What Battle was of Greater Importance?

[Geoffrey S]

I chose two battles out of a massive lot, it does not mean I think they bigger and greater then the rest.

Most nations, as you have stated, are brought down by a combination of war and events. But I think battles have the larger influence over a collaspe of a Empire. Lets take Waterloo, I know most people in France weren't happy too see Napoleon back, a factor perhaps in his defeat, but if there had've been no Waterloo and the other three battles, then would've Napoleon be brought down? If he had've won, the French EMpire wouldn'tve fell because there was still a major factor of people who believed in him.

Another example; Hastings. It effectively brought the Saxon kingdom to its knees, though it didn't entirely destroy it, it was perhaps a VERY large factor. if there was no hastings then the Saxons would've ruled it for some more time.

I believe if the Ottoman Turks had've got into Europe, they would've had a mixture of results. I am sure cities would've gone the same way as RHodes (Or was it Cyprus?) and some would've been spared.

Well, at that point we end up at the age-old debate on the influence of events on the course of history. In your examples quoted above: yes, as things happened particular battles had an impact on when things changed, but it's essential not to lose sight of the fact that those battles were the products of circumstance and process. I don't want to come across as determinist here, which I'm not, but I don't believe battles by and large have the impact you credit them with. What, exactly, would have been the added impact of a longer Napoleonic Empire or a delayed or even absent Norman conquest of Britain? Do you think that would have significantly changed later processes?

I think the following quotes by Bismarck expresses things quite well. "A statesman... must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events, then leap up and grasp the hem of His garment. " Very rare is it that a person or an event can change the course of history dramatically; at most it affects the timescale.

@Geoffrey S, if both had reached their limit, why did not they fall? I know for a fact that the Ottoman EMpire did not collapse until the 20th Century in World War I, where they formed a republic, and even though it was still a very poor and small Empire, they still survived, did they not? If they reached their limit, then why didn't the ROman EMpire fall when it conquered the Medierttainan, or why didn't (Hasn't) Russia lost its Eastern lands? The USSR may have collasped upon itself, but it did not lose SIberia, the Ural areas?

In the case of the Umayyad Caliphate, it fell not all that long after Tours, and its over-extended territories were divided among numerous successors. In the case of the Ottoman Empire, although it didn't fall for some time, exactly how much further did it expand? It appears you see the failure of the siege of Vienna as the cause of a checked Ottoman expansion; I see it as the result of longer running problems and a symptom of the checked Ottoman expansion.

What is crucial in the case of the Ottoman Empire is the growing political influence of the janissaries and the fact that military organization was largely in a large royal army based around Istanbul. What this meant was that military power could often only be focused on one front at a time (usually the Habsburgs or the Safavids) and tended to head back to the centre of the Empire as winter fell in, limiting the geographic scope of their projection of military power. No, the Empire didn't fall, but expansion was barely possible and (partly as a result from the slowdown of conquests) more and more effort was taken by various interest groups trying to secure their political power in Istanbul: a lack of interest in offense and a vested interest in preserving the status quo (leading to an outclassed military machine) were some of the results of these processes, increased by the decision of Suleyman to delegate a large part of the day to day business to his divan, an official confirmation of the changed relations of power at the court.