Overestimated battles

[Curtain Jerker]

The Battle of Adrianople matters for a few reasons

1 - It started in earnest the practice of settling large groups of barbarians in the Empire and giving them more and more rights/autonomy. As a result, it accelerated the "Barbarianization" of the Roman Army. The fact that the armies that fought at the Frigidus were mostly composed of Gothic foederati shows this.
2 - It lead to the death of Valens, paving the way for Theodosius the Great to take over first the ERE then the entire Empire.

 

[Sertorius126]

The division of 395 is Dynastic, only in a limited sense, with the Sons of Theodosius sent to administer East & West, it was never a national division. Ravenna was never a national capital, only a military HQ, Constantinople was an Imperial Capital. Your correct that neither Emperor could command the others military resources, but that merely illustrates the mistake of dividing authority in an Empire between heirs, one never wants to recognized the superiority of the other. Eventually it leads to civil war, that's nepotism for you.

There was no such notion as national capital, capital was wherever the emperor liked to stay the most, in the case of the West, it’s Ravenna. There was no national division because there was no nation in the first place. It was an administrative, fiscal and bureaucratic division, but a division nonetheless.

 

[Silver01]

It had great effects upon the immediate area. It was certainly a monumental and decisive victory for the Abbasids, as almost immediately, the Neo-Sogdian states submitted to Islam and agreed to become vassals under the Abbasid. Likewise, the victory, solidified for the foreseen future, an Arabo-Persian dominated Central Asia, at least west of Tocharia. So, it may have not been massive for the Tang, but for the Abbasid powerbase, it was a great boon.

I meant that people assume that had the tang won things wouldn't change that much
The anlushan rebellion killed all central Asian holdings as the empire never truely recovered
Even if the abassids lost they come next deacade and take it while the troops of central asia

Heck even after the battle general gao sent more areas to the region to conatian Arabian expansion

These troops who returned to Asia

It does have some changes but with the tang empire gone no one stops the central asia dominace of the abbaasids by 760s

 

[wcv215]

I respectful disagree, Adrianople was a decisive Roman defeat. Although Theodosius the Great restored the frontiers of the Empire, the Imperial Army never recovered.

Nah, Adrianople’s biggest knock-on effect was that the Goths were able to keep themselves unified. Most barbarians who were let into the Empire to settle and serve as soldiers were disarmed, spread out, and had to accept Roman leaders. Adrianople meant that the Gothic leaders stayed in charge, that the Goths maintained their unity, and were effectively an independent people under the Emperors. Thus when the Empire decided to fuck them over the Goths were able to do something about it.

 

[Raferty]

Battle of Navas de Tolosa

The crucial Spanish seizures of territory happened decades after the battle, after way more political strife and fragmentation in Andalusia, and most of the Moors present were Africans who had every intention of returning after a campaign of looting. There were no territorial stakes outside of the control of a few fortresses.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Battle of Navas de Tolosa

The crucial Spanish seizures of territory happened decades after the battle, after way more political strife and fragmentation in Andalusia, and most of the Moors present were Africans who had every intention of returning after a campaign of looting. There were no territorial stakes outside of the control of a few fortresses.

But Las Navas de Tolosa started the crumble of Almohad Caliphate's power, it's consequences were not immediate, but it was influential nonetheless. The defeat caused the stop of big-scale agression from Al-Andalus, and, of course, gave the moral effect for the christians make the future seizures of land.

And the army wasn't some band of africans going to a raid, was an army going to conquest, and commanded by the almohad caliph himself. Without Navas de Tolosa you have the path to follow: The Almohads inevitably would fall, but with internal stability, the power in Andalusia could go swiftly(ish) for one native dynasty and deal with it. The style of the muslim victory at the battle changes the frontiers, but without that crushing defeat, the future of Al-Andalus seems pretty bright (or, at least, seems not-being-conquered)

 

[David T]

This was definitely an overestimated battle for a while in the Soviet Union...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaya_Zemlya "The battle was the subject of the first book of Brezhnev's trilogy, which exaggerated Leonid Brezhnev's role in the Eastern Front" says Wikipedia, purveyor od anti-Soviet slander.

 

[GauchoBadger]

This was definitely an overestimated battle for a while in the Soviet Union...

View attachment 496483

Excuse my ignorance of cyrillic, but what battle are you referring to?

 

[David T]

Excuse my ignorance of cyrillic, but what battle are you referring to?

I have edited the post to explain it.

 

[alexmilman]

Excuse my ignorance of cyrillic, but what battle are you referring to?

It was a small-scale operation of WWII (offshoot of the SNAFUed plan of a massive landing on Kerch Peninsula). There are 2 “prominent” things about it:

(a) The fighting site was visited by Leonid Brezhnev (then a political officer). As a result, during the Breznev’s rule episide evolved into a major battle. Brezhnev “wrote” a book about it and the unfortunate students had to study it. Predictably, Malaya Zemlya became subject of the anecdotes.
(b) To make a commanding officer in charge of the initial landing more kosher, his last name (posthumously) was changed from Kunik (he was a Jew) to Kunikov (so that he could pass for a Russian).

The painting produced by David is a work of Nalbandian, Soviet “court painter” who left countless paintings of all Soviet leaders from Lenin to Brezhnev ( with falling out of grace figures conveniently disappearing from the group portraits).

 

[Kaze]

Red Cliffs / Battle of Chibi

Victory or defeat would have left to the same result - continued warlordism until one leader is left.

 

[Kaze]

It had great effects upon the immediate area. It was certainly a monumental and decisive victory for the Abbasids, as almost immediately, the Neo-Sogdian states submitted to Islam and agreed to become vassals under the Abbasid. Likewise, the victory, solidified for the foreseen future, an Arabo-Persian dominated Central Asia, at least west of Tocharia. So, it may have not been massive for the Tang, but for the Abbasid powerbase, it was a great boon.

And if some history is to be believed - this is when paper making entered the West. This was a revolution in terms of culture!

 

[Sertorius126]

Come to think of it, the Battle of Stirling Bridge is pretty overrated, as is William Wallace. The Scots, aside from the psychological effects on the English, got nothing concrete out of it, and not one year passed that Edward went back to Scotland with a vengeance.

 

[TRH]

Come to think of it, the Battle of Stirling Bridge is pretty overrated, as is William Wallace. The Scots, aside from the psychological effects on the English, got nothing concrete out of it, and not one year passed that Edward went back to Scotland with a vengeance.

Nobody really pretends that Wallace won the war, though, right? He's remembered as a martyr.

 

[GauchoBadger]

Nobody really pretends that Wallace won the war, though, right? He's remembered as a martyr.

I blame Mel Gibson.

 

[TRH]

I blame Mel Gibson.

Wallace still dies there, though.

 

[Linbot]

Tai'erzhuang

The events after the battle pretty much prove that the Japanese couldn't hold an encirclement anyways. The Japanese were never going to achieve their goal of eliminating Li Zongren, it was just beyond the capability of their overstretched armies. That said, it's a very impressive victory, but even a Chinese "defeat" wouldn't have led to a very different situation than OTL.

 

[Jared]

I blame Mel Gibson.

That's a statement which is true in many times and many situations.

 

[Byzantium]

Manzikert. The Seljuks were already on a roll in the Middle East. The Roman Empire was on its last legs. After Justinian’s conquests, the treasury was depleted. Therefore, losing one battle wouldn’t have destroyed the war-savvy Seljuks, and victory wouldn’t have solved the problems of the Romans. Especially not if the emperor decided to turn this one victory into justification for a costly campaign. That would’ve made Rome fall even faster. Don’t call them the Byzantines. It’s rude. Would you like to be called a monkey or something?

 

[wcv215]

After Justinian’s conquests, the treasury was depleted.

Justinian's conquests were half a MILLENIUM before Manzikert. Sure he left an empty treasury, but the treasury doesn't STAY empty. Blaming Justinian for the Emperors being broke by the time of Manzikert makes about as much sense as saying the UK after WWII was broke because of James I. By the time of Basil II the Empire was the wealthiest state in Europe or the Middle East again. The treasury was empty by the time of Manzikert because the Romans had needed to fight the Pechenegs in the Balkans, then a Pecheneg revolt in Anatolia, then the Normans in Italy, and then the Seljuks in Armenia.

The Roman Empire was on its last legs.

Before the Seljuks arrived the Romans were the strongest state in the Middle East. They had just come off of two centuries of military success and expansion at the expense of the Muslim neighbors, including retaking Antioch and pushing the boundary in the Caucuses further East than it had ever been.