Of course - I said you can't reduce the French Revolution to a paragraph. But I did outline one of the influences - it was definitely a factor just like the factor you outlined.

Here's a primary source:


“Be encouraged, all ye friends of freedom, and writers in its defense! The times are auspicious. Your labours have not been in vain. Behold kingdoms, admonished by you, starting from sleep, breaking their fetters, and claiming justice from their oppressors! Behold, the light you have struck out, after setting America free, reflected to France, and there kindled into a blaze that lays despotism in ashes, and warms and illuminates EUROPE!”
– Richard Price, British philosopher and preacher

http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/american-revolution/impact-other-nations.html

Not true - Russia was not in the middle ages at that time - Yekaterina II did her little assassination, and (ruined Russia) made it much more German in ways. And honestly, Russia was the biggest military power since post-Pyotr I times, due to the really big guns they had, how many big guns they had and how many folk to operate those guns.

Not true - Russia was not in the middle ages at that time - Yekaterina II did her little assassination, and (ruined Russia) made it much more German in ways. And honestly, Russia was the biggest military power since post-Pyotr I times, due to the really big guns they had, how many big guns they had and how many folk to operate those guns.

Wrong, wrong and again wrong Juq, I think your knowledge of history on military/economics as well as historical demographics is quite low.
Just one important thing to remind to you: Russia was way less populated than nowadays, actually less populated than France which was already around 26 million inhabitants before the Napoleonic wars, ranked third just behind China and India in terms of population, that's also why France was the main economic/military power of Europe before the 19th century.

Whereas Russia was really backwards even as later as the Crimean war, the Crimean war demonstrated to the world what no one had previously realized:
Russia was militarily weak, technologically backward, and administratively incompetent. Despite his grand ambitions toward the south and Turkey, Russia had not built its railroad network in that direction, and communications were bad. The bureaucracy was riddled with graft, corruption and inefficiency and was unprepared for war. The Navy was weak and technologically backward; the Army, although very large, was good only for parades, suffered from colonels who pocketed their men's pay, poor morale, and was even more out of touch with the latest technology as developed by Britain and France. As Fuller notes, "Russia had been beaten on the Crimean peninsula, and the military feared that it would inevitably be beaten again unless steps were taken to surmount its military weakness."

Edited 5/5/2015 14:01:19

Hmm, I wonder who wrote that report, a British? The reason Russia lost the Crimean war was because Prussia was too busy to help, and it was 1 versus 3 in a mostly naval conflict. Any power would have trouble with fighting three great powers, that's just the rules. In almost every war, whoever has more folk wins.

Look at the Bar Confederation War, in the same time period - France and Polish revolters teamed up and were destroyed.

Edited 5/5/2015 14:09:29

If your mentioning the Battle of Vienna you should also think about Charles Martell's victory at the Battle of Tours (732)

http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=1971

1683 is more famous but Poiters is very much in Western Europe and the Caliphate was seemingly unstoppable at the time. Much more dangerous to Christianity. I personally think part of the defeat of the Muslims was because of being so far away from where they started. But you can't deny that the Christian kingdoms were hugely relieved by the outcome of the battle.

I wonder who wrote that report, a British?

Some serious and highly qualified historians. No need anyway to lie Juq, the Crimean war proved how weak the Russian army and navy were.
You want another proof? The Russo-Japanese war of 1904, Russia had lost two of its three fleets, only its Black Sea Fleet remained. Japan became the sixth-most powerful naval force, while the Russian Navy declined to one barely stronger than that of Austria–Hungary.

As for the Bar Confederation, France was barely present, no army sent, some French magnates helped financially the Polish, and only one general was sent, the general Dumouriez to help organizing their forces. You also forgot to mention that, at the meantime, Prussia and Austria invaded Poland, and that the Bar confederated rebels had to fight the loyal forces of the Polish king as a civil war, so not only the Russians.

The Japanese army won the Russians but poorly victory, another victory like this, and they are lost.
I do not think the Russians had a strong navy, especially weak relative to the British Navy

^ Russia did not have a good navy, the Russian-Japanese war - just look at where the Baltic fleets had to sail from - the Baltic! And there was practically no way to get anything over there since the Transiberian rail was not built until 1916.

The Bar Confederation War - almost no loyalists and French troops were 9000 strong, I think.

Some serious and highly qualified historians.

Everyone is a "serious and highly qualified historian" - I've seen your crap sources before.

Edited 5/5/2015 16:33:55

The Bar Confederation War - almost no loyalists and French troops were 9000 strong, I think.

"I Think", try to show some reliable sources before ever trying to convince me first ok? There were no french regular armies in Poland, only advisors such as Dumouriez, and financial help from French magnates, that was not a Russia vs France battle.

Everyone is a "serious and highly qualified historian" - I've seen your crap sources before.

Not really, unless you are Barbara Jelavich (where my source came from), expert on the diplomatic histories of the Russian and Habsburg monarchies, the diplomacy of the Ottoman Empire, and the history of the Balkans. So stop pretending yourself historian.

Do not think it's something that has controversy, it only 100 years ago

Now to go back to the topic, my favorite battle (and also an important one) would be the Battle of Roncevaux Pass in 778.

Belligerents:

- The Franks (led by Charlemagne himself and major Frank knights)

vs.

- The Vascones (mainly ancient Basque highlanders of across the Pyrenees with substantial help from the Northern Aquitanians (later Gascony) and Southern Basque muslims of Banu Qasi)

Location: The Pyrenees mountains (Roncevaux Pass)

Victory to:
The Vascones

This battle was romanticized by oral traditions and recounted in 11th century as The Song of Roland, an epic poem in old French, which is the oldest surviving major work of French literature, as a major conflict between Christians and Muslims, although, in fact, both sides in the battle were Christian (most of the Basques during that period were actually still pagans, excepted the upper class and lords of Vascony who embraced the Christian faith, and the Banu Qasi dynasty who were Basque muslims of South Navarre).

The legendary Roland, governor of the Breton march, desperately blowing the oliphant horn to summon revenge


Famous extract of the Song of Roland epic poem in Old French:

"Cumpaign Rollant, kar sunez vostre corn,
Si l’orrat Carles, si returnerat l’ost."
Respunt Rollant: "Jo fereie que fols!
En dulce France en perdreie mun los."

Respont Rollant: "Ne placet Damnedeu
Que mi parent pur mei seient blasmet
Ne France dulce ja cheet en viltet!
Einz i ferrai de Durendal asez." [1062-1065]

"Que ço seit dit de nul hume vivant,
Ne pur paien, que ja seie cornant!" [1074-1075]

……………………………………………….

"Roland, my friend, it’s time to sound your horn,
King Charles will hear, and bring his army back."
Roland replies, "You must think I’ve gone mad!
In all sweet France I’d forfeit my good name."

Roland replies, "Almighty God forbid
That I bring shame upon my family,
And cause sweet France to fall into disgrace!
I’ll strike that horde with my good Durendal."

"No man on earth shall have the right to say
That I for pagans sounded the Oliphant!"

On the evening of Saturday August 15, 778, while marching through Roncevaux Pass in the Pyrenees a large guerilla force of Basques sprung an ambush on the Frankish rearguard. Using their knowledge of the terrain, they decimated the Franks, plundered the baggage trains, and captured much of the gold received at Zaragoza.

The soldiers of the rearguard fought valiantly, allowing the remainder of the army to escape. Among the casualties were several of Charlemagne's most important knights including Egginhard (Mayor of the Palace), Anselmus (Palatine Count), and Roland (Prefect of the March of Brittany).


Background of the battle:
With the rise of the Carolingians and Pepin the Short's war on Aquitaine, the Duchy of Aquitaine led by Waifer was defeated and a program of Frankish penetration into the duchy ensued under Charlemagne. The Basques (Vascones, Wascones) of the Duchy of Vasconia, one of the mainstays of the Aquitanian army, submitted to Pepin in 766 and 769, but the territory south of the Garonne remained largely unscathed and self-governed—Duke Lupus cited.

Here are the two main reasons of this battle:
- As of 778 Charlemagne expanded Frankish takeover of Aquitaine to present-day Gascony by appointing trusted Franks and Burgundians as well as Church officials in key regional positions and (re-)establishing counties, such as Fezensac, Bordeaux, and Toulouse, on the left banks of the Garonne. Charlemagne's colonization attempts bitterly displeased the Basques.
- During the retreat of his army after besieging the city of Zaragoza, Charlemagne ordered that the fortifications of Pamplona be destroyed, some sources indicating the city was destroyed altogether, reducing the threat of it being used as a base to attack the Franks. Pamplona (known as Irunea "the capital" for the natives) has always been the historical city and capital of the Basques. This antagonised the local population, and can be viewed as a possible cause of the battle that followed.


Scenario of the battle:



Vascon warriors later known as the Almogavars (from arabic al-mugāwir "the one who provokes riots"), here fighting the Saracens


Monument celebrating the victory of the Basques in modern day Roncevaux (Orreaga in Basque)



Aftermath:

The Franks failed in capturing Zaragoza and suffered significant losses at the hands of the Basques. They would only be able to establish the Marca Hispanica a decade later, when Barcelona was finally captured. Zaragoza remained an important Muslim city, capital of the Upper March and later of an independent emirate, until the 11th century.

Defenceless Pamplona was captured by the Muslims soon after and held by them for some years, until in 798-801 a rebellion expelled them as well and helped to consolidate the Banu Qasi realm and eventually the constitution of the independent Kingdom of Pamplona in 824.

In the year 812 there was a second ambush attempt in the same pass, which ended in stalemate due to the Franks taking greater precautions than they had in 778, i.e. they took Basque women and children as hostages.
In the year 824 was the possibly more important Second Battle of Roncevaux, where counts Eblus and Aznar, Frankish vassals, were captured by the joint forces of Iñigo Arista's Pamplona, future king of the Basques, and of the Banu Qasi, the Muslim basque dynasty, consolidating the independence of both Basque realms.

Those battles finally allowed that a Basque Kingdom comes to existence: establishing a Basque kingdom under the king Arista that developed and was later called Navarre. This Kingdom would reach its zenith under Sancho III the Great (Antso Nagusia in Basque), united most of the Basque tribes under his rule, comprising most of the Christian realms to the south of the Pyrenees, and even a short overlordship of Gascony (early 11th century), and being the first to bear the title of "Rex Hispaniarum (King of the Spains). After the king's death, the sons of Sancho III finally divided his kingdom into what would be later known as Castile, Aragon and Navarre. Without Navarre the reconquista would have been unlikely to ever happen.

Historical flag & coat of arms of Navarre (the mythology of the arms would trace it back to the reconquista most decisive battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212 involving the king Sancho VII of Navarre, where the cavalry broke the chains of the caliph's slave-warriors and captured an emerald among other prizes):


Edited 5/5/2015 18:20:00

Ok, I was mistaken - just one French general.

Not really, unless you are Barbara Jelavich (where my source came from), expert on the diplomatic histories of the Russian and Habsburg monarchies, the diplomacy of the Ottoman Empire, and the history of the Balkans. So stop pretending yourself historian.

Apparently, she's not an expert. This is probably another crap source.

Lol You really hate to admit a mistakes?

Tsh, no, arguments are about learning.

My favourite gerb (Karl V):



Edited 5/5/2015 17:13:04

^ Charles V just pretended to own the entire world... Just look at his coat of arms crazy.

Not just pretended - did.

Battle of Khe Sanh-Distracted the anti-communist forces from realizing about the Tet Offensive.
Battle of Thermopylae-Gave enough time for the Greeks to prepare for the Persian invasion.
Battle of Osan-First Korean engagements
Battle of Normandy-Marked the end of the Nazi Regime (Third Reich)

All these wars are relatively unimportant. Vietnamese War - unimportant. Greek-Persian war - unimportant. Osan - unimportant.

Normandy - no.

If you really want to be specific about it, it's Spitbergen battle in September that marked the Nazis' end. But I think it's Berlin's capture (or at most, Flensburg's capture) that marked Nazi's end.

Normandy is in France, by the way. Not even in Germany.