|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Jan 3, 2017 13:49:10 GMT
Discussion Welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jan 3, 2017 15:29:16 GMT
I'd rather say the Seven Years War but I don't know why I voted for the Napoleonic Wars.
Well the seven years war led to the French revolution, which led to the Napoleonic Wars. They led to the unification of Germany. That led to WW1 which led to WW2 so eh. It's complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jan 3, 2017 15:50:55 GMT
The most important is a hard issue to debate. Every one of these wars played a hand in today's world. The removal or change of one of them could drastically improve or worsen the present day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jan 3, 2017 17:47:26 GMT
The Napoleonic Wars, because of the following effects:
The Americas:
Louisiana Purchase fuels US expansion, start of US becoming world power
Weakening of Spain enables independence of its colonies.
Germany:
Austria's standing is weakened, opening road to unification by Prussia.
Napoelon's invasions spur Francophobia, nationalism.
Scandinavia:
Swedish loss of Finland and Pomerania practically ends Swedish border wars outside Scandinavia, enables Swedish neutrality.
Denmark weakened, humiliated. No longer a powerful player.
Iberia:
Local economy crippled and society devastated, Spain and Portugal cannot project power outside their peninsula
France:
French Revolution irrevocably weakened monarchy.
French populace establishes democratic institution, ends all Monarchy after 1870.
Asia:
France loses some colonies, Britain becomes indisputable #1 colonial empire.
Overall:
Armies cease to be professional, nations-at-war concept leads to total war of WWI.
Conservative Concert of Europe holds sway for decades.
In other words, the geopolitical maps of America and Europe were changed hugely, setting the stage for the formation of modern nations, and the World Wars
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 3, 2017 19:07:59 GMT
Im not sure there is any problems with Jean-Luc Picard analysis. First I thought, surely America would continue with its established lust for expansion without the louisania purchase, but if you look at map, from Canada to New Orleans was French territory. However, with only 60,000 people (US well over 2 million) I imagine the US would take it sooner or later. I clicked other, as I think the Arab conquests from 600-750CE (personally I'd extend that dating) are perhaps the most important series of wars. I will explain my reasoning. 1. In the first century of war the conquerors invaded over 20 modern countries, making at the time the largest empire, at least 13 million square kilometres. Before the Arab empire fell apart, it stretched from Iberia to India! Also had 62 million people, 29% of the world) 2. They destroyed the Persian empire, whose ancient religion was Zoroastrianism By my estimates if that religion today only controlled Iran, It would be 400 times bigger! Currently around 200,000 people. 2.2 It greatly weakened the Byzantine empire, taking its north-African and Asian provinces, and the Turks, who inherited the conquests though conversion, ended the empire in 1453. Goodbye Rome, and welcome Turkey. 2.3 This war had the greatest impact on Iberia of any war, if you ask me. It ended Visigothic rule in Spain, ruled the region for 800 years, and created the modern day countries. Spain was created by Northern Iberians who survived the initial hammer-blow. Some of its culture and language comes from the Arab invaders. Portugal is first mentioned as terriorty reclaimed from the Arabs, named after a captured port city. Thus I dare you to find a war more important than the one which literally birthed every country there! 2.4 India was progressively invaded starting in these conquests. Not only did it shatter the Empires already there, but it Islamified the North and caused several strong Indo-Muslim empires, such as the Mughals who fought the British. There would be no Pakistan or Bangladesh without these conquests, and arguably a very different India. No Biryani food either, which Napoleon Bonaparte says is very tasty. Invented by Muslims in the medieval ages. Thus I argue that the History of the entire Indian subcontinent was drastically altered, with all three modern countries owing their roots to this war. 2.5 the Middle East and North Africa was arabified, with Arabs previously living mostly within the Arabian peninsula. From Algiers to the gates of Persia, there was a unifiying language and religion. To conclude part 1, Iberia and India and all of Western Asia would look completely different without these conquests, and many cultures and regions ceased to exist. For example, The Coptic Christians, who are 10% of Egypt today, possess the latest form of the Ancient Egyptian language (demotic-Coptic hey?) though like the rest of Egypt they use Arabic outside of Church. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 3, 2017 19:33:03 GMT
3. Two-thirds of Christianity at that time was conquered and converted, with 3 of the 5 historical centres taken. Christianity was after that mostly a European thing, with some exceptions.
3.1 the Impact on Africa is beyond my estimation. While much of this occurred after the conquests, the Arabs spread Islam and other cultural stuff from North-Africa to literally the Middle of the continent. Not to mention the Arabization of much of the north, while pretty much every tribe and country north of the Congo being affected. Even countries like Uganda that are East and south of Congo have Muslims, converted by traders and such. You could argue the Entire eastern seaboard was changed down to Just before South Africa.
3.2 Due to Arab Influence throughout much of the continent, Europeans were only able to spread their religions through the south, being merely late-stage colonizers in the north. For hundreds of years, only Arabs knew what was In the sub-Saharan continent, though of course knowledge remained less than total. Thus I argue that Africa can be divided in half, with the Arab conquests creating the North, and Europeans influencing the south.
2.6 to continue with my Roman theme, Eithiopa has a rich history, at one point having many dealings with the Roman Empire. It taught them the best way to reach India.
Eithiopa was christianized very early on, and was a trading empire. However, the Arab conquests shut off many trade routes, and impoverished it. Due to invasions and conversion, Eithiopa is now half Christian and half-Muslim, and not only does it not trade in the Indian Ocean, it has no Seaboard! (Though admittedly that only happened in the 1900s due to western colonization or something)
3.3 with Arabs now powerful throughout Western Asia and Eastern Africa, they were able to massively increase already existing slavery routes, causing the second biggest slave trade, though the total number might be higher.
3.4 some argue that the search for A path to Asia only began because of Arabs closing the Silk Road (or controlling it) If this is true, then American Colonization was made possible by the Arabization following the Arab conquests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 3, 2017 19:49:14 GMT
While many of these events were made possible by the early conquests, not actually happening during them (though much did) It can all be traced back to this one war. Thus, the Entirety of Western Asia, Iberia, were formed by these conquests. India was heavily affected, with all three modern nations owing something to it.. For more indirect stuff, half, maybe more of Africa was formed because of later conquests or contact, and Arabs even reached Indonesia. Much more indirectly, the Americas may have been permanently found by Eurasians because of them. Thus. these wars, indirectly or directly, had a massive impact on two or three continents. Considering that the conquests that took 20+ modern day countries were done by the same Empire (Umayyad Caliphate) I think its not silly to consider it one long war, and thus the most important war in history. The mongols were assimilated, the Umayyad were not. Jean-Luc Picard spoke of profound influence on countries, I speak of the very creation of countries, including some of his. I know I wrote a lot, and strayed a tiny bit (all revelant I think) So if you want me to move this or something, ok. Just noticed, the Ummayd caliphate spread from Portugal to the Chinese border during this war! Try to find a war of that scope other than ww1 or 2 (Napoleonic might count, but not by contiguous land operations) |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Jan 4, 2017 2:30:36 GMT
Mongol Conquests. Why?
1. Genghis Frickin' Khan
-Revolutionized military tactics due to Genghis Khan, he appointed people based on merit and not family, and his use of cavalry proved incredibly effective at defeating the literally Byzantine European armies (Whom were knights in shining yet clunky and ineffective armor).
2. Black Plague
-Seige of Cafa, in the Crimea. Mongols catapulted plague infested bodies into the city to root the Genoese out. While this probably wasn't the cause of the black plague spreading to Europe, the real cause was the trade from Asia to Europe, as the black plague developed in Yunnan, China, and, due to the Mongol Empire, the plague spread to Europe. The plague would then cause numerous changes in Europe all of which i cant list here. One of them: Decline of Italian trading empires like Genoa and Venice
3. Spread of Gunpowder
-Gunpowder was a Chinese invention, but the Mongols were responsible for bringing the invention to Europe and Persia. From Europe and the Near East, they would create far better weapons with gunpowder than the Chinese ever did, resulting in the formation of the great empires of the post-medieval era such as the Ottomans, Safavids, and Britain.
4. Spread of Religion
-This isn't a common fact, but prior to the Mongols, the Mongolians practiced Tengrism, a shamanist faith in Siberia and Central Asia. After conquering Tibet, however, the Mongols adapted Vajrayana Buddhism, and then spread it to Elista, in Russia. Islam also spread in the Mongol empire, spreading to Central Asia, East Turkestan, and Southern Russia.
5. The decline of Kiev and growth of Moscow
-Kiev opposed the Mongols, fighting them, which was, clearly, a bad idea, as Kiev was decimated by the Mongols. Moscow, on the other hand, instead accepted the Mongol overlords and paid tribute to them. As a result, Kiev declined as Moscow grew in importance, and, ultimately, Muscovy, based in Moscow, would ultimately go on to unify Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 4, 2017 3:36:05 GMT
Those are some good points, but I will say the following, maybe out of a stupid desire to defend my opinion.
1. I'm not sure who started Merit, or if he spread it. However, I wouldn't call Germans and poles "literally Byzantine" and even though the mongols won, the knights as a common unit continued well past the 1240s. He didn't end the tradition, and his people didn't conquer them.
2. Ok.
3. I disagree about the ottomans and maybe the British. By the time the Ottomans started using gunpowder, they were well on their way to killing Byzantium, so while it might have increased their expansion, I don't think it was essiential for forming it. You are probably right about Britian, though they showed promise before gunpowder.
4. You seem correct on Russia, However I disagree about Central Asia, the war I mention clearly penetrated Central Asia, and Groups like the Turks came? From there and were already Muslim. I doubt Central Asia long outlasted Persia. My war was much more decisive in spreading Religion, throughout Asia and Africa. Edit: That one Muslim dynasty famous for being killed by mongols is shown as covering Central Asia on Wikipedia.
5. Ok.... (actually, my choice caused the decline of Byzantium, which led Russia to claim the mantle of Eastern othodoxy, and as mentioned directly caused the creation of Spain, a semi-important power)
In conclusion, I think my war was more important, it created so many modern countries, even just counting the direct events (650-750 AD) Spread religion more (Not to mention people say the Early Arabs spread technology and knowledge, similar to your point about the mongols)
And directly in relation to the Mongols, much of the regions touched by the Arab conquests remained Arab, in any case remained forever changed, while The mongols were assimilated in almost everyplace they invaded, as you admit religiously. No one (I'd hope) goes around claiming the mongols invented Poland, or China. (Not even true, since china has regularly been invaded by northerners, only to assimilate them)
One exception to the lack of permanence to the Mongol Conquests is the Silk Road, which was run by mongols I think and benefited from their enlightened rule. However it's not the first trade route through Asia, despite its importance.
Thus, while possibly awesome (If you can consider massacres such) I do not consider the Mongol conquests to be the most important, not over my choice. But by all means, ignore me and my foolishness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Jan 4, 2017 4:11:51 GMT
If I had to choose a war on the list, really ancient would be Greco-Persian (allowed western civ) followed by Mongol conquests, and napoleonic wars. ww2 feels important, but how does it compare to napoleonic?
I just read the legacy article for mongols on Wikipedia, and there is some important stuff. I'd still rate it second though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jan 4, 2017 5:30:14 GMT
I agree with Imperial RomeBall, Arabs didn't just bring religion into South Asia. They brought their language and traditions with them as well. one example being the Arabic language, a lot of Arabic words came from Arabic into Urdu. And I mean A LOT. |
|
|
|
Post by Stonewall Jackson on Jan 4, 2017 14:25:36 GMT
Greco-Persian Wars.
Greece innovated today's Democratic system and used Military tactics that other Armies would've build upon. If Persia would have conquered Greece, Western world Ethics could be totally different than what they are today. Since many Armies adapted tactics off of the Greeks, many Empires may have not had as strong of a fighting force if Greece was not present to base their tactics off of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Jan 5, 2017 0:55:24 GMT
Well, I shall defend my opinion.
1.
-Merit had been used by multiple empires and kingdoms prior, but the Mongols were different in that they showed just how effective merit could be. Think about it, at this time, Europe was plagued by nepotism, with the sons of kings or kings running armies instead of actual military leaders, and the Arab world wasn't much different when it came to their hereditary bias. Given how we are now in the 1200's and history is being recorded more and more accurately, we can see that military strategists now begin to adopt Mongol tactics, such as command by merit and not family. Another important aspect: Propaganda. While the iconic image of Mongols ravaging the countryside is so widely connected to the Mongols, the Mongols in many instances spread the word of these instances of brutality to persuade their future enemies to surrender (Which many did). Now, of course, many Mongol atrocities did occur, but not nearly as much as thought of in the West and Russia, many of their most heinous atrocities actually being committed by Timurlane, a self proclaimed Mongol, not an actual Mongol by blood, and who did not run the Mongol Empire but instead ran the Timurid Empire. And I call the Germans and Poles 'Literally Byzantine' as the Byzantines were physically around then and 'Byzantine' can be used as a synonym for 'outdated'.
3.
-The Ottomans were not very powerful early on during the 1300's and early 1400's as, the above Timur (Who while not being a Mongol ran his military very similarly to the Mongols and inherited the Ilkhanate, not much else tho) ravaged the Ottoman state, taking the Sultan, rolling him up in a carpet, and having his horses trample over him, and after doing that, the Ottomans got into a civil war. After this chaos, the Ottomans then continued conquering their neighbors with gunpowder that they acquired from the Mongols/Timurids. Britain used gunpowder for their super large navy which helped prevent any conquest of England.
4. Well, no doubt the Arab conquests spread religion much much farther than the Mongol ones, but the Mongols did establish Vajrayana Buddhism as a main branch of Buddhism, and in many ways, without the Mongols, the Dalai Lama may not be as well known a figure as he is today.
5. I never argued that the Mongols helped make Russia STRONK, I said that it shifted the attention from Kiev to Moscow, from which they would spread and spread to become Russia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Jan 5, 2017 1:05:16 GMT
Also, Southern Central Asia was conquered by the Abbasid Empire (So Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan), but the Northern region (Kazakhstan, East Turkestan (Xinjiang) and Kyrgyzstan) was conquered by the Mongols and Islam spread there due to trading by the Mongols. While it was already established by previous trading routes, but the safety of merchants in the Mongol Empire (Marco Polo went through here) helped draw Arab merchants away from the Indian Ocean towards overland trade during their reign. Also, the Mongols in part helped to completely eliminate an entire major religion: Manichaeism. Im not going to go into what it was or why it was important as that is a whole other story, but it was the state religion of the Uigher Empire in Xinjiang/East Turkestan and was fairly widespread. Once the Mongols took them over, however, Islam penetrated the region, and the only Manichaen stronghold in East Turkestan was eliminated.
|
|
|
|
Post by junius on Jan 5, 2017 18:16:53 GMT
Seven Years' War, because:
1. North America
Britain became the undisputed master of the continent, but her massive debt and efforts to win over her new subjects forced a confrontation with her old subjects, leading directly to the American Revolution. James Wolfe's death on the Plains of Abraham become one of Victorian England's many imperial legends, an important cultural epoch even today.
2. India
By conquering Pondicherry and all of Bengal, Britain permanently crippled French power in India. She was now left alone to gradually conquer the entire subcontinent, slowly growing her forces till the Wellesleys went on a rampage.
3. Southeast Asia
Spanish involvement brought war to Manila, directly kicking off the East India Company's quest for a safe harbor between India and CHINA to protect their growing tea trade. This would lead to the establishment of Singapore, today one of the world's preeminent cities.
4. Europe
a. Britain vs the Continent
Near-total victory made Britain the (temporary) undisputed hegemon outside of Europe. This, combined with France's thirst for revenge and Prussia's rage at her abandonment, led to Britain being virtually friendless by the time the American Revolutionary War rolled out. Nevertheless, Britain held her own, losing scant but the rebellious colonies. In India and the West Indies, Britain was precariously yet indisputably on top when that peace came around, despite facing the combined might of the other three maritime powers PLUS the Marathas and Mysore, India's two strongest indigenous entities. Such overwhelming power resulted largely from victory 20 years before.
b. Germany
Prussia held onto her reputation of being Europe's preeminent military power, having held off an awe-inspiring coalition of France, Sweden, Russia, and Austria (aka more or less total encirclement). Despite losing his capital twice, Frederick the Great held onto the prized Silesia at the peace table, cementing his reputation for years to come. For the next 20 years, he strengthened Prussia internally till she was strong enough for his successors to so spectacularly bungle the situation that Bismarck was needed to bring about German reunification under Prussian auspices.
c. France was completely humbled by this total defeat. Reared with most of her colonies (minus Canada) but shorn of her dignity, France thirsted for revenge until the American Revolutionary War partially satisfied her. However, this caused the ancien regime to run up massive debts. The rest, as they say, is history.
|
|
