What was the single most important/pivotal battle in your country's history?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Still angry that I lost my response

[saxdude]

From an overall perspective of American history, I would think that The Battle of Chapultepec (signifying the Mexican American war as a whole), is one of the most important. Considering as it broke Mexican power, putting it in a permanently subservient position to the USA, not to mention that the USA gained close to a third of its current landmass as spoils of war.

It's not too much of a stretch to believe that the Americans could have lost either, the US military suffered more casualties in proportion to that of their enemy than in any other subsequent war. Many of the battles were a close run thing so the overwhelming victory that the US achieved was far from a certainty when the war began.

Had the USA lost, the geography of north America could be radically different.

Hardly, Mexico was a mess before, during and after the conflict, with no real capacity for waging a war against a better armed, better organized and better fed army. Chapultepec was nothing more than a swans song in an otherwise disgraceful war fought by a completely incompetent country stuck in a colonial mindset that refused to back down against an obviously superior force, and a greedy, hypocritically imperialistic nation, who's victory remained so sour that it has been borderline erased from the american publics mindset, and helped begin and intensify one of the bloodiest conflicts the americans ever faced.
So I guess it was an important war in that way, but not really an important battle. Though I will give you that it [the mexican-american war] was one of those unique moments in history where the Mexican goverment could arguably hold the moral highground.

Mexico proper* has no real important battles in it's history though, rather a series of undecisive battles and skirmishes that are ultimatly meaningless in the face of logistical incompetence and interior fighting. The battle of Puebla is only significant in that americans seem to confuse it with our independance day or some other incomprehensible reason.

So if I had to choose my own countries single most important battle (in the broadest of senses), it'd be the first confrontation between the Tlaxcaltecs and the Spaniards. Xicontencatl II could have very well extinguished Cortez's expedition well before it got any traction. However, political intrigue within the Tlaxcaltec confederation, specifically between Ocotelolco and Tizatlan, forced Xicontencatl into an alliance with the spaniards. Had Xicontencatl had his way, and without any of the historical advantages Hernan Cortez enjoyed, I doubt future spanish expeditions would have gained much, if any, of the momentum achieved by Cortez, at least not until the crippling diseases kicked in.
Hell, an emboldened Tlaxcaltec force led by Xicotencatl could have very well sought an alliance with the Triple Alliance if continually threatened. There is precedent of friendly dialogue between the two factions. Instead, the Ocotelco forces abandoned the battlefield, they won out over Tizatlan and history followed it's course.

The battle of Otumba is the alternative option, which firmly seated the Tlaxcaltecs and other polities on to the spanish side.

[Tureuki]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dandanaqan

In case of a decisive lose, Oghuz Turks would not set foot on Middle East and Anatolia. Which would make overall Turkic history way more dull.

They might have tried North instead of South though. Which might have interesting results.

[Basil II the B.S]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dandanaqan

In case of a decisive lose, Oghuz Turks would not set foot on Middle East and Anatolia. Which would make overall Turkic history way more dull.

They might have tried North instead of South though. Which might have interesting results.

Really a shame we don't have that much details about central Asian battles.

[isa0005]

None because Australia...

[napoleon boneaparte]

I think we can attribute the victory on the Kokoda Trail to the Aussie forces and as well as the valiant effort at Gallipoli.

[Cyclops]

I think we can attribute the victory on the Kokoda Trail to the Aussie forces and as well as the valiant effort at Gallipoli.

Kokoda was a brave fight by the nashos and the regulars (when they go there), but the campaign was determined by the battle at the Coral Sea. The track itself was not much of a supply line, had the Japanese swept through they'd have had (yet another) forward base with a very skinny supply situation.

Gallipoli is a fascinating case. There's a lot of myth making and talk of nation building and identity formation but fundamentally it was quite an important battle strategically. I am no fan of Churchill as a war leader (or anything else for that matter) but in this case he nailed the strategic point. Constantinople was the key to the Ottoman state, and I agree that a decisive blow there might have knocked the Ottoman state out of the war. More importantly it would open the supply line to the Russian industrial heartland in the Donbas, not yet the powerhouse the Soviets made it but still an important source of revenue and manufacture for the Tsarist state.

I suspect had the Russians been able to trade out through the Mediterranean their economy would have been much more robust: they still would have faced harsh winters and repeated defeat at the hands of the Germans but their risible supply situation would have been much improved and the tsar would have had more bikkies to dole out to the hungry peasants in 1916-1917. I think it likely more offensives would have been possible meaning Austria may have fallen in 1916 or 1917 instead of 1918. The tsarist state may even have survived the war (but not the peace I suspect): if Austria fell then its the endgame for Germany in 1917, and almost certain defeat.

The stern Ottoman defence of Gallipoli in the face of bombardment from the best navy in the world was an heroic act, and much nationalist fodder is made from the conduct of both sides. Certainly the Ottomans proved they would not collapse in a heap at the first prod as many suspected, and they outlasted the K und K and the Tsardom by some months: the Ottoman army did not suffer the kinds of mutinies we see in Russia and even France so the Sick Man proved to have some vigour to the end.

Not an all time greatest battle, but one that influenced the course of WWI and defined the post Ottoman settlement: the leadership and the legend of Atatürk's Turkish nationalists was forged their, and they displaced the more favoured Young Turks and outmuscled Hellenic and other aspirants to the City of Men's Desire and its Anatolian hinterland. That struggle has its own epic battles, triumphs and tragedies, but it was defined by the Ottoman survival at Gallipoli. Its arguably one of the most important battles (the battles before Ankara probably shade it) for the Republic of Turkiyye.

As for Australia, well our forces began to act with cohesive national identity in the battlefields of France, not at Gallipoli. The chief legacy of the battle are the horrendous lies told by Keith Murdoch (Rupert's father, a meddler and influence seeker like his son), who was excluded from the battlefield and in retaliation made up a lot of nonsense and acted as if he knew what was really going on. The bitter reflection that "The British generals sent the Australian Army up the front to die while they drank tea" is the stupid legacy of this dishonest man: his son continues the tradition of using news services to twist political influence.

The British Army did conduct the battle poorly and the story goes sent not-great generals to command it ("it was a navy job, so bugger them I suppose was the thinking"). There's an entire industry of blame laying and excuses, but in fact it was a decent effort given the British were fighting numerous campaigns elsewhere.

[Condottiere 40K]

I heard that this is one case in the Great War, that if the Allies had persisted, they would have overrun the Ottoman defenses.

Or if they'd come up with a Marine doctrine.

[Cyclops]

I heard that this is one case in the Great War, that if the Allies had persisted, they would have overrun the Ottoman defenses.

Or if they'd come up with a Marine doctrine.

There's a myth that the Gallipoli guns were undefended in early 1915 and the French landed some marines to reconnoitre, however it was a short march from Constantinople so they have coverage (as they did when the main attack came later that year). The other myth is that the guns covering Mamara fired their last shell at the retreating Royal Navy vessels after they abandoned their attempt to force the straits (if only they kept going! they were out of bullets!): this has been busted.

The Ottomans were not incompetent povo idiots, and they appreciated the possibility of the Royal Navy steaming into the Golden Horn. That's why they built the guns in the first place and stocked them with enough shells to sink a fleet. While the gun were low on ammunition before the campaign commenced they did not actually run out. In the event the guns did not do as much damage as the mines, but the guns forced the minesweepers back, so the defence remained solid.

The Entente did overrun the majority of the Ottoman Empire and were falling over one another claim the bits with oil: however this only happened in 1918. Prior to that the Ottoman forces despite being multi ethnic and in some cases recruits from nationalities that wanted out of the Empire fought with immense courage against better armed better trained opposition: they even gave the British Empire a blood nose in Mesopotamia.

The Ottoman Empire still meant something to its inhabitants, more than the idea of the Tsar or the K und K meant to those state's soldiers whose armies were practically non functional by 1917.

In 1918-1920 the carve up proceeded in the usual unsavoury manner, but the French and British could not agree who would get Constantinople, so it went to the new Turkish state because they seemed unlikely to give it to the Russians. The Hellenes were not to be trusted because they might have continued their friendship with their formerly Orthodox friends in the North.

Italy wanted big swathes of Anatolia because they were in fact the Roman Empire but everyone was like "shaddupa you face" and Italy was like OK [sadface] and in any case no one felt like fighting anymore except the Turks and the Hellenes. Italy already had Libya (yay! but they hadn't found the oil yet-that was in the 1950's-Roimmel was a decade too early) and as mentioned some boofhead decided to add Ethiopia because nothing says "Empire" like gassing some goat herders.

[tudorvolcano]

Slavic peoples left a bigger trace of their culture than the romans, but no romanian will stress their importance as to not associate themselves presently with Russia, which in the view of romanians, is the enemy of the nation.

The Romans surely left a bigger trace on Romanian culture than the Slavs. Romanian is a Romance language, many folklore stories date back to Classical Antiquity, before the Slavic migrations to the Balkans.
It's more likely the Slavs have a lot of culture imported from Romanians and Greeks rather than the opposite.
Romanians won't stress the importance of Slavs not because of Russia, but because Slavs are considered barbarians.
By the way, Moldavians are Romanians.

[Basil II the B.S]

Can I sort of reverse the OP's question and ask what do you guys think is the most important battle in Italy's history? Because I struggle to pick a single one. It's always a series or a number of events.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Battle of Solferino I guess? This is pretty hard.

[napoleon boneaparte]

Yah, for a united Italy, Solferino should be seen as the pivotal battle.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Unless we take the Italian Wars into consideration which determined Imperial/Spanish or French ownership for the next 300 years.

[Condottiere 40K]

Cannae.

Modern Italy would be Caporetto.

[neoptolemos]

Unless we take the Italian Wars into consideration which determined Imperial/Spanish or French ownership for the next 300 years.

I would also add the Italian unification wars

[Basil II the B.S]

Battle of Solferino I guess? This is pretty hard.

Yeah it is a good pick but then again it's simply for the control of North-East Italy. For the control of Rome, Italy had to dump the French for Prussia.

Cannae.

Modern Italy would be Caporetto.

Why Caporetto? It didn't really change much.

Cannae itself is sort of tricky. It wasn't a resolutive battle itself but forced Rome to change the chain of command, recruitment and go into mass mobilization; evolve or die.

[Condottiere 40K]

Cannae is one of those turning points in history; you can admire the battle for itself, being the most perfect example of double envelopment, and you can look at it for it's aftermath effects on politics and diplomacy. It must have struck the Carthaginians like the realization hit Hercules when he cut off the Lernaean Hydra's head, and probably was one of the impetus that ensured they would wipe out Carthage off the face of this Earth.

Caporetto shattered any pretensions the Italians had to Great Power status, and sort of marks the beginning of Fascism in the form it took.

[Basil II the B.S]

Caporetto shattered any pretensions the Italians had to Great Power status, and sort of marks the beginning of Fascism in the form it took.

Expand on the latter?

[Condottiere 40K]

Caporetto sort of marks the end that the Italians could sustain a war, or even a front, on their own, and they recognized it; that meant they knew they'd get peanuts when the spoils get handed around.

The lack of national confidence opened up the door to revolutionary and counter revolutionary forces.