# Battle of Hastings **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battle-of-hastings/700006 "2014-09-30T20:31:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battle-of-hastings/700006/81 "2014-11-24T14:11:53Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > (1) Talas - marked the end of T’ang expansion, the furthest limit of its penetration into the West - but it did not _cause_ that end. The T’ang were already operating at their strategic limits. And the Arab’s were not? I would say that Tala’s decided the fate of C Asia for good. More to the point, without Tala’s or maybe with a different battle result, Tang might have gone further? Don’t underestimate the political effects, many back home were convinced that they were overstretched, but the a different result might have ,mde it politically unfeasible to advocate a withdrawal. > [@](#): > > (3) the fall of Constantinople - the siege was only the final act of a process of waining of Byzantine power that had been going on for centuries. Again, there was no one battle that was “decisive”. 1453 was more impirtant for the use of cannon, they had been used for a century, but this was the clear indication that they would dominate war now. People look at Urbans super gun, what they forget is that the Ottomans brought 60 plus cannon to the siege and were able to throw shot at the walls like water. It was the first major use of properly managed artillery. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battle-of-hastings/700006/82 "2014-11-24T15:23:19Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > And the Arab’s were not? I would say that Tala’s decided the fate of C Asia for good. More to the point, without Tala’s or maybe with a different battle result, Tang might have gone further? Don’t underestimate the political effects, many back home were convinced that they were overstretched, but the a different result might have ,mde it politically unfeasible to advocate a withdrawal. I would say that the battle did not have that impact - the loss of central asia was attributable, not to the battle, but to the An Lushan rebellion a few years later. The battle merely marked the high-water mark of T’ang expansion - an expansion that would, no matter the results, have ceased in any event. T’ang China was a civilization that was not ‘exportable’ to central Asia (even though many of its ruling class were, in fact, Central Asians). Central Asia would always have been a colonial outpost, had China won that battle - in short, a source of expense, paid because of its indirect benefits (support of trade, ability to monitor steppe nomads). Like any such expense, it would be cut the instant the central Chinese government got into financial or political difficulties (which happened frequently). The most significant such event began in 755 (the battle of Talas occurred in 751) - the An Lushan rebellion. In contrast, Islam made the Islamic civilization ‘exportable’ to Central Asia. It was the spread of Islam that was really decisive, not the results of the battle - even if the Chinese had won, they would invariably have left sooner or later - their expansion was an effort that did not pay for itself directly. Look, for example, at what actually happened after the Battle of Talas. It wasn’t the results of that battle the turfed the Chinese out of central asia - after the battle, the Chinese in fact retained their central asian holdings (and the Arabs dod not advance any further against them). Rather, it was the Rebellion of An Lushan that ruined their central asian holdings: > **[An Lushan rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion)** > > The An Lushan rebellion was a civil war in China that lasted from 755 to 763, at the approximate midpoint of the Tang dynasty (618–907). It began as a commandery rebellion attempting to overthrow and replace the Tang government with the rogue Yan dynasty. The rebels succeeded in capturing the imperial capital Chang'an after the emperor had fled to Sichuan, but eventually succumbed to internal divisions and counterattacks by the Tang and their allies. The rebellion spanned the reigns of three Ta... In short, it was not the Battle of Talas that was the causitive factor, but the rebellion of An Lushan. For this reason, the battle cannot be listed as a “decisive battle”, as it does not in fact have the decisive effect commonly attributed to it. > [@](#): > > 1453 was more impirtant for the use of cannon, they had been used for a century, but this was the clear indication that they would dominate war now. People look at Urbans super gun, what they forget is that the Ottomans brought 60 plus cannon to the siege and were able to throw shot at the walls like water. It was the first major use of properly managed artillery. Well, for that matter, the Ottomans were famous for hiring European gun-founders to make their siege artillery, so it was equally clear that they would not have a monopoly … ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battle-of-hastings/700006/83 "2014-11-24T15:38:15Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > **Britain was already a global power in the 1500s. Just ask the Spanish.** > Because the Anglo-Saxons were barely holding it together, and if not the Normans, it would be another Danish or Norwegian invasion like the one they only just beat off before Hastings. Anglo-Saxon England was not really the unified state that the Normans created, and would, IMO, have reverted back to the multiple kingdoms of the previous centuries quite easily. And regardless, would have been a thoroughly Norse state with slight Britonic ,touches here and there - which would be _different_ from the England we got. “Different” == “unpredictable” IMO. But just one data point - the _other_ Norse countries were hardly global players, now were they? > > But that’s irrelevant. I’m not actually playing countering hypothetical here. I’m just saying, Hastings shaped the English polity going forward, and it was _that_ specific English polity that became a world power. And my post was against the idea that anything English was just Eurocentric bias. I think this is exaggerating England’s power. I assume your mainly talking of The Spanish Armada here. The Armada was as much a weather event as it was a battle. Indeed for the next century most English land & naval battles against foreign powers ended up with England on the losing side. A bloody nose on numerous occasions at the hands of the Spanish and Dutch attest to this relative weakness of England. Yes, England was an expanding power, but it was nowhere close to being an equal one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/battle-of-hastings/700006.md?page=4)