Most Macrohistorical Battle

[Rameses the Great]

There are so many big battles out there that had taken place but some seem to get little attention. These battles are usually things that can change the outcomes of the world. It is usually disregarded but are the most important battle ever to have been fought.

 

My vote goes to two battles: the Battle of Ayn Jalut and the Battle of the Homs. The Mamluk sultanate faced off against the undefeated Mongol army. It marked the beginning of the end for the Mongol domination over the world. It was also the only time ever their cavalry was defeated, and fairly soundly, by the Mamluk heavy cavalry.

 

The Mongols were unable to conquer Egypt and Syria was then liberated after the Battle of the Homs. It marked the end of how far the Mongol Empire would expand, the other was in Japan.

 

Do you have any battles that are not well known and deserve more credit?

[Crastinus]

id say the battle of Tours (Poitiers) in 732. It could be debated that the Franks under Charles Martel saved Europe for Christianity, but it certainly ended the second Moslem front from North Africa-->Spain--> Western Europe. The battle is oft overlooked in my opinion and deserves mentioning.

[Kosmo]

Funny name "macrohistorical" I thought that it was something fashionable to eat Maybe you should explain better. It's about a small battle with big historical significance or a important one that is not well known?

 

Ain Jalut it's not so important. A mameluk forced defeated a mongol rearguard. The important aspect it's why the mongols stopped thair campaign and retreated leaving only those small forces behind. The reason was the death of the Great Khan Mongke and Hulagu's attempt to gain the throne. That also was the end of mongol unity. From that moment the mongols of the Middle East (the Il Khans) coud not count on outside help and the biggest threat was the Golden Horde. The extremly long conflict beetween the two western khanates put an end to the offensive phase of mongols. Both Egypt and Europe were safe from that moment.

[Rameses the Great]

Funny name "macrohistorical" I thought that it was something fashionable to eat Maybe you should explain better. It's about a small battle with big historical significance or a important one that is not well known?

 

Ain Jalut it's not so important. A mameluk forced defeated a mongol rearguard. The important aspect it's why the mongols stopped thair campaign and retreated leaving only those small forces behind. The reason was the death of the Great Khan Mongke and Hulagu's attempt to gain the throne. That also was the end of mongol unity. From that moment the mongols of the Middle East (the Il Khans) coud not count on outside help and the biggest threat was the Golden Horde. The extremly long conflict beetween the two western khanates put an end to the offensive phase of mongols. Both Egypt and Europe were safe from that moment.

 

Had not the Mamluks won, the Mongols would have taken the whole of the Middle East and likely went into the rest of North Africa. This battle also liberated Syria after the Battle of the Homs. Had the Mongols won, their influence would have been much greater over the Middle East and Europe would be in a lot of trouble. After that battle it was the beginning of the end for the Mongol Empire, the largest empire in history. It also marked the end of the expansion in the East (Japan) and the end of the expansion in the West (Egypt.)

[Spurius]

I'd add a nomination for Both battles of Mohacs (1526 and 1687) as well as the seige of Guns (1532). While not the most important battles, they are overlooked in western history far too much.

 

Mohacs (1532) displayed a technologically advanced and victorious Ottoman army (even if their discipline was rough), killing the king of Hungary and ending it as a country for quite some time, and ultimately setting up circumstances that put a Hapsburg king on the throne of Bohemia (Ferdinand).

 

The seige of Guns (1532) was a three week affair in August 1532. Suleiman had gathered a 200,000 man force to seige Vienna and advanced along a line that included Guns. The cost of the victory, against the well prepared fortress and its 700 man garrison with modern fortifications, convinced Suleiman that Vienna would be too tough to beseige. Instead he raided Styria and lower Austria then retreated back to Istanbul.

 

Mohacs (1687) was the reverse of the first. Mehmet IV was decisively defeated by the Hapsburg forces and thus ended the last expansion by the Ottomans into Europe. After this it was a slow retreat off of the continent.

 

All three of these battles are good examples in micro what was happening in the relationship of the East and West at the time. IMHO.

[Rameses the Great]

Mohacs (1532) displayed a technologically advanced and victorious Ottoman army (even if their discipline was rough), killing the king of Hungary and ending it as a country for quite some time, and ultimately setting up circumstances that put a Hapsburg king on the throne of Bohemia (Ferdinand).

 

I wouldn't say Mohacs was a win for the Ottomans out of technology rather then sheer numbers. The Ottomans usually outnumbered their opponents and was ultimately why they won. They needed all the troops and reenforcements they can get and before the reenforcements arrived they were doing badly. Also the Hungarian reenforcements didn't arrive in time for the battle.

 

Had the Hungarian Empire concluded their alliance with the Habsburgs I highly doubt the Ottoman would have won.

[Kosmo]

It's true that ottomans outnumbered the hungarians, but this is not what brought them victory. Strangely the hungarians attacked while most ottomans units where setting camp for the night achieving a great surpise. Despite the surpise the battle turned in a confusing mele while the ottoman rearguard still on the march joined the fray.

 

I've posted before the link to an excelent study of the battle

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/warso

(the site it's a nationalist, iredentist one)

[Kosmo]

PS. Hungary was never an empire.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Kosmo

[Spurius]

Thanks for the replies.

 

Rameses the Great, I mentioned technologically advanced because of the number, standard use and even the design superiority of the Ottomans. It was the muskets of the Janissaires that drove the Hungarian right wing back, despite being caught making camp. In essence, the Hungarians were fighting a medieval battle against a more advanced foe. Despite their bravery, the Hungarians had essentially doomed themselves before the start of the battle and were acting in desperation. The Ottoman combination of numbers and technology sealed the day.

 

And yes, massing of troops was a standard advantage employed by the Ottomans. Good and/or clever opponents could easily take advantage of this but if the opponent had no choice but to go head-to-head, it gave them a very strong hand. That's why seige was so very important to the Ottomans. Seal the opponents up in strongholds and have enough men left over to raid the country. Even as their technology stagnated, numbers still told for the Turks.

 

Kosmo, thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that site before.

[Rameses the Great]

Rameses the Great, I mentioned technologically advanced because of the number, standard use and even the design superiority of the Ottomans. It was the muskets of the Janissaires that drove the Hungarian right wing back, despite being caught making camp. In essence, the Hungarians were fighting a medieval battle against a more advanced foe. Despite their bravery, the Hungarians had essentially doomed themselves before the start of the battle and were acting in desperation. The Ottoman combination of numbers and technology sealed the day.

 

And yes, massing of troops was a standard advantage employed by the Ottomans. Good and/or clever opponents could easily take advantage of this but if the opponent had no choice but to go head-to-head, it gave them a very strong hand. That's why seige was so very important to the Ottomans. Seal the opponents up in strongholds and have enough men left over to raid the country. Even as their technology stagnated, numbers still told for the Turks.

 

I see, I'm just thinking if Hungary was closer the European powers who had the advanced technology how come the Ottomans had the better technology? Did they modernize and hire Europeans to help teach the army, if so whom? I also recall Hungarian playing a large part in helping the Ottomans create cannons.

[Gnaeus Travius]

I think a good candidate would be the battle of the milvian bridge, involving constantine and maxentius. I'm sure peopel recognise this as an important battle, but i dont think that people give it as much attention as it deserves. This battle practically paves the way for for constantine to become emperor, but what occurs during the fighting is very important. he sees visions that tell him to conquer in the name of the christian lord. without this battle and constantine's rise to emperor, what would become of christianity? Its very possible that christianity would have stayed a minor religion, completly changing the history of the entire world, not just one region. you couldn't even imagine what the world would be without the influence of christianity, good or bad.

[Pantagathus]

For the sake of discussion I'll submit something that's occupied my scholarly attention lately: the Lelantine War between Chalcis & Eretria in Euboea (Greece); 720ish ~ 690ish BC.

 

It was the first conflict on a large scale in Archaic Greece that pulled in contenders & alliances from all corners of the Greek world at the time. Though literary evidence is woefully slight, it has been convincingly argued that the late phases of the war saw the birth of the Hoplite which as an evolutionary step was likely brought about from the Euboean's direct experience with the Assyrian army via their commercial colony at Al Mina in northern Syria and surprisingly enough perhaps too because of the use of bronze armor pieces (helmets & arm pieces) by the archaic Italic people they encountered via their colonies at Pithekoussai & Cumae in the 8th Century BC.

 

Though Chalcis seems to have emerged the likely victor, both cities began to decline afterwards because the very introduction of the new style of warfare came with major consequences for two societies who aristocracy was based on horse ownership and cavalry

[Kosmo]

Pantaghatus - Your scholalry attention it's focused in an interesting direction. The transition between the Dark Age and Classical Age it's an imensly important period. I hope to see more about this.

To connect the origins of hoplite equipament with Italy it's really surprising, but I have not heard even about the assyrian connection despite the resamblance of assyrian heavy infantry with hoplite phalanx.

[Pantagathus]

Pantaghatus - Your scholalry attention it's focused in an interesting direction. The transition between the Dark Age and Classical Age it's an imensly important period. I hope to see more about this.

Thanks Kosmo, the Archaic period is still really taken for granted or overlooked but truely is immensely important.

 

To connect the origins of hoplite equipament with Italy it's really surprising, but I have not heard even about the assyrian connection despite the resamblance of assyrian heavy infantry with hoplite phalanx.

I have to admit the possible Assyrian connection was nagging at me the more & more I read up on Greek 'commercial' sites in the Near east like Al Mina and Tarsus. The timing was just too coincidental. One question I kept asking myself was 'were the Euboeans in Al Mina to peddle their steel to the Assyrian war machine (perhaps at the behest of the Phoenicians)?' If the answer was even close to yes (which seems highly likely), then I thought it would be naive to think they wouldn't learn a few things on that front.

 

Then I was reading Anthony M. Snodgrass' Archaic Greece and he also made the connection between the introduction of the hoplite and the 'Ionian' (Euboean + some) interface with Assyria and the Euboean interface with Italic tribes.

 

Always funny when you have a "Eureka" moment only to find out that it's a hypothesis over 25 years old!

[Kosmo]

Maybe the phoenicians themselves, who knew a thing or two about the Assyrian warfare, could pass informations and goods. The role of phoenicians in Arhaic Greece it's often neglected.