1. Battle of Cannae 2. Flers-Courcelette 3. Siege of Vienna (1683). Why those? 1. Hannibal kicked Rome’s ass at that battle, 20% of Rome’s population aged 18-50 died 2. It was the first battle that tanks were used in 3. I’m a descendent of the Polish Monarchy or Winged Hussars (My family has lost track cause of time)
Battle of Nola, 214 BC (spoilers for Second Punic War Oversimplified, sorry): It was Hannibal's first battle that he didn't win. It helped raise Roman morale a ton, and also snapped Hannibal's win streak. If Hannibal had won, he likely could have taken Rome. And if it wasn't for the Roman Empire, a loooot of things would be very different. Battle of Trafalgar, 1805: The British destroyed the Spanish fleet which Napoleon hoped to use to invade England. In doing so, they broke any hope for his invasion of Britain, the nation that would eventually take him out entirely. Battle of Vienna, 1683: Basically started the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and also showed that the military revolution style of army was here to stay. Battle of Trenton, 1776: Washington had been knocked out of New Jersey, and his army annihilated. So he crossed the Delaware River and fought Hessian forces, leading to the first official American victory of the Revolutionary War. In doing so, he reignited the hopes of Americans, proving they had a chance. Eventually, they did win, and the US would be a major part of future wars.
Midway, Stalingrad, for obvious reasons, but I also choose The Battle of Poltava, that marked decline and eventual defeat of the Swedish Empire and the Rise of Russia
@@AleksKieca Battle of Canae changed almost nothing in history. Maybe changed how the Romans fought wars... By winning in Canae, Carthage lost the war and its empire, if Hannibal lost in Canae, Carthage would lost the War and its empire. Don't get me wrong. It was a spectacular win, but had little to none impact in history. Now the Aljubarrota battle between Portugal (with English allies) and Spain (with French allies) that was huge changing point in world history.
@@tomfox9083 I disagree. It's good content to call out these videos and he gets more to say. If all the information is detailed and accurate in a video he watches, there's not much for him to do. People also like to watch the "drama" and he's able to show his passion of history more.
717-718 siege is probably more impactful in terms of "what if scenario" for history than 1453 probably (because by 1453 Byzantine Empire was a rump state basically, not a large empire it was once), idk.
as depressing as it is, the outcome of the siege is not really important. The Byzantine Empire was already de facto dead. If this battle was a victory for Constantinople, the Ottomans would have conquered it after a few more years.
Instead of waterloo of 1815, i would put battle of trafalgar in 1805. That sea battle gave british naval dominance for over 100 years and which led to them having the biggest empire in history imagine if they lost perhaps a british invasion could've happened.
I notice a really heavy theme of "If X had not happened, Islam would have y"... by about the halfway point. I had not realized Mojo was so conservative.
Actually good top 5: 1) 1453 Siege of Constantinople 2) Battle of Hastings 3) Battle of Bart 4) Siege of Vienna (1683) 5) Battle of the Marne Notable others: Siege of Vicksburg (vastly more important than the Battle of Gettysburg happing at this time as well) Battle of Antietam Battle of Dien Bein Phu Battle of Narva(1700) Battle of Midway
34:06 The History Channel had a show called Decisive Battles in the early 2000s. They used the game Rome: Total War to demonstrate the tactics of the battles. It was actually a pretty cool show.
I miss the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (9AD) - Total annihilation of 3 roman Legions, that was so devastating that the "invincible" romans changed their plans to conquer Germania Magna (and maybe late the slavic countries) to protect the Borders (Limes Germanicus). The Roman empire never tried again to invade and conquer the areas east of the rhine river (except for some punitive expeditions and the areas they conquered before in southern part of Germany).
I did a paper on Napoleon for my sophomore seminar and not once did I see why Waterloo is so important. Napoleon was severely weakened by that point and based on the way he treated battles since Russia, he had already given up. He was simply a grumpy old man who wanted to rule France in peace, as reflected in his autobiography. I truly think Waterloo gets extra points because the English HAVE to take credit for taking down Napoleon. Their ego wouldn't allow otherwise.
Why does it get overblown importance? Because English propaganda, that's why. It's not the first nor second time something like this happens because of England inflating its victories
It’s pretty unequivocal that Waterloo was an important battle, even if it’s overhyped slightly by English nationalists. It was the definitive end to the Napoleonic Wars, even if you took the view that the Hundred Days serve moreso as the epilogue to it rather than the climax (which I do think is a fair assessment). There’s plenty to talk about with Waterloo without sounding like an anglophile - about Prussia. This was more than four decades before Prussia’s eventual emergence as the dominant germanic state, and as the dominant power in all of continental Europe soon after that. Waterloo is definitely not as important as Leipzig by pure metrics, but there’s an argument to be made that it means a little something more to history as a narrative.
Glad you noticed that Watchmojo has a history of some weird entries on their lists. I've pointed this out to others reacting to watchmojo lists, and in comments of various watchmojo lists. Sometimes, it seems like parts of their lists are trolling us, or that their fact checkers are out to lunch. I've started suggesting people don't invest too much in what Watchmojo's videos say. Yorktown: Would've just been another battle. Would've been more and more battles till the British gave up.
It’s intentional it’s to trigger arguments in the comment section.Not once have I ever agreed with a list of watchmojo and I am usually not even that argumentative
For me, one of the battles that changed history was the Battle of Aljubarrota. This battle was key for Portugal to maintain its independence, and after that, to launch the Age of Discovery. If Portugal had lost this battle, were 6000 won 30000, it was almost certain that Portugal would lose its independence, and instead of launching the Age of Discovery, the portuguese would had been another force to battle the Moors in the southern of the Iberian Penninsula. The Age of Discovery would start much later, with all the scientific advancements that it brought.
And the Battle of Diu, which is in fact considered one of the top 10 battles that changed history, not even being mentioned tells you everything you need to know. I bet most people here haven't even heard of that one. This the typical video showing battles that are popular and that most people (especially the Anglosphere) know about and conflating it with being the most important worldwide
I would say that the battle at the Milvian bridge is one of the most important in world history, not sure if it would be number 1 but surely in the top 10
Vicksburg was more important than Gettysburg since it cuts the Confederacy in half and all but ends the war in the West. The state of Pennsylvania also had 100,000 more troops assembling that could have beaten what was left of Lee's army if he tried to take Washington. Kursk is probably just as important as Stalingrad since it stripped Germany of a lot of armor.
Stamford Bridge? Its domino effect changed the course of England by heavily weakening King Harold's forces going into the Battle of Hastings. Plus, it had drugged-up bridge Berzerkers. What's cooler than that? 😂
It’s cool however I need to disagree. It was Harold’s stupidity that lost that battle. Sources from the time (if I remember correctly from my studies a few years back) indicated that if he had just waited his army could have went from 10k to 30k but instead he rushed south to take on William and even then he only lost because he thought he won. That fake retreat the Normans did works 5% of the time and the fact it did was both luck and intelligence but for me Harolds decision not to wait for more men has more of an impact than his army being tired. Not to mention it didn’t really weaken his army, we didn’t lose that many against Hardrada due to sheer surprise
How about we put some actually influential battles that actually changed history worldwide instead of repeating battles from English history that aren't really that important on a wide spectrum aside from having their names repeated?
The battle of Marathon had the first use of the sweak-center/strong-sides tactic that Hannibal later used on Cannae. So I guess it’s a good choice from the Greco-Persian wars, since it effected more wars.
It's a WatchMojo list. They almost invariably suck a$$. Personally, I block the channel - I'm not prepared to trawl through the crap to find any good vids. As a suggestion, HardThrasher has an excellent 4-part series on the Battle of Britain that I think you'd like. He's got the personalities of the main players on both sides pegged, and delivers the story of how they F-ed up on both sides. Some serious facepalm moments...
I definitley agree with you that some of these battles, especially Cannae, have no place on this list. Cannae was a very historically INTERESTING battle, but history changing? How? The Roman state peristed for another 600 years after that. (Or 1,600 if you count Byzantium.) It's not like "Because Hannibal won at Cannae, we're all speaking Phoenecian today." Baloney. The Peruvian one, ridiculous. It hastened the Spanish conquest of Peru by a day, maybe 36 hours tops. Why Waterloo instead of Leipzig or something in Russia is ridiculous as well. And so on...
ITs watchmoyo. They just look up for a list of "Most popular battle" and then voice it over. They do no research or have a real opinion about their lists. It's just a make content quick channel that not cares about the quality of its content.
The movie showing with the clips of the Battle of Badr section is called "The Message" from 1976. It stars Anthony Quinn as Muhammad's uncle Hamza. The filmmakers made a big deal about complying with Islamic law and not depicting Muhammad himself, so a lot of the movie is shot subjectively, POV style, with characters speaking directly to the camera when they're addressing Muhammad. It was filmed in Libya, and the credits contain a message giving special thanks to Muammar Gaddafi for allowing them to shoot there!
Been watching your videos for quite a while now. Love watching your reactions and learning new history info that i didn't know, but yeah, might not wanna do WatchMojo videos anymore cause they're known to be pretty inaccurate. IDK if you've done any reactions to him yet, but you should check out Stakyuki's RUclips podcast, history of everything. Keep on keeping on, Mr. Terry.
My picks (due to me being ex-commie block states history buff): - Battle of Kalka (1223) ensured Russia's ancestors inherited Mongolian way of ruling instead of European. This is probably why Russia has almost always been more authoritarian/totalitarian than the rest of Europe and had bigger conquest tendencies - Battle of Warsaw (1920) prevented the Red Europe (and potentially the world) from happening, that's quite a timeline differing from ours
I'm surprised they didn't have Fall of Constantinople (1453), Battle of Manzikert (1071) , Battle of Rocroi (1643) , Battle of Britain (1940), Battle of Poltava (1709) nor Battle of Midway (1942) or Battle of Valmy (1792)
One of the most important battles I know of is the battle of getting out of bed every day. I don’t win all of them. Sometimes, I don’t even come out of it with all of me by the end of the day. But it’s a battle worth having.
Yeah their choice of most important battles is pretty odd. I think Lexington and concord was a more important battle than Yorktown as by then the outcome was pretty certain. Also the battle of Saratoga which led to the French finally siding with the colonies.
I'm far from an expert on Roman history, but I'm pretty sure that even if Mark Anthony had won the Battle of Actium, he wasn't exactly guaranteed to win the war.
Wasn't the Battle of the Hydaspes a more notable battle? Is that the one with the famous left flank maneuver? Similar to the tactics storming Norman use in gulf War 1991?
Cannae was more impactful because even today military officers and generals study it. It was Hannibal’s magnum opus. Everything in that battle was calculated, every advantage taken. Hannibal had forced the Romans to fight in an area where their cavalry were at a disadvantage and almost completely nullified. He forced them to fight facing a fairly strong wind that blew dust and grit into the eyes of the legionaries, further putting them at a disadvantage. Also the presence of some of Hannibal’s soldiers wearing and using Roman equipment taken after the Roman defeats at Trebia and Lake Trasamene caused further confusion among the Romans. It’s also deserving of its place on this list because it is not only a textbook case of a double envelopment and a perfect pincer movement but it is also perhaps the earliest example of a numerically inferior force completely encircling a larger opposing force.
@craigstevenson5152 You don't have to sell me on Cannae, believe me. But at the end of the day, Zama annihilated Carthage and built up Rome to be the Antiquity's biggest dogs. That is more impactful. It's not taught in detail in military academies, sure. But it did mold history as we know it. There is no Roman Empire without Zama. That's kind of a big deal.
But there is no Zama without Cannae. Scipio Africanus was only able to defeat Hannibal because of Cannae. The traditional Roman mindset of attacking had already been brought into doubt by Fabius Maximus the Delayer. But Scipio never learns to look at a battlefield differently without the use of every advantage that Cannae proves so decisive in a battle. He never develops the mindset that would allow him to use a combined force of naval and land forces as well as natural advantage that the changing tides of the lagoon to perform a feint and successfully assault the walls with a small force leading to the eventual capture of the city. Zama was important, true, but it was Hannibal at just about his lowest ebb as a Carthaginian commander. By that time the Carthaginians had lost their manpower and, even more pressingly, had lost their cavalry advantage when Masinissa of Numidia defected and provided his services to Scipio Africanus and the Romans. What Cannae did was create a more flexible mindset among Roman forces and a greater understanding of tactics and strategy that wasn't really present in the Roman mindset before as can be seen from the many commanders who fell during the Second Punic War. After this we see the rise of men who thought outside the box like Marius, Sulla, Sertorius and even Caesar. How many commanders would think to reform the army in the way Marius did if it were not for recognising the advantages it brought that probably wouldn't have happened if the traditional aristocratic mindset of Roman warfare had remained in place? The impact of Cannae was so great that Hannibal became a byword for what was almost akin to a boogeyman for children. And if Cannae had not been so important then Zama would simply have been the end of a war, the final last burst of desperation rather than a notable final showdown between two great commanders. And with that defeat I would also argue that a new mindset began to come in to being that the Italians had a new idea of what their alliance with Rome actually meant which would eventually lead to the Social War, the final moment where the old order of Italy fell away and became more of a whole under the Roman republic to the extent that even a Picentine like Pompeius Magnus could hold such power as he did.@@MrWillcapone
I mean Ethiopia not becoming an italian coloney the first time does kind of have some influence... I mean the War crimes Italy did when they invaded the second time pretty much led to Diplomatic isolation that caused further strains in the Italian and French Relations, probably leading to Italy and Germany being forced to develop closer ties (At first, despite both being totalitarian governments they didn't see eye to eye, Italy had the 'Pact of Rome' with Austria in 1934, and Hitler was supplying Ethiopia with arms), thus leading to the Rome Berlin pact and by extension the axis as a whole
Watchmojo showcases subjects that spans miles long but barely knows 1/16th inch deep. I’d guess they typed “most famous battles in history” into google then recorded the voice lines.
I would have said the battle of Moscow was more important than Waterloo. I mean, Napoleon got tricked into the classic blunder of advancing into Russian during winter and found nothing but a burnt out city as a reward. I think that was really when Napoleon was defeated.
Battle of Agincourt should replace Hastings. Agincourt showed the advantage of archers, they absolutely slaughtered the French Heavy Cavalry and really showed how archers could just decimate an entire army. It was important for military tactics development. Normandy should definitely be there, unstead of Gettysburg, Gettysburg turned the tide of war but didn't really affect the world or how war was fought.
Na I disagree. Hastings was huge in English history while Agincourt, while big in culture and one of our greatest achievements, wasn’t that great on a whole. Even after that point, the long bow was still mainly just used by the English and not to mention we didn’t hold on to France for that long either due to Henry dieing you. I think it would have been much bigger if Henry V had lived longer and the kingdoms of England and France merged into an European superpower of an empire then it would be bigger
If they put actium then they got to put alesia. If ceasar losses alesia his entire army including mark antony die. All of gaul falls back to the gauls. Its one of the most important battles of history.
Battle of Teutoburg Forest for me. Much of the cultural divide we see between Germanic and Latin Europe stems from this battle as it prevented any expansion from that point between the Roman Empire and Northern Europe. Take this battle and change the outcome. Nations like Germany, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia look totally different today. Even England (while Rome had control of England obviously) we wouldn’t have gained our cultural diversity and linguistic uniqueness if you take away what we gained from Danes, Saxons etc so that’s my pick
Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have just prolonged the war with the Union still winning. If the Confederates would have decisively won at Antietam, the Union very likely would have capitulated. Confederate victory would have completely changed world history afterward. As the US powerhouse that came out of the industrial revolution would have been a shell of what it was. Waterloo’s significance is more for the establishment of the global financial paradigm than for the defeat of Napoleon. By this time his ultimate defeat was inevitable.
More than Gettysburg, Midway was more pivotal. Had we lost our carrier fllet, they could pen us in at Alaska and Hawaii, removing us from the Pacific, and leaving the fuel lines open for the Imperial Navy.
I don't know, you can make the case for a lot of battles to be important, just take the battle of Lechfeld in 955 as an example. Otto I. King of Germany deceisivly destroyed the Magyars (Hungarians) and ended their constant raiding of central and eastern europe, this led to the consolidation of Ottos power within Germany and europe as a whole and he was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 962 as a result, founding a state that would last 800 years. With the threat of the Magyars gone the Byzantines reached out to the west to "reconnect" and Otto I. son, Otto II. was married to a Byzantine Princess (although a rather unimportant one, none that could have any impact on the Byzantine succession) which was all the aknowledgement they needed by the Byzantines to legitimize their status as the continuity of west rome. So a unknown battle with a lot of impact. I bet there are dozens of battles you could argue to be very important in historical context, kinda of like the butterfly effect. Would Otto I. have been crowned Holy Roman Emperor without defeating the Magyars? Would the Byzantines have reached out? Would the Magyars abandoned their raiding lifestyle and mxied with the native slavs to form the modern Hungarians? Would the Holy Roman Empire have existed for as long as it had without the aknowledgement of the Byzantines?
I can't say if the Union would have still won the Civil War had it lost at Gettysburg. But if the South had won the Civil War, regardless of how they had pulled it off, it would have meant the end of the United States. Other secession movements would have followed, competing newly independent states would form rivalries with each other, and most if not all would have sought patronage from European empires. It's quote possible that, if the South had won the war, the map of North America at the turn of the 20th Century would have closely resembled the map of Africa at the same time. You likely would have seen names like "British New York," "French Alabama," "German Illinois" and "Russian California" on that map. And, most importantly as far as the world is concerned, the dissolution of the United States in the second half of the 19th Century would have meant no United States capable of taking on the challenges of the 20th Century. That is, the two world wars and the Cold War. So, yes. I absolutely agree with Mojo that Gettysburg belongs on this list. Because no United States in the 19th Century means no America capable of saving the world in the 20th.
I'm going to give it to Stalingrad: Breaking Germany's morale sped up the war. WWII already had the use of Nuclear Weapons in it, and they were being researched by both sides. Pretty convinced No Stalingrad = More Nukes Used. If I remember correctly, the time delay was not very long between USA and other countries cracking it. Add to the fact that the only reason Nagasaki and Hiroshima aren't on par with Chernobyl is the bombs were air burst, eventually something was going to detonate on the ground.
This list seems like it's based on their favorite english-language movies. I get that the 2 "world" wars definitely changed history, since they led to current geopolitical powers that basically control how the world works, but all the major ancient wars were about as important to their own regions as the other major ancient wars.
Battle of Inchon, 1950. Should have made the list. It was maybe the most audacious plan in military history, and it prevented a communist takeover of the Korean penninsula. And, more importantly, it probably saved Western Europe by showing the Soviets that America wouldn't sit idly by and let Stalin take whatever countries he wanted. Inchon more than any other place was where the Cold War was won.
I would have given Battle of Tsushima (and other islands of southern Japan) between Japanese Vs Mongols. The winner was decided by 2 Tornados that happened within a decade of each other in 1274 and 1281. Mongols were exposed to be weak when it came to naval battles, they never recovered.
Yeah, that footage of marathon looked like an old total war game. I'd guess Rome: Total War: Alexander from the factions and the graphics, but could easily be wrong.
OK; so I did a few commentaries on most of these battles. Actium: I am not sure losing would have changed a lot for Octavian. I believe if Antony wasn't ever defeated the conflict would have been frozen until he died or he lost power. perhaps leaving his children with Cleopatra in some power position as the Roman Empire eventually gobbled them up, under Octavian or Tiberius. Yorktown: I agree. The revolution would have happened anyway, and chances are the Colonies would have breached out of the British Empire around that time. Also, wasn't Yorktown like, at the very end of the war and the conflict turned already in the American favor? Badr: It seems to me this and the other early battles of Islam were skirmishes for control of routes rather than localized campaigns. The unifying force that Muhammed had was probably bound to exploit and take advantage of the Meccan and pre-islamic arabs' divisions in the middle run. BTW: I believe that movie is on RUclips. It was made with the government of Iran's help, I think, and you never see or hear Muhammad's voice, which is an interesting direction. Cannae: I am not sure how changing this battle was for the war itself. The prior battles may have been more decisive. HOWEVER; it is undenyable the battle was a massive shaker to Roman society, and may have been a wakeup call to change the strategy. Their military, however, wasn't deeply reformed until Gaius Marius's reforms in the later republic, prior to the civil wars leading up to Caesar. Perhaps more important is the aftermath of Cannae, with Hannibal failing to go for Rome or effectively sublevate the italian south, and his brother being trapped in Spain, unable to send the rienforcements the Carthaginian senate aproved after Cannae. Hattin: I would agree this battle was an influence far and wide. The fall of the Crusader States probably heralded the eventual fall of the Byzantine Empire some centuries later, as the buffer states were gone. Moreover, the Ayubbid Dynasty was a precursor of instability that led to the invasion of the Mongols, themselves leading to the resurgance of the Anatolian Beyliks after the desintegration of the Sultanate of Rum. Amongst these Beyliks were the Ottomans. On Europe, the Third Crusade had major implication on Western politics, as it led Richard of England away, giving his brother John ample range of action, and I'd venture to say the third Crusade also had a deep effect in the events precursor to the Hundred Years War. Adwa: I generally agree with you. It probably didn't change much outside of Ethiopia and its neighbors in the short run (which is what I would call "History changing"), but it's worth discussing how much did it inspire decolonization later on and how much did that in turn affect the process itself. I guess there is also an analysis to be made about Italian imperialism before and after Mussolini came to power. Did it have some revanchist element in it? Probably yes. Did it come to add to the stack of grievances post WW1 italians had on the monarchy? Perhaps. Vienna: As with Cannae, while symbolic and astonishing, it's debatable if Vienna was a turning point. I've heard different opinions on this. It seems to me, however, that the decadence of the Ottomans was already ensuing before the Siege. The tensions between the Janissaries and the Sultan were already well-established, and they would mostly correlate to Ottoman military defeats throughout its history. Had they won, how much could the Ottomans have held to the city and the territories northwest of it, I am not sure. Constantinople (718): I have to disagree with WM's "Europe would have been rolled over" statement. I am not sure the Caliphate was in any state to go that far. But, had it fallen, it would have caused massive ripple effects in Christendom. Perhaps an earlier, more desperate Crusade would have been called at that point, and it could have changed the way European politics played out in the long run, affecting the Carolingian court and the eventual formation of the HRE, the efforts to fight off the norsemen, and prehaps even the Reconquista, as Spain had *just* fallen to the muslims. Perhaps the major change would have been the lost of the major sponsor and seat of Orthodox Christianity. Orleans: I suppose this is a major twist in History. Up to that point the french nobility was divided. Joan's victory unified command towards a goal, at least for a while. Some jumps here, but I am guessing there is something about Bolivar's campaign. I am super biased against Bolivar, so I will not give an opinion without the pinpointed context. But on the Gran Colombian project, I'd say it was doomed to fail, as there was not a unifying identity between the colonies in South America as there was between the 13 Colonies in the north. The Spanish empire administrative system and geography made sure we ended up feeling and acting separate, and only united to kick out the Spanish, which IMO would have happened either in the 1820s or the 1860s. Tours: You are right in the importance of the battle for the HRE, more so because it boosted Martell's importance in the Merovingian court, leading to the rise of the Carolingians. As for its importance to the halt of Ummayad expansion, it's difficult to establish the real intend of the campaign. If it was small it might have been an early form of what we call today a Razzya, which aims at debilitating the economy, the morale and the demography of a region, preparing it for an eventual conquest. If Tours had been a defeat, my guess is the Franks would have seen more Ummayad forces crossing the Pireenees until either a large army came or an effective defense could be organized. Somme: Nothing to add here. Only that a general should never try to out-body count the enemy's ammunition. Gettysburg: I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the war. Maybe it would have changed the way we look at events, and it would have changed the direction of the 13th ammendment, maybe. Cajamarca: Here I have to disagree a bit: Although disease had caused the Empire to fracture (a civil war being the reason Atahualpa was near Cajarmarca) they still hed quite some power, and given some time, I believe they would have established contact with their out-of-Perú colonies. Mind you, the war for the Inca Empire lasted 2 years, Pizarro suporting a claimant to the throne before actually taking it for himself. And even after that, members of the imperial family escaped to the deeper Andes, forming the Empire of Vilcabamba and resisting until the 1570s. Had Cajamarca gone differently, the war would have taken a very different undertone. Perhaps with the Spanish coming back for vengeance. Perhaps deciding to keep their distance and respect this Empire (which they did to some extent, marrying into their nobility), leading to an eventual vasalization to the Spanish Empire. Who knows. IMO, it would have gone very differently, at least in shape. Waterloo: I recall Napoleon could have won. But the allies had probably learned how to face him. IMO he would have lost eventually, if not in Belgium, somewhere else. Hastings: Yeah, I agree on N4. Maybe 5 or 6, but it's England. Marathon: The fact we have to rely on Rome Total War to recreate Marathon is frankly insulting. We need a Marathon movie. Gaugamela: Nothing to say, really. Other than that. It's worth considering the effect the hellenistic period had on the culture, religion and politics of the Kingdom of Israel. The divisions created by that phenomenon would weight down on Jewish society well into the time a certain Jesus of Nazareth was born. Stalingrad: If I had to say what turned the tide of the war I'd say it was Stalingrad first in 1943, then a mixture of the Battle of Kurst and the invasion of Italy, roughly happening at the ssme time and completely destabilizing the german war machine, and Operation Overlord later in the war.
"Birthed Western Civilization" this only makes sense if you also believe that "All of Western Thought is but a footnote to Plato", because this spread Plato/Aristotle (Alex's teacher and his teacher) to the world... but yeah...
A part of me really wants to dig through the unification wars that brought the Qin dynasty to power and birthed ancient China. There's probably a pick there which could have changed the course of Asia if it had gone differently. Largely my own bias of course - that whole region blew itself apart and put itself back together so many times that it's unclear just how different things would have been if some battle delayed either process.
Well the kingdoms manga is actually quite a good start to get into it^ It was a very turbulent time. But I guess one of the most deciding battle was Wang Jian vs Li Mu. A battle that actually ended as a win for Zhao still lead to Li Mu beeing executed by his king and allowed Qin to crush them in the following battles. Because Li Mu alone managed to repell Qin for 15 years. With the downfall of Zhao a domino effeckt started. Qin easily took out one kingdom after the other after this point. With Chu being the only one that remained a threat for some time.
HANNIBAL/CRUSADES dont know much about roman battles but i do think something that would have changed things is if hannibal ignored orders to stay in italy and immediately follow the romans tback home rather that do nothing while they won battle after battle. same with the 3rd crusade which i would say is debateable, richard the lionheart beat saladin but just accepted peace, the question is, if richard actually bothered to seige jerusalem, would he have succeeded? i feel a lot of history changing events can be chalked up to decisions people didn't make as well as certain battles. YORKTOWN unless the french and spanish would have also given up on the war if britain had won, then yorktown wouldnt change anything at that point, the battle that should be there is the Battle of Saratoga, as thats what brought the fench in fully, as without the french the colonists wouldnt have stood a chance. THE SOMME i agree with the marne, although i would say the somme, verdun, and brusilov offensive combined were potentially history changing as we don't know how far germany could have gotten if they succeeded at verdun. same thing with gallipoli, if successful it would have knocked out the ottomans, the russian black sea fleet would be able to join the other navy's and russia could be better supplied by the allies, possibly avoiding the russian revolution. WATERLOO the only historical change at waterloo was that because unlike the other powers, britain was able to put napoleon on an island that made sure he couldnt come back. but frankly im not sure any land battles were history changing, as ive said sometimes it decisions, and it was napoleons decisions to invade both spain and russia when he really didnt need to that changed history, his own ego. the only battle that did change history was trafalgar and thats a battle that had more effects further down the line, it didnt really effect napoleons campaigns inside the continent itself. HASTINGS when it comes to hastings the question is would englands relationships change? without hastings then england may not ever have a rivaly with france which potentially takes away 3 other battles off the list, without that rivalry it may not end up with the empire it had taking yorktown off the list, it may not have even brought about britains war against slavery as its motivations originate with the laws the normans set in england. WW2 i dont agree that there was any one battle, i thinkthere were multiple contenders that could have changed everything,, stalingrad, battle of britain, 2nd battle of el alamein, moscow, D-day and the invasion of sicily, some for the defeat of germany and some for the countries spared occupation by the USSR. FAVOURITE as for my favourite im gonna have to go with one people dont realise is history changing. Battle of Queenston Heights aka the invasion of canada. its history changing because when the USA and Britain sat down for peace talks, Britain had taken some of the northern territories, just forts and minor villiages nothing major. when asking wellington advice (via letter) on if it should be annexed or not, wellington advised just giving it back, because the other powers invading france at the time wanted to break it up and split france between them. wellington thought france was a good counter against the other powers and to keep the balance wanted it kept around, but he thought he couldnt stop them taking french territory if britain was taking US territory at the same time. so you could say that the USA's decision to invade canada in 1812 inadvertently stopped france from being ripped apart and removed from the map in 1814.
Crusade here crusade there. Noone speaks about crusades to Bohemia. Our ancestors tried to reform filthy catholic church and Europe turned against them.
I would agree with Marathon being there. If Persians would win, Athens would be destroyed and its people slaughtered or enslaved. Victory at Marathon didnt only save Athens but it gave Athenians the shock they needed to fully understand Persian threat. Thats why they built massive fleet which was crucial for Greek victory in second Persian invasion ten years later. Without that fleet there would be no battles of Artemisium and Salamis and Athenian civilians couldnt be evacuated from the city. Then Persians could just land anywere on the Peloponese and Spartans by themselves wouldnt stand a chance. Battle of Plataea in the end was crucial and could have a spot on this list as well but it would never happen without Marathon.
Nah Trafalgar win my opinion might be the most important battle ever ensured British domination for the next 100 years which influenced the world a lot
I absolutely agree with putting the Battle of Badr on this list. Whatever your opinion of Islam is, you can't deny, Islam has had a tremendous impact on world history, and there would have been no Islam had the Battle of Badr gone the other way. However, if the Battle of Badr is going to be on this list at #18, somewhere between #1 and #17 needs to be the Battle of Gibeon. The Battle of Gibeon is in the Bible, Book of Joshua, and describes how a coalition of five Canaanite kings under King Adonizedek of Jerusalem joined forces to take on and destroy the fledgling Israelite nation that had just invaded their territory. Joshua and the Israelites won, and the Conquest of Canaan began. But if that Battle had gone the other way, all Abrahamic religions would have been smothered in their cradle. A world without Judaism, Christianity or Islam if Anonizedek had just stood his ground. Of course, coming from the Bible, the true historicity of the Battle of Gibeon is questionable. But so is the Battle of Badr, and it made the list, so...
Battle of Cannae didnt change history, the battle of Zama decided everything. After Zama, Rome bacome the sole ruler of the mediterrian setting them up for its dominance. Yes, Cannae was a major battle in the war, but it didnt decide it.
Mr. Terry, “an important battle” must either kill or fail to (likely) kill important people, and/or change the course of history in a noticeable and important way. ACTIUM: Augustus had already successfully vilified Cleopatra as the wicked witch of the East. So I don’t think it was in the cards for her to have a role in Roman politics. Could Roman attitudes towards Egypt or an Emperor changed based on Antony winning? Sure. Interestingly, the man that took over after Augustus died was his adopted son Tiberius who happened to be the real son of Marc Antony. 4/10 YORKTOWN: England was basically fighting world war .5 (if the seven years war was WW0. France and Spain were not on our side not because they believed in our cause but because that cause was another thorn in England’s side. Yorktown was important, but if we didn’t fold quickly England wasn’t going to win. They easily could have but it was resources v outcomes and none were good. Yorktown was the straw that broke the camel’s back, but there would have been others 2/10. BADR:This is the kind of battle this show should be about 7.5/10. CANNAE: As brilliant as Hannibal was his battles never had the support of Carthage and the only thing he really accomplished was scaring the heck out of Rome and teaching them how to fight 1/10. HATTIN: This is the battle that won the Crusades and and none of the Crusades that followed had much success except perhaps for the Albigensian Crusades in southern France which was Catholic vs. Heretic or “Protestants” as they might be later called. I really feel that Crusades were nearing the end anyway. 5/10. ADWA: Does it matter a great deal whether Ethiopia loses here or to Mussolini less than 50 years later? No. 2/10 SIEGE OF VIENNA: I don’t think that the Ottoman’s would have posed a major threat to re-conquer more vast swaths of Europe unopposed. Their continued battles would be greatly opposed by Christendom. I doubt whether they could have held Vienna. But may a neighbor takes it back and grows in stature and Austro-Hungary isn’t so.pwerful (yet still dwindling) at the onset of WWI. 2/10. SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE: Sadly not familiar with this but the loss of such a powerful defender of Christendom in the east 600 years before the Ottomans took it seems like it may have reshaped much of Europe. 7.5/10. HSUPENG: Not really an expert on this area either, but the conclusion what feels to me foregone is of little significance. 2/10. ORLEANS: This one is hard. Since 1066 English nobles spoke French, had property in France and were of French ancestry. So if England wins, France may well not cease to exist, but England might. A New France with two sets of nobles living across the Channel. Countries have destroyed themselves trying to take over larger countries in Europe. 6/10. TOURS: I don’t know much about the battle itself, only that ended the Muslim invasion of Western Europe. Were they likely to stop soon and unlikely to sent reinforcements soon regardless? 6/10. SOMME: The Somme Accomlished nothing. Changed nothing. Did nothing. It was likely one of the wars that made the Treaty of Versailles as harsh as it was. I.E. it was a major contributor of world financial crisis, the Great Despression and WWII. 4/10. GETTYSBURG: The Civil War was a war with a forgone conclusion. Look at the numbers on both sides. Look at the number of people coming in to the North and South, look at the railroads and look at the industry. All point North. Even famed historian Shelby Foote said the North fought the War with one hand tied behind it’s back, if it had lost a lot more battles the second hand would have been freed. The south could not win without foreign intervention, and by July 1 1863 with Lincoln taking the first step in freeing the slaves it was not in the cards. Also Gettysburg is not the most important battle in the war either. The South lost its biggest city (New Orleans) in the very first month of the war. The Win at Vicksburg was also more important. 0/10. ATAHUALPA: 90% of indigenous Americans died as a result of disease. Some dying sooner is certainly tragic but not earth shattering. Also the destruction of the Incans is another forgone conclusion as the same for any indigenous Americans 3/10 WATERLOO: 2/10. LEiPZIG 4/10. Attacking Russia 10/10. Interestingly, Wellington had studied tactics and war VERY CLOSE to Waterloo and even spent time there between his studies figuring out how to fight there. HASTINGS: The battle of Hastings and Stamford Bridge less than one month prior against the Norse and Harold Godwinson has always been fun to contemplate. Safe enough to say if you are invading foreign land, be second to arrive and not first. 6/10. MARATHON: Strategically this battle wasn’t of great importance as Darius didn’t bring enough men to threaten Greece and Xerxes would still invade, but it proved to the Athenians they could win a war without Sparta and gave them recognition throughout Greece for a long time to come. 7/10.. GAUGAMELA: One of the impressive wins on the list so far but what was accomplished? Of Alexander’s Diadochus (successor generals) only Ptolemy (Egypt until Rome took over) and Nicanor (Seleucids) created anything truly lasting (if my memory is right). But, Hellenism was spread far and wide. 4/10. STALINGRAD; 8/10. This list values numbers over number according to world population. No mention of the Taiping Revolution which was more deadly than WW2. Or of the three kingdoms wars (deadliest in human history). But not a horrible list overall.
I mean listing historical battles or just listing any historical event is tough in general. I am disappointed in the lack of asian battles, specifically battles like Sekigahara, Nagashino and Tsushima. But I mean, a lot of the battles listed were battles in a book I own about Histories most pivotal battles though the book has around 50 in chronological order. I also am surprised that for a north American channel, the end of the seven years war in north America at the siege of Quebec/ Battle of the plains of Abraham did not come up since it essentially resulted in a British dominated North America and eventually the formation of Canada and the United States.
@@kaihiggins725 I mean again it’s subjective but definitely the Battle of Tsushima had a major effect worldwide. It propelled japan to a power position among nations while it saw the decline of an old power like Russia(this would lay the seeds of the eventual fall of the czar in world war 1). It is the only decisive naval battle between modern steel battleship fleets. It is said to be the most important naval event since Trafalgar which makes it pretty notable.
@@mariobiscotti8215 but again no. It was huge for Japan yes but Russia had declined significantly and wasn’t a massive threat to anyone but itself. The only reason it could be considered huge was because of European arrogance. Only thing it did prove is why most nations had moved away from their monarch calling the shots where the army is concerned
@@mariobiscotti8215 what cause the Tsar to lose his position in WW1 was because he was useless. It would have happened regardless. That man preferred his army to look glamorous like the battles of the previous century in contrast to a uniform that actually offered protection. Japan could be erased from history and Tsar Nicholas II still meets the same fate because that man was just a clown
About the Napolean wars, the most important battles were Trafalgal, has someone already said and almost all little known small battles that were fought in the Iberian Peninsula. With Napoleon's Grand Armee pinned down in Spain and expelled from Portugal, other European countries saw that Napoleon was not invincible.
@@Guerreiro_da_Luz fair point the peninsular war or war of Spanish independence does get glossed over. Don’t forget how it also led to a chain of events of Spain, losing control of mosf of South America.
The thing is, and I get arguments against this, but Waterloo was the final nail in the coffin. What people fail to think about is Napoleon could easily have become a major threat in 10/15 years time starting the whole issue all over again
@kaihiggins725 Even if Napoleon domehow won Waterloo, France would have to surrender. There would be another great battle that France would lose. Most of the veterans of Napoleon lost their lives in Russia and Spain. Le Grand Armée was in shambles, and the European Nations would not give Napoleon time to restore France's economy and military forces.
It's more recent in history, and questionable whether it can be called a "battle," but the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Beiruit in 1983 could make this list. Most Americans have forgotten about it, but in the Muslim world, especially the parts of the Muslim world where America isn't very popular, they sure as heck remember it. The lesson of "hit America hard enough and they'll back down" certainly wasn't lost on Osama bin Laden, Muhammad Farrah Aidid, everybody in the Iranian government and military, and every jihadi terrorist who has come since.
Is there a reason that American battles can't be on this list? I know watchmojo is American-centric, but you seemed against *any* battles happening in the US being on a list of battles that changed history. American history is still part of world history and our country is a big player on the world stage; if we were limited to ~the big battles then we would be stuck in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia wouldn't we? I don't see how that would be better? I'd say that the battle of Gettysburg is definitely history changing. People were hoping Lincoln would lose the next election to someone who would allow for the Confederacy to exist. Winning that battle boosted morale and his popularity, which helped him win his second election when that time came round, which in turn meant that there would be no peace talks with the Confederacy. The makeup of our country was at risk, and I'd say that our reputation going forward, especially going into WWI, would be very different if Gettysburg hadn't happened the way it did. So I do think that we shouldn't scoff at American battles making this list of history changing battles.
Because they is far greater battles in Europe and the Middle East than anything that has ever happened in America. Watch mojo just sticks American battles in there for no reason in every list they do
Watch Moyo is just a trash chanel. They just take lists they find in the internet and voice them over. It's a minimal effort chanel. Sadly youtube has no rules to stop such chanels. Most of the time the speakers not even know what they are talking about doing the list but just rephrase some opinion they read about it.
What are YOUR top battles that changed history?
1. Battle of Cannae
2. Flers-Courcelette
3. Siege of Vienna (1683).
Why those?
1. Hannibal kicked Rome’s ass at that battle, 20% of Rome’s population aged 18-50 died
2. It was the first battle that tanks were used in
3. I’m a descendent of the Polish Monarchy or Winged Hussars (My family has lost track cause of time)
Battle of Nola, 214 BC (spoilers for Second Punic War Oversimplified, sorry): It was Hannibal's first battle that he didn't win. It helped raise Roman morale a ton, and also snapped Hannibal's win streak. If Hannibal had won, he likely could have taken Rome. And if it wasn't for the Roman Empire, a loooot of things would be very different.
Battle of Trafalgar, 1805: The British destroyed the Spanish fleet which Napoleon hoped to use to invade England. In doing so, they broke any hope for his invasion of Britain, the nation that would eventually take him out entirely.
Battle of Vienna, 1683: Basically started the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and also showed that the military revolution style of army was here to stay.
Battle of Trenton, 1776: Washington had been knocked out of New Jersey, and his army annihilated. So he crossed the Delaware River and fought Hessian forces, leading to the first official American victory of the Revolutionary War. In doing so, he reignited the hopes of Americans, proving they had a chance. Eventually, they did win, and the US would be a major part of future wars.
Midway, Stalingrad, for obvious reasons, but I also choose The Battle of Poltava, that marked decline and eventual defeat of the Swedish Empire and the Rise of Russia
Battle of Marathon
Battle of Gaugamela
Battle of Cannae
Battle of Zama
Battle of Carrhae
@@AleksKieca Battle of Canae changed almost nothing in history. Maybe changed how the Romans fought wars... By winning in Canae, Carthage lost the war and its empire, if Hannibal lost in Canae, Carthage would lost the War and its empire. Don't get me wrong. It was a spectacular win, but had little to none impact in history. Now the Aljubarrota battle between Portugal (with English allies) and Spain (with French allies) that was huge changing point in world history.
The fact that the Siege of Constantinople (1453) isn't on here makes me want to delete the internet.
Can't believe the true fall of Rome ain't listed😢
They arnt know for accuracy I would just stop doing this channel. Do more stuff like the history of coffee or and of the channel that guy has
@@tomfox9083 I disagree. It's good content to call out these videos and he gets more to say. If all the information is detailed and accurate in a video he watches, there's not much for him to do. People also like to watch the "drama" and he's able to show his passion of history more.
717-718 siege is probably more impactful in terms of "what if scenario" for history than 1453 probably (because by 1453 Byzantine Empire was a rump state basically, not a large empire it was once), idk.
as depressing as it is, the outcome of the siege is not really important. The Byzantine Empire was already de facto dead. If this battle was a victory for Constantinople, the Ottomans would have conquered it after a few more years.
Instead of waterloo of 1815, i would put battle of trafalgar in 1805. That sea battle gave british naval dominance for over 100 years and which led to them having the biggest empire in history imagine if they lost perhaps a british invasion could've happened.
Well but then why not leibzig like Terry suggested as that concerend all of europe not justthe brits
@@jayman1772LeiPzig
"England expects"
Waterloo, Cannae, and Gettysburg were all on this list for name recognition alone.
@@DarkLobster69lmao cannae was pretty influential battle though
Oh god it’s watchmojo, don’t do it terry! They’re lists are so baaaad
I notice a really heavy theme of "If X had not happened, Islam would have y"... by about the halfway point. I had not realized Mojo was so conservative.
@@leechowning2712There not even conservative. Just bad.
this one was actually quite decent ngl
Actually good top 5:
1) 1453 Siege of Constantinople
2) Battle of Hastings
3) Battle of Bart
4) Siege of Vienna (1683)
5) Battle of the Marne
Notable others:
Siege of Vicksburg (vastly more important than the Battle of Gettysburg happing at this time as well)
Battle of Antietam
Battle of Dien Bein Phu
Battle of Narva(1700)
Battle of Midway
34:06 The History Channel had a show called Decisive Battles in the early 2000s. They used the game Rome: Total War to demonstrate the tactics of the battles.
It was actually a pretty cool show.
You can find the episodes of it on here on RUclips.
Mr. Terry i just wanna say you're the best. Your videos bring me so much joy and i bet you are a hell of a teacher too.
I miss the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (9AD) - Total annihilation of 3 roman Legions, that was so devastating that the "invincible" romans changed their plans to conquer Germania Magna (and maybe late the slavic countries) to protect the Borders (Limes Germanicus).
The Roman empire never tried again to invade and conquer the areas east of the rhine river (except for some punitive expeditions and the areas they conquered before in southern part of Germany).
I did a paper on Napoleon for my sophomore seminar and not once did I see why Waterloo is so important. Napoleon was severely weakened by that point and based on the way he treated battles since Russia, he had already given up. He was simply a grumpy old man who wanted to rule France in peace, as reflected in his autobiography. I truly think Waterloo gets extra points because the English HAVE to take credit for taking down Napoleon. Their ego wouldn't allow otherwise.
I mean true but I still think that Waterloo is a watershed battle nonetheless
Well not really. Waterloo destroyed any possibility of Napoleon building his strength in 5/10 years and becoming a threat again
Why does it get overblown importance? Because English propaganda, that's why. It's not the first nor second time something like this happens because of England inflating its victories
It’s pretty unequivocal that Waterloo was an important battle, even if it’s overhyped slightly by English nationalists. It was the definitive end to the Napoleonic Wars, even if you took the view that the Hundred Days serve moreso as the epilogue to it rather than the climax (which I do think is a fair assessment).
There’s plenty to talk about with Waterloo without sounding like an anglophile - about Prussia.
This was more than four decades before Prussia’s eventual emergence as the dominant germanic state, and as the dominant power in all of continental Europe soon after that.
Waterloo is definitely not as important as Leipzig by pure metrics, but there’s an argument to be made that it means a little something more to history as a narrative.
@@welshlout3400 thank you, some common sense
Glad you noticed that Watchmojo has a history of some weird entries on their lists. I've pointed this out to others reacting to watchmojo lists, and in comments of various watchmojo lists. Sometimes, it seems like parts of their lists are trolling us, or that their fact checkers are out to lunch. I've started suggesting people don't invest too much in what Watchmojo's videos say.
Yorktown: Would've just been another battle. Would've been more and more battles till the British gave up.
You do have a point, I mean they did still have New York,
It’s intentional it’s to trigger arguments in the comment section.Not once have I ever agreed with a list of watchmojo and I am usually not even that argumentative
If you are looking for more content to watch I recommend the "Iconic Arms" playlist by Ahoy. The writing is top tier.
For me, one of the battles that changed history was the Battle of Aljubarrota. This battle was key for Portugal to maintain its independence, and after that, to launch the Age of Discovery. If Portugal had lost this battle, were 6000 won 30000, it was almost certain that Portugal would lose its independence, and instead of launching the Age of Discovery, the portuguese would had been another force to battle the Moors in the southern of the Iberian Penninsula. The Age of Discovery would start much later, with all the scientific advancements that it brought.
And the Battle of Diu, which is in fact considered one of the top 10 battles that changed history, not even being mentioned tells you everything you need to know. I bet most people here haven't even heard of that one. This the typical video showing battles that are popular and that most people (especially the Anglosphere) know about and conflating it with being the most important worldwide
Yes, but without the battle of Aljubarrota, or if the victory was for Castille, there would be no battle of Diu.
I would say that the battle at the Milvian bridge is one of the most important in world history, not sure if it would be number 1 but surely in the top 10
I was thinking this the whole video! Finally someone mentioned it in the comments tysm
Vicksburg was more important than Gettysburg since it cuts the Confederacy in half and all but ends the war in the West. The state of Pennsylvania also had 100,000 more troops assembling that could have beaten what was left of Lee's army if he tried to take Washington.
Kursk is probably just as important as Stalingrad since it stripped Germany of a lot of armor.
Stamford Bridge? Its domino effect changed the course of England by heavily weakening King Harold's forces going into the Battle of Hastings. Plus, it had drugged-up bridge Berzerkers. What's cooler than that? 😂
It’s cool however I need to disagree. It was Harold’s stupidity that lost that battle. Sources from the time (if I remember correctly from my studies a few years back) indicated that if he had just waited his army could have went from 10k to 30k but instead he rushed south to take on William and even then he only lost because he thought he won. That fake retreat the Normans did works 5% of the time and the fact it did was both luck and intelligence but for me Harolds decision not to wait for more men has more of an impact than his army being tired. Not to mention it didn’t really weaken his army, we didn’t lose that many against Hardrada due to sheer surprise
I mean losing Hastings btw
How about we put some actually influential battles that actually changed history worldwide instead of repeating battles from English history that aren't really that important on a wide spectrum aside from having their names repeated?
The battle of Marathon had the first use of the sweak-center/strong-sides tactic that Hannibal later used on Cannae.
So I guess it’s a good choice from the Greco-Persian wars, since it effected more wars.
What happened to #10?
6:57 the movie is called “the message” i think, the 70s one
It's a WatchMojo list. They almost invariably suck a$$. Personally, I block the channel - I'm not prepared to trawl through the crap to find any good vids.
As a suggestion, HardThrasher has an excellent 4-part series on the Battle of Britain that I think you'd like. He's got the personalities of the main players on both sides pegged, and delivers the story of how they F-ed up on both sides. Some serious facepalm moments...
Which is exactly why I like watching people respond to them.
I definitley agree with you that some of these battles, especially Cannae, have no place on this list. Cannae was a very historically INTERESTING battle, but history changing? How? The Roman state peristed for another 600 years after that. (Or 1,600 if you count Byzantium.) It's not like "Because Hannibal won at Cannae, we're all speaking Phoenecian today." Baloney. The Peruvian one, ridiculous. It hastened the Spanish conquest of Peru by a day, maybe 36 hours tops. Why Waterloo instead of Leipzig or something in Russia is ridiculous as well. And so on...
ITs watchmoyo. They just look up for a list of "Most popular battle" and then voice it over. They do no research or have a real opinion about their lists. It's just a make content quick channel that not cares about the quality of its content.
I would have put The Battle of Cape Ecnomus from the first punic war on the list.
The movie showing with the clips of the Battle of Badr section is called "The Message" from 1976. It stars Anthony Quinn as Muhammad's uncle Hamza. The filmmakers made a big deal about complying with Islamic law and not depicting Muhammad himself, so a lot of the movie is shot subjectively, POV style, with characters speaking directly to the camera when they're addressing Muhammad. It was filmed in Libya, and the credits contain a message giving special thanks to Muammar Gaddafi for allowing them to shoot there!
Been watching your videos for quite a while now. Love watching your reactions and learning new history info that i didn't know, but yeah, might not wanna do WatchMojo videos anymore cause they're known to be pretty inaccurate. IDK if you've done any reactions to him yet, but you should check out Stakyuki's RUclips podcast, history of everything. Keep on keeping on, Mr. Terry.
My picks (due to me being ex-commie block states history buff):
- Battle of Kalka (1223) ensured Russia's ancestors inherited Mongolian way of ruling instead of European. This is probably why Russia has almost always been more authoritarian/totalitarian than the rest of Europe and had bigger conquest tendencies
- Battle of Warsaw (1920) prevented the Red Europe (and potentially the world) from happening, that's quite a timeline differing from ours
I'm surprised they didn't have Fall of Constantinople (1453), Battle of Manzikert (1071) , Battle of Rocroi (1643) , Battle of Britain (1940), Battle of Poltava (1709) nor Battle of Midway (1942) or Battle of Valmy (1792)
One of the most important battles I know of is the battle of getting out of bed every day. I don’t win all of them. Sometimes, I don’t even come out of it with all of me by the end of the day. But it’s a battle worth having.
Could you do a video on Joseph Pease, the President of the Peace Society and creator of the RSPCA?
Yeah their choice of most important battles is pretty odd. I think Lexington and concord was a more important battle than Yorktown as by then the outcome was pretty certain. Also the battle of Saratoga which led to the French finally siding with the colonies.
I'm far from an expert on Roman history, but I'm pretty sure that even if Mark Anthony had won the Battle of Actium, he wasn't exactly guaranteed to win the war.
One of the big problems with watchmojo is that their lists are entirely ordered by popular vote.
1:53 I don't know if it's just because you asked but it sure does sound like it!
Good catch! Yes, that is James Woods narrating the Anthony and Cleopatra bit.
Wasn't the Battle of the Hydaspes a more notable battle? Is that the one with the famous left flank maneuver? Similar to the tactics storming Norman use in gulf War 1991?
I'd argue Zama was more impactful than Cannae. But Cannae was the most interesting.
Cannae was more impactful because even today military officers and generals study it.
It was Hannibal’s magnum opus. Everything in that battle was calculated, every advantage taken. Hannibal had forced the Romans to fight in an area where their cavalry were at a disadvantage and almost completely nullified. He forced them to fight facing a fairly strong wind that blew dust and grit into the eyes of the legionaries, further putting them at a disadvantage. Also the presence of some of Hannibal’s soldiers wearing and using Roman equipment taken after the Roman defeats at Trebia and Lake Trasamene caused further confusion among the Romans.
It’s also deserving of its place on this list because it is not only a textbook case of a double envelopment and a perfect pincer movement but it is also perhaps the earliest example of a numerically inferior force completely encircling a larger opposing force.
@craigstevenson5152 You don't have to sell me on Cannae, believe me.
But at the end of the day, Zama annihilated Carthage and built up Rome to be the Antiquity's biggest dogs. That is more impactful.
It's not taught in detail in military academies, sure. But it did mold history as we know it. There is no Roman Empire without Zama. That's kind of a big deal.
But there is no Zama without Cannae. Scipio Africanus was only able to defeat Hannibal because of Cannae. The traditional Roman mindset of attacking had already been brought into doubt by Fabius Maximus the Delayer. But Scipio never learns to look at a battlefield differently without the use of every advantage that Cannae proves so decisive in a battle. He never develops the mindset that would allow him to use a combined force of naval and land forces as well as natural advantage that the changing tides of the lagoon to perform a feint and successfully assault the walls with a small force leading to the eventual capture of the city.
Zama was important, true, but it was Hannibal at just about his lowest ebb as a Carthaginian commander. By that time the Carthaginians had lost their manpower and, even more pressingly, had lost their cavalry advantage when Masinissa of Numidia defected and provided his services to Scipio Africanus and the Romans.
What Cannae did was create a more flexible mindset among Roman forces and a greater understanding of tactics and strategy that wasn't really present in the Roman mindset before as can be seen from the many commanders who fell during the Second Punic War. After this we see the rise of men who thought outside the box like Marius, Sulla, Sertorius and even Caesar. How many commanders would think to reform the army in the way Marius did if it were not for recognising the advantages it brought that probably wouldn't have happened if the traditional aristocratic mindset of Roman warfare had remained in place?
The impact of Cannae was so great that Hannibal became a byword for what was almost akin to a boogeyman for children. And if Cannae had not been so important then Zama would simply have been the end of a war, the final last burst of desperation rather than a notable final showdown between two great commanders. And with that defeat I would also argue that a new mindset began to come in to being that the Italians had a new idea of what their alliance with Rome actually meant which would eventually lead to the Social War, the final moment where the old order of Italy fell away and became more of a whole under the Roman republic to the extent that even a Picentine like Pompeius Magnus could hold such power as he did.@@MrWillcapone
I mean Ethiopia not becoming an italian coloney the first time does kind of have some influence...
I mean the War crimes Italy did when they invaded the second time pretty much led to Diplomatic isolation that caused further strains in the Italian and French Relations, probably leading to Italy and Germany being forced to develop closer ties (At first, despite both being totalitarian governments they didn't see eye to eye, Italy had the 'Pact of Rome' with Austria in 1934, and Hitler was supplying Ethiopia with arms), thus leading to the Rome Berlin pact and by extension the axis as a whole
Watchmojo showcases subjects that spans miles long but barely knows 1/16th inch deep. I’d guess they typed “most famous battles in history” into google then recorded the voice lines.
I would have said the battle of Moscow was more important than Waterloo. I mean, Napoleon got tricked into the classic blunder of advancing into Russian during winter and found nothing but a burnt out city as a reward. I think that was really when Napoleon was defeated.
Battle of Agincourt should replace Hastings. Agincourt showed the advantage of archers, they absolutely slaughtered the French Heavy Cavalry and really showed how archers could just decimate an entire army. It was important for military tactics development.
Normandy should definitely be there, unstead of Gettysburg, Gettysburg turned the tide of war but didn't really affect the world or how war was fought.
Na I disagree. Hastings was huge in English history while Agincourt, while big in culture and one of our greatest achievements, wasn’t that great on a whole. Even after that point, the long bow was still mainly just used by the English and not to mention we didn’t hold on to France for that long either due to Henry dieing you. I think it would have been much bigger if Henry V had lived longer and the kingdoms of England and France merged into an European superpower of an empire then it would be bigger
If they put actium then they got to put alesia. If ceasar losses alesia his entire army including mark antony die. All of gaul falls back to the gauls. Its one of the most important battles of history.
Siege of Yorktown should be replaced with the battle of Saratoga. That's how we got French support.
Battle of Teutoburg Forest for me. Much of the cultural divide we see between Germanic and Latin Europe stems from this battle as it prevented any expansion from that point between the Roman Empire and Northern Europe. Take this battle and change the outcome. Nations like Germany, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia look totally different today. Even England (while Rome had control of England obviously) we wouldn’t have gained our cultural diversity and linguistic uniqueness if you take away what we gained from Danes, Saxons etc so that’s my pick
Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have just prolonged the war with the Union still winning. If the Confederates would have decisively won at Antietam, the Union very likely would have capitulated. Confederate victory would have completely changed world history afterward. As the US powerhouse that came out of the industrial revolution would have been a shell of what it was.
Waterloo’s significance is more for the establishment of the global financial paradigm than for the defeat of Napoleon. By this time his ultimate defeat was inevitable.
Before I see their ranking, my top 4: Gravelines, Agincourt, Hastings, Milvian Bridge
Great vid Mr Terry. I suggest you react to Drachinifel soon. He has great content
More than Gettysburg, Midway was more pivotal. Had we lost our carrier fllet, they could pen us in at Alaska and Hawaii, removing us from the Pacific, and leaving the fuel lines open for the Imperial Navy.
Even then though. I don't think it would have changed Japan's ultimate fate.
I don't know, you can make the case for a lot of battles to be important, just take the battle of Lechfeld in 955 as an example. Otto I. King of Germany deceisivly destroyed the Magyars (Hungarians) and ended their constant raiding of central and eastern europe, this led to the consolidation of Ottos power within Germany and europe as a whole and he was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 962 as a result, founding a state that would last 800 years. With the threat of the Magyars gone the Byzantines reached out to the west to "reconnect" and Otto I. son, Otto II. was married to a Byzantine Princess (although a rather unimportant one, none that could have any impact on the Byzantine succession) which was all the aknowledgement they needed by the Byzantines to legitimize their status as the continuity of west rome.
So a unknown battle with a lot of impact. I bet there are dozens of battles you could argue to be very important in historical context, kinda of like the butterfly effect. Would Otto I. have been crowned Holy Roman Emperor without defeating the Magyars? Would the Byzantines have reached out? Would the Magyars abandoned their raiding lifestyle and mxied with the native slavs to form the modern Hungarians? Would the Holy Roman Empire have existed for as long as it had without the aknowledgement of the Byzantines?
Gettysburg wasnt the bloodiest battle in of the Civil War. That was Antietam.
I can't say if the Union would have still won the Civil War had it lost at Gettysburg. But if the South had won the Civil War, regardless of how they had pulled it off, it would have meant the end of the United States. Other secession movements would have followed, competing newly independent states would form rivalries with each other, and most if not all would have sought patronage from European empires. It's quote possible that, if the South had won the war, the map of North America at the turn of the 20th Century would have closely resembled the map of Africa at the same time. You likely would have seen names like "British New York," "French Alabama," "German Illinois" and "Russian California" on that map. And, most importantly as far as the world is concerned, the dissolution of the United States in the second half of the 19th Century would have meant no United States capable of taking on the challenges of the 20th Century. That is, the two world wars and the Cold War. So, yes. I absolutely agree with Mojo that Gettysburg belongs on this list. Because no United States in the 19th Century means no America capable of saving the world in the 20th.
No US to finance the Entente nor the Revolutionary Soviets means that there is no need for america to "save the world" in the 20th century
I had to go to their channel to find out that number ten was The Battle of Boyca (sp?). What happened here?
I'm going to give it to Stalingrad:
Breaking Germany's morale sped up the war.
WWII already had the use of Nuclear Weapons in it, and they were being researched by both sides. Pretty convinced No Stalingrad = More Nukes Used. If I remember correctly, the time delay was not very long between USA and other countries cracking it.
Add to the fact that the only reason Nagasaki and Hiroshima aren't on par with Chernobyl is the bombs were air burst, eventually something was going to detonate on the ground.
Rome Total was the shit Mr Terry lol
I would put Trenton in the list instead of Yorktown, since that is the one considered the true turning point of the Revolution.
This list seems like it's based on their favorite english-language movies. I get that the 2 "world" wars definitely changed history, since they led to current geopolitical powers that basically control how the world works, but all the major ancient wars were about as important to their own regions as the other major ancient wars.
Shout out to my History professor Dr. Bark, he will argue Battle of Midway to be underrated
Battle of Inchon, 1950. Should have made the list. It was maybe the most audacious plan in military history, and it prevented a communist takeover of the Korean penninsula. And, more importantly, it probably saved Western Europe by showing the Soviets that America wouldn't sit idly by and let Stalin take whatever countries he wanted. Inchon more than any other place was where the Cold War was won.
If we go with this argumentation of Red Europe, Battle of Warsaw of 1920 was a massive preventer of Red Europe and potentially the world.
@@szariq7338 Excellent point.
I would have given Battle of Tsushima (and other islands of southern Japan) between Japanese Vs Mongols.
The winner was decided by 2 Tornados that happened within a decade of each other in 1274 and 1281.
Mongols were exposed to be weak when it came to naval battles, they never recovered.
Not really big to anyone but Japan though
Yeah, that footage of marathon looked like an old total war game. I'd guess Rome: Total War: Alexander from the factions and the graphics, but could easily be wrong.
im surprised they did not mention the russians defeating the mongols thus beginning their empire
I think I saw you in Dee's but didn't wanna make anything awkward. Love your content keep up the good work!
The north would have still won despite Gettysburg haha that’s a wild take
OK; so I did a few commentaries on most of these battles.
Actium: I am not sure losing would have changed a lot for Octavian. I believe if Antony wasn't ever defeated the conflict would have been frozen until he died or he lost power. perhaps leaving his children with Cleopatra in some power position as the Roman Empire eventually gobbled them up, under Octavian or Tiberius.
Yorktown: I agree. The revolution would have happened anyway, and chances are the Colonies would have breached out of the British Empire around that time. Also, wasn't Yorktown like, at the very end of the war and the conflict turned already in the American favor?
Badr: It seems to me this and the other early battles of Islam were skirmishes for control of routes rather than localized campaigns. The unifying force that Muhammed had was probably bound to exploit and take advantage of the Meccan and pre-islamic arabs' divisions in the middle run.
BTW: I believe that movie is on RUclips. It was made with the government of Iran's help, I think, and you never see or hear Muhammad's voice, which is an interesting direction.
Cannae: I am not sure how changing this battle was for the war itself. The prior battles may have been more decisive. HOWEVER; it is undenyable the battle was a massive shaker to Roman society, and may have been a wakeup call to change the strategy. Their military, however, wasn't deeply reformed until Gaius Marius's reforms in the later republic, prior to the civil wars leading up to Caesar. Perhaps more important is the aftermath of Cannae, with Hannibal failing to go for Rome or effectively sublevate the italian south, and his brother being trapped in Spain, unable to send the rienforcements the Carthaginian senate aproved after Cannae.
Hattin: I would agree this battle was an influence far and wide. The fall of the Crusader States probably heralded the eventual fall of the Byzantine Empire some centuries later, as the buffer states were gone. Moreover, the Ayubbid Dynasty was a precursor of instability that led to the invasion of the Mongols, themselves leading to the resurgance of the Anatolian Beyliks after the desintegration of the Sultanate of Rum. Amongst these Beyliks were the Ottomans. On Europe, the Third Crusade had major implication on Western politics, as it led Richard of England away, giving his brother John ample range of action, and I'd venture to say the third Crusade also had a deep effect in the events precursor to the Hundred Years War.
Adwa: I generally agree with you. It probably didn't change much outside of Ethiopia and its neighbors in the short run (which is what I would call "History changing"), but it's worth discussing how much did it inspire decolonization later on and how much did that in turn affect the process itself. I guess there is also an analysis to be made about Italian imperialism before and after Mussolini came to power. Did it have some revanchist element in it? Probably yes. Did it come to add to the stack of grievances post WW1 italians had on the monarchy? Perhaps.
Vienna: As with Cannae, while symbolic and astonishing, it's debatable if Vienna was a turning point. I've heard different opinions on this. It seems to me, however, that the decadence of the Ottomans was already ensuing before the Siege. The tensions between the Janissaries and the Sultan were already well-established, and they would mostly correlate to Ottoman military defeats throughout its history. Had they won, how much could the Ottomans have held to the city and the territories northwest of it, I am not sure.
Constantinople (718): I have to disagree with WM's "Europe would have been rolled over" statement. I am not sure the Caliphate was in any state to go that far. But, had it fallen, it would have caused massive ripple effects in Christendom. Perhaps an earlier, more desperate Crusade would have been called at that point, and it could have changed the way European politics played out in the long run, affecting the Carolingian court and the eventual formation of the HRE, the efforts to fight off the norsemen, and prehaps even the Reconquista, as Spain had *just* fallen to the muslims. Perhaps the major change would have been the lost of the major sponsor and seat of Orthodox Christianity.
Orleans: I suppose this is a major twist in History. Up to that point the french nobility was divided. Joan's victory unified command towards a goal, at least for a while.
Some jumps here, but I am guessing there is something about Bolivar's campaign. I am super biased against Bolivar, so I will not give an opinion without the pinpointed context. But on the Gran Colombian project, I'd say it was doomed to fail, as there was not a unifying identity between the colonies in South America as there was between the 13 Colonies in the north. The Spanish empire administrative system and geography made sure we ended up feeling and acting separate, and only united to kick out the Spanish, which IMO would have happened either in the 1820s or the 1860s.
Tours: You are right in the importance of the battle for the HRE, more so because it boosted Martell's importance in the Merovingian court, leading to the rise of the Carolingians. As for its importance to the halt of Ummayad expansion, it's difficult to establish the real intend of the campaign. If it was small it might have been an early form of what we call today a Razzya, which aims at debilitating the economy, the morale and the demography of a region, preparing it for an eventual conquest. If Tours had been a defeat, my guess is the Franks would have seen more Ummayad forces crossing the Pireenees until either a large army came or an effective defense could be organized.
Somme: Nothing to add here. Only that a general should never try to out-body count the enemy's ammunition.
Gettysburg: I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the war. Maybe it would have changed the way we look at events, and it would have changed the direction of the 13th ammendment, maybe.
Cajamarca: Here I have to disagree a bit: Although disease had caused the Empire to fracture (a civil war being the reason Atahualpa was near Cajarmarca) they still hed quite some power, and given some time, I believe they would have established contact with their out-of-Perú colonies. Mind you, the war for the Inca Empire lasted 2 years, Pizarro suporting a claimant to the throne before actually taking it for himself. And even after that, members of the imperial family escaped to the deeper Andes, forming the Empire of Vilcabamba and resisting until the 1570s. Had Cajamarca gone differently, the war would have taken a very different undertone. Perhaps with the Spanish coming back for vengeance. Perhaps deciding to keep their distance and respect this Empire (which they did to some extent, marrying into their nobility), leading to an eventual vasalization to the Spanish Empire. Who knows. IMO, it would have gone very differently, at least in shape.
Waterloo: I recall Napoleon could have won. But the allies had probably learned how to face him. IMO he would have lost eventually, if not in Belgium, somewhere else.
Hastings: Yeah, I agree on N4. Maybe 5 or 6, but it's England.
Marathon: The fact we have to rely on Rome Total War to recreate Marathon is frankly insulting. We need a Marathon movie.
Gaugamela: Nothing to say, really. Other than that. It's worth considering the effect the hellenistic period had on the culture, religion and politics of the Kingdom of Israel. The divisions created by that phenomenon would weight down on Jewish society well into the time a certain Jesus of Nazareth was born.
Stalingrad: If I had to say what turned the tide of the war I'd say it was Stalingrad first in 1943, then a mixture of the Battle of Kurst and the invasion of Italy, roughly happening at the ssme time and completely destabilizing the german war machine, and Operation Overlord later in the war.
Footage for the Battle at Marathon looks like its probably from the Total War series of PC games.
You can tell from the music before you even see the footage lol
14:18 .....and the winged hussars arrived!
"Birthed Western Civilization" this only makes sense if you also believe that "All of Western Thought is but a footnote to Plato", because this spread Plato/Aristotle (Alex's teacher and his teacher) to the world... but yeah...
A part of me really wants to dig through the unification wars that brought the Qin dynasty to power and birthed ancient China. There's probably a pick there which could have changed the course of Asia if it had gone differently. Largely my own bias of course - that whole region blew itself apart and put itself back together so many times that it's unclear just how different things would have been if some battle delayed either process.
Well the kingdoms manga is actually quite a good start to get into it^
It was a very turbulent time. But I guess one of the most deciding battle was Wang Jian vs Li Mu. A battle that actually ended as a win for Zhao still lead to Li Mu beeing executed by his king and allowed Qin to crush them in the following battles. Because Li Mu alone managed to repell Qin for 15 years. With the downfall of Zhao a domino effeckt started. Qin easily took out one kingdom after the other after this point. With Chu being the only one that remained a threat for some time.
@@mrcaos999 I've read it, unsurprisingly. Not that historical of course, but its fame is pretty well deserved.
The fact that Poltava isn't on the list speaks to the failure of Mojo for doing any real homework here.
Yea Greece was still in ottoman rule. And my family island was 1914.
Punic war is huge
Did the 10th was skipped? 😮
19:00 you’ve summoned me, also why do you cut out the battle
HANNIBAL/CRUSADES
dont know much about roman battles but i do think something that would have changed things is if hannibal ignored orders to stay in italy and immediately follow the romans tback home rather that do nothing while they won battle after battle.
same with the 3rd crusade which i would say is debateable, richard the lionheart beat saladin but just accepted peace, the question is, if richard actually bothered to seige jerusalem, would he have succeeded?
i feel a lot of history changing events can be chalked up to decisions people didn't make as well as certain battles.
YORKTOWN
unless the french and spanish would have also given up on the war if britain had won, then yorktown wouldnt change anything at that point, the battle that should be there is the Battle of Saratoga, as thats what brought the fench in fully, as without the french the colonists wouldnt have stood a chance.
THE SOMME
i agree with the marne, although i would say the somme, verdun, and brusilov offensive combined were potentially history changing as we don't know how far germany could have gotten if they succeeded at verdun.
same thing with gallipoli, if successful it would have knocked out the ottomans, the russian black sea fleet would be able to join the other navy's and russia could be better supplied by the allies, possibly avoiding the russian revolution.
WATERLOO
the only historical change at waterloo was that because unlike the other powers, britain was able to put napoleon on an island that made sure he couldnt come back.
but frankly im not sure any land battles were history changing, as ive said sometimes it decisions, and it was napoleons decisions to invade both spain and russia when he really didnt need to that changed history, his own ego.
the only battle that did change history was trafalgar and thats a battle that had more effects further down the line, it didnt really effect napoleons campaigns inside the continent itself.
HASTINGS
when it comes to hastings the question is would englands relationships change?
without hastings then england may not ever have a rivaly with france which potentially takes away 3 other battles off the list, without that rivalry it may not end up with the empire it had taking yorktown off the list, it may not have even brought about britains war against slavery as its motivations originate with the laws the normans set in england.
WW2
i dont agree that there was any one battle, i thinkthere were multiple contenders that could have changed everything,, stalingrad, battle of britain, 2nd battle of el alamein, moscow, D-day and the invasion of sicily, some for the defeat of germany and some for the countries spared occupation by the USSR.
FAVOURITE
as for my favourite im gonna have to go with one people dont realise is history changing.
Battle of Queenston Heights aka the invasion of canada.
its history changing because when the USA and Britain sat down for peace talks, Britain had taken some of the northern territories, just forts and minor villiages nothing major.
when asking wellington advice (via letter) on if it should be annexed or not, wellington advised just giving it back, because the other powers invading france at the time wanted to break it up and split france between them.
wellington thought france was a good counter against the other powers and to keep the balance wanted it kept around, but he thought he couldnt stop them taking french territory if britain was taking US territory at the same time.
so you could say that the USA's decision to invade canada in 1812 inadvertently stopped france from being ripped apart and removed from the map in 1814.
In the editing, we accidentally lost everything you said about #10.
Crusade here crusade there. Noone speaks about crusades to Bohemia. Our ancestors tried to reform filthy catholic church and Europe turned against them.
The battle of Waterloo I think is one of the
So bad, poor Mr.Terry 😂😂
I would agree with Marathon being there. If Persians would win, Athens would be destroyed and its people slaughtered or enslaved. Victory at Marathon didnt only save Athens but it gave Athenians the shock they needed to fully understand Persian threat. Thats why they built massive fleet which was crucial for Greek victory in second Persian invasion ten years later. Without that fleet there would be no battles of Artemisium and Salamis and Athenian civilians couldnt be evacuated from the city. Then Persians could just land anywere on the Peloponese and Spartans by themselves wouldnt stand a chance. Battle of Plataea in the end was crucial and could have a spot on this list as well but it would never happen without Marathon.
Just add Portuguese battles in there a history is changed.
Nah Trafalgar win my opinion might be the most important battle ever ensured British domination for the next 100 years which influenced the world a lot
I absolutely agree with putting the Battle of Badr on this list. Whatever your opinion of Islam is, you can't deny, Islam has had a tremendous impact on world history, and there would have been no Islam had the Battle of Badr gone the other way. However, if the Battle of Badr is going to be on this list at #18, somewhere between #1 and #17 needs to be the Battle of Gibeon. The Battle of Gibeon is in the Bible, Book of Joshua, and describes how a coalition of five Canaanite kings under King Adonizedek of Jerusalem joined forces to take on and destroy the fledgling Israelite nation that had just invaded their territory. Joshua and the Israelites won, and the Conquest of Canaan began. But if that Battle had gone the other way, all Abrahamic religions would have been smothered in their cradle. A world without Judaism, Christianity or Islam if Anonizedek had just stood his ground. Of course, coming from the Bible, the true historicity of the Battle of Gibeon is questionable. But so is the Battle of Badr, and it made the list, so...
Battle of Cannae didnt change history, the battle of Zama decided everything. After Zama, Rome bacome the sole ruler of the mediterrian setting them up for its dominance.
Yes, Cannae was a major battle in the war, but it didnt decide it.
Mr. Terry, “an important battle” must either kill or fail to (likely) kill important people, and/or change the course of history in a noticeable and important way.
ACTIUM: Augustus had already successfully vilified Cleopatra as the wicked witch of the East. So I don’t think it was in the cards for her to have a role in Roman politics. Could Roman attitudes towards Egypt or an Emperor changed based on Antony winning? Sure.
Interestingly, the man that took over after Augustus died was his adopted son Tiberius who happened to be the real son of Marc Antony. 4/10
YORKTOWN: England was basically fighting world war .5 (if the seven years war was WW0. France and Spain were not on our side not because they believed in our cause but because that cause was another thorn in England’s side. Yorktown was important, but if we didn’t fold quickly England wasn’t going to win. They easily could have but it was resources v outcomes and none were good. Yorktown was the straw that broke the camel’s back, but there would have been others 2/10.
BADR:This is the kind of battle this show should be about 7.5/10.
CANNAE: As brilliant as Hannibal was his battles never had the support of Carthage and the only thing he really accomplished was scaring the heck out of Rome and teaching them how to fight 1/10.
HATTIN: This is the battle that won the Crusades and and none of the Crusades that followed had much success except perhaps for the Albigensian Crusades in southern France which was Catholic vs. Heretic or “Protestants” as they might be later called. I really feel that Crusades were nearing the end anyway. 5/10.
ADWA: Does it matter a great deal whether Ethiopia loses here or to Mussolini less than 50 years later? No. 2/10
SIEGE OF VIENNA: I don’t think that the Ottoman’s would have posed a major threat to re-conquer more vast swaths of Europe unopposed. Their continued battles would be greatly opposed by Christendom. I doubt whether they could have held Vienna. But may a neighbor takes it back and grows in stature and Austro-Hungary isn’t so.pwerful (yet still dwindling) at the onset of WWI. 2/10.
SIEGE OF CONSTANTINOPLE: Sadly not familiar with this but the loss of such a powerful defender of Christendom in the east 600 years before the Ottomans took it seems like it may have reshaped much of Europe. 7.5/10.
HSUPENG: Not really an expert on this area either, but the conclusion what feels to me foregone is of little significance. 2/10.
ORLEANS: This one is hard. Since 1066 English nobles spoke French, had property in France and were of French ancestry. So if England wins, France may well not cease to exist, but England might. A New France with two sets of nobles living across the Channel. Countries have destroyed themselves trying to take over larger countries in Europe. 6/10.
TOURS: I don’t know much about the battle itself, only that ended the Muslim invasion of Western Europe. Were they likely to stop soon and unlikely to sent reinforcements soon regardless? 6/10.
SOMME: The Somme Accomlished nothing. Changed nothing. Did nothing. It was likely one of the wars that made the Treaty of Versailles as harsh as it was. I.E. it was a major contributor of world financial crisis, the Great Despression and WWII. 4/10.
GETTYSBURG: The Civil War was a war with a forgone conclusion. Look at the numbers on both sides. Look at the number of people coming in to the North and South, look at the railroads and look at the industry. All point North. Even famed historian Shelby Foote said the North fought the War with one hand tied behind it’s back, if it had lost a lot more battles the second hand would have been freed.
The south could not win without foreign intervention, and by July 1 1863 with Lincoln taking the first step in freeing the slaves it was not in the cards. Also Gettysburg is not the most important battle in the war either. The South lost its biggest city (New Orleans) in the very first month of the war. The Win at Vicksburg was also more important. 0/10.
ATAHUALPA: 90% of indigenous Americans died as a result of disease. Some dying sooner is certainly tragic but not earth shattering. Also the destruction of the Incans is another forgone conclusion as the same for any indigenous Americans 3/10
WATERLOO: 2/10. LEiPZIG 4/10. Attacking Russia 10/10. Interestingly, Wellington had studied tactics and war VERY CLOSE to Waterloo and even spent time there between his studies figuring out how to fight there.
HASTINGS: The battle of Hastings and Stamford Bridge less than one month prior against the Norse and Harold Godwinson has always been fun to contemplate. Safe enough to say if you are invading foreign land, be second to arrive and not first. 6/10.
MARATHON: Strategically this battle wasn’t of great importance as Darius didn’t bring enough men to threaten Greece and Xerxes would still invade, but it proved to the Athenians they could win a war without Sparta and gave them recognition throughout Greece for a long time to come. 7/10..
GAUGAMELA: One of the impressive wins on the list so far but what was accomplished? Of Alexander’s Diadochus (successor generals) only Ptolemy (Egypt until Rome took over) and Nicanor (Seleucids) created anything truly lasting (if my memory is right). But, Hellenism was spread far and wide. 4/10.
STALINGRAD; 8/10.
This list values numbers over number according to world population. No mention of the Taiping Revolution which was more deadly than WW2. Or of the three kingdoms wars (deadliest in human history). But not a horrible list overall.
I mean listing historical battles or just listing any historical event is tough in general. I am disappointed in the lack of asian battles, specifically battles like Sekigahara, Nagashino and Tsushima. But I mean, a lot of the battles listed were battles in a book I own about Histories most pivotal battles though the book has around 50 in chronological order. I also am surprised that for a north American channel, the end of the seven years war in north America at the siege of Quebec/ Battle of the plains of Abraham did not come up since it essentially resulted in a British dominated North America and eventually the formation of Canada and the United States.
Those Asian battles were irrelevant to almost all of the world though
@@kaihiggins725 I mean again it’s subjective but definitely the Battle of Tsushima had a major effect worldwide. It propelled japan to a power position among nations while it saw the decline of an old power like Russia(this would lay the seeds of the eventual fall of the czar in world war 1). It is the only decisive naval battle between modern steel battleship fleets. It is said to be the most important naval event since Trafalgar which makes it pretty notable.
@@mariobiscotti8215 but again no. It was huge for Japan yes but Russia had declined significantly and wasn’t a massive threat to anyone but itself. The only reason it could be considered huge was because of European arrogance. Only thing it did prove is why most nations had moved away from their monarch calling the shots where the army is concerned
@@mariobiscotti8215 what cause the Tsar to lose his position in WW1 was because he was useless. It would have happened regardless. That man preferred his army to look glamorous like the battles of the previous century in contrast to a uniform that actually offered protection. Japan could be erased from history and Tsar Nicholas II still meets the same fate because that man was just a clown
I’m sorry but Waterloo is overrated. Real Napoleonic War should be lepzing or invasion of Russia
About the Napolean wars, the most important battles were Trafalgal, has someone already said and almost all little known small battles that were fought in the Iberian Peninsula. With Napoleon's Grand Armee pinned down in Spain and expelled from Portugal, other European countries saw that Napoleon was not invincible.
@@Guerreiro_da_Luz fair point the peninsular war or war of Spanish independence does get glossed over. Don’t forget how it also led to a chain of events of Spain, losing control of mosf of South America.
The thing is, and I get arguments against this, but Waterloo was the final nail in the coffin. What people fail to think about is Napoleon could easily have become a major threat in 10/15 years time starting the whole issue all over again
@kaihiggins725 Even if Napoleon domehow won Waterloo, France would have to surrender. There would be another great battle that France would lose. Most of the veterans of Napoleon lost their lives in Russia and Spain. Le Grand Armée was in shambles, and the European Nations would not give Napoleon time to restore France's economy and military forces.
Vicksburg was more pivotal in the civil war
It's more recent in history, and questionable whether it can be called a "battle," but the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Beiruit in 1983 could make this list. Most Americans have forgotten about it, but in the Muslim world, especially the parts of the Muslim world where America isn't very popular, they sure as heck remember it. The lesson of "hit America hard enough and they'll back down" certainly wasn't lost on Osama bin Laden, Muhammad Farrah Aidid, everybody in the Iranian government and military, and every jihadi terrorist who has come since.
Is there a reason that American battles can't be on this list? I know watchmojo is American-centric, but you seemed against *any* battles happening in the US being on a list of battles that changed history. American history is still part of world history and our country is a big player on the world stage; if we were limited to ~the big battles then we would be stuck in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia wouldn't we? I don't see how that would be better? I'd say that the battle of Gettysburg is definitely history changing. People were hoping Lincoln would lose the next election to someone who would allow for the Confederacy to exist. Winning that battle boosted morale and his popularity, which helped him win his second election when that time came round, which in turn meant that there would be no peace talks with the Confederacy. The makeup of our country was at risk, and I'd say that our reputation going forward, especially going into WWI, would be very different if Gettysburg hadn't happened the way it did. So I do think that we shouldn't scoff at American battles making this list of history changing battles.
Because they is far greater battles in Europe and the Middle East than anything that has ever happened in America. Watch mojo just sticks American battles in there for no reason in every list they do
i feel like Napoleon's invasion of Russia was a world changer not so much Waterloo.
Waterloo prevented Napoleon from ever reaching a threat. So yes it is huge
No battle of Britain
off course they choose the wrong siege of Constantinople lol
Hi
WatchMojo is not reliable mate 😂😂😂
Watch MOJO is a clickbait channel, it lacks integrity and facts. Lots of corrections if they cared to do more than top level research.
Ooooo Watchmojo lol 🤷🏽♂️
Watchmojo is generally clickbaity and poorly put together. I personally would look at other channels all together
Gettysburg changed history ? That watchmojo channel is ridiculous
watchmojo? more like watch NO HO
WatchMojo just ain't it.
Tbh watch mono has kinda fallen off in recent years, not nearly as good as they once were.
Mojo*
Always been shite tbh
Watch Moyo is just a trash chanel. They just take lists they find in the internet and voice them over. It's a minimal effort chanel. Sadly youtube has no rules to stop such chanels. Most of the time the speakers not even know what they are talking about doing the list but just rephrase some opinion they read about it.
To be fair whole of all Mojo channels suck 😂😂😂😂 I don't get who even watches them