Historian Reacts - Top 20 Battles That Changed History
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ค. 2024
- Check out the VTH Patreon here - / vth
See the original video here - • Top 20 Battles That Ch...
Check out the VTH Podcast
Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/2lMCaIT...
Apple - podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
VTH Originals - / @vthoriginals259
#History #reaction
00:00 Introduction
02:02 Actium
04:28 Yorktown
07:00 Badr
08:34 Cannae
10:20 Hattin
11:56 Adwa
13:30 Vienna 1683
16:18 Constantinople
17:31 Hsupeng
19:11 Orleans
22:08 Tours
23:50 The Somme
25:39 Gettysburg
27:48 Cajamarca
29:08 Waterloo
31:03 Hastings
32:15 Marathon
33:39 Gaugamela
36:40 Stalingrad
![BOWKYLION - เจ้านายคะ (work-life imbalance) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6bFj8G2pOi4/mqdefault.jpg)
![บุษบา - เมนทอล [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IGnWPokSEis/mqdefault.jpg)
Trafalgar needs to be there. It ensures British domination of the seas so that it can’t be invaded from Napoleon or the Nazis as well as itself controlling its colonies for over a century afterwards
While I agree with Domination of the seas after that battle. During WW2, assuming Germany continued to concentrate attacks on airfields (Instead of switching to City's) the RAF would of been all but eliminated. Allowing the German Luftwaffe to sink the British navy. This was the time of the airplane and I just don't see the Navy being much use once Germany establishes air superiority over the channel and Britain. Of course actual history played out differently.
@@DJ118USMC It is widely accepted among historians that had the Germans won the Battle of Britain, Operation Sea Lion would still be a near impossible feat to accomplish due to the British Navy (they have AA guns) and the Coastal defences in Britain, not to mention should the soldiers get past that, Guerrilla warfare in the UK would be extremely tough for the Germans to win at, it would just be another Barbarossa for the Germans, it just wouldn’t work for them.
@@versiable8041 Yeah, It possible. I see your points. We will never know.
@@versiable8041 I disagree, if Germans destroyed the RAF, they could have done serious damage to the royal navy, their stuka dive bombers were the best bombers in 1940-41, also Hitler never really cared about his navy, so they never invested much into it except for the U-Boats but if they put more money into it they would be able to at least be on even ground with Royal Navy like in WW1, and if Germans landed in Britain I doubt British troops would be able to do anything to stop them, they were both outgunned and outnumbered, just look the numbers Germans had on the eastern front, no way UK would be able to survive land invasion, RAF saved UK and that's the only way UK was able to triumph.
@@DJ118USMC We DO know that Germany did not have any experience in naval invasions. We will never know, but it is highly unlikely that a potential Operation Sealion would have ever succeded.
Siege of Baghdad by Gengis Khan’s forces which at that time was like London of the 19th century. It effectively ended the Islamic Golden Age and opened the door for the West to the Mongolians HAS to be a top 3 battle. If anyone is interested, look into it. Honestly it’s beyond insane.
Not to mention any of the battles that stopped the Golden Horde from having their way with Europe and the Middle East.
It wasnt a battle though, it was a
Massacre, completely and utterly
@@GobbleWobble123that's what I was thinking. It was siege that ended in a massacre
While I do agree the G
Fall of Baghdad was one of the most significant battles in history, remember, Ghengis Khan had been dead since 1227 (ish). Helegu Khan destroyed Baghdad in 1257-58.
I’m surprised battle of Alesia wasn’t mentioned. Brought Gaul under Roman control and made Caesar the hero who had the support to cross the rubicon.
Both would have happened either way, Pharsalus is really the only one with any reason to be on the list, or maybe Thapsus.
@@tyrannicfool2503 I agree Pharsalus should have been on here.
I'd rather have Siege of Toulouse 1793, Battle of Granada 1492, Baghdad 1268, Technochtitlan 1519. The fall of Baghdad 1268 was the end of the last golden age of the middle east and has never recovered ever since.
@@tyrannicfool2503 I don't think that's true, Rome would have eventually conquered Gaul, yes. But if Caesar loses at Alesia he probably would have been killed if you look at how that battle unfolded.
@@David-sl6xf he could have died at various times in his campaign, I don’t think Alesia is different (though I understand the difference with them being surrounded)
Battle of the Sabis for example, Caesar heavily involved in the fighting and fully surrounded on his flank also
I just don’t think Alesia is that significant, it was one of a line of Gallic rebellions.
I believe the Battle of Trafalgar deserved a mention. It was really the only time Napolean was beaten at or near the height of his power in a straight up battle. It also secured Britain's stranglehold of the seas and ensured their dominance of it for the next 140 years.
Trafalgar was a great victory but it only confirmed the current situation - Britain dominated the sea before and after the battle. Combined French and Spanish navy was hiding in the ports. It's the same with Waterloo - it was too late to change history at that point, the coalition was much stronger and even with Napoleon's victory wouldn't change the result of the war
Napoleon wasn't involved in the battle.
Nah. Napoleon had been beaten in a few battles at the peak of his powers, the most famous defeat being at the Battle of Aspern-Essling right outside of Vienna in 1809. There were also the huge routs of Napoleonic armies (though none of Napoleon himself) in the Iberian Peninsula, including the crushing losses at the Siege of Lisbon and the Battle of Bailen, both in 1808. The thing that made Napoleon so great is that he always bounced back--his loss at Aspern-Essling was avenged in the great Battle of Wagram a few weeks later. And the French armies won victories after their losses in the Iberian Peninsula. As for Trafalgar--Napoleon was not involved in the slightest there. He was too busy with his incredible victory at Austerlitz to pay attention. He also had almost no naval knowledge so left it to his admirals to deal with ocean stuff.
While Trafalgar did ensure British naval supremacy for one hundred years, it did not save England from invasion. By the time Trafalgar occurred Napoleon had already withdrawn his army from the channel forts to deal with the land powers of the 3rd coalition, Austria, Russia and eventually Prussia.
I think that the battle of quiberon bay in the “annus mirabilis” of 1759 was the real start of British naval dominance over the continental European powers. I would put plessy in there as well, and maybe Montreal even but I’m not sure if the French could even defend North America for very long after they lost quiberon
Although Waterloo was absolutely a great battle, I'd put much more importance on the battle of Leibzig.
Yes. And don't forget that probably Blucher was the key guy not Wellington
@@javiervicedo4201 wellington was the one holding the line for most of the battle the Prussians only arrived at the end and their apperiance on the french flank scared the french army into retreat in total a lot more fighting was done by the brits than the prussians
@@javiervicedo4201 Blucher avoid grouchy and show up. Wellington had to fight the whole battle. He beat Ney and stalled Napoleon for six hours before Blucher showed. Wellington’s infantry also repelled the guard Napoleon had sent in to finish the job.
In the Napoleonic Era I would go with the Siege of Toulon. It's the first battle where Napoleon's strategic prowess was first starting to recognized and he was given a higher command enabling him to be where he needed to be to pull off other victories. I think the Royalists would have won the French Revolution if they had won at Toulon, and I don't think Napoleon would have had enough time to distinguish himself and make a big enough difference if that had happened.
@@Eluzian86 Great, great comment
One battle I would add would be the naval Battle of Tsushima in 1905. Imperial Russia was humiliated and Japan gained a lot of prestige and influence in Asia. Arguably also led to Japan's hubris and defeat in WW2.
Tsushima should definitely be added. It ended the Russian Empire’s status as a global power and made Japan a force to be reckoned with.
i agree there is a reason that the battle of tsushima is named "The battle that saved Japan"
I disagree. Tsushima is important because it's one of the few modern naval battles but I don't think it changed the course of history. It was more the final nail in the coffin. Russia had already suffered a series of defeats by this point in the war. Hell, the Russian Baltic Fleet was going through the Tsushima strait to Vladivostok because their other base at Port Arthur (the reason for the the war in the first place) had already fallen to the Japanese.
More than that it was the first victory of an Asian power over a European one.
@@dndsl3436 but wasn't it also important in forming the Japanese doctrine of causing a decisive battle that kind of dictated their campaign in ww2 against America? I think considering this as well as the fact that it showed Japan they could defeat European / western powers makes the battle kinda important. (sry if I'm wrong but that is the way I understand it)
The French relief of the Siege of Orleans took place in May of 1429. The Battle of Agincourt took place in 1415 and Henry V died in 1422, fourteen and seven years before Orleans respectively. The significance of the French victory was that it shattered the myth of invincibility that had surrounded the English since Agincourt.
Yeah, I’m not sure what he said about England/Henry V conquering France after Orléans? He died before
@@MegaDarkfriend indeed. Maybe a confusion with his son Henry VI, who was coronated in 1431 in Paris at age 10 in reaction to Charles VII's coronation in Reims in 1429 following Orleans' battle - edit: after listening to the whole comment, he was definitely mentioning Henry V, so big mistake there.
Castillon was the more decisive French victory. Also truly introduced cannon to European warfare
For me the Battle of Austerlitz (Battle of the three emperors) for me is so high on my list, because it displayed how much advanced the french army was ahead of everyone else, and it literally was the decisive battle that ended the Holy Roman Empire which had existed for more than 1000 years!
Yes, a much better candidate than the Battle of Waterloo, at least. There’s also the Battle of Trafalgar, that many other have mentioned, and for me also the Battle of Leipzig.
That s one of my favourite battles but i doubt that it really changed history, at least not as much as other battles in the top 20
And Austerlitz was so important for France and Napoléon and we might not have had all the other Napoleonic wars wasn't it for Austerlite, even though battles like Marango, and the Italian and Egyptian campaigns beafore had already played a major role in the affirmation of Napoléon's leadership.
I would also kind of count jena and wargram and eylau.
Wait a thousand year Reich?!?!?!?
The fall of Constantinople in 1453 was going to happen anyways but the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 was what doomed the empire they never recovered
I agree that 1453 was inevitable - it only didn't happen earlier due to Timur. But I don't think it was the fall of Constantinople to the 4thg Crusade was quite so critical. I'd pick the Battle of Myriokephalon a few years before that. If the Byzantines had simply carried on accepting the tribute being offered by the various Turkish emirates and not lost the bulk of their army, they'd probably have been able to defeat the Fourth Crusade - it might not even have been launched if the Byzantine army was still regarded as strong.
I think if 1204 sacking Constantinople never happened then 1453 isn’t innevetable
@@timnewman7591 IIRC they didn't lose a majority of their men, only about a quarter or so and the casualties didn't matter as much as the drop in morale did. The 4th crusade only wound up in Constantinople after a request to help restore a former emperor, when their payment failed to arrive they began looting the city. There was enough men there to help push them back but lack of proper leadership led to this failing.
Agree 1204 should’ve been there and 717 should’ve to
I would put 1793 siege of Toulouse, battle of granada 1492, technochtitlan 1519, Baghdad 1268, sack of rome 476. Any opinions on my choices?
There's a reason I find top 10s historically pointless, although entertaining to watch and discuss, especially with battles. Singular events like battles are always surrounded in context, and it's difficult to separate them from that context to compare and contrast them with others. Instinctively we think that modern battles like Stalingrad or Ludendorff's offensive in 1918 are more important to world history than Actium, but we're informed by our recency bias. When we think of one decisive battle in the Napoleonic Wars, we think of Waterloo because it's the final one, but we've been influenced by generations of European romantics, French and other, magnifying a confrontation that was essentially, as you've said, already decided in Russia.
Also, WatchMojo is just pretty bad.
(This is not a judgement on your part for your choice of video, your commentary is always great and deepens the discussion; this is just a personal taste of mine.)
Anyway, thank you for your work, as always.
I totally agree. There are very few battles that changed history, hastings the victories of Alexander (not one battle alone) and maybe the initial Muslim victories over the Roman's and Sassanids off the top of my head. Probably a few others. Otherwise most battles are just something that cap off the general trend anyway, Gettysburg and Poltava for example. And some like Cannae changed almost nothing
I wouldn't say watchmojo is bad, just don't expect anything more than a little entertainment and maybe to learn a new name to google later on and actually do some learning. I think it does that really well.
The fate of Napoleon's Empire was actually decided in Germany, at Leipzig.
Totally agree. That’s why I unsubscribed them (Mojo).
@@sssenseiii It is on par with store magazines.
The battle of Cannae is important both from a military history perspective but also from a geo political perspective. After the battle, the Romans were terrified that the Carthaginian army could simply walk into Rome, so they completely changed how their society works to prepare a defense. It’s outrageously significant for the modern world.
I love how the narrator nails "Tours" and "Martel", but completely Americanizes "Orleans".
If I had to go with one battle from the Western Front of WW1 I would go with the First Battle of Marne, if the Germans won they at bare minimum would be able to place Paris under siege and more than likely they would capture it. I don't know if it ends the Western Front but France would be far weaker and I think if Germany wins at the Marne they probably win WW1.
I don’t think there’s any possible way of Germany winning ww1 the most they could’ve hoped for was a stalemate with the British empire,the Royal Navy would still dominate the seas and the empire had unlimited manpower to call on if needed but I agree that if France fell it would be hard for Britain to land the millions needed into France in an amphibious invasion as Gallipoli proved.But nothing would’ve stopped the British blockade of Germany that was a major factor in the collapse of The German ability to continue the war in the end,estimates of German deaths due to starvation range anywhere from 500,00 to 750,000 due to the blockade
Agreeed. If Marne doesn't happen it's a repeat of the war of 1870
Yeah it had to be the First Battle of the Marne, couldnt believe they chose the Somme over that. A close second would be - the 2nd Battle of the Marne in 1918.
Even Verdun should come before the Somme as it bled the Germans white and held. But Foch's finest hour was the Marne.
@@alawesy I think they just chose the most famous battles, hardly the most impactful. The Marne for sure had a bigger impact on the outcome of the war. For WWII I'd even put the battle of Smolensk above Stalingrad in terms of war-changing strategic significance because it wasted German time and panzer capability that might've made a difference around Moscow, while by Stalingrad IMO Germany had basically already lost. But everyone's heard of Stalingrad so it makes every list.
I think it is a bit unfair that counting battle of Tours while discounting siege of Constantinople. It is true that losing Constantinople would not lead Umayyad conquering the whole Europe. But neither battle of Tours will. Umayyad at this point was at its peak. If they took Constantinople, they might conquer most of east Roman Empire easily. That is a huge chunk of Eastern and Southern Europe. Given that Umayyad invested way more resources in the front against East Roman than Iberian front, lost of Constantinople might lead to a quick conquest in Balkan at least. That would be an Ottoman Empire 700 years earlier. And speaking of importance of Constantinople at that time. I think it is the last bastion of Byzantium as they lost all eastern territory and its Balkan province was constantly under raid of Umayyad and Slavs. Losing the city would strip their economic and military capability to further defend against any foreign enemy.
I agree with this, and would probably go even further. If the most powerful and advanced state in Christendom were conquered, about 15 years before Tours, the only thing that stops the Umayyads from conquering Europe is either them deciding to stop, or some sort of internal conflict. Much like what eventually prevented the Mongols from conquering Europe. As you say the Franks faced the weaker Umayyad force. In this case there's a pretty good chance they would've wound up facing the ENTIRE Umayyad force by 732.
also do not forget that Constantinople was a stronghold of Orthodox Christianity. If Constantinople had fallen, then the Balkans, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus would not have been baptized according to the Eastern model. And they would become Catholics or Muslims.
@@user-pg9qb3wy7s most likely muslims since the arabs would control the black sea and the other rivers going into russia
I mean, I'd argue that the Battle of Tours is less important due to blocking the Umayyad's going to Europe, and more due to the fact it eventually set the stage for Emperor Charlemagne to perform his own conquests and reforms, as how his Empire was divided ended up setting the groundwork for the French and German rivalry that dominated Western European History
But the Battle of Tours gets rid of France. If the American Revolution still occurred I don't see why the Caliphate would care to help out. No France, no superpower of the United States of America. There wouldn't be such a dramatic change to history on the East side of Europe if Constantinople fell to the first siege by the Caliphate.
The battle of sekigahara saw Japan fall under the rule of the Tokugawa Shogunate. The knock-on effect of it ultimately resulted in the kicking out of Christianity. The Meiji restoration and finally Imperial Japan. While all three do not share similar moral or government philosophies it is important to note that the following two would not have been possible without it.
I mean I wouldn’t say it caused the Meji restoration. The Meji restoration was kicked off by the arrival of the American Commodore Matthew Perry. Sekigahara whilst extremely significant for Japanese history, isn’t very significant for World History. Especially in comparison with battles like Cannae, Gaugamella, Waterloo and Stalingrad.
@@TheGhost-fk4eo Perry came, because of the closed borders. The closed borders were there because of Tokugawa. So I'd agree with op.
@@Vincrand No, he came because he needed a closer port so that he could feed his men after whale hunting in the near by waters. So the closest place would be Japan. Mathew Perry demanded that the Japanese open their borders so that he could rest and feed his men. The shogun seeing the overwhelming strength of the American ships complied. This angered the clans who saw the shogun as weak triggering a massive period of civil unrest called the Boshin war. Which ended with the restoration of the Emperor to power after nearly 700 years. While you could say Sekigahara indirectly caused the Meji Restoration, then by the same logic, so did battles like Okehazama, Nagashino and Yamazaki. As these battles ensured the survival and continued strength of the Tokugawa, especially Nagashino.
Edit: Also imperial Japan had more important battles that ensured itself as a super power, such as the Battle Of the Tsushima strait. This battle not only showed off the true strength of Japan, but it left Russia Humiliated eventually being one of the factors that lead to the Russian Revolution. It also gave the Japanese the confidence to expand.
@@TheGhost-fk4eo
"Mathew Perry demanded that the Japanese open their borders so that he could rest and feed his men."
You say it right here.
@@Vincrand I wasn’t saying that the Tokugawa Shogunate didn’t close their borders. It’s probably their most famous law. I’m saying He didn’t come solely because of the closed borders.
The Marian reforms had more impact on the Roman Army operationally and tactically than Cannae did. While Cannae did seem to make Hannibal into a boogy man and was certainly worthy of study for any military man or historian I think Marius would still have reformed the army, then Caesar and then Augustus after ECT. The Roman army was constantly evolving
I think there's a difference between "if it had gone differently" and "COULD it have gone differently." Some of these kinda feel like they were always leaning in one direction and that there was less of a chance of it ACTUALLY being different.
Yoo You probably won’t ever see this comment but if you do I just want you to know I love your videos keep up the amazing work and god bless
Edit holy crap I didn’t think anyone was gonna like this because I was just trying to show my appreciation thank y’all
Yo?
What happened to yooo 😭
@@Ali_109I wanted to increase the chance of him seeing the comment so I did yo then edited it
@@scsports7281 I edited it
I think he reads most every comment
I feel like with the Battle of Tours, it can't be understated how the fact Charles Martel winning changed the landscape of Europe, partly due to it allowing his son, Pepin the Short, to become King of Francia, and his Grandson, Charlemagne, to become Emperor. Without Martel winning the Battle of Tours you don't get Charlemagne, whose own Empire, and its divisions, basically shaped European history. You can draw a line between how Charlemagne's Empire was divided and the rivalry between France and Germany throughout most of European history
Hard disagree on Stalingrad being number 1. Remember this list is on battles that CHANGED history. Even if Germany wins the battle and somehow manages to win the eastern front, they just become the first country to be nuked by the US. The Allies were not losing ww2 no matter which way you slice it.
Counterpoint: If Germany would have won the Eastern Front it would have changed the entire Cold War Period that we had regardless if the western allies would have won in the end.
Because you kinda needed the UDSSR to exist for this whole time period to happen.
Fair point. There's no way that Nazi Germany would have defeated both the British Empire and the United States even with Japan. It would have taken more time but by the time Stalingrad had ended, the Royal Navy had crippled the kriegsmarine and the US navy had crippled the Japanese navy. The German air force had also been badly damaged and Japan had no civil service which sorted out materials from Japan's colonies (yes the invasion of South East Asia for oil mounted gave Japan no materials at all).
@@nickbell4984 Agreed. Also I think people always have Stalingrad as their #1 for any type of history video because of the sheer amount of casualties, which is understandable, but they don't really dig any deeper than the surface.
I would argue that the battle of Britain was more significant as it prevented Germany from invading UK, which in turn served as a springboard for the US, Canadian and Australian forces to join in with the D Day landings.
Then maybe the allied raid to destroy the german plant for producing heavy water for a nuclear weapon is more important than most of the big battles in Europe during ww2
When I think of Cannae I don't just think of its immediate influence on Rome, but also how much it has influenced military strategy down the centuries as leaders have studied it and been inspired to try and recreate it. Not to say that some other victory-against-the-odds wouldn't have been just have lauded had Cannae not happened, but it has something of a unique pedestal in history.
Definitely an important battle and well-studied. I just don't know if I would put a battle where the losing side ultimately wins the war and becomes the dominant power for the next 500+ years in the top 20 that changed history. I think if Rome wins at Cannae, Rome still wins the war and the lack of external rivals still leads to the eventual civil wars and collapse of the republic.
@@Mark-ko3mr I think he agrees with everything you say, but this does not invalidate the argument he has made for why it should be in the Top!
From looking at turning tide zama was more important than cannae
I think Cannae in the long run has likely caused the defeat of more generals who attempted to replicate it but failed, than it has actually lead to them winning. Don't get me wrong what Hannibal did was a masterstroke and worthy of all praise. But I do think way to many commanders in the future try to replicate it and fail at it which leads to their own downfalls or defeats.
It is such a well known strategy that well everyone knows about it and so could spot it coming than other such strategies. It's a double edge sword due to it's fame and the fact every military leader learns of it.
@@Historyfan476AD the most important battle of the punic wars is probably battle of cape ecnomus, the largest naval battle in history... Cause after first punic war, end of carthage was inevitable despite hannibal
Man this video just made me realize how much I love history. So many important events that have shaped the world into what it is today with us all sitting here watching you react to this video Chris. Appreciate you so much for keeping history content coming and discussing these topics on a daily basis for us. God bless you.
The Battle of Salamis deserves to be up there! I appreciate that they gave a shoutout to multiple pivotal battles in the Greco-Persian Wars, but I think the Greek navies' success at Salamis against the Persians matches or even succeeds that of the land campaign. It changed the political map but also led directly to the spread of Greek culture and seeds of democracy. Without a dominant Athenian naval empire, Greek culture doesn't spread far and wide.
I also would consider Dunkirk - the consequences are way more debatable, but as we know the German victory was 100% pyrrhic. If the Panzers had simply kept rolling and crushed the British Expeditionary Force... who knows?
i think in the battle of Salamis... Genoa has the edge even though Cotto is good and Soppressata is a nice spicy treat..
oh it Sala-miss like the greek island?
Between Salamis and Marathon, you choose Marathon because all of Greece was terrified at that time, especially after what happened to Miletus. Salamis was a decisive victory but the Greeks were determined to fight, even if they lost the war would continue. Nothing happens without Marathon.
@@Bayard1503 my vote for Salamis - Athens was already destroyed, Sparta had retreated past Corinth and encouraged Athens to join them. Marathon was a battle to control Athens so they had motivation, they did not have that motivation at Salamis.
Also the Battle of Platea
Cannae is absolutely a top 5 battle because it became the most copied tactic after its execution. What was lost was the campaign after - not the battle's brilliance in plan and performance.
The 1453 siege of Constantinople is difficult to argue for because of how weak the Romans were at the time. I don't think breaking the siege would dissuade the Ottomans from trying again within a few years, in which case what has really changed?
The 1204 siege during the Fourth Crusade was way more significant than 1453. If that doesn’t happen, the Byzantine Empire likely doesn’t fall in 1453 because the Ottomans never rise.
Sure Byzantines were weak but the moral of Ottomans wasn't that great either. They had failed multiple times. Mehmed was only 20 years old, his leadership was in question and also talks of overthrowing him. Constantine had superior navy which wrecked ottoman navy on many occasions.
This list has no Mongols 😕 Sacking of Baghdad for example, or conquering of China.
Agree about Napoleon and Russia.
You could also argue that in 1941 if the Germans were successful in Moscow things may have been a different outcome, the Germans lost their best officers and forces in that winter battle. They were never as strong again.
I think the Somme only made the list because the first world war may be the most significant war in human history, in terms of changing the course of history, but it's hard to pick a decisive battle as it was more a case of long term strategy winning the war. If I had to pick a battle (or string of battles) it would be Operation Michael, the failed German spring offensive, where the Germans went all in on the offensive because time was running out.
I think another mention would be the Battle of Tsaritsyn in the Russian civil war, where the Bolsheviks won and would go on to bring about the communist revolution which would lead to many 10s of millions dying, not just in Russia, but in the Soviet Union and other future communist states in Asia and the Americas.
Honestly the Germans didn’t really have a chance to begin with
The Mongols rarely fought all or nothing battles they used a slow wave to grind their enemy down and destroy citadel after citadel. Baghdad was not a battle the Abbasids could win. There were more pivotal battles like Ain Jalut and those against the Delhi Sultanate, as well as the collapse of the Golden Horde.
@@SantomPh I agree about the battles not being pivotal, they tended to be very much one sided, but had the mongol conquests into the middle east, Russia or China not happened, I think the World may look quite different today.
About world war 1 I think the 3 most significant events weren’t necessarily battles. I’d say they were the Schlieffen plan, the rapid and unexpected mobilization of Russia, and the Zimmerman telegram.
Reply I disagree about the Mongols. They did not really have a lasting impact on their conquests.
Absolutely agreed about the Russian campaign being more important in the grand scheme of things than Waterloo, especially considering that France lost 3-5 times as many troops there as they had at Waterloo.
I would go even further however and put both *Trafalgar* "for establishing global British naval supremecy until WW2) and the *Battle of Leipzig* (for its siginificance to German nationalism as it saw Napoleon's German allied join forces with Prussia and Austria as well as for sheer numbers as it saw more than double the troop count of Waterloo) before Wellington's victory at Waterloo as well.
Battle of Plassey (1757) absolutely needs to be there. Paves the way for the British Raj in India.
While the Battle of Badr was important, I would actually point to the Battle of Yarmouk as being truly far more impactful. If the Arabs lost that battle against the Romans(Byzantine) then Islam likely would not have spread beyond the Arabian Peninsula. The implications of that would undeniably alter the world we know today.
yarmouk was what gave Muslim momentum and advantages against byzantine
Understandable but the fact is that without Badr there would be no Yarmouk or Qadissiya. The major struggle at the time was to spread Islam to the next major city of Mecca, let alone the Arabian peninsula and beyond. The polytheists of Quraysh had the opportunity to crush Islam for good by crushing the few hundred Muslims at Badr.
Badr was the first pitched battle between the Muslims and the Quraysh. The Muslims had almost no chance ,having reportedly only two horses with only five Muslims having a full set of sword and armor.
The Meccans lost because all 3 of their duelling champions (who were generals) died as well as their chief instigator Abu Jahal, leaving them with one senior figure Abu Sufyan who fled the field. Without these leaders the rather amateur Meccan army was confused and routed. There were too many bodies to bury so the Muslims had to throw the extras down a well.
The battle was very pivotal because prior to this the Meccans were trying their hardest to collect resources on the caravan route from Syria to Yemen, only to lose access to the Muslims in the north. The following battle of Uhud was much better organized and thought out, with the Muslims being very fortunate to get a draw after tactical blunders.
@@SantomPh and Khalid ibn Al Walid didn't appear in quraysh side at badr
For me you have to include the Battle of Britain. Had the Luftwaffe defeated the RAF and cleared the way for invasion we would be living in a very different World. Britain would never have been a jumping off point for a Western invasion of Europe. Germany might still have lost to the Russians but where then would the Red Army have stopped on its drive West. In modern terms I see this as a battle that “changed history”. I am also glad you mentioned the Spanish Armada, again had it not been defeated Britain would have changed nearly as significantly as after Hastings and the consequences on history would have been dramatic.
Battles like Gettysburg or the Somme have to be included in a video on great battles but I am far from sure they justify “that changed history”. Jutland was probably more significant in that respect as had Germany defeated the Royal Navy been able to break the blockade would it have authorised the use use of indiscriminate submarine warfare? Without that would America have joined WW1 and without the impact of the blockade would Germany have agreed the armistice, at least on the terms it did?
Maybe the Battle Of the Atlantic during ww2 too. Basically crippled the German kriegsmarine, allowing for complete dominance over the seas in the Atlantic and even for the Soviets.
I agree that the Battle of Britain should be on the list however not necessarily because it cleared the way for invasion. I think even if the RAF had been obliterated the Germans simply wouldn’t have the troop transports or supply ships to mount such an amphibious invasion which would have to be similar to D day in scale. After the first wave the Royal Navy would break in the English Channel destroying Germany escort and supply ships. The Germans may have been able to cause the Royal Navy casualties from the air but contrary to popular belief the Germans had a real deficiency in naval strike and had few planes designed for such a mission. On top of that luftwaffe pilots were not properly trained to hit ships only stationary and slow moving targets like a convoy of trucks. Not a fast moving destroyer. In the end any troops that managed to get to Britain would be left without supply and surrounded by a much larger British army along with mobilised civilian resistance.
I see the Battle of Britain as far more important symbolically. The main point is that it gave the Germans their first significant defeat of the war and proved they were not invincible. It also heavily boosted moral to the British population and very much cemented Winston Churchill as a capable war time leader and somebody to rally around. Along with that it pushed Hitler to focus on the Soviets and operation Barbarossa which imo was hitlers biggest mistake. This is while bruised yet determined Britain in the west allowing them to cause difficulties in Africa and the Mediterranean for the Axis and as you mentioned the eventual springboard to D day.
@@archiecroft7114 Yeah I get your point. The British navy later crippled the Kriegsmarine too. An invasion of Britain wouldn't have happened and if it did, it would have failed.
@@archiecroft7114 Its true The Royal Navy posed the greatest threat to a invasion of Britain
but if the RAF Fighter command could be defeated the Luftwaffe would control the skies bombing industrial and civilian targets with impunity they would have prioritised a bomber offensive of key Civil and Military Naval facilities such as Portsmouth, Southampton etc which would have been destroyed so there would be no Home docking facility for RN vessels to embark to or from nullifying the RN threat as well as crippling commercial shipping supply logistics.
It would have been a battle of attrition to which Britain would have eventually seccumb.
The Battle of Britain was far from symbolic it was pivotal to how the war in Europe would eventually play out.
When it comes to choosing between which battle is more important between two closely significant battles, I usually will default to the one that occurred earlier, in particular if the later battle couldn't have occurred without the effects of the first. Therefore I would choose the Battle of Hastings over the Battle of Graveslines.
“Wellington chooses a battleground just to the south of a village called….*dramatic pause *…. Waterloo “
I would add Battle of Britain. Without that Britain might have done a deal. But stalingrad was the most significant of WW2. Verdun strikes me as more signifiant than Somme.
Nope. The Germans had no chance, as in 0%, of mounting a successful invasion of Britain.
The war would've simply dragged out a year or two longer. That's it.
20:20
England and Henry V didn't end up conquering France after the siege of Orléans since England didn't conquer France and Henry V died 7 years before the siege of Orléans.
Also, Agincourt could have been in that top 20... if the English had won the war. Agincourt didn't dramatically change the course of History.
And yeah, if there's a battle that was a turning point in History on the Western Front in WW1, it's either the first battle of the Marne or the second, maybe Verdun.
The obvious most decisive defeat of Napoléon was the battle of Leipzig in 1813, biggest battle in European History before WW1, and that was far more important than Waterloo.
Contrary to what WatchMojo claims, Waterloo didn't "free Europe from Napoléon's control", since in 1815, Europe wasn't under Napoléon's control anymore... because of Leipzig (and the Russian campaign).
Yes I had the timeline backwards. If Henry V had lived another 15 years we are talking about a very different outcome. Agincourt would be a top 10 battle in that scenario.
The somme deserves its place unless theres one space for one battle per war, in which case it'd be verdun. Both of those battles are the primary causes of britain and frances attitudes towards war with Germany in the 1930s.
The somme is probably a bigger turn around in the first world war itself because it turned britains weak volunteer army into a war winning weapon since all of the tactics that britain would use to later drive the germans back across belgium, were implemented at the scale needed at the somme, it simultaneously killed britains desire to fight a war ever again and made the british army of world war 1.
"Agincourt didn't dramatically change the course of History." it did, albeit indirectly, it pretty much decimated the French nobility and in some regions an entire generation of landed nobility was annihilated. This allowed the Valois kings to centralize power more easily and paved the way for French absolutism
@@VloggingThroughHistory Henry V only had to live a few more months to be coronated King of France, as per the Treaty of Troyes, but I don’t believe all of France would just accept this without any resistance.
Chris said it perfectly, when you look at what eventually happened after some of these battles, I agree with Chris that I wouldn't consider them history changers. One that I would add is the Battle of Britain. If Hitler had been successful in invading England in 1940, it is quite probable that England would have dropped out of the war, and the U.S. would have had difficulty in fighting with Germany without a place in Europe to stage ground and air forces.
I considered the Battle of Britain but immediately discounted it. I don't believe a successful Battle of Britain sees the successful occupation of the UK by Germany. It might very well have allowed the Germans to successfully get ashore, but the moment the Royal Navy decides to intervene. Game over. Those Germans who are ashore are only going to end up shipped to Canada as prisoners of war.
True, I just see no possible way how Germany could have won the Battle of Britain.
@@arnonymius They could have if they hadn't switched from military targets to bombing the cities. I'm not saying that it was a sure thing, just that it was possible. The British Government claimed that they were one their last footing and holding on by a thread until the Germans ran out of enough aircraft and pilots causing them to stop operations across the channel. It all boils down to a priority of targets. Goering had Hitler believe that they were unstoppable and that target type didn't matter. Had they kept attacking the RAF, they could have easily put Britain out of the war. Remember that at that time it was Britain holding out alone, France was already conquered, and Hitler had yet to go to war with Russia and the U.S.
@@jasonpenn5476 How could they get Britain out of the war by bombing the RAF?
Yes, they might possibly for a short time have been able to ground the RAF, but that doesn't get Britain out of the war and the German air fleets were always going to leave later for the war in the east.
@@arnonymius think about it... Destruction of the RAF means German air superiority. The reason that Germany never invaded England was because they never had air superiority over the British Isles.
The battle on the forest moon of Endor..pretty big 👍
I don't know if I'd call it a battle that changed history but the battle of Cannae is one that always sticks in my brain.
Just the sheer mechanics of 50,000+ people being killed in combat with nothing but swords and spears is something that is entirely impossible for a modern person to wrap their heads around.
Many of them were simply crushed... horrific
Not to mention it was 20% of the fighting age male population. That is just staggering. The equivalent would be modern America losing ~30 million troops in 1 battle.
If you’re looking to check out more from Extra History in the future, I’d recommend their series on the Bronze Age collapse, it’s super interesting and very well done!
When I think of significant battles, I often think of the Battle at the Plains of Abraham. Probably not a major battle by world standards, but it solidified British control of much of North America and probably impacted the culture, language, and politics of much of the continent.
Then again, I'm also from Canada, so ... XD
The battles at the Marne nearly flipped the 20th century on its head. Shocked these weren’t mentioned
What do you expect it's watchmojo
One battle that is missing and I would always put in top 3 in western history is The Battle of Chalons (or Battle of Catalonian Fields ) - That one was on par or even more significant then the Battle of Tours couple of centuries later.
It's just such a vast field to pluck ripe fruits this discussion :D
I also loved that they used Rome: Total War graphics for Marathon. Really puts this in perspective since they chose reference stuff all before the 2010's.
Noticed the music from Total War because I was listening only for that part. Neat.
I don't think naval engagements get enough love, but perhaps that is for another list. That being said, Trafalgar and especially Lepanto are worthy of mention. Where Vienna was a battle which, should the city have fallen, it may have been taken back- Lepanto was a benchmark with regards to Mediterranean dominance. Not only was it a huge boost of moral for the Holy League, but it more-or-less made the Ottomans a secondary power on the seas thereafter, only to patrol their own waters as their land empire would slowly disintegrate in the following centuries.
I would also include Hansando (turning point of the Imjin War resulting in no Japanese Empire) and Salamis,
@@JLS639 and battle of jutland which although ended in a sale mate forced the high seas fleet out of the north sea securing the royal navys naval suppremancy for the rest of WW1 if the germans had decicivly won at jutland then they could have broken the naval blockade of germany
another one that comes to mind is the battle of the leyte gulf the largest naval battle in history by amount of personel and tonnage (however largest amount of ships is jutland) wilst the letye gulf didnt change the tide of the war it did rapidly accelerate the japanese naval collapse and sink their last servacable air craft carriers one of whicj (zuikaku) was the last surviver of the japanese carriers that attacked pear harbor
@@soldierofwessex7616 I've heard Jutland was significant, but I am not that familiar with WWI battles. I probably would have included it if I were at all familiar with WWI naval warfare
Leyte Gulf is one of the most insanely amazing battles in naval history (and a good illustration of the idea Americans are unpredictable and crazy in battle), but history changing? A Japanese victory would have won them a few months, I would guess
@@JLS639 the thing about leyte gulf is that if the japanese feet was able to break through and center force didnt break of its attack then a massive amount of american pasific fleet would be at the mercy of the largest andmost powerful battleship ever built at the ranges in which the enitial carrier raids by the USN were being fought, if there had not been an island in the way then both yamato and musashi the two most powerful battleships in military history would have a clear line of fire to the most powerful US carrier force of the war TF38 (the fast carrier task force) and as good as aircraft carriers were against battleships it was proven in the german invasion of norway what would happen if a carrier let a battleship get into fireing range (carrier HMS glorious was cut off and sunk by german battle crusiers scharnhorst and geisenau) wilst the war would still end the same way a us defeat at leyte gulf would lenghten the war in the pasific by about 3 years as the all ready strained us production power had to expand to replace the lost aircraft carriers
also the reason jutland is so emportant is because at the start of ww1 britain was the strongest naval power on the panet germany was the second strongest in fact germany was so strong that its navy out matched the 3rd and 4th strongest navys (france and russia) if they combined their navys into one super fleet
so with the draw at jutland causing such significant losses on the german fleet that they were forced to stay in port for the rest of the war this took away the single biggest threat to britain and her people
If i'm not mistaken, the ottomans pretty much rebuilt the fleet after Lepanto. The ottomans were pretty much insanely wealthy and organized at the time, sitting on at the time still some of the most profitable trade areas in the world, and had the funds and ability to rebuild the fleet. If the Christian force lost, the nations could probably rebuild their personal fleets if they have the money, but their coordination in rebuilding is going to be messy at best, but that's going into alternate history and isn't very important. Ultimately Lepanto was a propaganda coup for the Christians, and kind of an embarrassment for the Ottomans. It would still pretty much be another century before the Ottomans began their downfall in ernest.
The Battle of Hastings was a closely fought affair to a point. I think the Battle of Stamford Bridge a few weeks prior truly determined the outcome at Hastings.
Picking a battle symbolising the downfall of Napoleon, i would pick Leipzig, it was the last time where he had a real chance to still win the war
Same for Constantinople: 1453 might have been the death blow, but it lost any real chance of surviving when it was sacked by the venitians.
I would have probably added Ecnomus (256 BC) which marked the end of the Carthaginian sea supremacy, Adrianople (378) as the first domino to fall in the roman empire, the Catalaunians plains (451) which stopped attila's perceived invincibility, and a very high spot on the list for the battle of Myeongnyang (1597) a masterclass from Admiral Yi
The Byzantine empire was super crumbled by this point. All it really had was Constantinople. It had no chance at all of surviving in the first place for about a hundred years. To say that the Venetians sacking the city was more important than the actual taking of it would be incredibly silly.
@@graylon6010 the empire was indeed a shadow of it's former self, but it still held on Greece and a third of Anatolia, far more than in 1453 where it was just Constantinople. But after the sack, the venitians put a puppet on the throne and split the empire into multiple parts, wich lead to another long civil war. The only byzantine battle the could have symbolise the decline more than the sack would be Manzikert, but Alexios managed to stabilyse it with the first Crusade
@@josephguillerey4391 Oh my bad I didn't know you were talking about that Venetian sacking. Although it was important and quite detrimental, I still would say that the actual taking of Constantinople was more important. It essentially began the early modern era, it marked the removal of Christianity from the Balkans, and it secured the Ottoman Empire as the successor to the Byzantine Throne. The impact of this taking was so important that the Sultan who took it, Mehmed II, was named "Mehmed the Conqueror". The Doge who sacked Constantinople wasn't named "The Sacker". Although yes, the Venetian sacking was important, I'd still argue that the actual taking of the city would be more impactful.
we agree on that, the fall was definitely important, but it was important in the "last domino to fall" way, even if they had survived that siege, the city would probably have been taken by another Sultan 20 to 50 years later. while the video was specificaly about battles which defined the course of history.
In the same way as Waterloo, the fall of constantinople was important, but the war was already at it's end before the battle even began
@@josephguillerey4391 I see your point but it comes down to this: what's more important, the battle that indirectly caused the downfall of the Byzantine Empire or the battle that directly caused it. Personally I'd say the direct cause would be more important but the answer to these things tend to be more fluid than not.
Chris. You should do your own top 20 battles. I’d order in a beer and Pizza just to watch that! 😀
Seconded!
Although I understand that not many see it this way, I am convinced that the Battle of Verdun was the single most important battle of WWI. It was the cornerstone of Germany's strategy (for a time), Falkenhayn had claimed that they were going to "bleed France white", and at first they were succeeding, France was so hard pressured that they almost broke and were forced to ask the UK and Russia to do something to alleviate the pressure, and they in turn started their own bloody disasters of the Somme and the Brusilov offensive to counteract Germany on France. Germany couldn't keep up the battle properly with so many attacks going at once, I don't have proof to claim that it was so important of an event, one could as easily say that the title should go to the First battle of the Marne, but even that was a miracle. I feel confident that if the french lines broke again, they were not coming back.
The French did not ask to ease the pressure since they were the ones who planned the Battle of the Somme in the first place, before Verdun got serious.
It almost makes sense to think of Verdun and the somme, and to some extent brusilov as one large battle. The somme offensive was launched early as a direct result of Verdun and was much more reliant on the British than the original plan to be much more a joint French British offensive, but the French did not have the troops because if verdun
I would add there Battle of Solferino, though battle itself had a local character, its outcome is basically creation of Red Cross. I personally thinks, that in the video, there's lot of battles that was kind a tactical level stunning victory, but have a local character, definitely not changing history.
I also agree with Midway, because its not only speeding up japanese defeat, but besides sinking HMS Prince of Wales, it proves new dominance of carriers in naval battles.
You say, Stalingrad dramatically changes the outcome of WW2. Yet, in your reaction to the video "Germany could not win WW2" you agree that there was no individual event in the war that might have changed the outcome. Historians might have seen Staligrad as the turning point 50 years ago but as far as I'm concerned, historians now look at events beforehand, like the battle of Moskow, Smolensk or Britain. In my opinion the importance of Stalingrad is greatly overestimated im pop culture (and let's be honest, that's what mojo is). I don't even know if I had put it in my top 20. It most likely would have prolonged the surrender of Germany by a few months or maybe a year, but it most likely wouldn't have changed the outcome. So what do you think about Stalingrad?
I think the battle of moscow was more important tbh
I agree with what you say basically but it all depends on how Germany achieved a victory at Stalingrad and more importantly what they done next.
So if they got a very quick victory with minimal causalities and then sent the troops south and captured the oil fields in the Caucasus then this could have had a significant impact on the war but if they grinded out a victory with many casualties then they would likely not have even had the strength to get across the Volga river while fending off the rapidly expanding soviet army and this would have not changed the war a whole lot in the long run.
@@darksider2417 Yes I agree. A lot of people just say Napolean captured Moscow and it had no effect on his war but the situation in WW2 was totally different with Moscow being the largest rail hub in the Soviet Union that if they lost it would have likely caused a logistical nightmare that could have taken months to get under control giving the Germans the initiative across the whole front and time to sort out their own logistical problems.
In New Hampshire, and particular in Manchester, we talk a lot about the Battle of Bennington which was a part of the Saratoga Campaign. The defeat of the mercenary forces of the British by the militia units from Vermont, New Hampshire and the Massachusetts Berkshires denied the British much needed supplies and showed how important the Saratoga Campaign was and denying the British the ability to split the American Colonies and ligitimizing the Colonies in the eyes of continental Europe and why I rate it higher than Yorktown.
I don't think that WatchMojo meant that the Empire just suddenly fell after the American Revolution, I instead believe they meant that the Era of the First British Empire was coming to an end as what marked the First British Empire was the American Colonies, and so it paved way for the Second British Empire in 1783 which more so focused on Oceania and Asian countries and colonies.
Not trying to insult you in any way, Mr. Chris, just pointing out what I believe they actually meant by saying 'The End of the First British Empire.' Keep up the good work, and have a wonderful evening.
Well there was no second British empire. Stages to it yes.
It's watch mojo. So they likely meant that
It just seems like they're taking a convient demarcation and expanding its definition and impact. Maybe even a particularly US centric mentality behind it. More a matter of language used than inaccurate history.
Yeah its quite common to split British imperial history into the first and second empires, with the first largely focused on the Caribbean and North America, and then the second largely focused on India, Africa, and Australia.
P.S.: In your overall assessment of the Battle of Vienna I do agree. Vienna was already stretching the Ottoman supply and mobilisation system to the point it was about to tear apart. That was the main reason for the Ottomans failing in their first siege of Vienna 150 years earlier, and was a major factor in their losing the 2nd siege as well.
One of the reasons was that in order to lay siege to Vienna, their mobilisation systems led the Ottomans to gather almost all their troops in Istanbul and march them all across the Balkans to the gates of Vienna on both occasions. This is ofc very inflexible and it takes months. Which in turn leaves a pretty small time window for military operations. In order to keep their troops supplied, they had to succeed before winter.
So, the Ottomans could not have kept the city for long. It was, actually, beyond the far point of their logistics system.
That clip from Decisive Battles breaks my heart... I REALLY miss the years when CA used to make historical Total War games... :'(
For the Napoleon parts I would've picked the Battle of Leipzig because if Napoleon won that he could take back Europe and Spain
i like how this implies spain is not part of europe
@@msaa1125 Yes...hahaha...Probably, the Battle of Bailen (In Spain) was the key factor to ignite the European powers against France. It was an spectacular defeat for the French troops by the Spanish troops. No Brits there
@@javiervicedo4201 Spain also suffered some pretty hefty defeats to the French in the Peninsualr War like Ocana and Tudela. Wellington led the battles that actually pushed the French out of the country. But Bailen was still a stunning victory I’m not denying that.
Your Videos are So Good, You and Oversimplified made me interested in History thanks a Lot, that changed me.
Haven’t seen most of this new videos like the last 2-3 months just to binge watch him for the next week or two
I might be wrong, but what about the Battle of Alesia? I always thought that if Ceasar had failed in Gaul, it would have been seen as a good excuse to remove him early on, making sure that Octavian would not become emperor later on
10:20 I disagree with this one. The real test of Rome was 100 years later in the Cimbrian war which led to the Marian reforms, which were a much much bigger change to the Roman military, and ultimately lead to the downfall of the republic (due to armies giving their loyalty to their leader rather than the SPQR)
Absolutely! That was the first thing that entered my mind. Battle of Cannae was a brilliant victory for Hannibal and led to multiple tribes abandoning Rome. It led to the famous Fabian strategy that Roman generals used to great effect in the coming centuries. It did however not change a thing. If you want to mention a decisive battle during the Punic wars, it must be The Battle of Zama.
@@gugeirkristmundsson9389 Imo I'd say that no single battle in both Punic wars has any great historical impact, mainly because by the time Rome & Carthage collided, the war already heavily favored Rome. Carthage just didn't have the resources to win, even if they won at Zama they would've eventually ended up conquered by the Romans, perhaps a bit later though. This whole situation kinda reminds me of world war 2 where the Axis just don't have the resources to pull off a win no matter what.
@Jim Humphries I'd actually say even the Cimbrian war didn't have that much of an impact, the way I see it the Romans would eventually have to reform their army, perhaps not in the way that would endanger the republic, but I think both the fall of the republic as well as the reform of the army were certain events, it's just the how and why they happen that would change. This is the main reason why these kinds of videos don't make that much sense to me, in like 90% of the cases history doesn't change that much at all no matter what. If Constantinople doesn't fall in 1453 it would fall later, if Napoleon wins at Waterloo he loses later, if the Turks win at Vienna in 1683 they lose later, and so on.
@@gugeirkristmundsson9389 Battle of the Metaurus and Ilipa were FAR more important than Zama. It was already over by the time when battle of Zama took place.
12:50 the way this war ended caused quite a stir in Italy and was big thing Mussolini used to call the government a failure and claiming that it would be better under his leadership, he even promised his people to right the wrongs of the previous government and to conquer Ethiopia. So if Italy won the war then Mussolini would have had far less to work with to kick-start his attempts to get people to follow him and potentially a non fascist Italy.
Shame they haven’t put any battles from Ancient China or Medieval Japan on here. The Battle of Sekigahara (1600) for example, was a monumentally important battle in Japanese History, because it basically created the Edo Period, Japanese Isolationism and decided who would be leading Japan for the next ~270 years.
It’s because those major battles in Japan doesn’t affect the rest of the world as much as the other battles
Because Japan was for most of it's existence a secluded nation, the battles that they fought might've been significant and important for them but it did not so much for the others kingdoms around that time.
Ain Jalut, Megiddo, Rorks Drift, Catalonian Plains, San Jacinto, Dorchester Heights
While I do agree that Tours is in the top 20, I don't agree with the reasons why. I'm skeptical that the moors would be able to hold and convert France to Islam when they were never able to even take all of Iberia (not to mention the fact that Iberia and France are separated by the Pyrenees mountains).
What I think the big effect of Tours was is that it solidified Charles' dynasty as the rulers of the Franks, which would enable his grandson Charlemagne to establish the Frankish empire, which would become the Holy Roman Empire.
The unification of France under the northern dynasty rather than it's division with independent Aquitaine and other regions is probably the biggest effect of the battle, more than the defeat of what was really a large-scale raid rather than an attempt at conquest.
There are two battles that I would like to point out for their importance that I havent seen anyone mention yet. The Battle of Lepanto and the Battle of Sekigahara. The Battle of Lepanto, i would say moreso than the Battle of Vienna, signaled the decline of the Ottoman Empire. With the destruction of the Ottoman Navy and the dawn of the galleon, it not only broke the monopoly the Ottomans had on Eastern trade, thus allowing empires like Portugal, The Netherlands, Spain, France and, most importantly, England, it also changed the way naval warfare was fought for the next three centuries. It also cemented Spain's position as the worlds strongest navy at the time and in a way set the stage for the Battle of the Spanish Armada 17 years later. The Battle of Sekigahara saw the full unification of Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate and the isolation of Japan for the next two centuries. This isolation and refusal to deal with foreigners is what prompted Commodore Matthew Perry to do what he did and it was a leading factor in the Meiji Restoration which not only modernized Japan but also founded the Japanese Empire, an Empire that would grow to be the primary foe of the United States in World War 2, without whose attack on Pearl Harbor, the US more than likely would not have entered the war.
100% agree. Lepanto was definitely more significant than Vienna. Sekigahara defined the history of east Asia for centuries
Yeah I was going to mention sekigahara as well. That also sets up Japan to defeat the myth of European supremacy in the world. And while everyone ended hating Japan for basically being as bad as the Europeans, had a huge impact on the movement of decolonisation.
And the Battle of Diu I would put as well
Sekigahara is a good one. Definitely a battle that changed the world with everything that resulted from it.
Since it's comming really soon, Happy birthday VTH! Actually my birthday is also on 5th of August, however this year is pretty special as I am gettin married. Cheers to you and your family.
Before I watch this I want to say that if Waterloo is on this I’m gonna punch a wall.
Hate to tell you bro but…..
How’s that hand healing?
Even if he napoleon had won at waterloo he would still have lost the war, Russia and Austria and even spain was attack France from everywhere.
@@ConkerVonZap agreed
@@ConkerVonZap Facts, only way Napoleon would’ve won is if he didn’t lose his continental army in Russia
When you were talking about the Battle of Vienna, my mind immediately went to the Umayyad Siege of Constantinople since that likely would have actually resulted in Muslim expansion deep into Europe, as they could have pressured the Christian world through both the Balkans and Spain (and taking the greatest city in Christendom at the time would probably have led a lot of people to conclude that Islamic expansion was truly divine will). I was very pleasantly surprised when it was the very next entry
Again I will agree regarding the Umayyad siege of Constantinople. If it had been successful it would've had a lot more significant impact than the Ottomans winning at Vienna, or even the Umayyads winning at Tours.
Another thing with Tours is that it establishes Charles Martel as a key figurehead in the frankish kingdom, allowing charlemagne (his grandson) to rise
I would argue that in terms of modern history, when it comes to WW2, the Allies slowly winning the Battle of the Atlantic was hugely important. A battle of getting the huge quantities of supplies, the logistics, to Great Britain, Soviet Union and others. Without the Allies winning the battle we would not probably have all the other known battles such as in Normandy.
Some I'd add:
Battle of Valmy - if the French lost it could've potentially resulted in an Allied victory and the end of the French revolution in 1792/3. No reign of Terror (although I don't see Louis making it), no Napoleon either.
One of the battles that lead to the rise of Genghis Khan for sure. It's hard to pick one but if he had been significantly defeated or even killed in any one of them, I don't think the Mongol Empire would ever become a thing and that's a massive, massive change.
Battle of Adrianople for Roman history. Battle of Manzikert too.
I am also tempted to pick anything that would turn the tide in the Russian Civil War but I don't know if such a battle exists, I think the reason the Bolsheviks won is because the Whites were too disorganized and it's hard to imagine a single win fixing that.
Here's what I'd change:
Napoleonic Wars - either Borodino or maybe Leipzig. And hell maybe even one of the battles during the Italian campaign at the very beginning, those propelled Napoleon into a position where he could seize power. Waterloo was far too late to be of any major significance, there was no way Napoleon could ever have won after he returned to France.
WW1 - I think the First Battle of Marne was the most significant. I don't know if the Germans could've won right there and then but it was probably the closest they ever got.
WW2 - Battle of Moscow - Stalingrad was huge for sure but it's still somewhat doubtful the Nazis could've won after winning there. But if they took Moscow that would've put them in an incredibly strong position going into 1942. Winning position? No idea but a strong one nevertheless.
Finally I'll note something about the battle of Hsupeng - now I am not sure if that campaign was the turning point of the Civil War, I don't know enough about the actual war, but whatever the turning point was, I think it deserves top 5. Sure, it's not that long ago but I don't think it can be understated how different the world today would be had KMT held on on the mainland (maybe with a communist Manchuria in the North). The Cold War would go down compeltely differently and the country today would be vastly different which is huge considering it's a borderline super power today.
I think the battle of Austerlitz may have been one of the most impactful battles in the napoleonic wars, especially impactful to Germany.
WW1 - First Marne is a good call. In the German memory Verdun is the bigger battle from 1916. After that how can the Central Powers achieve victory? The summer offensive of 1918 probably was doomed (Entente might have dug in and reversed with American help), maybe they could achieve completely knocking out Italy in 1917 (which would have freed up a lot of Austrian troops).
Two that I would have liked to see on the list are The Battle of the Milvian Bridge and The Battle of Adrianople, though I'm not sure if they'd meet the world altering criteria as stringently as some others.
The Milvian Bridge probably does by virtue of Constantine going all in on Christianity afterward. The Edict of Milan and other measures that allowed Christianity to stabilize and grow within the Roman Empire and the wider world just don’t happen if Constantine loses to Maxentius. In fact, Maxentius would likely have continued the persecutions started by Diocletian and Christianity would never have become mainstream. It definitely should have been high on the list.
Also hard agree on Adrianople.
When Waterloo happened in 1815, Napoleon was already defeated and banished in 1813, so it was more of a last desperate attack with no real chance of lasting victory. By this point France was basically on its last legs, all of its experienced troops were depleted and all of Napoleon’s best generals were either dead, imprisoned, deserted, exiled or retired. Also most of the still alive Generals didn’t want to fight the coalition again when they knew they’d lose anyway. General Ney was the only notable General to join Napoleon on his last battle. He was executed by the British after Waterloo was lost.
That’s why I think the “Vielvölkerschlacht von Leipzig (1812)” (multi-nation battle of Leipzig) is a much more decisive battle, since there NP still had his Generals and experienced troops. It was the unexpected betrayal of the Hessian troops under his command, that really sealed his fate and pushed the barrel over the edge.
Napoleon's fate was sealed at Trafalgar
Nicely done video, I like your take on these battles.
Being the 🇸🇪Swede🇸🇪 that I am, I might have chosen the Battle of Breitenfeld or the Battle of Poltava as well. Regarding Napoleon, I could pick the Battle of Leipzig over Waterloo. I am no expert on Indian military history but there is very likely an Indian battle which fits on there.
For Indian battles that fit on there, probably the 1st or second battle of Panipat, as they established Mughal Control over northern India
Depends if you count trafalgar in that category. I'd argue trafalgar not just shapes the next century due to british naval dominance but also pretty much sets the stage for the continental system, which is probably the largest cause of the fallout of russia and france, leading to the failed invasion which leads to leipzig.
I would have put Breitenfeld in that list. The Swedish entry and involvement into the 30 years war is quite important to modern history.
@@iron2684 What about Plassey ?
Or that
Would definitely put this battle in my TOP 10. The Battle of Guandu.
The Battle of Guandu was fought between the warlords Cao Cao and Yuan Shao in 200 AD in the late Eastern Han dynasty.
But why was it important
@@akivamagill7719 Disclaimer - i don't think Guandu should make Top 10. But Guandu solidified Cao Cao's control of North China and would establish the foundations of the JIn Dynasty after the 3 Kingdoms era. It also had an indirect influence of mass migrations of people to Southern China leading to the development of the area.
However, I personally don't think it ended up being that consequential to history. The Three Kingdoms eventually fell to the Jin Dynasty which itself fell into civil war soon after and another era of turbulence.
Red Cliffs/Chibi over Guandu unquestionably, in my book. Cao Cao was definitely on a knife's edge but Yuan Shao's comparative weakness would've likely ensured a prolonged civil war which is what they got anyways in the form of the Three Kingdoms era. Chibi was the difference between the era being Three Kingdoms and the era being the Ascension of Wei.
@@forgottenfamily Even less important. Guandu determined the dominant power of the 3K. Red Cliffs prolonged the inevitable. In general the battles of the 3K are probably the least important in terms of its effects on the world and history. If you're looking for important battles in East Asia you should look to Sekigahara in Japan, the Huaihai Campaign during the Chinese Civil War, or the battles in the 1st and 2nd Opium Wars.
@@Cruxispal I disagree with you on Guandu vs Red Cliffs, I agree with you that none of them make the top 20.
A further argument of why Red Cliff is more important: Jin Dynasty was badly weakened due to the endless civil war that they had exited - exacerbated by the far reduced population. As such, Jin Dynasty fractured after a mere 16 years. It is likely that a less battered Wei Dynasty would have had more stability and been able to survive. Admittedly, the counter argument is how quickly the Cao family fell to the Sima family but even still, the comparatively clean transition to Sima dominance would have left a fairly healthy Empire to work with
Love your vids!
I think the Battle of Midway should be in the top 20. This battle saw the end of Japanese expansion in the Pacific, which had the US lost at Midway, Japan most likely would have control of the islands of the Pacific. This also started the end of WW2. After Midway the US was able to start pushing Japan back to their original territory.
Not discounting Midway, but the US economic powerhouse was going to push the Japanese back no matter how many Islands they held. The US was able to built new ships so fast that Japan was simply going to lose just by numbers alone, regardless of their control over areas of the Pacific. Japan was able to produce a total of 18 aircraft carriers, the US built 105, not even counting the ones they built and gave to England.
@@NobodyNeedstoknow-bq5px That is true but at the battle of Midway many of those new US ships were still months or a year away from being completed. The US only had 2 and a half aircraft carriers, The Yorktown was seriously damaged at the time. The US fleet in the Pacific was still wounded from Pearl Harbor, that was just 6 months before. The victory at Midway opened the door for The US to start pushing the Japanese back, at the same time the Russians were pushing back the Nazis from Russia, the British and Americans started to push Rommel back in North Africa.
@@RedRanger1138 Yes, all true. However, Midway doesn't change overall history if it does or doesn't happen. It only changes the final date before Japan surrenders. If Midway never happens, Japan still loses the war of production, then the war at sea, then the total war.
If Midway is a Japanese victory, they sink the American carriers, capture the Island...then what? They can't invade mainland US. They can't invade Hawaii. They can't stop US naval production and in 1943 it is still completing 3 new ships a day. The US still begins it's campaign of Island hopping, it just starts with Midway. Japan simply extends the length of the war by a couple months, at most. It's an important battle at that time, but ultimately it doesn't really affect the outcome of the war nearly as much as other battles. Perhaps it allows the Japanese navy an opportunity to damage the Panama Canal, which might have a significant impact on the US war effort, but that's even more hypothetical.
Good call out about Waterloo. I personally would pick either the battle of Nations as the most important battle during the Napolionic wars. Maybe Austerlitz, due to its massive impact on how (war) would be waged for the next century.
I would've put Napoleon invading Spain, as from then on, the French Empire was forced into fighting on two-fronts.
Waterloo really is just significant because it marked the end of Napoleons reign, as you said it didn't change the history itself that much. It's unlikely that even a victory at Waterloo would have saved Napoleon. (well and because the British fought there and the Anglo/American view on things kinda dominates the way history is told through movies) Trafalgar a much better choice staying with the British view and Leipzig and the whole Russian campaign if we stay on land.
I'd pick Austerlitz because it and Leipzig might tie in historical significance but Austerlitz is a clear victor when it comes to tactics.
@@Dragonite43 Yes
I don't think Waterloo wouldn't even made my top 100 list. Napoleon dies, probably from stomach cancer, just six years after the battle. Therefore, all influence Napoleon was going to have on history in his life had already occurred and virtually none of it would change because of his loss at Waterloo. Napoleon's army was also very inexperienced and hard to replace at that point, so if he had won that war, then Europe would soon come against him with another coalition of nations as they had 7 times before already, and with the best armies he would have faced because they all were using his way of organizing their armies now. I might go so far as to say Waterloo may actually be the least consequential battle of the Napoleonic Wars as far as world history is concerned.
I might try arguing. The first Siege of Vienna (1529) was more dangerous for Europe than the Battle of Vienna (1683). Going into the first and after it, the Ottomans had a lot of momentum on their side. Just conquering Hungary and naval superiority in the Meditteranean. There was a lot going for them if they just had a more mobile way to get their cannons transported. But as far as a longer-lasting turning point, then yeah 1683 probably takes it. It's part of the decline of the Ottomans.
France also wasn't a military superpower in 1529 like in 1680s. France was the strongest nation in Europe at that time, which couple of years prior defeated a Coalition consisting of Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Brandenburg - Prussia and Netherlands (to be more specific, it defeated all of them except the Netherlands. So 3 out of 4). France would again fight against the anti - French Coalition made up of England, Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Netherlands, Spain and Savoy in 1688 - 1697. French armies inflicted series of defeats on Coalition forces at Fleurus, Leuze, Staffarda, Stenkerque, Marsaglia, Neerwinden and Toroella. Even the French fleet managed to achieve victory against the combined Dutch - English fleet at Beachy Head in 1690.
The Ottomans likely win in 1529 if Suleiman the Magnificent doesn’t die during the battle (of natural causes) and would result in an Islamic Eastern Europe.
1683 was probably the last chance the Ottomans had to spread deeper into Europe and they never recovered from that defeat.
@@D2RCR Suleiman the Magnificent died in 1566, the 1529 siege mostly failed because of an unexpected early winter that hindered supplies and mobilization, had the winter not occurred, there would be nothing to realistically stop them.
@@anassaahirhuq1858 oops, was thinking of the wrong battle
One battle/war that needs to be mentioned is the mongol invasion of Japan. They lost their 2 fleets because of a typhoon, and it was the biggest naval invasion in history up to the point of D-Day. If they would have landed safely, Japan would have fallen. And with that, they would continue their journey to invade all of Europe, something they knew they could do in a decade or so because of their scouts. And if that would have happend, history would be rewritten forever.
Great video!!
Adding an important battle that might not be far reaching but very important to Japan: the battle of Sekigahara in 1600. If the Western alliance was defeated by the Tokugawa forces, we might not have 200 years of a closed-off Japan. Who knows how it would develop when it had 200 years earlier being opened to the world.
Oda Nobunaga getting offed by one of his underlings was also quite important.
@@reneszeywerth8352 I agree too. Oda was much more open to trading with the west than the ultimate winner, Tokugawa. He created a part of his army full of fire arms from the Portuguese. He would not have closed Japan off if he didn't get assassinated.
Before the list started, I thought of Milvian Bridge, and Hastings. I was tempted to think of battles from World War 1 as they're huge in numbers, but I don't know if I could say any singular battle from the first World War has a significant enough impact on its own to warrant being on this list. Maybe Tannenberg as it alters the playing field and history of the eastern front, but the Somme? How does the Somme significantly change history compared to Verdun, Ypres, Passchendaele, or better yet the Marne?
I also disagree with Waterloo on this list, I get its the last defeat, but I think it's more of a quick-ending rather than a history changer. Napoleon still has to use a significantly disadvantaged army backed by an exhausted nation to fight off the Russo-Austrian and Spanish advances. Anything after the exile to Elba is a hail Mary at best in my opinion, as he'd still be grinded into the ground by the coalition of Europe. 1808-1813 has greater historical impact than anything in 1815.
The Battle of Milvian Bridge HAS to be on this list! Constantine the Great becomes sole Emperor of Rome, builds Constantinople and makes it the new capital city, and makes Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire ALL as a result of Milvian Bridge. What more do you want?
Amazing video!
As a younger historian it is so nice to hear someone just state the facts. Not being dramatic. You are so right too, so many battles that people say were world changing just weren't.
Also yeah no chance they conquer all of Europe after Constantinople.
I would have put the Battle of Britain over the Somme...who knows how long Hitler holds on for if the UK sues for peace right away...I doubt the US invades without English support
@@bradbutcher8762 as far as long term effect, which this video is about lol, you are right. I would agree Hitler's inability to break Britain and his misuse of the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain was way more important
@@zachbear98765 some would argue that the soviets would beat Germany alone...perhaps in the long run as they had moved factories, could also relocate a capital, and are just a plain stubborn mean people, but Stalingrad only happens if Germany is not in fear of constant invasion from the West in my opinion
Most Russians would argue that. Let's not forget how many supplies the allies sent her. Not to mention so many elite units and excellent generals (Rommell) that were tied up in the west.
Russia winning on its own is a major myth. Feels like overcorrecting from how much they've been overlooked throughout the years
One of my favorite "what if" battles: the Battle of Manzikert (1071) between the Seljuk Turks and the Byzantine Empire. What if the Byzantines had won? Would they ever have requested aid from the Pope, which led to the Crusades? Would the Ottoman Empire have ever been established?
Good question. The Ottomans only rose because the Seljuk Turks declined and the Ottomans filled the power vacuum, but it the Byzantines had won at Manzikert, the Seljuks wouldn’t have risen in the first place and the Byzantines would have been in secure control of Anatolia.
The battle for Friedrich Ebert's gallbladder is probably among the most age-defining battle battles of the 20th century.
I was waiting the whole video for her to say Midway then you said it at the end. Love it! That’s one of my favorite battles in history and the movie is phenomenal. Thomas H Dyer is so fascinating to me and it is so important to the war with Japan.
They chose 1/war... they thought Stalingrad was more important. It's debatable, but probably correct.
@@Bayard1503 Yeah probably. The US was most likely going to beat Japan regardless.
I think Hattin is so important because it triggered the third crusade. Without the third crusade happening at that time, the lion heart might never have come come to the holy land. With him instead focusing his efforts at home, could mean that England and France might have taken quite different paths. That's my take on it.
Maybe no Magna Carta?
I definitely would've kept Hattin on the list, it effectively crushed the Army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem which allowed the Muslims to retake the Holy Land until the partitioning of the Ottomans after WWI.
Other battles I think should considered:
Trafalgar
Constantinople (1453)
Adrianople - Rome's first major defeat to the Goths and one of the few times an Emperor died in battle. It began the slow decline of Western Rome that led to Aleric's sacking of Rome.
Tsushima - The destruction of the Russian Navy and the ascent of Japan as a world power.
Manzikert - This battle is what turned the tide against the Byzantines in the wars against the Seljuks.
Pharsalus - Outnumbered by at least 2:1, Caesar crushed Pompey and won the first Civil War, which led to Pompey fleeing to Egypt and Caesars arrival, which brought Cleopatra into Roman politics. I feel like this battle is what set the stage that Actium was the finale too.
Alexander the Great is so huge in history itself. Like for example. In Pakistan, in the northern areas in a place called Kalash, live direct descendants of the Alexanders army that passed through that region and where some settled and married locally. If you look up the place , a lot of the people there have blonde hair and blue eyes and a lot of greek features that you otherwise won't find in Pakistan. Fascinating stuff.
There’s not that many people in the ancient world who had worldwide influence and Alexander was definitely one of them.
This is a myth that has been debunked. Studies found nothing to support the hypothesis of kalash people descending from alexanders soldiers.
I spent the entire video saying Poltava deserves to be on the list but there is no way it is going to be mentioned considering how often it gets ignored. Im glad I was wrong, good sir.
Second Battle of Marne. Probably not in top 20. But very significant at delivering a final blow to the Germans
Yeah I think that one may have been more important historically than the Somme.
you should check out the Mongol destruction khwarazmian empire by history dose. really insane but well done.
Man, the Battle of Cannae would of been quite the disaster for the Roman's.. BUT THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!
..Oh, 1899 years too early? Shame.
Speaking of, I think it's importance can't be understated. The points outlined in the video were one way to look at it. But it also was such a humiliating disaster for the Roman's, that their animosity and hatred towards the Carthaginians (largely because of Hannibal) was exponentially increased. The battle of Cannae allowed Hannibal continue his invasion of Italy relatively unopposed, and though he wasn't successful in taking Rome, Rome never forgot the damage he wreaked across the Italian peninsula. It is estimated that 20% of all military age males 18-50 were killed at Cannae (which is nuts to think about). Both of those things created such an animosity towards Carthage, that when they won the Third Punic War, Rome wiped Carthage off the map. Completely destroyed their cities, their culture, their history, everything - going to some crazy extremes to take revenge. If Carthage survived, even as a vassal state, they still would have had a huge influence on the culture and power center in North Africa, likely changing many things in history. So, the Battle of Cannae was extremely important and in my opinion, world changing.
I'd say Vicksburg is more of a turning point than Gettysburg. I would further state I consider it the battle that draws the line in history from Napoleonic style warfare to modern industrial warfare. Which influenced the rest of the war, influenced Europe, into Unification of Germany, and Russo Japanese War.
Gettysburg was my favorite battle and what got me into history. It’s not on my list. Vicksburg is.
I would say that the most pivotal battle in the Pacific during WWII was Pearl Harbor. If the attack had happened after the formal declaration of war, which was what was planned, there wouldn't have been near the outrage from the US, and Japan might have been able to negotiate a peace after they got what they wanted. This would have also prevented the atomic attacks in 1945.
I'd give that honor to Midway. Pearl Harbor was a major setback but everyone from FDR on down
knew those ships and aircraft could be replaced. Midway was the do or die moment for both the US and Japan, the Victor would control the Pacific.
@@JamesWillmus I disagree. The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor guaranteed that there would be no negotiated end to the Pacific war with Japan. Even if the US carriers had been sunk at Midway, and the islands taken, within the next 6 months those losses would have been more than replaced. Japan never had the resources to last against the US. Had the declaration of war between delivered before the Pearl harbor attack, as was planned, then Japan might have been able to negotiate a peace after they gained what they wanted. By enraging the US with a sneak attack, they guaranteed their defeat.
I think the Great Siege of Gibraltar from 1779-1783 had pretty significant global impacts. France and Spain drew up plans to invade the British isles when they joined the American War of Independence. However, they could not do this unless Gibraltar has been captured, which they failed to do. Maintaining possession of Gibraltar also allowed Britain to have an upper-hand in the 1783 Treaty of Paris and it also was used as a British naval base which contributed to Britain’s naval superiority.
If the French and Spanish had taken Gibraltar, it would have been a lot easier for them to invade Great Britain, given the huge commitment both Spain and France put into besieging the rock. I believe the consequences of a British capitulation at Gibraltar would have been enormous and could have possibly put a quicker end to the British Empire.
Just wanted to comment on how the narrator smashed Charles Martel’s name out of the park, right after making every Frenchman cry with the English pronunciation of orleans
So far can't say I'm a fan of the original video, an arbitrary 20 battles across the expanse of history and then a surface level glance at them. Just feels a little shallow and wasteful so I'm very happy for you to cover them more. Learning a bit.
He watched it so we don't have to.
I haven't clicked on a mojo video in years.
Welcome to Watch Mojo