Decisive Battles of the Ancient World

[Quite8the8bell]

Which battles do you think changed the world in ancient times? Shall we start out with the battle of Megiddo? Or do you even think that one is decisive, all it is is the first battle recorded. Just state which battles are decisive and how, such as Gaugamela; when Alexander the Great won against Darius III and recieved the Persian Empire.

[Rudy]

Well, Thermopylae is the first that comes to mind, and has the most publicity, but there were many battles in the Second Persian Invasion of Greece (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that were significant in securing the Greek victory. This is especially significant because it seemed, at the beginning of the invasion, that a Persian victory was inevitable. Had such occurred, Grecian civilization, which is such a fundamental basis for Western civilization as a whole, would have been fundamentally altered.

[azelismia]

Which battles do you think changed the world in ancient times? Shall we start out with the battle of Megiddo? Or do you even think that one is decisive, all it is is the first battle recorded. Just state which battles are decisive and how, such as Gaugamela; when Alexander the Great won against Darius III and recieved the Persian Empire.


Is the point of this exercise to determine which battle to go back to with our time machines so we can change the outcome of the world?

[Synchronicity]

The Punic Wars come to mind. They secured Rome's position as the dominant power in the Mediterranean and resulted in the total destruction of Carthage.

[Rudy]

I'd add the Battle of Zama (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which was the last decisive battle in a decades long, multi-war conflict between Rome and Carthage for control over the Mediterranean. This is the battle which essentially secured Rome's control over the sea, and paved the way to complete domination of all lands bordering it for centuries.

EDIT: This Battle is in the Punic wars, mentioned by Synchronicity

[Quite8the8bell]

No, I just really enjoy talking about history. I would never want to go back in time and change the world. If you don't enjoy talking about history then it's simple: you don't have to.

[azelismia]

No, I just really enjoy talking about history. I would never want to go back in time and change the world. If you don't enjoy talking about history then it's simple: you don't have to.


I wasn't attacking...
but if you had a chance.. if you could go back and change some point in time why wouldn't you?

if knowing what we know now could make the world a better place why would it be wrong to change it?

[Rudy]

I wasn't attacking...
but if you had a chance.. if you could go back and change some point in time why wouldn't you?

if knowing what we know now could make the world a better place why would it be wrong to change it?
Nothing wrong with it, in theory. I reject the idea, however, that there's any way one could determine that a different outcome in a battle that took place thousands of years ago would lead to a better world today. It's simply too complex a problem; insoluble, I would argue.

[TheLastMohican]

I general, the earlier in history a battle was, the more decisive it was (in that different outcomes in the earliest battles would have more future events to affect than more recent battles would).
As Rudy mentioned, the failures of the Persian invasions of Greece were among the most important events for western culture. (Thermopylae gets far too much attention in comparison to the other battles, however.)

[Rudy]

As Rudy mentioned, the failures of the Persian invasions of Greece were among the most important events in the for western culture. (Thermopylae gets far too much attention in comparison to the other battles, however.)

Agreed. I have to admit, however, that I don't know enough details of the invasion to say which battle(s) is the most significant.

[TheLastMohican]

Agreed. I have to admit, however, that I don't know enough details of the invasion to say which battle(s) is the most significant.
I don't know if that is even possible to say, since we don't know what Xerxes was thinking throughout the campaign. Thermopylae was really jarring, but it didn't convince him to quit. We can say that Themistocles was the most important strategist for the Greek defense, however.

[Quite8the8bell]

I wouldn't change any battle because I'm not on any side. Every loss is a win for the other side and I favor each side in their own way.

[azelismia]

I wouldn't change any battle because I'm not on any side. Every loss is a win for the other side and I favor each side in their own way.


well lets say not a battle then, but if you could change an event that would change the history of the world?

the romans had a steam engine. What if that had been given a industrial revolution type application (Rather than chicanry) we might be colonizing deep space by now.

[Quite8the8bell]

No, I still would not. Many people call me a fool for believing that things are meant to happen. I believe in a big plan organized by God, everything happens for a reason type of thing. So, unless you believe in my religious theory I don't see how you can agree. I believe everyone was born in the time that they were meant to be born in, and they do with it what they do. Even if it is commiting suicide at thirteen years old.

[Rudy]

No, I still would not. Many people call me a fool for believing that things are meant to happen. I believe in a big plan organized by God, everything happens for a reason type of thing. So, unless you believe in my religious theory I don't see how you can agree. I believe everyone was born in the time that they were meant to be born in, and they do with it what they do. Even if it is commiting suicide at thirteen years old.
Yeah, I can't agree with this at all. I'm not going to get into why, because that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but if you want to come over to the philosophy thread sometime, we can have it out.

Azzy: I have no objection, per se, to changing history. What I am objecting to is the idea that anyone could look that far into the past and say, definitively, that a change here or there would produce long term benefits for the human race as a whole.

Let's take the (somewhat far-fetched) example you give of the Roman steam engine. Let's say this jump started some sort of proto-industrial revolution. Were this the case, it's possible that we could have gotten to the hydrogen bomb by the time the crusades rolled around. In this case, technological progress could have out stepped philosophical progress even more than it has already.

[Quite8the8bell]

Yeah, I can't agree with this at all. I'm not going to get into why, because that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but if you want to come over to the philosophy thread sometime, we can have it out.

Azzy: I have no objection, per se, to changing history. What I am objecting to is the idea that anyone could look that far into the past and say, definitively, that a change here or there would produce long term benefits for the human race as a whole.

Let's take the (somewhat far-fetched) example you give of the Roman steam engine. Let's say this jump started some sort of proto-industrial revolution. Were this the case, it's possible that we could have gotten to the hydrogen bomb by the time the crusades rolled around. In this case, technological progress could have out stepped philosophical progress even more than it has already.

okay on the philosophy forum what should I title it?

[Rudy]

okay on the philosophy forum what should I title it?

Whatever you like. "Determinism" should probably be in the title, though, since that is what you are advocating.

What historical battles do you think are decisive, though? Don't abandon this topic. :cry:

[Quite8the8bell]

the battle of Pharsalus, when Julius Caesar was the only one left of the Original Triumvirate and that gave him the power of the Roman Republic.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheLastMohican]

The Battle of Valens was a pretty important one.

[Quite8the8bell]

The Battle of Valens was a pretty important one.

agreed. Pretty awesome as well... fun one to read about.

[TheLastMohican]

agreed. Pretty awesome as well... fun one to read about.
Human error, indeed.

[eternaltriangle]

I am inclined to discount the wars of Alexander the Great because his empire collapsed so quickly, and because most of the feifdoms it spawned failed to impact history in a big way thereafter.

I prefer not to think of individual battles in terms of "what might have happened if the other side won." History is about long-term forces - Rome might have won at Adrianople, but it still would have fallen. Where battles are significant to me, is where they truly alter the underlying long-term fundamentals.

I vote for the Battle of Tours (possibly not an ancient battle, depending upon your definition). Not only did it begin the reconquest of Spain by Christians (a reconquista that brought with it new technologies and ideas - for instance the mathematical concept of zero - and freed the country whose explorers would colonize America).

It also brought on an era of heavy cavalry (required to hold back Muslim light cavalry), and ultimately the dominant socio-economic structure of the middle ages. A heavy cavalry military requires the existence of a well-trained martial class, comprised of a relatively small number of people. By contrast, a military like that of Rome was an inclusive citizen army. Because a small number of individuals could form an effective fighting force, Europe became highly decentralized, as the possibility of a new Roman Empire disappeared (in Eastern Europe, where a heavy cavalry paradigm did not prevail, the Byzantines were able to sustain a large empire for some time). Feudalism was also a result of this change in military technology. The peasants could not effectively revolt because even a large mob could be easily subdued by a few armoured knights.

It was not until the pike and longbow re-centralized states, and the musket ended feudalism that Europe emerged from this state of affairs.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 0 minutes and 41 seconds later...

The Battle of Valens was a pretty important one.

Do you mean Adrianople?

[TheLastMohican]

Do you mean Adrianople?
Yes, Valens being the emperor.

[Wolfe]

The Marathon battle was very decisive for the Greeks in the year 490 BC. It was the initial attempt of King Darius I of Persia to overpower the remnants of Greece and integrate it into the Persian Empire, this would protect the most vulnerable segment of his western perimeter. A Persian armada of 600 ships ejected approximately 20,000 infantry and cavalry just north of Athens. 10,000 hoplite warriors were sent to defend their territory. They met on the Marathon Plain and one of the Greek generals (Miltiades) rallied the warriors. He commanded them to form a line equal in length to that of the Persian front. They attacked the Persian line at a dead run. The center of the Greek line weakened and gave way, but their flanks engulfed and slaughter the ensnared Persians. This battle left us with a very well known military tactic, the double envelopment aka the pincer movement. Approximately 6,400 Persians were slaughtered while only 192 Greeks were killed. It was a great victory for the outnumbered Greeks.

[Indy]

I like to mention more recent battles, because you can envision the alternative scenarios better. The effect of the Punic Wars on contemporary life are impossible to predict for example.

So how about the battle of Moscow in early Dec 1941 during Operation Barbarosa, where Zhukov finally was able to hold back the Nazis. That's really the point where momentum shifted. Coincidentally, Pearl Harbor happened during those days as well.
If the Soviets would have been defeated there, the Soviet chances would have been tremendously bleak. Kursk, as well as the notorious battle for Stalingrad, were also major battles that rival it in importance.

The battle of Britain might be notable as well, for it was quite an unlikely outcome that they were able to withstand the Luftwaffe and prevent a Nazi invasion.

[Saint]

Do battles which were decisively won by disease/epidemics count? There are far more of those in history than battles decisively won by generals and commanders.

[Quite8the8bell]

I like to mention more recent battles, because you can envision the alternative scenarios better. The effect of the Punic Wars on contemporary life are impossible to predict for example.

So how about the battle of Moscow in early Dec 1941 during Operation Barbarosa, where Zhukov finally was able to hold back the Nazis. That's really the point where momentum shifted. Coincidentally, Pearl Harbor happened during those days as well.
If the Soviets would have been defeated there, the Soviet chances would have been tremendously bleak. Kursk, as well as the notorious battle for Stalingrad, were also major battles that rival it in importance.

The battle of Britain might be notable as well, for it was quite an unlikely outcome that they were able to withstand the Luftwaffe and prevent a Nazi invasion.

If you want to mention recent battles why don't you just start a new thread? This thread is specifically Ancient battles, as you know...

[eternaltriangle]

I like to mention more recent battles, because you can envision the alternative scenarios better. The effect of the Punic Wars on contemporary life are impossible to predict for example.

So how about the battle of Moscow in early Dec 1941 during Operation Barbarosa, where Zhukov finally was able to hold back the Nazis. That's really the point where momentum shifted. Coincidentally, Pearl Harbor happened during those days as well.
If the Soviets would have been defeated there, the Soviet chances would have been tremendously bleak. Kursk, as well as the notorious battle for Stalingrad, were also major battles that rival it in importance.

The battle of Britain might be notable as well, for it was quite an unlikely outcome that they were able to withstand the Luftwaffe and prevent a Nazi invasion.

I beg to differ. Individual battles are vastly more important in the ancient world than the modern because the ancient world featured much less rapid change. Why does that matter? Imagine if Germany won the Second World War and dominated Europe (and Russia), while the Japanese co-prosperity sphere dominated the Pacific, while Latin America and the US remained outside of Nazi grasp. Scientific progress would have continued regardless, which would have created differential growth rates in different countries. Perhaps Germany would have dominated for a century, maybe two, the point is that while modern technology makes world conquest easy, it also induces change that makes maintaining empires difficult. It wouldn't surprise me if Germany in the 1970's looked a lot like the USSR of the same era.

On the other hand, war was one of the dominant mechanisms of change in the ancient world. A country, by winning one battle/war, could grow larger. Greater size would bring with it tribute, military experience (from the conflict), more territory, and slaves. Victory in one war often led to victory in the next. Once a country hit a rising trajectory it is almost impossible to stop in an agrarian world where specialization through trade and slavery are the only ways to wring excess wealth (needed to fund wars) from subsistence labour. Empires eventually plateau and fall, but the life and death of an empire is a much more drawn out affair than that of modern-day leading states. The US has been the strongest power since perhaps 1943. The British were the most important from perhaps the war of Spanish Succession till the Great Depression (the French and later Germans being more important in continental Europe). The Dutch dominated world trade for about a century, the Portuguese for less. The Spanish were Europe's strongest power for about a century or so themselves.

[Wolfe]

Well put eternaltriangle. Also, the change brought on by the prevailing side is amplified as time passes. Therefore the more decisive battles were the earliest battles because they have the most effect upon our existing society.

[ElstonGunn]

Agreed. I have to admit, however, that I don't know enough details of the invasion to say which battle(s) is the most significant.

Salamis was a big one, but I don't remember much about it, other than it being the Athenian navy who won. Plataea (land) and Mycale (another sea battle), were important too. I think those were when Persia was pretty much beaten, weren't they?

Saguntum in 219 BC could be one of the important, if not obvious, ones. The city was an ally of Rome, so it was important in starting the Second Punic War. But you could also say that that war would have happened anyways.

I guess it would be moving out of ancient and into medieval, but Tours and Hastings are up there, too.

[Kisai]

I like to mention more recent battles, because you can envision the alternative scenarios better. The effect of the Punic Wars on contemporary life are impossible to predict for example.

My vote is for the Punic Wars, because both Europe and the Middle East would be amazingly different if Carthage had founded an empire across Europe. The Muslim Empire would never have been founded either.

But I agree, that its impossible to accurately predict a scenario since the Romans were pretty thorough in wiping Carthaginian culture off the map.

[Polymath]

I general, the earlier in history a battle was, the more decisive it was (in that different outcomes in the earliest battles would have more future events to affect than more recent battles would).

I'm sure there were plenty of little battles between small tribes of early humans that took place a few million years ago such that if any of them had gone the other way, the world would be completely unrecognizable to us. :cheesy:

[Wolfe]

I'm sure there were plenty of little battles between small tribes of early humans that took place a few million years ago such that if any of them had gone the other way, the world would be completely unrecognizable to us. :cheesy:

Yes it probably would. That's why I went with the Marathon battle (490 BC), It was the earliest recorded battle in history.

[Quite8the8bell]

Yes it probably would. That's why I went with the Marathon battle (490 BC), It was the earliest recorded battle in history.

No! did you even read the intro? The battle of Megiddo is the earliest recorded battle.

[Wolfe]

No! did you even read the intro? The battle of Megiddo is the earliest recorded battle.

Sorry my mistake, the Marathon battle was ONE of the earliest recorded battles with archeological evidence as well as eye-witness accounts. As far as I know there is no archeological evidence of the battle of Megiddo. Also the Battle of the Ten Kings is possibly older than the battle of Megiddo but there is no confirmed date.

[Indy]

For an Ancient battle, how about the victory of General Wang Jian of the Qin dynasty, defeating the Chu. It might be the largest battle of the pre-modern era, with over 1.000.000 soldiers. It set the stage for the ascent of China as the most dominant country for, let's say, 1500 years.

I agree and understand that since Europe is based on a Greek-Roman heritage, as well as its related Judeo-Christian background, the wars that made them possible are therefore of major importance (and are of the Ancient World, in reference to the title of the treat, which slipped my mind on my previous post).

But screw it. A favorite of mine, though mostly forgotten, and from the early modern era, is the Dutch landing during their invasion of England in 1688, better known as the Glorious Revolution. The protestant William III, Stadtholder of Holland was basically invited to counter the Catholic influence of James II with an army of 15.000 soldiers and a navy four times the size of the Spanish Armada

[Krazy P]

Well, I take a different view. A civilization's ability to wage and win wars and battles is a consequence of a superior - more competitive - civilization.

Eventually, the battles will be won and the more adaptive and stronger civilization will dominate.

So, the battles are the result, not the causal factor.

Much of the time, the tide has turned on access to and adaptation of technology.

[reb]

i cannot add a damn thing after KrazyP put in 'technology', except to stick in a wiki site for the uninformed:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Europe would likely have been vastly different had this battle turned.

[eternaltriangle]

But screw it. A favorite of mine, though mostly forgotten, and from the early modern era, is the Dutch landing during their invasion of England in 1688, better known as the Glorious Revolution. The protestant William III, Stadtholder of Holland was basically invited to counter the Catholic influence of James II with an army of 15.000 soldiers and a navy four times the size of the Spanish Armada

That bloodless battle may be more important than you give it credit for. James II had sided with France in the Franco-Dutch wars. Had their alliance held, the eventual Spanish Succession crisis could have ended with Louis XIV as King of France and Spain, as well as Spain's overseas possessions. With the resources of France, trans-Atlantic trade could have been better defended, and the eventual rebellions in Latin America effectively put down. Moreover, the rise of Britain as a great power began in the late 17th century, as parliament gained more influence. Because parliament included the merchants who lent the government money, it could make a much more credible commitment not to default on loans than say, the French government (which often did so). As a result, the British could raise vast funds in wartime and peacetime (to fund their navy). That advantage, and allied victory in the war of Spanish Succession, positioned Britain to dominate the 18th century. Had Britain been a French ally, with an overly autocratic King instead, it is easy to see history turning out differently. Would the American revolution have happened without the Seven Years War? Would Britain have launched the industrial Revolution if it remained an autocratic Stuartist state? Would the French Revolution (which started as a tax revolt after the French went broke) have happened?

History is a linear process, so any event affects all those events after it. However, some periods are more pivotal than others. The 18th century is probably one of the most important, and 1688 was a critical driver of the century that followed.

[Indy]

I agree, it was a turning point for Britain as a protestant nation and the impact it had on the role of Parliament, as well on the effects on the rest of Europe's history. It's interesting how things interact with each other. With forgotton I meant not so much the Glorious Revolution as such, but the aspect of foreign invasion. I have often seen Brits refer to William the Conqueror as the last to succesfully invade Britain.

I recently saw Simon Schama's History of Britain. Fascinating series, I highly recommend it. They had a nice piece on those developments as well.

[darynthe]

I vote for the Battle of Lepanto (1571). Had it been won the by Ottoman empire, the Western Civilization would have been arguably different, as they would have gotten good foothold in Europe. It is for me the D day of the old battles.

[Pirate1650]

The three I like to read about right now are:

The Battle of Grunwald (or 1st Battle of Tannenberg) - 1410 - The Polish and Lithuanians smash the Tutonic Order which they created and it got out of control

The Norman conquest of England - 1066 AD - England seemed like such a cool place before William the Stupid showed up with all his mercs.

The Third Crusade - 1192 - If King Richard held out for another four months Saladin would have died from disease and it would belong to England.

And probably due to my Polish lineage and being able to root for the home team I like to read about Kazimierz Pułaski and the battles he has been in.

There are so many decisive battles so I guess I'm naturally drawn to the ones that have clever stratagy or good characters or backstory. I never understood why movies and books are "based on a true story" when there are so many amazing true stories, a Pułaski movie would be epic as would George Rogers Clark.

[Quite8the8bell]

The three I like to read about right now are:

The Battle of Grunwald (or 1st Battle of Tannenberg) - 1410 - The Polish and Lithuanians smash the Tutonic Order which they created and it got out of control

The Norman conquest of England - 1066 AD - England seemed like such a cool place before William the Stupid showed up with all his mercs.

The Third Crusade - 1192 - If King Richard held out for another four months Saladin would have died from disease and it would belong to England.

And probably due to my Polish lineage and being able to root for the home team I like to read about Kazimierz Pułaski and the battles he has been in.

There are so many decisive battles so I guess I'm naturally drawn to the ones that have clever stratagy or good characters or backstory. I never understood why movies and books are "based on a true story" when there are so many amazing true stories, a Pułaski movie would be epic as would George Rogers Clark.

Some of those listed aren't Ancient, still pretty awesome though.

[Pirate1650]

What is the cut-off for ancient? I always think BC but then I can't think of much that happened BC, besides the Greeks and China. Speaking of, I just read Sun Tzu's Art of War. I don't know the campaigns he was in but he would have to be one of the most influential generals.

[boldbidder]

I'm a bit of a Hannibal groupie so I'd vote for the battle of Cannes. Plus, if you get a 'tactic' dubbed after a battle for what took place there you're pretty bonafide badass ;)

[Whitebeetle]

Has anyone here read Creasy's "15 Decisive Battles of the Ancient World"? Sir Edward used to be the last word on ancient decisiveness...

[Quite8the8bell]

Has anyone here read Creasy's "15 Decisive Battles of the Ancient World"? Sir Edward used to be the last word on ancient decisiveness...

Okay? So the author has an opinion of where ancient ends, big deal. When do you think ancient ends?

[eternaltriangle]

Has anyone here read Creasy's "15 Decisive Battles of the Ancient World"? Sir Edward used to be the last word on ancient decisiveness...

Yes, I read Creasy, and his book is called 15 Decisive Battles of the WORLD. The book was published in 1851 and includes the battle of Waterloo (1815) so it is clearly not even intended to be about the battles of the ancient world.

Moreover, Whitebeetle, Creasy is not a very influential historian any more. He absolutely epitomizes the sort of "old imperialist white man" historian that the academic discipline despises (the study of military history is practically dead too). Moreover, a guy writing in 1851 could well lack the perspective to see the radical changes taking place in his own time.

For me, "ancient history" is about a recurrent pattern, not a fixed end date. The basic works as follows. A polity capitalizes on some military technology or mode of military organization and develops a superior military. They are able to conquer all who face them and build an empire. This empire brings additional wealth from essentially free trade, as the empire polices trade routes (think of the Mongols as an example of this despite the odds). However, success may undermine the source of the original advantage, and the cost of policing a large empire may grow at the same time. Those living at the core will have increased consumption too, so there is usually less income to finance military operations. Indeed, the Romans only lasted as long as they did by recasting the nature of their society and military organization - first with the triumph of the populares over the optimates in Rome's civil wars (both before, during and after the reign of Julius Caesar) from a more aristocratic military to a mass citizen army, and secondly long after the rise of Christianity, with a reversion of an aristocratic model with the rise of cavalry. As empires begin to fall, losing provinces makes the core poorer - hastening decline, till eventual collapse.

Following the ancient pattern, there is a second pattern. Around 1000 AD in Sung China you have the first instances of modern economic growth. That is to say, economic growth which does not result in a higher birth-rate that largely eliminates the per capita gains and isn't the result of slavery. Rather it was from advances like the first paper money and some measure of advanced metallurgy. You first see this pattern in Europe in the case of Portugal, whose advanced navy monopolized trade to India, and thus controlled the supply of high-profit trade goods to Europe. Portugal was followed by the Dutch, which were followed by the British in the 18th century (because of trade), and then again in the 19th century (because of the industrial revolution) and then finally the Americans.

The modern pattern is distinct for a number of reasons. Firstly, it need not operate with territorial control. In fact, its characteristic form is one of naval domination (control of vital sea routes so as to dominate trade). We could add the sky to that in the 20th century. Secondly, since the advantage of one state is based on a technological, not a military advantage, diffusion is much quicker. It is easy to adapt new technologies, and hard to change one's military organization (and ultimately one's society). Even if one does the latter, if there is already an established empire, it will thwack you down. Consider Jurgurtha, who established Roman-style military organization in Numidia. While adopting the tactics of the lead state, because there was already an established empire, with all the advantages of being a large empire, it could defeat him. The other thing about technology is that you can constantly produce it. In many ways, the advantage is the result of a country's ability to continue to have advancement. The modern pattern is one of innovation leading to the economic rise of one state, followed by technological diffusion, plateau and eventual decline (usually in the course of about a century). Decline tends to lead to systemic war as other powers vie for leadership and its rents (being the lead power gives one control over things like international institutions).

The modern pattern has coincided with the ancient pattern (which still exists). For instance, the Portuguese ran a modern Empire in dominating trade with India, and an ancient style empire in their Portuguese colonies. Also Portugal was conquered by a classical style old Empire - the Spanish. However there has also been a gradual withering away of the ancient pattern, since the record of the modern one is more successful. Yet, I would argue that the Spain of Charles V, the France of Louis XIV/Napoleon, the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm/Hitler, and Russia up till the present fit the modern pattern. Of course the more modern you get, the more you have old-style empires integrating the innovating tendencies of the modern ones.

If I am to put my futurist hat on, I can see some potential for convergence wherein the ancient pattern is entirely replaced by the modern one, at least among the core economic powers.

[Son of the Sun]

Hey :)
About II Punic War - There wasn't any decisive battle, Hannibal's campgain had no results, in late of this war Rome was overwhelming Cartagine, even with loose under Zama.

About Greek Wars - Yes, Marathon, Salamis, Platea were all decisive battles, Greek stopped huge Persian armies, and probably defend European civilization and culture against "Asian barbarians", if Persian would won, they will crush Greek countries.

About Macedonic War - Well...Alexander won all battles, because of his powerfull phalanxs, Persian cavalry and chariots couldn't stop them, so I think that there wasn't any decisive battle, which would crush Persian Empire in one fight.

Definetely Cezar's wins, and battle under Akcium (Cleopatra and Marc Anthony agaisnt Octavian August) changed Roman Empire and consequently Europe. Yep, battle under Akcium was very important.

Anyway, is it still topic about ancient battles or about battles in general?