Just wondering what everyone thinks of this article

The closest Islamic armies ever came to conquering Europe was not in 732, when the Franks under Charles Martel defeated a Muslim army at the Battle of Tours. That had been a raid, not an attempted conquest. Nor was it in 1683, when forces under Polish king John Sobieski broke a Turkish siege of Vienna with a dramatic charge. By then, European armies had already gained a qualitative edge over the Turks that rendered Ottoman attempts to conquer Europe unrealistic. The closest Islamic armies came to conquering Europe was in 1529, when Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent attempted to seize Vienna and use it as a base of operations for further advances.
This is incorrect. The Ottomans were not qualitatively behind in the Great Turkish War. Plus, we don't actually know for sure what the Ottomans had in plan for Vienna. But it seems likely that Suleiman wanted to just force the Austrians (demoralized after the loss of their capital) to abandon Royal Hungary rather than annex Lower Austria itself. Besides, the city was at the very end of any Constantinople-based supply train, so using Vienna as a base of operations is exceedingly unlikely.

Anyways, the list is all very Eurocentric.
 
This is incorrect. The Ottomans were not qualitatively behind in the Great Turkish War. Plus, we don't actually know for sure what the Ottomans had in plan for Vienna. But it seems likely that Suleiman wanted to just force the Austrians (demoralized after the loss of their capital) to abandon Royal Hungary rather than annex Lower Austria itself. Besides, the city was at the very end of any Constantinople-based supply train, so using Vienna as a base of operations is exceedingly unlikely.

Anyways, the list is all very Eurocentric.

I mean, that could be because if a couple of these battles went the other way, Europe wouldn’t have dominated to the extent that it did IOTL.
 
This is incorrect. The Ottomans were not qualitatively behind in the Great Turkish War. Plus, we don't actually know for sure what the Ottomans had in plan for Vienna. But it seems likely that Suleiman wanted to just force the Austrians (demoralized after the loss of their capital) to abandon Royal Hungary rather than annex Lower Austria itself. Besides, the city was at the very end of any Constantinople-based supply train, so using Vienna as a base of operations is exceedingly unlikely.

Anyways, the list is all very Eurocentric.

Even so, what’s your list?
 

Maoistic

Banned
For me, consequential refers to a drastic material change in the world, and some of the battles in this site are just outright Europeist and are listed as if Europe is the only region in the world that exists:

The 1529 Siege of Vienna

I facepalm whenever I see this battle listed. It's just like the Battle of Marathon and Plataea. It's your traditional Western chauvinism that thinks that an "Oriental" culture taking over Europe would have led to almost perpetual tyranny and despotism and thus the general degradation of humanity. If the Ottomans took Vienna and by extension Austria, so what? The civilisation of the Ottomans wasn't drastically different from that of the Holy Roman Empire. If Europe had become Islamic, it wouldn't have been all that different because the material and ideological organisation of Islam and Christianity were very similar.

And in any case, even if we believe that Islam would have drastically altered the historical course of Europe (by, I don't know, delaying industrialisation, liberalism, secularism and electoral "democracy", or even doing away with them completely), conquering Vienna wouldn't have done that. You have Vienna, now what? You don't have the rest of the Holy Roman Empire, the rest of European states, and you don't even have all of Austria since the Austrian nobility would just move somewhere else and try to reclaim Vienna. And even if taking Vienna meant taking all of Austria and opening Western Europe for conquest, you still have to face the powerful army of Spain, the strongest in the world at this point, combined with the weaker but still significant forces of France and the Habsburg realms, very probably those of Poland-Lithuania as well. Good luck with somehow managing to defeat them, especially if they coalesce. The Ottomans conquering Western Europe is one of my top 10 impossible historical scenarios that people love to repeat. It's far more likely that Spain at this time invades and conquers the Ottoman Empire.

The Battle of Hastings

Why is this battle even on the list? The conquest of England by William I has no macrohistorical importance except in the minds of Western chauvinists and English ultra-nationalists. It may be important for the history of England, but this doesn't make it any more important than the conquest of Polynesian islands by the Tonga Empire.

The Battle of the Catalaunian Fields Set the Stage for the Creation of France

See above. Only Western chauvinists and French ultra-nationalists seriously think that the creation of France has macrohistorical repercussions.

The Battle of Gaugamela Reshaped the Middle East For a Thousand Years

I disagree. Don't see why Hellenism becoming dominant in the region somehow makes it one of the most consequential battles in history. That's only if you see it from a culturalist perspective, but from a material perspective, it only changed a monarchical system for another monarchical system, with social organisation remaining virtually the same under the Greeks as it was under the Persians. Even on a culturalist perspective, Hellenism didn't last in the region anyway and got replaced by Zoroastrianism and later Christianity and Islam.

Salamis Was History’s Most Consequential Battle

No, it wasn't. Even if we believe that Greek civilisation is the greatest civilisation of antiquity if not all of history (it's not) and we should be prostrating ourselves to the Greeks as gods (we should not), the Persian conquest of Greece wouldn't have destroyed Greek civilisation at all since there were already Greek territories outside of Greece proper that would have been left alone by the Persians, Greek territories protected by the Mediterranean sea and the rugged terrain of Europe and North Africa that would have significantly affected the capacity of the Persians to further advance. They also would leave Rome alone, which at this point was already a republic with a senate. Simply put, overextended Persians trying to advance further into rugged terrain protected also by a large sea is not possible in antiquity, leaving most of Greco-Roman civilisation intact. This is another of my top 10 impossible scenarios that people love to repeat over and over again.


As for me, the most important battle in history is the siege of Tenochtitlan. The taking of the Aztec capital is what established not just Spain but Western Europe as a global hegemony since it gave it access to a large market and source of resources to exploit, forming capitalism as such and allowing Europe to develop the military forces that colonised the world.
 
For me, consequential refers to a drastic material change in the world, and some of the battles in this site are just outright Europeist and are listed as if Europe is the only region in the world that exists:

The 1529 Siege of Vienna

I facepalm whenever I see this battle listed. It's just like the Battle of Marathon and Plataea. It's your traditional Western chauvinism that thinks that an "Oriental" culture taking over Europe would have led to almost perpetual tyranny and despotism and thus the general degradation of humanity. If the Ottomans took Vienna and by extension Austria, so what? The civilisation of the Ottomans wasn't drastically different from that of the Holy Roman Empire. If Europe had become Islamic, it wouldn't have been all that different because the material and ideological organisation of Islam and Christianity were very similar.

And in any case, even if we believe that Islam would have drastically altered the historical course of Europe (by, I don't know, delaying industrialisation, liberalism, secularism and electoral "democracy", or even doing away with them completely), conquering Vienna wouldn't have done that. You have Vienna, now what? You don't have the rest of the Holy Roman Empire, the rest of European states, and you don't even have all of Austria since the Austrian nobility would just move somewhere else and try to reclaim Vienna. And even if taking Vienna meant taking all of Austria and opening Western Europe for conquest, you still have to face the powerful army of Spain, the strongest in the world at this point, combined with the weaker but still significant forces of France and the Habsburg realms, very probably those of Poland-Lithuania as well. Good luck with somehow managing to defeat them, especially if they coalesce. The Ottomans conquering Western Europe is one of my top 10 impossible historical scenarios that people love to repeat. It's far more likely that Spain at this time invades and conquers the Ottoman Empire.

The Battle of Hastings

Why is this battle even on the list? The conquest of England by William I has no macrohistorical importance except in the minds of Western chauvinists and English ultra-nationalists. It may be important for the history of England, but this doesn't make it any more important than the conquest of Polynesian islands by the Tonga Empire.

The Battle of the Catalaunian Fields Set the Stage for the Creation of France

See above. Only Western chauvinists and French ultra-nationalists seriously think that the creation of France has macrohistorical repercussions.

The Battle of Gaugamela Reshaped the Middle East For a Thousand Years

I disagree. Don't see why Hellenism becoming dominant in the region somehow makes it one of the most consequential battles in history. That's only if you see it from a culturalist perspective, but from a material perspective, it only changed a monarchical system for another monarchical system, with social organisation remaining virtually the same under the Greeks as it was under the Persians. Even on a culturalist perspective, Hellenism didn't last in the region anyway and got replaced by Zoroastrianism and later Christianity and Islam.

Salamis Was History’s Most Consequential Battle

No, it wasn't. Even if we believe that Greek civilisation is the greatest civilisation of antiquity if not all of history (it's not) and we should be prostrating ourselves to the Greeks as gods (we should not), the Persian conquest of Greece wouldn't have destroyed Greek civilisation at all since there were already Greek territories outside of Greece proper that would have been left alone by the Persians, Greek territories protected by the Mediterranean sea and the rugged terrain of Europe and North Africa that would have significantly affected the capacity of the Persians to further advance. They also would leave Rome alone, which at this point was already a republic with a senate. Simply put, overextended Persians trying to advance further into rugged terrain protected also by a large sea is not possible in antiquity, leaving most of Greco-Roman civilisation intact. This is another of my top 10 impossible scenarios that people love to repeat over and over again.


As for me, the most important battle in history is the siege of Tenochtitlan. The taking of the Aztec capital is what established not just Spain but Western Europe as a global hegemony since it gave it access to a large market and source of resources to exploit, forming capitalism as such and allowing Europe to develop the military forces that colonised the world.

Literally the most enjoyable post I've seen in ages. It's glorious to see Euro centrism knocked off its pedestal and put firmly in its place! Amen sir. Your post has given me cause for celebration. :)
 
I agree with all of them except for the Battle of Vienna (1683) as it wouldn't have been decisive and the Germans and Poles would have come back in a few years and taken Vienna back.
 

Thanks for posting. This is a fun concept for a thread.

Top ten battles of history:

1. The battle of Badr, 624. A small Arabian force from Medina under prophet Muhammad, wins a defensive battle against a much larger force from Mecca. This was truly decisive, because if the battle had gone differently Islam might not exist.

2. The battle of yarmuk in 636. Arab forces defeat a larger force of Romans and go on to conquer Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa. Self evidently of huge global significance for the next 1400 years.

3. Battle of Qadisiyya, also in 636. The Arabs decisively defeat the Sassanid Persian Empire, opening up the conquest of Persia for the forces of Islam. Hugely important and decisive moment in time that shaped the world we live in today.

4. Conquest of Carthage by Rome in 146BC. This removed the last major rival to total Roman dominance in the Mediterranean. A seminal moment in the history of the Mediterranean, near East and Europe.

5. Battle of the Milvian bridge, 312. Roman emperor Constantine defeats his enemies after supposedly seeing the sign of the cross. His decision to adopt Christianity leads to Christianity becoming the religion of Europe and of Rome. Hugely important for the historical consequences.

6. Battle of Tenochtitlan. As mentioned above, the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs was a hugely significant moment which opened up the new world to European conquest and colonisation.

7. Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258. This was arguably the most calamitous event in world history. The massacre of scholars and destruction of books and treasures in Baghdad set back Muslim civilisation with severe consequences for the future. Although the Mongols were eventually absorbed the damage they did was never fully recovered.

8. Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. A seminal moment in the rise of arguably the greatest Muslim empire of them all. The Ottomans went on to dominate the near East for centuries, building one of the most successful empires the world has seen.

9. Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. This ensures British Empire would rule the world for a century and a half. Pretty decisive in shaping the modern world and the only naval battle in this list.

10. Battle of Berlin, 1945. The Nazi defeat in the second world war was important in setting up the current world balance of power. The victory of the USSR and USA led to the current American dominated world order.
 
I feel like another issue with these lists, apart from the over-emphasis of European history is that it also often selects 'dramatic' events that if you examine more closely were the result of literally decades or even centuries of buildup, hence I don't consider the fall of Tenochtitlan or the atomic bombing of Japan to be that consequential on their own terms.

10. The Battle of Vienna (1529) - yes I know people have already argued against its historical significance and I don't think the Ottomans winning here would have led to a conquest of Europe, maybe the loss of Royal Hungary and Croatia but not much else. On the other hand, it would have had a profoundly damaging effect on Hapsburg prestige and their influence within the Holy Roman Empire, which could have in turn effected the at the time linked Spanish Empire. What would the precise effects be, I can't honestly say but I think it would be wrong to rule this battle out as important due to its reputation in Islamophobic propaganda.

9. Battle of Zama (202 BC) - This is probably the last time that the Roman Empire can be actually be stopped by any Mediterranean power. 146 BC was just a mopping up operation IMO.

8. Battle of Manzikert (1071) - while I think the Battle of Hastings was significant because of the changes it imposed on what would be one of Europe's and the world's premier powers for the next 900 years, I think that Manzikert deserves this spot more. While the Byzantine Empire was declining prior to this point, it was really here that we see the chain of events which leads to the Anatolian heartland being alienated from the empire, which in turn paves the way for the rise of Turkish power further west.

7. A tie between the Huaihai and Pingjin (1948-9) - the two campaigns which led most directly to the fall of Nationalist China, the intensification of the Cold War and all that flowed from that...

6. Battle of Cajamarca (1532) - I know I said that I didn't consider the Tenochtitlan to be that consequential but that is largely because I personally considered the Aztecs to be more or less doomed by this point anyway. The arrival of the Europeans was a huge destabilizing element and I think had Cortez been defeated or not invaded, we would have seen the Aztec state fragment with the remaining pieces falling into Spanish or other European influence. Now the Incas on the other hand... I think they could have successfully fought off the Europeans and become a global power. Probably not immediately, they had a lot of catching up to do, but in the next century or so I think the Incas or a successor state could have been one of the great powers. On the other hand, the Spanish already held a lot of wealth in Mesoamerica and northern South America, so that somewhat dilutes the impact of this battle.

5. Battle of Gaugamela (331 BC) - I think this is the only battle on the original list other than Vienna I am ranking and that is as much because of what happened after Alexander died as the immediate consequences of the battle. The breakup of the old Persian Empire was hugely significant and pretty much set the stage for the next millennium of Mediterranean history.

4. Sack of Karnal (1739) - the Mughal Empire was already decomposing rather badly by this point but the subsequent Sack of Delhi really accelerated things and set the stage for the rise of the British in India.

3. Tet Offensive (1968) - this is the most recent battle. Basically I think it was this battle that led more than anything else to the mess the United States is in currently.

2. Battle of the Red Cliffs (208) - cemented the division of China after the Han dynasty

1. Battle of Adrianapole (378) - I was going to put the Sea People invasions in this spot but just because we don't really know what exactly happened in the late Bronze Age, I am going to put this here instead. Basically, prior to 378, the Roman Empire was troubled but fundamentally sound. It was this battle that set in motion just about everything that led to the collapse of the western empire from the rise of Theodosius to the influx of barbarians into the empire and the breakdown of the armed forces.

teg
 
Thanks for posting. This is a fun concept for a thread.

Top ten battles of history:

1. The battle of Badr, 624. A small Arabian force from Medina under prophet Muhammad, wins a defensive battle against a much larger force from Mecca. This was truly decisive, because if the battle had gone differently Islam might not exist.

2. The battle of yarmuk in 636. Arab forces defeat a larger force of Romans and go on to conquer Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa. Self evidently of huge global significance for the next 1400 years.

3. Battle of Qadisiyya, also in 636. The Arabs decisively defeat the Sassanid Persian Empire, opening up the conquest of Persia for the forces of Islam. Hugely important and decisive moment in time that shaped the world we live in today.

4. Conquest of Carthage by Rome in 146BC. This removed the last major rival to total Roman dominance in the Mediterranean. A seminal moment in the history of the Mediterranean, near East and Europe.

5. Battle of the Milvian bridge, 312. Roman emperor Constantine defeats his enemies after supposedly seeing the sign of the cross. His decision to adopt Christianity leads to Christianity becoming the religion of Europe and of Rome. Hugely important for the historical consequences.

6. Battle of Tenochtitlan. As mentioned above, the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs was a hugely significant moment which opened up the new world to European conquest and colonisation.

7. Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258. This was arguably the most calamitous event in world history. The massacre of scholars and destruction of books and treasures in Baghdad set back Muslim civilisation with severe consequences for the future. Although the Mongols were eventually absorbed the damage they did was never fully recovered.

8. Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. A seminal moment in the rise of arguably the greatest Muslim empire of them all. The Ottomans went on to dominate the near East for centuries, building one of the most successful empires the world has seen.

9. Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. This ensures British Empire would rule the world for a century and a half. Pretty decisive in shaping the modern world and the only naval battle in this list.

10. Battle of Berlin, 1945. The Nazi defeat in the second world war was important in setting up the current world balance of power. The victory of the USSR and USA led to the current American dominated world order.

I'd argue for either Zama or Pidna as the battle tha cemented the Roman domination in the Med. The siege of Carthage was important but not that decisive in macrohistorical terms as the outcome of the Second Punic War settled at Zama. I also would say that the Battle of Berlin was not "decisive" in this sense. The decisive battle for the Nazi defeat was arguably Stalingrad. .
The rest of the list are pretty solid cases.I fully agree about Tenochtitlan. Other good cases:
1) Battle of Kishtan (743 BCE) won by Tiglat-Pilser III of Assyria over a coalition led by Sarduri of Urartu. Opened the Levant to Assyrian conquest and removed Urartean competition. Long-term consequences impact heavily on the Israelite kingdoms in a critical formative phase of Yahvist monotheism.
2) Battle of Valmy. Arguably saved the Revolutionary Regime in France. 'nuff said.
3) Manzikert. The beginning of the end for the ERE, according to most accounts.
4) Plassey, which set the stage for British domination in India.
5) Kulikovo is vastly overrated by traditional Russian historiography, but if cultural consequences of battles must be considered, it probably counts. Anyway, it WAS a Mongol setback and set the trend for the emergence of Muscovy. Ok, by this standard, we should put again Salamis and Marathon near the top, even if I tend to agree they are both overrated (anyway, while Greek culture and civilization WOULD have survived under Persian rule indeed, the specific Athenian Golden Age would not have accourred, and Athens certainly left quite a big political and cultural legacy).
6) Las Navas de Tolosa, the death knell of al-Andalus.
7) Dien Bien Phu 1954. A turning point in the anti-colonial struggle with global resonance.
8) I feel that Teutoburg deserves a mention even if a lot of people here would caution about it. In my view, it mostly stopped, and even set back, Roman expansion in Europe, but I concede it may be more episodic than usually thought.
9) Karbala' (680). Defined the Sunni-Shi'a divide.
10) Nihawand (642). Even more than Qadisiyya, secured Muslim dominance over the Iranian Plateau, with all that entails.

There is certainly plenty of very important battles in places I know less (I am looking at you, China) which would probably deserve to be in such list, but I have not the expertise to name them.
 
I’m glad everyone finds the thread interesting, but I do want people that would disagree to post their own list, because then there’s even more room for debate, which is always fun. I don’t have enough knowledge regarding pre-20th century events to be confident in most of my top 10, but I’ll give it a go.

10. The Battle of Hastings. Idc what you say, Britain is arguably the most influential country in the history of the world, so this event likely changed the course of history as much as any single post-Roman event.

9. The Battle of Saratoga, which gave the French confidence to back the rebels, which led to the rebels winning the American Revolutionary War.

8. Sparta seizing Athens in the Peloponnesian war.

7. Joan d’arc winning at Orleans

6. The failed Mongol invasion of Japan

5. Zama

4. Tenochtitlan

3. Tannenberg, as without the Russian offensive into East Prussia Germany wins the war in a few weeks; this would massively change post WW1 history.

2. Rome rebelling against the Etruscan kings

1. Sargon of Akkad defeating the Sumerians
 
For me, consequential refers to a drastic material change in the world, and some of the battles in this site are just outright Europeist and are listed as if Europe is the only region in the world that exists:

The 1529 Siege of Vienna

I facepalm whenever I see this battle listed. It's just like the Battle of Marathon and Plataea. It's your traditional Western chauvinism that thinks that an "Oriental" culture taking over Europe would have led to almost perpetual tyranny and despotism and thus the general degradation of humanity. If the Ottomans took Vienna and by extension Austria, so what? The civilisation of the Ottomans wasn't drastically different from that of the Holy Roman Empire. If Europe had become Islamic, it wouldn't have been all that different because the material and ideological organisation of Islam and Christianity were very similar.

And in any case, even if we believe that Islam would have drastically altered the historical course of Europe (by, I don't know, delaying industrialisation, liberalism, secularism and electoral "democracy", or even doing away with them completely), conquering Vienna wouldn't have done that. You have Vienna, now what? You don't have the rest of the Holy Roman Empire, the rest of European states, and you don't even have all of Austria since the Austrian nobility would just move somewhere else and try to reclaim Vienna. And even if taking Vienna meant taking all of Austria and opening Western Europe for conquest, you still have to face the powerful army of Spain, the strongest in the world at this point, combined with the weaker but still significant forces of France and the Habsburg realms, very probably those of Poland-Lithuania as well. Good luck with somehow managing to defeat them, especially if they coalesce. The Ottomans conquering Western Europe is one of my top 10 impossible historical scenarios that people love to repeat. It's far more likely that Spain at this time invades and conquers the Ottoman Empire.

The Battle of Hastings

Why is this battle even on the list? The conquest of England by William I has no macrohistorical importance except in the minds of Western chauvinists and English ultra-nationalists. It may be important for the history of England, but this doesn't make it any more important than the conquest of Polynesian islands by the Tonga Empire.

The Battle of the Catalaunian Fields Set the Stage for the Creation of France

See above. Only Western chauvinists and French ultra-nationalists seriously think that the creation of France has macrohistorical repercussions.

The Battle of Gaugamela Reshaped the Middle East For a Thousand Years

I disagree. Don't see why Hellenism becoming dominant in the region somehow makes it one of the most consequential battles in history. That's only if you see it from a culturalist perspective, but from a material perspective, it only changed a monarchical system for another monarchical system, with social organisation remaining virtually the same under the Greeks as it was under the Persians. Even on a culturalist perspective, Hellenism didn't last in the region anyway and got replaced by Zoroastrianism and later Christianity and Islam.

Salamis Was History’s Most Consequential Battle

No, it wasn't. Even if we believe that Greek civilisation is the greatest civilisation of antiquity if not all of history (it's not) and we should be prostrating ourselves to the Greeks as gods (we should not), the Persian conquest of Greece wouldn't have destroyed Greek civilisation at all since there were already Greek territories outside of Greece proper that would have been left alone by the Persians, Greek territories protected by the Mediterranean sea and the rugged terrain of Europe and North Africa that would have significantly affected the capacity of the Persians to further advance. They also would leave Rome alone, which at this point was already a republic with a senate. Simply put, overextended Persians trying to advance further into rugged terrain protected also by a large sea is not possible in antiquity, leaving most of Greco-Roman civilisation intact. This is another of my top 10 impossible scenarios that people love to repeat over and over again.


As for me, the most important battle in history is the siege of Tenochtitlan. The taking of the Aztec capital is what established not just Spain but Western Europe as a global hegemony since it gave it access to a large market and source of resources to exploit, forming capitalism as such and allowing Europe to develop the military forces that colonised the world.
The only one I would disagree with is the battle of Hastings, albeit not on a global scale. As I understand it, Harold would have had a hard time holding a united england together provided he had managed to kill William, potentially leading to a far more divided UK that naturally would change the face of European politics.
 

Maoistic

Banned
The only one I would disagree with is the battle of Hastings, albeit not on a global scale. As I understand it, Harold would have had a hard time holding a united england together provided he had managed to kill William, potentially leading to a far more divided UK that naturally would change the face of European politics.
It wouldn't. European politics would have remained more or less the same without England and later the United Kingdom. Besides, England remained pretty divided even at the age of its ascension as a global power in the 16th century anyway. It took almost two centuries for the United Kingdom to finally emerge. William I's conquest didn't really change much.
 
Salamis Was History’s Most Consequential Battle

No, it wasn't. Even if we believe that Greek civilisation is the greatest civilisation of antiquity if not all of history (it's not) and we should be prostrating ourselves to the Greeks as gods (we should not), the Persian conquest of Greece wouldn't have destroyed Greek civilisation at all since there were already Greek territories outside of Greece proper that would have been left alone by the Persians, Greek territories protected by the Mediterranean sea and the rugged terrain of Europe and North Africa that would have significantly affected the capacity of the Persians to further advance. They also would leave Rome alone, which at this point was already a republic with a senate. Simply put, overextended Persians trying to advance further into rugged terrain protected also by a large sea is not possible in antiquity, leaving most of Greco-Roman civilisation intact. This is another of my top 10 impossible scenarios that people love to repeat over and over again.

Greek civilization would have survived a defeat at Salamis, and the Persians ultimately succeeded in their goal of vassalizing the Greek peninsula through use of Sparta as a proxy, but Salamis established Athenian hegemony and shaped the course of Western civilization. A different Salamis would have meant different Alexandrian and Roman empires, with effects that would be felt worldwide. I wouldn't call it the most important battle, but it was significant for reasons besides the simple fact it was a Persian defeat.

It wouldn't. European politics would have remained more or less the same without England and later the United Kingdom. Besides, England remained pretty divided even at the age of its ascension as a global power in the 16th century anyway. It took almost two centuries for the United Kingdom to finally emerge. William I's conquest didn't really change much.

Agreed with this. While no Hastings would have meant a different English culture, the political and economic trajectory of the island would have been the same whether the medieval nobility spoke Anglisc or French. Without the Norman claim on France, there might have been no Hundred Years War and resulting united France, but it's probably the English would have found some reason to invade anyway.
 
It wouldn't. European politics would have remained more or less the same without England and later the United Kingdom. Besides, England remained pretty divided even at the age of its ascension as a global power in the 16th century anyway. It took almost two centuries for the United Kingdom to finally emerge. William I's conquest didn't really change much.

I think it’s very possible to fall into the trap of so swinging against “western” or “eurocentric” viewpoints, that you start to underestimate the effects that Europe has had on the world. The world, and modern culture is in most places European with local flavor, you can’t remove one of the most important and pivotal nations of the modern world and say that there really wouldn’t have been much of a difference.

You claim to see history in a materialistic sense only, but in truth, history is built on the struggle between ideals and between cultures. Thus by the ongoing conquest of the world by Western or “Global” culture, one could easily say that the eurocentric viewpoint is the only correct viewpoint to look at history.
 
I’m glad everyone finds the thread interesting, but I do want people that would disagree to post their own list, because then there’s even more room for debate, which is always fun. I don’t have enough knowledge regarding pre-20th century events to be confident in most of my top 10, but I’ll give it a go.

10. The Battle of Hastings. Idc what you say, Britain is arguably the most influential country in the history of the world, so this event likely changed the course of history as much as any single post-Roman event.

9. The Battle of Saratoga, which gave the French confidence to back the rebels, which led to the rebels winning the American Revolutionary War.

8. Sparta seizing Athens in the Peloponnesian war.

7. Joan d’arc winning at Orleans

6. The failed Mongol invasion of Japan

5. Zama

4. Tenochtitlan

3. Tannenberg, as without the Russian offensive into East Prussia Germany wins the war in a few weeks; this would massively change post WW1 history.

2. Rome rebelling against the Etruscan kings

1. Sargon of Akkad defeating the Sumerians


This list is pretty good save for Zama and Tannenberg. By Zama, Carthage had already lost, I believe Hannibal even advised the Carthaginian Senate not to fight the Romans. If would nominate the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest as it ended Roman attempts to dominate most of Germania which is probably what would've happened if that battle had been avoided or a Roman success. As for Tannenberg, I'm not saying it wasn't important but I believe Marne takes precedent over it.


For me, consequential refers to a drastic material change in the world, and some of the battles in this site are just outright Europeist and are listed as if Europe is the only region in the world that exists:

The 1529 Siege of Vienna

I facepalm whenever I see this battle listed. It's just like the Battle of Marathon and Plataea. It's your traditional Western chauvinism that thinks that an "Oriental" culture taking over Europe would have led to almost perpetual tyranny and despotism and thus the general degradation of humanity. If the Ottomans took Vienna and by extension Austria, so what? The civilisation of the Ottomans wasn't drastically different from that of the Holy Roman Empire. If Europe had become Islamic, it wouldn't have been all that different because the material and ideological organisation of Islam and Christianity were very similar.

And in any case, even if we believe that Islam would have drastically altered the historical course of Europe (by, I don't know, delaying industrialisation, liberalism, secularism and electoral "democracy", or even doing away with them completely), conquering Vienna wouldn't have done that. You have Vienna, now what? You don't have the rest of the Holy Roman Empire, the rest of European states, and you don't even have all of Austria since the Austrian nobility would just move somewhere else and try to reclaim Vienna. And even if taking Vienna meant taking all of Austria and opening Western Europe for conquest, you still have to face the powerful army of Spain, the strongest in the world at this point, combined with the weaker but still significant forces of France and the Habsburg realms, very probably those of Poland-Lithuania as well. Good luck with somehow managing to defeat them, especially if they coalesce. The Ottomans conquering Western Europe is one of my top 10 impossible historical scenarios that people love to repeat. It's far more likely that Spain at this time invades and conquers the Ottoman Empire.

The Battle of Hastings

Why is this battle even on the list? The conquest of England by William I has no macrohistorical importance except in the minds of Western chauvinists and English ultra-nationalists. It may be important for the history of England, but this doesn't make it any more important than the conquest of Polynesian islands by the Tonga Empire.

The Battle of the Catalaunian Fields Set the Stage for the Creation of France

See above. Only Western chauvinists and French ultra-nationalists seriously think that the creation of France has macrohistorical repercussions.

The Battle of Gaugamela Reshaped the Middle East For a Thousand Years

I disagree. Don't see why Hellenism becoming dominant in the region somehow makes it one of the most consequential battles in history. That's only if you see it from a culturalist perspective, but from a material perspective, it only changed a monarchical system for another monarchical system, with social organisation remaining virtually the same under the Greeks as it was under the Persians. Even on a culturalist perspective, Hellenism didn't last in the region anyway and got replaced by Zoroastrianism and later Christianity and Islam.

Salamis Was History’s Most Consequential Battle

No, it wasn't. Even if we believe that Greek civilisation is the greatest civilisation of antiquity if not all of history (it's not) and we should be prostrating ourselves to the Greeks as gods (we should not), the Persian conquest of Greece wouldn't have destroyed Greek civilisation at all since there were already Greek territories outside of Greece proper that would have been left alone by the Persians, Greek territories protected by the Mediterranean sea and the rugged terrain of Europe and North Africa that would have significantly affected the capacity of the Persians to further advance. They also would leave Rome alone, which at this point was already a republic with a senate. Simply put, overextended Persians trying to advance further into rugged terrain protected also by a large sea is not possible in antiquity, leaving most of Greco-Roman civilisation intact. This is another of my top 10 impossible scenarios that people love to repeat over and over again.


As for me, the most important battle in history is the siege of Tenochtitlan. The taking of the Aztec capital is what established not just Spain but Western Europe as a global hegemony since it gave it access to a large market and source of resources to exploit, forming capitalism as such and allowing Europe to develop the military forces that colonised the world.

As for this, wew. First one, I agree the Ottomans really couldn't push much further even if they wanted to. Second one, where to even begin? Are you saying that the invasion that led to France and England being so intertwined is unimportant? This is what led to the 100 Years' War and of course shaped Britain so that she could become the World Power in the 1800s, you change the politics of everything from the US and Canada to South Africa and Rhodesia to Australia and New Zealand to India and the Middle East and Germany. Third one, the creation of France, one of the most influential states from 1700 to 1871? I'm not even gonna go into how stupid this is. Third one, wrong. Yes Hellenism would be replaced by Islam, hundreds of years later, but to ignore the ramifications of what Alexander and his Diadochi achieved is stupid. It led to a massive amount of wealth and knowledge transferring from East to West and West to East. It affected Greece, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Persia, Bactria, North-Western India, Egypt and the Levant. We have discovered Drachma with Alexander's name and likeness as far east as Afghanistan I believe. His life and death greatly affected the Western mythos from the beginning. Ever since he passed, everyone was scrambling to be the next Alexander. He built the great city of Alexandria in Egypt(and a lot of other cities named Alexandria(not a narcissist at all) and one for his horse) which was a major center of trade and commerce and housed the Great Library and Great Lighthouse. Without his victory, so many things are altered that by the time the Pyrrhic war happened IOT everything West of the Indus and East of the Tiber would be drastically different. So no, Alexander the Great losing is an extremely consequential battle. Fifth one, yeah, Salamis is overplayed when it comes to how Greece and Rome develop.
 
This list is pretty good save for Zama and Tannenberg. By Zama, Carthage had already lost, I believe Hannibal even advised the Carthaginian Senate not to fight the Romans. If would nominate the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest as it ended Roman attempts to dominate most of Germania which is probably what would've happened if that battle had been avoided or a Roman success. As for Tannenberg, I'm not saying it wasn't important but I believe Marne takes precedent over it.

Re: Tannenberg, there wouldn’t have been a Marne without Tannenberg. Two corps were withdrawn from the Western Front that would’ve led to France falling.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Greek civilization would have survived a defeat at Salamis, and the Persians ultimately succeeded in their goal of vassalizing the Greek peninsula through use of Sparta as a proxy, but Salamis established Athenian hegemony and shaped the course of Western civilization. A different Salamis would have meant different Alexandrian and Roman empires, with effects that would be felt worldwide. I wouldn't call it the most important battle, but it was significant for reasons besides the simple fact it was a Persian defeat.

It wouldn't have changed the course of "world history". World history only really has a drastic change in the last 500 years when European culture is universalised through colonialism and capitalism emerges as the global economic system. This is something that could have happened without Athens. Even if Europe managed to impose itself thanks to Greek civilisation, Athens is still just one of the many Greek city-states that existed, and there was Rome too, whose culture and political system became even more influential than Athens, with the Romans absorbing as much from Greek territories in southern Italy or Macedon as they did from Athens. There is nothing unique or particular about Athens even among Greek city-states.
 
The Battle of Hastings

Why is this battle even on the list? The conquest of England by William I has no macrohistorical importance except in the minds of Western chauvinists and English ultra-nationalists. It may be important for the history of England, but this doesn't make it any more important than the conquest of Polynesian islands by the Tonga Empire.

Yes, but did the Tonga Empire go on to invade and terrorize three continents? There can be no denying that the butterflies would be outrageous without the battle.
 
Last edited:
Top