What war made the most important impact on world history?
IMHO opinion it was the Cold War as the nuclear threat has lessened quite a bit since it’s end.
Mmm, of the ones I know about, I’m going to say World War I. WWI set up WWII which set up the Cold War.
Are you kidding?
The American Revolutionary War, for better or worse. Since then the United States has gone nowhere but up, except for that damn Civil War, and even that had positive results.
The US went from a little pissant uprising to the most powerful country in the world in less than 200 years. I’d say that that war has them all licked, based upon the future results.
The Persian war.
Had the greeks not held off the Persians (on whom the smart money would have gone), Greek advances in math, philosophy, drama, and political thought would probably have been seriously compromised, if not extinguished. The world today would be a very different, and probably much worse place. Even Christianity would have looked alot different.
Airman, I agree with you on the war, but not why. The American Revolution proved to the world that a people can separate from a colonial power. It inspired the French Revolution and the wars of Independence in Latin America. It also proved that a Democracy is a viable form of government in the modern world.
World War I, obviously. The American Revolution isn’t a very good choice if by “world history” you mean the whole world as opposed to just the United States.
World War I changed the course of Western civilization, including the Revolution-borne USA. It was WWI that turned communism and fascism into real powers. It was WWI that caused WWII, and by extent everything that resulted from that - atomic weapons, the Cold War, the United Nations, and, of course, the USA as the world’s leading power in 2003 - the USA wasn’t a superpower before 1914. It was WWI that heralded industrial-level warfare, aerial warfare, weapons of mass destruction, submarines, tanks, machine guns. WWI created the Soviet Union and, later, Nazi Germany. It destroyed the Austro-Hungarian empire, and bled the British and French empires to death, cemented the results of the Balkan wars, and ensured the fate of fifty countries or more in various wars throughout the rest of the century.
No war changed the map more, changed the course of history more, changed the way wars are fought more. It’s World War I and it’s not even a close call.
Hmm. I always thought it was “The People and Workers of the Soviet Union” that created the Soviet Union. I really didn’t think WWI had anything to do with their formation. Please Explain.
The Islamic war on europe.
- The battle of Poitiers (732).
Charles Martel stopped the Islamic invasion of Europe and secured France for christianity.
- The defense of Constantinople.
(August 15, 717, to August 15, 718)
The second Arab siege marked the zenith of Arab expansion against the Byzantine Empire. The crafty Emperor Leo III misled the Muslim commander Maslama in negotiations. The Muslims abandoned the siege with heavy losses. This prevented the Muslims from advancing further into the european continent.
- The battle of Covadonga (718)
The Visigothic leader Pelayo’s victory at Covadonga in northern Spain stopped the Muslim advance in Spain.
These battles saved europe from becoming an Islamic state and shaped the current political make up of the european continent.
Also, one might make the case that WWII actually bled the British and French Empires to death, since not one Colony of either Empire declared its independence in the inter-war years. I also don’t think WWI really changed the course of history. WWI was waiting to happen. The way Europe was before 1914 made it inevitable. However, I do not think that Europe would have been the way it was had there not been a catalyst like the American Revolution. As I said before, it inspired the French Revolution, which led to the rise of Napoleon, and the entire map of Europe during the 19th Century, with all its Political and Geographical Rivalries, and the furtherance and escalation of which that led to the ticking time-bomb that was Europe in 1914.
I’ll second the Persian War with a possible nod to the second Punic War. If Hannibal had triumphed there would have probably been no Roman Empire and the world would look mighty different today.
Actually, Doors, I’d take WWI again if you want to argue about the U.S. It’s what really established us as a world power. But the fact is, we’ve only been around for ~227 years and only been real important for the last 100 or so.
And nowhere but up? How about the War of 1812? The White House burned, the Brits all over, the only real victory for our side was New Orleans.
As an interesting one, how about the Spanish Armada in 1588? Spain lands in England. Who, besides Harry Turtledove, knows how that may have turned out?
Given the state of affairs in the Middle East today, I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the Battle of Hattin. It was fought in 1187 (I think) between the Islamic forces of Saladin and the Christian forces of the Crusades, in what is now Israel.
Saladin defeated the Crusaders, and the European would-be conquerors never regained their strength.
Things might be a lot different today if the battle had gone the other way.
This is sort of an impossible question to answer. WWI would have been very different if the American Revolutionary War hadn’t occured.
But would the Revolution have occured without the French and Indian War? Or the War of the Roses?
What about the long term impacts of the Trojan War?
The farther back you go the more long-ranging the effects are seen as becoming.
How about the war some contend occurred between the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnon? I’d say that one had some far reaching effects.
My vote goes to WW1. See RickJays answer and also note the emergence of “modern” weapons such as aircraft, chemical, machine guns, U-boats yada yada yada.
(Yes, I know they were around before, but by WW1, mankind perfected killing to an art form)
She told me she loved me like a brother. She was from Arkansas, hence the Joy!
I’d nominate the one that resulted when one hunter-gatherer tribe decided that they didn’t like their patch nearly half as much as the next tribe over’s.
Well, it sure as hell wasn’t the workers who created the USSR anyway. Revolutions are generally elitist things.
But having said that, without WWI, it’s quite unlikely that the Bolsheviks take over Russia. Kerensky or some other moderate group would likely have enetually taken control from the Tsar, and the civil war would never have happened. You have to understand that the war essentially destroyed the Tsar and the entire political system, just as it destroyed the German Empire. Without the war it’s likely Russia would have taken a different course of political change and there never would have been a USSR.
Without the USSR and the terror and malaise caused by WWI, Communism very likely would have never become a major political force, nor would have fascism. Tens of millions of people would not have been murdered by the Nazis and the Communists, the Second World War would probably not have happened (at least not in Europe… the Pacific might have anyway) and Europe simply would not have become what it became. The entire course of Europe, and by extension most of the world, would have been utterly changed. North American wouldn’t have been the same, either; the USA would have remained an insignificant military power for quite a bit longer, and Canada probably would have evolved much slower than it did.
Ah,. but all you people saying WWI, I could reming you it could never have happened were it not for the teeth given to german nationalism by their victory in the Franco-Prussian War, which pretty much guaranteed a major conflict at some point.
Disagree. The Persians had already conquered the more prosperous and populous ( and just as culturally advanced ) half of the Greek world when they took Lydia and its dependants in western Asia Minor and Persian occupation there did not cause a breakdown in Greek culture ( it did cause some disruptions, but mostly in transitory political and economic respects ). Temporary subjugation to a remote Persian administration that functioned in a semi-decentralized fashion outside the core provinces, would have been unlikely to cause any great cultural shift - Persian rule over the Greek city-states of Asia Minor was largely nominal. The Persians patronized both the sciences and arts and a fair number of scholars and artisans hailed from Persian-held Greek areas ( as well as other parts of the empire ) It would have most likely been transitory since the Achaemenids suffered enough difficulties with internal difficulties elsewhere - holding mainland Greece long-term would have been unlikely.
[quote]
Charles Martel stopped little more than a razzia out to punish Duke Eudo of Aquitaine. The Islamic advance had already ground to a halt some time earlier for sound logistic reasons ( and the Caliphate was about to descend into serious crisis ) and Charles’ victory did not halt future raids. It was a significant battle, but only for Charles Martel’s own political aspirations in France, not for any decisive victory gained ( his campaigns in southern France in following years did greatly reduce the Muslim presense there, but that was little more that border adjustment ). Poitiers status as one of the great battles of history is vastly overblown.
I agree with this a bit more.
It certainly was a triumph of clever political machinations that brought the Bulgars down of the Muslim rear and caused the defection of much of the Egyptian fleet ( staffed largely by Christians ). Insomuch as Constantinople was much closer to the center of Muslim political gravity than Spain, defeat may have indeed doomed the Byzantine state. However I doubt any Muslim advance would have gone much beyond the Balkans ( then not Byzantine hardly at all ) in any case, as again distance and internal problems would have hindered further advances ( not to mention inhospitable terrain and states like that of the Bulgars ).
Actually it was a rebellion, not a line in the sand against an advance - Arab rule had already been established with a governor in place in either Leon or Gijon. The best guess was Pelagius was one of a number of native nobles that had come to an agreement with the conquerors and at some point he decided to repudiate that and raise a revolt. Like Poitiers it is likely that its importance has been overblown. The Arabs simply have seemed not to have bothered sending a second expedition after the first was defeated. The massive upheaval of the Berber revolt of 740-741, followed by the third fitna may have been a big part of this - Berber garrisons were withdrawn from northwestern Spain and Berber settlement halted in that region. The gravity of Arab/Berber power in Spain was naturally in the south and it appears Muslim indifference to events in the far north of the penninsula with it’s difficult terrain, when they had bigger fish to fry elsewhere, may have played a significant role in the early kingdom’s survival.
I’d say not. IMHO Europe was never in danger of extensive Muslim conquests.
Disagree as above.
I slightly disagree ( my, what a disagreeable chap I am today 
). A Carthaginian ‘victory’ is a highly unlikely to have been anything other than a negotiated triumph with some exchange of territory. It is doubtfull Hannibal for all his brilliance ever had, or would have had, a good chance to take Rome physically. Barring that the Roman state would not have been undone. Rome had the bigger advantages in terms of manpower resources and a superior military system in the long run. Odds are they would have continued as a great power and may have eventually triumphed anyway. But I agree a possibility exists that they may have been permanently checked and never become a massive empire, but rather have remained just a major power, which would have caused at least some difference in modern history ( how much is difficult to say ).
The Crusading states, relatively impoverished in of themselves, internally divided, already on the decline and precariously positioned, were probably always doomed in the long term.
That the Crusades succeeded in the first place had as much to do with the exploitation of a moment of Muslim internal disunity and chaos as anything else. Once strong unitary states started to emerge in the Levant, the Christian ability to respond in the face of vast Muslim numerical superiority was limited ( and no particula or overwhelming military inferiority overall ). Hattin was significant, but if not Hattin it would have been something else. The Muslim armies really didn’t rely much on large pitched battles against the Crusaders anyway - Hattin was an aberration ( actually both sides avoided them - the Crusaders to husband scarce resources that could not easily be replaced, the Muslim armies due to philosophy and a healthy respect for the weight of heavily-armored knights ). The course of the Crusades was probably mostly determined by decades of slow, grinding siege warfare.
- Tamerlane
I think a Persian victory would have affected badly greek culture if they had won… the legacy that would have passed on to the romans wouldn’t have been as big either.
I vote for Persian Wars.