History's Most Important Moments

[Барбоса]

Defeating a Superpower

For those of you who know me even a little, it will not surprise you that I start this thread in antiquity and with a series of military confrontations; specifically those in the years 480-479BCE.

In the latter half of the sixth century BCE, the Persian Empire had conquered all of the major states of the Ancient Middle East – Medes, Assyrians, Neo-Babylonians, Jews, Lydians and Egyptians were all part of a vast empire that stretched from the Sahara to the Jaxartes River and from India to the Aegean Sea.

In 515BCE, a third continent had been opened to Persian expansion when Thrace and part of Macedonia. It appeared that nothing could stop the Persian juggernaut particularly when its next opponent was a group of disunited Greek city states that spent more of their time fighting each other. However, not only were these city-states scientifically and tactically advanced but when they were forced to come together in the face of the approaching Persian shadow they could muster significant manpower and resources for the defence of their homeland.

The Persians knew of Greek military potential having been exposed to it a decade previous in 490BCE when an Athenian army routed a Persian force twice its size at the Battle of Marathon (the battle gives its name to the race of modern times as supposedly a certain Pheidippides ran the 26 miles from the battlefield to Athens to warn the city of an approaching Persian fleet; however, this actually does Pheidippides a disservice as he instead ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for aide in the coming battle, covering the 140 miles in two days; it was the Athenian army that raced from Marathon to Athens to defend the city from further attack)

Therefore, the Persians were well prepared for the coming engagements. Despite not coming anywhere near the preposterous numbers recorded, the worst being Herodotus’ 5,283,220 (Book VII.186), the Persian army the crossed into Europe probably approached 250,000 men while the Persian navy perhaps reached 800 ships. Despite garrison duties in Thrace, Macedonia and Thessaly reducing the Persian force to around 150,000 by the time it entered southern Greece, wisely, the Greeks, led on land by the Spartans and on sea by the Athenians, avoided meeting this still monstrous force in open battle.

Instead, they sent a token force of around 8,000 under the command of one of the Spartan kings (there were always two), Leonidas and a contingent of 300 Spartans to delay the Persian army at the narrow Pass of Thermopylae while the Greek fleet engaged its Persian counterpart off the coast, giving the full Greek army time to congregate at the Isthmus of Corinth.

Despite their already fearsome military reputation, the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae were about to achieve legendary status the likes of which few military operations have ever come close. In the narrow pathways of Thermopylae, Leonidas and his men threw back numerous Persian assaults on their position over a period of three days. They were only defeated through the intervention of a Greek traitor called Ephialtes who led part of the Persian army along an hitherto unknown path around the Greek position, defeating a Greek army of 1,000 men on the way. Not wanting to the entire army to be surrounded, Leonidas and his men made the ultimate sacrifice and remained to face the divergent Persian attack (they were not alone as 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans and an unknown number of slaves also remained). After an heroic charge against the Persian lines, during which Leonidas was killed, the remnants of the Spartan led force was mown down by concentrated archer fire. Perhaps only a few Thebans, who surrendered, survived.

Such heroism in the face of such insurmountable odds and certain death has been enhanced by some of the recorded discussions that took place between the Spartans and Persian ambassadors. After explaining the size and majesty of the Persian army, one ambassador asked Leonidas to surrender his arms – the Spartan king replied μολὼν λαβέ (molon labe), meaning “Come and get them.” Another Spartan soldier called Dienekes when informed that Persian archers were so numerous that their arrows would “block out the sun,” retorted “good, then we shall fight in the shade.”

The epitaph written by the poet Simonides to the heroes of Thermopylae sums up the Spartan attitude to their sacrifice.

Ὦ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
κείμεθα, τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι.

“Stranger, go tell the Spartans that we keep the ground they bid us hold.”

Together with the victory of the Greek fleet at Artemisium, the Persians were slowed down long enough for the Greeks to make proper defensive preparations, including most extraordinarily the almost complete evacuation of Athens. With the Greek army forming a virtually unbreakable line across the narrow Isthmus, the Persians now relied on their fleet to be able to outflank the Greek position.

Learning from the naval engagement at Artemisium where Greek ships proved superior in close quarter fighting to their Persian counterparts, the Athenian general Themistocles employed one of the most spectacular uses of misinformation and bluff in history. Sending a message to Xerxes, he claimed that the Greek command was divided (this was true) and that if the Persians attacked the Greek fleet then the Athenians, who comprised a large portion of the Greek fleet, would defect. Despite opposition from several of his commanders, Xerxes took the bait and ordered his fleet into a strategically disadvantageous position in the narrow Straits of Salamis, where Persian numerical superiority meant little and Greek close quarter superiority meant everything. As they entered the Straits, the Persian vanguard was rammed broadside by the Greek fleet and in the ensuing hand to hand combat; the heavily armed Greek marines swiftly defeated the light armed Persian crews. The rest of the Persian fleet was driven back in disarray into their own ranks sowing further confusion and the Persians lost perhaps a third of their navy.

Having lost their naval superiority, the Persians now found themselves in trouble of being trapped in Europe had the Greeks moved to block the Hellespont. Therefore, Xerxes retired home to Asia leaving his general Mardonius in command of a hand-picked force of around 80,000 to complete the conquest of Greece. Against this force, the Greeks decided to risk pitched battle. On the plains of Plataea, some 37,500 Greek hoplites, including up to 10,000 Spartans, as well as perhaps a similar number of light-armed troops.

After a tense period of stalemate and jostling for position, Mardonius was able to force the Greeks into a strategic retreat by using his superior cavalry to disrupt their food supply lines and spoil a spring that was the main source of the Greek’s water. However, Mardonius made the mistake of thinking the Greeks were in full disorderly retreat when they were not. He compounded this mistake by ordering his forces to attack the Greek right flank, which was held by the Spartans and their Tegean allies. Once the Spartans had withstood the barrage from the Persian archers and cavalry, they proceeded to crush the Persian infantry. When Mardonius was killed, the Persian left flank fell apart. Simultaneously, the Greek left flank held by the Athenians won a hard battle against the Persian right comprised of Persian Greek allies, mostly Thebans. Together with the rest of the Greek army that had not seen any fighting, the Spartans and Athenians crossed the river and captured the Persian camp, massacring what remained of Mardonius’ army.

While they would continue to interfere in Greek politics for the next 150 years, the defeats at Salamis and Plataea brought an end to Persian territorial ambitions in Europe. The significance of this cannot be underestimated. Without Leonidas’ sacrifice, Alexander the Great may not have marched his way into the history books; had Themistocles’ bluff been called, it is highly unlikely that the Roman Empire would have ever existed in the continent-shaping form that it did; had the Spartan or Athenian line broken at Plataea, important Greek advances in learning such as the alphabet, democracy and literature may have been lost along with the city of Athens itself; although, rather interestingly, five centuries later the local rabbi Jesus of Nazareth would probably still have been crucified as it was a Persian invention. In general, much of what Ancient Greece would give to the world may have been extinguished with a Persian conquest of Greece in 480-479BCE.

What are your thoughts on this vital period in western history? Have I overestimated its importance?

What other pivotal moments in history are there?

(I promise my next entry will not be military in nature)

 

[Nitafrong]

I would not of course attempt to question your expertise on this matter- you seem to have a very detailed knowledge on the events. I do remember reading somewhere that the military importance of the battle of Thermopylae was largely exaggerated- that while it was an event of bravery and courage it didn't really impact on the overall events. The article stated that some said it was important to give the rest of Greece time to gather their navy for Salamis- but this was not actually true as a navel battle actually took place at the same time as Thermopylae which the Greeks lost. It went on to state that the pass was a key defensive area which had been given up with relatively little loss in time or men (despite the efforts of the 300+) and really the battle represented an ancient Charge of the Light Brigade and had little impact on other events. I am not sure how much I really agree with this view and there are always those who wish to tear down any particularly noble or heroic events we hold from the past- but there it is. I am sure you have a response on this

On the larger point of the importance of Salamis- it certainly seems to have been a key point in our history. If the Greeks had indeed been defeated, much of modern Europe which draws so much influence from Greek ideas and Philosophies- how different a society would we have? I remember reading a counterfactual essay once which held that one likely future event would have been an alliance between the Romans and the Persians- two peoples which the author held had similar styled deity systems and similar views on the Empire. He (an American author) of course linked these events directly to his own country finding that there would have been no Declaration of Independence or growth in democratic ideals.

I am not sure how much I agree with this- I would say that with the loss of the Greek city states we would have indeed lost a lot of what made our society what it is- but in the same sense we are deprived of what culture we might have received through the Persian states. While not as famous as the Greeks the Persian Empire was by no means a barbarian or race of S&M crazed weirdo’s in leather tents- not that I am aware of anyway. Perhaps in this alternative world the continued strength of the Persian Empire would have helped or hindered the growth of the Muslim religion so many years later. It does though seem to be one of those events which had a large effect on how we live now.

In terms of other possible momentous events you have that most basic question. What if the Roman Empire hadn't fallen? Or is this really a sensible question to ask? I know the Eastern Empire survived till the 1400's but was it reasonable that the West could have done the same? Empires always have a habit of failing eventually.

 

[TSG]

I'm not sure if you want me to just have us explain our opinion on your post, or if you care if we post some of our own. Since I have not much knowledge on what you posted, I'll go with one of my own. Okay now, you went with some older stuff, so I'll go with one of the most important moments in modern history. Now, you may disagree with me on this, so I will attempt to explain my reasoning later on in the post.

April 20, 1999: The Columbine High School Massacre:
Now, I'm sure most of you have heard, learned and know about this, and I about 99.9 percent guarantee were alive for it. For those of you that were living under a rock, I'll provide the backstory. Columbine High School is located near the towns of Littleton and Denver, in Colorado. In 1999, two students at the school, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, due to reasons that have been atrriuted to video games, music, bullying, an anti-social climate, medication, and just plain hatred for society, showed up at the school late one morning, and committed what is today the fourth-deadliest act of school violence in history. The two gunmen injured 21 people directly, 3 others that attempted to escape, and killed 12 others before committing suicide about 45 minutes into the shooting. they originally had a more violent plan, but it failed to originate. I will now post that plan as seen on wikipedia:

The pair hoped that after setting off bombs in the cafeteria at the busiest time of day, killing many hundreds of students, they would use their guns to shoot survivors as they fled from the school. Then, as police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, and reporters came to the school, bombs set in the boys' cars would go off, killing the emergency personnel, media, and law officers; this original plan failed when their main explosives did not detonate

Now why I believe this is such an important moment in history. Now I know many will disagree with me, as this is a bold statement. But it had such an effect on modern society that whn you look at the facts, it's hard to debate. The first subject I would like to touch upon is video games. Many people contribute video-game violence to the shooting. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had made levels for the Doom video games, known as the Harris levels, which he posted on his own private website on AOL's servers. Some people argue that when they were restricted from these games that they became homicidal and used their idle time to plan the killings. Others still argue that the two teenagers were desensitized due to the violence experienced in video games. This was one of the first highly publicized video game controversies and really fueled the fire against them.

Some have also attributed the social climate to the massacre. They have said that Klebold and Harris were isolated from the restof their classmates, which created thoughts of depression, lonliness, and psychopathy, which were all factors attributed to the pair committing the shootings. Some also believe that bullying had something to do with it. Jocks are rumored to have ruled the hallways, and Columbine was rumored to have condoned the bullying by them. Homophobic remarks were also reportedly directed at Klebold and Harris, which could make kids depressed. Columbine is really the first massacre of this type in very recent modern history that took place in an enviroment like this, and since the tragic event more lockdowns and restrictions have been focused on school's social climates and bullying policies.

Some also blamed the music scene. Many put much of their focus on the darker mainstream music groups such as Marilyn Manson and KMFDM. I personally believe this is an absurd argument (but that is a different story), but people did focus the blame on them. Since this time, school shootings have been quickle blamed on darker music groups, and there is still controversy over the subject today, especially wit the Columbine/Marilyn Manson connection. His release Holy Wood focused on the subject, with songs such as Lamb of God and The Nobodies. To this day, these darker type of musicians have come under much scrutiny and controversy, in large part due to shootings like these.

School security has increased heavily since the incidents. Ironically enough, so has the amount of school shootings. Many school inplemented computerized ID's, see-through back-packs, and metal detectors, and many schools have adopted zero-tolerance policies for weapons, drugs, and bullying, although some feel these policies have gone overboard. Some may even argue that these policies make it worse for some kids and drive them torwards these homicidal and suicidal feelings even more.

In 2002, a study was done by the Secret Service, comprising of the research done over 37 school shootings. I will post the results:

Incidents of targeted violence at school rarely were sudden, impulsive acts.

Prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s idea and/or plan to attack.

Most attackers did not threaten their targets directly prior to advancing the attack.

There is no accurate or useful profile of students who engaged in targeted school violence.

Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused others concern or indicated a need for help.

Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures.

Moreover, many had considered or attempted suicide.

Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the attack.

Most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack.

In many cases, other students were involved in some capacity.

Despite prompt law enforcement responses, most shooting incidents were stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention

Now look at the facts. You can realize why this event was so important. It has sparked modern controversies over video games and music. It has brought negative media attention to both fields. It has spawned numerous studies and psychological issues. it has brought about many different issues about what kind of medications are safe and which are not, has affected school security and bullying policies across the globe. it has brought about deep and profound effects on school social climates. It has made many question who and what to blame for this event and others like, wether to blame the kids, the parents, the school, or other outside sources. it has brought about one of the most profound effects on this country and globe, more than most in the past 15 years. It has so deeply effected modern society that many different sociology and psychology fiels and ideas have been debated. It has become part of the modern vernacular, with the Santana High shooter saying he was going to pull a Columbine, Seung Hui-Cho mentioning martyrs like Dylan and Eric. I'll let you all believe and form your own opinions on the event, what is right and what is wrong. But you cannot disagree that is has been one of the most single important events of recent modern history, at least in the past 15 to 20 years. To end this, I will leave you with a quote from Marilyn Manson when asked what he would of said to the pair of killers:

"I wouldn't say a single word to them; I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did".

 

[Барбоса]

I would not of course attempt to question your expertise on this matter- you seem to have a very detailed knowledge on the events. I do remember reading somewhere that the military importance of the battle of Thermopylae was largely exaggerated- that while it was an event of bravery and courage it didn't really impact on the overall events. The article stated that some said it was important to give the rest of Greece time to gather their navy for Salamis- but this was not actually true as a navel battle actually took place at the same time as Thermopylae which the Greeks lost. It went on to state that the pass was a key defensive area which had been given up with relatively little loss in time or men (despite the efforts of the 300+) and really the battle represented an ancient Charge of the Light Brigade and had little impact on other events. I am not sure how much I really agree with this view and there are always those who wish to tear down any particularly noble or heroic events we hold from the past- but there it is. I am sure you have a response on this

The military significance of Thermopylae and the accompanying naval engagement at Artemisium can be exaggerated a bit. However, their importance lies not in the outcome of the battles but in the events that took place in them.

In the passes of Thermopylae it was again revealed to the Greeks that their infantry was vastly superior to that of the Persians. Numerous attacks against the Spartan-held wall built across the pass were repelled with some ease even when the Greek army was reduced to less than 1,500 from the original 8,000. While the Persians would have eventually overran the position by attacking it from front and rear, the fact is that they did not. The Spartans and their remaining allies decided to go on the attack, leaving the wall behind them to do as much damage to the Persian ranks as possible. If the sources are to be believed, the Persians suffered up to 20,000 casualties which even to an army of around 150,000 is a massive dent.

Artemisium also proved to the Greeks, particularly the Athenian general Themistocles, that Greek ships were more than a match for the Persian navy. While the Greeks did retreat from Artemisium in the aftermath of Leonidas' sacrifice at Thermopylae, they actually had the better of the naval engagement. By ramming the Persian fleet that was stuck in a natural harbour, the Greeks reduced the battle to more a land engagement and the Greek marines proved as dominant as their hoplite brethern on land.

These lessons were put to good use first at Salamis when Themistocles lured the Persians into the narrow straits where there numerical superiority could be mostly void, (it is also worth mentioning that on two occasions, Xerxes split his naval forces - up to 200 ships were sent to cut off the Greek retreat from Artemisium only to be destroyed or scattered by a storm while at Salamis a large contingent was sent to surround the Greeks and took little part in the battle) and later at Plataea where Greek infantry steamrollered Mardonius' army.

I would agree that the Greeks never thought that their token force at Thermopylae would ever have held up the vast Persian host for long. The sheer fact that the Spartan King Leonidas led his army north in full expectation that he was going to die supports this. Spartan pragmatism in not wanting to defend northern Greece did play a part and Thermopylae was certainly a good strategic position but only for a smaller force. Had the Greeks committed their full army to its defence then once the Persian found the mountain path behind the Greek line, then Greece may have been conquered there and then. However, the psychological impact of Thermopylae and Artemisium should also not be underestimated. Had Xerxes not be exposed to the ferocity of Spartan infantry or Athenian navy then perhaps he may not have felt the need to accept a proposed Athenian surrender at Salamis or the need to retreat so quickly after the battle.

On the larger point of the importance of Salamis- it certainly seems to have been a key point in our history. If the Greeks had indeed been defeated, much of modern Europe which draws so much influence from Greek ideas and Philosophies- how different a society would we have?

There is a PhD title in there somewhere...

I remember reading a counterfactual essay once which held that one likely future event would have been an alliance between the Romans and the Persians- two peoples which the author held had similar styled deity systems and similar views on the Empire. He (an American author) of course linked these events directly to his own country finding that there would have been no Declaration of Independence or growth in democratic ideals.

Romans and Persian working together? I do not buy it for one minute. For starters, the Persian Empire was a totalitarian state that would not accept aid from anyone that it had not conquered. Secondly, in the early 5th century, Rome was nothing like what she would become. At this time, she was still a small settlement that was more Greek and Etruscan than it was 'Roman.' The Persians will have seen it as one of the myriad Greek colonies that in Sicily and Italy and felt that she now ruled having conquered their mother cities.

If the Persians were going to find an ally in western Europe then she would have looked across the Mediterranean from Italy to North Africa where the Carthaginians had built a large trading empire based on former Phoenician trading posts. That the Phoenicians formed a major part of the Persian navy may have given them some common ground.

I am not sure how much I agree with this- I would say that with the loss of the Greek city states we would have indeed lost a lot of what made our society what it is- but in the same sense we are deprived of what culture we might have received through the Persian states. While not as famous as the Greeks the Persian Empire was by no means a barbarian or race of S&M crazed weirdo’s in leather tents- not that I am aware of anyway. Perhaps in this alternative world the continued strength of the Persian Empire would have helped or hindered the growth of the Muslim religion so many years later. It does though seem to be one of those events which had a large effect on how we live now.

I would doubt that the Persian Empire of the 5th century BCE would still have been about when Muhammed had his revelations. It would probably have been lucky to be about when Jesus of Nazareth began his teaching. If they had been able to harness Greek military prowess then perhaps Xerxes and his immediate successors might have been able to build a stronger empire. However, as the Romans, Arabs and Turks found out, Greek was a very difficult language and culture to dislodge. To survive Persia would have had to try what Alexander the Great tried - to integrate Persian and Greek to form a new race.

It is also worth noting that there was a pretty strong Persian Empire about when Islam bust onto the world stage in the mid-7th century. From the 230s, Rome's most implacable foe was the Sassanid Persian Empire, which while not as big as its predecessor, was more stable and structured. It was easily swept aside by the Muslim tempest.

In terms of other possible momentous events you have that most basic question. What if the Roman Empire hadn't fallen? Or is this really a sensible question to ask? I know the Eastern Empire survived till the 1400's but was it reasonable that the West could have done the same? Empires always have a habit of failing eventually.

Another PhD title! This is perhaps the Mother of all "What If" questions!

Was it possible that the Empire in the west might have survived the fifth century? I would say yes but in the face of the tremendous movement of peoples caused by the appearance of the Huns in Europe in the 370s, I think it would have taken a lot of luck and a lot of compromise, something that the traditionally obstinate Romans were unwilling to apply. By the time they realised that compromise was needed it was already too late - the eastern army had been crushed and the emperor Valens killed at Adrianople in 378; two fierce civil wars between east and west had been fought by Theodosius against Magnus Maximus and Arbogast and numerous barbarian tribes such as the Goths, Alans, Vandals, Suebi, Franks, Alamanni and Burgundians all roamed freely throughout the Empire.

Had the Empire been able to integrate these many barbarian groups and resisted the Hunnic onslaught, then the so-called "Dark Ages" (which were by no means as dark as normally suggested) might not have happened. Would this have been good for Europe and the world? It is hard to say. Without losing so much Roman learning for the best part of a millennia perhaps we might be further forward than we are now. However, without those dark times perhaps the burst of ingenuity that came with the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation may not have broken the Catholic Church's hold over the hearts and minds of people. The questions of "why?" may never have been asked and we might have been worse off than we are now.

 

[Razor]

First of all, I totally knew what you were talking about here. Not the specific details, but the gist of it. Western Civilization I for the win.

To get at the gist of it, I do believe that this series of battles was entirely important. This was enough to galvanize the creation and solidarity of the Delian League into defeating the invading Xerxes. This set the ground for Athens to manipulate and become the enemy of Sparta that it would later be known as.

The Delian League would later keep Greece together long enough for a finish to the war with Persia. It would fall apart when a war between Sparta and Athens broke out. This war was fueled by Persia, which would later be found out by the Greeks and fuel the idea for revenge. Who would lead this revenge? Alexander the Great.

Alexander the Great, being the conqueror that he was, conquered all of the modernized world, really. His conquering of the world gave men the possibility to gain power in the region that normally wouldn't be able to. These men, after rebelling when Alexander the Great died, founded cities that influenced the region for centuries.

Alexander the Great's conquering of Tyre was integral to Christianity. I will depart from Barbossa here and claim that without Alexander's conquest of Tyre crucifixion would have never been integrated into Greek or Roman life. Without the crucifixion of Jesus in Rome, which was by then a routine method of execution for the Romans, the entire religion of Christianity would be radically different.

And, well, without Christianity the Middle Ages would be a different time. In fact, if one were to blame Christianity for the decline of Rome (which is a fair argument to make) then Rome could theoretically still be standing today without the crucifixion of Jesus and the subsequent creation of Christianity. And without the fall of Rome, you have no Middle Ages.

Simply put, these battles set the stage for a Western world. Without these wins you would have Persia dominating the globe, and the eventual spread of Judaism and Islam throughout the world. The creation of Rome could be questioned, but the domination of Persia is guaranteed.

 

[Барбоса]

Alexander the Great's conquering of Tyre was integral to Christianity. I will depart from Barbossa here and claim that without Alexander's conquest of Tyre crucifixion would have never been integrated into Greek or Roman life. Without the crucifixion of Jesus in Rome, which was by then a routine method of execution for the Romans, the entire religion of Christianity would be radically different.

The influence of Alexander the Great's conquests has been a favourite of counterfactual historians.

Arnold Toynbee highlighted the potential impact of him not dying at 32 and going to further expand his empire in the west, perhaps at the expense of the Latins, Romans, Carthaginians and even moving against the Chinese. He saw Aramaic or Greek as the lingua franca of his empire and Buddhism as its universal religion.

Josiah Ober took the opposite approach by suggesting what if Cleitus the Black had been unsuccessful in saving Alexander's life at the battle of Granicus River in 334BCE. He thought that without the spread of Hellenism, the Roman Empire would not have become such the intercontinental power it did and probably would not have reached the Middle East had the Persian Empire remained in power.

Ober suggested that continued Persian control over the Holy Lands would have had epic effects on religion. As the Persians were known for their willingness to leave other religions alone and without Roman mismanagement, Judaism would have remained a mostly localised and peaceful. Without any conflict between Graeco-Romans and Jews, Jesus of Nazareth may have stuck to his carpentry and without the spread of Judaeo-Christian monotheism throughout Europe. Africa and the Middle East, the religion of Muhammed would have been considerably different from what was to appear in the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century

 

[Барбоса]

While I claimed in my opening post that my next moment would be non-military in nature, I just could not help myself...

In the course of my university studies, I have become interested in a little-known but incredibly important battle that took place in what is now modern Slovenia in 394CE (under the second half of 'Mediolanum' on the map below).

I am pretty sure that few of you have heard of the Battle of Frigidus River (now called the Vipava River); to be honest, many academics of antiquity have not either. However, thies belies its importance to the religiosity of Europe.

While the civil war between the legitimate Roman emperor Theodosius I and the western usurper Eugenius and his general Arbogast may have started out as purely a struggle for political recognition for the latter and to reassert political dominance for the former, it was to take on far wider connotations in the realms of religion and is often viewed as the last hurrah for paganism in an increasingly Christian Empire.

Theodosius I

Although Theodosius was a staunch Nicene Christian and the establisher of what became the Catholic Church and both Eugenius and Arbogast are known to have been pagans, a deep "pagan vs Christian" rivalry may have been the invention of later historians. Neither army can be said to be 'pagan' or 'Christian' as both will have included large numbers of both. It is entirely likely that Arbogast and his puppet Eugenius simply wanted to force recognition of their position in the west from Theodosius.

The battle itself lent further credence to divine intervention in its outcome. Upon approaching Arbogast's force from the Birnbaumer Forest, Theodosius was likely forced to deploy his forces before he was ready with his vanguard taking heavy losses on the first day of fighting. This vanguard just happened to be comprised of Theodosius' Gothic allies, who had been a great bother to the Empire in the previous two decades including killing Theodosius' predecessor Valens at Adrianople. The virtual human wave attacks that these barbarians were ordered to make against Arbogast's densely packed Roman lines caused perhaps up to 20,000 casualties (probably half that) and lead to suggestions that Theodosius had intentional put them in harms way so as to reduce their number and potential trouble for the Empire.

The divine intervention came after a night of restlessness in the Theodosian camp when it looked for all the world like the next day would bring an ignominious and crushing defeat. When both armies joined battle the next morning, a local phenomenon called the Bora wind blew down from the Birnbaumer Forest giving impetuous to the Theodosian army and blinding Arbogast's forces with sand. With such a combination, the 'pagan' army routed giving Theodosius the victory. This wind was seen as God providing victory for his followers.

While this does not yet seem like a battle any more important than the other Roman civil wars of the fourth century, the consequences of an Arbogast victory at Frigidus could have been immense. Had paganism prevailed at Frigidus (not as big a step as it sounds as Julian the Apostate had been a widely popular emperor only 30 years previous and the army was still largely pagan) then the Empire could have been racked with vicious religious in-fighting. Christianity in western Europe which was not particularly strong may have waned even more while in the east, such a massive defeat may have led many to question their monotheism. Such fighting may have weakened the Empire sufficiently for the Persians to advance their borders into the Middle East, Turkey and Egypt as they actually did in the early seventh century.

The combination of prolonged religious in-fighting, Persian belligerence and barbarian invasions will have eviscerated perhaps not just the western Empire (as what actually happened in the fifth century) but also the eastern half perhaps two centuries before it actually happened.

Perhaps the real benefactor in the long run from a pagan victory at Frigidus would have been the Islamic Arabs that emerged in the mid-seventh century. An overstretched Persian Empire would likely have posed little more difficulty than it actually did in real life while a divided Roman Empire may not have been able to defend eastern Turkey like it did. Constantinople, probably without its impregnable land walls which were begun under the Theodosian dynasty after Frigidus, would have fallen to Islamic forces 800 years earlier, leaving much of Europe vulnerable to Islamic domination.

Without Theodosius' victory at Frigidus it is possible to suggest that Christian Europe may not have existed for very long with a pagan west trying to survive the vicious onslaught of Huns, other barbarians and Islam

 

[Барбоса]

Defeating a Superpower: Part II – The Battle of the Teutoburger Wald

The ambush and massacre of three Roman legions under Quinctilius Varus by an alliance of Germanic tribes in the depths of the Teutoburger Wald in 9CE was not only one of Rome’s greatest defeats, it has had massive ramifications for history as a whole.

Preparing to return west to his winter camp close to the Rhine, Varus was told by his ally Arminius that there was a local rebellion against Roman rule. Determined to make an example of these rebels and despite warnings regarding the allegiance of his Germanic allies, Varus led his at least 20,000 strong force into the forest and along a narrow, muddy track that forced the Roman column to thin out to perhaps a length of up to 10 miles. It was only then that he realised that Arminius had lured him into a trap as trenches and walls had been constructed within the forest to give the Germans cover against any Roman counter-attack. Over a frantic three days, the Roman army was slowly whittled away through numerous attacks and failed breakout attempts. Finally, Roman resistance disintegrated and Varus committed suicide. A few Romans survived to be killed in religious ceremonies or sold as slaves.

Such was the psychological impact of this defeat that it seems to have driven the emperor Augustus temporarily mad as he is recorded banging his head against the walls of his palace, repeatedly shouting “Quintili Vare, legiones redde!” – “Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!” The numbers of the legions destroyed, XVII, XVIII, and XIX, were from then on considered unlucky and were retired from the legionary roster. Aside from some punitive campaigns over the next few decades to regain the lost legionary standards and a brief attempt mounted by Marcus Aurelius in the late 170s abandoned on his death (the battle featured in the opening of Gladiator was part of this attempt), Rome would never try to annex Germania again.

Strangely for such an important battle, the actual battlefield has yet to be firmly identified. Augustus’ great-nephew Germanicus is recorded by Tacitus as finding the battlefield and giving what remains he found a proper burial but he is not specific as to its whereabouts. Modern excavations have pointed to Kalkriese for the decisive part of the battle but again this is not universally accepted.

Without this defeat, it is very likely that Germania would have become yet another province of the Roman Empire. It is pure speculation but with the new injection of recruits that the conquest of the Germans would have brought, it is possible that Empire would have continued expanding in Europe far beyond the Rhine and Danube rivers. With Germania colonised, Denmark would have followed and soon the legions would have been crossing the Elbe into Slavic territory and perhaps reached the Russian steppes.

Not only would the absence of the defeat have enlarged the Roman Empire, it would have drastically changed medieval and therefore modern Europe. By Romanising the Germanic tribes, there would be no modern Germany and perhaps more importantly for world history, no modern Britain. Without the mixture of Celtic, Roman, German and Viking blood, there would be no British Empire to civilise much of the world. The United States would not exist in its current form.

Indeed, perhaps the Roman Empire would not have fallen at all and “we” would be living in a global super-state covering Europe, north Africa, the Middle East and perhaps more. An enlarged and stronger Roman Empire may have been able to crush the Islamic revolution of the seventh century and perhaps may not have felt the need to embrace Christianity at all.

 

[dark-mask]

May peace and blessings be upon Jesus the son of the Pure Mary ...

My peace and blessings be upon the one who was sent by God the One

to lighten the way to Heaven , lead the astray and warn people ...

Jesus (peace be upon him) came to us as a prophet and a Mighty Messenger sent by God the one

and he will come back someday ...

Jesus wasn't a God and wasn't crucified but he was a mighty messenger with lot's of miracles .

that's what Muslims do believe in they love Jesus peace be upon him and believe in him also recount his favours of preaching the massage of God and know well how much he suffered for that .

Allah (means God in Arabic) says in the Holy Quran:

3:45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

5:110 Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'

6:85 And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous:


So all Muslims and Christians do believe and love Jesus peace be upon him ,but Muslims deny

the story of Crucifiection and believe that the one who was crucified was Judas not Jesus .

also they deny he was a God and deny the father + the son + the holy Ghost = one God!

cause there's one God only one no one besides him .

Allah says in The Holy Quran:

4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:

4:171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

Also Muslims believe in both Turah and the Bible but not those versions nowadays cause they were fabricated even in the meantime the Preists still fabricating the Bible the way they like and you that well .

Allah says in The Holy Quran :

3:3 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

If you analyze the Bible and think deeply you'll realise the truth .

You couldn't prove you believes Logically but Islam can prove its believes logically

Also your Bible isn't fabricated well (manmade isn't perfect) cause there are lots of contradictions if you analyze 'nd think of them you'll come 2 know that Jesus wasn't a God nor Crucified .
With all my respect for you Christians and your believes .You have your religion as I have mine and this is your choice and decision.

Few Questions ask yourself them :
- If Jesus was a God so way he was serving God the father !??

- If Jesus was a God and all 3 Gods were equal so why he was following the willing of God the father ???! is not he a God so the will is his will not following the willing of anyone whoever he was !(Also 3 Gods are all equal and one God so the willing is one)

- Why the prophecies of him were not all fullfilled and the very opposite happened?

- Why do you believe that the Bible is the WORD of GOD when you see your Preists change and fabricate it ?

-If Jesus was a God why should he pray ? praying for who ? 4 himself ?

-You believe that the God is the only one who can make someone alive once again so When Jesus the god was dead 4 3 days who made him alive once again itsn't logical to say that the God has the power to do so cause he was dead dead really dead !?

- If Jesus was a God and Crucified to clear the sin of people So why didn't he clear and forgive the sins of people since he's a God & the forgiveness is between his hands ?

-* Why was he shouting on the cross :

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mathew 27:46)
Shouting : My God My God ! wasn't he the God ?



Strictly speaking it's not an event, its a theory. Further, to be an historical event it has to take place after the dawn of recorded history.

As such it doesn't belong on this list at all, but I give it two stars just to put it ahead of the Creation myths, which have even less place.

Although on a personal level, the time I nailed Debbie Whatsherface back in highschool after a month of pursuit qualifies as a Big Bang in my history.




War for American Independence is a better title. Some of the protagonists were revolutionaries but most were Englishmen who were fighting for their rights as Englishmen. It was more of a rebellion against real or perceived injustice.

The Scots-Irish who bore a great share of the fighting were fighting English rule. Lots of cross currents existed in that war. It was revolutionary to the extent that it ended monarchy in the colonies that rebelled.





The fist car is made.

Jesus rises from the grave.

Jesus could never had sacrificed Himself for our sins without first being born. And I beg to differ with those who state there's no historical evidence of His birth. Josephus does allude to Christ, and they have found documents of the Sanhedrin indicating the problems they were having with Jesus at that time.

Just because we weren't there, and just because God has made sure there's no proof, doesn't mean that it never happened. Without Faith one can not please God, so therefore, God will test our faith. Blessed are those who haven't seen who still believe!


Creation


World War 2


The Siege of Constantinople (1453).


Jewish Nation Rises again (1948)



Thomas Edison invents the light-bulb


Johannes Gutenberg Invents Printing Press



The Exploration of North America


World War 1


D-Day


The Rise of Rome


The Industrial Revolution


300 Spartans

t is easy for people who were Born after the 60's to get Jaded by this. But this is actually a Pretty damn big deal. Mere man, defied gravity and the laws of nature and the laws of the Universe and went into the Heavens and set foot on that big Rock orbiting the earth. How cool is that? Maybe this is because I have some nerd tendencies, but I always wanted to land on the Moon. That there are actually people that did this is just Awesome to me

The first most important moments of the history is the born of JESUS because HE the GOD of the UNIVERSE.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

The first most important moments of the history is the born of JESUS because HE the GOD of the UNIVERSE.

For the time being I'll ignore the fact that this is borderline spam (and will probably be deleted as a result), and simply ask if you are trying to impersonate Santino Marella or if you're actually this functionally illiterate?

Anyway, your logic is flawed and your timeline is off. According to Christianity, Jesus is the son of the God of the Universe, and he wasn't born until MANY thousands of years after such major events as, oh I don't know, the invention of the wheel by the ancient Sumerians or the Roman Empire. These events took place in years commonly referred to as "B.C.," or "Before Christ."

Now, if you wanted to argue that the birth / death of Jesus Christ - a fairly accepted confirmed historical figure - and the resulting spread of Christianity and acceptance of monotheism was the most important event in history, you could make a case.

Sadly, however, you would need to be able to read and write above a 1st grade level - a skill your Lord and Savior hath not imparteth upon thee.

 

[Lee]

Sadly, however, you would need to be able to read and write above a 1st grade level - a skill your Lord and Savior hath not imparteth upon thee.

Talk about being utterly pathetic towards someone for the sake of it. Of course Jesus' birth/death is one of the greatest moments in history. No man has had such an impact on society, whether it be through his teachings, founding the biggest religion in the world, agree or disagree that that man was the Son of God there is no denying his influence on the world we have today. To say against this is pathetic, almost as bad as your attempt at humour.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Talk about being utterly pathetic towards someone for the sake of it.

I'll leave that to you. You talk about it, Leeland.

Of course Jesus' birth/death is one of the greatest moments in history. No man has had such an impact on society, whether it be through his teachings, founding the biggest religion in the world, agree or disagree that that man was the Son of God there is no denying his influence on the world we have today.

I agree. In fact, I think I said that. Let's go to the video tape...

Now, if you wanted to argue that the birth / death of Jesus Christ - a fairly accepted confirmed historical figure - and the resulting spread of Christianity and acceptance of monotheism was the most important event in history, you could make a case.

Well, would you look at that?

New, spam free edit: There is no question that Jesus's birth and death was among the most history shaping events in history. As I mentioned, it moved along the shift from polytheism to monotheism. It also changed the Roman Empire completely, as eventually their leadership adapted the Christian faith. It set the stage for centuries of religious persecution. Etc.

To say against this is pathetic,

I'm not sure who did speak against it. New, Spam-free edit: I certainly didn't. In fact, I argued in its favor.

But if someone did, I wouldn't call them pathetic. Maybe futile. Not pathetic.

almost as bad as your attempt at humour.

But nowhere near as bad as your attempt to be all pissy.

New, spam-free edit:What I did was remove the "religious passion" from the debate and made logical points. What the gentleman I reponded to did was post a bunch of religious diatribe. But we arrived at the same fact - Jesus's birth and death was easilly a critical event in World History.

 

[Барбоса]

Defeating a Superpower: Part III - The Battle of Tours

This could easily go into the Underrated Military Commanders thread I made a long time ago for while many have heard of the Arab Conquests, few know of their scale, rapidity, influence and how close western Europe came to falling completely to the armies of Islam in the 8th century. The Battle of Tours, also known as the Battle of Poitiers, in 732 may have prevented a very different western Europe emerging from the Dark Ages.

In the century following the death of the Prophet Muhammed in 632, the Arab tribes that had for so long been mostly traders, regional allies and occasional nuisances of little significance to both Roman/Byzantine emperors and Persian kings had all of a sudden become important players in a tripartite struggle over the Middle East. Captialising on the exhaustion of the Romans and Persians who had emerged from an epic contest against each other, starting with the Battle of Yarmuk in 636 Arab armies pulverised any opposition that could be brought to bare against them.

By 651, they had conquered all Roman territory south of the Tarsus Mountains in modern day southern Turkey including Palestine, Judaea, Syria and Egypt and had erased the Persian Empire from the map, conquering all of Iraq and Iran and reaching the Oxus river (now known as the Amu Darya river) in modern day Uzbekistan.

After a generation of consolidation punctuated by more meagre gains in Armenia and the Caucasus, the Arab steamroller got underway again. In the east, Muslim forces crossed the Jaxartes river (now known as the Syr Darya) capturing Tashkent and pressing on into modern day Kazakhstan. They also drove southeast into Pakistan. In the west, Roman resistance in northern Africa finally collapsed with the capture of Carthage in 698. This had far reaching consequences as it brought the Arabs into contact with the Berbers; a trading people of the Sahara who accepted Islam and added new impetus - and new recruits - to the Muslim conquests.

Crossing at Gibraltar, originally the Pillars of Hercules but now renamed Jebel al-Tariq meaning Mountain of Tariq, the Muslim commander, a single victory brought almost the entire Iberian peninsula under their control. They also crossed the Pyrennes and conquered Provence, bringing them into direct contact with the Frankish Kingdom. After a century of virtually unmitigated success, the Muslim army must have expected that nothing could stand in their way

One of the more successful of the successor states to the western half of the Roman Empire, the Franks had by the dawn of the 8th century had conquered the vast majority of what would become France and a considerable amount of western Germany.

Behind the scenes, however, there had been something of a revolution. The line of Clovis, the 5th century king who had been mostly responsible for Frankish success, had deterioriated in ability and power so that by the 8th century there were nothing but the pupperts of whatever baron could assert his influence. However, this was a blessing in disguise for the Franks and as it turned out for western Europe too.

The man who had fought his way to control of the Frankish king by 720 was an illegitimate son of Pepin II, himself a powerful warlord, called Carolus but known to history as Charles Martel - Charles the Hammer.

Spoiler

He received this nickname for his role in the week long Battle of Tours which saw him lead the Frankish army to victory over a Muslim army from Spain.

Refusing to attack the almost invincible Muslim cavalry, Charles waited for over a week in a strong, tight defensive formation reminiscent more of an ancient Greek phalanx rather than more loose medieval infantry. This delay allowed both sides to draw up their full strength.

Finally, the Muslim commander, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi could not wait and attacked expecting his cavalry to sweep all before it but having a virtually professional core of veterans who trained all year round served Charles well as his men withstood the Muslim charge. This led to heavy melee fighting during which both sides incurred heavy losses.

To break this deadlock, Charles sent scouts round the back of the battlefield to the Muslim camp in an attempt to distract the Islamic army by plundering booty and freeing slaves. Whether this is true or the Muslim cavalry simply had had enough is not completely known but late in the day Abdul Rahman's cavalry withdrew, something which the rest of his army mistook for a retreat. What was perhaps an orderly regrouping turned into something approaching a rout as the Franks cut down their fleeing opponents, including Abdul Rahman himself.

However, fearing a trap, Charles refused to fully engage and retained and reformed his defensive position. Seeing as how feigned flight had long been a Muslim tactic, Charles would not believe that his opponents were in full retreat until his scouts told him of the hurried abandoning of the Muslim

It was the victory that Europe had been looking for but it did not but an end to the Muslim threat to the continent. The fact that Tours is as close to the English Channel as it is to the Mediterranean suggests just how far the power of Muslim armies could project from the Arabian and Sahara deserts and that kind of power was not going to be destroyed by a single setback.

It also had not been the first Muslim move into Gaul with the first coming to grief at Toulouse a decade previous (which was possibly a more impressive victory by another warlord) and another would come a few years after Tours. Indeed, it has been suggested that these 'invasions' should be seen more as raids into Frankish rather than attempts at taking territory. Tours hardly turned the tide against against Islam either as the Muslims remained mostly unpreturbed in Spain for centuries to come as a Frankish invasion across the Pyrennes had very little impact.

However, even if the importance of Tours in preventing an Islamic conquest of France and saving western Christendom is somewhat overstated, its importance to the future of western Europe is not. His victory at Tours allowed Charles Martel to unite all of Gaul under his control, forming a bulwark against any future Muslim attack. It also laid the foundations for the rise of the Carolingian Kingdom which would reach its peak by the end of the 8th century under Martel's grandson, Charles the Great, known more famously to posterity as Charlemage.

 

[fgerw]

that's very interesting.

 

[Барбоса]

I have again noticed that I ended up going with a battle as an important moment in history even when I have several non-military events/periods that are equally important. I just cannot bring myself to put the effort in for a piece on something cultural like the Renaissance, religion like the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth or scientific like the isolation of penicillin. Writing about battles is just so much more fun, particularly when they are little-known but widely important.

I think I have two more for the Defeating a Superpower series

 

[Dhays9]

OMG I had totally forgot about this until now. You are my hero.

Thank you for the history lesson.