Most Significant Battle In Britain.

[WotWotius]

So which one do you think it is?

[Pertinax]

Brunanburgh AD 937 is my suggestion

 

http://brunanburgh937.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/

 

The Battle of Britain should win, but do you mean pitched battle?

[longbow]

Brunanburgh was a great victory for the Saxon's.It was a very significant battle in Britain's history because if they lost then Aengland would of fell to the Northmen hundred plus years before the Battles at Stamford bridge and hastings.

Never was there more slaughter

on this island, never yet as many

people killed before this

with sword's edge: never according to those who tell us

from books, old wisemen,

since from the east Angles and Saxons came up

over the broad sea. Britain they sought,

Proud war-smiths who overcame the Welsh,

glorious warriors they took hold of the land.

Departed then the Northmen in nailed ships.

The dejected survivors of the battle,

sought Dublin over the deep water,

leaving Dinges mere

to return to Ireland, ashamed in spirit.

Likewise the brothers, both together,

King and Prince, sought their home,

West-Saxon land, exultant from battle.

They left behind them, to enjoy the corpses,

the dark coated one, the dark horny-beaked raven

and the dusky-coated one,

the eagle white from behind, to partake of carrion,

greedy war-hawk, and that gray animal

the wolf in the forest.

 

I voted for Battle of Britain,if the RAF lost that battle then the Axi's forces would of had the ability to invade Britain.Without Britain as a staging post to the European theatre it would of been a lot harder to defeat the German's.maybe impossible....

[Pertinax]

I knew Longbow would deliver on that one!

[WotWotius]

As you have probably worked out I voted for Hastings: the battle instigated the rise of a new ruling dynasty, which has lasted to this very day still coated in rich history.

[Rameses the Great]

I voted for the British victory over the Spanish armada. Spain was so rich and wealthy, it fostered a huge army along with the huge balky ships.

 

Anyways, the British sailed around the ships and shot it from behind. I notice a shift in power that day from Spain to England and France. That's the day they became stronger.

 

I can't imagine a Spanish influence of England. The cultures are so different.

 

Or as my 5th grade history teacher said, 'that day the huge bully down the street Spain got punched in the mouth by some kid. Now when he did that everyone knew that there was a new bully on the block.

 

The Most Significan Battle in Britain IMO.

[phil25]

Hastings is always seen as epochal - but Norman influence was creeping in under Edward the Confessor, and I suspect a French influence would eventually have emerged.

 

Bosworth represented a rebellion within the Yorkist circle - and henry VII continued many of the policies of Edward IV. Early modern britain would still have come into being around 1485. If a battle from the Wars of the Roses period mattered, I'd put money on Towton rather than any other.

 

The rest did not really change anything 1688 was more important than any battle in the English Civil War (1640ish to 1651ish) as the restoration reversed many of the constitutional changes. The flight of James II bloodless was the start of Parliamentary control of politics.

 

The Armada might have been significant if it had put troops ashore, but as organised by Philip II, and with Parma having to liaise, it was never a REAL threat (though that was not recognised at the time). England gained much kudos from defeating Spain but nothing really changed.

 

1940 was NOT a real threat either. I am convinced, after much research and thought, that Hitler never seriously intended to invade Britain. he expected a negotiated peace, with Halifax or Moseley or some other appeaser in No 10. But had Goering defeated the RAF - which would have required Dowding to make mistakes - Churchill would probably have been thrown out and a more amenable politician brought in. Hence today, with no D-Day; no second front in the west, Hitlerism and a nazi Government would probably now head up an EU-style pan-European government, including Britain. The Holocaust would have been completed; Russia defeated; and freedom would be nowhere.

 

Hence my vote went to 1940 Bof B.

 

But as you know I hate these polls.

 

AD 43 was the prelude to 400 years of foreign occupation. Edington (I assume you mean Alfred's defeat of guthrum would also have been a possible.

 

But what about Mount Badon (whether Arthur or another as victor) as a choice - it held up the Saxon advance for a generation?

Edited August 7, 2006 by phil25

[P.Clodius]

AD 43 was the prelude to 400 years of foreign occupation.

Foreign? If you count yourself as english then you hadn't even arrived in Britain at that time and there was no England!

Edited August 7, 2006 by P.Clodius

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I must go for the Battle of Britain only because I know very little of the others save the Spanish Armada option. Now my goal is to read about every option on there!

[phil25]

I am a part of all that I have met. (Tennyson, I think).

 

Given the part of the country I come from (Danelaw area) and my colouring when younger, I suspect I have Viking blood in me.

 

But as far as I recall, the Romans were foreign and left. The English (Angles, Jutes etc) were foreign and stayed and thus became part of that happy genetic trifle now known as the English.

 

Phil

[Tobias]

I would have to agree that the Battle of Britain was the most significant battle in/around Britain.

 

Culloden was an interesting point in history though; it was the last battle fought on British soil, and the conclusive defeat of poor old Bonnie Prince Charlie

Edited August 8, 2006 by Tobias

[Spurius]

I would have to agree that the Battle of Britain was the most significant battle in/around Britain.

 

Culloden was an interesting point in history though; it was the last battle fought on British soil, and the conclusive defeat of poor old Bonnie Prince Charlie

 

Yep, I voted that way too. The most significant battle IN Britain, based on possible results for the world, was "The Battle of Britain" (IMHO). Though this is followed very closely by Hastings and its effects on the British character.

 

The most significant battle FOR Britain, I'd say Hastings with Culloden and "The Battle of Britain" as a photofinish 1-2-3...depending on who's discussing the issues.

[Primus Pilus]

This is a terribly difficult (and subjective) question to answer.

 

I have to go with Hastings... not because of the battle itself but because of the ramifications from uniform consolidation of the kingdom (rather than various circumstances for Anglo, Saxon, Danish, etc. communities). I'm always led, in such discussions, to try and determine how much different a place maybe without a key event, and without the rule of William I think England may be a very different place today. (of course I could be wrong)

 

As for the Battle of Britain... a key event in the history of modern Europe and the western world... perhaps more key because the staging ground for D-Day and the advance into Germany, kept the soviet army from crossing the Rhine and communism from spreading throughout the entire west. However, as brilliantly as the RAF fought, even defeat wouldn't necessarily have meant British capitulation due to an invasion of Nazi ground forces. Who knows what else may have happened in light of such an event?

 

Just random thoughts I suppose.

[phil25]

But PP, your arguments re the B of B could equally be applied to Hastings with hardly a change.

 

As you say they are - as are mine - largely subjective.

 

Norman influence in England in the 1050s/60s was considerable. Part of the Godwinson programme was a sort of "England for the English". But i don't see that bucking the trend of things that much.

 

Without the Norman conquest the strength of Anglo-saxon culture might have lasted longer, but my own view is that marriage alliances would have taken place and there would ultimately have been a Norman, and then perhaps an Angevin period. Later maybe.

 

As for B of B, I don't think Churchill would have survived a defeat even withou an invasion for long.

 

Without any way of carrying the war to the enemy - as Luftwaffe air supremacy over the Chennel and SE England would have made any troop/naval mocements difficult, I think strong political questions would have been asked about the wisdom/necessity of continuing the war indefinately. Especially if AH had offered generous terms as he seems disposed to have done.

 

Considerable evidence, and some strong circumstantial stuff is emergingthat suggests an pro-easement" alliance involving the royal family (maybe even the Kng and Queen); Halifax - their close friend; Butler; many members of the aristocracy and MPs. The enigmatic Hess flight may have tied into a plot to turn out the Churchill administration (then perhaps turned by the Government to trap the conspirators).

 

In those circumstances, I think modern Britain would have been VERY different. Maybe still an imperial power, but very fascist and right wing in its thinking (but with that odd "national socialist paradox in mind, ith a welfare state!!). Not a bad alternative some might venture!!

 

The problem with alternative histories is that some events seem tied to certain people and circumstances (Henry VIII, divorce and reformation) but if one stands back a little, the "forces" below the surface shine out. At some stage in the 1500s England was going to have to find its identity and independence and henry's phrase "this England is an empire" - empire meaning independent in that useage, and English kings had been using an "imperial crown (ie with raised arches) since Henry IV's time - would have been employed by someone. The reformation in England might have been in 1560 or 1580 (maybe it was in reality!!) rather than 1530, but not much else would change IMHO. Same with hastings and perhaps - despite what i said above - to the BofB.

 

Trying to keep a balanced view,

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

But PP, your arguments re the B of B could equally be applied to Hastings with hardly a change.

 

As you say they are - as are mine - largely subjective....

 

 

...Trying to keep a balanced view,

 

Phil

 

Trust me, I am hardly shouting my position from the mountaintop on this particular issue. My contention in support of William is simply his inclusionary system of law and feudalism that broke down many factional allegiances and separations. Perhaps this would've developed anyway, and William receives too much credit (and yes I have seen this argument made effectively in other times and places), but I can't help but wonder how the continued influence of foreign factions would've played out without the invasion.