The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
quarterexchange
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Most Important Battles in World History

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,295 times Debate No: 24365
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

Please only accept this if you have the time and capability to debate this. By accepting this debate, you as my opponent agree to the debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure.

Full Resolution:

What where the four most important battles in world history?

This debate will be questioning the most important battles in world history. Voters will vote based on each argument, and which sounded more important.

Definitions:

Most: "Greatest, as in size or extent."[1]

Important: "Of much or great significance or consequence."[2]

Battle(s): "A hostile encounter or engagement between opposing military forces."[3]

Rules:

1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics.
4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure can not be changed in the middle of the debate.
5. In the case of the breaking of any of these rules, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure:

Round 1: Acceptance.
Rounds 2-5: Present one battle per round, provide arguments as to why you think that battle was important, and one may or may not post videos showing the battle. Videos explaining the battle should not be counted as sources. Rebuttal against your opponent's arguments is also optional.

Sources:

[1]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
quarterexchange

Con

I understand and accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. This will be fun. My battles will be in chornological order, not in order of importance.

Battle: The Greek Defense of the Mainland during the Greco-Persian Wars, the battles of Thermopylae and Salamis, 480 BC.

I. A Brief History of the Battle.

"When the Persians arrived at Thermopylae in mid-August, they initially waited for three days for the Allies to disperse. When Xerxes was eventually persuaded that the Allies intended to contest the pass, he sent his troops to attack. However, the Allied position was ideally suited to hoplite warfare, the Persian contingents being forced to attack the Greek phalanx head on. The Allies withstood two full days of Persian attacks, including those by the elite Persian Immortals. However, towards the end of the second day, they were betrayed by a local resident named Ephialtes who revealed to Xerxes a mountain path that led behind the Allied lines. Made aware by scouts that they were being outflanked, Leonidas dismissed most of the Allied army, remaining to guard the rear with perhaps 2,000 men. On the final day of the battle, the remaining Allies sallied forth from the wall to meet the Persians in the wider part of the pass to slaughter as many Persians as they could, but eventually they were all killed or captured."[1]

"The Persians had now captured most of Greece, but Xerxes had perhaps not expected such defiance; his priority was now to complete the war as quickly as possible. If Xerxes could destroy the Allied navy, he would be in a strong position to force an Allied surrender; conversely by avoiding destruction, or as Themistocles hoped, by destroying the Persian fleet, the Allies could prevent conquest from being completed. The Allied fleet thus remained off the coast of Salamis into September, despite the imminent arrival of the Persians. Even after Athens fell, the Allied fleet remained off the coast of Salamis, trying to lure the Persian fleet to battle. Partly because of deception by Themistocles, the navies met in the cramped Straits of Salamis. There, the Persian numbers became a hindrance, as ships struggled to maneuver and became disorganised. Seizing the opportunity, the Allied fleet attacked, and scored a decisive victory, sinking or capturing at least 200 Persian ships, therefore ensuring the safety of the Peloponnessus."[1]

II. Why Was the Battle so Important?

The battle was so important because a loss could have had massive ramifications for western civilization. The Greek army/navy was the most highly trained militarical force at the time in Europe. If the Persians had defeated the Greeks at Salamis, the gateway would have been open to the Persians to march through the rest of Europe. This would have gotten Europe under the influence of the Persians, who eventually, would have spread Islam throughout Europe. Christianity would very likely have died off with its followers. Not to mention, Alexander the Great's campaigns would not have been possible, and this would have stopped Hellenization from reaching Persia itself. We could be in a dumber world, or a smarter world.

"Had the Greeks lost in Salamis and we would be living in a completely different world. Historians believe, and I agree, that a Persian victory at the Straits would have gone as far as to dramatically alter the growth of Western Civilization as we know it.

This view is based on the premise that much of modern western society, such as philosophy, science, personal freedom and democracy are all rooted in the legacy of Ancient Greece. If Greece was conquered and subjugated by the Persians, then the wars of Alexander, the ultimate counter-attack of the Greek world against Persia, would have never been possible – a campaign which later on spread Hellenistic culture from Greece to Persia, India, Egypt and beyond."[2]

"Because the Battle of Salamis saved Greece from being absorbed into the Persian Empire, it essentially ensured the emergence of Western civilization as a major force in the world. Many historians have therefore ranked the Battle of Salamis as one of the most decisive military engagements of all time."[3]

III. Controlling the Hypothesis

III.i. Would the Perisans actually have invaded the rest of Europe?

They most likely would have since the Perisans always wanted to expand their empire. They might need to take a few years to regroup, but Europe would have fallen soon because there was not another major army or navy of Greek proportions in Europe.

III.i.a But what about the Roman Army? The Roman Army was quite small to what we think of the Roman Army. They were smaller, less equipped, and most importantly, had no navy. If the Persians could defeat the Greeks, they most certainly could have defeated the Romans.

III.ii. Could the Persians hold on to Europe?

This is a tougher question. All empires fall sooner or later, and so would have been the fate of the Persians. Would this entice Europe to revolt?

First of all, another Empire would have come out of the ashes of the Persian Empire. This most likely would have been another Arab type Empire. The hold on Europe would be secure by 640 AD.

Second of all, would Europe had revolted? This simple answer is no. Why? Because hellenization would not have spread to help aid Europe. They might have declared independence for a short time, but a new empire could easily have re-taken them over. Also, since Christianity would not be the European religion, there wouldn't have been such a will to fight.

III.iii. Would there be a lasting effect on Western Civilization?

Most definately. We will all be Arabs praticing Islam. I might not be able to post this argument online (because there might not be any internet), or, my mind and potential sources might be scanned to produce an argument in one second (that wouldn't be much fun though). We could all be riding camels or we could be flying to work everyday. Judaism might be a larger religion or it could have died out (literally).

IV. So at the End of the Day...

Western Civilization was in effect "saved" due to the Greek's effort at Thermopylae and Salamis because Western Civilization might not even exist, it would be all Middle Eastern Civilization. The world would be drastically different than the way we know it today. How is debateable, but it is fact that Western Civilization would be drastically different.

Again, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this great debate.

Sources:

[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]:http://inspirationpalace.com...
[3]:http://www.molossia.org...
quarterexchange

Con

quarterexchange forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

Ron-Paul forfeited this round.
quarterexchange

Con

quarterexchange forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

I was trying to give my opponent some extra time. Apparently I was 53 seconds too late. Oh well. He forfeited again. I win.
quarterexchange

Con

quarterexchange forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ron-Paul

Pro

Vote pro.
quarterexchange

Con

quarterexchange forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by innomen 4 years ago
innomen
Interesting debate, but yeah the resolution sucks, because it isn't really a resolution.
Posted by quarterexchange 4 years ago
quarterexchange
Can you just send this as a challenge to me so nobody else can accept it?
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Ok.
Posted by ldcon 4 years ago
ldcon
Well, I think I'd be interested in this debate. Off the cusp, I think I'd take from mostly >100 years ago.
Posted by quarterexchange 4 years ago
quarterexchange
I'll take this one.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
@SayWhat: Yes it is.
Posted by SayWhat 4 years ago
SayWhat
Your "full resolution" isn't a resolution.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 4 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
Ron-PaulquarterexchangeTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Ron-PaulquarterexchangeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Ron-PaulquarterexchangeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro's arguments were ridiculous, but Con forfeited so he wins. It's a pity he wasn't debating me.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
Ron-PaulquarterexchangeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FFs