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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
The Assyrian-Judea War that saved Judaism, and hence Christianity and Islam
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.
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.
WWI for all the reasons listed above
American Revolution: established a counter example to France that democracy did not have to degenerate into butchery
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
The war that unified China’s warring states.
Roman conquest of Gallic Europe, that led directly to, Western Europe.
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.
The Viking destruction of the western half of the Carolingian Empire, the Anglo Saxon empire, etc., leading to modern Europe.
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.
If the US were less accomodating than the Canadians have been in the real world, that could cause some serious problems.