Just wondering what everyone thinks of this article

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 Alexandrian empire had pretty major effects in the Middle East and Central Asia, as did Rome. Those civilizations would be very different if Classical Greece had been very different. It's a pretty reductionist worldview to say that global trade is only 500 years old. The Americas may not have been part of a global network before then, but the rest of the world certainly was.
 

Md139115

Banned
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.

The macro-reasons you list are important, but by 146, Carthage has already been neutered. The Third Punic War was the military equivalent of an euthanasia, not a fight. Rather, I’m going to say that Zama was important for the reasons you list.

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.

Same as with Carthage, Byzantium was dead, Mehemet just made it obvious. I would tentatively say Manzikert was more the critical point, but even after that there were multiple points the Byzantines could have turn things around.

Maybe the 1204 sack of Constantinople?
 

Maoistic

Banned
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.

Why should we think that the creation of England and France and Franco-English wars are so important? They aren't. They don't even have pan-European importance. These wars didn't affect at all the conquest of the Byzantines by the Ottomans, the rise of Spain as a major Western European power, the Reformation and so on. This is just a case of projecting the importance of modern France and the UK into the past, when they weren't nearly as important and were just two kingdoms among several in Europe. They became powerful nations because of post-16th century circumstances, not pre-16th century ones, and the post-16th century circumstances are due far more to geography and a lot of luck than because of any actual national and political structure formed in the Middle Ages.

And I didn't just say that Islam replaced Hellenism, I mentioned Zoroastrianism and Christianity before, Zoroastrianism in 300 years at least. In any case, Hellenism is a purely cultural phenomenon. My point still stands that there was no major change in political and social organisation. People lived the same as before the Greek conquests, except some now spoke Greek and worshipped a number of Greek gods, something that only lasted in any significant way in the Eastern Mediterranean and not outside of it, where Greek deities never were able to replace the local pre-Greek religions anyway. So yes, the Greek conquests don't really have that much importance when you think about it. Even the cultural elements of the Greeks disappeared and were almost erased from memory. In India, Muslims had to revive the memory of Alexander the Great, for instance.
 

Maoistic

Banned
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.
That was simply because England happened to be an Atlantic country close to a massive continent. Any other British country could have done the same. Again, people project modern history way too much into the past. With this logic, the peoples that built Stonehenge can be argued to be among the most important cultures in the world.
 
Why should we think that the creation of England and France and Franco-English wars are so important? They aren't. They don't even have pan-European importance. These wars didn't affect at all the conquest of the Byzantines by the Ottomans, the rise of Spain as a major Western European power, the Reformation and so on. This is just a case of projecting the importance of modern France and the UK into the past, when they weren't nearly as important and were just two kingdoms among several in Europe. They became powerful nations because of post-16th century circumstances, not pre-16th century ones, and the post-16th century circumstances are due far more to geography and a lot of luck than because of any actual national and political structure formed in the Middle Ages.

And I didn't just say that Islam replaced Hellenism, I mentioned Zoroastrianism and Christianity before, Zoroastrianism in 300 years at least. In any case, Hellenism is a purely cultural phenomenon. My point still stands that there was no major change in political and social organisation. People lived the same as before the Greek conquests, except some now spoke Greek and worshipped a number of Greek gods, something that only lasted in any significant way in the Eastern Mediterranean and not outside of it, where Greek deities never were able to replace the local pre-Greek religions anyway. So yes, the Greek conquests don't really have that much importance when you think about it. Even the cultural elements of the Greeks disappeared and were almost erased from memory. In India, Muslims had to revive the memory of Alexander the Great, for instance.


I like how you mention macrohistorical in your first post but are saying that these events aren't important because the fabric of Europe didn't change overnight. A very micro-historic viewpoint. Also Hellenism and Christianity coexisted. Christianity definitely overshadowed Hellenism by the Late Empire but it didn't remove it the way Islam would go on to replace the 2. I also like how you say Alexander is not important thEn put an example of a powerful nation invoking Alexandrian imagery to show that Alexander is not important.

HMMM.jpg
 

Maoistic

Banned
I like how you mention macrohistorical in your first post but are saying that these events aren't important because the fabric of Europe didn't change overnight. A very micro-historic viewpoint.

Yes, I'm using a macrohistorical viewpoint to analyse this. What's your point?



Also Hellenism and Christianity coexisted. Christianity definitely overshadowed Hellenism by the Late Empire but it didn't remove it the way Islam would go on to replace the 2. I also like how you say Alexander is not important thEn put an example of a powerful nation invoking Alexandrian imagery to show that Alexander is not important.

That Alexander's memory got revived by Muslims doesn't mean Alexander is important. It shows the opposite since he is so largely unimportant with his empire breaking down immediately after his death that Indians completely forgot about him and Muslims only remembered him because Alexander happened to have conquered parts of northeast India. Muslims invoking him also hardly makes Alexander so important, especially at a macrohistorical level where the Greek expansion into Asia left no single survival except a few archaeological sites dug by over-earnest archaeologists wishing to find evidence that the Greeks civilised the "Orient".
 
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.
...Are you conflating England with Britain? Aside from the war of the roses (which even then was after england as a unified polity had been a given), im not aware of any real division within England for the given times.

A divided england (I.e. Mercia, York etc as separate polities) is a massive thing for European politics, from creating more viable marriage prospects to having a much better chance of future conquerers invading the isle (Imagine for instance if Napoleon had a friendly state on the isle which would give him free access and thus the ability to turn any conflict with a British state into a land war).
 
I think that it is uselsess to analyse this on anything other than a micro-historical viewpoint, maybe just fifty years ahead because otherwise we are essentially discussing which event has the most butterflies. This seems nonsensical to me, as butterflies are largely random and very hard to predict. Does one event necessarily have more than any other?

Instead, looking at the likely geopolitical situation following the event seems more intuitive. Essentially, by the butterflies way of measuring things, the older an event the more important it is. To take the Norman Conquest example, any POD in the 11th century will result in an unimaginable different present day. To discuss how it affects the rise of the British Empire is anachronistic. Instead, the immediate change of situation in Europe seems, to me at least to be more relevant.

By this way of thinking, what is the most important battle? I am unsure, but the earlier given battle of Plassey, very drastically changes the fate of India, very quickly and is easier to predict than how Hastings affects India, for obvious reasons...
 

Maoistic

Banned
...Are you conflating England with Britain? Aside from the war of the roses (which even then was after england as a unified polity had been a given), im not aware of any real division within England for the given times.

A divided england (I.e. Mercia, York etc as separate polities) is a massive thing for European politics, from creating more viable marriage prospects to having a much better chance of future conquerers invading the isle (Imagine for instance if Napoleon had a friendly state on the isle which would give him free access and thus the ability to turn any conflict with a British state into a land war).
Yeah, sorry, I was thinking of Anglo-Scottish wars when both England and Scotland weren't united. Still, England as such was already more or less united prior to William I. England itself pretty much came to existence with Alfred the Great who unified many of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. However, even if the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had remained divided, I still don't think this would have repercussions for Europe, let alone the world at large. And yes, England became the world's hegemony for a time and we are speaking English right now, but this is a matter that is largely unrelated to William the Conqueror.
 
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.

But that hegemony lasted only until the Peloponesian Wars, which the Athens lost and Sparta won (the fact hardly encouraging for the "Western civilization" :cool:), and ended decades prior to Alexander's birth.


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.

This is, of course, a "classic" point of view but how exactly was it shaping anything in the long term? Persian armies continued their operations in Greece until eventually had been defeated on land and, AFAIK, Salamis had nothing to do with it. Of course, it had its importance but how was it defining anything? After all, Persia was not a major naval power and the fleet defeated was (IIRC) an ad hoc assembly of the ships from the Phoenicia, Asiatic Greek cities, etc.

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.

This was for a while a popular subject on the (now defunct soc-history.medieval) and quite a few people brought up the point that the French (in the "Normandian" version) culture was already penetrating Saxon England. After all, Wilhelm the Bastard was an appointed successor of Edward and Harold had been visiting him in Normandy. In OTL it was a matter of time for the English nobility and royalty to switch to English (well, eventually even the British German monarchs learned the language ;)). Personally, I don't have any fixed view on the subject except for a purely military one. If we assume that The Bastard id dead (before or during his English adventure), the claim is passed to his sons, etc. and it is a matter of time when the next invasion will happen. And if and when it happens, the chances of Harold or his successors are not good (unless they somehow manage to "normanize" themselves): at Hastings the Saxons still had been fighting in a traditional Norse style: heavy infantry with the battleaxes and short spears, no cavalry, no archers. The Normans already had been ahead heaving all 3 branches and it was a matter of time and tactics to get Saxons out of their good defensive position on the open where they could be destroyed by cavalry. Even if this did not happen at Hastings, the Saxons could not stay on the hill forever, which means that sooner of later they would be attacked while on the march and destroyed (as a side note, Harald Hardrada, who used the same Norse fighting style, was defeated by the Normans in Sicily and there were earlier precedents as well so we have a pattern).

To make the long story short, I'd qualify Hastings as a "token event": it happened and a lot of things changed but something of the kind was almost doomed to happen.

Your point about the 100YW is interesting: of course, if we assume a completely different English royal line, then there is no union of the territories, etc. But most probably this would mean an earlier united France: Angevin Empire and the later leftover English territories in France had been the major obstacles to the unification process (the last Capetian kings already controlled most of the French territory and Aquitaine was something of a bone in their throat).

As for "unmotivated" English invasion, it is not like Ed #1 was seriously pursuing his claim to the throne of France but he, his sons and his commanders were definitely quite serious about the looting component: England was a relatively poor country but France was one of the richest places in Europe and spoiled by a prolonged peace so it practically asked to be invaded. ;)
 
Yeah, sorry, I was thinking of Anglo-Scottish wars when both England and Scotland weren't united. Still, England as such was already more or less united prior to William I. England itself pretty much came to existence with Alfred the Great who unified many of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
Whilst he had united england, there were plenty of regional conflicts and mixed efforts from both the irish-norse and scando-norse to claim territory, many of the movements only being united under William. William dying at hastings means that a lot of powerful people have nothing left to unite them, and the "English" having an army that was already on its last legs.[/quote] However, even if the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had remained divided, I still don't think this would have repercussions for Europe, let alone the world at large. [/quote]Why? I mean, my points alone show the extreme divergence potential a divided england entails.
And yes, England became the world's hegemony for a time and we are speaking English right now, but this is a matter that is largely unrelated to William the Conqueror.
It might be. Whilst I am sure that various English kingdoms would have the potential to become big powers like the Dutch, their potential is a hell of a lot more vulnerable, making their chances at becoming world hegemon incredibly vulnerable.
 
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.
So 5 out of your top 10 battle are in the middle east(3 of which in the same generation), why even complain about eurocentrism if you are goingg to do that?

Also 4 of your battles/sieges were literally a last stand situation, hardly a turning point history.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Whilst he had united england, there were plenty of regional conflicts and mixed efforts from both the irish-norse and scando-norse to claim territory, many of the movements only being united under William. William dying at hastings means that a lot of powerful people have nothing left to unite them, and the "English" having an army that was already on its last legs.

And those Gaelic-Norse elements had already pretty much been absorbed into England by the time of Edward the Confessor's reign, leaving Wales and Scotland as the only rival states.

It might be. Whilst I am sure that various English kingdoms would have the potential to become big powers like the Dutch, their potential is a hell of a lot more vulnerable, making their chances at becoming world hegemon incredibly vulnerable.

They could have united at any point and become a world power after the 11th century with no need for such an early unification. Spain's unification happened largely in the 15th century, for instance.
 
So 5 out of your top 10 battle are in the middle east(3 of which in the same generation), why even complain about eurocentrism if you are goingg to do that?

Also 4 of your battles/sieges were literally a last stand situation, hardly a turning point history.

The Middle East has always been the most important region, going back to 9000BC. Agriculture emerged in the middle east, so did the first cities, the first writing and the first civilisations. The first empire was built here, and for a long time there was no civilisation anywhere else.

The Persian Empire existed for a thousand years and was a serious rival to Greece and Rome, often gaining the upper hand, for example at Carhhae in 53BC when the Parthians taught Crassus a lesson or two. Or the fate of emperor Valerian, whose love of wealth was "rewarded" with molten gold, poured down his throat by the Persian Shah after a humiliating defeat in battle.

The empire of the Umayyads and later Abbasids was the greatest power the world had ever seen and remained powerful until roughly the later 10th century when the Fatimids and others vied for power. Even after political unity fragmented it was the centre of global science, technology, trade, learning and culture for many more centuries. The Middle East remained central to world history right through to about 1750, after which Europe pulled ahead (Until it was eclipsed by the USA and now China).

Compared to over 10,000 years of eastern dominance, the ascendancy of Europe, while undeniably very impressive, is still largely a temporary and rather ephemeral state of affairs in the grand sweep of history.
 
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.

This is simply incorrect. Athens was unique among Hellenic city states, at the very least because it combined a power that, at its height, vastly surpassed any other Hellenic city (particularly in terms of reach and commercial economy) and a major cultural significance. Philosophy existed elsewhere, but institutions for it emerged in Athens first. Theatres existed elsewhere, but the Athenian system of theatres was developed to a scale that had no contemporary parallel in the Mediterranean world and set the model for the later period. The Athenian political system was, if not truly unique, certainly very peculiar and, more critically, the discussion about it was the only one that survived to us, shaping a lot of political thought (not just in the "West"). Would democracy have emerged without Athens? I daresay, very probably it would have; there's plenty of other examples to base it from, and socio-economic structures that are likely to produce it would appear, as they did there. But it would have looked different, in many hard-to predict ways.
 
The Middle East has always been the most important region, going back to 9000BC. Agriculture emerged in the middle east, so did the first cities, the first writing and the first civilisations. The first empire was built here, and for a long time there was no civilisation anywhere else.

The Persian Empire existed for a thousand years and was a serious rival to Greece and Rome, often gaining the upper hand, for example at Carhhae in 53BC when the Parthians taught Crassus a lesson or two. Or the fate of emperor Valerian, whose love of wealth was "rewarded" with molten gold, poured down his throat by the Persian Shah after a humiliating defeat in battle.

The empire of the Umayyads and later Abbasids was the greatest power the world had ever seen and remained powerful until roughly the later 10th century when the Fatimids and others vied for power. Even after political unity fragmented it was the centre of global science, technology, trade, learning and culture for many more centuries. The Middle East remained central to world history right through to about 1750, after which Europe pulled ahead (Until it was eclipsed by the USA and now China).

Compared to over 10,000 years of eastern dominance, the ascendancy of Europe, while undeniably very impressive, is still largely a temporary and rather ephemeral state of affairs in the grand sweep of history.
So people discovering agriculture early makes a region the most important for the entirety of history afterwards? That makes no sense.

I'm not sure how Persia sometimes winning battles against Rome changes the fact the middle east definitely is not more important than Europe, East Asia and India combined.

"was the centre of global science, technology, trade, learning and culture for many more centuries" So was Europe for the 1700-1950 period, you don't seem to account for that. The middle east was definitely not the most important region by any metric during the early modern era, the core of the Ottoman state was Rumelia and while their MENA holdings were important, they are far from being of primary importance on a global scale, at least relatively.

10k years of eastern dominance? What are you even talking about? The "east" doesn't exist, stop using that term, more so you that complain about eurocentrism and yet speak in the language of such people.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm using a macrohistorical viewpoint to analyse this. What's your point?





That Alexander's memory got revived by Muslims doesn't mean Alexander is important. It shows the opposite since he is so largely unimportant with his empire breaking down immediately after his death that Indians completely forgot about him and Muslims only remembered him because Alexander happened to have conquered parts of northeast India. Muslims invoking him also hardly makes Alexander so important, especially at a macrohistorical level where the Greek expansion into Asia left no single survival except a few archaeological sites dug by over-earnest archaeologists wishing to find evidence that the Greeks civilised the "Orient".
Alexander's memory is quite a thing in the Muslim literary and even religious traditions. Most Muslim scholars identify him with "Dhu al-Qarnayn" who is mentioned in the Qur'an and therefore tend to think of him as Prophet (though this is not explictly stated). At the very least, his legacy was and is widely remembered. Ok, this is cultural, but I am under the impression that you are understating the importance of Hellenism.
 
Alex Milman said To make the long story short, I'd qualify Hastings as a "token event": it happened and a lot of things changed but something of the kind was almost doomed to happen.
Why was it Doomed to happen? What if Harald Hardrada had defeated Harold at Stamford Bridge and England became part of a Northsea Empire would there still be French influence?
I agree with Gloss that 3 battles in a the same time and Region make no strong point.
 
Top