, Transylvanian) and its former territory becomes battlefield for more than 200 years. The Turks are now at the gates of Vienna.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2009 at 17:17
Two Arabic language books quoting original ottoman sources: "The Ottomans and the Russians" and "The Concise History of the Ottoman Empire". There was discomfor within the Janissaries but both sources claim there weren't an impedance to total victory especially that the Ottomans already suffered much larger defeats before but continued fighting.
 
Anyway regardless of what really happened, I still think the battle really changed history since it has all the criteria above. Had the Turks finished Peter Russia would have collapsed and probably this would have meant the Ottoman empire still in existance, no communism or WWI or WWII. The outcomes are so huge no one can really picture the current world without the events of that battle.
 
As for Mohacs, I don't think it changed anything other than the local order of things. The Turks would have invaded the Balkans sooner or later since Constantinople was their treasured prise that eluded them for long. To secure it you need to secure the balkans simple as that and Mohacs is important for the region's history but not on a global scale.
 
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 27 Sep 2009 at 17:20
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2009 at 01:45
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Two Arabic language books quoting original ottoman sources: "The Ottomans and the Russians" and "The Concise History of the Ottoman Empire". There was discomfor within the Janissaries but both sources claim there weren't an impedance to total victory especially that the Ottomans already suffered much larger defeats before but continued fighting.
 
This doesn't make much sense, since it doesn't explain why the Ottoman didn't finish the Russian army. What was the reason then? The death of Peter and the destruction of the Russian army would be the best outcome for the Ottomans but they didn't pursue it.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Anyway regardless of what really happened, I still think the battle really changed history since it has all the criteria above. Had the Turks finished Peter Russia would have collapsed and probably this would have meant the Ottoman empire still in existance, no communism or WWI or WWII. The outcomes are so huge no one can really picture the current world without the events of that battle.
 
 
I doubt that the Russia would have collapsed, and this question doesn't relate to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, communism and world wars in any way. However, the battle saved the Ottoman empire perhaps for another 100 years.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2009 at 03:36
The first book is a scholarly work by an expert in the history of both countries particularly the Ottomans. While he does mention the problems with the Janissaries and the bribary which did happen, but he also mention that Baltaci Pasha really feared the reaction of Austria and Poland, Russia's main allies. The distruction of Peter's army and his capture or execution would mean instant war with both, a war he can't win and he would lose his life for it. Ironically it appeared he lost his life because of the peace treaty he signed to escape death. .
 
The other book was written during the 77-78 war so it is filled with nationalist propaganda.
 
Why do I think it is important? As I mentioned, Peter was Russia and Russia was Peter. He distroyed the power of the Boyars, he distroyed Sweden and challanged the old church. His death before he completed his reforms would mean not only that the Romanov dynasty would disappeare, but also that Russia will fall in chaos and civil war. Russia won't of course disappeare off the map but it won't be that formidable force it will become later. 
 
The real effects are going to appeare on its neighbours. Poland and Sweden will take Russia's place in eastern europe. Poland will get stronger and stronger not weaker and probably it would be Poland not Russia that will control Ukrainian cossacks and thus be the regional superpower. I maybe wrong but these are the possible outcomes I can see happening.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 06 May 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1224
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2009 at 05:42
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The first book is a scholarly work by an expert in the history of both countries particularly the Ottomans. While he does mention the problems with the Janissaries and the bribary which did happen, but he also mention that Baltaci Pasha really feared the reaction of Austria and Poland, Russia's main allies. The distruction of Peter's army and his capture or execution would mean instant war with both, a war he can't win and he would lose his life for it. Ironically it appeared he lost his life because of the peace treaty he signed to escape death. .
 
The other book was written during the 77-78 war so it is filled with nationalist propaganda.
 
Why do I think it is important? As I mentioned, Peter was Russia and Russia was Peter. He distroyed the power of the Boyars, he distroyed Sweden and challanged the old church. His death before he completed his reforms would mean not only that the Romanov dynasty would disappeare, but also that Russia will fall in chaos and civil war. Russia won't of course disappeare off the map but it won't be that formidable force it will become later. 
 
The real effects are going to appeare on its neighbours. Poland and Sweden will take Russia's place in eastern europe. Poland will get stronger and stronger not weaker and probably it would be Poland not Russia that will control Ukrainian cossacks and thus be the regional superpower. I maybe wrong but these are the possible outcomes I can see happening.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Al Jasas, Poland was at the time very weak, possibly the weakest in its history except partitions time in history. It wouldn't have taken Russia's place. As for Sweden it is too small country with too small resources to control such territory like Eastern Europe longer than few years so I think this battle wasn't that important for the whole world history only for Ottomans and Russia.
I would give under consideration Pearl Harbour as it made US to join the war and Battle of Stalingrad - turning point of WWII. 
 
Back to Top
Chookie View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chookie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2009 at 07:41
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

1- The battles should be of course a turning point in a certain struggle, that is it either switches the course of a war of seals it completely.
I would put the Battles of Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn in this category, along with the fall of fort Eben-Emael.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

6-The Spanish Armada (1588): Little doubt exist in my mind at least that England would have lost the war if the Spaniards managed to land. England was half stauchly catholic, half half-heartedly Anglican. Most nobility and especially Gentry were staunchly catholic as well. It had no army, no real navy and led by a woman. Yet they defeated the mighty Spaniards, established a formal navy, colonised America and united as a one nation to fight the enemy.

There wasn't actually a battle. The Spanish Armada was defeated by the weather.

While England was led by a woman, I don't see the relevance - she wasn't actually fighting. The English navy, such as it was, was a gang of pirates (you could call them privateers, but that's semantics).

"united as one nation"?? England had been one nation since the Norman conquest.
Iasdan dan fasalach 's iadsan gairm sith
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 5520
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2009 at 08:01
Hmmh. The Portugese were worst defeated in... what was it? Torcecircas? I doubt that's the name, but it was something similar (mid 16th century, army destroyed, king lost, nobility dead, state in chaos and all that).
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2009 at 08:21
The worst defeat for the Portuguese was in the battle of Alcaser Quibir or the three kings as known in arabic. Portugal never regained its position after that defeat in which the king and most nobles died. But also this battle doesn't count since its effects were not global. Portugal was simply too small to be a world power.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3602
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2009 at 18:51
Originally posted by Majkes Majkes wrote:

 
Al Jasas, Poland was at the time very weak, possibly the weakest in its history except partitions time in history. It wouldn't have taken Russia's place. As for Sweden it is too small country with too small resources to control such territory like Eastern Europe longer than few years so I think this battle wasn't that important for the whole world history only for Ottomans and Russia.
I would give under consideration Pearl Harbour as it made US to join the war and Battle of Stalingrad - turning point of WWII. 
 


Well, Sweden still controlled the Baltic sea in 1700. With the Baltic bread basket and rich mining industry it certainly could have competed economically. While far from as rich as Poland, Sweden's for its time extremely efficient administration and centralisation would have made up for some of that for at least some time. Sweden would certainly not have remained a major player in the long run, but it would have changed the history of North-Eastern Europe significantly. Anyway, the main reason with the loss in the Great Northern War is that Swedes had, as would be apparent, made just too many enemies. Still, they withstood 20 years of onslaught from basicly all neighbours (which completely ruined the country - as well as several of the neighbours).

Anyhow, I can't agree with Al-Jassas and his conclusions. By 1711 the Swedes were already going downhill The main army had been annihilated at Poltava and the Baltic provinces with its all-important supplies production were in Russian hands. The Danes, Poles and the Saxons had re-entered the war, creating two more fronts. The Russians wouldn't have given the Window back even if Peter had been killed. By the same logic you could say that all battles in which Peter could have been killed was decisive.

Quote
There wasn't actually a battle. The Spanish Armada was defeated by the weather.



Of course there was a battle. Blaiming the weather is the same sort of nonsense as giving all the credit for the Sovjet victory in the Second World War to the Winter.


Edited by Styrbiorn - 28 Sep 2009 at 18:54
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2009 at 19:27
Peter held Russia together, without him the country would have been in a civil war or at best too weak to keep its conquests from its enemies.
 
Anyway, I think Genghis Khan came to defeat several times but I don't have the info. Could anyone give cadidate battles of the mongols?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2009 at 22:23
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Peter held Russia together, without him the country would have been in a civil war or at best too weak to keep its conquests from its enemies.
 
Anyway, I think Genghis Khan came to defeat several times but I don't have the info. Could anyone give cadidate battles of the mongols?
 
Al-Jassas
 
Not really, Russia was held before and after Peter by much weaker monarchs and nothing happened. Moreover, after Peter had died in 1725 Russia actually suffered a number of setbacks and even defeats in subsequent wars with Sweden, some lands were lost and there was no major expansion in the southern direction up until the times of Catherine the Great. If Peter died in 1711, the picture would be pretty much the same.
 
Temujin had been defeated by Jamuqa at the battle of Dalan Balzhut in 1187 but he recovered and came up even stronger after that.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
graceht View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote graceht Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2009 at 08:42
The Battle of Bannockburn (between the Scottish and English) changed Scotland's history. If the Scottish hadn't won that battle under Robert the Bruce, Scotland might have stayed under English oppression.
Grace Thompson
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 09 May 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 38
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2010 at 03:13
For me I would say Hastings in 1066.  It brought an end to the Anglo Saxon rule of England.  It changed the social structure of England, also leading to a long term war with France.  The Normans brought feudalism to England.  The conquest resulted in England being caught up in the struggle for control of large areas of Northern France.  It is global because the effects of the Norman conquest altered English and then British politics.  Up until then England had been a internal state with little or no interest outside her borders.  As a almost direct result of the Normans the English monarchy began to have a interest in events outside their borders.  Ultimately this would lead to Britain gaining an empire.
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 914
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2010 at 07:18
Another battle for Britain's future like you listed above would be the defeat of the Spanish Armada and Trafalgar, which cemented England's stance in ruling the waves.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Domen View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Domen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2011 at 06:06
Quote
Al Jasas, Poland was at the time very weak, possibly the weakest in its history except partitions time in history.


You mean 1711? At that time Poland was just becoming to be very weak and influenced by Russia.

Decisively weakening Russia at that time, could have prevented Poland from becoming a puppet state of Russia in the subsequent years.

Actually at the times of the partitions Poland already recovered was much stronger than in 1730s - 1740s.

What led to the partitions of Poland were Polish attempts to free their country from Russian influence.


Edited by Domen - 21 Feb 2011 at 06:08
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2011 at 09:14
Originally posted by SPQR SPQR wrote:

... England's stance in ruling the waves.


Indeed. Britain rules the waves, but not immigration or its own pockets.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 07:30
"Battles that changed History?" 
 
It is interesting that no one has mentioned all of those battles that occurred during the War of Northern Agression, in the USA V. CSA?
 
Perhaps there has never been an inter-nicene war, that so changed the face of the planet for the next 160 or so years!  This is the war that cast America for good or bad, as the major player in Warfare, for all times since, and even today!
 
So, I would cast my vote for this event, above all others, since the results are far from over!
 
One may notice that Europe payed little if any attention to this event, and only later realized just how important it was!
 
Regards,
 
Ron 


Edited by opuslola - 06 Mar 2011 at 07:33
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 03:07
Inter-nicene? Lends an interesting twist to the purpose of the conflict. I didn't know they cared that much at the time for nuances of trinitarian doctrine?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 03:53
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

"Battles that changed History?" 
 
It is interesting that no one has mentioned all of those battles that occurred during the War of Northern Agression, in the USA V. CSA?
 
Perhaps there has never been an inter-nicene war, that so changed the face of the planet for the next 160 or so years!  This is the war that cast America for good or bad, as the major player in Warfare, for all times since, and even today!
 
So, I would cast my vote for this event, above all others, since the results are far from over!
 
One may notice that Europe payed little if any attention to this event, and only later realized just how important it was!
 
Regards,
 
Ron 
 
The reason why no battle from the "Northern war of agression" is included is because the war was a done deal from the beginning. The problem was that the union didn't have qualified generals until later in the war.
 
As for europe, well it was too busy with its own problems.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 06:29
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Inter-nicene? Lends an interesting twist to the purpose of the conflict. I didn't know they cared that much at the time for nuances of trinitarian doctrine?
 
Well someone must have, after all there's The Battle Hymn of the Republic and its clarion call of "Onward, Christian soldiers..." that is indelibly linked to (and here to please all sides I will surpass the protocols of PCism) the War for Southern Independence a.k.a. The War of Northern Agression a.k.a. The Suppression of the Present Rebellion and the War to Save the Union. Wink However, there was no battle in that conflict that changed history and the sole opportunity in that conflict came at Gettysburg, where if Lee's forces had successfully flanked the Union defenses and found victory then History would truly have changed.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5080
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 06:37
I feel the overpowering need to correct opuslola:

Ron, the name of the conflict was The War of the Rebellion.  Smile


Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 07:48
Ha!  Yes of course what I meant to type was ;
 
"Definition of INTERNECINE
1
: marked by slaughter : deadly; especially : mutually destructive
2
: of, relating to, or involving conflict within a group <bitter internecine feuds>"
 
Sorry about that, but I am sure most of you knew what intended to have been written.
 
And, I much prefer the term "The War of Northern Agression"Clap  It is these words that accurately describe the war, and no others.Angry
 
There was no illegal "rebellion!"  There were no illegal acts committed by the Southern States except as was made so, ex post facto! 
 
But, thanks for your caring!
 
Ron
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 12:20
I agree that the US Civil war did not contain any world changing battles. The south could not have won, it just took the union a long time to figure out how to win.
 
I also disagree that Hastings changed history. It changed English history, but not world history.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 13:37
If the War of Northern Agresssion did not change world history, then what would have been the result if the South had successfully "retired" from the Union, without all of the blood-shed?  Would not the world today be much different?  Or what if the war was fought for but two years, and ended in a truce, with both sides brimming with war supplies?
 
Think, that most of you could only/merely imagine the consequences that would have resulted in the world in general after either of those events.
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
Kirghiz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kirghiz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 14:39
Battle of Segikahara.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.