The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Most Important Battles Challenge (2)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,984 times Debate No: 25169
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

Hello, this is 1Historygenius and YOU have been challenged to my seond most important battles challenge!

Rules

We will debate battles for different wars and time periods. What happens is that every round a battle will be placed by each person. The voters will decide who has the more important battle for that round. Who ever has the most will get the most points from the votes and thus win. Sieges are not included in this. Just land and naval battles.

No semantics or trolling!
imabench

Con

OMG I NEVER GET CHALLENGED TO COOL DEBATES :D

I assume first round is acceptance only, let the debate challenge begin!
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

Battle of Waterloo
Year: 1815
Armies: French (Napoleon Bonaparte) vs. British-Dutch-Prussia (Duke of Wellington and Gebhard von Blucher)

The Battle of Waterloo (1812) - At this battle, French troops led by Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte lost to the British-Dutch-Prussian armies commanded by the Duke of Wellington and Gebhard von Blucher. Had he won, he would have unstoppable.

The Battle

In 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte returned to power in France. He had been the emperor before, but was forced into exile during his failed conquest of Europe. Now back, the powers that had defeated him returned. Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia were all against him. British and Dutch troops commanded by the Duke of Wellington landed in Belgium and were suppose to meet a Prussia force commanded by Gebhard von Blucher. Napoleon decided to attack and take each army one at a time. At the battle, the British and Dutch occupied a ridge which stopped several frontal assaults that Napoleon launched. Soon Prussian troops from Blucher were on the field and Napoleon was being forced to split his army. After a failed attack by his elite Old Guard on the British and Dutch line, he withdrew and was eventually forced into exile again.

Had he won?

Napoleon would have likely been unstoppable. He had nearly conquered Europe before and he could have possible conquered all of it if he was given a second try.


imabench

Con

Battle of Stalingrad
Year: 1942 to 1943
Armies: Nazi Germany (Hitler) vs Russia (Stalin)

The Battle

Leading up to the Battle of Stalingrad (the bloodiest battle in history) at the end of 1942, Hitler was f*cking up everyone who stood in his way. He had bulldozed through Poland, annexed other parts of Europe, occupied France, and was blowing Great Britain to hell before plowing into Russia. Hitlers army had decimated Stalingrad and had occupied all of the city for a long time, but the fierce and legendary resistance by Russian soldiers and civilians alike prevented Hitler's armies from advancing through Stalingrad deeper into Russia. The resistance held on for so long that it allowed Soviet Russia to launch a two pronged attack to cut off the Nazi troops in the city from their supply lines, and that was where the tide of the war turned. The battle of Stalingrad had bled Germany dry and forced them into full retreat, which is why many historians claim that Stalingrad was the turning point of WWII.

"The God of War has gone over to the other side" - Hitler in the aftermath of Stalingrad
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
^ just for the quote

Hitlers mighty 6th army was reduced to 90,000 prisoners and 750,000 dead soldiers, and that revealed that the previously unstoppable Nazi War machine had shown they were not invincible. It demoralized the Nazi's but more importantly it energized the Russian armies to retake all of Russia, plow into Germany, take Berlin, and eventually cause Hitler to blow his own brains out. "Remember Stalingrad" was to Russia what "Remember Pearl Harbor" was to the US, and the Battle of Stalingrad became Russia's way of saying "HEY HITLER, F*CK YOU!!!"

Had he won?

Technically for this one the question should be "what if Hitler was able to keep going?". Had Hitler easily annexed Stalingrad, his armies could have continued to plow into Russia and possibly take Moscow, or he could have created a defensive line, wait out the winter, and resume his conquest of Russia once summer had come about. The allies had not landed on Normandy yet so Hitler could have used all his forces to go deeper into Russia until they eventually gave up. Had that happened there would not have been a two front war that squeezed Nazi Germany into submission, and Hitler could have very well Won WWII

Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

Battle of Tours
Year: 732
Armies: The Franks (Charles Martel) vs. Umayyad Caliphate (Abdul Rahman)

The Battle of Tours (732) - At this battle, Frank troops led by Charles "The Hammer" Martel fought off and destroyed a much larger Islamic force that was part of the Umayyad Caliphate (the Moors). The Caliphate force led by Abdul Rahman was unable to defeat the Franks and he was forced to retreat. Had he won, Europe would have likely fallen to Islam.

The Battle

For many years, Islamic forces in the Umayyad Caliphate (or the Moors) were expanding all over the Middle East and North Africa. Now it was time to conquer Europe. One of the most key battles in which the Caliphate tried to take Europe was a battle between them and the Franks led by Charles Martel. Martel had a total of 20,000 troops. The Caliphate army led by Abdul Rahman could have been as small as 30,000, but as high as 300,000. It was vastly larger than the Frank army. However, against all the odds, Martel and the Franks held off the Caliphate. It was at this battle that Charles Martel may have earned his nickname, "Charles The Hammer."

Had Rahman won?

If Rahman won, chances are they won have taken over Europe. Many people credit Martel as the savior of Europe.


imabench

Con

Battle of Saratoga
Year: 1777
Armies: American (Horatio Gates + Benedict Arnold) vs Great Britain (John Burgoyne)

The Battle

During the Revolutionary War, the American rebels were pleading for foreign allies to join the fight against the British rather then face the wrath of British oppression on their own. However, many of those allies (predominantly Spain and France) were unsure that the Americans were capable of fighting well enough to defeat the British, because the American armies were defeated time and time again and were forced to revert to Guerilla warfare. Leading up to that time the British ruled the world and had stamped out all rebellions prior to the American Revolution, and unless the Americans won a key battle soon, the American Revolution would be seen as nothing more then an unorganized and ill-fated rebellion.

The Battle of Saratoga though was monumental because even though it was fought with less than 20,000 men total, the American victory there was the statement to the world which said that the American rebels were indeed capable of beating the British should they receive aid. The American rebels had crippled the northern operations of the British and made it impossible for the British to retake the former northern colonies (Everything North of Virginia), and it convinced the French to join the fight against the British. France provided aid, guns, munitions, and most importantly a navy, that would allow the American rebels to drive the British forces under Cornwallis all the way to Yorktown and eventually end the Revolutionary War with an American victory

Had they won

Had the British won, Frances aid would never have come. Many of the battles fought by the Americans led to defeat after defeat and Saratoga was their one glorious victory they needed to justify their struggle to the world. Had they lost, America would have lost that justification, French aid would have never come, and the 13 rebelling colonies would eventually be returned to the 13 British colonies that they were prior to the Revolutionary War.

Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

The Battle of Salamis
Year: 480 BC
Fleets: Greek City-States (Eurybiades + Themistocles) vs. Achaemenid Empire (Xerxes I)

The Battle of Salamis (480 BC) - At this battle, a fleet from the Greek City-States commanded by Eurybiades and Themistocles fought off the Islamic Achaemenid Empire fleet (Persia) commanded by Xerxes I. The Persian fleet was much more larger than the Greek fleet (some say it was 1,000 Persian ships vs. 378 Greek ships). When the Persian ships entered the Straits of Salamis in cramped conditions, they were easily defeated by the Greeks. Some say if they won it would have change a lot.

The Battle

At this battle, a fleet from the Greek City-States commanded by Eurybiades and Themistocles fought off the Islamic Achaemenid Empire fleet (Persia) commanded by Xerxes I. The Persian fleet was much more larger than the Greek fleet (some say it was 1,000 Persian ships vs. 378 Greek ships). When the Persian ships entered the Straits of Salamis in cramped conditions, they were easily defeated by the Greeks. Some say if they won it would have change a lot.

Had the Persians won?

They would have likely changed history by defeating the Greeks here. As it would have effect Greek progress in civilization and thus change progress in the western world.

imabench

Con

The Battle of Gettysburg
Year: 1863
Armies: USA (George Meade) vs CSA (Robert E Lee)

The Battle

Confederate armies of the revolting Confederate States of America had wandered into the town of Gettysburg looking for shoes and other supplies when they just happened to run into the Union armies of the US who were fortified just outside of the town. The Battle lasted three days where the Confederates pushed the Union Army out of Gettysburg, but it was the third day that is the most memorable day of the battle. The Union Army had taken up defensive positions around Cemetery Hill and the Confederate armies gave it all they had leading to one of the most legendary battles of all time.

What ensued was the bloodiest battle ever fought in the Civl War, and a bloodbath that took the lives of more American soldiers then any other battle in history. The amount of blood spilled caused corn grown in the fields they fought to grow three feet higher than normal, and it led to one of the most Iconic speeches ever made in history, the Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln. The victory turned the tide of the Civil War into the favor of the Union, and soon they began to rout the South until Lee himself signed the surrender in an Appomattox courthouse 2 years later.

Had the South won?

Most people dont know that Gettysburg Virginia lies no more than 75 miles NORTH of Washington DC. Had the confederate armies won then they could have taken the Union capital city, the city of Baltimore, and then go on to possibly capture Philadelphia. Had the south won it would have further fueled the growing settlement for peace by the people in the North which means that had the South won at Gettysburg, the Confederate States of America would still exist to this day.
Debate Round No. 4
1Historygenius

Pro

The Story of the Spanish Armada
Year: 1588
Fleets: British Fleet (Lord Howard Effingham and Sir Francis Drake) vs. Spanish Fleet (Duke of Medina Sidonia)

The Story of the Spanish Armada (1588) - At this battle, a fleet of smaller British ships commanded by Lord Howard Effingham and Sir Francis Drake successfully defeated a larger Spanish fleet commanded by the Duke of Medina Sidonia. The Spanish had packed their ships into tight formations and the British with their faster and smaller ships were able to defeat the Spanish ships. Eventually this led to a devastating retreat for the Spanish. Had they won a lot would change for Britain.

The Battle

At this battle, a fleet of smaller British ships commanded by Lord Howard Effingham and Sir Francis Drake successfully defeated a larger Spanish fleet commanded by the Duke of Medina Sidonia. The Spanish had packed their ships into tight formations and the British with their faster and smaller ships were able to defeat the Spanish ships. Eventually this led to a devastating retreat for the Spanish. Had they won a lot would change for Britain.

If the Spanish Had Won?

They would have likely landed troops to invade Britain, changing history forever. The Spanish may very well take over Britain and change many things in it including religion, culture, and language. Colonization in the Americas would also dramatically change.

;
imabench

Con

The Battle of Troy
Year: 1240 BC
Armies: The Greeks (King Agamemnon) vs the Trojans (King Priam)

The Battle:

The Battle of Troy is one of the biggest battles in history prior to the Birth of Christ. In 1240 BC King Agamemnon felt that Troy, the most powerful city in Asia, was a vital ally to have in his pocket, but when the bride of Agamemnon's brother was taken to Troy buy Prince Paris, Agamemnon used this as an excuse to invade Troy to be remembered as the first great King of a United Greece.

When the Greeks arrived on the Trojan shores, the Trojans took refuge behind their mighty city walls that the Greeks could not overcome. The Trojans thus started a bloodbath as Greek Soldiers couldnt get through the walls, but Trojan attacks against the Greeks out on the beach were ineffective and only united the Greeks against the Trojans even more.

The climax of the battle came through the greatest deception of all time, the Trojan Horse. Designed by Odysseus himself the Trojan Horse was the trick that allowed the Greeks to sneak into the city, open the gates, and let the Greek Army raze the city of Troy. The battle led to the deaths of Achilles, King Agamemnon, and King Priam (Prince Hector had died before) which led to the dissolving of what would have been the first United Greece, and it also led to the sacking of the ancient city of Troy

Had the Trojans won

Had the Trojan army won, Greece would have suffered a horrible defeat, all its armies defeated in one battle would have left Greece open to easy occupation from other ancient powers. Greece would have become an accessory to another empire, the Battle of Thermopylae fought 600 years later may never have happened, Democracy would have died as a dream, Troy would still be a city, and the course of the world could have changed forever

Had the Greeks won

Im adding this because technically both sides sort of lost since Troy was burned but the Greeks lost their King and did not stay a unified empire. Had the Greek King not died he could have been an earlier version of Alexander the Great, creating a great ancient empire that would have led to an Era of Greek monarchy. There wouldnt have been an environment for Democracy to be born, and once again the course of history could have been changed.



I would like to personally thank 1historygenius for such a glorious debate, I hope that everyone reading this enjoyed this debate
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
@imabench

Guerrilla forces. The war in London was already unpopular and parliament would likely end the war soon after anyway.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
RFD:

Round 2: Con's choice was better here because the world would be a lot worse of a place had the Nazis won Stalingrad than if the French had won Waterloo. Heck, if the French had won Waterloo, there would likely have been no Hitler, no World War I, no World War II, etc... (then again, you never know). I base this because of the state of the world in both possibilities. 0-1.

Round 3: This was easy. Tours was extremely significant to world history because if the French/European alliance was defeated, the world would be Muslim, I would be writing this in Arabic, and who knows what else. Saratoga was not that strategically important in comparison because the US still could have (and most likely still would have) won the war had they lost Saratoga. 1-1.

Round 4: This again is easy. Salamis was also significant to world history because if the Greeks had been defeated, the world would again be Muslim (because the Persians were Muslim after ~630-640 AD, they would have converted Europe), and the same consequences apply. Gettysburg was strategically important, yes, because if the Confederates had won, the Confederacy would have most likely won the Civil War, but its impact on world history and even US history dwarfs in comparison to Salamis. 2-1.

Round 5: This was extremely tough. There is no certainty that if the Spanish had not lost the Armada in the storm that they would have been able to defeat the British, and even if they had, they would have not even won half the battle. But, if they had been able to indeed defeat Britian, the ramifications would have been significant. Troy is important because if the Trojans had won, civilization would most likely be further along, because Troy was a more advanced civilization, and late antiquity history would have been completely rewritten. 2-2.

I might come back and change the vote to arguments to pro as well if I change my mind regarding Round 5.

Spelling to pro because Gettysburg is not in Virginia.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
"The US may still have won without Saratoga"

Based on what logic?
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
THANKS FOR PICKING ME :D

nac
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
THANKS FOR AN AWESOME DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D Hurray!
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
lol
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
f*ck that was going to be my next pick
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
1HistorygeniusimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
1HistorygeniusimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: R2-tie, R3- Both really important, but Pro's battle would have affected the larger area, thus Pro. R4- I guess Con took the win slightly. R5- Pro, if Britain had been conquered by Spain then the world's history would have changed, probably we would be speaking French or Spanish :) Anyways, 2 to 1, Pro wins 2 points to 1 point.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
1HistorygeniusimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: R2: con. Hitler winning seems like it would be worse then Napoleon taking much of Europe. R3: Pro. Europe would be Islamic otherwise. The US may still have won without Saratoga. R4: Pro. A dead civilization that really created Europe and Asia and the US > two Americas. R5: Pro. We may have not existed otherwise. Trojans winning... Greeks are good at raiding militia, and Sparta would have a ton of men and Athens a navy. Pro wins.