The Most Decisive Battles in World’s History (pre-1900)

What battles that you think are the most influential in history?

  • Battle of Marathon, 490 BC

    Votes: 39 32.0%
  • Battle of Gaugamela, 331 BC

    Votes: 11 9.0%
  • Battle of Metaurus, 207 BC

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • Battle of Carrhae, 53 BC

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • Battle of Teutoburg Forest, 9 AD

    Votes: 25 20.5%
  • Battle of Adrianople, 378 AD

    Votes: 9 7.4%
  • Siege of Constantinople, 717 AD

    Votes: 23 18.9%
  • Battle of Tours, 732 AD

    Votes: 26 21.3%
  • Battle of Lechfeld, 955 AD

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • Battle of Hastings, 1066 AD

    Votes: 24 19.7%
  • Battle of Manzikert, 1071 AD

    Votes: 17 13.9%
  • Siege of Constantinople, 1204 AD

    Votes: 13 10.7%
  • Siege of Orleans, 1429 AD

    Votes: 9 7.4%
  • Defeat of Spanish Armada, 1588 AD

    Votes: 33 27.0%
  • Battle of Blenheim, 1704 AD

    Votes: 8 6.6%
  • Battle of Poltava, 1704 AD

    Votes: 7 5.7%
  • Battle of Saratoga, 1777 AD

    Votes: 23 18.9%
  • Battle of Valmy, 1792 AD

    Votes: 4 3.3%
  • Battle of Waterloo, 1815 AD

    Votes: 23 18.9%
  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 15 12.3%

  • Total voters
    122
They didn;t really have much of one.
It was what happened with the Europeans which decided what happened with the world. What with the Europeans being all powerful and eventually owning most of hte rest of the world.

Still, that doesn't mean all European battles were significant. Your inclusion of Tuetoberg Forest is odd - I'd say that's about as important to the modern state of the world as some random battle between two 15th-Century kings in Central Africa that didn't get recorded into written history.
 

Typo

Banned
They didn;t really have much of one.
It was what happened with the Europeans which decided what happened with the world. What with the Europeans being all powerful and eventually owning most of hte rest of the world.
That's pretty much outright stupid.

The Europeans had to co-op local elites and governments every step of the way outside of the new world.

Even then a lot of power rested int he hands of natives rather than London or Paris to the point that say Talas still mattered to Central Asia more than Marathon did.
 

Typo

Banned
I disagree, but it depends on how you classify "Western". I, for one, don't consider a piece of technology to an inherent possession of a culture, even if they invented it first. A Chinese person using a computer is not Westernized simply by virtue of using a computer. Westerners may have invented the the computer first, but that doesn't mean Chinese culture wouldn't have eventually invented the computer on their own had Western civilization not got to it first. Western culture didn't become "Sinicized" when we adopted gun powder, nor did we become "Indianized" when we adopted the Hindu number system.

I believe that even when China, Japan, India, or any other non-Western country or culture adopts an aspect of Western culture, they do so through the eyes of their own unique world view. They reinterpret it and place it within their own cultural context. If anything, I think globalization is now decreasing Westernization, as it allows these different, unconsidered perspectives to have a voice that they didn't have during the colonial era. For example, indigenous people in Bolivia who were silenced serfs under colonial Spanish administration are now becoming politically active and making themselves heard.
Agreed, essentially people confuse "modernization" with "westernization"
 
Still, that doesn't mean all European battles were significant. Your inclusion of Tuetoberg Forest is odd - I'd say that's about as important to the modern state of the world as some random battle between two 15th-Century kings in Central Africa that didn't get recorded into written history.

I didn't pick the list. I'd agree with you on Teutoberg. Rome not expanding into Germany was pretty important but that one battle didn't decide that.
I'm just defending that eurocentricism is forgivable.

That's pretty much outright stupid.

The Europeans had to co-op local elites and governments every step of the way outside of the new world.

Even then a lot of power rested int he hands of natives rather than London or Paris.
Yet nonetheless it was the European civilizations which rose to dominate and today cover 4 of the world's continents with heavy influence on the 5th (Africa) and large parts of the 6th and even today has the lions share of worlds GDP and cultural influence.
 
In the case of this poll, it's "With not even one single exception". And I take issue with such a claim.

Well then, by all means name one and explain how it affected the world at large, rather than simply the local area.

I know you're a great Sinophile, and I too am an admirer of China, which certainly was a great civilization with more than its fair share of accomplishments to its credit. But it was VERY isolated from the rest of the world for most of its history and that limited the impact that battles fought there could have on the world at large. The same can be said of India, and most other places outside of Europe and the Near East.
 
I voted for Other, as well as Marathon, the Spanish Armada, and Saratoga. My vote for other was a vote for the Battle of Breitenfeld, 1631. It gave a great boost to the Protestant cause in Germany. It secured the strength of the alliance so that it didn't fall after the Battle of Lutzen. That led directly to the Peace of Westphalia, and all its world-changing effects.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Battle of tours 110%.
Now that I no longer live there, I can tell you guys: that battle didn't take place in Tours or even near it. It took place in some field in the general vicinity of Poitiers.

And for a battle that took place outside of Europe yet influenced European history (and thus, according to the claims of some people here, world history), how about the battle of Nineveh in 612 BCE? Had it been won by the Neo-Assyrians, the rise of Persia would have been preempted. No Marathon, and huge butterflies in the history of Judaism, very possibly preempting the apparition of both Christianity and Islam.
 
Anyone else feel that the vote for Waterloo is ridiculously high?

If Valmy, a far more important battle, only rates two votes, then Waterloo surely rates none. Even limiting oneself to the Napoleonic Wars, it's still far less consequential than Leipzig. Probably, the only result of a different outcome would be to prolong the 1815 campaign by a few weeks, until the arrival of the Russians. After that, just some minor changes at Vienna due to Russia's influence being increased relative to Britain's.
 

Typo

Banned
I didn't pick the list. I'd agree with you on Teutoberg. Rome not expanding into Germany was pretty important but that one battle didn't decide that.
I'm just defending that eurocentricism is forgivable.


Yet nonetheless it was the European civilizations which rose to dominate and today cover 4 of the world's continents with heavy influence on the 5th (Africa) and large parts of the 6th and even today has the lions share of worlds GDP and cultural influence.

And still a small fraction of the world's population, which means that a battle in Asia still effects way more people than Europe, not to mention that it's outright false that Europe has a "lions share of Worlds GDP" today. China, India and the EU alone have almost the same GDP as the EU and Russia. I guess it might be forgivable if the list is disproportionately European, but the thing is that it exclusively involves Europeans.
 
Pretty much after Manzikert it was all over for the Byzantines, Islam and the Turks would not be stopped.

Though also with Gaugemela, if Alexander and the Macedonians had not conquered Persia and lost then the whole period of Hellenization in the East would have never been, leading to the butterflying of one of the major sects of Buddhism and possibly some of the Greek philosophies.
 
Since someone already claimed Plassey... What about the siege of Baghdad in 1258 by the Mongols? The destruction the Mongols inflicted on the Muslim world certainly had a world effect, as well as just enlarging the power of the Mongol hoard. Also the failed invasion of Japan by the Mongols kept them free from Mongol control and its political system. I thought Waterloo was important for the respect it conferred to both the UK and Prussia, and put them into major positions of influence post-Napoleonic wars. Valmy was important because without it Waterloo wouldn't have happened, and the Napoleonic system would not have spread over Europe.
 
Alright...I will throw my opinions now...

1.Marathon
I tend to disagree with those who said Darius I didn't want to conquer Greece...then why he conquered Thrace and Cycladic islands, as well as made Macedon a Persian vassal, in the first place? Had Athenians lose at Marathon, at the very least Thessaly (and maybe Attica) would be conquered as well...

2.Carrhae
It looks like some people forget that Crassus lived in Late Roman Republican era, when Roman expansionism was at its peak. If Crassus won, Mesopotamia and Armenia would be annexed by the Romans... And remember guys, it was Crassus' death that led to civil war between Pompey and Caesar...

3.Lechfeld
Well, I agree that Hungarians/Magyars weren't experienced on siege warfare. But it was Hungarian defeat at Lechfeld that effectively ended their raids on Western Europe and even created the basis for the state of Hungary itself. And since Otto I was the first Holy Roman Emperor, his defeat (and death) at Lechfeld would surely delayed (or even ceased) the establishment of HRE...

4.Poltava
About the inability of Swedes to fight Russia in the long run...well, who knows...? At this point in time the Swedes WAS the Great Power, not Russia... If Swedes won the Great Northern War, then anything could happen...

5.Valmy
I think this is obvious: it was Prussian defeat at Valmy that drove them into retreating from French territory. Had the Prussians won at Valmy, they would surely advance even further, and the French Revolution itself might severely disrupted...
 
Top