Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57

Thread: The battles (or wars) that shaped history

  1. #1
    Spartan JKM's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    427

    Default The battles (or wars) that shaped history

    This is tough; no battle in recorded history is 'trivial', but the specific question is, what would have happened if the result of a battle was reversed? Of course, an impertinence of hindsight must be identified.

    Here are some major ones:

    Thymbra (Sardis) 546 B.C.
    Marathon 490 B.C.
    Gaugamela 331 B.C.
    Sentinum 295 B.C.
    Metaurus 207 B.C.
    Kai-hsia (Giaxia) 202 B.C.
    Pydna 168 B.C.
    Guandu 200 A.D.
    Chalons 451 A.D.
    Tours 732 A.D.
    Hastings 1066 A.D.
    Manzikert 1071 A.D.
    Crecy 1346 A.D.
    Constantinople 1453 A.D. (siege)
    Vienna 1529 A.D. (failed siege)
    The Spanish Armada 1588 A.D.
    Saratoga 1777 A.D.
    Waterloo 1815 A.D.
    Britain 1940 A.D.
    Stalingrad 1942-1943 A.D.
    Dien Bien Phu 1954 A.D.

    If the Persians triumphed at Marathon in 490 B.C., would Classical Europe had become a vassal of eastern kings rather than states, most notably Athens and Rome, governed by its citizens (or a body-politic)? Of note - without the great naval victory ten years later at Salamis over Xerxes' fleet, which held the shaky Greek alliance, Marathon would be insignificant in terms of historical influence. Thus we have to consider military history's 'ripple' effects.

    What if the Athenians had triumphed at Syracuse over Gylippus' Spartans. What would have become of the growing city states of Rome and Carthage?

    If the Muslim naval contingent had won at Diu (western India) in 1509, they would have had control of the trade routes with the Far East. Instead, Francisco de Almeida established a Portuguese foothold, followed by the rest of the European colonial powers, in the Far East. The immense source of wealth provided by the Indies trade routes came under European control in the subsequent centuries. This was incredibly significant.

    What if Hasdrubal Barca had linked up with Hannibal in 207 B.C.? Claudius Nero's extraordinary march to the Metaurus with a picked force, keeping Hannibal in the dark of his actions (albeit all we know for sure is that Hannibal didn't budge), was one of the decisive campaigns in military history. Hasdrubal had also been thwarted in his attempt to march to Italy one year after Cannae at Dertosa, in northeastern Iberia (Spain), by Gnaeus Scipio, 8 years before the Metaurus. This lesser famous battle than the Metaurus was very significant because if Hasdrubal had broke through to Italy to join Hannibal at this juncture, when Rome was againt the ropes following Cannae, she would have likely succumbed to the double force, while Iberia would certainly be lost, as Carthaginian victory would have caused a change of feeling amongst the wavering and even pro-Roman tribes there.

    If Alexander had been stopped at Gaugamela, Hellenism may not have had the far reaching effects it did under his Successors.

    Saladin's great victory over Christendom at Hattin in 1187 expunged the Europeans' dominance over the Holy Land. The Muslim presence established was never substantially threatened until 1948.

    What if the Saxons repelled William at Hastings in 1066? Would England had been shaped by more a backwater Scandinavian mainstream?

    Gonzalo de Cordoba's victory over the French at Cerignola in 1503 witnessed the first time, on a substantial scale, in history in which gunpowdered small arms was the key factor.

    Edward III's smashing win at Crecy in 1346, in which the longbow made its striking effect, was probably the beginning of the end of chivalry, as a new system of dismounted combat was effectuated.

    In 1221, if the able Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu, trying to lure the Mongols into hilly terrain as he had successfuly done a year earlier at Parwan, in which he crushed a Mongol force, held off Chinggis Khan at the Indus River? This would have grinded a halt, at least for a while, the Mongol swath of destruction, giving hundreds of thousands stronger resolve to resist a not-invincible Chinggis Khan. How different would the cultural structure of the world, so affected by the transmission of culture from East to West by the Mongols, have been?

    Would Xiang yu, if victorious over Liu Bang at Kai-hsia in 203 B.C., had prevented the cultural unity which has remained in China ever since. He seemed to be interested in creating separate kingdoms during his rise.

    The Battle of Talas, fought in central Asia (Turkestan) between Arab and Chinese forces in 751, seemingly decided which of the two civilizations would predominate the huge region. Moreover, the crossing of the two cultures had incredibly substantial reverberations for the history of technology as well; some Chinese prisoners taken to Samarkand taught the Arabs how to manufacture paper, thus introducing this revolutionary asset into the Islamic world.

    What if Belisarius had not suppressed the Nika Riots in Constantinople in 532? Would Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis, the foundation of law practised in most of Continenatl Europe today, been published?

    What if the Luftwaffe had not abandoned the onslaught of the RAF airfields and sector stations on September 7, 1940? To no consolation to the poor citizens of London and Coventry, Hitler's unleashing of the fury of his air force upon England's cities allowed for the RAF to regroup, who seemed at the end of its capacity to endure. However, many claim the RAF was never in the danger that popular tradition has presented; it seems they had plenty of fighters in reserve.

    The Battle of Bunker Hill (Breed's Hill, actually), fought in 1775, was technically a British victory, but the casualties suggest otherwise. The patriotic stand by some 1,600 militiamen prevented the impending revolution against Great Britain from being stillborn.

    "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!"

    A Confederate victory at Antietam (Sharpsburg) in 1862 might have procured European aid, even Russian aid, to their cause against the Union, which certainly could have lifted the Federalist naval blockade.

    How about smaller battles, but of huge consequence, such as Mohammed's victory at Badr in 624? Or the numerous times Constantinople was the juncture of conflicting empires? Vienna in 1529?

    Perhaps some battles were not as decisive as some have claimed.

    Was Charles Martel's famed victory at Tours as decisive as has been claimed? How much farther could the Moorish advance have gone if they had been victorious over the Franks?

    Could Rome have absorbed the unforgiving lands of Germania, beyond the outposts they had already established, even if Varus and his 3 legions hadn't been wiped out in 9 A.D. in the Teutoburger Wald?

    There are so many. Your thoughts, fellow posters?

    Thanks, Spartan JKM :original:
    Last edited by Spartan JKM; July 03, 2009 at 09:51 PM. Reason: additional trivia

  2. #2
    Senator
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    I would say either Marathon or Gaugamela were the biggest turning points in the history of mankind. To the best of my knowledge, there wasn't any organized resistance beyond the Greek cities which could stop or even slow down the Persians from expanding into the rest of Europe. People truely underestimate the significance of these battles.
    Last edited by avesta; July 15, 2005 at 12:42 AM.

  3. #3
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY, US
    Posts
    6,521

    Default

    Good list and from this and the Alexander topic, you seem to have quite a knowledge of history.

    I have one thing though, Im not sure if i agree that Chalons was so significant, it only delayed the fall of rome by 25 years. Ok well actually now that i think about it as im writing, it is because it kicked the huns (well not totally but within 3 years) out of europe and with atilla's death, his empire was gone. It would have significantly changed the history of europe and culture. Sorry for changing positions like that, i literally realized i was wrong while i was typing.

  4. #4
    MaximiIian's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    12,896

    Default

    Lake Peipus, 1242 (I think), Grunwald, 1410, etc.
    Chalons, or for that matter, the earlier battle of Adrianople, really decided the fate of all of Europe in the future.

    Or pretty much any battle during the War of the Spanish Succession would be majorly important. That war really did decide what the borders of the continent would be for the remainder of the century.

  5. #5
    Seleukos's Avatar Hell hath no fury
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, US
    Posts
    8,866

    Default

    You passed up an extremely and decisive battle that occured in 190 BCE. That battle was the Battle of Magnesia.

    During the Syrian War, after being defeated in Greece, Antiochus III retreated to Asia. To his surprise, in late 190 BC the Romans crossed over into Asia for the first time, where Antiochus was gathering his forces. The Roman army was under the nominal command of the inexperienced consul, Lucius Cornelius Scipio, but actually led by his brother Publius Scipio Africanus, the conquerer of Hannibal. At the request of Eumenes II, King of Pergamon, whose capital was under seige by the Seleucids, Scipio boldly advanced on Antiochus' position.

    Pursued in mid-December by the Romans up the river Phrygius, the Seleucids established a camp near Magnesia. Romans had about 30,000 troops and 2,800 cavalry, including 800 from Pergamon, under king Eumenes II. Antiochus' army numbered some 70,000, and had among it elephants, scythe-chariots, and heavily armored cavalry. Despite his overwhelming advantage in numbers, Antiochus, knowing the power of the legions, was loath to fight, staying in a strongly fortified camp on Mount Sipylos near the town of Magnesia on the Hermos river in Lydia.

    Africanus fell ill, and command devolved to his adjutant Gnaeus Domitius. Domitius repeatedly offered battle while Antiochus refused it. After a week, Antiochus, perhaps seeing that his men were becoming demoralized by his lack of action in the face of such a small opposition force, finally came out to fight.

    As the armies were arrayed for battle, it is said that he turned to Hannibal, the famous Carthaginian general who accompanied his entourage, to enquire whether these forces grandly arrayed in their gold, jewels and rich silks would be enough for the Romans. "Indeed they will be more than enough," replied Hannibal, "even though the Romans are the greediest nation on earth!"

    Orders of battle Roman infantry (c. 22,000) in the center on the right were some 3,000 light-armed Achaean and Pergamene infantry, then most of the cavalry (including the Pergamene contingent), and finally 500 more light-armed infantry on the left they posted a small cavalry force and relied on the steep banks fo a river for protection on that side; kept their 16 African elephants behind the lines as a reserve, since they knew Antiochus had a far greater number of Indian elephants (54). Antiochus put his phalanx of 16,000 in the center, 32 ranks deep, divided into 10 sections with 2 elephants in each gap on the right, he put 1,500 Galatian infantry, 3,000 heavily armored cavalry, and another 1,000 regular cavalry, followed by 16 elephants, the royal bodyguard, 1,200 mounted archers, 3,000 light infantry and 2,500 archers, and finally 4,000 slingers and archers on the left, 3,500 allied infantry; 2,700 light-armed auxilliaries; 3,000 heavily armoured cavalry and 1,000 regular, and in front of that his scythe chariots and camel-mounted Arab archer-swordsmen; then a mass of light-armed troops and 16 elephants

    Eumenes at the outset disposed of the scythe-chariots and camels by sending in archers, slingers, and dart-throwers, with some cavalry support, to shower the horses with missiles ended up throwing the horses and camels into a panic, disposing of that threat before the battle proper began the panicked chariots also caused most of the supporting troops on Antiochus' left to take flight, leaving the armored cavalry holding that wing.

    The battle began with a charge by the powerful Seleucid right cavalry wing commanded by Antiochus himself. This drove their opponents from the field and drew the Seleucid horse off in pursuit. Eumenes, commanding the Roman right wing, then attacked and broke the Seleucid left wing. Antiochus pursued the retreating legion as far as the Roman camp, which was stoutly defended by the tribune Aemilius.

    Eumenes had routed the Seleucid wing opposed to him, and the elephants intermingled with the formidable Seleucid phalanx had been panicked by the Roman light troops, allowing the legions to conduct their bloody execution amongst the Seleucid infantry.

    In the centre, the Seleucid pike phalanx was arrayed with elephants in the intervals. Romans took advantage of this disturbance on the enemy's left and sent their cavalry against the flank Antiochus' heavy cavalry, without its proper auxilliary support, was broken immediately (many of them cut down because their heaviness prevented effective evasion), and the Romans proceeded to hit the light-armed troops between the cavalry and the phalanx when these were broken, panic began to spread into Antiochus' phalanx. They put up a good fight against the Roman legionaries, until the elephants were driven off and the pikes were outflanked and destroyed. Romans moved their infantry forward, began pelting Antiochus' phalanx with their javelins. Roman soldiers moved out of the way of the elephants and cut their hamstrings as opportunity allowed.

    The Seleucid force was essentially annihilated before the cavalry under Antiochus could return to the field. Thus, just like in the previous battles of Raphia and Ipsus, the lack of control over the cavalry arm lost the battle. As at Raphia 27 years before, his pursuit was over-long and by the time he returned to the centre of the battlefield his cause was lost.

    On the Roman left, however, Antiochus was able to press on the enemy's lightly-guarded flank, which had moved away from the river banks to maintain contact with the center drove the Roman cavalry and some of the infantry back to the Roman camp. When the Romans approached the camp, they were ordered to return to battle, and reinforced by reserves from the camp and a detachment of cavalry from the right (where Antiochus by now was routed) turned to make a stand. When Antiochus saw the soldiers he had been pursuing turn about to face him again, with reinforcements approaching, he turned and fled

    By now, all of Antiochus' army was in a dangerously chaotic rout Antiochus' pursuit on his right meant that now both flanks of his phalanx were pretty much unprotected Romans pursued, slaughtered, and took Antiochus' camp. Antiochus' losses said to be some 50,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry, with 1,400 captured along with 15 elephants Roman losses were only 300 infantry and 49 cavalry Magnesia left Antiochus more or less completely impotent.

    The battle established the Attalid dynasty of Pergamon as the dominant power in Asia Minor. Two years later Antiochus was forced to agree to a humiliating peace, which settled the fate of Greece and effectively ended Seleucid influence in the Mediterranean.
    http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/magnesia-190bc.htm

    Now, because of this defeat, he lost everything in Asia Minor outside of the Taurus mountains. What if he didnt lose control of his cavalry and actually won the battle? He would have been very easily pressed to take the rest of Asia Minor and take Greece. Performing a complete 360 on the Romans, opposite of what really happened. Giving a severe blow to the Romans and thier future conquests.

  6. #6
    Tacticalwithdrawal's Avatar Ghost
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Stirling, Scotland
    Posts
    7,013

    Default

    I'd take Waterloo and Stalingrad off the list.

    Waterloo because even if napoleon had won, the Russians and Austrians were closing in and there was no way they would have let him survive. The only real big effect a win at Waterloo may have had is Canada being part of US as the British pull back forces from America to fight Nappy. But I doubt they would have bothered.

    Stalingrad should be off the list for roughly the same reason. The Germans winning would not have made a huge difference to the war. It would have prolonged it but the Russian war machine was always going to out-produce the Germans.

    One battle missing is the battle of Bouvines in 1214, it is the battle with probably the most profound effect on modern society of any battle. In 1214 John I of England was defeated by Philip II of France. This was the last in a long line of defeats and John returned to England to raise more money to go back to France.

    The Nobles of England were not happy with this and the result of their unhappiness was the Magna Carta. Without that one document an awfull lot of modern society would not be in place (including the American Constitution). Admitedly Bouvines was just the final straw, but it was the one that pushed the Nobles to act and force through Magna Carta.
    : - It's my smilie and I'll use it if I want to......
    ______________________________________________________________

    Ave Caesar, Morituri Nolumus Mori (in Glaswegian: gae **** yrsel big man)
    ______________________________________________________________
    Child of Seleukos, Patron of Rosacrux redux, Polemides, Marcus Scaurus, CaptainCernick, Spiff and Fatsheep

  7. #7
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Columbia, MD, USA
    Posts
    1,346

    Default

    If Germany won at Stalingrad, they would have won, or at least managed to get a seperate peace with the Soviet Union. The invasion of France by the Allies would have been delayed, and those massive Soviet offensives of 1944 would have much less ffect because Hitler would have taken the Caucausus oil fields and industries. Stalins war machine would be massively damaged, and Germany would only be getting stronger when Speer's efforst really get the German economy pumping out weapons and suchlike.

  8. #8
    Aaron88's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NOWHERE, Canada
    Posts
    214

    Default

    If the greeks had lost greece to the persians the world would have been a dramatically different place, more so in my opinion, than any other people. They were the first "civilized" Europeans and their culture changed Europe from barbarianism to Graeco-Roman. It could be argued that there would not have been a Roman Empire, or that if there were, it would be very different without the greek influence.

  9. #9
    MaximiIian's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    12,896

    Default

    What is the first reorded war in human history/prehistory?
    Last edited by MaximiIian; July 15, 2005 at 02:58 PM.

  10. #10

    Default

    ...Stalingrad was a meaningless battle. It didn't really matter which side won, the Germans had essentially thrust themselves into an urban meatgrinder where the side with the larger manpower reserves(Soviets) could afford the losses while the Germans couldn't.
    ...Victory there for Germany would have captured NOTHING essential to the Soviet war effort. If Hitler had gone after the Caucasus oilfields instead, THAT would have been critical, and could have won the war for the Axis.

  11. #11

    Default

    I'm currently reading a book called what if which is rather good. It contains a collection of essays by Military historians on military turning points of the last 3,000 years.One of the most interesting is what if the Assyrians had taken Jerusalem in 701 B.C . It talks about how that if Judaism had dissappeared from the face of the earth then its two daughter religions, Christianity and Islamcould not of come into existance. Our world would have became so different in ways that we couldn't imagine.....

    If any of you are interested in the things talked about in this tpoic I suggest that you should get What if?

  12. #12

    Default

    stalingrad was anything but meaningless, had Germany won there would be nothing to stop them from capturing the oil fields in the Caucuses, with that oil they can launch major armored offensives at Leningrad and Moscow, if those 2 fall, Russia loses

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hapsburg
    What is the first reorded war in human history/prehistory?
    Sumerian City States of Southern Mesopotamia (circa 3500 BCE). Namely Eridu, Kish, Lagash, Uruk, Ur and Nippur. Constantly at war with one another in order to assert primacy. Namely water rights, trade routes and so on. Ironically , this could also be considered humanities first "Civil War". We didn't really stand a chance did we?
    "My God, I wish we had the 9th Australian Division with us this morning."
    - - Major-General Francis de Guingaund, Chief of Staff, Allied Land-Forces Headquarters Europe, D-Day, 1944

    "Australian troops had, at Milne Bay, inflicted on the Japanese their first undoubted defeat on land. Some of us may forget that, of all the allies, it was the Australians who first broke the invincibility of the Japanese army."
    — Field Marshal Sir William Slim.

  14. #14

    Default

    The Marne for a well known one, and the battle of Ufa for an unknown one.





  15. #15

    Default

    this could also be considered humanities first "Civil War". We didn't really stand a chance did we?
    What you mean?

    I'll go with Marathon 490 B.C. and Gaugamela 331 B.C. because if the Hellenics wouldn't have won, many good and new ideas would have been lost (perhaps, only to be gain in two centuries after...), for all we know, there might have been some small city state that had quite interesting ideas but that was destroyed by a stronger faction.
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  16. #16
    Count of Montesano's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,259

    Default

    What if the British General Wolfe lost the Battle of Quebec to Marquis de Montcalm in 1775? Would Canada have remained a French colony?

    Did Gettysburg end the South's chance at winning the Civil War, or if Lee had won the battle could the South have grabbed victory? I know this battle may seem only important to American history, but a divided America could never have become a modern superpower. Also, think of the ramifications if Hitler could have allied with a fascist Confederacy less than a century later.

    Battle of Midway - what if the Japanese had won? Would Japan have conquered Australia? Could America have made a comeback in the Pacific War?

    D-Day - If Rommel's panzer divisions had moved swiftly to counter the invasion at Normandy, could the Germans have negotiated a cease-fire or conditional victory?

    What if the Franks had lost at Tours? Would Europe have turned muslim? I personally think Tours is as much a turning point in history as Marathon, although one can argue Europe may have been better off as a muslim protectorate in the early Middle Ages.

    I'm not an expert in ancient history, so I'd like to ask Spartan why he thinks Metaurus is a more crucial battle than Zama where Hannibal was finally crushed on his home turf. I also don't know much about Sentinum, so I was wondering why this battle's important.

  17. #17
    MaximiIian's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    12,896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Count of Montesano
    What if the British General Wolfe lost the Battle of Quebec to Marquis de Montcalm in 1775? Would Canada have remained a French colony?
    Possibly.

    Did Gettysburg end the South's chance at winning the Civil War, or if Lee had won the battle could the South have grabbed victory? I know this battle may seem only important to American history, but a divided America could never have become a modern superpower. Also, think of the ramifications if Hitler could have allied with a fascist Confederacy less than a century later.
    If we had won, then, yeah, we would've stayed independant.
    Actually, that later part is just a small part of a massive ATL story I've been writing that starts out with the 1790 Holy Roman Imperial election.

    Battle of Midway - what if the Japanese had won? Would Japan have conquered Australia? Could America have made a comeback in the Pacific War?
    Quite possibly, yes, or at least gotten to Austrialia. Conquering it might've been a different matter entirely.

    D-Day - If Rommel's panzer divisions had moved swiftly to counter the invasion at Normandy, could the Germans have negotiated a cease-fire or conditional victory?
    Yes. Rasily. A peace with the west would allow them to move a large enough amount of troops to the Eastern Front, and beat Russia.

    What if the Franks had lost at Tours? Would Europe have turned muslim?
    Yeah, probably.

    Europe may have been better off as a muslim protectorate in the early Middle Ages.
    WTF??? No it wouldn't.

  18. #18
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Columbia, MD, USA
    Posts
    1,346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawkhan
    ...Stalingrad was a meaningless battle. It didn't really matter which side won, the Germans had essentially thrust themselves into an urban meatgrinder where the side with the larger manpower reserves(Soviets) could afford the losses while the Germans couldn't.
    ...Victory there for Germany would have captured NOTHING essential to the Soviet war effort. If Hitler had gone after the Caucasus oilfields instead, THAT would have been critical, and could have won the war for the Axis.

    Your also forgeting the terrible morale loss.

    Stalin issued order 227 because of Stalingrad. He was placing everything he had at the city of his namesake. If they lost that fight, there would be a alot less faith in Stalin. Anyways, if Germany takes Stalingrad, they would have an extremely powerful force to simply take the Caucausus.

  19. #19

    Default

    ...Trying to take Stalingrad, especially with mechanized forces, was the height of folly. Hitler had originally agreed to by-pass the city. Manstein had simply advocated that it be blockaded with artillery/bombing to suppress it while the German main effort actually went after something worthwhile like the Caucasus oilfields. During this campaign, Hitler actually sent one of his strongest armees towards the Caucasus, then turned them around and headed them towards Stalingrad, then changed his mind again, thus effectively wasting a huge amount of his offensive strength, wearing out more of his precious armored vehicles for nothing. The person posting that Stalingrad was essential to the attack on the Caucasus needs to look at a map. They are NOT in the same line of advance. In retrospect, Hitler did more to defeat the Axis than any Soviet general. Perhaps he should have been awarded the Order of Lenin, posthumously of course.

  20. #20

    Default

    I think the most significant conflict was the Persian Wars. Greece really was the only civilized area of Europe (Carthage was just chilling in Africa) and a Persian victory would have been absolutely devastating to the modern world. Today you would see a much more "Eastern" society.

    However, besides that, I would say the sieges of Constantinople were the next most significant. Everyone always makes a big deal out of the Battle of Tours, yet Spain was really just an outpost for the all-conquering Muslim Empire of the Middle East. The Muslims were overstretched in France and even a victory would not have guaranteed their long-term existence in Europe.

    Yet Constantinople was that roadblock seperating the main Muslim armies in Asia from the pathetically disorganized Europe. Had Constantinople fallen, the main Muslim armies would have poured into Europe and, combined with a thrust from their weaker Spanish counterparts, Europe would have gradually become Muslim and society would look like nothing today.

    This, of course, was much different in 1522. By then Christianity was very well established in a more organized Europe.

    -Boran
    "Immortality, take it, it's yours!" -Achilles
    "Come home with your shield or on top of it" -Spartan mother to her child going off to war
    "Remember upon the conduct of each depends the fate of us all" -Alexander the Great
    "I will never relent in defending this country, whatever it takes." -President George W. Bush
    sig is too large. -sib
    http://rtwbi.proboards29.com/

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •