Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
The 5 Most influential battles on World History
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by netherdutch (U5703301) on Monday, 10th September 2007
I thought this might be a fun topic and would generate a lot of interesting examples. Here is my personal five, although I must admit it would probably change if I spent more time thinking about it.
1. The failure of the German Army to capture Moscow: In many ways the turning point of the war
2. The failed Muslim siege of Constantinople in 674: I think this battle was more important than Tours because if the Muslims had succeeded, their forces would have been more able to conquer Europe because it would have been closer to their supply base.
3. Napoleon's failure in Russia: This made France vulnerable to all its enemies.
4. The Invasion of Carthage and the Battle of Zama: This forced Hannibal to leave Italy and defend the homeland, if he had conquered Rome, history would have been irrecoverably changed.
5. The Battle of Chalons and the defeat of Attila the Hun: This was kind of the last gasp of the Romans but it prevented the "Dark Ages" from being quite a bit worse.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 2
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 11th September 2007
Re Zama, Carthage was no longer the force it once was, I doubt it would have made much difference if the result was differentβ¦
I think that Pearl Harbour should be there⦠Bringing the US into the second world war.
Battle of Lepanto would have to be in thereβ¦
Battle of Marathon.
From a British prosepctive β Trafalgarβ¦Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 3
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 11th September 2007
The most influential one in my opinion, not even a battle, more an organised one-sided slaughter. Arminius and the Germanic tribes versus Varus' legions in the Teutoberg Forest.
This was the battle which essentially divided east from west in Europe.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 4
Posted by netherdutch (U5703301) on Tuesday, 11th September 2007
I mention that battle more in the sense that it finally drew Hannibal away from Italy and directly resulted in Carthage's loss of the Punic Wars. There is no real battle on the Italian peninsula I could use instead. Regardless though, the Roman victory over the Carthaginians was absolutely critical to the development of Western civilization.
The other WW2 battle I considered putting in was Normandy because if the Allies had failed, the Soviets would have swallowed up most of Europe. In regards to Pearl Harbor, I think the U.S. was going to get in one way or the other considering the Atlantic war.
I agree that was an important battle, though the Ottomans continued to expand after it up to the gates of Vienna in 1683.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 5
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 11th September 2007
I don't see how you can ignore the Battle of Actium. The entire history of the Ancient World would have been different had Antony won.
The defeat of the Spanish Armada. England would have remained a cold rainy outpost of the Spanish Empire for many long years had that battle been lost.
Waterloo.... A Napoleonic victory in that battle would have altered the course of European history completely, and may have affected that of North America as well.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 6
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 11th September 2007
I don't think Lepanto was that important, as the Turks would continue to dominate the Med for another 100 years afterwards. I'd rather pick out the Siege of Vienna 1683 as the real turning point for the 'Rise of the West'
Waterloo? Even if he'd won Napoleon was on a hiding to nothing with no navy, no empire & the whole of Europe united against him. I'd go for Russia 1812 instead (OK,its a war not a battle...)
Chalons? Pretty questionable too, since Attila was back invading Italy the following year (& the winning army were mostly barbarians anyway)
Some others worth mentioning:
Nihawand 642 - the 'victory of victories' in the rise of Islam
Pizzaro's conquest of Peru 1532 - start of European world dominance
Saratoga 1777 - turning point for US independence, therefore the first step on US rise to world power
Tsushima 1905 - first victory for an 'Eastern' country using modern technology over a 'Western' one
Sedan 1871 - the rise of a united Germany, with fatal consequences for the next 70 years
Midway 1942 - for obvious reasons
Dien Bien Phu 1953-54 - first great triumph of guerilla warfare, ending the traditional dominance of the Western way of fighting warLink to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 7
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 11th September 2007
1. st albans where Boudicca was finally beaten - and she should not have been given the odds - if she had won Roman Britain was no more - how would that have panned out
2. Edington - an england under the danes would have been VERY different if they had won - and they should have
3. Hastings - say no more
4. Crecy - set the seal for the dominance of the longbow which helped us through most of the 100 years war ( the bits we won of course)
5a and 5b
5a waterloo - say no more
5b - The Somme - how could this have ended if (probably) the best army the GB had ever raised - all volunteers and the cream of a generation - been used in a different way - instead of being sent over the top to slaughter ??
STLink to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 8
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 12th September 2007
How about a few non-European ones?
Battle of the Zab. Resulted in the overthrow of the Ummayad dynasty and replacement by the Abbassid dynasty. Islam was transformed from a religion limited to the ruling arabs to a mass religion for anyone.
Battle of Plassey established British rule (strictly East India Company) in India and ousted any French hopes in the subcontinent.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 9
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 12th September 2007
Idamante,
>> Dien Bien Phu 1953-54 - first great triumph of guerilla warfare, ending the traditional dominance of the Western way of fighting war <<
No, not quite. Guerillas fight with light hit-and-run tactics because they lack a main-force army. DBP was a set-piece battle - a siege, in fact - between two main force armies. The VM suffered WW1-style casualties during that fight and, at one point, mutinied like the French had done in 1916.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 10
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 12th September 2007
Tours (732 CE; aka Poitiers, or Balat ash-Shaluda). Charlie the Hammer knocked back the Arab invasion of France. They never set foot north of the Pyrenees again.
Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 12th September 2007
Re: Message 10.
White Camry,
I discussed the Battle of Poitiers (Tours)(in fact it was a battle on two places with only one or two days difference. We know it on the continent as the Battle of Poitiers) with our Swedish friend Hasse some five years ago, when I made a specific thread about Karel Martel. Hasse corrected me and said that for the Arabs those remote countries at the fringes of their empires were only some borderland which was not a thread to them and they were indeed not interested in that backwards North. They only send a less important army as an incursion in borderland? And they were afterwards a lot of time present in the future France without challenge from Martel (I think it is Martell in German. But I don't look at Google for fear to lose my messsage as just happened the first time in more than two years)
And now the letter-eating starts. It's also some time ago.
The subject of the battle of Tours reappeared again on the new boards and I and Hasse interfered again. If you want I can give you the URL.
I stop because that letter-eating when correcting my words is quite enerving.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 12
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 12th September 2007
Addendum to message 11.
White Camry,
(hmm the letter-eating is disappeared) however you are right that the battle, although not that important in the eyes of the Arabs, was enough to let them loose the interest in those borderlands that were not that important for them, letting to expand that Carolingean empire as the backbone of the later European might. And as such, although coincidental, it was indeed a very important battle.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 13
Posted by netherdutch (U5703301) on Thursday, 13th September 2007
Dear Moderators,
I hope I can be removed off pre-mod soon, these boards are not that controversial and I was removed very early from premod in much more controversial boards on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. I've also been having problems with some posts never appearing and there were certainly not controversial. I'll retype the one that disappeared here.
I agree with you in regards to Lepanto, but I think I would put Vienna in the same category as the Ottomans had been in a long decline already and 1683 was a brief respite. Even if they had gained Vienna, they were going to lose quickly to the innovating European forces.
<Chalons? Pretty questionable too, since Attila was back invading Italy the following year (& the winning army were mostly barbarians anyway)>
Chalons was more of a defense of the Christian identity of Western Europe. It was essentially a battle between Christians and heathens with the winner having a decisive impact on the religious future of Europe.
Certainly an interesting choice for Islam's rise, I would have argued instead for the Battle on the Yarmuk River in 636 when the Muslim armies beat a powerful Byzantine Army under Heraclius by luck with a severe sandstorm. This resulted in the loss of Syria, Egypt, North Africa and most importantly Palestine, something that has had a dramatic impact on history.
I think Midway was a turning point of sorts but Japan was going to lose that war regardless. When the American navy could build over 100 carriers while the Japanese could not even build 20 during the war, the war's outcome was inevitable. Even worse, Japan's carriers were often badly designed and rarely followed a class system which would have made repairs via compatibility in parts much simpler.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 14
Posted by netherdutch (U5703301) on Wednesday, 12th September 2007
I certainly agree with you regarding Lepanto not being that decisive, but I would put Vienna in 1683 in the same category. There was no doubt the Ottomans were being surpassed by the Europeans on a myriad of levels and were really no longer that great of threat. If they had captured Vienna, they would have been kicked out shortly thereafter. The 1670s and early 1680s were the Ottoman's "Indian Summer."
<Chalons? Pretty questionable too, since Attila was back invading Italy the following year (& the winning army were mostly barbarians anyway)>
The battle was more important in the sense of a conflict between Christians and heathens and the battle confirmed a Christian Western Europe.
An interesting choice for an important Muslim victory. I would put forth the Muslim victory over the Byzantines in May 636 along the Yarmuk river. It was quite a lucky victory with a vicious sandstorm blinding a superior Byzantine army under a fine warrior emperor, Heraclius who had just returned from long wars in Persia. The victory gave Muslims control over Syria, Egypt, North Africa and most importantly Palestine which has had such a noticeable impact on history up to the present. Imagine if the Byzantines had won.
An important battle to be sure, but Japan was never going to win that war, regardless of what happened at Midway. When the American navy could produce over 100 carriers during the war and Japan less than 20, they were going to lose. That is to say nothing of the poor quality of some of Japan's carriers and the lack of compatibility between classes making repairs more difficult.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 15
Posted by netherdutch (U5703301) on Saturday, 15th September 2007
Sorry about the repeats in the 2 earlier posts, I assumed one of the messages was lost after over a day had passed so I reposted.
I thought I would mention a few other battles of note.
Adrianople 378 AD: Really set the Roman army into rapid decline and gave barbarians a stronger foothold in the empire.
El Alamein: Rommel could have really dealt a heavy blow to the British Empire if he had won and captured the Suez Canal.
Mongol Capture of Kaifeng and Loyang 1276 AD??: Its hard to pick a really decisive battle between the Mongols and Sung Dynasty but the war lasted for 40 years and really gave the Mongols a run for their money. The Battle of Yamen ended the war.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 16
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 15th September 2007
!) Battle of Salamis 480 BC - this preserved not only Greece but the rest of Europe from Persian domination and enabled Europe to acquire a political and economic identity.
2) Battle of Tours 732 - possibly the most significant contest in human history - not only was France preserved from Muslim conquest but this paved the way for the rise of Christian Europe
3) Defeat of the Spanish Armada 1588 - preserved Protestant Europe and laid the foundation for Britain's naval tradition that ultimately led to the creation of the British Empire
4) Battle of Yorktown 1781 - led to the creation of the United States
5 ) Battle of Britain 1940 - not the most decisive contest in WWII but the most significant in terms of its political and diplomatic implications. It maintained Western European interest in WWII (without it WWII would have developed, after an interval, into a Russo-German conflict in Europe and an American-Japanese conflict in Asia) and preserved Britain as a base for a US-led invasion of Europe four years later and prevented Western Europe from succumbing to Soviet domination.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 17
Posted by Killfacer (U8855584) on Monday, 17th September 2007
Obviously Teutoberg Forest has to be in there, "Varus give me back my legions" and all that. Not much mention of Pharsalus either, the death of the republic had thousands of ramifications, who know what may have happened. What about Granicus aswell, imagine Alexander had been killed there, or the Macedonians had been defeated, the persian empire would have lived on. Obviously there are many more but i thought these were some more interesting once as opposed to the obvious (midway, chalons, tours).
Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 18
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 17th September 2007
Allan D,
>> 4) Battle of Yorktown 1781 - led to the creation of the United States <<
Battle of Saratoga, 1777. The British surrender convinced the French to formally declare war, which drew in Spain and the Netherlands, thus turning a colonial uprising into what later generations would call a world war. Whatever the outcome, Britain's relationship to her rebellious colonies would never be the same.
No Saratoga, no Yorktown.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 19
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Monday, 17th September 2007
Second Battle of the Marne - it was the last great conflict of WWI, instigated by the Germans and they couldn't sustain the losses. The failure here convinced the Germans to sue for peace
Midway, as it halted the course of the Pacific War, and effectively sealed the fate of the Japanese in WWII
The battle of the Atlantic, because it provided munitions and equipment to the Soviets, vital for the fight against the Germans
Stalingrad, because it halted the German advance into Soviet territory in WWII
Kursk, because it sealed the fate of the Germans in WWII
Personally, I don't think any battle fought more than 100 years ago can be classed as modern, and I don't think anything more than 200 years ago created that exists today.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 20
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 17th September 2007
Certainly the extension of a colonial conflict into a European war went a considerable way in securing victory for the colonists just as the Confederacy's failure to lure Britain and France into the Civil War 80 years later and Lincoln's success in preventing a wider confllict sealed the Confederacy's fate. However it should be remembered that the British won the naval side of the conflict against the European coalition.
Yorktown was significant not only because it effectively ended British military operations and brought about the collapse of the North Ministry and a British Government favourable to the colonists but because a substantial French force was, after fooling the British blockade, able to be disembarked (there were as many French troops who took part in the battle as Americans), and it was a victory achieved in the heart of the South which had previously been a stronghold of pro-british support.
The point is, though, whatever the disagreement over the most decisive moment in the conflict (my view is even after Saratoga the war was not necessarily lost given different military and political leadership which did not prove forthcoming whereas after Yorktown the result was beyond doubt and there was no alternative for the British Government but to come to terms) the American War of Independence (or Revolution, as our American friends call it) is beyond doubt one of the earliest, most unsuccessful and ultimately most significant of Britain's colonial wars.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 21
Posted by bill (U9416906) on Monday, 17th September 2007
I would take slight issue with netherdutch`s first choice of battles. I think the key battle of the Eastern Front has to be the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad.
Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 22
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
1. Hastings, from an English point of view it has meant that we gained a ruling elite and an intelligencia that despises its own people. From a world point of view, an English victory would have meant an England that was more Scandinavian looking and less interested in affairs across the channel, maybe there would not have been a British Empire and maybe not even a Great Britain.
As a what if it is the only one that really stands out as a pivotal moment where everything rested on just one battle, if William had lost then he was never going to come back, it was all or nothing for the Normans.
2. Gettysburg, less pivitol but a Confederate victory could have led to the end of the war and a Confederate States existing today, probably not still with slaves. How different would the world be now if the USA was just a fraction of its present size?
3. Moscow 1941, if the Germans had taken Moscow in 1941 then could the USSR have continued? And if the USSR was out of the war how would the western allies have retaken Europe?
4. Pearl Harbour, without the Japanese attack the USA may never have entered WW2, and without the USA and its enormous resources could the USSR have continued and how could Britain have survived? Thankfully the Japanese did attack and after that there was no doubt that the USA would defeat Japan. With all due respect to the American dead at pearl Harbour, but the world is a better place because of the Japanese attack.
5. Tet offensive, it sealed the fate of the American involvement in Vietnam, public opinion was never going to accept the war after the events of the Tet offensive. Even though the USA comprehensively defeated the VC in the battle the North Vietnamese won from a strategic point of view. Luckily for the USA and Vietnam the USA left and somebody won the war. It led to the politicians paying a lot more attention to public opinion and for awhile stopped the USA indulging in Empire building. But only for awhile.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 23
Posted by Johnlvsall (U5330593) on Tuesday, 18th September 2007
Since, IMO, this has becme a "What if" thread; I would like to point out that on June 5, 1942, the U.S. had only three carriers and no battle ships in the Pacific. If those carriers had beens sunk Midway would have fallen and there was NOTHING left to defend Hiawia (OK can't spell) But that means the U.S. is forced to begin its build up to victoy on the Pacific coast. It also means the 90%/10% ratio of supplies (90% to fight the Germans and 10% to fight the Japaneese) would have to be shifted. That means no American reinforcements/supplies for El Alamain. Additionally, most German leaders blame the defeat at Kursk on the American invasion of Italy. No American invasion anywhere in Europe or North Africa until at least 1944. By then may have been too late. Regardless of what anyone wants to say, before Midway we were getting our A@@$s kicked and after Midway, we were never again suffered a major defeat.
Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 24
Posted by netherdutch (U5703301) on Friday, 21st September 2007
millwallbill,
I would argue by the time of Stalingrad, the Soviets had huge quantities of men and equipment mobilized and there was no way Germany could have won anymore. The 250,000 men lost in Stalingrad would not made much difference if they had been saved. However in regards to Moscow in 1941, all kinds of interesting scenarios open up if the Germans had actually been able to capture Moscow although I still believe the Germans would probably have lost.
Englishvote,
By the time of Gettysburg, the Confederates were in pretty bad shape. On the same day as the finale of Gettysburg, Grant was able to capture Vicksburg and thus allow the Union to cut the South in half by the Mississippi. They had also capture many Confederate ports. Maybe Antietam would be a better choice if you were looking for one in the American Civil War.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 25
Posted by netherdutch (U5703301) on Friday, 21st September 2007
JohnIvsall,
A loss at Midway of course would have moved all American plans back upwards of a year. The new Essex class carriers did not come into play until the very end of 1942 while about 5-6 of the Bogue and Sangamon class carriers joined the fleet from June of 1942 to the end of the year.
The Japanese would have had a lot of trouble capturing Hawaii because there were many islands to capture and they were all far away from Japanese supply lines. Considering how poorly the Japanese protected their merchant marine, American submarines could have created a lot of havoc.
< It also means the 90%/10% ratio of supplies (90% to fight the Germans and 10% to fight the Japaneese) would have to be shifted.>
Do you know where you got this number from? I have never heard of it so disproportionate before. It certainly wouldnβt be like that for naval resources.
Why not? The Americans didnβt need to send a bunch of merchant ships to the Pacific and with the jungle conditions in the Pacific, the Sherman tanks were more valuable in Egypt.
Those German leaders were out of touch with reality, they were nowhere near winning the battle of Kursk. The Soviets had an insane amount of mines, artillery and defense belts. Soviet intelligence knew where and when the Germans were going to attack and they were even able to keep up with the changes on the date made by the German general staff. Glantz and Houseβs βWhen Titans Clashedβ paints a great picture of this battle using Soviet sources and comparing them to German ones.
The loss of carriers at Midway would have had little impact on the invasion of Europe. The important supplies in this case were landing craft, tanks and air cover, not carriers. In any case the Royal Navy provided a larger portion of the fleet for Normandy. The Americans may have compensated for a loss at Midway a bit on the naval level but not on the air or ground. Germany would always be the more dangerous foe and the greatest concern of the Allies.
In many ways one could argue that the moment when fortunes began to change was actually at the Battle of the Coral Sea and being able to turn back the Japanese advance.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 26
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 21st September 2007
I agree with the view that Moscow 41 was more decisive than Stalingrad 42.
If the Germans had captured Moscow that could have wrapped it up for them - whereas a German victory at Stalingrad would just have meant the war went on a bit longer than it did, with the same result in the end.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 27
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Friday, 28th September 2007
As some people here know, I read this thread far more than contributing to it, because I find it so interesting and fascinating. But hurrah - I've found a thread I can contribute to. Like John Ivsall, it seems to have evolved into a "What If?" scenario.
A couple of years ago we arrived at Heathrow far too early for our flights and so I had to find something interesting to read and bought "What If? - Military Historians imagine what might have been" edited by Robert Cowley. The very first chapter in that book is written by William H McNeil, professor emeritus at Chicago University and a military historian. His take is that disease is "one of the wild cards of history, an unforeseen factor than can, in a matter of days or weeks, undo the momentum."
His essay entitled "Infectious Alternatives - The plague that saved Jerusalem 701 BC" posits the viewpoint that the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in 701 by Sennacherib was lifted after a large part of his army succumbed to a lethal contagious disease and so he withdrew his army and moved on. The result of his withdrawal meant that Jewish monotheism continued, leading to Christianity and then Islam.
He continues further by saying that if his army had not been ravaged by disease and had continued the siege and therefore won the battle and deposed King Hezekiah, our world would be completely different because Judaism would have been swallowed up by the Assyrians and ergo there would have been no Christianity and no Islam - a completely different world than we have today.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 28
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 29th September 2007
... a much more interesting and possibly a more decent world...
Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 29
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Saturday, 29th September 2007
Nikolaos
The world certainly is and has been interesting - and we can only measure by what we know and experience. But is it wishful thinking to say it could have possibly been a more decent world?
Although the interpretation of religion has been abused over millenia by those wishing to control others, it has also been succour for billions of people and also provided the source of magnificent works of art and music, without which our world would be poorer (although we wouldn't know the difference).Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 30
Posted by squarepeg (U3542086) on Saturday, 29th September 2007
What about the Battle of Britain?
Consider that Britain was alone in autumn 1940, most of western Europe was under the control / influence of Nazi Germany with it's axis partners, Russia had signed a non aggression pact with Germany, America and Japan were at peace. The only think stopping the progress of the most mobile, best equipped fighting force the world had seen at the time was the narrow strip of water of the English Channel.
The Battle of Britain halted this conquest and the demise of Great Britain and, at the time, it's Empire. Imagine if the Battle of Britain had been won by Germany, would the whole British Empire effectively fall into the hands of the axis forces? What would the world's other superpowers have done? The Battle of Britain unwittingly not only prevented the invasion of Great Britain but effectively prevented a world wide car boot sale of the British Empire.
Would British forces join with Germany as did the Vichy French and then turn on Russia? Would Britain try to fight on in the colonies? What would Russia, Japan, China, America etc have done at that time; all those natural resources now on the open market. Trade embargos with Japan would have been lifted up to a year before the attack on Pearl Harbour. The whole of WWII history (and world history) from September 1940 would have to be completely re-written and we probably wouldn't recognise the world of today. All from a handful of aircraft / pilots, support personnel, radar and skilled tacticians.
For a relatively small Battle this had a massive hidden influence on the shaping of modern history.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 31
Posted by netherdutch (U5703301) on Sunday, 30th September 2007
Hi Leah02,
I found your example really interesting. I wonder whether there would have been any further substantial Jewish presence in Palestine if the Assyrians had conquered Judah like they had Israel. The Babylonians also removed many Jews from Judah, but they were allowed to return under the Persians. The Persians also conquered the lands the Assyrian Empire controlled so it might be possible that they would have allowed the Jews to return in that scenario as well. But given how brutal the Assyrians were, I could certainly understand your thought process here.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 1st October 2007
Religion is on its basis all about controlling others. Religion-starters like prophets and wannabe-gods claim God's authority to impose the most stupid of things on others - what good can be deducted out of all that? And I am not talking only about the jewish-related trio christians,muslims,jewish but also about other religions. What, you think ancient Egyptian priests or the "manteion" in Delphi did interfere any less in people's lifes?
However, sadly at a time (hellenistic-roman world) when many educated people placed aside stupid religions and raised the value of human beings and their intellect above all that, there prevailed one of the worst of religions jewish (a religion describing a super-godly nation etc. - most racist etc. etc.) with its offspring christianism and later islam that sadly despite their "ecumenical message" and all about "piece, love, hashish" retained much of the "hatred for the non-initiated" so present in judaism and tried to impose their own dark view on humanity.
Oh no do not get me wrong, christianism for certain was the best thing that happened for western Europe as it finally united it with somehow with the civilised east (something that certainly the Roman Empire had not achieved on the contrary to the common illusions we have nowadays. But it was a very negative thing that happened for the Hellenic (and the Persian on the other side) world. Certainly hellenistic and Parthian kingdoms had much more interesting things to offer than christianism and islam.
Christianism and islam of course did not stop production of civilisation in the Hellenic and Persian entities : in the east, Persian science gave way to Arabic (with tons of hellenic injections) while the Eastern Roman empire continued as the most civilised part of the world, as good as ever but then that was certainly not due to the religion but due to the fact that the power passed again to the Greeks that had been always the main civilisation powerhouse with the previous Roman empire (who can argue on that anyway?). It was rather a positive in the negative that hellenocentric christianism prevailed to a large extend over the earlier judaic-centric christianism because other wise you do not want to hear what kind of civilisation future generations would had inherited.
Imagine also what more could be created if Greeks and Persians were not detracted by these relgions and had remained to the point of rejecting their previous ones, a point we only reached again in the 20th century permiting us to send a man on the moon. Just sit down and think about all that huge loss of human energy and time spent on writing irrelevant things, copying (un)holy books, burning millions of much more usefull books, cutting the throats of much more usefull voices... etc. etc.
I am not claiming that religions are the only hardles of the development of civilisation since they had their positive sides also (e.g. transfer of culture to western and eastern Europe etc.) but then just imagine what would be without themLink to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 33
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 1st October 2007
squarepeg,
... America and Japan were at peace.Β
Only in the most technical sense of the term.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 34
Posted by Giselle-Leah (U1725276) on Monday, 1st October 2007
Hi netherdutch
It was obviously impossible for me to quote the whole essay verbatim, but the crux of McNeil's concept was that because Sennacherib left Jerusalem in the kingdom of Judah at that moment (701 BCE), Judaism had time to develop and flourish under King Hezekiah. Only a few years earlier (722 BCE) the neighbouring kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrian Sargon II who carried off thousands of captives to Mesopotamia, leaving the countryside and fields desolate with hardly any people.
Therefore, McNeil argues, Hezekiah wanted to centralise and strengthen the Jewish people by concentrating Judaism in the temple and destroying "high places" in the countryside where other rituals prevailed was part of the programme. But Hezekiah also strengthened the city walls of Jerusalem and what with strategic political alliances, managed to retain the little kingdom and the religion solidified.
So in 586 BCE Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, actually did what Senacherib threatened to do c. 180 years earlier, ie., capturing Jerusalem after a long siege and bringing the Davidic dynasty to an end, destroying the temple and carrying it and many thousands of Jews off to Babylon.
But McNeil argues that the time between Senacherib and Nebuchadnezzar allowed Judaism to become strong and unite the people, and so in captivity in Babylon, when Judiasm ceased to be a temple-based religion, it became "portable", ie., a religion that could be practised anywhere, not just in one specific place.
He posits that the revised Judaism, tempered in exile, subsequently gave birth to Christianity and Islam "the two most powerful religions of our age". None of this could ever have happened if the Kingdom of Judah had disappeared in 701 BCE as the Kingdom of Israel had done in 722 BCE, when the exiles from that land lost their separate identity and became part of the "Ten Lost Tribes."
I have been quoting from the book and they are McNeil's points of view, not my own, but if I were a more educated biblical historian, who's to say I would not agree with him?
Like you, I too find this utterly fascinating and agree that any ethnic group under the Assyrians might not have been allowed to survive as a separate entity.
The whole issue is so huge that from my own pov, I can see it affecting the absolute whole of world history onwards.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 35
Posted by squarepeg (U3542086) on Tuesday, 2nd October 2007
But still a peace even though uneasy.
The 5 Most influential battles on World History. Surely it needed to be something that influenced THE WORLD. How does a Roman battle change events in Australia or China or America? Spartan defence change ancient Britain?
Have also been reading through the historical debate re: biblical times and battles - my personal opinion, these battles shaped the world not changed it and undoubtedly will continue to do so. Then again this could be me demonstrating little ancient historical knowledge - sorry chaps.
World changing battles - surely this has to be linked to a world conflict - yes / no? How about 9/11 and the effects this has had on the world?Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 36
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 7th October 2007
9/11 was not a battle but a terrorist outrage in which almost 3000 unarmed innocent civilians were killed.
Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 37
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 7th October 2007
Spartan defense certainly changed England and Roman expansion certainly changed Australia no doubt about that. Otherwise most probably at some the last Aboriginal would had died in an experimental chamber of a Japanese/Chinese laboratory (since English very probably would be a small provincial backwards country trying to solve its own problems, far from being able to move to Australia). It is difficult to make the link isn' it?
Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 38
Posted by GreatKhan1 (U9943587) on Monday, 8th October 2007
I have just come across this message board and was very intrigued by the 'most influencial battles' business, so i had a look and have come up with a few of my own...
First off, despite Carthage not eventually beating Rome, the Battle of Cannae, 216 bc has to qualify as being influencial. I mean Hannibal's tactic of 'double envelopment'to crush the Romans, was used 2000 years later by Schwarzkopf during Desert Storm to beat the Iraqis in 1991.
I also believe that another important battle was that at Ain Jalut, 1260, which served as the one and only time that a Mongol army was defeated in a set battle by the Mamluks. The Mongols were shown to no longer be invicable and the Mamluks went on to drive out the last remaining crusaders in 1291.
However a battle that has affected history no end also saw an end to the Roman Empire. In 1453, the Ottoman Turks besieged and then sacked the great city of Constantinople, the last stronghold of the withered Roman (or Byzantine) Empire, before making it the capital of an empire that would go on for nearly another 500 years. It also ushered in a new era of warefare with gunpowder becoming more dominant and it acted as the final action of the middle ages.
Thanks for your time.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
-
Message 39
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007
GreatKhan1,
I mean Hannibal's tactic of 'double envelopment'to crush the Romans, was used 2000 years later by Schwarzkopf during Desert Storm to beat the Iraqis in 1991.Β
If by 'double envelopment' you mean outflanking the Iraqis from the air as well as from the west then I agree. Other than that, I'd have to say Schwarzkopf's attack turned a single flank.Link to this forum: The 5 Most influential battles on World History
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.