# Ten most "world-changing" wars. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 6, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838 "2010-09-06T21:25:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/41 "2010-09-10T14:27:58Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > Were you just picking out the ones with funny names? Some of these, like the Football War and the Pig War, were barely blips in world history. The 335 Year War sounds impressive except nobody ever fired a shot, they just sort of hated each other for 3 centuries. In fairness, Transdniestria is legitimately important and interesting, as it (along with Abkhazia and, of course, South Ossetia) established the role that the post-Soviet Russian state would seek to play in the “near abroad”: avowed “peacekeeper” and protector of ethnic Russians that leverages this role to garner the maximum possible regional influence. Russia also seems to try to use these enclaves of Russian military influence to check the spread of democracy in its near abroad - the Transdniestrian government, for example, is notoriously unpleasant, as well as complicit in the spread of everything from the drug trade to human trafficking. I don’t know that I’d go so far as to call the Transdniestrian-Moldovan war the most important in history - but it certainly is worth studying, as is Russia’s recent war with Georgia. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/42 "2010-09-10T14:44:41Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > > [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > > > To make such a sweeping statement as that is a gross miscalculation of the way the world works, based on observations as to how the world has worked. The main reason these occupations didn’t work(I don’t quite know how somalia made it in there..) is because for whatever reason, the occupying forces didn’t go about the best methods of occupying a country. As any Roman could explain to you, its not a complicated task; kill any and all possible resitance, devestate the regions cities, make sure that the populace understands you alone are masters of their fate as their conquerors, and appoint regional natives loyal to you as local magistrates. > > > > Yet, as any modernist can tell you, it would be very difficult to go about such a task today without grinding up against some form of international law, international moral backlash for the actions, or moral backlash from your own nation. These are what prevent us from accomplishing what we set out to do in occupying these nations. That does not, however, mean in any way whatsoever that nations in the future–be it near or far–will not engage in such actions. > > On that theory the Nazi’s would like to have a word with you. They tried that and it lead to [this](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Reichstag_flag_original.jpg). > > Or the Persians who burnt down the rebelling Greek cities in Asia Minor, that went well…not. > > All repression accomplishes is generating further resistance. The Romans kept order in their empire trough a combination of means, an excellent administrative system, local allies, good governance and yes force when needed. The British did the same. > > Many of our modern dmeocratic wars/crusades failed because force alone was relied upon. Nothing has really changed. The Romans had plenty of failures in attempting to keep order in their empire as well - Germania and Dacia, for example. Other places they were successful. Similarly, attempts to suppress local resistance have succeeded in modern times (the Brits managed it post-WW2 in Malaysia against communist insurgents). It all depends on the interplay of lots of different factors, such as whether the occupier is really invested in the occupation or likely to cut losses and give up, whether the resistance can count on formitable outside allies, whether the occupier can succeed in dividing and ruling the locals, whether the terrain favours resistance in being rugged and difficult and yes whether force and repression is used, and if so, to what extent. Keegan makes the point that the Nazis had to devote exceedingly small resources to internal repression in maintaining their empire in Europe, aside from Yugoslavia and the borderlands with the Soviets, mainly because much of Europe was densly populated, the Nazis could count on local allies, and their repression was singularly rutheless and unforgiving. In contrast, places like Afghanistan have traditionally been difficult for empire builders to hold on to. The Brits failed to do so in their prime. The reasons are simple: rugged, filled with hostile people, many borders offering friendly sactuary for rebels. I don’t think much if anything has changed fundamentally. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/43 "2010-09-10T15:09:17Z")
I’m surprised that so few have mentioned the US Civil War. As **Hold Fast** comments, it was very significant for world history, for two reasons. First, if it had gone the other way, with the US splitting into two countries, the geopolitical implications for the 20th century would have been immense. A divided US would not likely have been so influential in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. Second, with the Union victory, the US came out as a much stronger, more centralized nation than it had been, and so was able to play a greater economic and military role in the 20th century. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/44 "2010-09-10T15:13:55Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I’m surprised that so few have mentioned the US Civil War. As **Hold Fast** comments, it was very significant for world history, for two reasons. First, if it had gone the other way, with the US splitting into two countries, the geopolitical implications for the 20th century would have been immense. A divided US would not likely have been so influential in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. Second, with the Union victory, the US came out as a much stronger, more centralized nation than it had been, and so was able to play a greater economic and military role in the 20th century. It is certainly a significant war, but I don’t think it would qualify as one of the 10 most significant in history. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/45 "2010-09-10T15:28:16Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > > > I’m surprised that so few have mentioned the US Civil War. As **Hold Fast** comments, it was very significant for world history, for two reasons. First, if it had gone the other way, with the US splitting into two countries, the geopolitical implications for the 20th century would have been immense. A divided US would not likely have been so influential in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. Second, with the Union victory, the US came out as a much stronger, more centralized nation than it had been, and so was able to play a greater economic and military role in the 20th century. > > It is certainly a significant war, but I don’t think it would qualify as one of the 10 most significant in history. I think its outcome was immensely significant to later world history – but the outcome wasn’t really in doubt. So I’m thinking it may not qualify for that reason. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/46 "2010-09-10T15:39:47Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > It is certainly a significant war, but I don’t think it would qualify as one of the 10 most significant in history. > > I think its outcome was immensely significant to later world history – but the outcome wasn’t really in doubt. So I’m thinking it may not qualify for that reason. A similar case could be made for the War of 1812. _If_ the Brits had crushed the US, that would have been immensely significant; OTOH, if the US had taken Canada and incorporated it, that too would have been immensely significant … but as it is, the war is usually considered little more than a footnote to world history. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/47 "2010-09-10T15:54:02Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > > [@Koxinga](#): > > > > I think its outcome was immensely significant to later world history – but the outcome wasn’t really in doubt. So I’m thinking it may not qualify for that reason. > > A similar case could be made for the War of 1812. _If_ the Brits had crushed the US, that would have been immensely significant; OTOH, if the US had taken Canada and incorporated it, that too would have been immensely significant … but as it is, the war is usually considered little more than a footnote to world history. Hmm. You know, at the risk of _really_ annoying our friendly CanaDopers, I really don’t think a US incorporation of Canada would have been all _that_ significant on the global stage. (Though I imagine it would have mattered a lot to the Canadians). Canada today just isn’t a world power - it can’t project much military force beyond its borders. (Though I hasten to add that Canadian troops did fight valiantly in both World Wars, and continue to serve as some of the best peacekeeping troops the UN has.) Nor is Canada all that as an economic power - it’s rich, but only the tenth-largest GDP (in total) in the world, which puts it above India but behind Spain. Assuming the population and economy of the new Canadian territories developed more or less as the independent Canadian state did, I don’t think they’d make all that much of a difference to the US’s development. Some, sure, from natural resources and whatnot - but our geopolitical position would still be more-or-less the same, our economy wouldn’t be that much larger, and so on. Nor would the course of the world wars have been all that different if Canadian troops fought for the American republic rather than the Queen. The only real wrinkle I could imagine would be the Quebecois. 😃 If the US were less accomodating than the Canadians have been in the real world, that could cause some serious problems. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/48 "2010-09-10T16:17:35Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > Hmm. You know, at the risk of _really_ annoying our friendly CanaDopers, I really don’t think a US incorporation of Canada would have been all _that_ significant on the global stage. (Though I imagine it would have mattered a lot to the Canadians). Canada today just isn’t a world power - it can’t project much military force beyond its borders. (Though I hasten to add that Canadian troops did fight valiantly in both World Wars, and continue to serve as some of the best peacekeeping troops the UN has.) Nor is Canada all that as an economic power - it’s rich, but only the tenth-largest GDP (in total) in the world, which puts it above India but behind Spain. > > Assuming the population and economy of the new Canadian territories developed more or less as the independent Canadian state did, I don’t think they’d make all that much of a difference to the US’s development. Some, sure, from natural resources and whatnot - but our geopolitical position would still be more-or-less the same, our economy wouldn’t be that much larger, and so on. Nor would the course of the world wars have been all that different if Canadian troops fought for the American republic rather than the Queen. > > The only real wrinkle I could imagine would be the Quebecois. 😃 If the US were less accomodating than the Canadians have been in the real world, that could cause some serious problems. It would be significant not because of the lack of Canada but because of the addition of Canada to the US. Think of it in historical terms. What was the big deal in 19th century US? The balance between North and South (all of those “compromises” intended to keep the balance alive, ‘Bleeding Kansas’, and finally the failure to do so and the Civil War). Adding all of Canada - all of which would be “North” - would have swung that balance completely. Probably mean no Civil War, and a more powerful US earlier, among other things. How could that fail to be super-significant? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/49 "2010-09-10T17:19:40Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > > [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > > > Hmm. You know, at the risk of _really_ annoying our friendly CanaDopers, I really don’t think a US incorporation of Canada would have been all _that_ significant on the global stage. (Though I imagine it would have mattered a lot to the Canadians). Canada today just isn’t a world power - it can’t project much military force beyond its borders. (Though I hasten to add that Canadian troops did fight valiantly in both World Wars, and continue to serve as some of the best peacekeeping troops the UN has.) Nor is Canada all that as an economic power - it’s rich, but only the tenth-largest GDP (in total) in the world, which puts it above India but behind Spain. > > > > Assuming the population and economy of the new Canadian territories developed more or less as the independent Canadian state did, I don’t think they’d make all that much of a difference to the US’s development. Some, sure, from natural resources and whatnot - but our geopolitical position would still be more-or-less the same, our economy wouldn’t be that much larger, and so on. Nor would the course of the world wars have been all that different if Canadian troops fought for the American republic rather than the Queen. > > > > The only real wrinkle I could imagine would be the Quebecois. 😃 If the US were less accomodating than the Canadians have been in the real world, that could cause some serious problems. > > It would be significant not because of the lack of Canada but because of the addition of Canada to the US. > > Think of it in historical terms. What was the big deal in 19th century US? The balance between North and South (all of those “compromises” intended to keep the balance alive, ‘Bleeding Kansas’, and finally the failure to do so and the Civil War). Adding all of Canada - all of which would be “North” - would have swung that balance completely. Probably mean no Civil War, and a more powerful US earlier, among other things. How could that fail to be super-significant? Good point! I stand corrected - this certainly would have made a tremendous difference. ---
**Author:** ![manx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/65b543/32.png) [@manx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manx)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/50 "2010-09-10T18:35:25Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > > [@Chefguy](#): > > > > the theretofore unknown and disastrous tactic of trench warfare > > Nitpick: WW1 certainly saw the use of trench warfare on an unprecedented scale, but it was far from unknown. The American Civil War saw a fair bit of it - Lee, in particular, was known for placing his forces in trenches whenever possible. The weapons were different from those employed on the Western Front, of course, but I daresay you could take an American from the Petersburg trenches, plunk him down in France, and he’d get the idea soon enough. Likewise the New Zealand Wars of the mid-nineteenth century saw Maori adopt trench warfare as an effective way of dealing with British artillery. ---
**Author:** ![Rocketeer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocketeer/32/4437_2.png) [@Rocketeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rocketeer)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/51 "2010-09-10T19:34:28Z")
[quote=“villa, post:14, topic:552838”] > [@Chefguy](#): > > If I had to choose just one, I’d probably go with WWI: > One of the most world-changing aspects of the Great War hasn’t been mentioned. It’s effect on British society was huge. … > > The Great War brutalized the British working class, but also quite literally decimated the old upper classes. The highest casualty rates in the British army were junior officers - second & first lieutenants in particular. The non-conscripted British army had a shortage of experienced NCOs to draw upon, unlike the French & German armies, and so had trench troops led by officers to a greater extent. These officers were drawn, initially, from the upper classes. And the uniforms provided nice targets. The gainers in British society were the middle classes… I agree. I also believe that one of the big changes was that the British upper classes lost credibility in the eyes of the lower classes. It used to be a given that the upper classes had a God-given mandate to reign; but after they got the nation into the greatest bloodbath of all time, they started to look a lot less like God’s chosen. ---
**Author:** ![Rocketeer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocketeer/32/4437_2.png) [@Rocketeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rocketeer)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/52 "2010-09-10T19:41:58Z")
> [@villa](#): > > …Attrition absolutely did work, by the way. By 1918, Germany had been bled white. That’s why it’s army broke. We forget about the Royal Navy’s role in WWI because the only big battle, Jutland, was disappointing. But the Royal Navy’s blockade of Germany essentially won the war; the German army broke because that blockade resulted in the home front starving. ---
**Author:** ![SlowMindThinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@SlowMindThinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlowMindThinking)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/53 "2010-09-10T19:53:51Z")
I guess I just think differently from you all. I distinctly remember my Greek history prof, an expert on Alexander the Great, stating that in the long run, his conquests had no lasting affect. They established a veneer of Hellenism on top of existing cultures that all one out. I’d go with: 1. The Assyrian-Judea War that saved Judaism, and hence Christianity and Islam 2. The Islamic conquests: ended Persian empires for at least the past 1200 years, enabled Arabs to completely redefine themselves as something more than the skinny kid on the beach, and eventually ended the Roman Empire and established the Ottoman Turks. 3. The Mongolian near world conquest. Ended Islamic dominance of a big chunk of the world, led to the societies of many of the now former USSR countries, and a big impact on Russia. 4. WWI for all the reasons listed above 5. American Revolution: established a counter example to France that democracy did not have to degenerate into butchery 6. 2nd Punic War. Not just because it led to a dominate Roman state that lasted another 1000 years and led to the European states, but also because Hannibal’s successes completely changed the character of that Roman state 7. The war that unified China’s warring states. 8. Roman conquest of Gallic Europe, that led directly to, Western Europe. 9. Carolingian defeat of the Islamic expansion into Europe. Both because it ended said expansion from Spain, more or less, but also because it established the Carolingians who then conquered Germany. 10. The Viking destruction of the western half of the Carolingian Empire, the Anglo Saxon empire, etc., leading to modern Europe. ---
**Author:** ![SlowMindThinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@SlowMindThinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlowMindThinking)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/54 "2010-09-10T19:55:01Z")
Aah, crap. I’d put the Greek defeat of the Persians, which made Western Europe possible, somewhere in the top 5, also. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/55 "2010-09-11T00:55:48Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > It is certainly a significant war, but I don’t think it would qualify as one of the 10 most significant in history. > > I think its outcome was immensely significant to later world history – but the outcome wasn’t really in doubt. So I’m thinking it may not qualify for that reason. Well, there we’re getting into some speculation, flavoured by hindsight - yes, there’s no doubt that the North had a lot of advantages, but it’s always struck me that it’s greatest weakness was its will to fight - if the South had been able to draw more political sympathy from Northerners, I could see a different ending. After all, Lincoln himself anticipated that he would be defeated in the 1864 election, which if it had occurred, could have resulted in a political settlement and division. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838/56 "2010-09-11T01:37:48Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > etaa: and, from the point of view of that pig, the Pig War was the most important war in the history of the world, clearly Does the pig even count as a casualty of the war? It was the Franz Ferdinand of pigs. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-most-world-changing-wars/552838.md?page=2)