I'm looking at manpower in the sense of a decisive defeat meaning a lot of Franks fighting with him being dead, not his . . . is he technically king at this point? realm's population on the whole.Approximatly yes. The battle happened at the border of Aquitaine and Neustria, not really political core of Charles Martel. In fact, it's why he let the Arab withdraw in relative order (or let them plunder Aquitaine in first place). They weakened opponents.
For the manpower, Arabo-Berbers raided monasteries, not mass-butchered peasants.
And, again, the economic cores (and political ones) were in N-E, between Meuse and Rhine.
And honestly, if it was so minor, why did he fight it at all?
Except that they weren't. That no one else focused elsewhere wasn't because Frederick made the empire focus southward.But the change of politics of Frederic II that lasted, are a direct consequence.
Insisting that it was unimportant to the rest of the world and its impact on the US has no relevance to the rest of the world is . . . whatever the opposite of americanocentric is.I wanr you, kindly but for the last time, I'm annoyed about you changing something that is right in front of your eyes.
You accused me of considering US unimportant except for americans. It's false, and as you continue, I ask for excuse there for accusing me of nationalist gibberish.
One last time, i repeat.
You have conflicts that are importants, worldwide speaking or continentally speaking in US. ARW, Mexican-American War, Hispano-American War for pre-1900.
ACW is not important, as it concerned only US politics, and had almost no direct or undirect influence after.
Insisting on a conflict that's because it's important for US, it's one of the most decisive of the worlds IS americanocentric.
No, they make that outcome probable, not inevitable.A different outcome would be ASB. Different war, maybe more long is unlikely but still can happen. But the simple comparison of forces, of capacities and of reserves allow only one outcome : defeat of CSA.
Thus the quotes around the term "Greece" (it not existing as any given state, or rather existing as several polities, however you want to put it). It still only mattered within "Greece" who won.ANd for Aegospotami, you do an excellent job at ignoring that "Greece" was inexistant politically. Not only this war concerned all Mediterranea, but you had other powers (such as Persia) intervening.
And a USA defeat would have had consequences here, just as a Byzantine victory at Yarmouk would have - if not nearly as drastic as those, they would have existed.For ACW, no. You had battle in Europe, because americans were there.
You can turn in every fashion you can, even the Expedition of Mexico had more importence (and more decisive than ACW)
The ACW didn't damaged the industrial power of USA, neither its capacity of projection in Atlantic (as proven during the war) and certainly not in Pacific.
And I can also argue that the ACW showed lessons to be learned as well, the fact that the European powers failed to grasp the problems of trench warfare until 1917 is their ignorance, not the ACW's irrelevance.Even technologically and strategically, the Crimean War have a more great importance worldwide. You can argue that it allowed American army to apply the lessons of this war, during the civil war.
Last edited: