The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Most Influential Battle in History?!
fall out    9/9/2004 11:10:14 AM
What do you think? Gettysburg? Marne? Stalingrad? There are many, many more contenders, just wondering what your thoughts are?

Fall Out :)
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4
Tercio    Heorot, AlbanyRifles, French Stratege   9/22/2004 4:07:25 AM
Heorot wrote: "The Golden days of the Dutch was under the regime of the United Provinces; a state independant from the Hapsburgs. Are there no Dutch defenders of their nation here" I guess French Strage was talking about that days Flanders (today's Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium). Even before the Zenden Provincen, Flanders was a cultural power (Erasmus and so on...). I think densoflex cab provide more info about this matter. AlbanyRifles wrote: "That's okay, FS thinks you guys were a third rate power since you didn't have the Leclerc tank or the Charles de Gaulle as part of the Spanish Armada." >;-D, I can't avoid a smile. "A military champion only by a weak margin considering results ." To keep the Ottomans, France, England, the Republic of Venice and so on some steps below for 100+ years is not that bad..., and that's only talking about Europe. "The problem is today heritage for western civilisation: economic principles, new organisations a part military, influences on law and governance rules, education, ideas, science, worldwide influence which remains (apart langage) .." Let's provide some examples of the "inexistant" Spanish heritage: - Franciso de Vitoria: International law theorist link - Bartolomé de las Casas: Pioneer of the Human Rights? link - Baltasar Gracián: "whose works influenced La Rochefoucauld, and later Voltaire, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer, who considered Gracián's El criterión one of the best books ever written" link - "economic principles, new organisations a part military". Did exist something even close to the Spanish Empire administration elsewhere before?. Can the Renaissance be understood without a bunch of Portuguese and Spanish seamen showing the New World to the Old?. And last but not least, don't you consider that the role played by Spain as the champion of the Catholic Counter-Reformation had a relevant impact in the shaping of Europe, for the better and for the worse?. "To be the dominant power imply cultural and economic dominance to let your print on western civilisation and history. In 16th century progress in ideas came from northern Italy, Nederland, France and England. (Even if you would maybe consider Nederland as a part of Habsbourg empire)." It looks to me that your view about Spain under the Habsbourgs is heavily influenced by the "Black Legend", mostly cooked up by Elizabeth I's England and Richelieu's France. I strongly recommend you to check other sources, your views need a little bit of balance. I'll never say the Spanish Empire was the addition of all the virtues, but to say it left no imprint is a kind of funny... Tercio To be the dominant power imply cultural and economic dominance to let your print on western civilisation and history. In 16th century progress in ideas came from northern Italy, Nederland, France and England. (Even if you would maybe consider Nederland as a part of Habsbourg empire).
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    Manzikert and Huns   9/22/2004 4:50:48 AM
Firstly - both boris and wjr are correct. Byzantium was in decline, and Romanus Diogenes was capable but could not abate it. To quote John Julius Norwich: "It is impossible not to feel sorry for him. An able administrator and a brave soldier who fully recognised the gravity of the Seljuk menace, he set to with spirit to restore imperial fortunes - and it was not his fault he failed. In Constantinople, he had to contend with Psellus and the Ducas family, who bitterly resented him and were resolved to bring about his destruction; in the field he found a demoralized, largely mercenary army, ill-fed, ill-equipped and frequently on the point of mutiny." Diogenes attempted to set this right by by re-organising the army - new arrears and pay, recruitment, etc. he was on his way when he ventured into Anatolia. The key thing is that no one knows what really happened. Norwich supposes that when Diogenes split his forces, Tarchinotes' force was defeat by a much larger Seljuk army, which is hurridley retreated, and somehow manage to gain the label of cowards and betrayal. Remember, Manzikert more than anything else reflects the capabilities of the Alp Arslan and the Seljuks, more than the deficiencies of the Byzantines. Alp Arslan was a very capable military leader, easily a match for anyone in the world at the time. Byzantium didn't really 'decline' until about 100 years later as boris said. Alexius Comena did much to strengthen the Empire in the new dynamic of the Region and Geopolitics of European presence in the Holy Lands. Anyway a very important battle would be the battle of the Catalunian fields - what would have happened if the huns had taken Europe? Certainly, Attila moved on Rome afterwards, and subsequently turned around (his army was disease ridden among other things), and he subsequently choked on his own vomit, a la Hendrix. An Asiatic influence in Europe from that early period would have changed EVERYTHING........ Pucka
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:Manzikert and Huns   9/22/2004 7:20:05 AM
Its not as defining as some of the others mentioned, yet the consequences of the Siege of Vienna in 1529 had a huge effect on the Turks. Imagine if the Turks had have been successful and marched on into Germany in the spring of 1530, then would a divided Germany (Reformation) been able to unite, to stop Suleiman? It wasn?t the only battle against the Habsburgs, yet if the Turks had have won, then it most certainly would have been irreversible.
 
Quote    Reply

supersix    RE:Most Influential Battle in History?!   9/23/2004 10:42:23 PM
Midway, hands down. Consider: If Japan captures the islands, doesn't suffer the loss of it's carriers, AND inflicts massive losses on the U.S. Fleet, which would be THE conditions for Japaneese victory, the gate is opened for: 1.Control of the central Pacific 2.Cut's Australia off from U.S. aid and direct attacks on the Australian mainland, including POSSIBLE invasion, although I wouldn't like their chances, particularly if the Ausies withdrew their forces into the western desert and forced the Japaneese invaders to engage them there, in order to try to destroy them, which would be absolutely neccesary to control the continent. Like I said, I wouldn't like their chances. This WOULD, however, prolong the war.(and more than likely REALLY piss the Australians off, making for TWO galvanized enemies for Japan to contend with.) 3. Direct attacks on the U.S. mainland, perhaps even invasion, although highly unlikely, because as tough a time as the Japaneese would have in Australia, it'd be even worse in the U.S. as the U.S. could quickly isolate the territory west of the Rockies(blow the bridges, rail lines, destroy any and all passes through the mountains) to say nothing for the military presence in the area and the horrific guerillia war the Japaneese would face, should they actually land a force. That being said, the outcome is never in doubt: if the Japaneese invade Australia, the Ausies hold the line while the U.S. rebuilds to "what ever it takes strength" and inevitably smashes the Japaneese supply chain forcing them to withdraw from Australia.(if the Australians haven't already "persuaded" them that trying to hold Australia is simply not worth the cost in blood and treasure) If they invade the U.S., the war in Europe and North Africa becomes secondary to Americans, and the U.S. throws EVERYTHING at Japan, all the while, Australians harassing the Japaneese takes a heavy toll on the supply lines(with Japaneese forces concentrated on the U.S.) perhaps even taking a few islands in the process. Signifigance? If the above scenarios occurred, there is nobody to assist in North Africa, no second front established in Italy, and no relieving of pressure for the U.K. or Soviets. The end result? Perhaps Hitler gets his A-Bomb, perhaps he wises up and get's heavy, long-range bombers, perhaps it buys him enough time to perfect V I and V II's or, even smarter, uses rockets for an even more practical purpose:SAM's. While the ultimate end of the war, ie; an Allied victory cannot be denied, it would most definately make for a longer even more devestating war that possibly sees Russia, Britain, Germany and Japan( and perhaps the U.S. as well) all take nuclear hits. The war is ultimately won on the fact that, while Germany might gain a technological edge(and if the U.S. mainland were invaded, I'm almost positive the U.S. erasses that deficit quickly) but it doesn't last long. The resources expended to knock out Russia cannot be replenished and the U.S. and the British Commonwealth have the edge in these two areas: Manpower and Natural Resources. Eventually Germany loses, but not without terrible cost to all sides. End result: We all end up living in a MUCH different world than the one we live in today. And all of this may very well have turned on the outcome of just one battle:Midway.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy