Decisive Christian Victory

[kataphraktoi]

Which decisive victory by Christian arms is the most important in your opinion?

As you can see, they're mainly Christian vs Muslim, but then again, most decisive battles were fought between them (Yarmuk, Muta, Sebastopolis, etc)

[The Wizard]

Hard to say. My choice is divided between Poitiers and Vienna. Unfortunately, no-one knows what would have been more disastrous for Europe: a Moorish victory at Poitiers, or an Ottoman victory at Vienna. >_<



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-pirate.gif

[Rosacrux]

Vienna was indeed decisive, but IMHO the battle at Poitier (which was actually a large skirmish) was insignificant in the greater scope of things.

It was a Moorish raiding force, not some sorts of invasion force, that marched into Frankish land and it was neither the first not the last to do so.

If I remember correctly, they were even heading back home when the Franks got them, loaded with loot moreso.

Vienna, OTOH, was the stopping point for the Ottoman expansion in the eastern Europe (had they took Vienna, nothing would&#39;ve stopped them in the next few decades) but even more decisive was the victory of the Christian forces during the two sieges of Constantinoupolis - had it fallen, the Arabs and not the Ottomans (7 centuries later) would lay foot on Europe and history would be extremely different.

But those are mere speculations, right?

[Komutan]

I don&#39;t think history would be much different if ottomans took Vienna.They have expanded as much as possible into Europe, their initial energy was gone and they couldn&#39;t go much beyond that.They couldn&#39;t keep Vienna for long.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Komutan @ Jan. 30 2004,04:51)]I don&#39;t think history would be much different if ottomans took Vienna.They have expanded as much as possible into Europe, their initial energy was gone and they couldn&#39;t go much beyond that.They couldn&#39;t keep Vienna for long.
I agree with that. Just the fact that Vienna was under siege in 1683 was enough to make the usually fickle German Princes rally to the Emperor&#39;s side; roughly 50,000 pissed-off Germans marched straight for Vienna under Duke Charles of Lorraine.

And even after the siege was lifted, the Princes were quite active in the reconquest of Hungary (Duke Charles, Margrave Louis of Baden, Duke Maximilian of Bavaria, etc.) By 1683, the tide had definitely turned in the Empire&#39;s favor. Even had Vienna fallen, it would&#39;ve been taken back immediately thereafter.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Jan. 30 2004,10:21)]Vienna was indeed decisive, but IMHO the battle at Poitier (which was actually a large skirmish) was insignificant in the greater scope of things.

It was a Moorish raiding force, not some sorts of invasion force, that marched into Frankish land and it was neither the first not the last to do so.

If I remember correctly, they were even heading back home when the Franks got them, loaded with loot moreso.
Actually, it was something of a very large raiding/probing attack force that was formed on the same idea as the first Islamic force that crossed into Iberia. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



~Wiz

[-Isapostolos-]

I&#39;m missing the battle of Halys River in 863 between the Byzantines and the Emir of Melitine. This battle is seen as the turning point between Arab-Byznatine conflict and heralded the age of reconquest of the near east for the Byzantines.

Without the conquest Byzantium would have kept suffering from the constant raiding of the Arab border emirates and Asia minor would never have had the chance to grow economically. Ultimately Byzantium would have lacked the power to resist the Turks for so long, even though most of Asia minor was lost in 1071.

Since I didn&#39;t have this choice, I voted for the first siege of Constantinople. If the Arabs had taken Constantinople, their wouldn&#39;t have been any power in Europe able to stop them, and Western culture wouldn&#39;t even have had the chance to be created.

But I don&#39;t believe the Arabs had much of a chance anyway against the might of Constantinople, they were too overconfident and more importantly, they had no experience at sea. The Roman fleet was to strong for the inexperienced Arabs.

And even during the second siege, when they had aquired the experience at sea, they still didn&#39;t have a chance thanks to the strong currents of the Bosporus and the chain of the Golden horn, allowing the Byzantine fleet to sally out to sea when most approriate.

[DemonArchangel]

Tours

[Basileus]

Voted a) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-surprised.gif

[Aleksandr Nevsky]

Definetley Tours, in terms of Western European history, because without his victory at Tours Charles Martel, Charlemagne&#39;s grandfather, would not have gained as much power and sway over the the court of the last of the Merovingian King&#39;s. The Carolingian Dynasty would probably not have materialized, and without the emergence of a very strong Germanic/Christian kingdom to ensure the power of christendom in that part of Europe...well it is all speculation anyway...things of course would have been different.

Of course the Carolingian dynasty collapsed a few generations after Charlemagne anyway...so yeah it is all speculation.

It all depends on what is deemed as "important", even the littlest mundane event could be important in the grand scheme of things.

I still stick with Tours/Poitier.

The ottomans would not have been able to hold Vienna for long, and I do not know anything about the sieges of Constantinople...so with my ignorance about the other events I have to say Tours.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Yes, Tours/Poitiers is very important because it imposed a limit to Islamic expansion in the west.

Yes, the sieges of Constantinople were very important because they delayed the Muslim expansion in the east.

Yes, the Battle of Lepanto was very important because it destroyed Tukish supremacy in the Mediterranean.

Yes, the sieges of Vienna were very important because the first stoped the Turkish and the second because it turned the tide in favor of the Catholic nations.

The siege of Malta? Why? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

All in all, I must say that both Tours/Poitiers and the Second Siege of Vienna look the most important.

But I must had something:
What about Las Navas de Tolosa? I&#39;m not saying it was the most important, but maybe a little mention would be in order.

Las Navas de Tolosa was a decisive battle for the Reconquista. It was the biggest battle of the Reconquista period and it was decisive in the fact that the side that won it, would claim domain in the whole Peninsula (specially the Almohads). If the Catholic Kings (Portugal, Castille and Aragon), had been defeated, they wouldn&#39;t be able to sustain an Almohad offensive, because they aplied all of their reserves in it. The Almohads, on the other hand, despite the Catholic victory, still had enough strenght to mantain control of part of Iberia. But they wouldn&#39;t be a influential force again. It was a decisive victory, although due to internal struggles between the Catholic Kings, only 200 years later the last Muslim Kingdom was conquered.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 30 2004,22:16)]Las Navas de Tolosa was a decisive battle for the Reconquista. It was the biggest battle of the Reconquista period and it was decisive in the fact that the side that won it, would claim domain in the whole Peninsula (specially the Almohads). If the Catholic Kings (Portugal, Léon, Castille and Aragon), had been defeated, they wouldn&#39;t be able to sustain an Almohad offensive, because they aplied all of their reserves in it. The Almohads, on the other hand, despite the Catholic victory, still had enough strenght to mantain control of part of Iberia. But they wouldn&#39;t be a influential force again. It was a decisive victory, although due to internal struggles between the Catholic Kings, only 200 years later the last Muslim Kingdom was conquered.
I&#39;d agree that it was the most decisive battle of the entire Reconquista, and so should be on the list.

Although Aragon, Navarre, & Portugal joined in, it was especially crucial for Alfonso VIII of Castille, since he&#39;d recently been utterly defeated by the Almohads at Alarcos (1195). So at Las Navas, he didn&#39;t just win on the battlefield; he also restored his own prestige and made himself a legendary hero of the Reconquest. And although, as you said, it took the Christians time to exploit the victory, Las Navas finally broke Almohad power in Spain.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]since he&#39;d recently been utterly defeated by the Almohads at Alarcos (1195).
Yes, Alarcos was a bloody battle. Although the Almohads won it, they were depleted for a while, due to the enormous casualties from both sides.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

I personally miss another one, which IMHO could well rank as the most important...

The battle at the Pons Milvius in 312 A.D. Constantine had adopted Christianity (which makes, IMHO, this a Christian battle) before the battle. Without Constantine winning this battle, Christianity would never have become this powerfull so soon, and might actually never have reached the position it has today...

It also could have developed in quite a different fashion...

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ Feb. 01 2004,14:45)]I personally miss another one, which IMHO could well rank as the most important...

The battle at the Pons Milvius in 312 A.D. Constantine had adopted Christianity (which makes, IMHO, this a Christian battle) before the battle. Without Constantine winning this battle, Christianity would never have become this powerfull so soon, and might actually never have reached the position it has today...

It also could have developed in quite a different fashion...
I was thinking the same thing. The irony is that most of Constantine&#39;s soldiers would have been pagans.

Also, the Battle of the Frigidus, won by the ailing Theodosius in 392, was the last chance for any kind of pagan revival or accomodation with Christianity in Late Antiquity. The eastern emperor&#39;s army was in disarray after the first day&#39;s fighting but nightfall saved him and his agents managed to turn an enemy general and so turn the tide for the second day&#39;s engagement. The leading Roman Senator on the defeated side had threatened to turn Bishop Ambrose&#39;s cathedral in Milan into a stable. He committed suicide on the battlefield. Interestingly, one of Theodosius&#39; best commanders at the battle was Alaric the Goth, who had trained at the emperor&#39;s military academy.

[Teutonic Knight]

Tours

[Kalle]

Lepanto haha
Poitiers haha
Wienna haha

I would like to add the battle of Breitenfeld a.d. 1631.

The swedes won one of the most important battles ever in the history of christendom, had the swedes been crushed as others had been before them (german protestants and danes) their most likely would have been no protestant countries and thus the shift in mentality that came with protestantism that led to industrilisation and commersialism and capitalism would have been stopped or delayed for ever changing the tides of history....


Now suck on that one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Kalle

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Jan. 30 2004,13:58)]
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Jan. 30 2004,10:21)]Vienna was indeed decisive, but IMHO the battle at Poitier (which was actually a large skirmish) was insignificant in the greater scope of things.

It was a Moorish raiding force, not some sorts of invasion force, that marched into Frankish land and it was neither the first not the last to do so.

If I remember correctly, they were even heading back home when the Franks got them, loaded with loot moreso.
Actually, it was something of a very large raiding/probing attack force that was formed on the same idea as the first Islamic force that crossed into Iberia. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



~Wiz
i&#39;d like to say thats wrong,terribly wrong...it was not a raiding party or force,it was&#39;nt even large it was the remains of Mousa Bin Nusiers arab army that was commanded by prince Abdel-Rahman that crossed in the pyrenees,while heading back from their recent victory over the franks abdel-rahman was ambushed by charles martel in a tight pass flanked by frankish archers,the muslims being mostly cavalry based tried to encircle the archers but where surprised by frankish phalanxes and were sluaghtered.in the process Abdel-Rahman was captured and executed.the muslims at that battle were outnumbered 2:4.


EDIT:had mousa been commanding that army,the battle would have been really different.

[Leet Eriksson]

As to a decisive christian victory i voted for the second seige,they repelled a combined land and naval force,the use of the bosphorus currents,the chains,experience at naval combat and handling of greek fire allowed the byzantines to defeat the arabs at the sea,effectively cutting any supplies sent from egypt and the sorrounding costal provinces oversea.Also at the same time the byzantines gained experience on how to counter arab tactics,they were also up against a good arab general(can&#39;t recall his name now).

[Nowake]

Nowake goes with the second siege of Constantinopole. Poitiers would have been repeated some years later if the arabs would have thought that they can rule the entire Mediteraneean basin. But they couldn&#39;t, as the byzantine fleet was in their way.


As to Vienna, don&#39;t make me laugh. The turks could not hold the city even if they would have conquered it. It would&#39;ve been a simbolic conquest, nothing more. They were more or less out of resources, don&#39;t you occidentals agree? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[kataphraktoi]

The estimates for the 2nd siege of Constantinople are as follows (and REMEMBER they are estimates)from a military history encyclopedia.

200,000 men (includes sailors ??)

These include the two Arab armies which marched on Constantinople and the reinforcements that came in during the siege.

1500 vessels

30,000 men survived

5 vessels made it back (greek fire and volcano, unlucky chaps eh?)

The Byzantine Emperor defeding the capital was Leo (known as Leo III the Syrian in my fictional story)

Faisal, i believe u are referring to Maslama and Suleiman???

When I get my internet account sorted I&#39;ll send u some pics. Of what? u&#39;ll see http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Nowake]

So this confirms my point, no? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Feb. 02 2004,21:16)]The estimates for the 2nd siege of Constantinople are as follows (and REMEMBER they are estimates)from a military history encyclopedia.

200,000 men (includes sailors ??)

These include the two Arab armies which marched on Constantinople and the reinforcements that came in during the siege.

1500 vessels

30,000 men survived

5 vessels made it back (greek fire and volcano, unlucky chaps eh?)

The Byzantine Emperor defeding the capital was Leo (known as Leo III the Syrian in my fictional story)

Faisal, i believe u are referring to Maslama and Suleiman???

When I get my internet account sorted I&#39;ll send u some pics. Of what? u&#39;ll see http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Yeah it was Maslama...the 200,000 was the land force alone(some estimate it bigger than 200,000 tho,thats from an anonymous arab source),i do not know the number of sailors but i think its pretty huge too,becuase the arabs relied on boarding ships rather than using long range weaponry like catapults or ballistaes,and the only ships defences were wooden boxes known as "taboot" wich the arabs used to sling stones or fire arrows from it,while at the sametime protecting from incoming enemy fire(not greek fire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).

[kataphraktoi]

The fact that both sieges of COnstantinople took place at a time when there was internal upheavel in the Byzantine Empire testifies to how good Arab knowledge was in international affairs. Thought me chuck that in.

After the defeat, the Byzantines recieved tribute from the Ummayads. Not bad.....but then Harun al Rashid turned the tables hehe.

[Nowake]

But the byzantines were the ones that stopped the muslims, inspite of heavy losses. Don&#39;t forget the comeback from the times of Tzimisces. So much orthodox and muslim blood was spilled in confrontations that make the crusades to seem as child&#39;s play.

[kataphraktoi]

Sometimes I wonder how far Tzimices would have gone.

I RECKON he was the last Byzantine "Crusader"

[Nowake]

He had the advantage of serving under Fokas and the ability to get rid of Theophano in time; with his hands free and with a healthy military under his orders he tried. His objective was finally Egypt I reckon.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Poiters and Lepanto for me.

[Ellesthyan]

I&#39;ve voted the first siege of Constantinople (imagine muslims in 700 in the Balkan??), however I think that the amazing victory of the first crusade and the creation of the impossible crusader state is one of great importance.
1. The crusades brought the far superior Greek/Arab/Persian culture to the west.
2. It created some kind of unity in the west.
3. It brought East and West Christany a little closer, and ensured another 100 years of survival for the Greeks.
4. It crippled the Fatamids a lot, and it allowed the Mongols to give the Arab civilisation a massive (if not fatal) smash.
5. And more, many more very important influences.

I agree, directly it had no great impact, but it eventually has ensured western culture to start off growing 400 years earlier... Besides, was there no more, absolutely weird, impossible, and awe-inspiring victory than that of the first crusade? thousands of kilometres of their homes, in the middle of hostile ground, relying on the expensive Italians and the treacherous Greeks, with the muslims attacking every once in a month (twice on holidays)... It&#39;s the strangest thing medieval times have brought us

[ShadesWolf]

I think it is f) Battle of Las Navas De Tolosa this was the turning point in the reconquest of Iberia.

Iberia had been controlled by the moors for centuries and this battle started the reconquest of Iberia by the Christians. Add to that the fact the Spanish were totally outnumbered.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (ShadesWolf @ Mar. 25 2004,16:00)]Iberia had been controlled by the moors for centuries and this battle started the reconquest of Iberia by the Christians.
Started? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif

Sorry, but no. The Reconquista had started way before that. In about 900AD. Las Navas de Tolosa was the turning point for the Reconquista. The destruction of the might of Almohad power in the peninsula. The point of no-return for Muslim power in the Iberian Peninsula.



Quote[/b] ]Add to that the fact the Spanish were totally outnumbered.
About 1:2, yes.

[VikingHorde]

I think its the second siege of Vienna, but don&#39;t know that much about all those battles.

[ShadeFlanders]

Citaat[/b] (Ellesthyan @ Mar. 23 2004,23:04)]I&#39;ve voted the first siege of Constantinople (imagine muslims in 700 in the Balkan??), however I think that the amazing victory of the first crusade and the creation of the impossible crusader state is one of great importance.
1. The crusades brought the far superior Greek/Arab/Persian culture to the west.
2. It created some kind of unity in the west.
3. It brought East and West Christany a little closer, and ensured another 100 years of survival for the Greeks.
4. It crippled the Fatamids a lot, and it allowed the Mongols to give the Arab civilisation a massive (if not fatal) smash.
5. And more, many more very important influences.

I agree, directly it had no great impact, but it eventually has ensured western culture to start off growing 400 years earlier... Besides, was there no more, absolutely weird, impossible, and awe-inspiring victory than that of the first crusade? thousands of kilometres of their homes, in the middle of hostile ground, relying on the expensive Italians and the treacherous Greeks, with the muslims attacking every once in a month (twice on holidays)... It&#39;s the strangest thing medieval times have brought us
heh, you think like me so I agree

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Ellesthyan @ Mar. 23 2004,23:04)]I&#39;ve voted the first siege of Constantinople (imagine muslims in 700 in the Balkan??), however I think that the amazing victory of the first crusade and the creation of the impossible crusader state is one of great importance.
1. The crusades brought the far superior Greek/Arab/Persian culture to the west.
2. It created some kind of unity in the west.
3. It brought East and West Christany a little closer, and ensured another 100 years of survival for the Greeks.
4. It crippled the Fatamids a lot, and it allowed the Mongols to give the Arab civilisation a massive (if not fatal) smash.
5. And more, many more very important influences.

I agree, directly it had no great impact, but it eventually has ensured western culture to start off growing 400 years earlier... Besides, was there no more, absolutely weird, impossible, and awe-inspiring victory than that of the first crusade? thousands of kilometres of their homes, in the middle of hostile ground, relying on the expensive Italians and the treacherous Greeks, with the muslims attacking every once in a month (twice on holidays)... It&#39;s the strangest thing medieval times have brought us
Actually, I believe it was more the Mongols that revitalised East to West trade and brought the far more advanced wonders of eastern culture to Europe in great numbers for the first time. The ignorance and hatred of the crusaders for their foe was too great to bring back large amounts of Byzantine/Persian/Arabic knowledge.

It was the Mongol conquest and the fall of Constantinople that brought eastern technology to the still quite &#39;dark&#39; west.



~Wiz

[Efrem Da King]

I voted second siege of vienna. Turks at hight of their power, attacked from behind by a relieving force and lost an entire army with a great general in the disaster.

[ShadeFlanders]

Citaat[/b] (The Wizard @ Mar. 29 2004,20:20)]The ignorance and hatred of the crusaders for their foe was too great to bring back large amounts of Byzantine/Persian/Arabic knowledge.
Not entirely true, the christian kings of Jerusalem were actually very tolerant (once the initial bloodshed had past) towards the muslem and jewish population in Outremer.

[Accounting Troll]

I voted for the second seige of Constantinople, during which the threat to the Byzantines had been far greater than in the first seige. No other Christian nation had the resources to hold off the Arabs at that time.

[Hetman]

Quote[/b] (Accounting Troll @ April 06 2004,13:54)]I voted for the second seige of Constantinople, during which the threat to the Byzantines had been far greater than in the first seige. No other Christian nation had the resources to hold off the Arabs at that time.
I agree and what can I say more ?

a)Very important,but it is b) which I consider far more important victory, capturing Constantinopole at that time would couse unthinkable
consequences. At that time only the Roman Empire ( Byzantium) could stop the islamic tide.

c) I agree it was a kind of probing attack, but I think in western Europe it was much easier to stop the moorish army later if not at Poitires, the Balkans were much more vulnerable.

d)Lepanto. I agree that it stopped Ottoman fleet, but possible consequences of defeat were not so catastrophic as 800 years earlier.

e) and f) Important but not for the whole Europe, especially f) the Moorish would be stopped by the French ( including England which was "northern France" at that time).

g) I think that crushing Hungary was enough for the Ottomans at that time, I don&#39;t belive that the european powers ( especially neighbouring Poland which was very powerful at that time)would let the Ottomans to
conquer more.

h) The second siege of Vienna was decisive,but when it comes to turning the tide not stopping the Ottomans. Capturing the city would strenghten
the Turkish but only for a short period of time. They would attack Poland and other countries, but I don&#39;t believe they were able to conquer much more than the rest of Hungary and Vienna.
But when it comes to re-conquest the Europe it was far more decisive. The campaign in 1683 ( Vienna and later battle at Parkany) really started the slow liberation of Hungary and Balkans ended in 1918.

I have more to add.
The battle at Vienna in 1683 ( 10 september - it was even noticed that the attack in 2001 at the World Trade Center was almost the same day it was the battle, but it was probably a coincidence) is the last victorius major battle won by POLAND before 1920 (the very important the battle at Warsaw).
For all who doesn&#39;t know. The commander of the allied forces was the Polish king Jan III ( John III) Sobieski and his presence, his planning and the presence polish army was crucial. The German army alone could probably make the Ottomans to retreat, but they would come back later
( probably the next year).
And now a short orde de batalie
the cavalry- 2670 Husaria ( Winged Hussars - medium/heavy cav.),
- 5100 Pancerni ( Armoured medium cavalry),
- 1900 light cavalry,
- 530 mounted Arquebusers,
- 150 Cossacks,
+ 2800 Polish Dragoons,
the infantry- 7150 infantry ( so called polish inf.),
500 Hungarian and "Polish Janissaries" (all soldiers were polish actually).
+ about 150 artillerycrewmen.

Emperor&#39;s army - 10500 cavalry and 8000 infantry.
the Germans - 6450 cavalry and 21800 infantry.

Generally German infantry was better than Polish, but the Emperor&#39;s and
German&#39;s forces lacked cavalry, and the one they had was much weaker than the Ottoman and Polish ( especially Husaria and light cav.). This factor prevented the German army alone to pursue the Ottomans and turn possible victory into the decisive Turkish defeat it was in reality.

And one more thing the Polish king was much better commander than anyone else in the German army ( one of the best in polish history), but not so good politician unfortunatelly.

Finally the battle at Vienna was the Polish-German victory which really changed the balance of forces in Europe, but still the two sieges of Constantinopole were much more important when it comes to the consequences of the Byzantines defeat.

Regards Hetman/Cegorach

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif