Give one battle you think would have had the biggest effect to modern life and explain.
I’d go with Ain Jalut fought between the Mongols on one side and the Egyptian Mamelukes on the other in the Levant. If the mongols won they would have probably destroyed the Islamic world and then eventually moved across to Christian Europe. It probably would have changed the last 750 years.
I’d probably argue that it was the death of the Möngke Khan that was the real decisive moment here. It caused his brother Hülegü to turn northwards with the bulk of his forces to deal with the political fallout ( as he backed brother Kublai in China, while his kinsman in Russia and Central Asia preferred other claimants ). Had he continued with his full force through Syria it is doubtful the Mamelukes could have held out. Just as it was with Ögedei’s death and the European invasion by Batu, the bulk of Hülegü’s force was formed by the crack imperial army which was recalled - Hülegü would never again have possession of that sort of military power.
So as it was Ayn Jalut was a little bit of a sideshow. A locally important one, but it was a skeleton army that the Mamelukes beat. If the Qutuz had lost it would have meant the loss of Syria, but not necessarily Egypt as the Nile is a formidable defensive barrier and Kitbuqa is unlikely to have had the troops to force it immediately, especially after taking losses. It might have changed history profoundly, but then again it may have only changed it a bit. Whereas if Möngke had survived a few more years, Egypt would have been under far, far worse threat.
My favorite history-changer is probably old reliable - Hastings. It ( arguably ) pretty profoundly altered England’s historical trajectory from an orientation towards the Scandinavian north to a virtual merger with the Frankish west.
Agree with Hastings, from an anglosphere point of view. We would all be speaking a different language for starters.
More recently… how would Europe look now without Waterloo?
Probably be speaking french right now.
Moved from General Questions to Great Debates.
samclem, moderator
There would be no Waterloo bridge and that’s about it. Now the Battle of Nations at Leipzig, that would have changed things significantly.
For a subcontinental flavour, each of the three battles of Panipat. For a WW2 example, Moscow.
I think Ayn Jalut was important, it showed that the Mongols could be defeated.
If Howe had destroyed the continentals at Long Island, after he had Washington surrounded, there would be no US.
Battle of Talas ensured it would be Islam, not China which dominated in C Asia.
Destruction of the Temple…
For a naval flavour, Chesapeake Bay
How about the Battle of Actium? One could claim that the entire outline of Roman - followed by European and Middle Eastern - history was determined by Augustus’s victory and subsequent rule.
Then we’d all know Antonius as the first Emperor, what’s the diff?
As to the question; the further back you go the more far reaching the effect, so I’m going to pick an early one. I would say the Persians winning at Salamis would have a totally different world for result.
The diff is that the Roman Empire as we know it was invented by Augustus. The government of Rome as established by Antonius would be very different from that established by Augustus - if, in fact, he’d be able to set himself up himself as Emperor at all.
Slightly deviating from my OP but what do you guys think would have happened if Alexander hadn’t died so young and his men didn’t refuse to continue going eastwards.
Hellenism had a rough time surviving the further it was from Med. As it is, the far Eastern Hellenistic kingdoms didn’t survive very long. If there were more kingdoms even further East, I kinda doubt they would’ve done any better.
Probably Cleopatra would have talked any remaining republican ideas out of him. Why would you say he would have more difficulty in doing away with the republic than Octavianus had?
I’m still curious as to what you think would have been so different about the new empire, if Antonius had succeeded.
My favorite history-changer is Manzikert. Without that catastrophic loss, the balance of power between Christianity and Islam would have been radically different, as would the balance of power between the Eastern and Western churches. The rise of Venice and the course of the Italian Renaissance would have played out entirely differently, and the Roman Empire might even have survived into the modern era,
How so? The Persians had no interest nor ability to hold on to Grecee.
Yes, I seem to remember we had this discussion not too long ago.
I remain convinced however (;)) that the Persians would have conquered greece, and maybe beyond.
San Jacinto, indirectly.
It established Texas as a sovereign nation, which was then annexed into the US, leading to the Mexican-American war, and between the subsequent Mexican Cession and land claimed by Texas, increased the size of the US by nearly 50% (1/3 of the current lower 48) including the states of Texas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona and part of Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado.
Well, for one, there would have been no Pax Romana without Augustus. Augustus changed the path of the Roman Empire from constant expansion to internal stability and prosperity. The chance that anyone else, including Antonius, would have applied the same policy is highly unlikely.
This is probably my favorite too, I can’t say for sure if it’s the most important but I feel it is one of the least ambiguous important battles. Many of the most important battles in history just confirmed what was already a significant momentum in one direction, such that if the other side had won a given battle it probably would not have changed much.
Hastings was different, England was a historically Saxon and Scandinavian place at that point, with frequent periods of powerful Viking/Scandinavian overlords and some periods of indigenous Saxon rule (going as far back as the Great Heathen Army and even earlier so that predated England as a united kingdom.) Further, there was no great momentum to change this.
William’s invasion was called one of the last Viking style invasions in European history because by and large few if any non-Scandinavian rulers other than William would basically even try such an outlandish plan. He was a bastard with no firm claim to the crown who raised an army of adventurers and profiteers to try a dangerous channel crossing and invasion of a country where he had no support from any of the local nobility. Hastings immediately left England without any viable candidate for King and a power vacuum, William moved in and importantly too he crushed several revolts by Saxon nobles during the rest of his reign. Hastings is one of those few battles we can truly say changed the course of history, mainly because it was just a crazy plan and was going against a lot of what continental European leaders would have imagined to be good sense.
Plus, if it weren’t for a lucky shot by a nameless Norman archer, the battle might have gone very differently.