Comments on: The War List: Five Battles That Shaped Modern Europe http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:41:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Basque_Spaniard http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm#comment-1181553 Basque_Spaniard Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:08:39 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683279#comment-1181553 They are a lot of decisives battle. How about the battle of Krasny Bor?? If the spanish blue division have failed in this battle the second world war would have finished a year before. How about the war against Napoleon?? When spain declared war against France and invaded Rosellón?? If napoleon had been defeated in that battle Napoleon would be defeated very soon and spain will still control the spanish empire. There are a lot of decisive battle in history. They are a lot of decisives battle. How about the battle of Krasny Bor?? If the spanish blue division have failed in this battle the second world war would have finished a year before.
How about the war against Napoleon?? When spain declared war against France and invaded Rosellón?? If napoleon had been defeated in that battle Napoleon would be defeated very soon and spain will still control the spanish empire.
There are a lot of decisive battle in history.

]]> By: Basque_Spaniard http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm#comment-1181546 Basque_Spaniard Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:53:39 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683279#comment-1181546 Why the battle of Cartagena de Indias of 1741 isn´t there??? With this battle EEUU/USA exist nowadays. Furthermore, with this battle spain and France would have never helped in the americans in his independence. And of course, without USA, Germany and Japan would have won the Second World War. Why the battle of Cartagena de Indias of 1741 isn´t there???
With this battle EEUU/USA exist nowadays. Furthermore, with this battle spain and France would have never helped in the americans in his independence.
And of course, without USA, Germany and Japan would have won the Second World War.

]]> By: Larry C http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm#comment-817288 Larry C Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:21:55 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683279#comment-817288 #5 Stalingrad. "At Stalingrad, the western Europeans lost the military initiative to the Soviet Union. They have never regained it." I totally disagree with this statement. Westerners did lose the inititive. It was disallowed by the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, when Roosevelt and Churchill literally gave Stalin all that part of eastern Europe that went behind the Iron Curtain. General Patton, if allowed would have taken Berlin and most likely Warsaw also but was not allowed. #5 Stalingrad. "At Stalingrad, the western Europeans lost the military initiative to the Soviet Union. They have never regained it."
I totally disagree with this statement. Westerners did lose the inititive. It was disallowed by the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, when Roosevelt and Churchill literally gave Stalin all that part of eastern Europe that went behind the Iron Curtain. General Patton, if allowed would have taken Berlin and most likely Warsaw also but was not allowed.

]]> By: Luis http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm#comment-815114 Luis Tue, 07 Aug 2012 02:45:43 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683279#comment-815114 Incredibly loop-sided account. Mr Parker is not a historian at all but an English supremacist. His account of the Great Strategy of Philip II is a joke. The Armada changed basically nothing in terms of world strategy, the really decisive battle in those years was the defeat of the English Counter Armada, also known as the Drake Norris Expedition, when the English miserably failed to destroy the remnants of the Spanish Navy, failed to conquer Lisbon and the Spanish fleets. It was, together with Vernon;s defeat in Cartagena de Indias one of the worst English-British defeats ever and it really changed the course of history since thanks to the Spanish victory the Spanish Empire lasted for the next two hundred years. Please, Mr. Parker, get back to school and stop distorting the historical record. Incredibly loop-sided account. Mr Parker is not a historian at all but an English supremacist. His account of the Great Strategy of Philip II is a joke. The Armada changed basically nothing in terms of world strategy, the really decisive battle in those years was the defeat of the English Counter Armada, also known as the Drake Norris Expedition, when the English miserably failed to destroy the remnants of the Spanish Navy, failed to conquer Lisbon and the Spanish fleets. It was, together with Vernon;s defeat in Cartagena de Indias one of the worst English-British defeats ever and it really changed the course of history since thanks to the Spanish victory the Spanish Empire lasted for the next two hundred years. Please, Mr. Parker, get back to school and stop distorting the historical record.

]]> By: TL Rouhier http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm#comment-802525 TL Rouhier Sat, 19 May 2012 03:51:36 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683279#comment-802525 The French did not need the navy to invade England. They had the secret to an invasion, they just didn't realize it. They had a steam tug. Had they understood what they had and built more of them all they had to do was wait for a calm day and have the tugs pull barges loaded with troops to England. The English navy would have been usless since it needed wind to move. The French did not need the navy to invade England. They had the secret to an invasion, they just didn't realize it. They had a steam tug. Had they understood what they had and built more of them all they had to do was wait for a calm day and have the tugs pull barges loaded with troops to England. The English navy would have been usless since it needed wind to move.

]]> By: Christian http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm#comment-667114 Christian Sat, 30 Jul 2011 04:03:34 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683279#comment-667114 You should change the tittle of the post, and write instead, Five Battles That Shaped Modern Europe from my point of view or from the point of view of a british. Mr Geoffrey Parker, you should read more about history in other books. Almost all the loses of the spanish armada were due to the bad weather and diseases. By the way, this battle didnt change anything in spain, not even in england. Search for the Drake-Norris Expedition or english armada one year later in 1589, maybe you have never heard about it, did you? . The Habsburg supremacy ended after the Thirty Years War not cuz the defeat of the spanish armada in Gravelines. What about the Battle of Cartagena de Indias in 1741, it didnt have any importance, of course not, your King even prohibited writting about this battle. If england would have won this battle, possibly america would have changed completely. Then, The battle of trafalgar didnt change anything, napoleon fought against europe not only against England, dont you remember? He wanted to conquer europe not the sea. Lepanto was much more of importance for europe than Trafalgar because of the strength of the ottoman empire at that time. You should be more objective and less patriotic. You should change the tittle of the post, and write instead, Five Battles That Shaped Modern Europe from my point of view or from the point of view of a british. Mr Geoffrey Parker, you should read more about history in other books. Almost all the loses of the spanish armada were due to the bad weather and diseases. By the way, this battle didnt change anything in spain, not even in england. Search for the Drake-Norris Expedition or english armada one year later in 1589, maybe you have never heard about it, did you? . The Habsburg supremacy ended after the Thirty Years War not cuz the defeat of the spanish armada in Gravelines. What about the Battle of Cartagena de Indias in 1741, it didnt have any importance, of course not, your King even prohibited writting about this battle. If england would have won this battle, possibly america would have changed completely.
Then, The battle of trafalgar didnt change anything, napoleon fought against europe not only against England, dont you remember? He wanted to conquer europe not the sea. Lepanto was much more of importance for europe than Trafalgar because of the strength of the ottoman empire at that time. You should be more objective and less patriotic.

]]> By: Kevinmeath http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm#comment-520133 Kevinmeath Sat, 09 Apr 2011 16:54:12 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683279#comment-520133 This is a bit like picking the 'worlds best football/rugby/soccer etc ' team opinions will always vary hugely. Muslim accounts make little of Tours (well it was a defeat so they are not likely to shout about it) but it possible that it was a just a recon in force so its repulse may have meant nothing. Trafalgar I would say is very important as it underlined that Britain was never going to be defeated. I would disagree that the Royal Navy of the day had better ships than the French/Spanish. Rather the complete dominance (only challanged by the tiny US navy) was because the crews were simply better. Their training and discipline was greater and a Royal Naval officer was promoted mainly (hey since when did money and influence ever, even now, hold back promotion) on performance and competence. They went to sea at a young age and were quite simply proffessionals. Poor people would not be officers because they did not have the education required to become a navigator but but officers from modest back grounds did achieve high rank eg Captain Bligh. Have to agree with Stalingrad-- we in the west do not give enough credit to its importance. From WW II I would add the 'Battle of Britain' -- meant war on two fronts for Germany.The Germans (with 20:20 Hindsight) had only a brief opportunity to invaded in 1940, the battle stopped this, however it was important because an invasion was stopped without armies/ships meeting it was all decided in the air. Would put forward Midway for much same reason. Surely Pearl Harbour would have to be on list? Kaisers battle 1918? fail to destroy British army lost Germany the war. From the ancient world the defeat of Varus in the Forests of Germany meant Germany stayed German not Roman. Would the Saxons (the English) have invaded the Roman province Britain if they were nice civilised Romans in the province of Germania? just some thoughts. This is a bit like picking the 'worlds best football/rugby/soccer etc ' team opinions will always vary hugely.
Muslim accounts make little of Tours (well it was a defeat so they are not likely to shout about it) but it possible that it was a just a recon in force so its repulse may have meant nothing.
Trafalgar I would say is very important as it underlined that Britain was never going to be defeated. I would disagree that the Royal Navy of the day had better ships than the French/Spanish. Rather the complete dominance (only challanged by the tiny US navy) was because the crews were simply better. Their training and discipline was greater and a Royal Naval officer was promoted mainly (hey since when did money and influence ever, even now, hold back promotion) on performance and competence. They went to sea at a young age and were quite simply proffessionals. Poor people would not be officers because they did not have the education required to become a navigator but but officers from modest back grounds did achieve high rank eg Captain Bligh.

Have to agree with Stalingrad– we in the west do not give enough credit to its importance. From WW II I would add the 'Battle of Britain' — meant war on two fronts for Germany.The Germans (with 20:20 Hindsight) had only a brief opportunity to invaded in 1940, the battle stopped this, however it was important because an invasion was stopped without armies/ships meeting it was all decided in the air. Would put forward Midway for much same reason. Surely Pearl Harbour would have to be on list?

Kaisers battle 1918? fail to destroy British army lost Germany the war.

From the ancient world the defeat of Varus in the Forests of Germany meant Germany stayed German not Roman. Would the Saxons (the English) have invaded the Roman province Britain if they were nice civilised Romans in the province of Germania?
just some thoughts.

]]> By: bass_man86 http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm#comment-471341 bass_man86 Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:58:17 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683279#comment-471341 I would have to submit that the Battle of the Metaurus River is every bit as significant as the other battles because it was essentially the Gettysburg of the Second Punic War. Similarly, I have to opine that the Battle of Lepanto is even more significant than Trafalgar. If the Romans had been defeated at Metaurus and if the Christian League had been defeated at Lepanto the chances are quite good that the course of Western Civilization would have been dramatically altered. In the case of the former, the Greco-Roman concepts of representative government and jurisprudence may have died on the vine. In the case of the latter, we could have a largely Muslim Europe now as the Ottoman Sultan had made it quite clear that he was the true inheritor of Rome. I would have to submit that the Battle of the Metaurus River is every bit as significant as the other battles because it was essentially the Gettysburg of the Second Punic War. Similarly, I have to opine that the Battle of Lepanto is even more significant than Trafalgar. If the Romans had been defeated at Metaurus and if the Christian League had been defeated at Lepanto the chances are quite good that the course of Western Civilization would have been dramatically altered. In the case of the former, the Greco-Roman concepts of representative government and jurisprudence may have died on the vine. In the case of the latter, we could have a largely Muslim Europe now as the Ottoman Sultan had made it quite clear that he was the true inheritor of Rome.

]]> By: wie201 http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm#comment-464509 wie201 Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:14:53 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683279#comment-464509 It seems that all a nation has to do is cross the English Channel and victory is secured. Getting an army across the channel is hard enough. Conquering England afterward, after its culture was established, would have been more than most invading armies could tolerate. Spain and France, realistically, save for huge mistakes by the English military, would have stood little chance in the long run. The English culture and populace was largely pro-empire. They would not have given up simply because wet soldiers had landed on their shores. It seems that all a nation has to do is cross the English Channel and victory is secured. Getting an army across the channel is hard enough. Conquering England afterward, after its culture was established, would have been more than most invading armies could tolerate. Spain and France, realistically, save for huge mistakes by the English military, would have stood little chance in the long run. The English culture and populace was largely pro-empire. They would not have given up simply because wet soldiers had landed on their shores.

]]> By: Sensemaker http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-battles-that-shaped-modern-europe.htm#comment-459789 Sensemaker Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:31:11 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683279#comment-459789 Calder's action (name of a battle deemed to small in casualties to call a true battle) had already foiled Napoléon´s not particularly realistic plan to manoeuvre cleverly and get temporary naval supriority long enough to make an invason possible. British Naval superiority was pretty certain already before Trafalgar. Trafalgar just robbed them of any significant "fleet-in-being" turning superiority to supremacy. I would not call this a decisive battle in and of itself. Britain's ability to maintain naval superiority was decisive to the Napoléon wars, but it certainly did not depend on a single battle. The British could have recovered even from a catastrophic loss at Trafalgar. Sensemaker Calder's action (name of a battle deemed to small in casualties to call a true battle) had already foiled Napoléon´s not particularly realistic plan to manoeuvre cleverly and get temporary naval supriority long enough to make an invason possible. British Naval superiority was pretty certain already before Trafalgar. Trafalgar just robbed them of any significant "fleet-in-being" turning superiority to supremacy. I would not call this a decisive battle in and of itself. Britain's ability to maintain naval superiority was decisive to the Napoléon wars, but it certainly did not depend on a single battle. The British could have recovered even from a catastrophic loss at Trafalgar.

Sensemaker

]]>