Talk:Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Related task forces (general topics):
	Military historiography task force
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	French military history task force
Related task forces (periods and conflicts):
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

France Portal

Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	To-do list for Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe:	edit · history · watch · refresh
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007 Feb 21. The result of the discussion was no consensus The name however was changed by consensus, and the talk page from the old article name moved here.

[edit] Arab sieges of Constantinople

I am aware that opinions on this subject vary widely, but the two defeats of the Arabs at Constantinople 674-678 Ad und 717-717 AD were absolutely instrumental in saving a distinct European culture. Since you listed the contemporary battle of Tours which saved Western Europe, it is plausible that you also include those two battles which saved Eastern Europe, and which in fact were fought on a much larger scale than in the West.

What do you think? Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Does a siege qualify as a battle? Most sieges are just "stalling" conflicts, with one side blockading the other one inside a city and waiting for them to die out. In most sieges, there wasn't any battling at all. The article siege does not qualify sieges as battles; moreover, it states that "several battles may take place between the besieging and the defending forces". Therefore, I think the sieges of Constantinople do not fit into this article. -- Doctor France 16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As you said the battle of Stalingrad was actually a protracted siege which took several months. The battle of Berlin was another siege. Many modern battles of encirclement and annihilation, notably of WW II, were actually in their character essentially sieges between encircling forces and those who tried to break out. In case of the Arab sieges they were a series of battles fought under the walls of Constantinople, conveniently summarized as 'sieges'. To be frank, I have quite often read that these Byzantine victories were actually even more important than the battle of Tours. Regards Gun Powder Ma 17:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely why I removed that example; I wanted to show a more modern example of the thing and I made a mistake. I do not deny that this battles may have been more important than the battle of Tours and are surely of macrohistorical importance, but according to the article on the Siege of Constantinople (718), it actually was the harsh winter and attrition which destroyed the Umayyad army; during the siege, there were a few skirmishes and raids by the Bulgarians, but none which can definitely count as a battle. As for the Siege of Constantinople (674)... it is not a battle itself. It consists of a conflict with a few battles in it, such as the Battle of Syllaeum, and ultimately, it was again the approach of winter which made the besiegers lift the siege. IMHO, a siege may include one or more battles but the siege is not a battle itself. In a siege, one faction cuts off the supplies of the other one and simply waits for it to succumb to starvation and illness; in a battle, deaths are caused by direct confrontation on the field.

I'll give you an example which is better suited than my previous one. The Battle of Vienna took place on the 11th and 12th of September of 1683; the siege had already began two months before. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the Battle of Vienna is not the same thing as the siege of Vienna. -- Doctor France 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A skirmish is a battle. A siege can also be a battle or have more battles (like the Siege on Constantinople in 1453). Also raids can end up in battles or just defeat various military units in their course (which again count as battles). Daizus 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prior discussions

"in which the existence of the European civilisation as such was compromised" - What do you mean by "compromised"? Irreversably altered of affected, or what do you mean? If it was affected (at that time) than how come (now) you speak of the "European civilisation as such"? Sounds like you quantum phisics and time travel to me. If it was affected at that time, then it wouldn`t by today "as such" (and as such, in it`s turn to be affected centuries ago). Similary, if the European civilisation was not affected, than why the need for that intro? I think you should better reword the intro part. Btw, what criteriae are there for a battle to be included in this article? For example, what about the Fall of Constantinople? I personally find the Battle of Manzikert and the Battle of Vaslui for example, events whose outcome directed the fate of the European civilisation. Petre Bolea 09:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Manzikert and Vaslui did affect the outcome of European civilisation, but this page is "reserved" for battles which, if lost, whould have probably meant the fall of all of or most of Europe (Vienna, Toulouse, Tours...) or of a nation which played a vital role in the formation of Europea heritage (Ancient Greece at Thermopylae, Roman Empire at Metaurus...). While the defeat at Manzikert did spell the beginning of the end for the East Roman Empire, it did not threaten the integrity of Europe nor its historical culture. As for the Battle of Vaslui, I have tried to limit myself to those battles which have the consensus of most historians; Vaslui is not the case, mostly because many believe that, even with a Turkish victory, the Ottoman Empire would have still been very far from attaining total (or almost total) control of Europe.

Irreversably altered of affected, or what do you mean? 
If it was affected (at that time) than how come (now) you speak of the "European civilisation as such"?

I mean that it could have been greatly changed, but it wasn't changed precisely because of the outcome of the battle. -- Doctor France 10:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I`m not a native speaker of english, so I just wanted to add that the first sentence sounds strange to me. Wouldn`t this be better: This is a list of battles of macrohistorical importance, whose outcomes constituted the crucial criteriae for the development of the European civilisation as such ? Petre Bolea 18:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's OK for me, go ahead if nobody else objects. I would change the "crucial criteriae" though, and put something less abstract. -- Doctor France 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How about This is a list of battles of macrohistorical importance, of whose outcomes the development of the European civilisation, as such, depended/rested upon ?

Ehh... I don`t know. Do as you want. I just wanted to help. Cheers! Petre Bolea 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'll change it to what you proposed. -- Doctor France 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is yet to be proved if battles like Toulouse or Tours were lost (or even Vienna) the whole Europe would have been lost. Actually Toulouse was near the border of the Islamic Spain like Vaslui was near the border of the Ottoman Turks. From an Euro-Christo-Centric point of view, they seem similarily peripheric to me. Daizus 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chalons and citations

from the last paragraph in the section:

Instead of finding itself largely under Gothic control,

let's not forget the Franks, Vandals, Lombards, Burgundians, etc. . . .

Europe would have been dominated by the Huns, whose nomadic tradition and lifestyle would have shaped a very different kind of Europe,

. . . all of whom attempted, to some degree, to assimilate and imitate the lifestyle of the Romans they conquered. Who says the Huns--who were, by the time of Attila's invasions, only the rulers of a large multi-ethnic confederation--wouldn't have done the same? Priscus wrote of farming and permanent buildings, including Roman-style stone baths, in Attila's lands--indicating that the Huns were already well on the way to abandoning nomadism and adopting a settled lifestyle. Heck, Attila's pretense for the invasion of 451 was a claim to Honoria's hand in marriage and rule of half the empire.

Consider the Magyars: they were pastoral nomads and fearsome raiders when they moved into Europe in the 9th century, but were rulers of a feudal kingdom similar to its western neighbors by the 12th. Who's to say that the Huns would not have likewise assimilated? (Who does say that? The paragraph is unsourced.) Who's to say that, had the Huns reached the Atlantic, the added territories wouldn't have been part of the general collapse of the Hun empire following Attila's death in 453?

in which Christianism, for example, would not have played such an important role as it actually did during the Middle Ages.

While one could speculate that the Hun paganism that appeared dominant at Attila's time would remain indefinitely, that would just be speculation, and unlikely: the only invaders of Christian Europe (late antique - medieval era) who did not either start out or end up Christianized were the Arabs.

This section (and indeed the article as a whole) needs better sourcing; the only section with any citations, vague though they are, is the one on the battle of Tours--and there the citations don't support any arguments on why it was important, but merely say that it was important, see, because all these people say it was. 67.68.242.65 17:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What about Salamis? The Mongol invasions? --164.107.223.217 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

what about them indeed? (and why is this list restricted only to Europeans vs. Johnny Foreigners, anyway? intra-European battles of significance exist--try Tannenberg or the Battle of the Ice.) we're told there's a widespread consensus that these six battles are capital-I Important, above all others, but we're not told who came to this consensus and how. 67.68.205.232 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A defeat at the Battle of Salamis would not have necessarily dealt a lethal blow to the Greeks, as they still had other forces left. On the other hand, the situation at Thermopylae was worse; had Leonidas and his 300 Spartans not held the onslaught for 3 days, the Greek army would not have been able to organise itself for Artemisium and Salamis itself and would have probably been overrun, leaving Greece at the Persians' mercy. As for the Mongol Invasions, see the discussion above on the sieges of Constantinople - this article concerns battles, not entire campaigns. On a further note, there was no battle in which European peoples defended their culture from the Mongol Empire; the only reason Europe was not overrun was because of the Khan's untimely death. -- Doctor France 10:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor France is absolutely correct. There is no one battle to hinge the Mongol invasions on - and they would have completely destroyed the European powers had the Great Khan not died, and ended Batu's invasion of Europe. Stillstudying 13:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some of the problems I've found in this article

unreferenced generalizing claims: "there is a widespread consensus", "It is usually believed", "Most historians agree", "This view is widespread"
unreferenced speculations:

"Because a great part of European civilisation is based on the heritage of Ancient Greece, a successful invasion of Greece by the Persians and their subsequent domination would have surely changed the history of Europe."

"If, on the other hand, Rome had fallen, the Roman Empire would never have exerted its influence on European history, an influence which shaped a great deal of European culture."

"After having stormed most of the Roman Empire, Attila was intent on reaching the Atlantic Ocean. Had he reached his goal and had Rome been unable to mount resistance against his invasion, the masters of Europe after the end of the Roman Empire in 476 would have been very different. Instead of finding itself largely under Gothic control, Europe would have been dominated by the Huns, whose nomadic tradition and lifestyle would have shaped a very different kind of Europe, in which Christianism, for example, would not have played such an important role as it actually did during the Middle Ages."

POV and undue weight: though in the Wiki articles on some of these battles the controversy on importance is sometimes balanced, here the views against macrohistorical importance are totally missing giving the false impression this view is undisputed at all (and also in conjunction with the generalizing claims I've mentioned above).
misleading references: I'm wondering why exactly historians like Tomaž Mastnak or Pierre Riche are referenced. As the other POVs are missing, it gives the false impression to the reader that all those guys support (at least partially) the views given in the article.

For all these, I'll add two warning tags - NPOV and OR. Daizus 09:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Article is being sourced, and rewritten

To answer you in part, Tomaž Mastnak's views, and several others in opposition to some of the findings on this page, are being presented. I did not write the article, but am attempting a rewrite, which will take considerable time - at least 10 days, because I feel opposing views need to be listed, the article needs renaming, et al. But in considerable part, you are citing statements that are well documented historically, such as:

"This view is widespread because it is seen as very improbable that, had the Frankish kingdom fallen, the rest of Europe, divided into little, squabbling states, would have been able to resist the Muslim expansion" This is almost taken word for word from the works of William Watson, one of our most respected modern historians:

"There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732.^[1]

Nor of course is Watson alone in that - Victor Davis Hanson, military historian, says of that Battle:

"What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuence of the successful western defense of Europe. Flush from his victory at Poitiers, Charles went on to clear southern France from Islamic invaders for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundation of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and avaiable troops from local estates." ^[2]

As to Attila, that is a rewrite of Gibbon's findings in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. There is no question that the article needs at the least a complete rewrite, with heavy sourcing, and opposing viewpoints. I am in the process of doing just that. I believe you will find that all viewpoints will be fairly presented - you are welcome to join the effort to do so, instead of simply tagging the article, help fix it. I did not write this article, but believe as it is here, it either should be corrected or deleted. As a part of European history, it deserves to stay, perhaps retitled. It obviously, as I have repeatedly said, needs rewriting, sourcing, and opposing views to meet the wikipedia encyclopedic standard. I am in the process of doing that, and any help is welcomed. old windy bear 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I usually go first on commenting and participate a bit later (unless I think it's something very obvious or non-contrversial). As you can see from my comments I believe this article is a far way from what I'd consider a NPOV presentation, so I expect the tags to stay there for a while.

From your quotes, I do not see any justification for "this view is widespread". Those quotes do not address the historiography, do not clarify how the majority or a certain minority is viewing the problem, do not clarify if a view is widespread or isolated. That's one of the problems I raised also in the AFD discussion.

I also do not agree how you inserted Mastnak's view on Tours. Hanson's opinion should be listed along the others supporting the same idea, not as a reply to Mastnak. Mastnak's view is encircled by the views of others supporting the macrohistorical significance, thus leaving the reader a biased impression. I agree with POV1 vs POV2 type of construction but not with POV1 vs POV2 vs POV1. Daizus 17:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Daizus All I ask is give me a chance - my outline has a opposing view vs. opposing view, and that will have Hanson in one section, Mastnak in another, along with Hitti, and several other very promenant scholars who have that viewpoint. This is a work in progress! Plesae give me a chance, and in 10 days, when I write "this is now ready for your inspection" I am willing to wager you will feel it is fair. Now it is just in transition, with Mastnak being the first opposing view to be entered - I need Hitti's book, which I have ordered, to quote him exactly. Part of the problem with this article is that it uses generalizations instead of exact quotes. I had Mastnak's book, so could quote from him immediately, as with Hanson, Oman, Fuller, Creasy, Gibbon, et al. I have no trouble with the tags being on - I AGREE WITH YOU, THEY SHOULD BE ON! I simply am not going to put in more generalizations - that is what the original problem was! Work with me, is all I ask, and I believe you will feel it is fairly done in the end, and I welcome your help. (or anyone else's!) I simply was not going to paraphrase Hitti, or other historians, I have ordered the books I need to finish this. (I had Hitti, lent him out, and the lady who had it lost it!) old windy bear 18:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I give you the impression I'm pressing you or anything. I am not. I am willing to give you all the time in the world you need. Even help you if I believe this is going to be helpful. For the time being, I just thought it's fair to start the give more space to justify my "delete" vote. Because, the way I see it, the solutions to these problems will trigger others:

* once both (or more) POVs are presented, what will be the justification of the article? What name shall it have? Battles which some see as macrohistorical but some not? And what will be its raison d'être? Why is it not just a category, if anything (all the content of the article should be also in the articles dedicated to those battles)?

* how will we then estabilish the content? Probably many other battles were seen by some historians as macrohistorical (and you can see in the talk pages several other battles were proposed) - on what criteria will we choose the battles? And macrohistorical to what? the entire Europe? and what is exactly the area and from what point of view (cultural/religious, geographic, etc.) - to Vienna, to Urals?

The attempt to give a NPOV look to this article will transform it in a huge essay: starting with differences on defining Europe, on interpreting some historical events of macrohistorical importance or not, on integrating the "battle history" of a certain Europe into it, on discussing each battle, etc. (and each time presenting as many POVs as we have knowledge of). That's why I concluded in my comments in AFD page it would be better to have an article for the debates around macrohistory, presenting the clashes of paradigms - this, IMO, could get an encyclopedic shape. The former, not. Daizus 09:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I want to clarify another little detail: in reality, these POVs are a bit more varied than POV1 vs POV2. I've read Watson's article from De Re Military site and beside the conclusion you quoted he also says:

His invasion was neither simply a raid nor part of a grand scheme to conquer all Christendom, it was a failed attempt to elimi–nate a strategic threat located north of the Andalusi border. Moreover, the battle did not decide the outcome of the Christian-Muslim struggle in Francia. Rather, it brought a determined new participant into the field of combat, the Frankish army, which launched an offensive against the remaining Muslin bases to the south only a few years after Charles won his victory at Tours-Poitiers and earned himself the title Martel ("Hammer")

It's a bit unfair to put him side by side with historians like Gibbon et al. because Watson clearly puts a distance between him and them:

Beginning in the eighteenth century, however, non-clerical authors began to exaggerate the significance of the battle. Edward Gibbon, for example, wrote in 1776 [...]. Similarly, M. Guizot and Mme. Guizot de Witt wrote in 1869 [...].

Watson's alternative history of Europe is simply "vastly different" not "Islamic" as it would be for many other authors. Daizus 09:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel you are giving me a hard time - you clearly know I did not write this, and am just trying to clean it up. You are raising genuine issues that need to be resolved, and that is always a positive. On Watson, it is true that Watson is very careful to use far more nuanced language when describing the outcome of the Battle - but he still says

And actually his conclusions are almost precisely those of Antonio Santosuosso, another modern historian who also found that the greatest effect of the battle was to bring the determined and dynamic presence of the Frankish Army into play, which put an end to Islamic expansion into the Great Land. (he emphasizes the Battle at the River Berre, far more than Tours, where Martel smashed a relief army coming to the aid of invasion forces being attacked by the Franks in the 734-37 campaigns!) Both did find macrohistorical importance in this, though they fall short of Gibbon's rhetoric! But even Hanson wonders if Gibbon was not simply engaging in hyperbole in his famous "sail up the Thames but for Martel" rant. I think Bury's description, though a century old, is probably the most accurate other than Watson's. (As I wrote someone else, that is an ongoing academic dispute, as you know, what role the works of the mid era historians should play - not everyone agrees that they should be discounted; indeed, at universities like UT Bury is still given as the definitive source on the later Roman Empire. Among the moderns, Grant for instance comes right out and practically says what Gibbon did, and Hans Drubeck, still one of Germany's greatest military historians, (despite his being pre-WW II) is so dramatic as to call this the greatest battle of history! But I appreciate your giving me time to correct this - if the vote is not to delete, I honestly believe it can be fairly rewritten, just as we did on the battle of tours main article. Remember, we faced the exact same problems with that article, and reached a fine article and complete consensus. The same can be done here, it will just take time and work. In that article, we were careful to draw distinctions between the early moderns, Gibbon, Bury, Creasy, and then the mids, Drubeck, Hitti, followed by this generation,Tomaž Mastnak, Watson, Grant, Santosuosso, Wakefield, et al.

As far as how to create the list, we will use Paul Davis's, or Hanson's, or David Eggenberger's, or find those battles specifically listed as macrohistorical in the west by respected historians, such as Paul Davis or Hanson. Of course, on the more controversial, such as Tours, opposing viewpoints will be listed. An encyclopedia has to use reference materials and source it's articles accordingly - and I believe it can be done. old windy bear 12:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence from Watson to make us assume those Muslims raids were an attempt to properly expand the Ummeyad realm (anyway not furthermore than Loire valley, i.e. furthermore than Aquitania). Even in the proper content of the article, in the chapter dedicated to motivations, they have just an immediate goal as Watson speaks only of a military offensive against Aquitania, let's quote him for clarification: "Rather than being merely a raid for plunder in the dar al-Harb, or an attempt to conquer the entire Christian world, the northern expedition of Abd ar-Rahman was designed to eliminate the strategic threat that Eudo of Aquitaine posed to the Andalusi Muslims. "

In his assessment Watson makes a distinct position from Gibbon et al.. He is not just wondering if others hyperbolized, he clearly states they exaggerated greatly. The Christian world would have NOT fallen, had Martel lost the battle at Tours. The paragraph you quote from Watson comparing this situation with Muslim overruning the Visigothic Spain refers only to these territories (Septimania, eventually Aquitania), not to the entire Francia, not to the entire Europe. Putting all these historians in the same pot it is very dangeorous, and possibly qualifiable as original research. I believe it's fair (whereever this battle is described - here, in the article on Tours, or in the article on Charles Martel) to make it clear these historians argue from different POVs on the macrohistorical significance. For some it is the Europe being saved from Islam, for other it is just the warrant for the succcess of Carolingians in almost the entire Western Europe. Two very different views, even if essentially they can be reduced to a common denominator - the macrohistorical significance. Perhaps the section on macrohistorical importance may be divided in two others, perhaps from the text of the section we can point out the differences between these historians, we'll talk and see. Daizus 12:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Daizus I agree with you completely. I have always tried to point out that Watson uses far more realistic, nuanced, and less bombastic language than Gibbon, and makes a far more detailed and realistic appraisal of why the Battle was important. I think also there is a very clear distinction between Watson, (and Santosuosso, whose findings are quite similiar), and Grant, Martin, and other modern historians who echo Gibbon. I personally believe Watson and Santosuosso are correct, (though obviously it does not matter what I personally think!). I think Tours was vital not in that it saved the world as we know it, but that it brought into the conflict a new and very vital element, the frankish army, which ended up ruling Europe for a century as the Carolingian Empire, and which set the stage for the Holy Roman Empire. Not to completely downgrade Tours - I do think it had macrohistorical impact, just not of the world-saving class - I think Santosuosso was correct that for pure military impact, the defeat of the relief force at the River Berre by Martel in 737 was probably his single most important military victory, because, as Santosuosso says, that defeat ended attempts to invade the great land while the Umayyads could. I believe your idea of a separate section for the "yes it was macrohistorical, no, it was not the saving of the western world" views, that Watson and Santosuosso espouse is a very good idea. If you will help, we can talk about how best to do that, once we see if there is going to be an article. I would also like your thoughts on which sources to draw on to get a list from, again, if there is going to be an article. I think this is a fascinating subject, that we can get an interesting article from, it just needs to be completely rewritten. old windy bear 14:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] let us get to work to fix this article!

Daizus Any ideas on which battles to include? I was thinking of those which are in Creasy's list, which are invasions of Europe? Thoughts? That way we can debate the pros and cons of his list, and how history has changed or the viewpoint has, since that time? old windy bear 11:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. But I have already thought of a structure for this article, in case the AfD would result in a "keep" vote.

The article needs an introduction about what a battle of macrohistorical importance is and about the general opposition of views - those supporting a history decisively shaped by battles vs those giving less importance to battles. Also a definition of Europe (a Christian Catholic Europe, or a Graeco-Roman inheriting Europe or perhaps geographically defined) should be made clear, of course, in the same balance of POVs.

The proper list of battles I suggest to be an open list. However, let's not allow any battle to be listed there. We can add supplementary conditions to filter notable and relevant battles - e.g. at least two relatively recent historians (writing in let's say last 50 years? last 100 years?) should openly support the battle's significance at macrohistorical level.

The format of each battle could be on the existing template - a link to the battle's main article, a little summary, opinions supporting the macrohistorical importance and opinions opposing that (criticism).

Anyway, whatever criteria are decided for these battles, they must be openly stated to avoid continuous tagging for POV.

These are my suggestions for start. If you can improve them or you have better suggestions, the better. Daizus 12:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Daizus I think they are excellent suggestions. First, we include any battle that has at least two historians who have stated in their writings that the battle has macrohistorical importance, or, "changed Europe's history," - you know what I mean, language that clearly states macrohistorical importance. As to the defintion of macrohistorical, what about our own wikipedia definition, which defines macrohistorical as

"Macro-historical analysis seeks out large, long-term trends in world history, searching for ultimate patterns through a comparison of proximate details. For example, a Macro-historical study might examine Japanese feudalism and European feudalism in order to decide whether feudal structures are an inevitable outcome given certain conditions. Macro-historical studies often "assume that macro-historical processes repeat themselves in explainable and understandable ways" Examples of macro-historical analysis include Karl Marx's assertion that all history can be explained through economics and class struggle, and Arnold J. Toynbee's historical synthesis in explaining the rise and fall of civilizations."

As to a definition of Europe, what about defining it as the Graeco-Roman inheriting Europe? Thoughts? old windy bear 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed title

[edit] Proposed title (and move): Important battles in the History of Europe

Vote in this poll in support or against the poll. Debate - with the aim of reaching a [consensus] immediately follows. Tazmaniacs 18:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Support. Tazmaniacs 18:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. Daizus 20:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

~~# Support Alf^Photoman 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)~~

[edit] Oppose

Oppose Alf^Photoman 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the current title, because these battles on this page are about those that meant an Asian or African civilization might have destroyed the West as we understand it, with Greek ideals of democracy, Roman ideals of republicanism, and later Christianity. If it were just about important battles in European history, then the page would have to be expanded greatly and include Waterloo and any number of other crucial battles. Why ruin the stated intention of this page?!--164.107.223.217 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The purpose of this article is clearly not to discuss all battles in european history, but rather to discuss battles for the existance of european civilization.KenBest 21:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I thought this was a dead idea, given the discussions ongoing at the end of the page. old windy bear 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate

The dispute obviously has not been resolved by the recent Afd. Maybe we all got a bit carried away... But the administrator who closed the Afd obviously had his own POV, or he needs to closely read the following [consensus] guidelines:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.

A variety of users - I'm far from being alone here - I've noted that this article, because of its name, necessary entailed original research (using a synthesis of sources doesn't make it less OR; and WP:RS requires modern sources, not things such as The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World published in 1851. I will quickly resume the deletionist arguments:

"Macrohistorical" is a strange concept which is not used by the vast majority of modern historians (and ancient ones also).
"Macrohistorical battles" is a contradiction in terms, as "macrohistory" would seem to entail long-span times, and battles occur, at most, in a few years (most of the times, a few days or weeks are enough).
"European civilization" is a POV and fuzzy concept. If you guys can find me 30 sources from internationally-known historians and philosophers, from various backgrounds and opinions, defining in the same way "European civilization", you will be very strong indeed! But even if you managed that incredible feat, you would still have to explain why the member states of the European Union could not agree on a definition of that so-called "European civilization" during the debate on whether to include, or not Christianity as a character of this so-called civilisation in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Not one person who voted "yes" has adressed this argument - with reason... I recall that the majority of member states decided not to include Christianity in the definition of "Europe", but only mentionned the "cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe". Humanism, in a number of countries and for a number of persons, including Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, etc., etc., entails secularism and freedom of religion.

For all these reasons, the title remains disputed and will remain so until we solve this dispute. Maybe an Afd was not the correct way to proceed (although starting an article named like that is obviously taking WP for a battleground). In this case, I apologize if need be - although I don't feel "guilty", probably because Christianism is not embedded that much on my European character. In order to find a consensus which will suit everyone, I propose to rename the article to Important battles of the History of Europe in accordance with naming conflict guidelines:

"Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes... Nevertheless, some degree of standardisation of terms is required for practical and technical reasons...
If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.
Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute...
Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.

Finally, Google gives zero results (!) for a search in English languages on "macrohistorical battles of the European civilization" (excluding, of course, "Wikipedia", in accordance with Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references. This clearly shows that this article title (and content) is OR. Simply searching for macrohistorical + battles + existence + european + civilization does not give any result either. Whereas "important battles in the history of Europe" gives 8 results (which show at which point this is a fringe subject for contemporary historians) but important + battles + history + europe gives... 1,520,000 results. I really think you ought to consider moving this page to Important battles of the history of Europe, notwithstanding that this would permit a subarticle of History of Europe and permit everyone, from all points of views, Ultra-Catholic Polish or radical laic French, English Reformed or Andalusian Catholic anarchist peasant, Greek Orthodox right-winger or Bosnian Muslim socialist, Protestant Rom or Antillese Evangelic — I recall that French Guiana is part of the European Union, and is the most tropical EU territory, from where the European Space Agency regulary launch its rockets —, Turkish secular diplomat, to contribute, as a member of the European Union, to this article. Sorry for disturbing you, Tazmaniacs 18:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very clear on the a synthesis of sources applied to such a topic. There are a lot of listing topics in Wikipedia, from categories to "list of x", topics with no reference on their structure and in some cases even unreferenceable as they are gathered in time, by many editors. Actually, on a more general perspective, the article's structure is seldom referenced by sources. As long as the items from a list do not infer an unsourced conclusion, I don't think it's any OR involved.

The syntagm "macrohistorical battle" is wrong, but in the other articles linked from this one and in their talk pages, I've seen used however "macrohistorical significance", "macrohistorical importance", "macrohistorical level", syntagms which you can find even on Google. I suspect "macrohistorical battle" is an unthoughtful shortened equivalent for "battles whose consequences were important at macrohistorical level" or "battles having a macrohistorical significance". In principle I agree with the move, but I don't think necessarily we should avoid the term "macrohistory" because essentially the scholars quoted so far to support such a view, they argue on a major importance, sometimes they use superlatives like "most important", "most influential", etc., they offer alternative scenarios of a "mirror-reversed world" (e.g. the Europe would have been non-Christian instead of Christian).

But I agree with you we need a definition of Europe and the list should be open within the bounds of our definition. Daizus 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Europe is a geographically defined region that has the EU in it. The EU is not Europe. Alf^Photoman 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Such a definition would require that two or more historians have written that the battle had implications which changed or dramatically effected European or world history. As to a definition of Europe, what about defining it as the current members of the European Union? That eliminates any possibility of POV as it would be strictly based on what the member states of the existing polity are. Thoughts? old windy bear 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not see any connection between EU and the 3 millenia history of European civilization (the article makes some interesting points; it also gives a list of Early civilizations - that is maybe a starting point for picking up Ancient Greece and/or Ancient Rome and point out the battles with alleged macrohistorical importance in "linking" those civilizations with today's world). I also suggest we use a definition which in future might be expanded (maybe some others will like to create similar topics for Far-East Asia, Middle East, Meso-America or other geographical/cultural units from the globe). Daizus 08:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and Taz, while I browsed a number of history articles here on Wikipedia I noticed there's a general trend here in considering the history of mankind (especially until the dawn of modern era) as a history of kings and battles. While such an article would indeed support openly this paradigm, at the core, many of Wikipedia's historical articles encourage this approach. And consequently we might find readers or editors (fortunately not Oldwindybear and some others which so far are open and considering the arguments of the opposite side and I'm very thankful for that) labelling our attempt to create NPOV as "political correctness" or "postmodernist" or similar such labels people use to address on a blaming tone what they perceive as attempts to conceal an inconvenient reality. Daizus 08:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Daizus HI my friend, I agree with you - the use of the EU would be too limiting. Oh well, I was trying to cut down the number of complaints on POV that will come up. Okay, then I agree, lets start off with Greek-Roman, and go from there. I also agree with you that most articles online - not just wikipedia, though I agree with you there also - tend to define historial events as a history of various Monarchs and battles. Thanks for seeing that I am open to other definitions, because I am, but alas, many see any attempt to depart from that as "political correctness," and we are going to get attacked for that. old windy bear 11:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Drappy 08:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

When you are discussing european civilization, it seems you are under the impression that there is a homogenous nature to western thought and culture. Is europe a geographical land mass which would then include Russia and Turkey? The iberian penisula from the 9th to the 15th century was in arab hands as were the Balkans for 500 years under turkish rule. The greeks also had their outposts along the black sea and Anatolia. So then, is it a shared cultural heritage? Or is it a question of West as opposed to East; Catholicism and Protestantism as opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy; it seems that Christianity as opposed to Islam is the defining argument for the last 3 battles. It was in the mediterranean that European Civilization began in the threefold shape of ancient greece, Rome, and Christianity but in saying that, Europes borders were never fixed. So, when you are discussing European Civilization, it might be a fraction more accurate to exclude the word civilisation.Drappy 08:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate title proposed

I do think the word "macrohistorical" should be kept in the title if we can, so I would propose a blending of the two proposed titles, "Macrohistorical Battles in the History of Europe." old windy bear

Like it was argued, I believe the syntagm is indeed self-contradicting. I understand its intended meaning when used coloquially, but let's make the title with as little ambiguity possible. If you want an adjective for "battles" that would be "important", "significant", perhaps "major". And the lead of the article could shed some light on macrohistory and macrohistorical. Daizus 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Daizus greetings again, and I see your point, and will endorse whatever the majority wants. old windy bear 11:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the word macrohistorical should be kept else every battle in European history will soon be in this article. The battles that should remain are those that acc. to a majority of historians hewlped shape Europe into what it is now Alf^Photoman 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I mean ALL of Europe, not just the EU. Alf^Photoman 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I support renaming the article Important battles in the History of Europe as suggested by Tazmaniacs and Daizus, and I agree that the lead section of the article can do the job of introducing the idea of macrohistory. It's true as Daizus points out above—in connection with the issue of a synthesis of sources—that there are many listing topics in WP, but most are finite lists of the sort that can easily be verified to everybody's satisfaction with readily available sources, for instance List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, lists of tallest buildings, etc. There's a good reason why very few WP articles start with the word "Important"; those that do often get deleted due to intractable OR and POV problems, or become sprawling monsters like List of important publications in sociology. The creation of a seemingly objective criterion—support from two historians—doesn't really solve this, as disagreements are likely over choice of historians, there will be objections that two is an arbitrary or insufficient number, and so on. Not sure what the answer is, but the name change would be a step in the right direction. Ewulp 09:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Claiming "macrohistorical" can provide a criteria for the selection or exclusion of battles first entails that we can find an objective, consensual definition of this — by "consensual", I don't mean "Wikipedia consensus" (WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY) but something agreed on by the historian scientific community). However, the possibility itself of a "macrohistorical battle" is contested, as recalled by Daizus. It would really simplify things if we took the more common, and perhaps less pretentious term of "important" or "major". True enough, it would not guarantee an objective way of selecting or exclusing battles. Neither would "macrohistorical" for that matter. Furthermore, I agree with Daizus concerning Wikipedia's systemic bias toward what Braudel called "histoire événementielle" (or "event history", "history based on events"), to the disadvantage of less exciting, but perhaps deeper at the end, studies based on analysis of long term tendencies, statistics, econometry, analysis of the climate, etc., most tools brought by modern science and which were not accessible to 19th century historians. The reason for this bias is simple: important battles, which can be easily remembered through the use of dates (and anyone who has learnt history knows how easy learning dates is, although it at first appears impossible to remember so much data...), and famous figures, which story can and are easily romanticized, fictionized and, now, made into popular films, are much more known by the general public than say, the price of corn or the evolution of the Yersinia pestis bacteria. Another possible reason for this bias is the rather facility to create a biography, which basically only needs birth date, nationality, occupation, year of graduation, and one remarkable event which, as Hegel would have said, has made the guy enter "universal history" (or maybe just "universal Wikitrivia", but that's another matter - let's not conjoncture on the "end of history" and others similar apocalyptic ideas...) To go to the point, I really see no reason, in the current state of this rational debate and presented arguments, in strong refusal of this proposed move, others than ideological attempts at defining a determined conception of Europe which is obviously far from being the majority view point, both among European people (who are they? Turkish? Russian? Bosnian Muslims? Algerian refugees?----) and among contemporary historians. Tazmaniacs 03:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I add that, whatever the epithet may be, "macrohistorical", "major", or "important", the "tied to the existence of European civilisation" proposition definitively supports the inclusion of the Wars of Religion, the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, World War II, and one could argue the Spanish Civil War, to name a few (and to restrict oneself to old battles - let's not talk about more current genocides, Srebrenica massacre or others things which, of course, have never engaged the "soul" of the "European civilization" - nor marred it, for that matter... Europeans still look at themselves in the mirror every morning). Or would someone here be ready to argue that the so-called "European civilisation"'s fate did not reside on the issue of these battles? And should we add "fought on European territory", and then argue on what belongs to "European territory" or not? The Crusades? Colonial wars? Yves Guérin Sérac, for instance, definitively thought the European civilization rested on the fate of the Portuguese Colonial Wars, while OAS members were also sure that on the issue of the Algerian War depended the fate of Europe (not only of France, of Catholic Europe, mind you!). Some today believe the fate of the Western World depends on the victory over the Iraqi insurgency, but that's got nothing to do with Europe, has it? What about the Great Trek by Afrikaneers descendents who fled "European civilization" brought about by the British Army? Tazmaniacs

[edit] Addition of Battle of Lepanto

Because it was suggested during the deletion period that the Battle of Lepanto, 1571, be added, as it was the largest naval engagement between European and invading forces in history, and certainly had macrohistorical importance, (more along the lines of Chalons, in that the Ottoman Navy rebuilt even stronger within six months of the defeat - but their aura of invincibility had been forever shattered). Does anyone object to the introduction of this battle as part of the article? As to the name, I will go along with whatever the majority wants. Believe it or not, I don't think the list of battles is going to be endless, because there simply are not that many battles that two or more historians have put in writing effected the fate of Europe, and/or the world, between European and invading forces. old windy bear 14:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

the minimum that can be attributed to Lepanto is the strong cultural ties it caused between Italy and Spain at the time, therefore, yes, it should be part of this article. But wear your helmet because it will be (sadly) again interpreted as the (eternal[sic]) fight between Christians and Muslims, which had absolutely nothing to to with it. It was strong economical interests that caused this battle Alf^Photoman 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Alf^Photoman Greetings my friend! Yes, I expect to be blasted, but the truth is, Victor Davis Hanson wrote a fascinating article on this battle as the classic "caused by economic interests" battle, with huge long term impact both culturally and economically. Thanks for the heads up and for the support! old windy bear 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] limit it to Invasions of Europe

I agree that defining Europe may not be the easiest task in the world, but going all over the map - the Africaner trek? We might as well include the Puritan flight to the New World! I think the idea of an article which discussed crucial battles fought as macrohistorial turning points vis a vis Europeans versus invaders was a good idea. Mind you, I did not write this article, i merely thought it an interesting idea, and still think so. I think Taz your motives are good ones - I don't doubt your good faith - but I think you are expanding this to global proporations, when it isn't that complex an idea. I think the idea of defining this to battles that two or more MODERN historians find as macrohistorical - and they do take climate, economics, cultural trends, and a host of factors that early chroniclers could not into account -- is a good place to start, and then we go from there. I don't think we should get into the Napoleanic Wars, or the 100 years War, or the host of other intra European war because that both destroys the whole concept of the article, and makes the list impossibly long, and besides, all those events have their own lists. I simply don't think it is going to be that hard to make a list that two or more modern historains find effected European or world history macrohistorically, and we use the wikipedia definition of macrohistorical effect. old windy bear 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Correctness Run Amok

This is yet another example of political correctness running amok. How can anyone seriously debate that these battles were of historical importance in that they swayed all of history in their aftermath. Yet we debate the title? Aren't each of these battles between European forces and outsiders? Aren't all of them vetted by two or more modern historians as having world class implicaations!? Then what is the debate about? Finishedwithschool 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another title proposal

I've restored the original order of comments above; Tazmaniacs' refactoring and bolding of the word "support" may have had the effect of making my enthusiasm for the proposed name change seem greater than it is. I supported the change because, as others have pointed out, the present article name is very, very bad, and until a better alternative comes along, this is a reasonable stopgap. But Important battles in the History of Europe is not really an appropriate title for the text of this article--any article called Important battles in the history of Europe should include Malta and Normandy and Stalingrad and many others--they're important, right? If they are not included, the stipulations given in the opening paragraph--the battle has to be between a European entity and a non-European entity, and of macrohistoric importance--constitute a bait-and switch. It's as if History of the automobile started off with a disclaimer that "only front-engine, rear-wheel drive autos with over 10 million sold will be mentioned in this article". That leaves out the entire first 30 years of automotive history, along with much else, and such an article needs a more accurate name. Others have pointed out what's wrong with "Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation"; the debate over this is not "political correctness run amok". To recap:

"Macrohistorical battles" is not a sensible combination of words. Macrohistorical means "over a long period of history", so a macrohistorical battle would be a battle lasting for centuries. These ones were over quickly; historians described their consequences as macrohistorical. An article about people who are famous for having traveled extensively shouldn't be named Famous extensive people--it's the wrong adjective, same problem seen in this article's name. The error in usage should be corrected for the same reason we check dates for accuracy & fix typos--without attention to standards WP looks amateurish & loses credibility.
"tied to the existence of European civilisation" is hyperbolic, suggesting that, had the battle of the Metaurus (or any of the others) gone the other way, a civilization worthy of the name would not have existed in Europe afterwards. At least that's one way to read it. The text of the article states the facts more accurately: "If, on the other hand, Rome had fallen, the Roman Empire would never have exerted its influence on European history, an influence which shaped a great deal of European culture." Elsewhere, similar reasonable conclusions are presented--the outcome at Toulouse assured the development of the Catholic Church as we know it; Vienna curtailed Turkish expansion in southeastern Europe. Particular religions and languages are up for grabs; the existence of civilization itself is not. The title should not misrepresent the article.

Given the premise of the article, an accurate title might be Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe, or Battles of macrohistorical importance between Europeans and invaders. These aren't great but they fit the article. Any thoughts? Ewulp 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ewulp I agree with all your conclusions above. I think a reasonable compromise might be Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe which would be far more accurate than the present title. The biggest problem with the present title is the word "civilization" (or "civilisation," as the author wrote it). All the battles listed carried huge impact for particular religions, cultures, and languages; all were, as Ewulp noted, up for grabs in those battles which at least two modern historians said they determined, but the existence of civilization itself was not in danger - it was what type of civilization that was. The title should not misrepresent the article. Basically the battles listed all defended a Greeco-Roman Culture that evolved into present day Orthadox and Roman Catholic Europe. (I would also argue that if we include Turkey we should include Manzikert, and the Battle of Ankara on July 20, 1402, plus the 717 seige of Constandinople, and it's fall to Memet the Conquerer. Anyway, I agree with the change to Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe old windy bear 11:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree Alf^Photoman 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Even I agree with this suggested title. And the logic that he outlined was sound history, not PC, so I support it. Finishedwithschool 14:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the debate is difficult, I am pleased to see that some are willing to negotiate and find consensus. The recurrent use of the term "political correctness" clearly state the xenophobic POV of those not willing to negotiate — let's be clear on that. And don't call me a radical because I state that, as I've mentionned several times my POV is supported by many European states, many historians, lots of philosophers, etc. I will spare all of us another enumeration of sources concerning that. The main problems concerns the use of the concept of "macrohistory", as well as the use of the term "European civilization". If I've brought out the Great Trek story, it is not at all by pure provocation. If you read Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, tome II on Imperialism, you will see that the Afrikaneers were fleeing from "European civilization", and of the best part of European civilization: the Enlightenment and the abolition of slavery. H. Arendt is hardly a radical philosopher, although her thoughts may certainly disturb some far-right radicals who can't even carry out a rational debate. If you do insist on including the idea - and not the concept (see Immanuel Kant's distinction between an idea & a concept) of a "European civilization", you will inevitably have to engage the whole of Western civilization. Europe, as you know, has had a history of imperialism, which has lead it to spread its culture around, and not only in the "New World." Refusing to adress these concerns, on the grounds that they are too "philosophical", is simply admitting that the current title and idea of the article is POV and can not be defended against criticisms from some of the best representants of Western philosophy as well as historians. Titling the article Invasions of Europe would at least have the advantage of being more straight-forward. Now, if you insist on retaining the epithets of "Macrohistorical", "Important Battles", etc., and tied it to "European civilization", in all logics you will have to include wars of religion, both World Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, etc.: don't tell me that these wars have not "engaged the existence of European civilization". Who can argue that the current aspect of Europe would have been the same if the French Revolution had been crushed in the egg, instead of being successfully maintained in its basic aspects by the Directorate and Napoleon? Read Hegel numerous works on philosophy of history. See Kant's amazement at the news of the French Revolution. Henceforth, there aren't many choices left: either you insist on maintaining this article on a "Us vs Them" slant, which I personally do not support as it is a simplistic reading of history which, willingly or not, carries out ideological undertones. In this case, name this article Invasions of Europe. Or you choose to insist on "European civilization"; but them you have to accept that the European Civil War, as some historians have called World War I, is one of the main battle which has engaged "European civilization". Another important problem is the confusion between Europe as a geographical place and Europe as a "civilization". As I and others have repeatedly point out, the concept of "Europe civilization" is grounded on the assumption of a monolithic European civilization, which would be Christian before everything. This is not only ignoring main thinkers of the European tradition, such as Spinoza, Voltaire, etc., the European conception of a secular state. It is also reviving Wars of Religion and supporting Samuel Huntington's controversial theory on the so-called "clash of civilizations". Concerning the sneaky comments about "political correctness", I've been used on Wikipedia of discussing with smarter people who rationally and openly support their far-right views. At least, they don't engage in political correctness, being able to engage in rational debates concerning their political opinions. For these anonyms users, I urge them to read and meditate the entry on communicative rationality: honesty is a prerequisite of discussion. If you don't want to engage in discussion, let honest editors, such as Old Windy Bear & others, debate. Thank you & sorry for another long post. Tazmaniacs

Oldwindybear and his ilk are almost as bad as the politically correct editors, because they refuse to engage them. His willingness to compromise is no virtue, to paraphrase someone who said the willingness to compromise your principles is no virtue! I have read Hegel, and Nietzsche. I think that the predominant European civilization should be represented - and it is Christian! No one wants to come out and say that most of the great battles fought since the explosion of Islam unto the world stage were those of desperate Christians fighting them off! Finishedwithschool 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot agree with you, anybody who has lived in Europe will confirm that Christianity is part of the European culture, but only in counted regions the predominant identification point. And those Christians were mostly (well unless we take the 8th and 9th centuries) not as desperate as Roldan's chant would make anyone believe. Most of those desperate acts were driven by very strong economical interests and those who truly wanted to believe misused as cannon fodder to increase the richness of the likes of the Fugger family. This has also to be said in the name of political incorrectness Alf^Photoman 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Battle of Ankara on July 20, 1402, is as much an invasion of Europe as any of the others, (and if anyone wonders why it is not listed, it is because I have not found two modern historians that say it had macrohistorical impact), and it was a nominal muslim Timur, against the Sultan of the Ottomans. Further, I deeply resent any implication that our attempts to reach a compromise all can live with is anything other than the best of wikipedia, consensus, and not any form of political correctness. Further, anyone who has studied the franks knows that Martel would have opposed the Bzyantine Emperor with as much ferocity as he did the Umayyads. It was political, not religious, though certainly he used the religious card in rallying troops. I still think a reasonable compromise might be Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe as proposed by Ewulp and approved by Alf^Photoman which would be far more accurate than the present title. old windy bear 20:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll support the previous positions arguing Christianity is part of European cultural identity and a feature of "European civilization" in almost any definition. Christianity doesn't mean a simple belief in certain type of god, but it's a whole philosophical and cultural framework developed since the Late Antiquity onwards, experiencing a rise, a culmination and a fall. European secularism could be defined post-Christian as announced by Nietzsche et al.. A tricky question is when to stop looking for events shaping Europe. It is clear that in this perspective after one moment in time we cannot speak anymore of such an "European" civilization: due to a change in values, in views, this "European spirit" dilluted (and merged with elements worldwide) in something we call today "Western civilization" which tends to cover the entire globe. This civilization is "the civilization". Its values (e.g. democracy, human rights, technological progress, etc.) are universal (I'm leaving aside that since the 20th century, several historiographies refined their discourse and came up with more complex and nuanced views on the history and how the events shaped our becoming during centuries; I already argued for consensus' sake I'm willing to accept as a historiographical representative position one supported by at least two relatively recent historians). These being said, probably a terminus ante quem for this "battle-history of Europe" should be chosen from: a) the French revolution b) the Napoleonic wars c) WWI d) other proposals?

In these battles I don't think it's necessarily though for the defenders to be Christians or "Europeans". Perhaps some historians believe (at this moment I can't think of any believing that, that's why I'm saying "perhaps") the battle of Ankara was providential saving Europe from Beyazit's wrath.

The model of invasions meets the same difficulties as the concept of Europe itself. When one can pretend it was an invasion of Europe or not? Defining Europe is vital to any alternative we would find for this article.

So I'll end up with a hopefully clarifying proposal: let's call Europe that core of culture and civilization which intermediated between the Graeco-Roman world and the modern civilization, "the civilization" as I have previously called it. Daizus 09:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with Daizus on defining Europe for the purposes of this article as the Graeco-Roman world and it's inheritors. Ankara was important in that at least one modern historian - Norwich - says that the battle of Ankara was providential saving Europe from Beyazit's wrath, and in giving Constandinople another 50 years of existence, and another 50 years in blocking and protecting Europe from the oncoming Ottomans. I have not, however, found a second for that. I believe all the foregoing is consistant with naming the article Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe old windy bear 11:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Daizus has found a good definition that, if we don't go straw picking, could be valid for the purpose of this article. Alf^Photoman 15:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On general principle, I hate to agree, but I am going to. He came up with a good compromise, and a workable definition. I hate to agree with oldwindybear, but Tamerlane actually gave Europe breathing room when he shattered the Ottomans at the Battle of Ankara. I went this morning and looked up Norwich's reference, and he is right, Norwich does say in his Bzyantine series that Tamerlane's destruction of the Ottomans gave the dying Bzyantine Empire another half century of existence, and Europe badly needed breathing room before the Ottomans fell upon them. Had Tamerlane not destroyed Beyazit, "the Lightening," as he was known, would have taken Constandinople a half century before it fell, and been in Austria 10 years later. Finishedwithschool 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Alf^Photoman that Daizus has found a good definition of Europe, that, as a very reasonable compromise, could be valid for the purpose of this article. Couple that with Ewulp 's excellent suggestion of Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe as a title, and we can get to work on the articles themselves. Daizus was right of course that the importance of Ankara lay in that at least one modern historian - Norwich - says that the battle of Ankara was providential in saving Europe from Beyazit's wrath, and in giving Constandinople another 50 years of existence, and another 50 years in blocking and protecting Europe from the oncoming Ottomans. Look at the state of Europe in 1402 - ALL of eastern Europe was gearing up for the great struggle between the Teutonic Knights and Poland, et al, which would result in Grunwald only 8 years later! France, England, were exhausted and devoid of money or men as the Hundred Years war was eating them both, with English civil war around the period of Beyazit's rule. In short, had Timur ah Link not destroyed Beyazit and his ferocious Ottoman army, Beyazit would have taken Constandinople a half century earlier than it fell - and then, with no barrier to stop them, the Ottomans would have advanced on into the heart of Europe. Unlike later, when the Holy League, Poland, Spain, all contributed troops and treasure to resist the Ottomans, NONE had either in 1402! ANYWAY, if I can find another respected modern historian, I would add Ankara, because it surely saved Europe from Beyazit.

Just noticed this. Another POV about battle of Ankara is that Europe was saved from a second Mongol invasion since Anatolia broke into civil war in the aftermath and time was lost by Timur in Anatolia. Regards --Free smyrnan 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Free smyrnan Norwich says flatly that Timur's victory at Ankara saved Constandinople for another half century, and subsequently - since it guarded the road to Europe - saved Europe from the Ottomans since at that time, Europe was torn to pieces with the pending struggle between the Poles and their allies against the Teutonic Knights, the 100 Year War had ground France and England to pieces, the Dutch and the Spanish, etc. Certainly Timur's victory saved Europe till it was far stronger, and even then, the Ottomans almost prevailed over all of Europe! Had they invaded 100 years earlier, (because it took them quite some time to fully recover from Ankara and the resulting civil wars, they would certainly have prevailed.old windy bear 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs , can you accept these compromises, Daizus excellent definition of Europe (up till the beginning of the French Revolution), for this article's purposes, and Ewulp 's excellent suggestion of Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe as a title? Would you support my adding Ankara as a battle provided I can find my second historian? I would really like consensus on this. Any suggestions are very welcome. I would love to get these two crucial issues resolved, so we can begin on the article itself. old windy bear 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

While you are asking everyone else, you should ask me - I think it is acceptable. Not good, but acceptable. It is still pandering to the politically correct, but it is better than the alternatives. Finishedwithschool 13:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that macrohistorical is a rather strange word, important or decisive would be better, furthermore I feel that this is problematic, especially the battle of the Metaurus, since the Romans were exterminating Celtic tribes and these started to fight back before Hannibal and Hasdrubal entered Italy and brought Rome close to defeat with their help. Is the American War of independence the French invasion of the British colonies? Wandalstouring 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Reference Tag

I removed the reference tag, since the article has been heavily sourced, and no one is now disputing the factual content of any of the battle articles. Now we need to resolve the title issue: Ewulp suggested a reasonable compromise Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe which would be far more accurate than the present title. 3 people have seconded it, and no one has opposed it. The suggestion of Important battles in the History of Europe was voted down 3-2, and so if no one objects, I will go ahead and change the title to Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe. Finally, what do we define as Europe? I suggest we accept Daizus on defining Europe for the purposes of this article as the Graeco-Roman world and it's inheritors. That has been supported 3 for, none against. Are these acceptable compromises? I am going to change the title now, and if someone wants to reopen it, we can. I have waited several days, and so far, it is 3 for, none against, and as the alternative was voted down, I would appreciate it if someone implemented the change - I don't know how to change the title!old windy bear 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

About time, if we had every article referenced in the depth of this one we would be the reference institution number 1 Alf^Photoman 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! If you know how to change the title, would you go ahead and do so? if not, Ewulp would you do so? The vote was 3-2 against the important battles alternative, and 4-0 for Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe and thus we have consensus to make the change. I am also going to incorporate Daizus definition of Europe for the purposes of this article as the Graeco-Roman world and it's inheritors. That has been supported 3 for, none against. I also removed the NPOV tag as we appear to have achieved basic consensus. NOW, can somebody help me by changing the title????old windy bear 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Created article [[Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe}}

Since I could not change this title, I created an article with the agreed on new name, and moved this article there, and also moved this talk page to that talk page! See you all there! old windy bear 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

added to the list of battles Alf^Photoman 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll make the redirect since this new article has been created. I still prefer Important battles in the history of Europe, but this title is better and less POV (as I hear Europe here as a geographical expression, more than an Occident vs. Orient "clash of civilizations"). Concerning the "last battle" as Daisus put it, I think World War I is better than the Napoleonic War, because, as Daizus has pointed out, Europe used to conceive of itself as "the" civilization, and it was not until WWI (and not Napoleon) that it really realized that there were others "civilizations" out there (starting by the US which imposed themselves at the Peace Conference as arbitrors). Contrary to our other friend out there, I do think it is important to reach consensus, and thus agree on this move - despite noting that I still dissent from this use of the concept "macrohistorical" which is too much a fuzzy concept. Thanks in any cases, in particular to Old Bear, for willingness and even historical passion to discuss all this. Tazmaniacs 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs THANK YOU for your willingness to compromise, and reach consensus - which, contrary to our friend out there, I also feel is vital. You are a good editor, with a genuine passion for history, and I respect that. I also thank you for your kind words on my work. I truly try to reach consensus, and most importantly, respect everyone's viewpoint. I think the new title is a vast improvement on the old, and while it is not my first choice either, it is something we all can live with! On to the date - I am okay with WWI, because Taz has a legitimate point that until the US literally forced itself into the mix, with the 14 points, that the traditional European powers, France, England, Germany, Italy, et al, really realized that there were others "civilizations" out there. So is everyone okay with changing to WWI as our ending date for the invasions? I think also we are all wise to take each issue at a time, title first, now dates the article covers - and discuss each, reach consensus, and go on to the next! old windy bear 10:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing battles

the battle of Mohacs(Hungaria under Turkish rule, none opposing Turkish presence on the Balkan, the root of some modern wars) is missing, as well as the battle of Kalka, seperating Russia from the rest of Europe and naturally the most famous invasion, D-Day when lots of non-Europeans made their way through France and established a territory not under Soviet control. Wandalstouring 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! As you probably know, I did not write the original article, Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation, but when it was put up for deletion, decided it could be turned into a good article. I agree iwth you that those two battles need to be there, also, 1) the first seige of Vienna, 2) Blackbird field; 3) the second Umayyad seige of Constandinople 4) Manzikert - any thoughts on adding those, or any others, (other than battle of Mohacsand the battle of Kalka ) ? I am going to try to get this article in good shape, and have asked Ewulp to help, he is one of the best writing editors on wikipedia, plus we already have Daizus Alf^Photoman and I hope Tazmaniacs will be involved. Any suggestions are welcome - I am determined to get this up to A class! old windy bear 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this article and I think the big problem is that we do present here the POV of a group of historians, no agreed upon facts. Vienna for example was a battle between the acclaimed Roman Catholic successor of the Western Roman Empire against the acclaimed Sunni Islamic successor of the Eastern Roman Empire(the Turks very much stressed their Roman ties via the Sultanate of Rûm and even contemporaries like Machiavelli considered their government quite similar to what they knew about the Romans). The problem is no matter who won or lost both claimed to belong to the Roman culture (and the Turks were probably a little bit more right with their claim). This leads directly to the next issue what is the Graeco-Roman world the authors refer to in this context? For example the whole Punic Wars were fought between to barbaric, but hellenised countries and both of them knew rites such as human sacrifices, including babies(Punic poisoned and burned them, Romans put them in a basket and made them sail the oceans). As a result of Carthage losing quite a lot of important Greek cities were sacked and lost their short lived independence. I just wonder what Greek world would have been saved, no matter who won.

All in all a possible approach could be:

'Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe' is a term coined by Foo in his work blabla in 19xx. He considers the outcome of these battles as essential in determining whether or not non-European powers were able to yield their influence on the part of Europe he refers to as the Graco-Roman world. In this context the term Graeco-Roman means blupblup. The following historians have taken up thisd idea in their works blabla or argued against it blabla. Generally in these works the following battles have been considered as qualifying according to the listed reasons.

It is just the same like writing about constant class-fighting which is an issue in Marxist historiography, but not a POV everybody agrees upon, especially if Graeco Roman world is used, which does include Mesopotamia before the sack of Bagdad for example or if you use the Turkish POV, than crushing the Rum(=Roman) Seljuq Empire did have lots of impact. Wandalstouring 18:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wandalstouring You are absolutely correct - especially on the Ottoman consideration that they were the true heirs to Rome. The first thing Mehmet the Conquerer did after taking Constandinople, was to assert his right as Caesar to rule over the entire Roman Empire, especially those provinces in the West which he considered to be broken away (but still part of) the Empire. I stress I did not write this article, and thus am rewriting as we go along, to keep a good idea - a list of invasions which two or more modern historians said had macrohistorical impact - while not fostering POV. It is a work in progress, which has just begun. I will do more reading, and come up with a better definition to correct the deficiencies you pointed out. All of these battles, for instance, are in Paul K. Davis's book, 100 Decisive Battles so I may find the necessary language there, I will reread. old windy bear 10:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

and before I forget it I must say that you did a great job cleaning up this article. And its not only me who says that, see the assessments above Alf^Photoman 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Alf^Photoman Thank you! What a kind thing for you to say, and I am deeply appreciative. I did not write this article, as you know better than anyone, but I, like you, saw potential in it. I am not done by ANY means, but I am very proud that we got a B rating after only two weeks of hard work - I seriously believe we will have an A before we are done. I greatly appreciate your support, and thank you so very much for the kind words. It is very discouraging sometimes to be constantly attacked for just trying to help make this the best encyclopedia in the world, something I truly believe it is! Thank you again! old windy bear 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for not including sources

I haven't been able to come on Wikipedia for a long time, so I've just seen this article had been up for deletion. I must say sorry for not including sources, as I am not an expert with the '''<ref>-</ref>''' tags, so I wasn't able to include sources in the usual way. I thought someone else would figure them out, as most of the article is a rewriting of each battle's own article, with an introduction and a conclusion added by myself. Thanks to everybody who helped source this article! -- Doctor France 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Doctor France You are the writer who came up with the idea for what was a very good article. All we did was source it, and expand it some, and come up with some limiting definitions. You are more than welcome, but you deserve the credit for originating the idea for the article - it was a very good one. old windy bear 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very nice of you, but every person who has helped improve this article, even in the slightest bit, has merit! Let's hope we can make this into a Good Article someday. Cheers! -- Doctor France 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Doctor France Well, you deserve the credit for coming up with a good idea, and getting it started. Tazmaniacs deserves credit for seeing problems with it, bringing them to everyone's attention, and being willing to compromise on reasonable solutions. Daizus is owed credit for his excellent definition of Europe for this article's purposes, and his thoughts on how to open the article, and also, a very real willingness to compromise, Ewulp is owed credit for his excellent suggestion of the new title, and his constant help in rewriting my always-too-long paragraphs! Wandalstouring always is on the spot helping and deserves credit for his unflagging hard work in editing, seeing areas of weakness, and seeing ways they can be corrected. Finally, Alf^Photoman is also owed credit for working to keep an article which had potential, coming up with numerous good ideas, and again, being wiling to compromise. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with this group of people - all of them dedicated to the goal of a good wikipedia military history article. In fact, this is exactly the kind of situation that typifies the best of wikipedia. Someone had a good idea for an article. Someone else found something wrong with it, and proposed deletion. Others wanted to fix it instead. The person who proposed deletion accepted it when the vote went otherwise - and helped with good suggestions (such as the period cutoff for the article). The article continues as a work in progress, and everyone is trying to help with better language, added battles, and more. This article, with all it has had happen in a relatively brief period, shows the way good wikipedia editors put aside differences, and work constructively together.old windy bear 00:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reworded definition

I have some problems with the intro, because it is not always evident that historians support the interpretation of cultural significance we use.

Currently the list of battles is focused on battles of importance for the Western and Central European area where Catholicism and the later protestants are dominant. With the Renaissance, ancient Greece became increasingly a cultural ancestor of this region. One of the problems is that while we do list historians, we do neglect to list at least the dates and context of their statements. I consider this a serious mistake when handling such an article about historiography.

Current intro:

'This is a list of battles which at least two historians have written were of macrohistorical importance between European nation-states—or European polities recognized by historians as independent nation-states—and invading outside forces. It does not include battles of macrohistorical importance where both opposing factions were European, and it examines only those battles which two or more modern historians believe to have massively affected the course of history. For purposes of this article "Europe" is that core of culture and civilization which intermediated between the Graeco-Roman world and the modern civilization.'

My proposal(feel free to edit):

'The outcome of battles have often been assessed by historians in respect to their influence on the development of states or cultures. The scope of this article is to provide an overview about the outcome of battles which at least two historians have considered of lasting cultural or political importance for European nation-states—or European polities recognized by historians as independent nation-states—and invading outside forces. It does not include the battles where both opposing factions were European, but may contain battles where both opposing forces belonged to a similar culture, and it examines only those battles which two or more historians since 1960 believe to have massively affected the course of history. The historians consulted on the subject considered European culture and civilization as a development from the Graeco-Roman world to the modern civilizations of that area, which did and does not include all of Europe within its defined geographic borders.' Wandalstouring 13:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Agreed, I think the year 1960 is reasonable enough, and your proposal is a good one. I think the revised intro is acceptable. Certainly it is acceptable - such as with Tours - to cite older historians, but you have to also cite at least two - Martin and Wallace, or Davis and Hanson - that are modern within the 1960 (this generation) definition. If no one objects to the proposal by 3/17/07 I will put it in. Discussion anyone? old windy bear 12:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New introduction in place

Wandalstouring put a proposed new introduction here for discussion, which I supported, and noted would be put in place if no one objected by 3/17. it is 3/21, and no one has, so I put the new introduction in place. old windy bear 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thermopylae?

Why is Thermopylae, a major Persian victory, included in this article? Surely, given that it only slowed down and did not halt the Persian invasion, it should be replaced by the Battle of Salamis, which destroyed the Persian navy and therefore their major line of communication, and turned the tide of the war. Martin McCann 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

McCann I did not write the article, or include Thermopylae - you would have to ask Doctor France why he selected it over Salamis. However, a huge number of historians, including two modern ones who are specifically named - thus meeting the article's criteria - regard Thermopylae as the Greek Alamo, a "defeat" which not only cost the enemy an inordinate number of casualities, delayed him for a vital period while the remainder of Greece rallied, but inspired all Greeks, including many who were wavering and considering settling with Xerses. Having lived in Greece as a younger person, I can tell you from personal experience that no Greek I knew regarded Thermopylae as a "defeat;" quite the opposite. They proudly regarded it as the ultimate example of courage and discipline, giving up one's life to delay the enemy and buy time for your country. Read Bradford's Thermopylae: Battle for the West, 1980. old windy bear 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes; even though it was a Persian victory, it was a pyrrhic one, in that it cost Xerxes many men and it gave the Greeks two extremely important things - first, the morale and the wish to fight back the Persians; and second, it bought the rest of Greece vital time to reorganise their troops, without which they would probably have been crushed. Without Thermopylae, Salamis would probably never have happened. -- Doctor France 16:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Salamis was the pivotal battle which ultimately caused Xerxes to retreat. While Thermopylae was highly memorable, and undisputably important for the Greeks, if that battle hadn't been followed by victory at Salamis Thermopylae would have been for naught except for the stories later told of the heroism there. Thermopylae may be the most famous of all famous last stands, but for battles of strategic importance in that campaign Salamis seem to me to be the obvious candidate. jax 20:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite some modern historians and your point is valid. Wandalstouring 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with Wandalstouring . The historians now cited all flatly state that but for Thermopylae the fleet would have been destroyed - it bought time that was absolutely vital. If you have historians that say otherwise, (and there are some, I can think of three, offhand) we can either add Salamis or put in an opposing view section to the current article, whichever the majority wants. old windy bear 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims needing citations

Nice work bringing this up to B class so quickly! The conflicts have been good for the article--friction coming from both sides makes a sharper knife, and it usually has the same effect in Wikipedia. I've spotted two lines that I think need either to be rephrased or sourced because as written they appear to present OR/POV problems. There may be some others but these two caught my eye. The first is in the Thermopylae section: "It is usually believed that this battle has a greater macrohistorical importance than that of the Battle of Marathon which had taken place a decade earlier." What would be needed here is not a source--or several sources--supporting the view that Thermopylae is more important than Marathon; it should be a source saying "it is usually believed" or words to that effect.

The other is in Battle of Toulouse:

"There are historians such as Toulouse historian Sydney Forado who believe the Battle of Toulouse halted the muslim conquest of Europe even more than the later—and more celebrated—Battle of Tours (October 10, 732, between Tours and Poitiers). This is highly problematic, however, because even had the Arabs won at Toulouse, they still would have had to conquer the Franks to have retained control of the region. However, virtually all historians agree that the Christian victory at Toulouse was important in a macrohistorical sense..."

Unless an historian can be cited who calls Forado's position problematic, this appears to be stacking the deck by naming him only to call his idea problematic. Ewulp 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ewulp The Toulouse issue - you were right, and it is taken care of! Sir Charles Oman was one historian who stated had the Arabs won at Toulouse, they still would have had to conquer the Franks to have retained control of the region, and the section is rewritten, with he and Paul Davis cited for more accurate language. As for the quotation in the Thermopylae section, that is going to require some research -Doctor France - you wrote that, what was your source? If you don't answer, I will investigate, and as of now, I used what books I had, by Grant, and others, and rewrote it to eliminate language that could not be sourced, at least not by me. Ewulp what do you think?old windy bear 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello old windy bear, this looks much better. I adjusted one sentence to avoid any impression that Oman (writing in 1901) was directly answering Forado (writing ca.2000). Ewulp 05:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Effectively, I cannot source that. As I put it in the article, it is "generally" believed that Thermopylae was more important than Marathon, because the latter was in no way a decisive battle of the Greco-Persian wars, even though it was the first time the Greeks had bested the Persians on land Battle_of_Marathon#Aftermath. -- Doctor France 07:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Europe

Funny none enough noticed, during all this debate, the existence of military history of Europe, which is quite a stub but covers relatively the same subject (again, in a better title according to me, but I'll not bring up the case now!:) Tazmaniacs 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe_86e5.html"