Print Page | Close Window

Battles that Changed History

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: GENERAL HISTORY
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Description: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=124778
Printed Date: 05 Aug 2020 at 10:15
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Battles that Changed History
Posted By: Al Jassas
Subject: Battles that Changed History
Date 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



Replies:
Posted By: Frederick Roger
Date Posted: 27 Sep 2009 at 07:37
Nationalism aside, I really think the Battle of Aljubarrota ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date 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



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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


Posted By: Sarmat
Date 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



Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 27 Sep 2009 at 17:10
Battle of Mohacs 1526
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs - 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.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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


Posted By: Sarmat
Date 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



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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


Posted By: Majkes
Date 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. 
 


Posted By: Chookie
Date 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


Posted By: rider
Date 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).


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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


Posted By: Sarmat
Date 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



Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


Posted By: warwolf1969
Date 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.


Posted By: SPQR
Date 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


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


Posted By: pinguin
Date 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.


Posted By: opuslola
Date 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 


-------------
"History, a distillation of rumour."-Thomas Carlyle

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


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date 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


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date 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




Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 07:48
Ha!  Yes of course what I meant to type was ;
 
"Definition of INTERNECINE
1
: marked by slaughter : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deadly - 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


-------------
"History, a distillation of rumour."-Thomas Carlyle

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


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.


Posted By: opuslola
Date 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


-------------
"History, a distillation of rumour."-Thomas Carlyle

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


Posted By: Kirghiz
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 14:39
Battle of Segikahara.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 14:55

Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

If the War of Northern Agresssion did not change world history

I actually said it contained no world changing battles. eg if Lee won Gettysburg it would not have changed the end result.
Quote 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?

Nothing. I can't see it making any difference long term. Not that this would ever have happened. It is also outside the terms of reference of the thread.

I could say, what if India rebelled against the British in 1788 instead of America? It would have made a far bigger difference but that's irrelevant to the thread because it never happened. There was no point at which world history turned upon a single battle.

I would volunteer two battles, the Battle of Yarmouk, and the Battle of Manikert. Which are the two most decisive battles in the end of the East Roman Empire.



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 17:49
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

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
 
The civil war was complicated in such a way that only a clear cut victory would have resulted in a lasting peace and only the union could achieve that.
 
Even if Lee won in Gettysburg half the south by that time was firmly in the hand of the union and there was no way that the union would have given those lands up without a fight.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 21:41
It wasn't world changing - I agree with the arguments about the Civil War[1] - but it demonstrated that the North was not going to be find it easy: that was First Bull Run or First Manassas depending on your viewpoint. A win there for the North (as they expected) would probably have brought things to a close quicker. 
 
[1] Which my Georgia mother-in-law, a daughter of the Confederacy as well as of the Revolution, also called the war of Northern Aggression, though some of her metaphorical siblings prefered the War Between the States.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

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



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 23:10
My oh my, what a plethora of "unreconstructed" Johny Rebs are in our midsts. Apparently, Opus has eaten one too many bowls of the cereal served by Lola Granola and completely forgotten the probability of Andrew Jackson's reaction had he been president in 1861 and some South Carolina rabble had deluded themselves into attacking a federal facility! If what John Brown attempted in 1859 against the Federal Arsenal at Harper's Ferry was considered a criminal act (and hence "illegal"), how could one not consider the siege and assault of Fort Sumter an illegal action?
 
Anyway, from my end of the Southern lineage, one can not grasp the implications of the Civil War as anything other than the first example of retrograde Southern populism in American politics [now that statement will certainly stoke polemical flames]. To anyone familiar with the politics of the states that did attempt secession through rebellion in 1861 one can not but notice that between 1848 and 1860 control of local politics passes from the hands of the great landed magnates and merchants (whose sentiments were ever nationalist) to what my great-grandmother irreverently called the "up river trash" with respect to Louisiana--we will not even go into what she meant when she used the descriptive les kaintucks. That phenomenon has been amply studied for both South Carolina and Georgia, particularly the former, and few now dare argue what was fondly premised in 1950 by a historian at Duke:
 
Harold L. Schultz. Nationalism and Sectionalism in South Carolina: A Study of the Movement for Southern Independence 1852-1860. Durham: Duke University Press, 1950.
 
What is attempted here by Opuslola is little more than the same outrage Darryl F. Zanuck undertook with Margaret Mitchell's novel Gone With the Wind! There her Tara--a marginal up-river enterprise more akin to a frontier homestead--was turned into a palatial estate of rural splendor and aristocracy and the personage of Rhett Butler into a rogue who showed his roguishness by viewing secession as claptrap [when in fact as the only personage with undisputed "aristocratic Southern lineage", he was emblematic of his class' true sentiment].
 
 
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Tashfin
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 01:30

I would add:

The battle of Ayn Jalut, where the Mongols (under Hulagu's lieutenant Ketbogha) suffered their first major defeat in history at the hands of the Mamluks (Qutuz and Baybars), and prevented the destruction of the last major Islamic power in the region (Mamluk Sultanate, with Cairo being the official seat of the revived (mostly ceremonial) Abbasid Caliphate after the destruction of Baghdad by Hulagu in 1258.
 
Mamluk failure at Ayn Jalut would have led to the loss of Egypt and probably North Africa to the Mongols and the consolidation of the Crusader state in Palestine, since the latter had an informal alliance with the Mongols.
 
Baybars and his successors went on to decisively defeat the Mongols in further engagements (Albustayn, Homs) and the remnants of Outremer.
 
 
 


Posted By: Shingen The Ruler
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2011 at 06:05
Originally posted by Kirghiz Kirghiz wrote:

Battle of Segikahara.


Good pick. Although, it's Sekigahara. ;)


Posted By: Tashfin
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 08:31
Though mentioned in another thread, the Battle of Megiddo in 1918 was also very decisive and arguably shaped the history of the modern Middle East. It can be said that the Ottomans army was demoralised and exhausted before Allenby's onslaught, but the far reaching effects of the battle certainly can be felt even till today.


Posted By: Joe
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 08:40
I say tuetoberg forest.

The Romans lost three legions and all their auxiliaries and horseman.

The Germans defeated a much superior force.

Augustus actually said in his will "don't make war east of the rhine"

It lead to the down fall of Rome when the Huns came and franks and goths basically marauded through out the Roman provinces.

The Romans probably would have conquered Germania and instituted Roman law, culture and so on but they didn't and it lead to a very obvious border. Though on could argue the "lack of technology" in the conquered areas or the "rhine is a better way to travel anyway and as a border. Thats lacking though the Romans were extremely extended and couldn't afford to potentially get their asses kicked again and then develop the land and people from bottom up.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 08:57
Here is Wikipedia's report about the battle of Manzikert.

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

To me, at least, this is nothing but folly!

But, all of you also have opinions.

I do see in the name of "Alp Arslen", some distinct Norse elements, do you?

If so, just why would anyone by that name be there? Was he a descendant of one of the Byzantine Guards?

-------------
"History, a distillation of rumour."-Thomas Carlyle

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


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 11:01
Opus if you care to comment on the battle please do so. If you care to comment as to why the Wiki article is absurd then do that as well. However, do not continue to suggest an alternative historical explanation outside of the Alternative History Subforum otherwise one would suspect that you are trolling.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 11:28
Quote It lead to the down fall of Rome when the Huns came and franks and goths basically marauded through out the Roman provinces.
I don't think any battle lead to something that happened 400 years later.


Posted By: Joe
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 11:44
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote It lead to the down fall of Rome when the Huns came and franks and goths basically marauded through out the Roman provinces.
I don't think any battle lead to something that happened 400 years later.

Thats not true a lot of battles have effected things thousands of years later. If the Romans had conquered the Germans centuries later the Franks and the Goths wouldn't have conquered their respective provinces around Rome. So basically what happened was a hot pot was brewing and it boiled over on Rome the battle is responsible.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 11:50
If Rome had conquered Germany then Rome would have fallen sooner. Germany was economically unprofitable and at the same time would have required vast reserves of manpower to garrison and control.

For Rome to effectively rule Germany, other fronts would have needed to be denuded of soldiers - opening the way for attacks on other fronts.

Attempting to control Germany would have simply meant the increased loss of men and treasure and would simply have accelerated the rate at which the empire went into decline.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 12:57
The above discourse reminds me of an old song, entitled "Going round in circles!

Perhaps it is this track?

http://new.music.yahoo.com/angie-contini/tracks/going-round-in-circles-song--218448458

But, possibly it is this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un63LEAN22E&feature=related


But possibly my favorite Preston song is this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75-gcaA850g&feature=related

Yes!

Listen and enjoy!

There can never be enough music on any site.

So, I would suggest that before you go to bed you listen to "Sly" and some great "Yodeling" Please turn up the volume!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lVwsijzwVc

Especially regarding riots in 1971.

Regards,
Ronald (as I rock the night away)

-------------
"History, a distillation of rumour."-Thomas Carlyle

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


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 13:05
and that will cost you troll!


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 13:15
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

If Rome had conquered Germany then Rome would have fallen sooner. Germany was economically unprofitable and at the same time would have required vast reserves of manpower to garrison and control.

For Rome to effectively rule Germany, other fronts would have needed to be denuded of soldiers - opening the way for attacks on other fronts.

Attempting to control Germany would have simply meant the increased loss of men and treasure and would simply have accelerated the rate at which the empire went into decline.
 
The pereception that the Romans would have had to "occupy" the hinterlands north of the Danube and East of the Rhine absent some remunerative returns is of course belied by Roman activity in Dacia and the Balkans. CIX is essentially correct that Rome could retrieve what it needed from the region without the outrageous expense of political control. That where such action was required, the Romans were ready to act was emphasized by the activities of Trajan nearly a century after the consolidation of the German frontier along the Rhine/Danube axis.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 13:23
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

If Rome had conquered Germany then Rome would have fallen sooner. Germany was economically unprofitable and at the same time would have required vast reserves of manpower to garrison and control.

For Rome to effectively rule Germany, other fronts would have needed to be denuded of soldiers - opening the way for attacks on other fronts.

Attempting to control Germany would have simply meant the increased loss of men and treasure and would simply have accelerated the rate at which the empire went into decline.
 
The pereception that the Romans would have had to "occupy" the hinterlands north of the Danube and East of the Rhine absent some remunerative returns is of course belied by Roman activity in Dacia and the Balkans. CIX is essentially correct that Rome could retrieve what it needed from the region without the outrageous expense of political control. That where such action was required, the Romans were ready to act was emphasized by the activities of Trajan nearly a century after the consolidation of the German frontier along the Rhine/Danube axis.


Exactly.

Why send Roman legions to put down recalcitrant Germans when you can get friendly Germans do do it. Why built the infrastructure to extract raw materials when you can trade cheaply made civilised goods for them instead.

The mountainous terrain of Dacia afforded the Romans the opportunity to construct some stubbornly defensible holdings that stood the tests of time against one wave of eastern marauders after another. The forest and swamps of Germany were far less able to serve as a bastion to entrenched colonists.


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 21:13
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

and that will cost you troll!


Achtung! Double standards detected :)


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 21:36
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'.


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Tashfin
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 22:20
I would throw in the First Battle of Panipat (1526), the results of which led to the establishment of the Mughal Empire in India. The Mughal leader Babur's army of 12,000 Mughal, Afghan and Pathan soldiers (supported by 5000 Indian auxilliaries) defeated  the Delhi sultanate army of Sultan Ibrahim Lodi which was a 100,000+ force (supported by 300 elephants).
 
The battle was also one of the first in history to use gunpowder and field artillery (by the Mughals), Babur had a park of 24 field artillery, supported by matchlock arquebusiers which/whom he placed behind wagons in the centre of the field with cavalry on the wings. The Lodi army was devastated by the Mughal firepower and then routed by the cavalry charging from the wings.
 
The battle led to the foundation of the Mughal Empire that dominated the subcontinent for the next two hundred years until its decline in the 18th century which coincided with the rise of British dominance.
 
There were also two further battles, no less important in different ways, (1556) and (1761), the former was fought against the Afghan Suri dynasty, after the 'Suri interegnum' that ruled most of northern India in the period 1540-1555 to restore the Mughal state by the young Akbar and his regent Bairam Khan.
 
The latter, in 1761, was a massive encounter between the Afghan Empire under Ahmad Shah Durrani, supporting the weak Mughal Imperial remnants against the Maratha Empire. The Marathas were utterly defeated in this epic battle, and their power was broken for over 10 years. However the Afghans did not stay to consolidate their gains, leaving the Mughal Empire to continue to wither away and this led to a power vaccum in India that was filled by the British East India Company.


Posted By: Tashfin
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 22:36
^ That is two further battles in Panipat, the second battle (1556) and the third (1761). So three epic and decisive battles fought on the same field.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2011 at 23:48
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'.


Posting irrelevant music clips in serious threads as well as derailing nearly every one he participates in, harassing several of our members via PM even when asked to stop, continued ad hominem attacks in response to serious points of discussion, name calling members of staff directly after being warned....

opus well and truly had it coming.

But hey, thanks for your vote of confidence in our efforts to stop people polluting this forum because they want to behave like a hyperactive 6 year old.




Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 00:52
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...


-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 01:13
I will add that Opus is a character and brought amusement to some of us along with harassment. Now if someone has a better idea for discipline then let me know what that is. I surely think a ban will diminish the trolling, harassment, irrelevant postings and ad hominem attacks from one particular member. This is a good way to maintain the forum's integrity too. In addition, I see this is an issue for the usual suspects. Likability has no part to play in this though it doesn't hurt. Abiding by our rules does however.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 05:09
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..


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 05:32
Nice. Shades of the Chronicles of Narnia. The next movie should be called the Norse Code - starring the Alp Arslan (Mountain Lion) brother of Aslan.



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 00:42
We've had a statement with respect to the Indian sub-continent and Panipat (in whichever of its manifestations) as a "battle that changed History". Did it? One could simply assert that the encounter changed dynasties but did little to change the substance of what came after as a reflection of what was before. Is there not really a problem with methodology in viewing battles as catalysts for change rather than as confirmation of illusory objectives that go against more important Historical forces? One of course could posit that Midway and D-Day did change the socio-political character of the United States in that it transformed a rather introspective society into the advocate of policies that were once anathema to ingrained outlooks.  

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Tashfin
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 01:13

In terms of Panipat, once can argue that it marked a significant change in regional history. Prior to the Mughals the sub-continent was divided between an ailing Sultanate of Delhi and various regional powers such as the Rajputs, Gujarat etc. The Mughal Empire led  to greater unity based on the establishment of a more unifrom and cohesive administration than which had been seen before, the legacy of which continued well after the decline of the Mughal state and into the period of Company Rule.

Maybe Plassey and Buxar were more 'history changing' in that they heralded the complete  change in the balance of power from 'local' forces to those of a foreign/western colonial power, in fact, in essense a corporate body representing that power.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 01:27
Originally posted by Tashfin Tashfin wrote:

Though mentioned in another thread, the Battle of Megiddo in 1918 was also very decisive and arguably shaped the history of the modern Middle East. It can be said that the Ottomans army was demoralised and exhausted before Allenby's onslaught, but the far reaching effects of the battle certainly can be felt even till today.
 
The battle was insignificant. The Turks were already retreating everywhere and the British simply to make this faster by attacking.
 
Even if the Turks won this battle the war was over.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 02:12
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.




-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date 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


Posted By: Tashfin
Date 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...
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Anton
Date 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.


Posted By: Tashfin
Date 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 /wiki/A.J.P._Taylor - 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 /w/index.php?title=Alexander_Gella&action=edit&redlink=1 - 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).


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date 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--
 
http://www.york.cuny.edu/~drobnick/russo.html - http://www.york.cuny.edu/~drobnick/russo.html
 
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


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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.


Posted By: Tashfin
Date 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--
 
http://www.york.cuny.edu/~drobnick/russo.html - http://www.york.cuny.edu/~drobnick/russo.html
 
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?


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date 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.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: opuslola
Date 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

-------------
"History, a distillation of rumour."-Thomas Carlyle

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


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date 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.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: opuslola
Date 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,

-------------
"History, a distillation of rumour."-Thomas Carlyle

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


Posted By: Goral
Date 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.


Posted By: Harburs
Date 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.


Posted By: Goral
Date 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" rel="nofollow - http://www.kresy.co.uk/grunwald.html



Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


Posted By: Robert Baird
Date 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."


-------------
"A fool thinks he is a wise man, a wise man knows he is a fool."


Posted By: franciscosan
Date 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.


Posted By: caldrail
Date 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/


Posted By: Robert Baird
Date 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?


-------------
"A fool thinks he is a wise man, a wise man knows he is a fool."


Posted By: Robert Baird
Date 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.


-------------
"A fool thinks he is a wise man, a wise man knows he is a fool."


Posted By: toyomotor
Date 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. 

-------------
From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.(Chief Joseph)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date 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.


Posted By: caldrail
Date 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/



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net