Most Pivotal Battle in European History
- Thread starter IamtheEmps
- Start date
Actually, another good series of candidates might be the major Migration Era battles. For instance, the Battle of Nedao destroyed the Hunnic Empire and paved the way for the rise of the Goths. I think these battles are important because the Migrations drastically changed the character of Europe and these battles determined which nations would win to form future nations. In a (very loose) sense, these battles are very similar to the hypothetical prehistoric battles mentioned upthread.
I'll go with the Battle of Yarmouk in 636. The Rashidun kicked the Byzantines out of Syria leading to the capture of Jerusalem and the Byzantines largely abandoning the Levant afterwards. It allowed the Rashidun to turn east and conquer Persia. And of course, they now held the holy lands and all that would come after...
I don't really agree with the concept that the whole of European history can be summed up in one battle. Or even three. Battles aren't usually that decisive anyway; they only hold significance as a signpost to far deeper structural changes happening within societies over time. The surrounding context matters far more. But if forced:
Fall of Rome 410
Las navas de Tolosa 1212
Fall of Constantinople 1204.
I might nominate, rather than a single battle, the twelve year span from Zama to Magnesia, where four of the five Great Powers of the Mediterranean world -Carthage, Egypt, Macedon, and the Seleucids- saw their strength permanently crippled, paving the way for Rome's rise to undeniable hegemony.
Some of these answers are really Ango-centric. Hastings might be acceptable, even though it’s not near as pivotal as most of the other battles mentioned in this thread. But Eddington? And.., Gravelines? The most pivotal battles in all of European history? Come on people.
I would throw my hat in with the Siege/Battle of Technoctitlan. The establishment of colonies, the bullion that flowed into Europe, and the violent overthrow of a native empire in the name of said colonies and bullion (not to even mention the stage-setting for future mass-conversions to European religion) completely changed Europe’s historical tragectory. Europe’s dominance is solely due to dominance colonially, and Technotitlan got the ball rolling as much as any one battle could.
I would throw my hat in with the Siege/Battle of Technoctitlan. The establishment of colonies, the bullion that flowed into Europe, and the violent overthrow of a native empire in the name of said colonies and bullion (not to even mention the stage-setting for future mass-conversions to European religion) completely changed Europe’s historical tragectory. Europe’s dominance is solely due to dominance colonially, and Technotitlan got the ball rolling as much as any one battle could.
Waterloo was around as important as Battle of Berlin in 1945, France had already lost, and Waterloo was just a delusional attempt by Napoleon to return. If Napoleon had won that battle he would gave been crushed by the other coalition armies, and that battle would have been ignored because it wouldn't have been UK winning it.
The battle of Diu is in my opinion the most pivotal battle in European history as it marks the acendency of Portugal in the sea trade, but ultimately paved the way for European domination of the Asia and India.
Well,in chronological order, could be (on land) the Battle of Mohács, The Sobieski victory at Kahlenberg Mountain Battle (the Relief of Vienna) or The Battle of Warsaw (1920). Also if naval battles would be considered then I would propose the Battles of Preveza and Lepanto.
Not necessarily. By like August Napoleon would have a field army of about 200,000, and would the the Vosges dividing the Austrians from the Russians, allowing him to defeat them separately. He had inflicted several stinging defeats on Blucher and Schwarzenberg when they invaded through these same corridors, but this time around would have far more men to follow up on his successes.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Okay forgive me for being a dick but in what way was the fall of Rome in 410 pivotal battle in European History?
The battle of Adrianople in the late 4th century was far more important.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
I would personally chose 1204 than 1453. The 1453 one did however have effect on South East Europe at least. The Eastern Orthodox Church regained strength and authority over their Orthodox Subjects in the Balkan preventing Catholics from gaining ground. It also finally changed the course of the Ottomans towards the West even more.
I'm surprised that while Marathon and Salamis have been mentioned early but Plateae and /or Mycale weren't earlier because if in Platea the Greeks would have been allowed to retreat and/or be crushed...the first mentioned Battles would had lost its historical/strategic importance.
Also, in Plateae have its importance because there were Greeks fighting in both sides but even so was a decisive Greek victory.
About the Battle of Mycale was the first Greeks offensive Battle against the Persian (reserve) army in Asia Minor with the complete destruction of the Persian forces and more important was strategical because for the Persian empire this battle was destroyed their navy.
Also, in Plateae have its importance because there were Greeks fighting in both sides but even so was a decisive Greek victory.
About the Battle of Mycale was the first Greeks offensive Battle against the Persian (reserve) army in Asia Minor with the complete destruction of the Persian forces and more important was strategical because for the Persian empire this battle was destroyed their navy.
Four thoughts.
1) Poltava: I also find Poltava a convincing candidate on the assumption that a) Russia is truly shattered and b) Sweden exploits and consolidates (both are far from clear). The Sweden/Poland/Russia dynamic being totally transformed I find is intriguing. Russian Europeanization would be set back. I suspect a strong Sweden would not favour the development of Prussia overall. Maybe I'm off on this.
2) Punic Wars in general, but no battle in particular: In some respects the term "campaign", rather than "battle" might be more interesting. "Cannae" is an important battle, but ultimately not decisive as the Carthaginians lost anyway. But if that campaign had been successful, that alters ancient Europe more than any other campaign. After the Punic wars, I suspect Rome is railroaded to becoming a dominant power. Regardless if Rome conquers Gaul, Britainia, and Germainia with its legions, those regions will still be heavily under Roman influence with Latin and Romanized religion sinking deep into their way of life.
3) Lepanto or the Siege of Vienna interchangeable? I suspect Lepanto is perhaps more important than the siege of Vienna. A particularly crushing Turkish victory at Lepanto would threaten all of Italy... on the other hand, I wonder if the balance of power, chiefly France, would shift away from an Ottoman alliance and make any major Turkish victory contained. There is a few circumstances where we might think battles would create a major shift, but a re-oriented alliance might make the battle far less impactful.
4) Battle of Leipzig, (or less plausible, but more consequential, a crushing French victory at Trafalgar): I'm mixed about the impact of a longer-lasting Napoleonic dominated Europe being significantly different from our own. the colour on maps would certainly be different. Napoleon's goals seem uninteresting to me; setting various family members and favorites in superficial monarchies will be washed away between 1848 - 1870 regardless of the battle of Leipzig. The world would be different, but perhaps less so than we might think. On the other hand, a completely French dominated Asia might be one consequence. It's also neat to think of 1848 revolution in a Napoleonic world. For some reason, i think Napoleonic kingdoms would be actually far more fragile and susceptible to future revolutions and nationalism than the more established monarchies of 1848 in OTL.
1) Poltava: I also find Poltava a convincing candidate on the assumption that a) Russia is truly shattered and b) Sweden exploits and consolidates (both are far from clear). The Sweden/Poland/Russia dynamic being totally transformed I find is intriguing. Russian Europeanization would be set back. I suspect a strong Sweden would not favour the development of Prussia overall. Maybe I'm off on this.
2) Punic Wars in general, but no battle in particular: In some respects the term "campaign", rather than "battle" might be more interesting. "Cannae" is an important battle, but ultimately not decisive as the Carthaginians lost anyway. But if that campaign had been successful, that alters ancient Europe more than any other campaign. After the Punic wars, I suspect Rome is railroaded to becoming a dominant power. Regardless if Rome conquers Gaul, Britainia, and Germainia with its legions, those regions will still be heavily under Roman influence with Latin and Romanized religion sinking deep into their way of life.
3) Lepanto or the Siege of Vienna interchangeable? I suspect Lepanto is perhaps more important than the siege of Vienna. A particularly crushing Turkish victory at Lepanto would threaten all of Italy... on the other hand, I wonder if the balance of power, chiefly France, would shift away from an Ottoman alliance and make any major Turkish victory contained. There is a few circumstances where we might think battles would create a major shift, but a re-oriented alliance might make the battle far less impactful.
4) Battle of Leipzig, (or less plausible, but more consequential, a crushing French victory at Trafalgar): I'm mixed about the impact of a longer-lasting Napoleonic dominated Europe being significantly different from our own. the colour on maps would certainly be different. Napoleon's goals seem uninteresting to me; setting various family members and favorites in superficial monarchies will be washed away between 1848 - 1870 regardless of the battle of Leipzig. The world would be different, but perhaps less so than we might think. On the other hand, a completely French dominated Asia might be one consequence. It's also neat to think of 1848 revolution in a Napoleonic world. For some reason, i think Napoleonic kingdoms would be actually far more fragile and susceptible to future revolutions and nationalism than the more established monarchies of 1848 in OTL.
Classical: Mycale 479BC, for definitively ending Persian interest in the conquest of Greece (at least in the medium-run) and allowing the establishment of the Athenian Empire and its cultural exploits.
Late Classical: I agree with Milvian Bridge.
Early Medieval: Constantinople 674-678. Not so much because of Byzantium, but rather because the destruction of the Arab fleet delayed Arab efforts to expand by sea for a century or two. Had Arab armies been backed up by central government fleets rather than relying on local corsairs (Crete) or defecting Byzantine admirals (Sicily), the Arabs might have been able to traverse the Med much earlier + further than before, bringing with that significant demographic, religious, economic etc impacts, not just on Mediterranean history (Frederick II famously held court in Palermo).
Medieval: I think Hastings 1066 qualifies here, because the Norman conquest made England into a significant continental player in a way that the Anglo-Saxons were not. The existence of physical territory on the continent demanded English participation not just in France, but in the Holy Roman Empire and Castile as well (to name the most obvious ones), introducing a new dynamic to Western European power politics; not to mention the impact on English culture.
Early Modern: Battle of Nancy, 1477. The death of Charles the Bold and the splitting of Burgundy sparked the 200-year long Habsburg-France contest, the primary dynamic of European relations at that time (save perhaps Ottoman advance, but even that was linked through the French alliance vs Habsburgs).
Industrial: Valmy 1792. I think was critical. Of course many of the military innovations of the French Republic had already been established by this time, BUT given the shakiness of the Republic, a defeat at Valmy (like Waterloo 1815) could have shattered the confidence of the Revolution and allowed a restoration of a curtailed monarchy and a more gradual reformist process (which itself would have impacted on how future ideologies saw themselves: socialism, conservatism, communism etc etc).
Modern: Probably D-Day. Not because of Nazi Germany's defeat but because the amount of land the Allies were able to conquer between D-Day and the German surrender largely determined the Cold War boundaries, with major impact on the development of Europe as a whole. A later D-Day might have seen the Soviets advance much farther into Germany than OTL, strengthening the hand of the Communists not just in the Soviet space but also in Italy and France?
Late Classical: I agree with Milvian Bridge.
Early Medieval: Constantinople 674-678. Not so much because of Byzantium, but rather because the destruction of the Arab fleet delayed Arab efforts to expand by sea for a century or two. Had Arab armies been backed up by central government fleets rather than relying on local corsairs (Crete) or defecting Byzantine admirals (Sicily), the Arabs might have been able to traverse the Med much earlier + further than before, bringing with that significant demographic, religious, economic etc impacts, not just on Mediterranean history (Frederick II famously held court in Palermo).
Medieval: I think Hastings 1066 qualifies here, because the Norman conquest made England into a significant continental player in a way that the Anglo-Saxons were not. The existence of physical territory on the continent demanded English participation not just in France, but in the Holy Roman Empire and Castile as well (to name the most obvious ones), introducing a new dynamic to Western European power politics; not to mention the impact on English culture.
Early Modern: Battle of Nancy, 1477. The death of Charles the Bold and the splitting of Burgundy sparked the 200-year long Habsburg-France contest, the primary dynamic of European relations at that time (save perhaps Ottoman advance, but even that was linked through the French alliance vs Habsburgs).
Industrial: Valmy 1792. I think was critical. Of course many of the military innovations of the French Republic had already been established by this time, BUT given the shakiness of the Republic, a defeat at Valmy (like Waterloo 1815) could have shattered the confidence of the Revolution and allowed a restoration of a curtailed monarchy and a more gradual reformist process (which itself would have impacted on how future ideologies saw themselves: socialism, conservatism, communism etc etc).
Modern: Probably D-Day. Not because of Nazi Germany's defeat but because the amount of land the Allies were able to conquer between D-Day and the German surrender largely determined the Cold War boundaries, with major impact on the development of Europe as a whole. A later D-Day might have seen the Soviets advance much farther into Germany than OTL, strengthening the hand of the Communists not just in the Soviet space but also in Italy and France?