Antiquity: Tough pick. I would say Issus (334 BCE), as it solidified Greek hegemony over Near Asia and set the stage for the Alexandrian Empire, which would have a profound impact on world history. If Near Asian battles don't count, then i'm unsure about which to pick.

Late Antiquity: Another tough pick. Either the obscure Naissus (268 AD) for breathing some tremendously useful air into the then apparently dying Roman Empire, or Milvian Bridge (312 AD), for guaranteeing Christian domination over European affairs. I discount Adrianople (378 AD), since there were other opportunities for Rome to shake off Barbarian invasions later on (such as longer lives for Theodosius I, Stilicho, Constantius III, or Flavius Aetius), and Chalons (451 AD), seeming as Attila still posed a threat to the Empire after he died.

Early Middle Ages: Yarmouk (636 AD).

High Middle Ages: My vote goes to the Siege of Constantinople (717 AD).

Late Middle Ages: Crécy (1346), for setting the rise of England as a major military power.

Early Modern Age: Pavia (1525), for ultimately setting the stage for Charles V and the Habsburgs to mostly dominate Europe.

Middle Modern Age: Vienna (1683), for reviving Habsburg fortunes in the Balkans and preventing an overall Ottoman takeover of and consolidation in southeastern Europe.

Late Modern Age: I would argue that Plassey (1757) was the most important battle of the Seven Years' War for introducing England into its most important future cash cow, India, but, since this only deals with European battles, i'll vote for Quiberon Bay (1759) as the main engagement of this important conflict.

French Revolutionary Wars: Fleurus (1794). I consider this one more important than Valmy because it not only allowed the French Revolution to spread, but it also relieved France's desperation, causing the demise of Robespierre's regime.

Napoleonic Wars: Either Austerlitz (1805) for laying Napoleon's red carpet or Leipzig (1813) for rolling it back in.

19th century: Koniggratz (1866). Preserved the momentum of Bismarckian Prussia.
 
Last edited:
Okay forgive me for being a dick but in what way was the fall of Rome in 410 pivotal battle in European History?

Chosen for its symbolic significance. It represents the fall of the Roman Empire in the West (although this actually happened later).

The Battle of the Catalaunian plains in 451 is another tempting option. If Attila defeated the Romans, who knows what next?
 
If Attila defeated the Romans, who knows what next?
Well, we are in AH...so We would will do some guess...
The main difference to TTL would be that the evolution from German 'foederati tribes'(theoretically but de facto were conquerors) in Roman lands to Roman Germanic kingdoms that that was ongoing would be averted and substituted for the Hunnish occupation of at least the Gallia. Italy and Hispania would be open for the Hunnic lootings incursions and/or must to paid tributes to the Hunnish...but I doubt that for Roman citizens would be change too much their situation in relation with their present and/or OTL...except that while the local/provincial Roman authorities continue to paid, in time, their tribute to Attila (that, perhaps, would live more time than OTL) would be protected from the constant warfare or the lootings incursions from OTL.
We would expect, too, that the Hunnish and their vassal Germanic tribes that were subjected to them that would avoided the cities and I would expect that if the Hunnish empire/tribal 'confederation' achieve to survive beyond the Attila death that they would be (more or less quickly) assimilated...
 
Late Middle Ages: Crécy (1346), for setting the rise of England as a major military power.

And why this would be the most significant thing on the European scale? Why not The Battle of Castillon (1453) which put the end to the 100YW, eliminated England as a major military power for few centuries and was one of the first battles convincing won by the firearms?

Why not, just off the top of my head, Battle of Vorskla (1399) - its geopolitical consequences had been much more significant in the terms of the territories involved. Or Great stand on Ugra (not exactly a battle) in 1480? Is the "Bermuda Triangle" of the Western Europe the most important are in all Europe?

Or why not any of the Swiss victories in the Burgundian Wars? They had been setting the rise of the Swiss as a major military power and, what's more important, set a new direction of the Western European military development: stress on the infantry capable of attacking.


Early Modern Age
: Pavia (1525), for ultimately setting the stage for Charles V and the Habsburgs to mostly dominate Europe.

Spectacular battle but the geopolitical results had been quite limited: the Italian Wars kept going for quite a while and grandiose schema for partitioning of France proved to be a pipe dream.


Middle Modern Age
: Vienna (1683), for reviving Habsburg fortunes in the Balkans and preventing an overall Ottoman takeover of and consolidation in southeastern Europe.

One more token event: the war kept going on and, anyway AFAIK, Hungary is not exactly the "Balkans". For the Balkans and finishing the war Battle of Zenta was more important.

Why not Battle of Malplaquet which saved France or Battle of Almanza which guaranteed Spain to the Bourbons (who are still ruling it)?

Late Modern Age
: I would argue that Plassey (1757) was the most important battle of the Seven Years' War for introducing England into its most important future cash cow, India, but, since this only deals with European battles, i'll vote for Quiberon Bay (1759) as the main engagement of this important conflict.

Again, the only important things are happening in the Western Europe. :teary:

How about, say, Kagul - direct and indirect byproducts are loss by the Ottomans of the Northern Black Sea coats, Russian annexation of the Crimea and many other interesting things including mass migration of the Crimean Tatars, the Crimean War and all the way to the current Russian-Ukrainian adventures. What's today consequences of Quiberon Bay?
 
Again, the only important things are happening in the Western Europe. :teary:
Well, seems like people's talk about "subconscious biases" is still true after all...
I actually thought of mentioning a battle involving the Mongols and Russians, but the thought slipped through my mind. After all, the Mongols still won at Mohi and Legnica -- it was Ogedei's death that prevented a Mongol invasion of Germany and perhaps more, and "important people dying in peacetime" doesn't sound like the definition of "military engagement".
I'm also not that interested in the technological significance of battles (i.e., one battle being won because one army's soldiers were equipped with firearms). For some reason, i prefer speculating on their political and geopolitical consequences.
What's today consequences of Quiberon Bay?
Canada has been an English colony for most of its history, and some little thing called the "French Revolution" happened, because France had to default on its debt as a result of defeat in a previous war, coupled with a serious famine.
Battle of Almanza
I will admit, this is the first time i ever heard of this engagement. Same with Kagul.
 
Last edited:
Canada has been an English colony for most of its history, and some little thing called the "French Revolution" happened, because France had to default on its debt as a result of defeat in a previous war.

The defeat at Quiberon Bay may have contributed to the loss of Canada, but the loss of Canada really didn't affect the French budget that much. It was not a lucrative colony.

Keep in mind, 30 more years passed before the Revolution, during which France launched other military efforts, most notably supporting the American Revolution.
 
Given that at least for me, seems quite important... I think that would be worth to mention the Battle of Bouvines, The crusader army defeat at Nicopolis or the key battle of Río Salado /Tarifa.
Besides that after this the Granada fate was sealed and first time after the Tarik's army initial crossing, that's a North African (Muslim) army wouldn't be able to cross and to intervene, at will, in the Peninsula struggles. Also granted that the Control of the Strait (of Gibraltar) be held by the Castilian kingdom.
 
Antiquity: *Assuming they existed and were all they were hyped up to be* Probably an unrecorded battle with the Sea Peoples.

Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages: The Siege of Verona (541 AD) because had the Romans won, the Gothic war would have been a quick and cheap victory instead of the attritional catastrophe it became.

High Middle Ages: As much as I adore William the Conqueror and Hastings, I gotta give it to Dorylaeum. The success of the Princes compared to the earlier complete failure of the peasants set the tone for the rest of the Crusades, it established that the Crusaders could effectively operate without the aid of the Byzantines, it left them with the loot needed to fund the rest of their expedition, and it scared the Turks enough that they they weren't challenged again all the way to Antioch.

Late Middle Ages: The Fall of Adrianople marked the point where the Ottomans could no longer be nixed in the bud by something like a second Savoyard Crusade.

Early Modern Age: The Siege of Stralsund (1628) made sure that the Thirty Years war would indeed drag on for 30 years.

Cabinet Wars: The Battle of Chesma for adding the Russian Black Sea Fleet to the UK's list of national paranoia or Mollwitz which turned Prussia from regional power broker to contender for Great Power status.

Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: Valmy because this entire period is the result of this episode of Prussian incompetence.

19th century: Koniggratz (1866) decided who would rule Germany. Black Week determined that the UK would become a genuine power on land.
 
Last edited:
Well, seems like people's talk about "subconscious biases" is still true after all...
I actually thought of mentioning a battle involving the Mongols and Russians, but the thought slipped through my mind.

There were no battles changing anything or having a chance to change anything if you are talking about the stage of conquest. However, the Battle of Vorskla river, if won by the Lithuanian side, could have huge geopolitical consequences in a region stretching from the Baltic coast and all the way to the Western Siberia.


After all, the Mongols still won at Mohi and Legnica -- it was Ogedei's death that prevented a Mongol invasion of Germany and perhaps more,

Yeah, sure. Like Mongolian conquest of Greenland and America. :winkytongue:

I'm also not that interested in the technological significance of battles (i.e., one battle being won because one army's soldiers were equipped with firearms). For some reason, i prefer speculating on their political and geopolitical consequences.

Well, OK. But surely a battle that ended the 100YW had more geopolitical consequences than a battle somewhere at the start of that war. Especially if it demonstrated the death of so-far winning military model (BTW, Crecy could fall within your "technological" group: basis of the victorious model was a longbow).

Canada has been an English colony for most of its history,

Depends on how you are counting. Quebec was French colony from 1534 till 1763, 229 years. Starting from that point and till 1867 (when Canadian Confederation, the British dominion) was proclaimed - only 104 years. :closedtongue:


and some little thing called the "French Revolution" happened, because France had to default on its debt as a result of defeat in a previous war, coupled with a serious famine.

It was already pointed out that Quiberon Bay was not a critical component in the French economic problems, revolution, famine, etc.


I will admit, this is the first time i ever heard of this engagement. Same with Kagul.

Well, the Bourbons are still reigning in Spain, Turkey is far away from the Northern coast of the Black Sea and Russia just built a bridge to the Crimea to bypass Ukraine. :winkytongue:

Now, try one more, Battle of Kircholm (1605) - one of the "disastrous victories" (Crecy may fall into the same category): a victory so overwhelming that a winning side got stuck with a winning model almost completely ignoring future military progress until it was too late. Again, the direct and indirect consequences are all over the place: Swedish and then Russian possession of the Baltic provinces, Polish loss of Ukraine, Prussian independence, legend about the Battle of Vienna (1683) being won by the winged hussars, etc.
 
There were no battles changing anything or having a chance to change anything if you are talking about the stage of conquest. However, the Battle of Vorskla river, if won by the Lithuanian side, could have huge geopolitical consequences in a region stretching from the Baltic coast and all the way to the Western Siberia.
Perhaps i should, then, have included the Battle of The Kalka (1223), for introducing the Tatar Yoke to Russia and, thus, fundamentally altering East Slavic history.
Well, the Bourbons are still reigning in Spain, Turkey is far away from the Northern coast of the Black Sea and Russia just built a bridge to the Crimea to bypass Ukraine. :winkytongue:
I mean, i already knew about the wars in which both these battles were placed, i just couldn't properly pinpoint their "turning points".
 
Perhaps i should, then, have included the Battle of The Kalka (1223), for introducing the Tatar Yoke to Russia and, thus, fundamentally altering East Slavic history.

Battle of Kalka did not introduce anything of the kind: soon after that battle the Mongols turned eastward and did not come back for the next 14 years. As I said, there was no "turning point" battle during the Mongolian conquest of Rus. Even battle at the Sit River was not "turning" anything besides death of the Great Prince of Vladimir which gave Batu a convenient opportunity to replace him with his surviving brother (who clearly had a better understanding of a general situation and opportunities it presented ;)). As for the Tatar Yoke, I'm afraid that they belong to the same category as as the reports of Mark Twain's death.
 
I would say :.
  1. Antiquity:Mulvi bridge. Inhoc signem vinces, Christianity becomes dominant.
  2. Early Middle Ages: Yarmouk: collapse of Rhoman dominion in the Levant and Egypt
  3. High Middle Ages: Lechfeld perhaps?
  4. Late Middle Ages : Fall of Constantinople
  5. Early Modern: Kahlenberg charge of Jan Sobieski
  6. Late Modern: The disaster of Napoleonic army in Russia. Won by Russian winter
  7. 20th century: Miracle at the Vistula
 
More like won by Napoleon's piss-poor grasp of logistics. The Grand Armee was haemorrhaging men due to the heat and lack of supplies long before the first snows.
Ah yeah Napoleon, possibly the greatest general of all time, doesn't understand logistics, and that's why his whole army perished! D'oh! I guess those near-eight thousand wagons full of supplies he brought into Russia were just for show! Those vast depots constructed in Poland and East Prussia were just make-work projects!

Obviously, even these immense preparations proved unequal to the task, but Napoleon had kind of put himself in a corner with the Continental System, as it drew France into total overstretch.
 
Ah yeah Napoleon, possibly the greatest general of all time, doesn't understand logistics, and that's why his whole army perished! D'oh! I guess those near-eight thousand wagons full of supplies he brought into Russia were just for show! Those vast depots constructed in Poland and East Prussia were just make-work projects!

Obviously, even these immense preparations proved unequal to the task, but Napoleon had kind of put himself in a corner with the Continental System, as it drew France into total overstretch.

Russia itself disqualifies Napoleon from the running of greatest anything, except maybe cock up. He knew how many soldiers were going into Russia and failed to prepare for them, failed to scout ahead on the terrain and failed to account for both the heat and cold in Russia. Those depots were no good to the troops who were starving to death before Moscow was in sight and living off the land was in no way adequate to feed that many troops in such land. The death of Napoleon's army can be laid at his feet.
 
D'oh! I guess those near-eight thousand wagons full of supplies he brought into Russia were just for show!

Eight thousand wagons, to supply six hundred thousand men and nearly two hundred thousand horses. Might as well have been for show.

Those vast depots constructed in Poland and East Prussia were just make-work projects!

If you can't get the supplies in those depots to your army then they mean absolutely diddly.

Obviously, even these immense preparations proved unequal to the task,

Yes, they clearly were unequal to the task because his army starved.
 
Russia itself disqualifies Napoleon from the running of greatest anything, except maybe cock up. He knew how many soldiers were going into Russia and failed to prepare for them, failed to scout ahead on the terrain and failed to account for both the heat and cold in Russia. Those depots were no good to the troops who were starving to death before Moscow was in sight and living off the land was in no way adequate to feed that many troops in such land. The death of Napoleon's army can be laid at his feet.


Excellent points DAv! Nonetheless, I’m going
to here, if not exactly defend Nap, try to ex-
plain him. Based on Tilsit, Nap was sure it
wouldn’t take much before Alexander was
eating out of his hand again. Therefore, I
think Nap was not exactly counting on a
full-fledged campaign of the sort Hitler would
mount against Russia in 1941. Rather, he
probably thought that one or two victories
over Russian armies would be sufficient to
get Alexander to knuckle under. If worst came to worst, just grabbing Moscow(never
mind about the rest of Russia!)would do the
trick. It never seems to have crossed Nap’s
mind that Alexander- not to mention the
Russian people- would regard him in a diff-
erent light once he invaded their country(of
course lack of self-esteem was never one of
Nap’s problems)
 
Battle of Philippi for decisively dooming the Roman Republic.
Siege of Jerusalem in the First Crusade for guaranteeing European ambitions in the Middle East would persist
Battle of Lepanto for uniting Christian Europe against the Ottoman Turks and marking the decline of the latter
Destruction of the Spanish Armada for affirming English naval superiority and preserving Protestantism
Battle of Leipzig for ending Napoleon's last real chance to remain in power
First Battle of the Marne for guaranteeing that the Western Front played out as it did OTL. A German victory would likely mean eventual victory.
Battle of France for guaranteeing that only a two-front war could knock out Germany. If the attack fails and the French hang in there it's likely Hitler is eventually deposed and post-war Europe is radically different with no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
 
Ah yeah Napoleon, possibly the greatest general of all time,

The greatest European general almost definitely but he would not compare well with Genghis or Subotai (or Mukhali but he is not as well-known). Probably not even to Tamerlan.

doesn't understand logistics, and that's why his whole army perished! D'oh! I guess those near-eight thousand wagons full of supplies he brought into Russia were just for show! Those vast depots constructed in Poland and East Prussia were just make-work projects!

Well, the purpose of the logistics is not just making the depots and assembling the huge baggage trains. It is mostly about using them (and all other means) effectively which definitely was not the case in 1812. Napoleon's military system was not suited for the short term campaigns in the densely populated rich countries of the Central and Western Europe where supplies could be always obtained by the confiscations (or plain looting) and losses in the horses compensated the same way. In Spain and Russia this system proved to be completely inadequate. Thousands of the wagons are not very helpful if the horses and oxen are dying due to shortage of water and forage.
Anyway, Caulaincourt described logistical problems of the Napoleonic model as applicable to 1812 in great details.

Then, just for comparison, Genghis said that a general always must remember that his people and horses need rest and food. Napoleon did not understand this idea up to such a degree that general Nansouty had to write to him that the horses don't have sense of a patriotism and must not be left without a food.

Obviously, even these immense preparations proved unequal to the task, but Napoleon had kind of put himself in a corner with the Continental System, as it drew France into total overstretch.

Well, his armies had the same problems in Spain and, being "outstretched", did not prevent him from assembling up to 685,000 for the campaign of 1812. The problem was that the reached Borodino with something less than 150,000 without giving a single major battle. Clearly, not an indication of a good understanding of the logistics.
 
Top