The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Most Important Battles Challenge (3 Redo)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 5 votes the winner is...
larztheloser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,086 times Debate No: 28812
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

Hello, this is 1Historygenius, the Master Historian of this website, and YOU have been challenged to my third most important battles challenge (well, really a redo of one)!

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!

Round 1 is for acceptance!

No refutations! The Winner of the debate will simply be decided by the voters!

Too avoid any further confusion, here is a previous debate I did that people can use as a guideline: http://debate.org...
larztheloser

Con

As per usual, I accept. I'm going to pretty blatently plagiarise our last debate for now, cutting off any rebuttal.

I know you said no sematics, but I think it's only fair to define important, as having the greatest impact on the course of history. I don't think that will be a big issue in the debate, but it's just a common framework we can work with. I also assume that by battle we mean a military engagement. Rap battles, for instance, or the cold war, may be important but not battles.

I wish my opponent good luck. LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!
Debate Round No. 1
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. Chances are, the Greeks would not be able to expand through colonization if they were under Persian rule they would be giving taxes and looking to a Persian emperor. Chances today we would be looking at a different kind of democracy, likely from Scandanavia which founded its own democracy. So instead of learning and following Hellenistic democracy we would we learning and following pre-Harald in Norway. This would have an impact on all democracies across the world in the future.


larztheloser

Con

It's a bit unfortunate not being able to give refutations to my opponent's claims, but I hope that people look into them anyway because most of them aren't true. Nevertheless I thank my opponent for a good round.

Battle of Kalinga


My opponent begins with an ancient battle - well then, so will I.

Kalinga was, in 262 BC, the site of one of the deadliest battles in history. 2,000,000 people, most of them civilians, were slain. Ashoka the Great, the Mauryan leader, led an army of 400,000 against the tiny republic of Kalinga, in modern north-eastern India. According to Pliny the Elder, Kalinga's numbered only a little over 60,000 (including 700 war elephants - some estimates, however, put the number at upwards of 150,000). Ashoka won the battle but at a heavy cost, losing around 100,000 of his own men. The battlefield itself was beside the Daya river, which ran red with blood when the battle was finished.

When the battle was finished, and Ashoka had his victory, it is said that a woman approached him, wailing. When she was asked what her problem was, she told Ashoka "Your actions have taken from me my father, husband, and son. Now what will I have left to live for?" From that day forth, Ashoka decided to accept Buddhism, and stop fighting wars. He went on to lead his empire through many decades of prosperity. On a hill besides the battle site, among his other edicts, Ashoka had carved an apology for conquering the Kalingas. It remains there to this day.

Why was this battle important?

First, the acceptance of Buddhism by Ashoka and the Mauryans generally was one of the principal catalysts for the spread of Buddhism. Had it remained only a minor thing in a few monasteries, it seems extremely unlikely that it would have had so strong an influence on the world as it did, if it had survived at all. Buddhism continues to be a major force in the world today, and this battle is the one that inspired a man to nurture its growth.

Secondly, as a consequence of that, it changed the nature of the Maurya Empire. Previously military conflict was believed to be the main way for an emperor to attain greatness. From that day forth, it was the Dharma. This led to a flourishing of the arts in India - an era of happiness and prosperity, much like the golden age of, say, Greece.

Third, it was a really deadly battle, one of the deadliest in human history (depending on how exactly it is measured, perhaps THE deadliest battle ever). The sheer depopulation of the region had enormous ramifications for centuries to come. Remember this was at a time when the total population of the world was much smaller than it is today.

Finally, the battle's outcome created one of the first unified Indias (well, the very south excluded, but even they paid Ashoka tribute). This unification provided a model for countless future conquest and disputes that continue to this day, but also a model for peace and prosperity in the region.
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

The Battle of Leipzig
Year: 1813
Armies: The French Empire and its Protectorates (Napoleon I) vs. The Sixth Coalition (Alexander I)

The Battle of Leipzig (1813) - At this battle, Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte lost a major battle against the Sixth Coalition led by Czar Alexander I. This was after his failed invasion of Russia.

The Battle

In 1813, Napoleon was in grave trouble. He had led his Grand Army into Russia in 1812, but Alexander I's schorched earth policy, the retreating of the Russian Army, and winter forced him to make an infamous retreat that led to the end of almost his entire army. He was able to create a new Grand Army by 1813 through conscription. By then, the Sixth Coalition was formed to defeat him. On October 16, Napoleon met Russian Czar Alexander I's Coalition Army. Over 195,000 men from Napoleon's Grand Army met the Coalition Army made up of 380,000 Russian, Prussian, Austrian, and Swedish troops. The battle lasted for several days, but the allies numberial advantage started to come in and Napoleon was forced on a retreat.

Had the French Won?

This was a major opportunity by the new Coalition to severely weaken Napoleon's power and force him to retreat and lose parts of his empire. The ultimate goal that many European nations wanted was for Napoleon to no longer be an emperor. Had Napoleon won a major victory here against the four Coalition nations, it would have been incredibly demoralizing.

They no doubt could rebuild their armies and try again, but chances are they would be spread apart and divide and conquer was one of Napoleon's favorite tactics. Napoleon could then focus on defeating each Coalition army in detail forcing them to surrender and accept French power again. He could then move forces to Spain to stop the British, Portugese, and Spanish troops.

Even if he crushed the Spanish and Protugese, his last enemy would be Britain because of the Royal Navy and they would likely stay there (unless Napoleon intended to build a Grand Navy). However, everyone else would likely be subjected to Napoleonic rule.

larztheloser

Con

I thank my opponent again for a choice of an interesting battle.

Battle of Legnica

Before Leipzig was called Leipzig, it was Legnica. If you travel to Poland today on April 9th, you might be a little surprised to find most people celebrating. That's because in the year 1241, on that very day, Leipzig (or Legnica, whatever you want to call it) was host to another battle -between the Mongol Empire of Ghengis Khan and a combined force of Poland, the Teutonic Order, and several orders of knights (both on foot and on cavalry) sent by the Pope himself, including the feared Knights Templar and Hospitallers. The Mongols, according to their own records, deployed under 20,000 soldiers (some historians estimate only 8000), while the European army numbered between 32,000 and 60,000. While the numbers may not have been huge, the soldiers involved were the elites - one of the strongest medieval European armies ever assembled against the most deadly army in history - the very same army that had, at the battle of Baghdad, killed every person they could find at what was then one of the biggest cities in the world.

The main strategist for the Mongols, Subodai (who holds the record to this day for the most amount of land conquered with his brilliant tactics and strategies), correctly predicted the entire European strategy and sent his battle orders by letter from Hungary while also preparing to fight the Hungarians and their allies at the famous battle of Mohi. As the Polish marched forth to clash ranks, the Mongols set up a smokescreen using gunpowder to stop the Europeans coordinating with each other. The Mongols also had Polish speaking people shout fake orders around to the soldiers to manipulate them, at one point causing most of the Polish army to retreat. The knights that the Polish had deployed to flank the Mongol position were harassed by the speedy Mongol horse archers, and then deceived by the Mongol horsemen into thinking their own infantry were in fact Mongol infantry (after the European infantry had already been charged by the heavy mongol cavalry). Once the Polish had killed many of their own men, the main Mongol army feigned a retreat, knowing the heavy knights would charge faster than the infantry. The knights were simply picked off one by one with arrows, while the infantry were ambushed.

In the end, essentially the whole of the European army was slain. The Mongols had meant for the attack to be a mere diversion for their main battle at Mohi (even if Legnica proved far more important as I will show in a moment), so they did not press onwards - if they had, however, then the only army of any importance that remained for them to defeat was France, who fought in almost exactly the same way the Polish did. The Polish decided that, despite the fact all their main commanders and the vast majority of their army were slain, the Mongols must have taken such heavy losses they were forced to retreat. Although we now know this to be false, the Polish still honor April 9th as the day their country made a heavy sacrifice to save all of the rest of Europe from Mongol tyranny. Mongols, or Tarters as they were then called, were believed to be agents of the devil, so defeating them was seen in a spiritual sense as vastly significant.

Why (else) was this battle important?

First, this was the first time in history mainland European forces faced gunpowder. Rumors of it had existed for a long time, and the Mongols had previously used it in a small number of battles against the Russian principalities (although never to the same extent), but this is the first recorded use in a significant set battle on the European mainland. The introduction of gunpowder to Europe by such colonizers as the Mongols was arguably the later catalyst for European colonization with gunpowder, which has had a huge impact on the histories of whole of America, Africa, Oceania and southern Asia (India, Afghanistan, SE Asia etc).

Second, the smokescreen strategy had never been used before, hence why the Europeans were so totally unprepared for it. In modern warfare, smokescreens are used all the time to force enemies into different positions and to generally put them off. Indeed the use of smokescreens was among Napoleon's favorite tactics. They owe it all to Subodai and his strategy at this very battle.

Third, because Mohi was mostly an infantry and ranged unit battle, this is the one that taught the Europeans that maybe having the heaviest horses and biggest lances did not assure victory. Although it did persist for around a century, Legnica marked the beginning of the end of the custom of knighthood. In doing so, it again completely reformed the nature of western warfare.

Fourth, this was the first major battle that most of these powers, such as the Germans and French, had actually seen the Mongols in, rather than only hearing accounts from people running away from the Mongols (the Mongols were always happy to let a few run away to spread some fear in their enemies). Something they did not expect is for the commander to not even be at the battle-site. Indeed, it was custom for the Mongols to have the person in charge standing on a nearby hill issuing orders with flag signals, as it gave a better overview of the battlefield. The European custom was for the main commander to be the first to charge into battle. This also began to change after seeing the effectiveness of having a broad overview of the battle site at Legnica, as being in the thick of things is exactly what made the smokescreen so impossible to work with.

Fifth, the decimation the strongest knight orders in Europe had a significant impact on another series of wars where religion was invoked - the Crusades. Crusades were all notably less successful after Legnica, partly because it was an incredibly demoralizing victory and a serious embarrassment for those that earnestly thought God would protect their unit on the battlefield, but also simply because many of them died there and thus couldn't fight the Muslims.

Sixth, the sheer power of the battle's memory. It is Legnica that is remembered as the one that saved Europe, not Mohi, and the very idea of a narrative of "saving" a whole continent with a single battle is far more powerful than, say, a narrative of one nation being the dominant power in a continent.
Debate Round No. 3
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. The defeat of the talented Martel would open up Europe and even just taking France would have major effects in history. It does not seem possible that other, more mediocre generals, would be able to do what Martel could not.




larztheloser

Con

I thank my opponent for yet another good round.

Battle of Zama

In 202BC, on October 19th, Rome and Carthage fought a deciding battle to determine who would control the eastern Mediterranean. Carthage had 51,000 soldiers, under the command of the great general Hannibal. Hannibal had defeated the Romans time and time again, often using innovative strategies that are still admired today, such as at Cannae, where he destroyed the largest Roman army that had ever been raised. For centuries, the mere mention of his name was used by Romans to frighten Children, and "Hannibal" became a byword in the senate for a terrible disaster. However, he could never raise a large enough force to assault Rome. Now that he had one, victory here meant Carthaginian control of Italy.

The Roman force was composed of local mercenaries, hastily-recruited troops with no experience, and a very few that had been humiliated at Cannae. Still his army numbered only 40,000. Aside from Roman honor, the survival of Carthage was very much at stake - without Hannibal and without most of their army, Carthage could not defend itself. We know this to be historically true because this is what actually happened, the city of Carthage never organizing much of a formal defense in the third Punic war. Hannibal did have a reasonably good battle strategy, but two things happened. First, Scipio came up with the "divide into ranks" strategy to counter Hannibal's elephants, and get them to charge into the Carthaginian lines instead by blowing loud horns (again a new invention). This caused massive damage and confusion in Carthage's line. Still Hannibal managed to get the upper hand and rout the Romans. Scipio rode out to the retreating soldiers and convinced them to turn around and fight once more. This show of bravery unnerved the soldiers of Carthage. Together with this and the Roman cavalry being slightly superior, the Romans won.

In the end, Roman losses at the debate were only a meager 2,500. By contrast Hannibal lost 40,000 good soldiers, of which 20,000 were captured alive and taken as slaves to Rome.

Why was this battle important?

Even if the strategy was meaningless strategically (which it wasn't), the battle is remembered for the tactics of Scipio. Scipio turned Carthage's most powerful weapons against them, and he was remembered in almost every Roman historian's work as a genius. His influence on Roman military strategy, and the political influence he won as a result of this battle, in an of themselves changed the course of history.

Moreover, the huge influx of slaves to Rome and the unexpectedly large numbers of returning soldiers created a land-shortage crisis. This directly caused the affair of the Gracchi brothers and the military reforms of Gaius Marius, which ultimately caused the republic to crumble by making the army no longer loyal to the republic. It is difficult to imagine Rome without the emperors or the people who made that possible, such as Caesar whose name would go on to be a byword for "king" around the world (and still is in many languages). This is the battle that made it all possible.

Third, the strategic value of shifting the balance of power in the region is undoubtedly the thing that allowed Rome to rise to greatness. The entire region is Latinised for this very reason, and that continues to have impacts on our culture to this very day. Even the language we speak owes itself undoubtedly to this very battle, as does the food we eat.
Debate Round No. 4
1Historygenius

Pro

The Battle of Stalingrad
Year: 480 BC
Armies: Germany and other Axis Nations (Friedrich Paulus) vs. Soviet Union (Vasily Chuikov)

The Battle of Stalingrad (1942 to 1943) - At this battle, Germany and other Axis nations lost what is perhaps, the most important battle on the European Eastern Front in World War 2. Soviet troops were able to stop the Germans from taking total control of the city. Then, massed Soviet armies arrived on the flanks of the Axis troops and surrounded them, eventually leading to their surrender.

The Battle

What started a small battle led to the most important battle of World War 2. In 1942, the German 6th Army made up of 270,000 men was sent to attack Stalingrad, a Soviet city named after the nation's leader near the Volga River. The small amount of Soviet defenders did their best to stop the German army and soon the city was deadlocked for months. German and Soviet troops fought around the wreckage of the city. Soon the Germans and Soviets had millions of troops in and around the city.

By late 1942, the Soviets launched Operation Uranus which was an operation involving massive amounts of soldiers surrounding the Axis troops. The German commander, General Friedrich Paulus, asked Adolf Hitler allow a withdrawal, but Hitler refused. The Luftwaffe (German air force) tried to re-supply the 6th Army from the air, but failed. Two German Panzer divisions under the command of General Erich von Manstein were sent to try to breakthrough the Soviet troops, but failed. Eventually, the 6th Army was forced to surrender.

Had the Germans won?

If the Germans won, they would have won a great victory against the Soviets. Most Soviet oil fields are in the south near Stalingrad and if the Volga is captured then the Soviets would be unable to transport their oil up the river. The Soviets would lose a very valuable resource to the German war machine.

The Germans would likely then continue their campaign in the south, further spread out Soviet forces as they moved on which would contribute to the campaigns in the north and the center. This means the USSR would have a major problem and if the Germans capture Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow, then this likely would have led to the Soviet surrender.


larztheloser

Con

I know we said no refutations, but perhaps just a reminder of the rule that sieges are not to be included in this debate is in order. Stalingrad was not a pitched land or naval battle but a siege of a city (just because it has "battle" in the name does not mean it is not a "siege"). I would have used it several rounds ago otherwise, or maybe the Ottoman capture of Istanbul, or the battle of Baghdad I alluded to last round. In any event I thank my opponent for what has been a fun debate. Now for my final battle.

Battle of Hastings

I would give a full account of this battle, but it's more fun to look at this tapestry: http://www.hs-augsburg.de...

Apparently that's how they used to do cartoons ages ago. For those of you who have trouble reading the Latin inscriptions, you can read an English translation here: http://www.aemma.org...

On the 14th of October, 1066, William the Conqueror conquered something no foreigner has been able to do since - England. Many have tried to replicate William's success at Hastings and attack England. None have succeeded. William's Norman army met the old predominantly Viking culture, commanded by King Harold II (who died in action).

OK, I can't resist. I'll tell you what happened at the battle. Basically, the English forces had just won another major battle, beating back some jealous Vikings who had tried to plunder England at Stamford Bridge (Vikings weren't much of a unified empire). Wanting to decisively destroy all invaders and strike fear in the hearts of all his enemies, King Harold II immediately marched off the meet William's Normans who were also attacking, despite the advice of his advisers to wait until his army had rested. William had equally many troubles - a storm had destroyed many of his ships as he crossed the English Channel, killing many of his men. Each side deployed roughly 30,000 troops.

Harold's strategy was incredibly - line up the forces and jeer at the enemy. His entire army was infantry, most of them stereotypical ax-wielding Viking-like soldiers. William, however, was a little more careful. He used a mix of archers, infantry and archers. The Normans also used the newer crossbow technology to decimate the English army, although at first they had little effect because Harold had big shields. As the infantry lines clashed, William charged with his heavy cavalry, which were at the time the strongest in Europe by a mile. However, Harold's army was fierce. Despite William's vastly superior strategy, the English still routed the Norman infantry. Unable to resist the temptation, they broke ranks and charged at the fleeing troops. However, breaking ranks allowed the cavalry to gain the upper hand. At this, he also ordered his archers to fire up into the air towards the rear of the Norman lines to create confusion. King Harold looked up at the sky to check out what was going on, and an arrow hit him in the eye socket. He was slain shortly thereafter. The arrows rained down above the soldiers making their shields increasingly useless. Still the English fought bravely to the bitter end, keeping their oath of loyalty to the king.

On Christmas that same year, William was crowned the king of all England.

A memorial was created by William on the battlefield that stands there to this day, as William repented for the bloodshed he had caused at Hastings much like Ashoka the Great had over a thousand years earlier. Every year since then, the battle has been reenacted at the site to remember the courage of those who were there and honor the immense importance of the battle.

Why was this battle important?

Obviously for the British, this is the battle that created the greatest part of the present English culture. No other foreign influence has been quite so influential as the Normans. This matters for two reasons - firstly because the products of this culture, such as the Magna Carta, have had a huge influence on the rest of the world, for instance in the case of the Magna Carta by challenging the absolute power of kings. Secondly, because much of the world was then colonized by the British, they took on elements of this. Had the battle swung the other way, Britain would probably have advanced little more than Iceland for centuries, and be about as important to the world today as Norway. It probably is the single battle that has had the greatest influence on the English language, if not the single event of any sort, as French words mixed with the Norse ones. It made Britain into a European society.

Secondly, the battle had huge ramifications for warfare. It challenged the idea that an army should use one "primary" unit. Except for the Mongols during their invasions, European armies after Hastings always made sure to use a mix of different kinds of soldiers, working together to destroy their enemies. This continues into modern military theory with the idea of combined arms, the clear superiority of which was first demonstrated (in any battle we have a record of) at Hastings.

Third, with the arrival of Norman support, the need to keep slaves declined. Hastings marked the beginning of a general trend towards there being fewer slaves in England, and more slowly in Europe generally. Although the English proved massive hypocrites with their later massive slave-trading empire, England itself never really gained a significant population of slaves after Hastings, which is naturally a huge step forward for the civil rights of any society.

Fourth, the power of the elite in England was challenged as a direct result of William's reforms. This provided a model for change all throughout Europe, empowering the church and the people, bringing the dark ages well and truly to an end. William ordered the Domesday census, which is perhaps the most historically significant census in history. This battle is the one responsible for more law than any other.

Fifth, the Norman basis for England's modern existence later proved to be the catalyst for the Hundred Years War, a very significant series of engagements between England and France. These wars would change history. Joan of Arc would be nothing were it not for Hastings.

With that, I'd like to thank you all for taking the time to read this debate and consider our arguments in depth.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
Larz is the first person to beat me in a battles challenge!
Posted by DeFool 1 year ago
DeFool
In the first round of arguments, the famous battle of Salamis, associated with the very famous Battle of Thermopylae, is pitted against the Battle of Kalinga. While I feel that the story of Salamis was truncated somewhat (the battle was one of a series, and many important facts were not mentioned), I agree with Pro that this was the more influential engagement. Con argues that Kalinga marked the end of a period of militaristic expansion, which I thought actually removes it from consideration as "important:" it was the enlightened political conditions following the battle that led to the success of the Indian state following the Kalinga " not the battle itself. Win: Salamis.

In the next round, Napoleon"s defeat at Leipzig was set against a Mongolian invasion of Eastern Europe. Pro admits at the outset that by the Battle of Leipzig, Napoleon was in "grave trouble," indicating that the outcome of the battle was likely to occur " even if Napoleon had managed to defend his Grand Army at Leipzig. Against this was a battle from one of the armies of Genghis Khan in Europe. I disagreed with nearly every reason given by Con to consider the battle important except one: the unexpected and total nature of the Mongolian victory. I still do not consider the battle "important," because the Mongols only intended the conflict to be a diversion " a larger battle that could have reproduced the historic outcome could have still occurred. If the battle had been lost, it would have been "as intended;" and only a diversion. Since the Mongols elected not to continue the march into Western Europe, the battle had few lasting effects, in my view. However, it was more important than Napoleon"s inevitable defeat. Win: Genghis Khan.
Posted by DeFool 1 year ago
DeFool
(Continued)
In the next round, the Battle of Tours was compared to the Battle of Zama. In this round, Pro entirely failed to demonstrate the lasting effects of Tours, only stating, "chances are they won have taken over Europe." Far more convincing was the detailed descriptions of the consequences of Hannibal"s defeat at the hands of the great Scipio. Win: Rome.

In the final round the Battle of Stalingrad was placed opposite the Battle of Hastings. This round was a challenge for me. I fully agree that Stalingrad was much more "important" than Hastings, because the Norman control of the region eventually ended, and Hitler"s empire effectively ended at Stalingrad. However, by the rules of this debate, there is some question as to whether or not Stalingrad should be considered a "Siege." Judges were also asked to disregard rebuttals, which is how I was brought to realize that Stalingrad was potentially ineligible. I eventually decided to consider the battle, but with only the short defense provided by Pro" I was forced to award this win to Hastings. Although I agree that Stalingrad was the more important battle, I could not award the win based only on this presentation. Win, reluctantly: Hastings.

By my count, the final score was 1 win by Pro, 3 for Con.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
Ah, I am a fan of the Battle of Zama!
Posted by larztheloser 1 year ago
larztheloser
Fair enough, I suppose more detail is always better than less.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
Sorry, but I thought you would have preferred me to elaborate since you said it was better to give more information why an outcome hanged how it did. Since Athens is part of Greece I felt necessary to include it.
Posted by larztheloser 1 year ago
larztheloser
BTW, I was a bit annoyed that I couldn't say this in the debate, but I noticed you changed the end of your argument to make it sound like the Greeks would not have developed democracy. The Greeks never developed Democracy - only the city-state of Athens did, and that was long before the battle at Salamis. By this time Athens was ruled by a series of demagogues. Most of Greece was ruled by loosely-allied kings who went to war with each other somewhat frequently.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
I will also post the battle I did last time.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
You have nothing to fear Larz, only the history buffs on this website would be interested in a historical debate.
Posted by larztheloser 1 year ago
larztheloser
The problem with this debate is that I can say "if the others had won the Earth would have been taken over by aliens!" in every round and I'd win because you couldn't refute me. Voters who vote in this debate will have to exercise their own judgement, which is problematic given that votes are supposed to be reflections of the debater's intelligence, not the voter's. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of faith in the intelligence of voters.

I will take this later today, but for this reason, please be reasonable when you say what might have happened had the battle not gone the way it did.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 1 year ago
Chuz-Life
1HistorygeniuslarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: As battles (including and commentary analysis goes) I give rounds 1, 4 & 5 to Pro though I like Con's format much better in rounds 1-4. Especially round 3. Conduct to Pro as well because of Con's slight deviations from the rules. Good debate!
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
1HistorygeniuslarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Round two: Pro - I saw this a more important battle. 3: pro 4: tours > zama 5: con. Hastings in my opinion was more important. 3-2 (con had more information per each battle, which should warrant something ).
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 1 year ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
1HistorygeniuslarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm making it 3-2 in favor of Pro. While I preferred Con's writing style, wealth of information, and detailed explanations, I simply thought Pro had more important battles.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 1 year ago
Stephen_Hawkins
1HistorygeniuslarztheloserTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was a good and close one. In the end, to vote, I have to go on who made the more convincing case. HistoryGenius' cases were interesting, and some were more important that CON's, but time and time again, larz's case was more engaging and especially more convincing that the wars he put forth were more important. The Indian War of Asoka could have done with a bit more in the way of influence of Buddhism, but the Mongol-Polish war was one that really stood out as a great example. As a word of advice to PRO: a lot of the wars given were good, but the military tradition in many of the wars were staged in were revolutionised, which of course makes them massively important. Napoleonic Wars especially: the military tradition of Prussia in that war, as well as everything else, after then had a massive impact on the nations.
Vote Placed by DeFool 1 year ago
DeFool
1HistorygeniuslarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: In Comments