| 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
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: 21 Apr 2011 at 04:48
Ah...a new version of protolinguistics! We all know how well the protozoa can conduct a conversation specially as it detracts from the subject at hand. Somehow I doubt this battle can be considered little more than a skirmish that most definitely will not affect this Forum's course of history!Wink
 
As for "protestants" and battles, we know that Muhlenburg had little effect on their subsequent influence; however, the Inquisition did choose a more efficacious route: roast them there marshmallows! Sic transit gloria Opi.
 
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 09:01
Here's some more:
 
Battle of Warsaw (1920) - Poland's defeat of the Bolshevik army, prevented their advance westward into Germany to support the German Communists in their attempted revolution (which was crushed by the FreiKorps), whilst preserving Polish Independence. If the Poles had been defeated, and there was a good chance they could have been, the embryonic Red Army taking advantage of the unsettled post WW1 state of affairs in Europe could have swept into Central europe triggering proleteriat revolution across Europe - far fetched?...maybe...
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 09:27
Do not forget, Tashfin, that Soviet Russia was in civil war at this time, and this factor seems to be much more important for the inability of the Red Army to attack western countries.
Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 09:54
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Do not forget, Tashfin, that Soviet Russia was in civil war at this time, and this factor seems to be much more important for the inability of the Red Army to attack western countries.
 
Yes it was, however by 1920 the war had turned decisively in favour of the Soviets, with White Russian forces under Denikin having been defeated and treaties signed with Latvia and Estonia. So the Soviets had, by then over 800,000 troops mobilised and available for the war with Poland. The Soviet forces achieved significant successes in the early part of the war driving the Poles back from Kiev towards the Polish heartlands. The offensive was seen, albeit belatedly as a plan to support the Communist revolutionaries in Germany and elswhere in Central Europe, and also to give succour to Socialist movements in Western Europe. The battle of Warsaw itself was a close run thing, hence the Poles called it 'the miracle on the Vistula'.
 
Here is a wiki quote on the battle:

According to the British historian A.J.P. Taylor, the Polish–Soviet War "largely determined the course of European history for the next twenty years or more. […] Unavowedly and almost unconsciously, Soviet leaders abandoned the cause of international revolution." It would be twenty years before the Bolsheviks would send their armies abroad to 'make revolution'. According to American sociologist Alexander Gella "the Polish victory had gained twenty years of independence not only for Poland, but at least for an entire central part of Europe.

So if the Poles had lost, much of Eastern and Central Europe (and possibly Germany itself) would have been absorbed into the Communist bloc, far earlier, and at a time when post- WW1 Europe was in chaos and disarray, which would have made the task of spreading revolution amongst the discontented masses easier than it would be twenty years later when a new and formidable status quo had been established (namely the Third Reich).
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: 21 Apr 2011 at 11:46
There are certain flaws here not the least of which is the fact that the Polish forces were the aggressors here with respect to the chaos within Revolutionary Russia. A parallel example here was the activity of the Greeks in Turkey and their hopes to dismember territory from the Turkish state. Not that A. J. P. Taylor has not had influence here--
 
 
The important fact here is that the frontier settled after Warsowa was the identical frontier the Russians had offered in April 1920, prior to the Polish invasion and such was accepted by the Poles in April 1921. Could this be a historical change? Dubious at best and even more dubious is the assertion that it was this conflict that led to official abandonment of "world revolution" by the young Soviet State. Somehow the shadow of a certain Georgian is overlooked here.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 21 Apr 2011 at 19:15
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

and that will cost you troll!


Achtung! Double standards detected :)


A glaring double standard alright. Just be honest, give the banning reason as 'we don't like you'.


Nothing against Op but just but to suggest Alp Arslan is a Norse name...

Well, alp-arsle does mean mountain-arse, but I guess that's not what he meant..


  Cyrus etymology!  Turkic is a branch of Nordic which is a branch of Germanic which is ultimately of course, a branch of Iranic.


I have learnt from the Master indeed.
Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Apr 2011 at 00:01
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

There are certain flaws here not the least of which is the fact that the Polish forces were the aggressors here with respect to the chaos within Revolutionary Russia. A parallel example here was the activity of the Greeks in Turkey and their hopes to dismember territory from the Turkish state. Not that A. J. P. Taylor has not had influence here--
 
 
The important fact here is that the frontier settled after Warsowa was the identical frontier the Russians had offered in April 1920, prior to the Polish invasion and such was accepted by the Poles in April 1921. Could this be a historical change? Dubious at best and even more dubious is the assertion that it was this conflict that led to official abandonment of "world revolution" by the young Soviet State. Somehow the shadow of a certain Georgian is overlooked here.
 
Indeed, an interesting parallel cited with regards to the Greco-Turkish war. The Poles were the aggressors, and their offensive towards Ukraine, ostensibly to support the Ukrainian nationalists was defeated and rolled back aggressively by the Russian forces, right up to the gates of Warsaw.
 
 I guess what is  potentially more interesting than the actual results of the battle,(the settlement of the international border between the Soviets and Poland) is a 'what if' question: i.e. how would history have been changed, had the Russians achieved victory at Warsaw, would they have been content to have withdrawn after leaving a pro-socialist government in Poland, or continue their advance into Central Europe (even Germany, where the short lived 'MunicH Soviet Republic'had briefly arisen a year previously and swiftly been crushed by the  SDP and Freikorps) as some sources suggest they would have? Would this have led to intervention of the Allies to support the newly formed Weimar republic?.Would socialist revolutions have spread , hence changing the volatile post WW1 political landscape of Europe twenty five years before the establishment of the Iron Curtain?
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: 27 Apr 2011 at 08:00
It should be noted that much of the history of Central Europe written in Anglophone countries was heavily influenced by emigre intellectuals from this region in the ensuing post-World War II years. It furthered their own interests to discover "heroic antecedents" over resistance to the Russian bear while presenting the regimes that emerged in the years after World War I as paladins promising future democracy and totally inimical to "socialist" ideals. One would think that the dissolution of the J[Y]ugoslav state at the end of the 20th century would have put paid to such fantasies.

Edited by drgonzaga - 27 Apr 2011 at 08:01
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 04 May 2011 at 09:22
Dear Doctor!

Re, your reply dated; 07 Mar 2011 at 13:10, concerning the actions expected by President Andrew Jackson, re. the acts taken by Brown, at the arsenal in VA, as compared to the secession of S. Carolina many years later.

It is indeed a "Modest Proposal" that you indicate.

Since even Andy Jackson was not really sure from what state he originated (he was reportedly born right along the line seperating N. Carolina from S. Carolina, as I remember from my Tennessee History class in ca. 1967-68.

But there is, of course, no comparison available either then or now! It is an argument with out any real basis! And, you should be ashamed for mentioning it, and especially contrasting it with the severance of loyalty from one "sovereign state", from an amalgam of proto-soverign states, E.g. those who were made by illegal laws to agree with following the end of the illegal war.

And comparing the act with a certain illegal act by those following Brown, who had no standing at all.

Oh! As you well know, I have been extreemly limited in the ability to respond to anyone for the last few weeks! LOL

I await your esteemed response!

Ronald (the semi-doc) LOL

Edited by opuslola - 04 May 2011 at 09:33
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: 04 May 2011 at 09:49
What kind of response can be made to a post that lacks not only coherence but even a minimal grasp of historical events. Andrew Jackson was dead in 1859, John Brown's Raid at the Federal Arsenal took place in October of that year and South Carolina's Act of Secession did not take place "many years later" but instead on 24 December 1860 barely 14 months after the raid and all under the presidency of Buchanan.
 
In other words your post is irrelevant to the topic and actually represenst an instance of personal harassment. Kindly desist from such since it hardly helps your "credit" here.


Edited by drgonzaga - 04 May 2011 at 09:49
Honi soit qui mal y pense
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: 05 May 2011 at 08:31
I agree, I certainly made a mess in my last post. But, I do not really apologize for stating that I would suggest that Jackson might well have allowed S. Carolina to make a legal exit from the Union. And certainly the attack by Brown upon a Federal site, was not a legal act that can be compared to the actions of S. Carolina, etc.

Sorry I did not get my point across the first time. Yes, 14 months does not "years" make.

Regards,
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2013 at 17:01
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

There are certain flaws here not the least of which is the fact that the Polish forces were the aggressors here with respect to the chaos within Revolutionary Russia. 
No,Poland was not an aggressor in this war. Refer to "Red Star White Eagle" by Norman Davies or "Warsaw 1920" by Adam Zamoyski.
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3144
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2013 at 23:08
Battle of Carrhae:

Parthians stopped Roman eastward expansions forever and annihilated 4 Roman legions with a army less than 1/4 Roman army's size.
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 08:58

First Battle of Tannenberg (Polish Battle of Grunwald)5 July 1410 between Polish-Lithuanian united forces and Teutonic Knights. Arguably the biggest battle in Europe during Middle Ages ended in crushing defeat of Teutonic Knights Army. This battle stopped German easterly expansion for 350 years and was a beginning of the end of Teutonic Knights Order.

Refer to

http://www.kresy.co.uk/grunwald.html



Edited by Goral - 10 Oct 2013 at 09:00
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2013 at 09:57
Hmm, I'd say the Battle of Red Cliffs

This battle showed the world that the Han Empire was divided and weakened, and that Cao Cao was able to be defeated by the warlords that he kept decapitating. The battle also led to the Three Kingdoms Period, and laid the foundation for a civil war that would last for 60 years.
Back to Top
Robert Baird View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 24 Mar 2016
Location: Nanaimo, BC, Ca
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robert Baird Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2016 at 08:22
No more important war existed or exists than the same war - Rome never fell and even Gibbon did not say it fell until Byzantium capitulated. It continues to wage the same war - over your souls. But in terms of learning why these things happen I will say Jung had a reason for keeping the Iliad by his bedside for twenty years. I do not know if he figured out what the 'underworld' in Homer's work meant. I think I am not the first to notice it might be connected to the other side of the world - and I can provide loads of evidence. Here is a general comment which applies to all wars.

The Battle of Cumae and all the other battles of the era are probably not unconnected with the combatants from the Trojan War, and yet these people switched allegiances often so it is hard to determine who is doing what for whom or to whom. Reserves or distant allegiances often were enough to swing the tide against any party to every contest. And the people behind the scenes sometimes enjoyed seeing their 'champion' or hero match up against their opposing foe who often was part of the developing nobility who once claimed descent from the Gods. So, a student trying to grasp this insane rigmarole which continued into the 20th Century is justified in wondering what is this ____ and why should we continue to learn about it. My reply to a comment like that is "We must end the game or Hegelian Dialectic which includes these fake gods and nobles who really are not as important as they like to have us believe. They destroyed the prior cultures and they will continue to do things of little or no value if we do not learn their games and act."
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 10439
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2016 at 16:05
Croton defeating and destroying Sybaris in 510 BC.  The Sybarites were close to the Etruscans economically.  At the same time, Rome forced the Tarquins out and founded the Republic.  The Tarquins were Etruscan and the fall of the Kingship at this time was part of the collapse of the Sybarite Empire.  
Croton went to war to protect Sybarite refugees, when the Sybarite dictatorship demanded them back, or else.  Pythagoras convinced the council to go to war.  The Crotoniate army went to war, lead by Milo, the Olympic wrestler clad as Heracles and wearing his victory wreaths.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1287
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2016 at 20:40
Quote 2-Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The rise of Christianity and the end of Rome as an empire.

That battle secured Constantines victory in the civil war but was not responsible for the rise of Christianity. It was the necessity to create a re-united empire in the peace that followed that led to the patronage of Christian sects and the call for their unification - which wasn't entirely successful. Why this battle is supposed to have led to the end of the empire is quite beyond me. Religion did not bring the Roman Empire crashing down (though it did exacerbate military recruitment issues to a small degree). The empire could have fallen apart without this victory. Reasons for imperial 'collapse' are many and various - some quite bizarre - but essentially as a state the empire had run out of steam, was beginning to lose that important unifying identity, was increasingly subject to external threat.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Robert Baird View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 24 Mar 2016
Location: Nanaimo, BC, Ca
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robert Baird Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2016 at 23:52
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Croton defeating and destroying Sybaris in 510 BC.  The Sybarites were close to the Etruscans economically.  At the same time, Rome forced the Tarquins out and founded the Republic.  The Tarquins were Etruscan and the fall of the Kingship at this time was part of the collapse of the Sybarite Empire.  
Croton went to war to protect Sybarite refugees, when the Sybarite dictatorship demanded them back, or else.  Pythagoras convinced the council to go to war.  The Crotoniate army went to war, lead by Milo, the Olympic wrestler clad as Heracles and wearing his victory wreaths.

Yes, there are many ways to throw data and dates around and miss what happens and why. You prove my point!

Are you Sybaritic?
Back to Top
Robert Baird View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 24 Mar 2016
Location: Nanaimo, BC, Ca
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Robert Baird Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2016 at 23:58
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote 2-Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The rise of Christianity and the end of Rome as an empire.

That battle secured Constantines victory in the civil war but was not responsible for the rise of Christianity. It was the necessity to create a re-united empire in the peace that followed that led to the patronage of Christian sects and the call for their unification - which wasn't entirely successful. Why this battle is supposed to have led to the end of the empire is quite beyond me. Religion did not bring the Roman Empire crashing down (though it did exacerbate military recruitment issues to a small degree). The empire could have fallen apart without this victory. Reasons for imperial 'collapse' are many and various - some quite bizarre - but essentially as a state the empire had run out of steam, was beginning to lose that important unifying identity, was increasingly subject to external threat.

Yes, I saw your referenced comment and was going to comment on how wrong it is. Constantine was heralded and his flag had the Hebrew Tau letter on it which is part of a prophetic rise (PROPHETIC!) in his political star. Later he sided with those against Arias and though he personally preferred Arias he sold out to Empire rather than merely Rome. Thus we got what we have.

He died a Mithras worshipper as he lived - and the fictions about his conversion are just that - pure fiction!!!! Like most wars.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5372
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2016 at 12:16
I would have thought that every battle ever fought would have changed history, if only for those who participated. 
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Online
Points: 10439
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2016 at 23:18
They say that there is no such thing as a minor war, if someone is shooting at you.  It is one of the reasons why I enjoy Heartbreak Ridge, with Clint Eastwood and the invasion of Granada.  He is gruff sergeant, training a squad of Marine Recon, and reading women's magazines to try to understand and get back together with his ex.

I like books about minor conflicts, Falkland Islands, Aleutian Islands, Bader Meinhof Gang, Low Intensity Conflict.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1287
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2016 at 01:38
Quote Yes, I saw your referenced comment and was going to comment on how wrong it is. Constantine was heralded and his flag had the Hebrew Tau letter on it which is part of a prophetic rise (PROPHETIC!) in his political star.

A flag of convenience. Many of his soldiers were Christian and he rather blatantly used superstition to motivate his troops in the belief that the Christian God was with them (where have I heard that before?). The pagans among them simply followed orders and painted the symbol on their shield before the battle like everyone else. Prophecy? Pfah!

Quote Later he sided with those against Arias and though he personally preferred Arias he sold out to Empire rather than merely Rome. Thus we got what we have.

Constantine was a life long pagan who patronised and supported Christian worship because it had beneficial social qualities compared to individualistic pagan rites.

Quote He died a Mithras worshipper as he lived - and the fictions about his conversion are just that - pure fiction!!!! Like most wars.

History records that he was converted on his death bed. Eusebius tries to convince us he was converted earlier. But fiction? That argument holds no water unless you have any evidence to support it as opposed to your own particular preferences. And do please try to keep the history accurate. No fiction from you, understand?
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
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 0.109 seconds.