Most Significant Battles in History (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Dan in Toledo -> Most Significant Battles in History (9/13/2001 9:07:00 PM)

I always like to compare battles throughout history. What are your thoughts on the 10 most important battles of all time? 10. Tenochtitlan Spanish beat Aztecs 1521
9. Stalingrad Russians defeat Germans 1942
8. Gaugamela? Greeks defeat Persians 328bc
7. Teutoberg Barbarians defeat Romans 9ad
6. Badr Muslims defeat Meccans 622
5. Saratoga Americans defeat British 1778
4. Manzikert Seljuks defeat Byzantines 1071
3. Ayn Juluit Mamluks defeat Mongols 1269
2. Tours Franks defeat Moors 721
1. Marathon Greeks defeat Persians 490bc I am sitting hear in my office going totally off memory so the dates may be a little off. Anyone have any thoughts?



Supervisor -> (9/14/2001 6:35:00 AM)

I'd put Stalingrad closer to the top, but that's my personal bias, also what about Rome vs. the Carthaginians, such as Cannae? From a tactical standpoint Cannae was important due to the collapsing centre.
I should remember the year, as I was a classical civl'n major in University, but how quickly one forgets.



Drex -> (9/14/2001 10:34:00 AM)

Your #1 battle would be the Battle of Salamis(sea battle), but what about the Normandy Landing (1944), the Battle of Lepanto, the Battle of Zama, Defeat of the Spanish Armada (1588),the Battle of Hastings (1066), Waterloo (1814),and of course the Battle of Midway(1942), the Siege of Vienna by the Turks...I'm not sure you can point to 10 battles as being more important thqan the others without some argument. Its one of those questions with a different answer by every historian.



frank1970 -> (9/14/2001 3:14:00 PM)

Seen from the historic impact (word?) of a battle I would say:
1.Tours and Portiers: Franconian knights stop Moores conquering the rest of Europe
2.Teutoburger forest: Germanic tribes (barbarians ts ts ts) stop Romans conquering north eastern Europe
3.Vienna: breaking the siege and pulling the turks back
4.Pearl Harbour
5.Waterloo
6.Armada
7.D-Day
8.Tannenberg: Germans destroy Russian Armies advancing while WW1
9.Stalingrad
10.Zama: Romans defeat Carthago This list is made from a German/European point of view.



Zakhal -> (9/14/2001 7:21:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Dan in Toledo:
I always like to compare battles throughout history. What are your thoughts on the 10 most important battles of all time? 10. Tenochtitlan Spanish beat Aztecs 1521
9. Stalingrad Russians defeat Germans 1942
8. Gaugamela? Greeks defeat Persians 328bc
7. Teutoberg Barbarians defeat Romans 9ad
6. Badr Muslims defeat Meccans 622
5. Saratoga Americans defeat British 1778
4. Manzikert Seljuks defeat Byzantines 1071
3. Ayn Juluit Mamluks defeat Mongols 1269
2. Tours Franks defeat Moors 721
1. Marathon Greeks defeat Persians 490bc I am sitting hear in my office going totally off memory so the dates may be a little off. Anyone have any thoughts?
Stockholm, finns beat swedens. 400-600AD



VictorH -> (9/16/2001 4:00:00 AM)

What about the following battles: 1. Hastings.
2. Peter's Victory against Sweden.
3. Alexsander Nevsky's Victory against the Teutonic Knights.
4. Not a battle but a real change in history - When the Mongol Invasion of Japan was destroyed by a Tsunami.
5. Chaeronea - where Phillip II of Macedon and his son Alexsander the Great defeated Athen's and Thebes, thus uniting Greece.
6. Grant's Campaign around Vicksburg.
7. Alesia
8. The battle of Imphal(Japanese stopped by the Brit's and Indians in WWII).
9. Dein Bein Phu
10. The Battle of Quebec(French & Indian War).



Gen.Hoepner -> (9/16/2001 3:14:00 PM)

Well,this is an interesting discussion:I think that u have to point the attention on the battles that really changed the couse of History,so my list should be: 10-defeat of the Invincible Armada 1588-England remains indipendent
9-waterloo1815-Enland and the Prussians will set up Europe with an asset that will lead to the ww1
8-Battle of Zama 202 BC-Rome confirms its leadership in the mediterranean world
7-Hastings 1066-William the Conqueror starts the program of reforms that will lead England to the medieval supremacy
6-"Granico river battle"334 BC,Battle of Isso 333BC,Battle of Gaugamela 331-Alexander the Great defeats the Persian Army of Darius III
5-Costantinopoli's fall 1453-The Roman dream breathes for the last time
4-Battle of Marna river 1918-the last german offensive is stopped and counterattacked by the Foch's arny
3-Portiers(?)-The moors are stopped by Charle Magne
2-Kursk 1943:The battle that really decided the ww2,more than stalingrad 'cause here the German had still a chance to rechange the war's destiny,with a strong rebuilt armored force.If Hitler had ordered the Zitadelle Operation 3 months before,as Guderian,Manstein and Von Kleist wanted,probably the Russian would have been defeated.
1-Thermopylies(???)480 BC,Platea and Salamina 479BC-the united greek army saves the west from the colonization of the Serse's Army!!!!!!!!



Dan from Toledo -> (9/17/2001 1:08:00 AM)

Here are my reasons: 10. Tenochtitlan: Last stand of the new world versus the old world; If the Aztecs would have won; they would have become immensely stronger because of spanish technology and tactics; They might be around today. What would it be like to have Aztec Mexico to our south? 9. Stalingrad: Russia would have been out of the war if they had lost. The Germans would have been the masters of Europe. The west would have had to fight the germans alone. 80% of the german casualties in the war were on the eastern front. If there is no eastern front they would have been a lot stronger. Also; any battle in which 2000000 men die is significiant. 8. Gaugamela?: Alexander the Great was very very nearly killed in this battle. If he had been the Achemanid (persian) empire would have stayed in existance. Also many feel that the early images/stories of Christ were taken from Alexander the Great. What if there was no Alexander? 7. Teotoburg: This was the beginning of the end for the Romans. After this battle it was 500 straight years of battling the Germans. This was their first major setback and they would never again occupy germany. 6. Badr: this small battle was between muhammed's 300 muslims verus 1000 pagan meccans. Muhammed prevailed and it showed the tribes of arabia that muhammed had god on his side. If the Meccans had won, there would have been no muhammed and no islam (and no world trade center bombing) 5. Saratoga: allowed the Americans to recieve French help. Without it we would have lost. The world would have been deprived of the most powerful nation in human history. 4. Manzikert: the beginning of the end of the byzantine empire. their army was decimated and their emperor captured. never again could they march on equal ground against the turks. from here on it was 400 straight years of military defeats. 3. Ayn Jaluit: the mongols were finally stopped; they made it all the way into israel; what would the world be like if the mongols ruled everywhere? take a look at how backward russia became after 200 years of mongol rules and you get a glimpse 2. tours: the muslims were finally turned back; if they hadnt been stopped all of europe would be muslim today (and america as well) 1. marathon: the first major battle of the greek persian wars. if the persians had won their would have been no greek philosophy, no monetary system (lydia: a greek colony in w. turkey invented coins in 500bc), no greek literature or theatre. Although the persians did smash athens in 480bc that was a war of vengeance and the greeks rebounded in 479 at salamis and plataea.they would not have been able to rebound if they lost marathon. All of western civiliation would be drastically different.
Other super duper important battles that did not make the top 10: Constantinople 610 ad: the first seige of constantinople, it was by the Avars and Persians; if it did fall to the persians instead of arabs?? Constantinople 680 ad: the second siege; it was by the caliph muawiyah; at this time the muslims were the supreme power on earth; imagine if the byzantime empire fell in 680 instead of 1453 Jerusalem 700bc??: the assyrians were besieging jerusalem; they had crushed everythin in their path but could not conquer this city; every other city they conquered before was destroyed; if jerusalem had fallen there would be no judaism; christianity, or islam today. Armada 1588: england began its 350 year reign as master of the seas with this battle; their massive 19th centruy empire would not have been Tsushima 1905: shattered the myth of white invincibility; destroyed russia's navy; emergence of japan as a military and economic power Gettysburg 1863: If the CSA had won they would have had recognition from france and england. More than likely the war would have ended and the great nation on earth would have been split for good. OVERRATED BATTLES:
Midway 1942: a great victory for the US but even if we had lost all 3 carriers by late 1943 we would have had 3 times the carrier strength that the japs had; there was absolutely no way that the japs could have won that war Hastings 1066: minor battle for a minor country; england was a backwater at this time Zama 280bc??: carthage was doomed even if they won this battle; they werent even destroyed here; it wasnt for another 50 years that they were wiped out Tannenberg 1914: the germans won this battle but lost the war so it cant be that important Normandy 1944: hitler was doomed anyway; it didnt matter where we landed; it was a great feat of logisitcally and military prowess but it cant rank in the top 10 THESE ARE JUST MORE THOUGHTS. I ENCOURAGE MORE DEBATE.



Zakhal -> (9/17/2001 3:24:00 AM)

Leningrad,Moscow 1941. Finns didnt participate the siege of Leningrad from the north. Panzers sent for Moscow were redirected to Leningrad, but neither city fell. Not to mention the early winter that year. Would Leningrad have fallen and Moscow too? [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Zakhal ]



Drex -> (9/17/2001 5:53:00 AM)

Dan: I do question the inclusion of some of your battles: Badr- Though Mohammed was victorious in this battle, he was almost killed in the next battle,Uhud. So according to your reasoning with Alexander, this battle was more important.
Tenochtitlan - If Cortez had lost this battle, another Conquistador -perhaps Pizzarro- would have taken his place. The Aztecs were an outdated civilization and were doomed from the time European nations discovered them.
Stalingrad - This might have been a turning point, but if the Germans had taken the city, they would have eventually lost it. The war would just have taken longer. Russia had unmatched resources, Germany did not.
Gaugamela - if this battle qualifies because Alexander almost lost his life, then every battle he fought qualifies since he was usually in the thick of the action. We can't use what-ifs to justify the importance of a battle.
Teutonburger Wald - Although Augustus decried Varrus for the loss of his legions, The Roman Empire went on for some time. It's hard to pin down any specific Roman battle as being decisive. Cannae and Trasimene were worse disasters for Rome than Teutoburger Wald.
Tours - no argument here.
Marathon- this battle only forestalled the next invasion by Persia. the battle of Salamis ended Persia's dreams of conquering Greece. Zama- according to Liddell-Hart(Startegy,pg53) this battle made Rome the dominant power in the Mediterranean World.
Battle of Hastings - you might have insulted everyone in the UK with your statement. The success of William at Hastings encouraged other Norman invasions such as Sicily,etc and helped keep the Saracens at bay in the Mediterranean. Great Britain would certainly be a different nation today without the Norman influence. Perhaps they would have remained a backwater nation. How can we be sure?
JFC Fuller w



Drex -> (9/17/2001 5:56:00 AM)

Sorry hit the reply too soon. I believe JFC Fuller wrote a book about the most decisive battles in history (ancient I think). He gave very good reasons for his choices. Wish I still had the book.



Gen.Hoepner -> (9/17/2001 6:02:00 AM)

Dan,u your knowledge of military history is very deep!But i'd like to underline something:Stalingrad has been for sure a key in the German defeat,but cannot be considered the battle that decided the war in east.It was a terrible hard loss for Germany to lose an Army,but the Teutonic Warlords were far from been destroyed.In fact in 43 they restabilished a situation of supremacy in the south of Ukraine,between the dnjepr and the Don river,when Mainstein poketed and destructed more than 1000 tanks in the 3rd battle for charkov.Germany lost the war at kursk,in summer 43,when the soviet intelligence("Werther")in Berlin gave to Stalin all the informations about the german attack.But that's only my opinion.
Then Maraton:well here i think that the battle of salamin was so far more important than the one fought in Maraton 11 years before.The Themistocle's winning battle destroyed Serse's fleet and deny any reinforcement for the footed Army.Maraton was the beginning,the slam given in the face of Persia.Salamin and Platea were the punch that made the Colossus go K.O. BTW very interesting discussion!!!!!
Regards



Drex -> (9/17/2001 6:27:00 AM)

I just went to the internet and discovered Creasy's list of 15 decisive battles and Paul Davis' 100! decisive battles. Creasy's lists most that Dan had on his list but Davis obviously had a problem limiting his to 15. Creasy lists Joan of Arc's victory at Orleans as one so I find his list suspect. It is impossible to list one battle as more decisive as another because of time and geography. The battle of Meggiddo (the first battle recorded) has to be the most decisive since it was the first and everything changed after that!



Supervisor -> (9/17/2001 7:17:00 AM)

What is/are the url's for these websites?
This would be interesting to look at. I still have to say that I still think Stalingrad was an important battle.
It was important in that it was the first time the German public had to hear about defeats, and there was a national day of mourning in Germany, and Hitler gave a special address.
From a battlefield standpoint, no, Stalingrad had little importance-yes it would have opened up the
Caucuses, but really, it wasn't that important.
But psychologically, it was prolly the greatest German defeat of the war.
Anyway, only my $.02
---------
quote:

Originally posted by Drex:
I just went to the internet and discovered Creasy's list of 15 decisive battles and Paul Davis' 100! decisive battles. Creasy's lists most that Dan had on his list but Davis obviously had a problem limiting his to 15. Creasy lists Joan of Arc's victory at Orleans as one so I find his list suspect. It is impossible to list one battle as more decisive as another because of time and geography. The battle of Meggiddo (the first battle recorded) has to be the most decisive since it was the first and everything changed after that!



Drex -> (9/17/2001 7:39:00 AM)

Sorry Klaus, no URLs. I just entered "decisive battles" in my browser and this is what I came up with. Try it.



Randy -> (9/17/2001 11:47:00 AM)

"Army Times" has a book titled "The Army Times Book of Great Land Battles From the Civil War to the Gulf War". It mentions about 16 major battles fought during that time frame. Good maps also.



Dan in Toledo -> (9/17/2001 8:01:00 PM)

To Drex: First of all I would like to apologize if offended any of our English allies with my Hastings comment. I wasnt trying to offend anyone. Its just that at this time in history England was not strong. It was constantly getting invaded. The Danes invaded just a century before. Following the Roman withdrawl England was a power vacuum. It did not get strong again until perhaps the 13th century. As for the talk about battles: Ok, Tenochtitlan may not be as important. You convinced me it shouldn't be in the top 10 (thanks Drex) I'd put Zama in the top 10. Thanks to Drex and Hoepner for pointing some things out for me. I do have to say Stalingrad is more important than Kursk because the wehrmacht lost 1/4 of all of its equiptment (in the whole army not just the eastern front). Also it was a dramatic morale boost for the russians. It also gave them the strategic iniative. Kursk was only possible because of Mansteins superb performance of stablizing the front. Both are important but I must say Stalingrad is more important. (sorry drex and hoepner). One thing we cannot do is go to the earliest battle in history and say its the most important because its the first. Otherwise the cro-magnon victory of the neanderthals would be the greatest; or was it the other way around? As for Gaugamela and Alexander, he was almost killed here. His lietentant jumped in front of him and was beheaded.
There is a neat book out entitled "What if?". It is a fascinating read. What if Jerusalem fell in 700bc? What if George Washington was killed at Long Island? I read another book once but I cant remember the name. It asked about other important events such as: What if the Byzantine Empress Irene had accepted Charlemagne's offer of marriage; thus reuniting the E & W Empire.



Dan in Toledo -> (9/18/2001 12:11:00 AM)

Zakhal: What is this Finnish/Swedish battle? I've never heard of it. Drex: The only reason I put Marathon ahead of Salamis/Plataea is that it seems in the first war in 490 that the Persians were more bent on the destruction of Greece and the Greeks were not as united as they were 10 years later. In 480 Athens did fall but it wasnt the catastrophic event that it would have been in 490. Perhaps putting the 3 battles together as Marathon/Salamis/Plataea would work. Drex: Good point on the Turks siege of Vienna. I had not thought of that one. Very important battle! Klaus von Stauffenberg: I dont remember the details of Cannae. What did happen? Drex: I've never heard of Lepanto.
What/when/where? Drex: Waterloo was another one I forgot. Frank: Es tut mir leid, but Pearl Harbor as a battle was not all too important. It did enrage us and allow us to get in the war but militarily it did not achieve what Japan hoped. Victor H: Good point on Nevsky's victory. The emergence of Russia is underestimated. Why would Peter's victory of Charles XII be so important though? The tsunami event against the mongol fleet was important. However Chinese culture assimilated the mongol conquerers. One wonders if that would have happened in Japan. Grant's victory at Vicksburg was important in the war but it pails in comparison to Antietam and Gettysburg. Alesia is another one I forgot. That one has to go also as one of the most improbable and best generaled victory. Imphal cannot be considered in the top 25 or 50 really. It was the turning point in burma but that theatre did not decide the war. The japs could have kept burma and the war would have turned out the same. If the japs won they would not have invaded india because of their supply situation. Dien Bien Phu is important but not too important. It was just one in a series of battles from 1940 to 1975 for vietnamese independence. I forget about Quebec. Tell me what happened? General Hoepner: I did not realize the land reforms of William. Good point. would the Marne battle really be all that important? Even though the last german offensive was stopped it didnt really matter too much. They were exhausted and could not have continued much further. Thermompoly was important only in that it delayed the advancing persians but marathon/salamis/plataea were far more important. Drex: even though muhammed lost the battle of uhud in the year after badr it did not have the reverse effect; the arabs were solidly behind muhammed after badr and it led to the downfall of the pagan meccans shortly thereafter; i guess i am not up on my english history--someone else mentioned the norman influence, i was unaware
MAYBE I SHOULD START ANOTHER THREAD: TOP 100 BATTLES OF ALL TIME??



valdor17 -> (9/18/2001 8:34:00 AM)

A couple of offbeat selections: Sekigahara (Japan, 1600) Won by Tokugawa Ieyasu, this battle decided the fate of Japan for over 250 years. The Boxer siege of the foreign legations in Peking (China, 1900) The functional end of Imperial China. Affects the West's relationship with China to this day. Port Arthur (China, 1904-05) Russia's defeat at the hands of the Japanese leads to the Russian Revolution of 1905. Also, Japan gained the position of a world power--becoming the first non-Western imperialist modern state.



Gen.Hoepner -> (9/18/2001 4:44:00 PM)

Dan:if the 300 spartans and the allies had fell after the first day,as Serse thought,probably his Army wouldn't have to stop and spend the winter in tessaglia after the destruction ao Athen.The persians had a lot of casualities,but i agree with u tha Salamin and Platea were,strategically more important.Only one thing robably the greeks wouldn't have fought so hard the next year if they didn't get the heroism Leonidas and the others offered.The whole greece was impressed by that way of acting!!
Lepanto was a very important naval battle fought.
in sept.1571 between the venecians and the turks.200 ships of Venice,Austria,Geneva and Rome,leaded by Jan d'Austria.They destroyed the turk fleet,but the next year the Turk won another battle(don't remember the name!!) and force the Venecians to firm a Tratee.I don't think that battle was so important:Venice had already lost his dominium in East-mediterrenean.
The William's reforms were not all made by him,but in 150 years his successors made many grat things to change the burocracy,justice and generally the pubblic organization of britain.Just to neme some of them:itinerant justice,the centralization of the administration of justice in the hands of the royal courts(court of Exchequer,King's bench.....and so on).the writ sistem,the creation of the dual-system common law-equity........ So William made all these thing and many others possible with his conquest.(i'm sorry for my bad english,probably i did not well explicate the point......)



troopie -> (9/18/2001 7:21:00 PM)

Kortrijk in 1301. The first nail in the coffin of the armoured knight.
Breitenfeld in 1631. Combined arms (infantry, cavalry, and artillery all in close co-operation) get a good shaking down. troopie



Dan in Toledo -> (9/18/2001 7:37:00 PM)

Gen. Hoepner: Thanks for the info on the battles. Great point on Thermopolye. And don't worry about the language thing. My Italian is far worse. Deutche is the only other language I can come close to communicate in. Troopie: A couple of interesting posts in this string and the Generals string. I'm going to try to find some stuff on the internet on what different historians think.



Dan in Toledo -> (9/18/2001 8:53:00 PM)

Just thought of one: Kosovo 1389 crushed the Serbian kingdom for 500 years



Supervisor -> (9/19/2001 7:05:00 AM)

Cool-I did that.
Some interesting stuff!
Thanx!!

quote:

Originally posted by Drex:
Sorry Klaus, no URLs. I just entered "decisive battles" in my browser and this is what I came up with. Try it.



Tom1939 -> (9/20/2001 8:24:00 PM)

Hi! Maybe about nuber 8: 1456 Nádorfehérvár. We hungarians beat the hell out of an army of 150.000 turks stoping the invasion against us and europe for nearly 70 years. We did it with largely inferior forces as a small medium power in europe, against an asiatic superpower.



Ecofact -> (9/21/2001 6:53:00 AM)

Very interesting trend
quote:

Originally posted by Gen.Hoepner:
3-Portiers(?)-The moors are stopped by Charle Magne
Poitiers 732AD. It was not Charlemagne who defeated the Muslims but Charles Martel, his grandfather, founder of the Caroligians dynasty. Don't know what's the hype about that battle. I've learned in medieval history classes that this was a minor raid by the Maures. The Cordoba califate of Spain was at that time divided by internal bickering between the Arabs and the Berbers (North Africans) and they were taking a beating by spaniards and descendants of the Visigoths' nobility in the spanish region of the Asturias wich was the beggining of the Reconquista. Add the fact that western Europe was so poor at the time, then the Maures didn't the economic nor the millitary incentive to send a full scale invading army up north. Charlemagne close them the door by establishing the Spain's march around 810-812 and with the Reconquista in full swing, forget about Islamic threat. At that time Odin's followers were far more dangerous to West Europe then Allah's ones.



Ecofact -> (9/21/2001 7:23:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Dan in Toledo:
I forget about Quebec. Tell me what happened? 1760 Battle of the Plains of Abraham near Quebec city. English Gen. Wolfe vs French Gen. Montcalm. French defeat. This battle decided the fate of New France wich was at that time a huge territory starting from Nova Scotia till Louisiana following the St-Lawrence, Great Lakes and Mississippi. In fact the loss officially took place two years later when Louis XV sign the peace treaty with England. I think he choose to keep Guadalupe instead of New France. That island was more profitable to the French treasury but what a strategic mistake! But anyway France didn't have the manpower or willingness to keep that territory from Britain or the 13 Colonies. The French state was going bankrupt because of the excesses of former Louis XIV and that led them to the 1789 revolution. French philosopher of the time, Voltaire, even mockingly called New France: Ces quelques arpents de neige, wich means; those few yards of snow MAYBE I SHOULD START ANOTHER THREAD: TOP 100 BATTLES OF ALL TIME??
Yes please! I can't wait to read that!



Gen.Urquhart -> (9/21/2001 2:49:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Ecofact:
Very interesting trend Poitiers 732AD. It was not Charlemagne who defeated the Muslims but Charles Martel, his grandfather, founder of the Caroligians dynasty. Don't know what's the hype about that battle. I've learned in medieval history classes that this was a minor raid by the Maures. The Cordoba califate of Spain was at that time divided by internal bickering between the Arabs and the Berbers (North Africans) and they were taking a beating by spaniards and descendants of the Visigoths' nobility in the spanish region of the Asturias wich was the beggining of the Reconquista. Add the fact that western Europe was so poor at the time, then the Maures didn't the economic nor the millitary incentive to send a full scale invading army up north. Charlemagne close them the door by establishing the Spain's march around 810-812 and with the Reconquista in full swing, forget about Islamic threat. At that time Odin's followers were far more dangerous to West Europe then Allah's ones.
Yes,u're right!I should have remembered it!But probably i confused it with something else.I don't remember the name of the battle,but......ok,which of u remember something like a very famous trap in spain,made by the moors vs CharleMagne.....something like that.There's also a very important litterature about that....Chanson de Roland I think..... AnyWay:I'd Like to have studied better during my high school!!!!
Gen.Hoepner



Dan in Toledo -> (9/21/2001 9:07:00 PM)

i have a quick question: what if Tours was a victory for the Moors? it would have opened the floodgates to Moorish expansion. Even if the Spanish state was divided then, it still would have created a power vacuum in France.



Ecofact -> (9/21/2001 11:30:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Gen.Urquhart:
Yes,u're right!I should have remembered it!But probably i confused it with something else.I don't remember the name of the battle,but......ok,which of u remember something like a very famous trap in spain,made by the moors vs CharleMagne.....something like that.There's also a very important litterature about that....Chanson de Roland I think..... AnyWay:I'd Like to have studied better during my high school!!!! i have a quick question: what if Tours was a victory for the Moors? it would have opened the floodgates to Moorish expansion. Even if the Spanish state was divided then, it still would have created a power vacuum in France.
Gen.Hoepner
You're talking about the battle of Roncevaux 778 AD. It was the first campaign of Charlemagne against muslim Spain. He tried to capture Sarragossa but didn't succeed. During his retreat toward Gaul (the France entity didn't existed yet), his rear-guard was ambushed in the Roncevaux mountain pass. It was not by Arabs but by Basques who were attacking indicriminately anyone going through their lands. That's where Rolland died and that inspired the song La geste de Rolland.
quote:

i have a quick question: what if Tours was a victory for the Moors? it would have opened the floodgates to Moorish expansion. Even if the Spanish state was divided then, it still would have created a power vacuum in France.
Ya its a big what if. But the Cordoba Califate was so divided between rival Arab clans and North Africans that they cannot even crush the christian resistance in Spain's northern provinces that would proved to be the onset of the Reconquista. Maybe if that attack succeeded they would have been able to raid concentration of wealth in Western Europe (mainly monastery) much like what the Vikings were doing by sea at that time. The biggest what if is if Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, would have died in this battle. Then no Charlemagne, no France, no Holy Roman Germanic Empire (by extension, no Germany) and no Church State in Italy (no Pope?). Hehe maybe West Europe would have been split between Vikings and Muslims and the religion would have been Islam or Polytheistic Norse



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75