The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Most Important Battles Challenge (4)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 4 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,309 times Debate No: 28966
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

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...
thett3

Con

Ok, I'll bite. Should be an interesting debate!
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 been 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. Britishm Belgian, 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, Belgian, 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. French reinforcements under Marshal Emmanuel de Groucy did not arrive. 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. This is mainly because of the spreading apart of his allies. Wellington would have been forced back to the Belgian coast to evacuate with the British. The Dutch, Belgians, and Prussians would be left to fend for themselves. The Prussians would be in a very bad position because they would be stuck between Napoleon and his reinforcements. The Dutch and the Belgians could in no way stand up to Napoleon.

As for Napoleon's two other enemies, Austria and Russia, they would be stuck in the same position they were in 1805. The Austrians would have to either advance into France or wait for the Russians. The latter was a bad choice in 1805 as it led to defeat and loss of 45,000 Austrian troops at the Battle of Ulm while the former means than an outnumbered Austria would be taking on the power of Napoleon. The emperor would shift his army south along with reinforcements to Italy.

When Napoleon would defeat the Austrians and Prussians he would likely have greater France. This means Belgium and northern Italy. If he wished to continue his conquests as in 1805 to 1812, he could move into Europe, force Prussia and Austria into alliances while putting back in the Duchy of Warsaw and other satelittes. This time he would either learn from, or not make the mistake of invading Russia, leading to a Britain-France stalemate at sea. Napoleon could then possibly rule until the end of his reign and then give it to his child or other relative to maintain the French empire.



thett3

Con

Thanks, HG.

I choose for my first round the battle of Poitiers (also known as the Battle of Tours, 732 AD). While perhaps not as well known as other battles, the implications of this battle for mankind were enormous.


Historical background

Islam had within almost a generation after Muhammad's death conquered much of the world, the Middle East, North Africa, and after crossing the straits of Gibraltar much of Iberia in a seemingly unstoppable advance; beginning to reach even Gaul (modern day France) conquering much of southern France (then know as Septimania) by the 730's. The decentralized Franks seemed to stand no chance against the might of Islam. When Charles Martel, the closest to"King" of the Franks there was, faced down the Islamic army at Poitiers, it's doubtful that many contemporary observers thought the Franks stood much of a chance against the Islamic army; however unlike most other Christian armies to face the Arabic armies, Martel's army did not flee, but stood their ground, managed to kill the Islamic general and routed the enemy. The turning point had begun.


Implications

The implications of this battle were threefold (note that "important" doesnt mean that the implications have to necessarily be positive, just significant to the history of the world):

A) The defeat marked a turning point in Islamic invasion of Gaul, the Franks consolidated and retook Septimania in 759 and thus the islamification of France was avoided. Unlike Spain, there would be no French reconquista, no French religious wars until the reformation, ect. For France clearly, the cultural and religious upheavals that would have occurred were avoided. One simply needs to think of all the historical events France took part in and imagine an Islamic France in place and imagine how their behavior would have been different, and it's clear that even just looking at France alone this battle is highly significant in world history, just to name a single example, its unlikely that the Christian reconquest of Spain would've succeeded with Millions of French Muslims just across the border ready to take up arms and fight for the cresent. To be sure, with a central foothold in Europe Islam would have spread its wings, possibly throughout all of Europe. More on this later.

B) The defeat blunted the Islamic advance into Europe. Barry S. Strauss, Professor of History at Cornell University explains[1] that, had the Franks lost at Poitiers, they likely would have lost their war against the Arabs and certainly failed to retake the South because the successor of Martel would be leading against the Muslims not "men made united and confident by their victory at Poitiers, nor facing, in the Muslims, an enemy that feared the Franks..." Strauss goes on to explain that, at the very least Southern France would remain under the banner of the cresent, but far more likely the inviting and weak cities of Paris and Orleans. Like the initial invasion of Spain,these raids likely would've turned into a complete conquest. From there, who knows where Islam would have advanced. Strauss says that its entirely possible that Islam would have even crossed the Channel and conquered the Anglo-saxons. The psychological blow and the resulting mentality of the Franks being, to use the common phrase, too tough of a nut to crack kept the Arab armies from making further serious incursions, only small raids after losing their war with the Franks. Just think, a Europe with a strong muslim presence if not domination, no pope, no crusades, no reformation, no Christianization of the new world, possibly not even Christianity as a serious force, ect. Poitiers clearly changed the enitre history of the world.

C) Martels victory allowed his successors to consilidate and tighten their hold over Gaul, and extend their empire. Even if for some strange reason the Muslims didnt push their advantage after victory at Poitiers, it's extremely doubtful that Martels successor, Charlemagne, would have been able to push his empire so far east with a hostile Muslim force in the south, and France would still be fragmented. Any region with considerable French influence (most of Europe, much of North America and the Indies, Vietnam and the French Pacific) would have been completely different than they are today because the power of the Franks would have been broken and their monarchy weak. Who knows, had France inherited the culture of the Muslims, there would have likely been no French philosophes and so no or a weakened American Revolution, no French revolution, no democracy wave, the entire world could still be in the ancien regime of princely rule!


Sources:

1. Strauss, Barry S. "The Dark Ages Made Lighter." What If: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. Vol. Collected. New York: American Historical Publications, 2001. 71-92. Print.
Debate Round No. 2
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 (most ships from Athens) 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). In fact, the Persian crews were even better than the Greek crews. Most of the Greek ships (specifically the ones from Athens) were new and just built with inexperienced crews. However, the Greeks made tactics specifically to conquer the Persian fleet. 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.

Its important to remember that victory was almost certain for the Persians because Xerses I, the Persian commander, planned to build a pontoon bridge into Athens, but because the Greeks now significantly controlled the seas, this was impossible.

After Salamis, the Greeks were permanently safe from conquest. Many historians believe that if the Greeks lost at Salamis, history would have changed as we know it. This is because most of the ideals we get are from Ancient Greece. The celebrated blossoming of influential Greek culture only happened after Salamis. [1,2,3]

Sources

1. Discussed by Green (The Year of Salamis), p xxiii and Holland, pp xvi–xxii
2. Holland, ppxvixvii.
3. http://web.archive.org...





thett3

Con

Thanks again HG.

For this round, my battle too will be that of an influential culture, that of the mighty Mongols led by Genghis Khan.

I choose a less known battle, that of the Battle of the Badger Mouth (1211), the first major battle of the Mongol-Jin war.


Background

To fully understand the implications of this battle, some preliminary understanding of the culture of the Mongols before their unification under Genghis Khan is required. For centuries these warriors lived in scattered tribes and clans, similar to a confederation; one people, but divided into several different pieces with different leaders and subcultures. Through clever diplomacy, manipulation, and minor battle, Genghis Khan (then known as Temujin) managed to united these formidable warriors, and led his new empire into its first major military engagement--war with the Jin Dynasty in northern China.

Although Genghis later commanded far greater numbers of soldiers, the Mongol forces at this time numbered no more than 100,000, 90% of whom were engaged in the Chinese campaign[1]. A staggering ~15% of Genghis's total forces were engaged in this single battle of Badger Creek. Genghis's victory here foreshadowed his future conquests as well as laying the groundwork for them; its extremely doubtful that the Mongol centralization experiment would have survived a major defeat here.


Implications

The battle, if Genghis lost, would have changed the course of history to an unimaginable degree. As previously stated, its highly improbable that the Mongol empire would have even existed past the first few years. Defeat would have almost certainly meant death for Genghis and most of his army, meaning that even if the empire survived, nearly 15% of the army would be dead, and the Mongols almost certainly would have lost their Chinese campaign (as it stands, even with their massive numbers in latter years the Mongols still did not defeat the Jin Dynasty until 1234, 23 years later). This means that no Mongol invasion would have occurred.

I contend that Mongol invasions were, by far, the single most significant cultural and military event in history. A simple look at the implications of the invasion will confirm this hypothesis. Recall also that defeat at Badger creek= No Genghis Khan and no Mongol invasions.


A) The Mongol invasions forever changed the demographic landscape of the world. So much killing occurred during the invasions that some estimates posit over 17% of the Worlds population at the time was massacred[2], and Genghis Khan raped and impregnated so many women that even today an estimated 8% of the male population of the former Mongol empire is a descendant of him according to DNA analysis[3]. Obviously with no Mongol invasions, the entire world would be almost inconceivably different just by looking at the people lost and born due to these wars.

B) The Mongol invasions also forever changed the cultural landscape of the conquered areas. Everywhere they rode, the Mongols brought about destruction the of cultures--hundreds if not thousands of unique clans, tribes, and even nations would demolished or altered, cultures forever lost to history. Indeed, many historians posit that the famous Russian xenophobia can be attributed to their experiences at the hands of the Mongols[4], this xenophobia kept Russia from Industrializing fully until post-WW1. Imagine the effects a Russia of the 1800s with the countries vast population and resources combined with industrialization, we would have likely experienced a period of Russian hegemony, not British. One only needs to imagine every country that was under the control of the British (including India, around 1/7th of the worlds population) to see how radically different things would be.

Moreover, its effect on the culture of Islam (Muslims currently make up nearly a quarter of the worlds population, so any cultural change for them has incalcuable effects on humanity as a whole) was enourmous. Historian Cecelia Holland explains[5] : "The psychological impact of the invasion was incalcuable. Before the Mongols swept through, the Islamic world...was intellectually vigorous, bold, adventuresome, full of poetry and science and art...after the invasion, the dour conservatism of the fundamentalists darkens it all." The impacts are twofold:

1. The destruction of Islamic power (from which they have never recovered) kept the Muslims from asserting their newly won dominance over the Christians after the Crusades, keeping Christian Europe from being under Muslim hegemony. Not only did this allow Christianity to survive strongly in Europe, but also to populate the new world. Everyone who is Christian or Muslim is impacted by this battle. So devastated was the heartland of Islamic world that many modern scholars hypothesize that even today, the regions economy has yet to recover[6].

2. The development of the world was stunted--the great Arabic scholars and intellectuals of old were killed, their cities and academic centers destroyed, and their culture of intellectual foresight, critical thinking, and science forgotten. The changing of Muslim culture from Progressive to Regressive doomed the only scientic/intellectual culture left in the world. It was not until the enlightenment some ~300 years later that classical and arabic culture was rediscovered. Who knows how far humanity may have advanced had Genghis Khan never risen to power and destroyed the first sparks of science!


Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...
4. Holland, Cecelia. "The Death That Saved Europe: The Mongols Turn Back", ." What If: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. Vol. Collected. New York: American Historical Publications, 2001. 101. Print.
5. Ibid
6. Ibid, 100-101


Debate Round No. 3
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. This is because the oil field ins the caucuses would be guaranteed to be taken as the Germans in the south could focus their efforts there. The Germans could also set up on a defensive line on the bank of the Volga in case of counter attacks by the Red Army (so they might fail instead win when they launched their counter attack.

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.

http://www.youtube.com...
thett3

Con

For this round I choose a famous battle who's true implications are, most unfortunately, perhaps not as well known as the battle itself is. I choose the defeat of the Spanish armada by the English in 1588.



Background

Phillip II of Spain in 1588 commanded a vast empire, controlling not only Spain but the Philippines, most of South America (including the vast Gold and Silver mines of Peru and Mexico), much of North America, the Caribbean (including the valuable sugar producing islands of Cuba and Hispaniola) and parts of Africa, along with fragments of other European powers like Southern Italy and chunks of France. The immolation and plunder of the ancient meso-American powers led to Spain becoming incredibly wealthy, and its vast territorial realms provided it with virtually unlimited resources. Europe was facing a hegemon the likes of which hadn't been seen since the mighty Roman empire some thousand years ago. So massive was Spains influence in its imperial holdings that even today the peoples there speak Spanish, and interbreeding wiped them out as a pure race, even today the inhabitants are called "hispanics". And facing down this great imperial power was an obscure island nation, freshly emerged from a religious civil war. When Phillip sent his mighty armada to destroy them, it's unlkely that anyone thought the underdog English had a chance.



Implications

I think one of the greatest failings of modern education is the failure to emphasize the importance of this battle. Just think: With the British Navy in ruins, all British exploration would come to a screeching halt. Even if we make the (very very unlikely) assumption that *all* Spain would do had they won would destroy the British Navy, the historical changes are still massive. Just to name a few:

A. North America would remain under Spanish hegemony. The inhabitants of what is today the US would be speaking Spanish, not English.

B. You can forget about Common Law and individual freedoms anywhere except England. These are manifestations of ancient anglo-saxon traditions eventually culminating in the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. So obscure are the concepts of rule of law and habeas corpus that these words dont even exist in other languages and are ridiculously hard to explain to those who's legal culture doesnt place the emphasis on the individual[1] that common law does. No limited government, or "human rights" (to use to modern terminolgy), no jury trials, no presumption of innocence, no religious toleration, and no constitutions just to name a few of the modern legal concepts that arrose from Common Law.

C. No British navy and a strong Spanish one = no power to check Spain. The defeat of the armada was the turning point that led to a long, slow decline from which the Spanish never recovered. Without this, the Spanish would be free to explore and colonize elsewhere, along with strengthening their hegemony in Europe. Most inhabitants in North America would be, not protestants but Catholics, and its improbable that any of the other war wracked nations of Europe could muster anything to challenge Spain.


Of course, all of this becomes even more evident if the Spanish did invade England and despose of Elizabeth I as they had planned. Recall that one of the reasons for Englands unique legal, political, and religious culture along with its ability to survive wars that devastated the rest of Europe was its isolation from the continent. Bringing Englad under Spain's hegemony as a vassal state complicated matters, its probable that the English would have had to send troops to help aid Spain in its foreign wars-its unlikely that England would have ever became a nation of prominence. From this:

A. No British empire. Over 1/4th of the world was once under British control, so the histories of all these lands, and thus the entire world, becomes inexplicably different.

B. It's unlikely that the Spanish would have suffered the decline that they did--fresh off a victory against the last major power to stand firmly against them, and with their vast Navy able to project power elsewhere they would have colonized and dominated elsewhere. There would be far less English speakers and protestants than there are today.

C. As detailed above, the entire legal heritage of the world would be vastly different if it was almost all under civil law, no common law.

D. Unlike the British who showed at least *some* toleration of the Native Americans, the Spanish were absolutely brutal, enslaving and killing them without mercy. Its doubful that even the straggling handfuls of Native cultures that today exist in in North America would still exist. They would all be lost to history.



Sources:

1. Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the lAw (Indianapolis, Ind.: Uberty Classics, 1991), p.35. Print.
Debate Round No. 4
1Historygenius

Pro

The Battle of Vienna

This Battle was also one of the most important in world history. The Ottoman Empire's goal was to expand Islam into Europe and claim all of Europe for Allah. 150,000 to 300,000 troops under Kara Mustafa Pasha fought a mixed force of some 80,000 troops under the Polish King John Sobrieski near Vienna one September in 1683 and lost. The battle marked the end of Islamic expansion into Europe and resulted in their commander, Mustafa Pasha, being executed by the Turks for his mishandling of the battles for Vienna. Had Pasha attacked when he first arrived at the city earlier that July, Vienna probably would have fallen. By waiting until September, however, he gave time for the Polish Army and their allies to arrive to break the siege.

What if The Ottoman Empire had won?

The Ottoman expansion would have continued. Vienna marked the time that the Ottoman expansion stopped, so the could continue after that. The Ottomans also eventually lost the key territories of Hungary and Transylvania as a result after sixteen years of exhausting warfare, mainly caused by the major defeat at Vienna.

The Ottoman Empire has always played a key role to where it has stood and expanding further into Europe would mean a further important role in Europe. How far would they go if they took Vienna? Prague? Berlin? As far as Paris? Ottoman expansion would be quite different in Europe as it would mean Europeans would be different culturally and politically than under their own monarchs.

http://en.wikipedia.org...;
http://www.wien-vienna.com...


thett3

Con

Thanks for the debate, HG.


I choose for my final round the Battle of Adrianople (378).

Background

Once the undisputed hegemon of the Western world, the Roman empire was suffering a decline from which, in our world, they never recovered. In 378, the Romans were led by the Eastern Roman emperor to stop the advance of the Gothic invaders at Adrianople, just outside of modern day turkey; they were crushed in a humiliating and decisive defeat. This defeat was a major turning point, which militarily devastated the Romans and psychologically invigorated their opponents--the days of unrivaled Roman hegemony were over.


Implications

Valens army was intended to deter the Gothic advance--they were to show strength and a brave face and, if deterence failed, to fight the Goths to keep them from advancing into the Balkans. They failed in virtually every respect. The Goths shattered their army, killing around 25,000 Roman soldiers, enough according to Strauss[1] "to imperil Rome's manpower needs." Had the Romans managed to win the battle (which, in all likelihood, they should have) the following changes to the world would have likely occurred:

1). The Western Roman empire would not have been destroyed, or surely not as fast. Less than 30 years after this battle the goths sacked Rome[2], which was an incredibly massive psychological turning point (indeed, the first time in 800 years that Rome had fallen to an enemy). Stopping the Goths at adrianople would have kept them from sacking Rome, and Roman hegemony would not have ended that day. From this:

A. The dark ages would be postponed, or not have occurred at all. The decline of classical culture and progress that occurred with the collapse of the Roman empire would have not occurred had the empire survived, and thus the development of humanity would be greater than it is today.

B. Individual Freedoms would not be as respected as they are today. Roman hegemony would have ensured that English common law (which is the most freedom valuing legal system today) would never have existed, as continued Roman occupation of britannica would have wiped out much of anglo-saxon culture. Moreover, the quasi-stateless order that emerged under Feudalism where each man was essentially the soveirgn on his own land would not have occurred since the Roman empire would still rule, and these rights didnt exist under the Romans.

C. The development of every Western European language (romance languages) would have been different as these developed from Latin after the Roman empire collapsed, and the surviving Roman empire would have kept the populations Latin speaking.



2. Moreover, a Roman victory here would have changed the course of the Eastern Roman empire as well. Indeed, the settlement of the Balkans by the barbarians (rendering these territories de-facto rival states) kept the Eastern side from ever regaining its strength. While this empire far outlived its western counterpart, had it survived strong during this era and been able to present a strong face to the armies of Islam perhaps the islamic conquest of Turkey and North Africa would have been prevented and the knowledge lost at the sack of Constantinople would have been saved. This would obviously have changed world history, as a typical example, WWI would have not occurred had the Balkans not devolved into the fragmented area it became with the settlement of different barbarian tribes in different terrirories. At the very least, without rival states to the North the Eastern empire could have asserted/kept its hegemony for longer in the Balkans and Turkey--thus there would be far more greco-roman culture and Greek speakers today. Who knows, the Empire may have even survived to this today!


Thanks to my opponent for the debate.


Sources:

1. Strauss, Barry S. "The Dark Ages Made Lighter." What If: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. Vol. Collected. New York: American Historical Publications, 2001. 71-92. Print.


2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(410)
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
No, I have lost before, these are just fun battles challenges I enjoy.
Posted by thett3 1 year ago
thett3
so ummm.... does this make me the new master historian?
Posted by BlackVoid 1 year ago
BlackVoid
RFD: The implications Con gives have a much higher magnitude than Pro's, but also, Con is more specific about his impacts. For instance, Pro says in R2 that had Napoleon won Waterloo, he could have conquered all of Europe. But he doesn't explain how that would have affected European culture and how future generations would be different. In contrast, Con specifically outlines the effects of Poitiers - Islam spreads across Europe, Christianity is significantly weaker than it is today, and the possibility that the American and French revolutions don't occur. They're both greater in magnitude and more specific.

Pro has good impacts in R3. We would have a different kind of democracy than we do today, and Greece would have been controlled by Persia. But this is pretty easily outweighed by Con's impacts of 17% of the world population being saved, Russia becoming a world hegemon instead of Britian, and technology/science being significantly more advanced.

In R4, Con's impacts become difficult to outweigh. The USSR surrendering is Pro's best argument in the whole debate, but still pales in comparison to: The US speaking Spanish instead of English, individual rights becoming a mockery worldwide, and most US citizens being Catholic instead of Protestant. Pro could have done more to explain how a USSR surrender would have affected the world.

Pro's R5 impacts are similarly underdeveloped. The Ottoman empire would have expanded, and Europe "would be different culturally and politically". But HOW would they be different? What would their culture be like today? Con's arguments about the Dark Ages being delayed, the Roman empire surviving, and much of the world speaking Latin instead of English are more compelling.

tl;dr version: Thett ran a bunch of impacts that are pretty extreme and difficult to outweigh.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
If you want to.
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
"@imabench I use the title, no one has to agree with it."

I believe that Jimtimmy uses the same excuse for why he calls himself president..... Shall I go ahead and classify you both as blind idiots then?
Posted by TheDevilsAdvocate 1 year ago
TheDevilsAdvocate
I would have loved to do this
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
@thett you would not be the first person I have lost to, but I have won 5.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
No, its a military engagement.
Posted by thett3 1 year ago
thett3
Hey not that I plan on making an argument like this, but just out of curiosity would a duel (a 1 v 1 battle) count as a battle?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ockcatdaddy 1 year ago
ockcatdaddy
1Historygeniusthett3Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: both were well balanced debates and i cant ecide whom to give the points to both cited properly so tie in that grammar was spell checked so tie convincing arguements have to go tie there to although i did enjoy the pictures that went with the battles
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 1 year ago
BlackVoid
1Historygeniusthett3Tied
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: Comments
Vote Placed by darkkermit 1 year ago
darkkermit
1Historygeniusthett3Tied
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: CON cites how battles would've changed the course of human history and modern day era. He states how it would've change political, cultural, and modern day territories. PRO only explains how his battles would've effected a war, but does not adequately explain how one side winning or losing the war would effect the world.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 1 year ago
royalpaladin
1Historygeniusthett3Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to go ahead and cast my ballot for thett because he did a really nice job every round selecting battles that were more impactful and more interesting (in terms of creativity: HG stuck to well-known Western battles for the most part, while thett was more creative and was willing to go outside of Western History or explore the implications of battles that most people do not really think about). I am also giving sources to Con since he cited academics almost every round while HG cited Wikipedia, meaning that the quality of his sources was much higher than the quality of HG's sources. Thett3 is now the Master Historian of DDO ;)