Top 20 Battles of All Time

Great military achievement for Eastern Europe as they stopped the largest Muslim dynasty post AD. Also Poland's greatest military accomplishment, but sadly showed a slow painful decline until the 20th century

It's widely accepted that had the Ottomans attacked Vienna the day arrived at the city , they wouldn't have given time for the Poles and Germans to organize and march their army to the city , and Vienna would probably have been captured .

Well, if the pope was a traitor he was a really dumb one too. So much for quantity winning the day...

Vienna is one of the most livable, modern, cultural diverse, safe and fashionable cities in the whole world. Visitors love the charm of the people and the luxury of the comfortable pedestrian zones. Guess how the place would look like, if the Turks had captured the town! Look at all the run down places in the realm of Islam!

It is a shame, but whereas the Christians fought bravely against the Islamic invasion, the Pope of the Roman Catholics was supporting the side of the Turks. He was the real traitor of the Christian alliance.

The besiege of Vienna, in the East entrance of Europe was another turning point of history. What happened here in 1683 had the same meaning as the Battle of Tours in the western entrance of Europe 900 hundred years earlier! Europe not becoming Muslim. Thank God!

not familiar with this battle bt wasn't th battle of tours the one that decided europe not being muslim

This battle caused, that Europe isn't Muslim now.

The Germans were to tribal to create an empire!

The Romans went back to that same location and the Germans never showed up lol....

No.1 has to be the battle of Teutoburg forest. 3 imperial legions wiped out by the Germanic tribes in 9AD. lead to the dam near collapse of the Northen boarder. Heavily increased Romes dependence on Germanic auxiliaries (massive stain on Roman economics). Halted roman expansion. Contributed to the withdrawal from Britain and eventually lead to the northern invasion and the collapse of the Roman empire, the migration period, medieval Europe and western civilization. Arguably a big deal.

A brilliant piece of work by the German leader in planning and performing a tactical surprise ambush. I'm surprised other nations during those times didn't try to lure the main Roman body advances into heavly wooded, uphill and difficult ground to defeat or at least cause heavy lost on the legion's.Never Fight the Roman Legions on open ground or where their commander choose the battlefield if you can stop it!!!

It was a heavy blow for the Romans but it wasn't their worst defeat, that came from Hannibal in northern Italy when it was a republic 200 years earlier

Why there has been no other nation quite as militarily powerful as the germans throughout history. Teutoburg, The Saxons, The Normans, The Holy Roman Empire, The Teutonic Order, The Prussians, WW1 and WW2. All eras showed German military dominance. No nation as ever crushed the German speaking Nations in a campaign

This batle caused that the world did not become latin! Latin is good, but not the whole world please! Thank You Germans!

The heaviest blow the Roman armies ever got. The Roman General wass Varus and the Roman Emperor Augustus of the time exclaimed: "Varus, Varus, give me back my legions.

Biggest defeat of the Roman armies ever. Underrated event of historic importance.

without that battle we would have not a western world, that means half development, half progress, half innovations, no reformation, no 30 years war, no WW I, no WW II, no Holocaust, no Sowjetunion, no iron curtain, no world police USA, rather world power china

In the defeat of three Roman legions in the year 9 the Romans stopped to try to conquer Germany. Therefore the germanic tribes, later forming the French , Dutch, English, German nations where not romanized or latinized. The world we live today in is not a latinized world, its standards stem mostly from western and central Europe plus the USA - all mostly germanic originating peoples.

do you expect bones 2 thousand years later? In fact the Germans claimed the annihilation of teh legions and the Romans approved. At the site of the battle, they found remainders of the Roman trops in form of weapons, coins etc., there were many smaller battles along the line of reatreat of the Romans

This weakened the Muslims so that they were not able to conquer India. Thank You Franks! India is a democracy.

Sounds like a lot of hatred. Not all Muslim countries consist of oppressive dictators. You must look at the country's past and place their current situation in a historical context before judging.

What is a U worm?

Look at your ****ing world first.. U worms

The arabs was shown: Here no entry!

It is the battle of Tours/Poitiers! Not pointers! God against Allah!

stooped the arabs invasion of Europe. Thanks to the franks and their germanic allies we have a free world today. Look at the muslim countries and think that the whole world would be like that!!!! Big battle, certainly one of the top 20

This battle didn't turn the war, but it definitely did stop the invasions in the south and allowed the production powerhouse Stalingrad to survive.

Hitler wins and its a stab wound to the heart, quick and deadly. Stalin wins and its a deep flesh wound that is not fatal immediately but will bleed out until remedied. It was the only true lose/lose battle for the Western world.

Most likely the most important battle of the 20th century during World War II. My hat goes off to the Russians who were freezing to death fighting rather than just allowing the Nazi Germans to take what they wanted

o what a battle,it destroys humanity

Hitler should've ordered General Paulus to evacuate once the situation became bad ...... they still would've lost but at least 200,000+ men lived to fight another day .

Quantity wins over Quality. The Germans were hasty in their assaults and Stalin's choice was to pump in troops

This one of those situations where Gen. Pollis or at least his immediate senior officer's should have taken matters into their own hands disobeying Hittler orders and withdrew the sixth Army before the Russian surrounded them, which they should have somehow lied about it.

made pretty clear what pride could do

All I can say is that Hitler failed epicly...

Battle that destroyed Germany's 6th Army. Involved millions of people. Freezing winter, no food, room to room fighting, bombings. Doesn't get more brutal than this.

Stalingrad proved what a country under seige can do honor glory and dedication to ones homeland

The greatest ever battle. History will reassert itself.

proved hitler was about as dumd as dumb gets when it came to military stratagies

The most brutal battle ever fought

definetely the most bloodsheding massacre ever

Decisive battle to defeat Hitler

Probably the most horrific battle in history.....

The commander of the Christian united forces was Juan de Austria. He belived to be in the command of God.

The Islam threat was banished, another time. Always when the Islam took great efforts in conquer Europe they were heavyly defeated. Or heavenly? Only the Spaniards were slow in it. But they finally made it as well! This shows Islam is nothing for Europe!

The combined christians naval forces of the Holy League under the command of Juan of Austria gave the Turks a heavy blow from which they never recovered. The Holy league only lost 13 shiops and sank 130 ships of teh turks, capturing another 100. It was apparent for the Christians that God had spoken clearly.

That is right, but half of the world correct, would serve the world right!

Maybe, but the world in German - no thank you. I like to be late at work sometimes. Too correct is not cool!

The Germans would also have stopped communism, but the western allies of the Soviets chose to support Stalin.

The Battle of Thermopylae is a little misunderstood. True, there were 300 Spartans, but also some other allies/auxillaries. The 300,000 Persians is fairly correct, but the third day of battle was more like 1,500 vs. 300,000. Still quite impressive that it was held for that long, and more interesting is that the Romans would use the same pass revealed by the Greek traitor to flank the Seleucids in the later Battle of Thermopylae.

The Hellenic(or greek) morale changed a lot. Thanks to this legendary battle, Hellenes(greeks) managed to defeat the Persians and save Europe from a Persian invasion. Of course, the Persians would have conquered the whole Europe, since they had an enormous army and Europeans were not organized. After the Hellenic victory, there was a great rise in art, science and democracy in Hellas. An event that gives you chills: 300 vs 300.000 approximately, moved by the idea that a life without freedom is not worth living. Ready to die for their freedom, their ancestors and their homeland... This battle changed the World History, in a way.

It wasn't necessarily 300 spartans. There were most than just that fighting along the Spartans, but it proved the Greeks to be the elite of the elite in terms of preparation and experience.

Thermopylae allowed the development of that fledging experiment called "Democracy". Only by holding off Xerces for an extra three days was Athens able to evacuate and save democracy. The astounding aspects are a) the Kind led them - died with them, and b) they all - particularly the Spartans, went into battle knowing they would die. There was no hope of survival, simply an action to hold off the enemy...and save what we now know was the beginning of the Western World.

20000 Persians Died

300 Spartans VS 300.000 Persians. top battle, no doubt. 1 Greek vs 1000 persians and they could win if the betrayor wouldnt do that.

What a legenary example for Govt. leaders to follow King Leonadis and those men he lead in putting the needs of the Greek people above their own shelf interest in a rear guard action.

This battle helped to keep the Persians at bay. It contributed to built up the resistance of the Greeks. And this was important because Europe could have become persian-influenced. There would not have been Rome and and and...maybe not a too bad idea??? The Germanic peoples would have overrun what could have come anyway

It was a loss for the Greeks, but it was a victory for Greek morale. Still, it was a feat of the utmost bravery.

the epitome of what fighting for freedom means 300 spartans +4000-7000 other greeks vs 300000-1700000 persians

300 spartans vs 10.000 persians. greek army, the best

Very important battle - a turning point in history

Would have been something to see!

Poland was the borderline between Rusia and Europe. Thaks God they won the battle.

Russians "would have not been strong enough some years later to attack Germany"? It seems that you do not understand the situation of Europe after IWW at all. In 1920 Germany was nothing but a wasteland. Economy fell, men able to fight were killed or injured in war, the army was reduced to 100 000 forces (Versailles Treaty). Want more? These days communists were one of the most influential actors on German political area. They would welcome Russians as their friends! So do not spam the forum with your baseless thoughts. Most of the historians (including Germans) regard the Miracle at the Vistula as the battle that saved Europe from communism.

After WW1 Russia most likely defeat Germany, because of their bad financial situation. Polish forces were outnumbered 5:1, that's quite impressive!

This battle saved Europe from communism!!!!!

Keep Europe out of another war for 18 years.

Lord Cornwallis really should have thought twice about digging in at Yorktown . He probably knew the French navy was going to blockade the Chesapeake , but he was confident that Clinton and the British Navy would crush them . The Americans arrived to besiege the fortifications , and Cornwallis though he could flee via the Chesapeake ( like the Siege of Boston ) , but the Brits lost strategically in the Battle of the Chesapeake Bay , which stuck the nail in the coffin for the Hesse - British garrison at Yorktown .

If the US had not won this battle they would have won the next. But given not, the USA would habve become a British commonwealth country. So much difference? The USA is dominated by anglo-saxon culture.

Important battle, not only that it gave the independence to one of the most influential and powerful nations of the 20th century but also it set the way for many other nations to seek independence.

Hannibal did decisively crush Rome in this battle, and that very nearly led to the fall of Rome itself. Unfortunately for Carthage, Hasdrubal Barca was defeated at the Metaurus, so Hannibal had no siege equipment to take Rome with. If he had, Rome wouldn't have learned from him, but from under him. He taught Rome many lessons it used to become quite an empire.

The Roman Emperor wasn't killed at Cannae because there wasn't one. Rome was a republic then. One of the two Consuls there were killed.

At Cannae , Hannibal totally routed the Roman Army , and the Roman Emperor was also killed in the battle . Hannibal really could have won the war had he besieged Rome , but instead he did not , soma stalemate ensued in Italy and the seat of the war moved to Spain , where the Carthaginians were totally defeated .

I agree due to intrigue and more likely jealousies in Hannibal's Govt. he didn't get the support in supplies,train fighting men, other war fighting materials for that time, However he did depend on using war elephants too much and not developing seige equipment and standardized soldiers that cause his government to finally be destroyed.

The Romans say that the Carthaginians (Phoenicians), under control of Hannibal the Great, was outnumbered by the Carthaginians having 30,000 and the Romans having 90,000 at the Battle of Cannae. Though, some people still know the truth. It was actually that the Romans had over 130,000 men against Hannibal's 30,000. Romans were so devistated at the loses that they had to change the numbers so they won't look bad throughout history. You can tell that the Greeks exaggerated many battles, like at the Battle of Thermopylae, as well as the Romans. Go to phoenicia.org for the true stories.

Hannibal only couldnt crush Rome because he never had his countrys support. This was a decisive battle, where he brilliantly defeated an army much larger than his own, and very decisively did so.

One of the only battles in history where a pincer manouver was successfully carried out by an outnumbered army.

yes battle of Zama is more influential but Cannae introduced new methods of tactics hence it is important

Not as important as Zama - defeating Hannibal let Roman culture spread over the whole ancient world, and even nowadays we have its conseqences. Hannibal won under Cannes, but couldn't crush Rome.

Napoleon's Major defeat by the combined allied forces of sweden, Prussian, russian and austrian agaisnt the french. the french were badly outnumbered a lot of accounts say by 100000 men. This defeat was the major reason of Napoleon Abdicating for the first time. about 200000 French vs 300000 Allies.

I'm for sure Gen. Robert E. Lee intentions was not to fight at that place anyway,However besides his subordinate commanders other then Gen Longstreet seeing the big picture on the third day with the right idea of further actions not to attack the Union center unknowning their strenght there and going around fores the Union to redeploy off that high fortified ground the plan for the final assult was going to fail even if Gen. Pickett division had 10,000 more infranty to use. This was the confederacy Waterloo being similar where i believe Robert E. Lee was mentally and physicaly compomised and by the second day i believe you may be able to see it with a train military mind also as far as the Union commander are concerned i don't think they really realize how the confederate command was playing into their hand until after the fighting on the second day of the battle. Finally i'm thankful that this battle worked out for the union paving the way for the future of a united americia official despite those of my fellow citizens that make any reasons to ***** about what's wrong with our country,so forgetting what costs in blood ,sweat ,visable wounds,emotional wounds,tears these men paid on both sides to fight for what they believed in their people future wheather it's right or wrong.

broke the Confederates the spine, but that would have come sooner or later, therefore the battle was a big battle with big consequences but not of world historic meaning!

It ended any chance of the British siding with the south.

Crushed the thought to be nearly invincible army of notherner virginia. Gave the union hope to keep fighting the confederacy and evengually win the war

Modern Greeks are not the shame of Europe...maybe some of our politicians are.We fought like heroes against fasism and German-Nazi during the second world war,delaying operation Barbarossa,the attack against Russia, giving time to the Russians to prepare changing the tides of the war!That cost us some hundred thousands deaths and the destruction of our country!We may be in dire straits now but we are a proud and historic nation and the basis of European civilization...so think better before you unfairly critisize us because next year could be your country's turn...and you will may have to survive with 500 euro per month..!

It is always the same problem with the Iranians, they have incapable if not crazy leaders. I wonder when they realize this!

The Greeks 2500 Years ago was a quite different type of people than the Greeks of today! If those today had such stamina and iron willingness they would not be the shame of modern Europe. What has happened to Achill, Odysseus, Alexander and Leonidas? Greece is the poor house of Europe!

Pheidippides became famous becauze He run 40 kilometres without stoping to say the good news of victory from marathon to athens. After he said Νενικήκαμεν-Nenikékamen, 'We have won .Then he collapsed and died.

They say that Marathon, half Greek, half Phoenician, living in Athens, ran 140, or if i'm incorrect, 240 miles in to days to get to Sparta to ask for reinforcements.

a very historic battle, persins are famous for getting beaten by an outnumbered enemy, although in some of their great times they beaten enemys while outnumbered.

The Teutons should've attacked the unprepared opposition at the first chance , but instead they waited for the Polish - Lithuanians to attack first , costing them dearly .

The Poles stopped the German knights spreading their influence on eastern Europe. But the Poles and Germans would have very likely come to terms and mixed which they did anyway in the border zone. Both peoples gave a reat contribution to Europe and they would have done in also in unity.

If the Germans would have won the battle they would have dominated even greater areas of Poland. But this happened 4 hundred years later. Therefore it is not safe to say that the battle was essential that the Germans did not become a much too strong power in central Europe. But for teh Polish it was important to gain moralic strength, especially against teh later ennemies from the east. 270 Years later the Polish and German forces together fought back the islamic threat in front of Vienna.

the greatest battle of medieval Europe!!!!!!!!!!!

Turning point in history of middle Europe

"AMOR PATRIAE NOSTRA LEX" motto of the The Polish Hussars Golden age of Poland. How you become great in warfare? when you are located between Germany and Russia war is your life line

1) Estimates for casualties are a combined 700,000. Modern estimates are higher around 900,000. 950,00 men were not killed at Verdun. Casualties means wounded, prisoners, missing, and killed. France suffered 1.3 million killed from 1914-18, so for 550,000 to be killed in one battle alone is not accurate. 2) Defending France from Germany was a matter of national pride for the majority of French people in an age of patriotism and nationalism. Germany and France were disputing the Alsace-Lorraine region on the Franco-German border. A Germany victory would likely have resulted in a highly punitive peace treaty (as the Germans imposed on the Russians in 1917 and the Allies on the Germans in 1919) that would have stripped it of it's industry and economic power. So to say the Germans would have taken one or two colonies is inaccurate. 3) Verdun was Germany's last offensive until it's last gamble on the Western front in 1918. There was very little movement in terms of territorial gain, but Verdun and later the Somme offensive in July 1916 crippled the German army. Continued British attacks in 1917 almost exhausted Germany until the Russians collapsed, allowing the Germans to transfer 50+ divisions to the west. 4) The German casualties at Verdun (and the Somme) did curb it's offensive capacity. But this was also due to the fact that it was fighting on two fronts and vastly over extended. However, the German troop numbers on the western front consistently outnumbered the Western allies, and the German offensive in 1918 nearly overran the British army. 5) The arrival of US troops made very little difference to the outcome of the war. Although the German offensive in 1918 nearly defeated the allies, the powerful combined arms counter-attacks by the British and the French armies at first stemmed the German attacks, and then drove them back continually until November 1918 (See Hundred Days Offensive).

The French made a mistake. When Germany would have won the war, they would most probably not taken more than the other one or two of those colonies of France which made so many problems to the french in the years to follow.

Knuckle heads with too much power and plenty of infranty to throw at the Germans.

I visited the battle field twice. It is still an awe inspiring, eery place, very impressive because the wounds in the landscape will never heal according to the high density of iron. This must have been hell. But the god thing today is that French and Germans stand together side by side. No more enmity

400.000 thousand on the German side and 550.000 thousand on the French side killed. Possibly the biggest single battle with no strategical result, except that the Germans lost too much blood to be able to overrun the western front. But it is very doubtful that they would have succeeded because the westen allies were much stronger in numbers and with the arrival of the US troops plus british tanks innovation the war was to be over.

So many artillary craters it looked like the surface of the moon. Sad.

Of course the USA would not have lost against Japan. The Japans aimed not at being vincible over the USA, which was impossible, rather to stop the USA and get a favourable politcal situation before the full force of teh USA made its impact. They played the time card.

The US would not have lost to Japan if the Battle of Midway had been a failure. Germany was the primary concern as their science and technology could have overwhelmed the US given sufficient time. Midway was certainly an important battle ... but in the Pacific the Pearl Harbor attack had been a failure as major strategic targets were missed. Japan had their chance at Pearl and fell short of what they could have done.

big amerikan turn point, otherwise the amerikans would've most likely lost.

The Germans could have taken Moscow, but Hitler decided to gain the rich fields of south eastern Russia. Therefore they splitted there forces which gave the russians and the western allies time.

Hitler unfortunately didn't learn anything from Napoleon and the savage Russian winter and also underestimated the Soviet Red army .

Once again Hittler interfering with operations on the ground and no officer brave enough to do what they need to do in the field, even ignoring Hittler orders to keep moving ahead without the supplies to do it.Finally Hittler plans to conquer Russia was as foolish when Napoleon tried to do it and badly planned too. May God bless the ancestors of these Soviet soldiers,they did a great job of kicking ass.

U.S./ Allies supplies to soviet... accounted for 10%, rest 90% was produced from it's own territory. Harsh winters yes, but Germans wer not the only ones who were freezing so were the Russians. Eastern front the bloodiest and largest campaign ever, Russia won because of it's people and very few generals which Stalin had not killed. Off course supplies from the west helped and tipped the scale just enough in Russian favor. Btw 90% of German soldiers died on Soviet front and campaign of brutality was not waged on the west. So please give credit where credit is due.

The Russians had won time also because the western allies suported them. They sent all sorts of supplies via Murmansk. They were equipped with winter clothes whereas the Germans had none. They had thought they did not need it. But the winter struck sooner than all the years before.

because of Mussolini Hitler had to attack Yugoslawia which cost 4 weeks, the 4 weeks exactly missing in front of Moscow, where also an early winter hit the German forces unprepared. The war with the Sovietunion would have certainly been won.

very true

foolishness on the part of Hitler in thatt he did not listen to Gen Guderian

Isn't it true that the only thing the Americans charged during the 1st world war was the10% on the money they loaned us.

To the genius who complained that we shouldn't have got in WW1 because the Republicans are too quick to get us into wars: It was President Wilson a DEMOCRAT who took us needlessly into WW!.

1) The entire Western front was covered by German and Anglo-French machine guns. That was the nature of the First World War - static trench warfare. Advances in defensive weaponry and tactics (machine guns, barbed wire, trench systems) far outstripped offensive weapons and tactics which were still being experimented with. (artillery, creeping barrage, armoured vehicles etc.) So attacking anywhere on the western front was bound to result in massive casualties for those conducting the offensive. IT WAS NECESSARY for the British to attack in 1916. The French were under enormous pressure from the German attack at Verdun, and had already suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties from 1914-16. 2) The USA had very little effect on the outcome of the First World War. In fact US troops did not start landing in Europe in significant numbers until late in 1918. The declaration of war undoubtedly forced Germany to mount a final offensive in 1918, but Germany was already on it's legs with millions of casualties, a failing economy, and an exhausted population from years of British and French naval blockades. 3) In 1918, the British, French, Belgian, Canadian and ANZAC forces were severely depleted and war weary, but after over 4 years of war were highly experienced. The British army in particular had perfected the combined arms warfare which the Germans had sought after for so long. Even without US help, the Allies would still have been victorious against an exhausted and outgunned German army. 4) Verdun and the Somme took away Germany's capacity for the offensive until the Russians collapsed. It had exhausted itself in 1914-15 on both the Eastern and Western fronts. The massive Allied offensives from 1916-17 crippled it further. By 1918 it was facing collapse, but the transfer of 50 divisions to the west allowed one last throw of the dice.

The Allies could've attacked in other places .......... even though the Germans withdrew to the Hindenburg Line and the Allies has relieved pressure on the French at Verdun , it was not really necessary to mount an assault in a region covered by German machine guns .

I believe americia should have stayed out of world war 1,so with these high cost battles the allied powers and centrals powers were fighting it would have been at least three more years of war before a peace deal would be signed with no winners, so with us stand back and steadily building our might their would be no Hittlerir Nazi party either and the Japs would not have tried our interest in the Pacific theater.America could have smartly stayed ahead of the game for generations.Our Republicans elected leaders are too quick on the draw to go to war without an visionary purpose in mind

The whole USA won the war thing again ! Canada was already fighting as part of the Commonwealth forces and they, the British, French, Belgians etc had been fighting for 3 years before the USA committed itself. The Germans were at that point exhausted so this point is debatable - I don't diminish the USA's contribution at all but don't try and re-write history !

without in 1917 the support from the USA and Canada, France and Britain could not have won the war. In 1917 Germany had defeated Russia and its forces of teh Eastern front could made the difference on the wetsren front. But the USa DECIDED TO HELP the allies.

would the Germans have won this battle, they could have won the war. This would have settled the superiority of Germany in Europe which they had at the start of the war. The war ended the rise of the "Reich". Insofar the battle was of emminence importance

This battle was the biggest most single battle in WWI. British and French troops outnumbered their German opponents 2:1. 400.000 thousand Britons were killed or wounded, 200.000 thousand French and 400.000 Germans. This bloody battle took away from the Germans the ability to operate in teh offensive

massive british offensive on the western front, world war 1, In an attempt to relieve pressure on the french who at the time where being bleed white at the bloody Verdun this battle became britains bloodiest in history, losing 30 000 on the first day alone.. at the end of the battle little ground had been gained..

the most loss of brittish life in a day

well all non-greek people remember that Alexander the Great was Greek ans so the other Makedonians....

Is it Guagemala or Gaugamela ??

Alexander won one battle after the other, would he not have demolished the Persians there, he would have doen it otherwise. Therefore the importance of this battle can be argued

This is the Greatest Battle won, in my opinion. Alexander does not only win against an Army 5 times the sice of his own, he beats it on the enemy's chosen ground. The battlefield is perfect for a huge army and cavalry, Darius has cleared the ground for his vast force of 34.000 cavalry, wide flat open plane, so that Alexander can get no terrain advantages what so ever. To beat an army 5 times the sice of your own with no help from terrain or Nature, no ambush or taken by surprise, is unheard of, and i belive it's the only victory of it's kind. Alexander wins on share tactics, troop placement and his own person.

Possibly one of the greatest battle of Ancient Time. Even the Macedonian Army highly outnumbered they managed to win and helped Alexander of Macedon to conquer all of Persia.

This is the kind of battles that u.s forces didn't need to be their to fight in the first place, However would serve our interest in seeing the combatants exhaust each other out while we strengthen our standing in the world ready early to be a future economic power house and military force to be reckon with prepare to premtive strike japan empire before pearl harbor.1

the combined forces of USA, France, Britain, Canada tried to break through the German lines. Although they did not succeed, the Germans slowly blooded to their exhaustion. The losses of the allies were bigger, but they had substitute, whereas the German troops had no reserves.

So many things lined up to give us this; Borodino and General Winter, Leipzig, Ney taking one of Napoleon's cavalry corps to Quatre-Bras (the one that was supposed to close off Prussia's retreat), and the rain before the battle. If the French had a better victory at Borodino, if Ney hadn't called for that cav corps, if it hadn't rained...any of those could have changed the fate of Europe.

You gotta give credit to Gebhard V. Blucher , he totally bailed Wellington out of this one .

It has to be said that Nepoleon had fought a number of battles prior to Waterloo which were close victories for the frenchman. Had he lost any one of these battles, then that would have been the end of Nepoleon. As it happened to be, Waterloo was the final defeat for Napoleon, but in reality it was only a matter of time until he lost.

Someone doesn't know their history, or do any research for that matter! The french and british forces were close in number, though the french had the edge. More significantly, they had twice the cannon and his veteran guard. Napoleon was never wounded, he would later claim that he suffered from terrible piles at that time, while in exile. Basically, that was his excuse for losing to, who he had called, 'the sepoy general' (Wellington). The Prussians had been beaten in a previous engagement with the same french army and were distrustful of their british allies. Ironically, this meant that when they finally did return it was at the best possible time.

europe wqould've been french, the only reason france lost it was because napoleon got wounded in the battle and was'nt able to command his army personally, french army was outnumbered 5 to 1 by the british, and when the prussians arrived they were outnumbered 12 to 1, wellington himself said he would've lost if the prussians have'nt arrived even though he outnumbered his foes.

i live where that battle happened YES!! right on the spot to ;)

one of the most important Battles in history

one of my favourite battles beside trafalgar the british defeat of the french

Napoleon's defeat - a turning point in Europe history

The Scots were outnumbered 3 to 1 and fighting against a European super power by the standards of the day.

This is the greatest, most decisive battle in the history of Scotland, and has been important for the last 700 years

This battle destroyed the German army. It never mounted a major operation in the East again, and mounted only one in the West (Battle of the Bulge). But the scale of that battle pales in significance to the scale of Kursk, in troop numbers, tanks and aircraft involved. Although the Soviets lost more men and material, by 1943 the Soviet juggernaut was coming into it's own, and was far outproducing the Germans. In contrast, the Germans had barely begun gearing their economy into a state of total war. Goebbel's speech the previous winter amid the debacle of Stalingrad intended to prepare the German people for greater sacrifices in quality of life. The German economy - aided by conscripted slave labour - had only just started to catch up by 1944/5, but with the Red Army in Poland, and the Anglo-American armies in France, it was far too late. Although the German losses of 200,000 men and 700 tanks to the Soviets' 1 million casualties and 6,000 tanks indicates a Pyrrhic victory, the battle demonstrated that the Soviets could afford to lose an entire army better than the Germans could a division. At the gates of Berlin, Stalin and Zhukev deployed as many as 2.5 million men to capture the city, nearly as many as Hitler had required for the invasion of Russia. A telling statistic.

Once again Hittler and his foolish scared command pushinga unrealistic plan of operation that should have been to stablelize that area and force the Soviet to come to you and Hittlers heavy handed insisting on these expensive and battlefield untested tanks like the panthers and others delayed the operation.

If Germany have won this battle although they have not recovered from their losses since Stalingrad then Hitler would have another chance to seize Moscow, but this battle started in the month of July 1943, and Wehrmacht for one would have serious time to win this hard-fought battle, and the Germans would suffer another Russian winter, beginning in late November, if they tried to take Moscow again after this battle.

Overall the largest battle of all time in terms of total manpower (involving more than 5 million men including reserves) and vehicles (more than 10k tanks involved in this battle) and number of aircraft (involving 5000 combat aircraft respectively).

Also the bloodiest, most destructive single-day air battle in history, even more destructive than the battle of Britain (3400 aircraft destroyed in Britain but more than 4000 aircraft destroyed here in Kursk, most of which from the Soviets).

Tank to tank battle. Yoowww. Especially in Prokhorovka, where history's greatest tank battle raged in carnage and brutality. It's like hell to see tanks burn in such an open field.

2.5 million Rooskies vs. 700k Krauts. The Rooskies decisively won although they lost more men and materiel because they destroyed 40% of the Krauts' armor, which the Krauts never replaced its tank losses throughout the war.

This should be higher up. This was one of the most if not the most important battle of WW2. Imagine seeing tens of thousands of tanks and a million men on one open field. Tanks are shooting at nearly point blank range. Pure destruction.

a glorious defeat but a defeat! 2500 combatants=no big battle!?

Leyte was the last conventional (ship versus ship) naval battle. It gave the Allies complete control of the sea in the Pacific and allowed the US and Australian fleets to advance without the threat of a direct naval strike from the Japanese. It is without doubt one of the greatest battles of all time.

I thought Lepanto , Midway , Gudalacanal , Coral Sea and Trafalgar were more important than Leyte Gulf :/

it was a pwanage for the allies, the amerikans had to capture this island twic, it was re captured by a small japanese non-air supported battleship force, they made an incredible plan which is to attack from sevrel sides only with vessels while a decoy fleet draws the enemy away, the plan worked remarkably, the kamikaze attacks cauzed enurmous losses to the USN fleet as well.

battle of leyte gulf is the largest and decisive naval battle of all time..jutland was never the largest battle because its a stalemate..more ships were sunk and more casualties in leyte gulf than jutland

JUTLAND IS THE LARGEST NAVAL BATTLE . BRITAIN V GERMANY

it was a naval battle

Not the largest land battle!! See Kursk 3million men

Epic battle, too bad the byzantines had to go. It was one hell of a last stand

Turks are not Arabs misiu. Also, as far asintroducing Islam to Europe that happened in Spain earlier.

Turks you fools. Not Arabs.

I think you are reading math book for learn history:)) I am Italian and I know Constantinople taken by Turks not Arabs!!!

commander: Sultan Mehmed Khan the Conquer if you want learn more watch this movie:Conquest 1453

Not Arabic that is a Turk Victory.

The A bomb wasn't ready tough guy... It was an important battle. Learn your history!

bloody battle, but for what? to get a small Island! The US would have thrown the a-bomb anyway. Why not sooner to make all further battles superfluous. Not important battel in terms of world history. It is just that the US were impressed, because they got in a mess. No top 100 battle

Out of 250 americans, 26 live

How was this not higher

This was an amazing achievement as very few other army had done successful amphibious invasions and even Stalin said that history has no precedent for this.

Ironic dat after being invaded by the normans a thousand years down the lane the british got their own back.

It would have been better to support the German resistance movement against Hitler, because the resistance planned to make peace with the West and turn to the East. With the help of the Western allies the Nazis would have been dismissed and the soviet invasion in eastern Europe could have been stopped.

They only invaded when outcome of WW2 could be clearly seeing. To prevent Soviets to spread Comunism troughout all Europe

this was an important battle, because it helped the Sowjets to move their influence further west. Without the support of the western allies the Sowjets could not have defeated the Germans. Ironically the invasion in teh Normandy helped a quicker progress of the soviet armies in the east front, since the Germans fought on three fronts: France, Italy and Russia

the German troops were in noticeable numbers auxiliaries, not front exeperienced, no elites, Hitler had against Rommel decided to keep the strongest forces inland who then were destroyed or delayed by the allies air force, the landing was expected in teh Channel, not in the Normandy

there were about 30 000 allies in d day

great battle between 1 million allies vs 100 000 germans.....yeah

Important invasion - otherwise WW2 would last longer. But Eastern Front was far more decisive.

The Russian winter didn't kill the French , but some died of the cold while many others were weakened by the winter , which greatly lessened supplies to the French army , so several troops also died of starvation . On top of that , the Russians had burned Moscow , and the French armybthatbarrivedbthere had minimal shelter , so even if it wasn't extremely cold as depicted , many died of exposure .

If this wasn't a warning a few hundred years ago for Hittler how hard and desparate the Russian leadership would sacafice people then maybe Hittler history teacher should have kick him in the ass early and woke him up before invading Russia.

What is a rubbish about perish Russian winter that kills all its enemies by itself? The Napoleon's campaign in Russia was lost in the edge of October; the begging on November, there was no winter then, 10 to 20 degrees above zero; that is the fact. The myth about perish winter that defeated Napoleon’s army was created by British to deflate Russian victory. Napoleon said that the battle of Borodino was the bloodiest battle he ever participated; there were far too much irretrievable losses with a few wounded survivors.

It was a rebellion

Vercingetorix real problem was not thinking like a Roman adversary would, so imagine if his reinforcement were instructed to build wooded spikes, pits and hem Ceasar forces in too, but only attack at night with torches and hold reserves until the last battle. Ceasar would have freak out then the Gauls wouldhave a change to beat the Romans estabishing another rival State.

overrated. The Romans were too strong anyway. The Gallics had no chance whatsoeever to withstand the Roman forces. It was at best a matter of years. The future belonged to teh Romans. Gallia was doomed. Big battle without surprising or stunning result that changed the course of things!

Great Battle. He was a military genius.

I agree,it was one of the best !!!

Should be higher, one of the greatest tatctical battles in history...top 10 at least.

The Norman dynasty of William the conquerer led eventually to a unified England and by the year 1215 the English wrote the Magna Carta - which happens to be the document the US constitution is based on. That is what the other writer meant by "democratic concept" and yes Britian is a democracy.

which democratic model do you mean? Since when is Britain a democracy?

I wouldnt dare say an empire greater than Rome, certainty bigger though. Important battle as it created the nation of England

It led to an empire greater than Rome and a democratic concept adopted around the world.

Well - important battle for England, but not for a larger territory of Europe.

The French king had little to do with the battle, France was a group of nobles and knights at this time compared to the English united under Henry.

The French king at the time should have let his senior Knight at the time do his job by not fighting the English fight.Due to the ground conditions and the bottle neck the English created , then it would have been better to have those French Knights dismount their horses , lighten up their armour and fight as infranty on another battlefield.

an important battle for the French and British but not of big historic importance, because it was fought in France where the British had invaded. The British won, nevertheless they could not keep french land and had to go back to their island.Therefore no big issue at all. It is a very astonishing outcome and great victory, but it is not big in historic measure

The lasting memorial to the Longbow

important battle for england and france

Important battle for Western Europe

The battle of Tsushima is one of the most decisive victories in naval history. The land battles should also be mentioned inthe Russo-Japanese War. The battle of Mukden was the largest battle in a hundred years and had over 500,000 men between the 2 forces.

First Anglo-Afghan War: first military victory of an eastern nation(Afghanistan) against a western nation(UK)"

If only the Allied commanders had realized the importance of Pratzen Heights .......

Russians and Austrians 80,000 vs. the French under Napoleon 50,000. The Russians and Austrians lost 30,000 while Napoleon lost only 5000 men in this battle. Great. His greatest victory, though.

you mean Napoleonic victories

one of very many proofs of the french victories against it's many enemies

Sabaton made a song about this battle " 40 to 1 "

Thermopylae was the beginning of the Greek victory against the Persians. As far as I know Poland was defeated in 4 weeks. I can defend my house against the whole US army. But for how long? Less than one second, I think.

Really glorious defeat of the Poles!

Strange, first time I hear of this. Maybe if Poland was able to hold out Germany for longer then this would be legend. Bóg zapłać

should easily be like 4th one or something

Not quite correct. The losses were on both sides the same whereas the German bombers were an easy target for the british air combat forces, since the German air combat airplanes could not acccompany them all the way. The German bomber fleet was unfit for bombing cities unlike the RAF bomber fleet which flated German cities 4 years later.

The Battle of Britain was without doubt one of the most important battle of the second world war. Not only did the British proved to the world that the Nazis weren't invincible but also they destroyed many of the aces and their planes that could have been used against the Russians. Without Britain Hitler could have attack the USSR earlier and avoid the Russian winter, thus emerging victories! The quote "Never invade Russia" should be change to "Never invade Russia during winter".

Do not forget the Polish soldiers who fought in dywizionie 303 who had a big impact on winning the British

The production of combat fighters was in Britain much bigger than in Germany which had until 1941 peace production numbers. The Britains concentrated all their potence in producing combat fighters. This was neglected in Germany. Why? Because the responsible people were Nazi-party members, not experts for warfare. Germany lost the war, because not the experts had the saying. The biggest layman was Hitler himself. He was an ordinairy soldier in WW I.

the 700 RAF were only air combat fighters, no bombers. The Germans had mostly Bombers. The losses on air combat fighters were equal on both sides

but the German ac were mostly bombers and German pilots shot could not return to their unit whereas British pilots were shot over their homeland. Also they had not that fuel limitation as the Germans who ha a more limited range

If the Battle of Britain had been lost, then Germany would have gained "control of the air" over England and the English Channel This was the key that Hitler wanted before invading the main British island. If Hitler had invaded and conquered Britain, the entire course of action in the ETO would have been changed for England would not have been available as a staging area for Allied powers to invade France. The invasion of Europe would have most likely been concentrated to proceed up thru Italy and across the difficult Alps. Hitler could have more easily concentrated his forces against such an invasion. The Nazis would then have had more time available to develop advanced weapons, such as the jet aircraft. I believe Hitler would have eventually lost, but it would have been a longer war.

ye but if hitler won the battle of britain and invaded he would of gained the resources to perhaps withstand and defeat the soviet union

Quite important - one of first Hitler's failures - but again - Eastern Front was moer decisive

Those brave men were not swedish, but finnish. They served the swedish army but they spoke finnish. There leader was a finn Juho Maununpoika, who had under his command 400 finnish farmers and 160 professional soldiers( 100 infantrymen and 60 horse soldiers). The success of the finnish troops was based on the use of rapid skiing fighters, who surrounded the enemy surprisingly. Later in the Winter war (1939) this kind of tactics was called "motti"-tactics.

What is the German name for this mysterious battle? TRue, there were not many big battles betweeen the allies and the Germans in Belgium. Since the inavasion the German resistance was doomed, no matter what battles and bulges they produced.

lol, largest ever fought only by US forces, there were like 50 bigger battles.

*Gravelines

I would say this was more of an assault than a battle.

You're getting confused between two nukes. Fat Man and Little Boy. Little Boy was the first nuke dropped on Japan in Hiroshima (it was a Uranium bomb). And Fat Man was the second dropped on Nagasaki (Plutonium Bomb). It's a common mistake not to be condescending.

It was not cowardly, it was more a desperate attempt to give the US forces a heavy blow. The Japanese knew very well, that they hardly a chance to beat the USA. The only chance was surprise and hope. Was the throwing of Fat Boy a courageous act? The Japanese sowed wind and earned storm! Do not forget that the US had an agressive politics towards the Japanese before the war!

most successful and daring air operation in the 20th century

Scipio, not Scorpio. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus.

I'm sure that if Hannibal could have not fought Gen. Scorpio there with his back up against the wall, then under better circumstances he would have,but once again relying on those war elephants and underestimating Gen. Scorpio cost his Govt. Anailation.

A consequence of Hannibal's defeat at Zama.

What about New Zealand's contribution.

And do not forget the Unsung Sikh Heroes who fought for freedom of Europe without asking anything in return.

The Allies greatly underestimated the might of the Ottoman Empire ,NAND although the ANZAC troops fought brilliantly , they just could not break through to advance on Isranbul .

Poorly conceived campain against the turks during ww1, starting in 1915, the brain child of then british first sea lord Winston Churchhill, with british, french and anzac troops making up the majority of the attackers. This battle was a disaster from the beginning, with British and Australian troops being landed in the wrong places, some at sheer cliff faces. It is said the most ingenius part of the whole campain was the retreat. Australia lost around the same number of men at gallipoli as they did in the entire second world, This battle played a large part in forging the fledgling australian nations psyche and has become deeply entrenched in the history and legend of that nation

although the turks and germans did indeed win the battle, this was the moment Australians were baptised as one nation and not as a series of states. Their sheer courage and strength showed other countries that they deserved a proper place in the world.

the turks and germans won this battle

Turning point in middle America history

this not only made Khalid one of the most brilliant generals in the world, it also allowed the expansion of Islam outside of the Arabian Peninsula. It has definitely changed the course of history.

limited regional importance? You are ignorant. This battle ended rome, was critical for the caliphate, and marked the beginning of byzantium.

Only limited regional importance. Certaionly not fir for the top 100

Inferior vs Superior, and the inferior force manages to overcome a superior force by superior generalship. Awesome

One of the most decisive battles in human history.

Khalid ibn al-Walid was one of the finest cavalry commanders in history

This battle is considered to be one of Khalid ibn al-Walid's most decisive victories, and cemented his reputation as one of the greatest military strategists and cavalry commanders of the Medieval Ages.

Muslim rule in India was established in 1192 by Muhammad Shahab uddin Ghori, when he defeated Hindu King Prithvi Raj Chuhan. 1st battle of Panipat, near New Delhi, India was fought on April 21, 1526 AD,between Turk Mongol descent King Zaheer uddin Babur later known as Mughal King, vs the Ruler of Delhi Sultnate, Ibrahim Lodhi. Babar defeated Lodhi & established Mughal Empire which was defeated by Briotish in 1857. Babr was the scion of the great Central Asian conqueror-families; his father was a descendant of Amir Timur (Tamerlane), while his mother's family traced its roots back to Genghis Khan.

This brought India into the view of western powers and therefore marked though indirectly colonial invasions.

Only important for Indian history, no influence to world history, therefore no place in the top 100!

This was the desicive battle in history of sub continent which put the throne of india into muslim side for almost eight centuries

small country won big country. Great.

It has great influence for japan, but not for the greater part of the world :)

A defeat is divided into two types of defeats : Startegic defeat and Tactical defeat . A strategic defeat means failing to gain new grounds or capture a set objective following a battle . A tactical defeat means suffering a greater loss in men than the enemy , or in some cases important war machines , e.g. Aircraft carriers ( as in the case of the Battle of the Coral Sea ) . But still , even though Rommel seized Tobruk , he suffered heavy casualties and was crushed by the Brits at El Alamein . Although Rommel did score a win against the Allies at Kasserine Pass in 1943 .

Rommel took Tobruk. If you say that a defeat is when you lose more men than the ennemy, then Germany had won all the battles in WWI and WWII with very few exceptions. But still they "lost" both wars. So, what is a defeat? The Soviets took Berlin, but they lost 200 thousand men, while the Germans only lost 50 thousand. So the Germans won the battle? No! they surrendered!

Rommel never took Tobruk while the Australians were there. By the time Rommel took Tobruk it didn't matter, the British had rearmed with Shermans and Rommel was history at Al Alamein. Tobruk was significant forstopping the Blitzkrieg and buying the British time. After that they almost never had another defeat.

Tobruk was one of the mistakes of Rommel. But actually he took Tobruk, but with heavy losses. It must be noted that the German Afrika Korps troops was a relatively small force which made a big impact. But all what they could do was to make some action. The African war fieldsa were never a decicive affair in the WWII

So much Swedich victory that Polsih forces change positon with 57 men lost including prosoners and wounded and swedich lost more then 300 men and 3 banners.

The Battle of Chojnice (Battle of Konitz) was a surprise nighttime attack followed by a run-and-chase battle during The Deluge - No honor no Glory !!

Wouldn't say that, actually let them live on borrowed time, since they drove back Attila. I'd say that maybe you have a point if it's due to the foderati, but this battle being the end, I can't agree.

The only reason that Stalin had his men rush into the city is because he was afraid that the Western Allies would somehow reach the city first.

Why didn't the Soviets just besiege the city , like Constantinople in 1453 , Paris in 1871 and Sevastopol in 1854 , rather than suffer so many casualties to take the city ?

Hell , Stalin sure expected a lot of loses of men and equipment and was going to cut his soldiers lose on the german civilian population,so he did'nt care any way , he wanted this to happen for his pleasure.

a stupid bloodshed, 200. 000 Russians and 50.000 germans were killed, tenthousands of German women raped. The war was long ago decided. It is not correct to say that teh battle divided Berlin. The division was a political issue long ago settled. Not a top 100 battle

Of all the battles on this list, perhaps the shortest in duration, but with 45 or so days to set the tactical situation. And while this came 30+ years after the Louisiana Purchase, it set the southern border of the nation, and was the last foreign army in what would become the United States. Santa Anna had known only victory to this point, the Texicans only defeat.

The Canadian/British forces were 170.000 men, which was 5 times more than the 35.000 Germans. And they also had new and better equipment

1st major Chinese victory against the West. many UN war materiel lost in this battle.

Chinese retook North Korean territory north of the 38th parallel from the Commies

Chinese lost 40k men while UN lost only 15k men but still decisive victory for the Chinese

A small force of 8000 U.S. Marines held off 120000 Chinese in the worst weather conditions in 100 years.

Bloody but did not have extreme political impact like verdun, marne, or tannenberg

this was the first battle of muslims this battle was fought while the muslims were fasting and they were only 313 with 2 horses and 70 camels While the opponents(the Quraish) had about 1000 men(well equipped) with 100 Horses and 170 camels and the muslims won

Battle fought by some of the bravest soldiers who ever walked the planet/

definetly the best war of all time

must be in teh top twenty at least! one of the most strategic battles ever! Zhuge's cunning planning with the help of gwan yu's great tactics, they beat Cao Cao who is also a great general!

Very enjoyable. i love learning about history and battles, so whoever made this site "cheers to you" thankyou

good :)

Are you talking about the Movie?

America had nothing to so in napoleonic wars. read up your history. wars which never took place arent wars by the way.