What was the most important battle in world history?

Peiper · Aug 2, 2004

rooster:

Just is case you are misunderstanding the my use of Oriental:

Of or pertaining to the orient or east; eastern; concerned with the East or Orientalism; -- opposed to Occidental

It is not an Asian ethnonym in this instance.

Why do you find the origins of secularism, rationalism, republican virtue, libertarian civics, science, and law to be distasteful? If the Eastern nations had developed these notions I would be celebrating them. However, they did not. Therefore, I celebrate those that did and through my post I was considering how fragile that development actually was.

Peiper · Aug 2, 2004

TScott:

I'm a little confused here. None of the battles you have listed have much to do with your criteria. Orientals were not involved in any of them.

Again, Oriental is not an Asian ethnonym in this instance.

Although two of the three battles I listed do contextually involve Eastern peoples, that was not the point of the list.

At the time, the Romans considered the Germanic Tribes as Eastern peoples. It has been argued that the problem with Germany is its unique position between the East and the West. This position has produced many philosophies, some as ultra-rationalist and some as lashing out against rationality. Some historians even blame this love-hate relationship with the irrational on the development of Nazism.

Most do consider the Russians an Eastern people. However, Stalingrad is a battle late in history and therefore has little to do with securing the development of the Western Tradition.

The point of my post was to contrast several pivotal battles in European history with the characteristics of the Greatest Battle in history. Again, for me, the Greatest Battle in history is not some petty squabble over land or resources. Rather it is a battle that protected the very development of the ideas that I hold dear.

vatuck · Aug 5, 2004

intrepid said:
The late historian Stephen Ambrose called D-Day (6/6/44) the most important day of the 20th century so I'll go with that for now.

I would agree with this one. I am not a huge history buff, but, personally, when I watch programs on the History Channel, etc., about D-Day, I get the chills.

mindlight · Aug 5, 2004

What was the most important battle in world history?

I believe that the most important battles would have to relate to their spiritual consequence and most specifically to the development of the Judaeo Christian religion which is the largest of all the worlds religions and the most influential over the last 1700 years.

Thus even though the defeat of the Persians was important in facilitating the dominance of Greek rather than persian culture in the crucial mediterranean area I do not think that the Persian empire nor even Zoroastrianism would have lasted forever. Like Chinese dynasties they would have crumbled and fallen eventually to be replaced by alternative viewpoints. Similarly secular ideologies like Communism or nazism seem increasingly shallow and unlikely to have persevered for very long on an historical time frame even if Hitler or Stalin had triumphed. The same would go for the victories against Napoleon. On Napoleons death his empire woudl most probably have fractured anyway just as Alexanders did before him.

Spiritually I believe the most important battles in history thus far have been in chronological order:

1) Jericho - the first battle of Joshuas invasion of Canaan.
2) Miluvian Bridge where Constantine secured the Roman empire and changed the relationship of Christianity to the state for the next 1500 years and more.
3) Tours 732 AD which prevented the triumph of Islam against crucial Christian kingdoms
4) The first Crusade 1099 which took Jerusalem and ended the most successful phase of Islamic expansion and marked the growing strength of the European Christian Kingdoms
5) The fall of Constantinople 1453 which effectively forced Europe to look outwards from the Middle east for trade and trade routes and new colonies.
6) The fall of Granada 1492 which effectively barred the New world of North America to any religion but that of Christianity for the next crucial 500 years and meant that America would be Christian.

TScott · Aug 5, 2004

mindlight said:
What was the most important battle in world history?

I believe that the most important battles would have to relate to their spiritual consequence and most specifically to the development of the Judaeo Christian religion which is the largest of all the worlds religions and the most influential over the last 1700 years.

Thus even though the defeat of the Persians was important in facilitating the dominance of Greek rather than persian culture in the crucial mediterranean area I do not think that the Persian empire nor even Zoroastrianism would have lasted forever. Like Chinese dynasties they would have crumbled and fallen eventually to be replaced by alternative viewpoints. Similarly secular ideologies like Communism or nazism seem increasingly shallow and unlikely to have persevered for very long on an historical time frame even if Hitler or Stalin had triumphed. The same would go for the victories against Napoleon. On Napoleons death his empire woudl most probably have fractured anyway just as Alexanders did before him.

Consider what the history of Judaea would have been without the conquests of Alexander. After the death of Alexander his conquests factionalized being spread among his generals. After the defeat of Persia the land of Judaea was overlooked allowing the rise of the Macabees, one of the most powerful of all the Hebrew monarchs. They were able to break away from the Syrian Helenic leader Antiochus (VI or VII?) in the second c. BC. Anyway when the Macabees were finally conquered by the Romans, under Marc Antony and the Herodians under Herod the Great were installed as rulers of Judaea, the people of Judaea were left in an utter state of anguish, searching for a champion to restore the glory days of the Macabees. This caused a great change in the Jewish faith and turned it more towards the apochalyptic, the writings of Daniel and Isaiah with their messianic prophysies became the most important of the writings which layed the way for the Christian movement. Had the Persians remained in power during this crucial period it is hard to imagine what the events would have led to.

mindlight · Aug 7, 2004

TScott said:
Consider what the history of Judaea would have been without the conquests of Alexander. After the death of Alexander his conquests factionalized being spread among his generals. After the defeat of Persia the land of Judaea was overlooked allowing the rise of the Macabees, one of the most powerful of all the Hebrew monarchs. They were able to break away from the Syrian Helenic leader Antiochus (VI or VII?) in the second c. BC. Anyway when the Macabees were finally conquered by the Romans, under Marc Antony and the Herodians under Herod the Great were installed as rulers of Judaea, the people of Judaea were left in an utter state of anguish, searching for a champion to restore the glory days of the Macabees. This caused a great change in the Jewish faith and turned it more towards the apochalyptic, the writings of Daniel and Isaiah with their messianic prophysies became the most important of the writings which layed the way for the Christian movement. Had the Persians remained in power during this crucial period it is hard to imagine what the events would have led to.

Well God seemed to arrange it that way so i suppose it mattered that Rome was the centre of the world of Jesus time rather than Persia. However the angst of the Jews was not merely by reference to glory days of maccabean independence it related to the real glory days of david and Solomon. In the end whether Rome or Persia had been in charge that angst would have been the same but I suppose that the New Testament might have been written in farsi rather than in Greek. Maybe that would have led to different emphasis inconsistent with the long term Kingdom of God vision. One can say that Alexander was important as he established a Greek rather than a Persian cultural context to the Judea of Jesus's day. I date daniel before Alexander at about 600 BC - it thus anticipates him and even prophesises about him and other rulers like Xerxes. I do not treat apocryphal writings with the same authority as Daniel or Isaiah which is similarly dated well before Alexanders conquests. These writings anticipate but are not formed by the cultural context you describe.

USincognito · Aug 7, 2004

jesusisahippy said:
i was referring to your statement where you stated that europe dominated for the last 1000 years when it most certainly did not dominate until, as you said, the age of discovery

Perhaps I overstated with my use of 1000 years as Europe very much was in the middle of the Dark Ages at that time, but I still think a case can be made that much of the future dominance was established during that time.

The center of Islamic learning in the year 1000 was the Alhambra in Spain. While this was Muslim culture, the learning was filtering its way into (and in some cases, back into) Europe. This time frame was also the period of the Crusades where the learning of the Greeks and Romans were brought back to Europe though contact with Islam. They also represent the first real attempts at colonization and conquest by Europeans since the late Western Roman Empire.

Pope Gonzo · Aug 8, 2004

I don't think you can declare one... but the Battle of Waterloo was another huge one.

Star_Splitter87 · Aug 8, 2004

Waterloo ....like in Bill and Ted's Exallent Adventure. ....I love both movies

Mine is the Battle of the Bulge because if we hadn't won this is what would have happened.

In one month Hitler's sciencists would have finally come up with the Atom Bomb, though there are some speculations that the main scientist was trying to slow the process down because he was Anti-Hitler.

Hitler would have invaded both Europe and Russia. Then, when he had enough power, he would in the mean time bomb the US to smithereens. He might even try to invade the US but we are already an ash pit of burt hot dogs.

Thank you and come again soon.

Roman Soldier · Aug 8, 2004

Star_Splitter87 said:
Mine is the Battle of the Bulge because if we hadn't won this is what would have happened.

In one month Hitler's sciencists would have finally come up with the Atom Bomb, though there are some speculations that the main scientist was trying to slow the process down because he was Anti-Hitler.

Hitler would have invaded both Europe and Russia. Then, when he had enough power, he would in the mean time bomb the US to smithereens. He might even try to invade the US but we are already an ash pit of burt hot dogs.

I'm sorry, but that is a laughable scenerio with no basis in reality. I don't know if you are joking, or if you have seriously misinformed about World War II, but that is not factual.

One of the greatest myths of the 20th century is that Germany was close to having an atomic bomb. Germany never came close to building one, and could not have even if she wanted to. Hitler was afraid an atomic bomb would destroy the whole world, and didn't like the idea of using "Jewish science" to build the weapon. Germany also had very few scientists capable of building the weapon.

The idea that Germany could have had an atomic bomb has no basis in reality.

Swart · Aug 9, 2004

Real Corona said:
I'd say the battle of Agincourt or something of that name. It was when the Christians were able to stop the Muslims from advancing into France.

Hmm. I think you need to re-read Henry V.

TScott · Aug 9, 2004

mindlight said:
I date daniel before Alexander at about 600 BC - it thus anticipates him and even prophesises about him and other rulers like Xerxes. I do not treat apocryphal writings with the same authority as Daniel or Isaiah which is similarly dated well before Alexanders conquests. These writings anticipate but are not formed by the cultural context you describe.

I date Daniel much later, after Alexander. Also, I wasn't discussing apocryphal writings, I was discussing apocalyptic writings, which is what Daniel's book is. Regardless of when they were writen, 200 0r 600 BC, it was not until after the fall of the popular Macabees, that the Jewish people having at long last had a taste of independance, longed for it's return and began looking for the king that was prophesied in these books. It's hard to imagine what would have transpired had the Persians ruled Palestine in the first century. Would Jesus have been executed so early in his ministry, or even at all? If not, would St. Paul have had any influence over the Christian faith? There is, after all, a great deal of Helenic influence on Christianity, through St. Paul. Also the Herodians would have never come to power, and the influence they had on the course of events surrounding Christianity would have been removed. Would John the Baptist have been executed? If not, would it have been his and the Essene Jews that influenced the formation of Christianity in lieu of St. Paul. Christianity would probably be known as The Way.

tekwerx · Aug 9, 2004

The most important battle in world history.
Hm.
Oh, I know!

In the year 33 AD (approx.) there was a man who came and proclaimed himself Christ. He performed many miracles, and taught many things, most of which were considered heresy by that days religious leaders. He made such an impact on the world, supposedly, that every single life, past, present, and future is touched by this man's sacrifice of himself on a cross.
All this before the battle. The actual battle that was so monumental that we even redid our calendars in memoriam of it all. His birth, while only done in a lowly cattle stall, was more humble than the unseen fight that allowed him to be born. Apparently, all of Heaven and Hell were engaged in warfare to enable this to happen. Approximately 33 years later, this man single handedly won the same battle that had been raging all these years by sacrificing himself and claiming the keys to death and Hell, and resurrected 3 days later.
In light of this, the battle was won, not only then, two thousand years ago, but also in the very end of all things. He claims victory, not only over all future armies of the one who will rise to oppose Him as His direct opposite, here on earth, but also claims complete and total victory in all the heavenly realms as well, winning the final war of all wars.

This man, as you have by now guessed, was Jesus, the Christ, the one and only son of the Living God. He completely eradicated the need for fear of death, and won the epic battle of the eons, defeating His enemies both on earth and in Hell simultaneously. This, I think, was the most important battle in world history, because it changed literally EVERYTHING.

vatuck · Aug 9, 2004

tekwerx said:
The most important battle in world history.
Hm.
Oh, I know!

In the year 33 AD (approx.) there was a man who came and proclaimed himself Christ. He performed many miracles, and taught many things, most of which were considered heresy by that days religious leaders. He made such an impact on the world, supposedly, that every single life, past, present, and future is touched by this man's sacrifice of himself on a cross.
All this before the battle. The actual battle that was so monumental that we even redid our calendars in memoriam of it all. His birth, while only done in a lowly cattle stall, was more humble than the unseen fight that allowed him to be born. Apparently, all of Heaven and Hell were engaged in warfare to enable this to happen. Approximately 33 years later, this man single handedly won the same battle that had been raging all these years by sacrificing himself and claiming the keys to death and Hell, and resurrected 3 days later.
In light of this, the battle was won, not only then, two thousand years ago, but also in the very end of all things. He claims victory, not only over all future armies of the one who will rise to oppose Him as His direct opposite, here on earth, but also claims complete and total victory in all the heavenly realms as well, winning the final war of all wars.

This man, as you have by now guessed, was Jesus, the Christ, the one and only son of the Living God. He completely eradicated the need for fear of death, and won the epic battle of the eons, defeating His enemies both on earth and in Hell simultaneously. This, I think, was the most important battle in world history, because it changed literally EVERYTHING.

Well said! You can't get any more important than that, can you?

Axion · Aug 13, 2004

A Battle nobody has suggested yet is the Battle of Yarmuk in 636 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmuk

This was the first great Muslim victory against the Christian Byzantine Empire, and led to the Muslim capture of Syria, Israel and Lebanon. If the Christians had won this battle, the whole Muslim expansion into the Middle East and North Africa might have been stopped. In reality the destruction of the Christian army led the Muslims to believe God was with them and they soon invaded Egypt, Persia and pushed toward Constantinople.

As to some of the other suggestions:

The Crusades helped to stop Islam advancing into Europe
Battle of Tours The same.

Without those, we might be living in an Islamic world.

Stalingrad and D Day were vital in breaking Nazism, whic would have taken the world in a different direction.

As to the others: Would the world have been so different if the Persians had taken Ancient Greece? We don't know. The Romans might still have risen up and defeated the Persians.

I don't think we can count Agincourt or Waterloo as that important, since neither would have changed that much in the long run. England might have adopted the Metric system if Napoleon had won, and the poor and the Irish would probably have fared better.

If the Spanish Armada had won, England might have remained catholic - which would have made a big difference to the Composition of the USA and the British Empire.

The Milvian bridge is intriguing. But I think Christianity would have survived and grown anyway, but more slowly.

jesusisahippy · Aug 13, 2004

perhaps you could elaborate on how the crusades stopped the advancement of islam into europe?
i was under the impression that the muslim and christian worlds were at peace at the time of the beginning of the first crusade

Real Corona · Aug 14, 2004

Ummmm...

Battle of Yorktown had the French not shown up the USA might not exist and Mexico might be a world power.

Gettsyburgh, not sure how this would have turned out if the South had won. I still don't think slavery would have lasted past the turn of the 20th century.

Battle of Montreal was essential to Canada's survival as a future country.

The destruction of Technoticlan (pardon the spelling) by Cortez. Had the Aztecs attacked hard and fast the Spanish would have been destroyed.

Many more I can probably think of as I look at a map.

Megachihuahua · Aug 14, 2004

That battle at Tours against the invading Muslims.
If that was lost, it would have really messed up history.

albigensi · Aug 16, 2004

yes, i'm also very confused about the supposed islamic military threat to europe...

anyone care to offer substantial confirmation of this 'threat', or 'invasion'?

Eru_Iluvatar · Aug 16, 2004

My vote is for Marathon. If the forces of Athens had fallen, the city would have fallen and Persia would have a foothold in Europe. Sparta would have been next. The conquest of Europe would have started. All future events would have been shaped by this.

What was the most important battle in world history?

rationalist libertarian

rationalist libertarian

This town needs an enema!

See in the dark

Curmudgeon

See in the dark

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Roman Soldier

Guest

ÜberChristian

Curmudgeon

Active Member

This town needs an enema!

Senior Veteran

Active Member

I like Koala's

Ex-Christian

Active Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency