Top 10 Decisive Battles, Pre-1900:

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.
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.

And honestly, if it was so minor, why did he fight it at all?

But the change of politics of Frederic II that lasted, are a direct consequence.
Except that they weren't. That no one else focused elsewhere wasn't because Frederick made the empire focus southward.

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.
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.

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.
No, they make that outcome probable, not inevitable.

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.
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.

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 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.

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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

And honestly, if it was so minor, why did he fight it at all?

You confuse (among other things) not decisive and minor. Why did he fight? Because you can't just let ennemies raid the land without trying to fight, if you can.

He could, so he fought. Furthermore, it allowed him to have an influence in Aquitaine : instead of an huge independent principalty, he had an autonomous duke that owed him his place back.

Finally, he had to defend the St Martin of Tours, that was the main sanctuary of Gaul.

It have nothing to do with protecting the core of Frankish Kingdoms.

Charles Martel was never king, even if he had the power. If it's your question, yes, he was at this point already the master of Neustria and Austrasia.

And again, your confusing manpower and warriors. We're talking about at an extreme maximum of 30 000 Franks AND Aquitains. More probably less. It's important (and probably too much) regarding logistic, but as the Franks (at the contrary of other germanic people) mixed with Gallo-Romans it's (guesstimating) only 1/15 of the whole Frankish warriors (not counting not freemen). Considering that even a defeat would have only killed 1/2, we have still enough manpower.

Not counting, that (more or less like Visigoths) the Franks were able to arm not free men to replace fallen.

And finally, the Battle itself is only a part of the conflict : during a week you had skirmishes.

Except that they weren't. That no one else focused elsewhere wasn't because Frederick made the empire focus southward.
Err...yes it is. I make the movie again for you.
Otton IV was focused on west. German princes and King of France happened to disagree.
Otton IV died soon after. Frederic II, already known as his priorities is there. He became Emperor, with the agreement (if not the support) of Phillippe.
As tought, Frederic focus on S-E.

At one moment, he decided to see what happen on Germany, to not let the whole thing unwatched. Result : his own son rebel against him.

No prince wanted the emperor to focus elsewhere than Italy and Mediterranea because he was crowned for that.

So yes, ACW wasn't important regarding the world's course as it was about an unavoidable CSA defeat without any worth of mention influence at the time of the war or after the war even in the continental range.
You say "but it influenced US somehow, it's certainly decisive for the long future of US". Yes, but that's not relevant (the statement, not the war). Every conflict little or not, important or not important worldwide had provoked today's world. But it's as relevant to say "ACW was a worldwide decisive event, because it's part of US that is super important today" than saying "Sonderbund War is a decisive worldwide event because it's part of Swiss history that is super important regarding finances".

No, they make that outcome probable, not inevitable.
And how? Secret weapons? Everyone in Union became stupid? Paradox Interactive's logic?

You see, there's, about modern strategy, hard reality. When a side have everything to win, and another nothing to do such apart hope things would get better, it's not about "probable" : it's about certain.

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.

No, it wasn't. As said Persia was really interested about it, as it would be obvious some years after. Sicily too had some interest, as not being invaded. It have consequences on Black Sea trade, so it had still more international repercussion than ACW.
Also, Athens wasn't doomed to fall, as they had roughly comparable infradtructures compared to Sparta. CSA began with nothing to win. Here you had at least some possibilities.

But yes, Pelopponesian Wars have a greater importance inr western historiography and politics (thanks to Thucydides) than actual strategical and decisive event, that's certain.

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.
Are you seriously comparing the trenches of ACW or Crimean War to trenches warfare of WW1?
ACW is so irrelevant about this, that US troops use even in last months of WW1 is anedotic, strategically speaking.

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.
Okay. So, if you consider that i'm making anti-american (I would just point that false accusation of nationalist bigotery isn't seen well), I think we're gonna to end this ther.
I'll just point this : you make confusions (willing, not willing? I don't know but you seem to be used to when it comes to my posts.) between decisive, important and relevant.
 
Last edited:
You confuse (among other things) not decisive and minor. Why did he fight? Because you can't just let ennemies raid the land without trying to fight, if you can.

He could, so he fought. Furthermore, it allowed him to have an influence in Aquitaine : instead of an huge independent principalty, he had an autonomous duke that owed him his place back.

Finally, he had to defend the St Martin of Tours, that was the main sanctuary of Gaul.

It have nothing to do with protecting the core of Frankish Kingdoms.

And that doesn't require a significant pitched battle (the raiding part). Also, could you clarify what you mean by autonomous as distinct from independent? I have a feeling this suffered from translation, because in English, it looks like two words for the same thing, but I'm positive that's not what you meant.

Also, not all decisive battles are about the core of a kingdom, or we couldn't count Adrianople.

Charles Martel was never king, even if he had the power. If it's your question, yes, he was at this point already the master of Neustria and Austrasia.

And again, your confusing manpower and warriors. We're talking about at an extreme maximum of 30 000 Franks AND Aquitains. More probably less. It's important (and probably too much) regarding logistic, but as the Franks (at the contrary of other germanic people) mixed with Gallo-Romans it's (guesstimating) only 1/15 of the whole Frankish warriors (not counting not freemen). Considering that even a defeat would have only killed 1/2, we have still enough manpower.

Not counting, that (more or less like Visigoths) the Franks were able to arm not free men to replace fallen.

And finally, the Battle itself is only a part of the conflict : during a week you had skirmishes.

I'd count him as not king then and stick with realm or domain or something - since we can't call it kingdom. If you have a good term (in English or not), I'd be happy to use it, but it feels like there ought to be a way to refer to the area under his control as if he was king.

As for the manpower thing: Not every freeman had mail armor, a horse, and a sword. A bloody defeat for Martel is likely to cost him a fair amount of the men who do.

Err...yes it is. I make the movie again for you.
Otton IV was focused on west. German princes and King of France happened to disagree.
Otton IV died soon after. Frederic II, already known as his priorities is there. He became Emperor, with the agreement (if not the support) of Phillippe.
As tought, Frederic focus on S-E.

At one moment, he decided to see what happen on Germany, to not let the whole thing unwatched. Result : his own son rebel against him.

So yeah, no prince wanted the emperor to focus elsewhere than Italy and Mediterranea because he was crowned for that.

And that matters for and only for Frederick, not Rudolph I (focused within Germany) for instance. Rudolph's choice of focus was his own, not a result of Frederick.

Is Otton the French spelling? Wondering for future reference.
 
There is a slight difference betwin independance and autonomous. An autonous country can decide about internal policies, but depend on another to external ones. An independant country decides for both.

I'd count him as not king then and stick with realm or domain or something - since we can't call it kingdom. If you have a good term (in English or not), I'd be happy to use it, but it feels like there ought to be a way to refer to the area under his control as if he was king.

Actually there were three kingdoms : Neustria, Austrasia and Burgundia, with Aquitain counting as a somewhat colony.
For Charles Martel title, compare him with the steward of Gondor in The Lord of the Ring : he's the one in charge, he has the power, but he's not the king in name. There was still a Merovingian king, but he was irrelevent. When he died, Charles didn't even consider to replace him, but the kingdoms were still there.
Is Otton the French spelling? Wondering for future reference.
Yes it is. I don't know why we add a "n", but taking the Lord of the Ring exemple again, Bilbo is called Bilbon and Frodo Frodon. Perhaps it sound cooler that way, I don't know :)
 
There is a slight difference betwin independance and autonomous. An autonous country can decide about internal policies, but depend on another to external ones. An independant country decides for both.

True. Vassalage sounds like the word I'd use here, or at least the beginnings of.

Actually there were three kingdoms : Neustria, Austrasia and Burgundia, with Aquitain counting as a somewhat colony.
For Charles Martel title, compare him with the steward of Gondor in The Lord of the Ring : he's the one in charge, he has the power, but he's not the king in name. There was still a Merovingian king, but he was irrelevent. When he died, Charles didn't even consider to replace him, but the kingdoms were still there.

Yes it is. I don't know why we add a "n", but taking the Lord of the Ring exemple again, Bilbo is called Bilbon and Frodo Frodon. Perhaps it sound cooler that way, I don't know :)

Well, there has to be a way of referring to the whole unit, and if he was a king, I'd say "his kingdom/s" - but "his Mayordom" just sounds wrong when he clearly is more than just what that official was supposed to be and not even as a regent.

On the spelling:
Huh, interesting.
 
So yes, ACW wasn't important regarding the world's course as it was about an unavoidable CSA defeat without any worth of mention influence at the time of the war or after the war even in the continental range.
You say "but it influenced US somehow, it's certainly decisive for the long future of US". Yes, but that's not relevant (the statement, not the war). Every conflict little or not, important or not important worldwide had provoked today's world. But it's as relevant to say "ACW was a worldwide decisive event, because it's part of US that is super important today" than saying "Sonderbund War is a decisive worldwide event because it's part of Swiss history that is super important regarding finances".

By this logic we should disqualify the Pacific and Axis-Soviet Wars from the post-1900 lists because the outcomes were guaranteed before the shooting started, if not the precise details.
 
I am surprised no one has mentioned Angincourt. It is definitely on the to 10 list. It opened up the possibility of a continued war in France, decapitated the non-Burgundian French nobility, etc. It was also by no means a sure victory for Henry V.
Bouvines should also make this list, as it cemented the Capetian monarchy, weakened the Angevins and dethroned the Welfs.
Hastings is another very important battle.
Scipio
 
My definition of a decisive battle is very tight.

Basically, I think a battle is decisive whenever A.) A different result leads to a radically differently world in the relative short term, and B.) All things considered (Composition of forces, commander's skill, subordinates, morale, etc.) the battle truly could have gone either way.
 
May I contribute with the following:

Battle of the Melvian Bridge

it would be considered as a minor battle, concerning numbers involved, but it actually led to a series of events building up a christian Europe, and more specificly a dogmatic christian Europe!

I 'm not sure that we can easily find a lot of battles which aftermath still affect the modern world ("christian" right of Bush's administration, even current German perception of Economy, or the islamic extremism are a few examples I can recall at the moment)
 
Top