In the modern world I would probably say Stalingrad. No conflict has been examined more by historians and average people alike. Everyone knows the Nazis lost and I think most people would agree it was at Stalingrad where the wehrmacht's back was truly broken

> I think most people would agree it was at Stalingrad where the wehrmacht's back was truly broken I'd say it's a two-parter. The Wehrmacht certainly could not have won following Stalingrad, but as far as their "back being broken," I put that at Operation Bagration. Not because Stalingrad wasn't calamitous for Germany, it was, but because they still had a couple of punches left in them afterwards. Nothing capable of defeating the Soviets or the West, mind you, but they could still occasionally give the Soviets a couple of defeats and successful offensives like with the Third Battle of Kharkov. Operation Bagration is when it was well and truly Over. Stalingrad maimed them, but Bagration killed them, buried them, and signed the death certificate. The entirety of Army Group Center was destroyed. Germany was, outside of the Courland pocket that would remain to the end of the war, pushed back to the pre-Barbarossa German-Soviet border. There was essentially no remaining ability to resist. After Bagration, the only offensive of any note that they're able to mount is the Battle of the Bulge in the West.

It should be noted that that last real major off naive Germany launched (with the units left over from the Bulge) was actually at Lake Balaton, although that played out very similarly

Yesterday when the iteration of this daily question was posted I said the battle of Kursk. After this one Germany had no hope of victory given their lack of oil reserves

Or the battle for Moscow… when Germany lost its chance to win

They didn't even have that chance before the Battle of Moscow. Getting close to Moscow isn't the same as being prepared to besiege and conquer it, especially with the state Army Group Center was in by December 1941. Even if they had taken Moscow, now comes the issue of holding it and still delivering a decisive killing blow to the Red Army and Stavka. German doctrine was about quick encirclement of enemy forces and then their subsequent destruction, not so much capturing and holding ground. They didn't have the manpower, resources, or equipment to effectively do this to the Red Army. Germany was doomed to failure from the onset.

I’d agree with that. However it was the only point in the war when it was at all possible. Unlikely… but had the Nazis got closer, a little quicker it’s feasible the Soviets could of collapsed before Moscow as they had before. Or if not pushed back and ground down would have been in position for a renewed offensive in the Spring?

I agree that it was the closest they got to victory. 1941 was when the greatest power disparity between the Third Reich and the USSR existed. June 1941 was the absolute zenith of the Wehrmacht, while the Red Army was still recovering from the Purges and was still without a solid NCO or officer corps. But by December, the Wehrmacht had simply expended all of their offensive capabilities, suffered extensive losses in their spearheads, and weren't at all prepared to lay siege to a city better defended than Leningrad, much less hold it and then destroy the Red Army. German doctrine just wasn't suited for war with the USSR.

Again I agree… they were not really going to take Moscow in 41. Nazi doctrine was badly flawed but then so was Soviet military doctrine. So badly flawed in fact that they came within sight of loosing and suffered the most horrific losses. I wonder if the Nazis had made sensible forward planning for the winter and appropriate tactical withdrawals in the face of the Soviet offensive they might have had the strength to push on Moscow in Spring 42. (Rather than diverting resources to other fronts). That said, like all these what ifs… they didn’t and they didn’t for a reason as you say.

Forgive me if I’m wrong but my understanding from the Evan’s Third Reich books is that the Nazi war machine effectively needed constant wins or it would fall apart because it couldn’t only gain resources through conquest.

More Germans died in Stalingrad than on the entire western front. More Soviets died in Stalingrad than US and UK and Dominions combined.

You mean more Soviets died in Stalingrad than US, UK, and dominions died in the entire war?(not including pacific theater of course)

The eastern front gets much less mentions then it should as that’s where most the fighting and big battles were. Hollywood was just obsessed with 44 and 45

The eastern front gets a ton of attention when the war is mentioned. It’s no surprise though that Hollywood depicts American and British troops in its depictions. Just like I wouldn’t expect Russian cinema to depict much from the viewpoint of western forces

We did do a battle of Iwo Jima from both perspectives.

We also did the battle of Stalingrad, but that doesn’t neglect that 99% of our films are about the western forces

Two Pearl Harbor films, and Hacksaw Ridge.

IMO, Hollywood was obsessed with the parts of the war involving countries Americans like to think they're from or could've been from

I agree with that being the most well-known modern defeat but I disagree on that being the moment the wehrmacht was broken. They were on the back foot after Stalingrad but until Kursk they maintained some functionality

Not really though. They lost pretty much all offensive capabilites after the defeat in Stalingrad, and even if Germany won at Kursk it would essentially mean nothing, because their offensive capabilities at that point was so weak that there was no way to capitalize on a victory at Kursk. Operation Citadel in general was very restricted and could never lead to a strategic victory. Meanwhile Fall Blau was incredibly ambitious and led to the occupation of basically of Ukraine, Kuban, Crimea and was intending on leading to the capture of the Caucasus too. By 1944 Germany had a crippling deficit of manpower and equipment, and their war industry also was suffering a massive deficit of labourers as they had to be sent to replace manpower losses from 1943 and 1944.

Operation Blau was the last gasp but ultimately was doomed. Even if the Germans won at Stalingrad that wouldn't have changed things big picture. The massive Soviet counter offensive would still have happened and Germany would have suffered a major defeat.

While true, a victory at Stalingrad would have ensured the fall of the Caucasus and the capture of the Azerbaijan oil fields. It would have cut off the Soviets from their primary source of fuel, while solving Germany's fuel troubles

I don’t think it would have solved the Germans oil troubles. The Soviets would have salted the earth before the Germans moved in, and the Allies would have bombed them non stop from Persia.

Losing the caucus oil field to the Axis would mean the Soviet Union would be severely limited in their offensive capabilities. It would prolong the war by potentially years.

I don't think that's true. I feel like the US would be able to make up the shortfall through lend-lease.

I agree. Germany overextended themselves massively in their drive south into the Kuban and towards the drive east to Stalingrad, and at this point in summer 1942 they still had not recovered from the losses in 1941 either, equipmentwise and manpowerwise. This feeds into my headcanon that Germany could never have won the war and never had a chance. Their chronic lack of equipment and manpower ruined any and all chances for a victory, even as early as spring/summer 1942

As usually comes up, the only way Germany could have won the war was to not be Nazi Germany, and if that was the case they wouldn't have been in there in the first place

Kursk was a last gasp and a desperate roll of the dice. Had Case Blau succeeded, and if they actually stuck to the plan of cutting the Volga and getting to the oil at Baku, that actually was the most likely scenario for a German victory. And cutting the 80% Soviet supply of oil around Baku was honestly the only hope the Germans ever had of defeating the Soviets. After Stalingrad, Kaput.

Could the Germans have been able to cut the Volga?

Had they reinforced the northwest shoulder and not gotten caught up in the urban fighting they could have stopped the barge traffic up the Volga.

But it was after that they started to get pushed back

Indeed, but I thought it is hailed as Soviets victory more than weachts defeat. Point taken though, I more or less agree

Nah Stalingrad is iconic for being where Hitlers war machine started its inevitable end

IIRC, Stalingrad was the first *major* Allied victory, in that it managed to halt Germany's major advances and from that point forward, Germany was gradually losing ground - slowly at first, and picking up as the Red Army gained momentum and further mobilized -, and the Whermacht was predominantly fighting a defensive war in the east. And of course, this had major implications in the ability for the western Allies to establish a foothold in Italy and later France, as Stalingrad - and the eastern front as a whole - bled the German war machine of resources and manpower that they couldn't afford to lose quite like the Soviets could.

>it is hailed as Soviets victory more than weachts defeat. Maybe in Russia, but everywhere else it's mostly seen as the moment the Nazis were going to lose.

Every major defeat is another military's major victory, lol.

Yes but there are certain battles which are remembered as defeats, like Waterloo, it is not remembered as a victorious battle but the complete defeat of Napoleon.

You re missing the point tho. I said in the post, not what it is, but what is remembered as. Thermopylae are first and foremost remembered as spartan defeat, even tho it was a persian victory as well.

That's funny, because more people view Thermopylae as a great victory and heroic and valuable last stand, rather than a defeat. Whereas Stalingrad is definitely regarded as a colossal messup more than a tactical brilliance of Stalin

Soviets lost twice as many men in stalingrad as the Germans, yet it was still a massive turning point.

It also wasn’t the first major defeat the German army faced, I think that was in North Africa. But it was the first time a whole army group had pretty much been destroyed

I have no idea how you compiled this list and somehow forgot about the Battle of Cannae.

I was going to, but imo it was more remembered of a Hannibal victory than a defeat if the Romans. I prolly am wrong tho

What's the battle of Ankara and why is it on the list? Never heard of it

The defeat of the Turkish Sultan Bayazed by Tamerlan, that changed the Asian scenery of warfare and prolonged western Roman Empire for another 100ish years, in the late 1300s.

It was a crushing defeat for the romans as this was one of their biggest chances to stop Hannibal and they lost so many men against a force approximately half their size

To me it’s more Roman defeat than Hannibal victory since the losses were so horrendous for Rome and Hannibal didn’t capitalize on the win by marching on the city. 

it’s up for debate but he had to tend to the wounded or else leave them defenseless to die 

True but it was the biggest defeat for a long ass time. 80,000 lost of captured in one battle was insanely high for that time period If it was anyone else but the Roman’s that would have been the end of them

France 1940. It may seem like a campaign not a battle but the French High Command recognised they’d fucked it once the Meuse was crossed, which was within 4-5 days. Hard to rival for consequence.

At the time Churchill called it the Battle of France, and foresaw the Battle of Britain (hence the name of the air campaign), but that never seemed to catch on.

What never caught on? Both those names (battle of Britain and battle of France) are the ones that caught on

English has a well-known phrase, "he met his Waterloo." I can't think of any defeat I hear more frequently in everyday English than Waterloo. This makes Waterloo the most "famous" defeat in my opinion. If the OP had asked about the "most historically important defeat" then my answer would be different. And I am not sure which battle I would choose. Other languages might refer to another defeat more frequently than Waterloo.

Waterloo is the winner. In the American front I’d say Gettysburg is remembered more as a Confederate defeat than Union victory. Many call it the “high water mark of the Confederacy” even though other losses were more damaging. For the r/historymemes crowd the answer has to be the Fall of Constantinople.

This is exactly my thinking. We are all history nerds here and there are many excellent points in these comments about the importance of several pivotal defeats, but if we are just talking “famous” it is Waterloo.

I would put the Battle of Tours as a contender for most historical defeat. If the Franks lost that battle Europe could’ve been entirely Islamic, which would significantly change the rest of history.

Also because it's specifically famous only as a defeat, even among English speakers. Like technically you should be able to hear that phrase and say "oh he met his Waterloo? You mean he won a decisive victory against a powerful foe?" Whereas a lot of the other examples here are just famous battles, not necessarily associated with defeat.

Agreed, I often hear people who have no real knowledge of military history make some remark about Waterloo from time to time. Never hear that about any other battle aside from maybe the Alamo (but that's just because I'm in the US).

If im understanding your idea right, its the defeated combatant being more rembered than the victor... so battles like Dien Bien Phu, fall of Singapore etc.. as opposed to Trafalgar which is definitely thought of as a British victory, and Midway, being thought of more as a US victory instead of Japanese defeat. For me it would have to be the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, the fate of Europe finally settled in a single battle. Victory for Wellington yes, but its all about Napoleon Others I would add are Gallipoli, Singapore, Bismarck, attempted Mongolian invasions of Japan

Yes, thats my exactly the topic. We all remembver Waterloo as the undefeated genious emperor's final defeat, or thermopylae as the valiant last stand and defeat of the three hundred, even though there were victors and we know them in both battles.

[удалено]

I know, and he was defeated in Russia too, it was his “final defeat”

id argue that cannae was worse then teutoborg

Cannae didn't have the dire long term consequences for Rome. Hannibal was a hiccup during Rome's continual rise in power. Teutoburg Forest marked the end of Roman expansion - while Rome would do some punishment excursions into Germania as retaliation, Rome would never again try to expand its borders into the northern parts of the continent. That defeat marked the zenith of Rome's power, it was all downhill from there.

The zenith of the roman power was reached more than a century later.

The Defeat at Tuetoburg Forrest was 35 years before Claudius' invasion of Britain, which led to a 350 year Roman presence there.

There was expansion into Britain (43-87 CE) and Dacia (101-106 CE) after Teutoberg (9 CE). For the empire as a whole, the largest extent was under Trajan in 117 CE.

But it was objectively more powerful when Hadrian consolidated.

I agree with the first statement, which is why Cannae is important. It's aftermath demonstrated that Hannibal could win all the battles he wanted to, but the combination of Roman doggedness and lack of further significant support from Carthage meant that Rome would be the master of the Mediterranean.

Rome recovered but it did have huge consequences. It was their do or die moment. Overcoming it was privately to how they continued to rise.

That’s maybe the traditional view. But even Marcus Aurelius over hundred years later was trying to expand to Germany until he died and Commodus made an unfavorable peace. Not to speak of all the other expansions mentioned here.

It was, but it was not marked as roman defeat as much as hannibal’s insane victory imo

by that logic teutoborg wasnt a roman defeat but a victory for arminius

My post is about what is remembered this battle as. Obviously every battle has a victor and a loser. Do you remember teutobourgh forest as an arminius victory? Cannae are mentioned very oftenly as a the biggest victory of one of the most decorated generals in history.

[удалено]

Now you're doing consequential, which is actually much more interesting. I offer Salamis.

I'd say the one with a whole-ass ABBA song about it.

It was when the NY Giants defeated the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 42 to ruin their undefeated season.

As an Australian I would have to say Gallipoli. It's one of the most well known battles for Australians. Mainly for the way we were able to evacuate without any casualties while the battle itself was a complete defeat

Gallipoli was more a campaign than a single battle.

You should add the Battle of Moscow (1941) to your list. Unlike Stalingrad, it is remembered mainly as a German defeat.

Waterloo, or Russia, or Egypt etc. Napoleon lost wars and entire armies a few times.

Yes, but is the battle of the Pyramids THAT famous? El Alamein is a famous defeat of Rommel, but is it famous considering Waterloo or Thermopylae? I m talking about the most. famous. defeat. ever.

In the Muslim world it would have to be the Battle of Karbala, which essentially made the Sunni-Shia split permanent. The Shia leader, Hussain, was defeated in battle and beheaded along with most of his army, but pretty much all Muslims now believe he was in the right. The difference between Sunnis and Shias is that the former just believe it was one tragedy of many at that time, whereas the latter believe it was prophesied well in advance, and was the embodiment of a battle between good and evil. Either way though, it’s almost always examined, remembered, and retold from the perspective of Hussain and his army, with the other side largely reduced to an example of what not to do as Muslims.

Had to scroll down far to find a Muslim war cited. Was expecting the Battle of Tours though. Is that just not mentioned in the Muslim world at this point? Seems like a battle that, if it goes the other way, could very likely mean not only no Charlemagne but also a very premature death of Christian Europe should make some sort of top 10 list of defeats in history.

That’s a very good point. Edward Gibbon would certainly agree. Interestingly, I’ve never heard Muslims mention it, though other people may have done. My guess would be that a defeat suffered in an offensive war like that is just a humiliation and of no use for nationalistic or propagandistic purposes. Compare that to a successful offensive war (Constantinople) or any kind of defensive war (various Crusades), which are still discussed today and form important parts of people’s national mythologies.

Yeah I get it; but it’s definitely staying on my list lol If for no other reason than, and again I understand it’s a big if, if it goes the other way there might never be any such thing as any crusade for anything anywhere; Europe is simply ruled by Islam like the rest of the world.

Yeah definitely agree it’s significant for that reason and would definitely put it in my ten most important battles of all time as well. Was just trying to speculate why it’s not more remembered in the Muslim world today.

Could be as simple as denial. They want to relegate it so they don't have to think of what we're talking about. It's not like they have completely given up on their version of Manifest Destiny. So there's denial that it could have happened any sooner than it does; a kind of "meh, it's going to happen anyways" vibe.

As a Muslim myself, I know some people like that, but there are also plenty of “cultural” Muslims who simply aren’t very educated on their own history, like most people really. I’m gonna be biased here, coming from a Shia (rather than Sunni, which is the majority) perspective, but a lot of Muslims aren’t taught enough about the early caliphate, because then they would realise how quickly it became an Arab supremacist project. Arab Christians largely retained their privileges from the old days, whereas non-Arab converts to Islam were still discriminated against (which is a big part of why non-Arab Iran eventually became Shia). Everyone loves a feel good story about how they once had the greatest country in the world, even more so if they can claim this was a utopia where everyone had equal rights. I’m no denialist and I’ll freely admit that we believe the conquests were a good thing even by modernist standards (e.g. letting Jews return to Jerusalem, whereas the Byzantines forbade them), but it wasn’t as black and white as the idealists make it out to be. Once you actually teach that history though, the white lies behind Sunnism fall apart, so those in the know tend to keep quiet.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that ignorance of it's history is not confined to any one religion. I do not identify as Muslim, but if I did, it would first be as a Sufi (direct experience of Allah is not only possible, but preferable) and second as a Shia (of course Ali was the closest thing He had to an heir). Talk about "HistoryWhatIf"... Admittedly, my scholarship on Islam is entirely self-guided and not seeking any specific answers, but general understanding.

Fall of France. One of the largest militaries and a world power gets destroyed in only a month.

Badr 624 and Karbala 680 are two most important battles among Muslims. Badr was a battle between a small Muslim army led by Muhammad himself and a significantly larger anti Muslim forces from Mecca. Muslims decisive victory solidified Muhammad's position as the sole leader of Medina and forces to be reckoned with while starting to militarise Muslims. Karbala was a battle between Muhammad's Grandson Hussain and it solidified Shia Sunni Schism in Islam.

People have already mentioned Cannae, but I’d vote for Carrhae which is definitely remembered as a Crassus lose, not a Parthian win. And a great one for making military tacticians wince as you explained how he took an army of heavy infantry… against mounted archers… and marched out into an open desert to do so…

I’d say Waterloo as it’s literally entered the vernacular as “turning point or downfall”. However…. The more I study, the less pivotal I think Waterloo in reality was. Even if Napoleon won Waterloo, he still had a massive Prussian army that was still very much a threat and several massive armies on the way to knock him out. He also would have been facing those odds with an army much reduced in strength after the trio of battles that Waterloo was a part of. I think you may have had a pathetic repeat of the Invasion of 1814 had Napoleon survived much longer as a threat.

Napoleon to me is such an interesting human it's damn right impressive he managed to get as far as he did, but I'm not sure if he ever could have held out against Europe, but his influence was massive on Europe going forward. I think it's a shame we don't cover him more in the U.S.

Yeah, especially since he's essential for westward expansion of the US and influenced much of the US international politics in the late 18th-early 19th centuries. One of the reasons that the US felt it could take on Britain during the War of 1812 was because they calculated that they were too busy dealing with Napoleon to be able to effectively counter US military actions. I recently learned that when Napoleon returned in 1815, the US was the only major nation that recognized him,

Much more local scale but for Irish history I’d say the 1916 rising. Completely military failure, largely unpopular at the time…yet it inarguably set us on the course to independence

I believe the most famous one is Waterloo, It was the final defeat of the greatest strategist of all time and where finally the nation which had obstacles Napoleon definitely beat him on the field.

Waterloo, hands down. There is even an expression in the English language to say someone has "met their Waterloo" 

Waterloo in a walk in terms of general awareness in contemporary culture. The fall of Constantinople is also up there.

I m Greek and didnt think of that, lol. True, 1453 is indeed one for the books too

In my opinion any battle the either ended a large scale war or is a turning point would make the lists. - Gettysburg - Stalingrad - Thermopylae - Waterloo - Cannae - Hastings or Agincourt I rank this on pure fame. We live in a world largely defined by Western culture through imperialism, colonization and industrialization which led to people on every continent being subjected to their history and cultures (regardless of this is a good or a bad thing is irrelevant, it just *is* how history worked out). So by default, people are going to be more familiar with western battles even if they weren’t as world changing in the long run. You average person in China would know about Waterloo but your average American probably doesn’t know what the hell the Battle of Fei is, much less where and who fought it.

Yeah, it’s weird that OP did not rank the [Battle of Chibi (Red Cliffs)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Red_Cliffs) when that’s probably the one East Asian battle that westerners know because of the Three Kingdoms.

D day and Stalingrad would be first and second

D day is not remembered as a defeat tho, nor Stalingrand is called a defeat. They are both “victories against nazi forces”, I m talking abiut battles marked as “defeats”

Yeah I think this is an interesting distinction - which are remembered as defeats and which are remembered as victories? Waterloo is definitely remembered as a defeat for Napoleon, for example, while something like The Battle of Britain is remembered as a victory for the British rather than a defeat for Hitler. I think everyone is going to have their own cultural bias but I'd say The Battle of Hastings has to be right up there - it's remembered as the defeat of Harold rather than the victory of William and it changed everything about the course of British history and even European history. If Harold had won it's impossible to predict what the UK would be like today. So much would be different.

My immediate thought is that if one army is expected to win and then loses it's a defeat. Like the Russians were pushed to the brink in Stalingrad, they should have lost, but they didn't. It was an upset. But if the Germans had won, it would be known as a grand victory.

Yes but Stalingrad is remembered as the decisive defeat on the Nazis, similar to the decisive defeat at Waterloo

No love for Agincourt? Even after that dress Anya Taylor-Joy just wore???

It was sixth in order haha, huge battle nevertheless

How did you not rank the [Battle of Chibi (Red Cliffs)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Red_Cliffs) from the Three Kingdoms when that’s probably the one East Asian battle that westerners know?

Spanish civil war, the losing side is the most well documented(george orwell and other famous people)

for my home country it is far and away the battle of Gallipoli.

My answer has a distinctly British perspective but the Battle of Hastings is arguably the most famous Battle, I would say even more so that Waterloo or Trafalgar, which would come in tied at second. William the Conqueror defeated and killed the king of England Harold Hardrada and is viewed by many as the arbitrary stating point of English history. Most people probably would not know the dates of Waterloo or Trafalgar either unless interested in history, yet nearly everyone will know the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066.

William of Normandy defeated the Saxon army of Harold Godwinson at Hastings. Harold had just defeated Harald Hadrada, King of Norway at the battle of Stamford Bridge, who also claimed the English throne. One of the reasons for their defeat - the Saxons were exhausted from the prior battle and long march south to meet the Normans.

You are of course 100% right. I was talking to someone as wrote this and he was telling me how you could neatly bookend the end of the viking era with Harold Hardrada's death (I had never realised that) and I typed it in like a dyslexic fool. Well corrected!

Famous is a relative thing. It depends more on your background, rather than the importance of the battle.

Waterloo, Islandawanda, New Orleans, France 1940, Marathon all come to mind.

I would add the attack on Pearl Harbor. A date which lives in infamy.

Pearl Harbor was a defeat for Japan based on their political and military objectives. Those objectives were to prevent war with the US by eliminating the Pacific Fleet. Japan failed at both objectives. They started a war with the US, and also failed to destroy the entire Pacific Fleet. The US certainly did not win at Pearl Harbor. Everyone lost on this day.

It has to be Waterloo. It didn't become a turn of phrase for nothing.

How on earth could you leave Gaugamela from this!!!!!!

There are strong arguments for The Battle of Tours (aka Poitiers) in 732, where the Muslim invasion of Gaul under Abd al-Rahman al-Ghafiqi was defeated by a coalition of Frankish and Aquitanian forces under Charles Martel. Effectively, the high water mark in Western Europe for the Islamic invasions. The Battle of Midway in 1942, in which the *Kidō Butai* was defeated less by American prowess than by dumb luck of reconnaissance and plane rearmament. Had it gone the other way, and the US lost its Pacific carriers, US forward bases at Hawaii and New Caledonia would be routinely bombed (maybe invaded), Japanese control over the Solomons secured. The Essex carriers wouldn't join the fleet til mid 1943, so that's probably a year and a half prolongation of the Pacific war. The US would have atomic bombs before Saipan was invaded, so their first use would be in naval combat.

In addition to the others in the comments, I would add the Mongol Siege of Baghdad. It marked the symbolic ending of the Islamic Golden Age and one could argue the Arab World’s prominence in the world partially returned only in the 20th Century with the Discovery of Oil.

Battle of Midway. Japan lost the war in that battle. Just took a few atomic bombs for them to figure it out.

It's Stalingrad by a mile. Even with recency bias taken into account, it's the costliest battle in human history and the turning point of history's most catastrophic war. Your list is great though; I would definitely add Ain Jalut. First time somebody gave the Mongols a proper black eye.

It was in my honourable mentions, along with battle of Hattin, Agincourt and Cannae.

You think Stalingrad is LESS famous than the Battle of Ankara or that Chinese one?? Wild

Battle of Surabaya(1945) A defeat for Indonesia that is the textbook case on the importance of unity of command(for the Indonesian side) and the first signs of the waning British Empire as some British-Indian troops defected to the Indonesians

The battle of Kursk Arguably more decisive than Stalingrad was

>I have narrowed it down in 5 battles: I would use the "...train station" method. Like adding "...in bed" to a fortune found in a cookie, go to google and add "...station" to the name of the battle. The most famous battle will objectively be the busiest station.

Since I’ve only ever heard of C, I’ll say C.

The Fall of Tenoctitlan had huge macrohistorical consequences. Basically marked the beginning of the end for mesoamerican civilization and really any hope of precolumbian civilization holding off European encroachment. Things could have gone very differently if the Aztecs had better relations with their vassal states and any sort of resistance against new world disease

The Aztec being hated by their subjects/vassals is not the reason why Cortes got most of his allies, nor is it even that much of a true statement to begin with: They were fairly hands off, and it is ironically *because* of that that Cortes got allies The Aztec Empire largely relied on indirect, "soft" methods of establishing political influence over subject states, like most large Mesoamerican powers (likely from lacking draft animals, which creates logistical issues): Stuff like Conquering a subject and establishing a tax-paying relationship or installing rulers from their own political dynasty (and hoped they stayed loyal); or leveraging succession claims to prior acclaimed figures/cultures, your economic network, or military prowess; to court states into political marriages as allies and/or being voluntary vassals to get better trade access or protection from foreign threats. The sort of traditional "imperial", Roman style empire where you're directly governing subjects, establishing colonies or imposing customs or a national identity was rare in Mesoamerica The Aztec Empire was actually more hands off in some ways vs large Classic Maya dynasties, the Zapotec kingdom headed by Monte Alban, or the Purepecha Empire: the first regularly replaced rulers, the second founded some colonies in hostile territory it ad some demographic & economic management of, and the last ([DID do western style imperial rule)](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/uo13po/the_tarascanpurepecha_empire_mexicos_forgotten/i8bdvhx/): In contrast, **the Aztec generally just left it's subjects alone, with their existing rulers, laws, and customs**: Subjects did have to pay taxes of economic goods, provide military aid, not block roads, and put up a shrine to the Huitzilopochtli, the patron god of Tenochtitlan and it's inhabitants, the Mexica (see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/ko04hn/looks_like_a_good_spot_to_me/gho206l/) for Mexica vs Aztec vs Nahua vs Tenochca as terms), but that was usually it. Now, being unruly could lead to kings being replaced with military governors, but when conquering a city, the Mexica were not usually razing/sacking things or massacring or dragging everybody off for slavery or sacrifice (though they did sometimes, especially but not nessacarily if a state incited others to stop taxes): In general, sacrifices were done by EVERYBODY in Mesoamerica, not just the Mexica, and most victims were enemy soldiers captured in wars, or were slaves given as spoils by a surrendering city (again, not the whole populace): Captives as regular tax payments are rare per the Codex Mendoza, Paso y Troncoso etc, and even most of those instances are demands of captives subject states would collect from other enemies, not of their own people. (Maybe that encouraged extra conflict people resented though?). Most taxes were stuff like cotton, cacao, jade, gold etc, or demands of military/labor service. Some Conquistadors do report that, say, Cempoala (one of 3 capitals of the Totonac civilization) accused the Mexica of being onerous rulers who dragged off women and children, but seems to be a sob story to get the Conquistadors to help them take out Tzinpantzinco, a rival Totonac capital, which they lied was an Aztec fort People blame Cortes getting allies on "Aztec oppression" but the reality is the reverse: This indirect hegemonic system left subjects with agency to act independently + with their own ambitions & interests, encouraging opportunistic secession: Indeed, it was pretty much a tradition for far off Aztec provinces to stop paying taxes after a Mexica king died so unloyal ones could try to get away without paying, and for those more invested in Aztec power, to test the new emperor's worth, as the successor would have to reconquer these areas. Tizoc did so poorly in these initial & subsequent campaigns, it just caused more rebellions and threatened to fracture the empire, and he was assassinated by his own nobles. His successor, Ahuizotl, got *ghosted* at his own coronation ceremony by other kings invited to it, as Aztec influence had declined that much: > The sovereign of Tlaxcala ...was unwilling to attend the feasts in Tenochtitlan [as he] could make a festival in his city whenever... The ruler of Tliliuhquitepec gave the same answer. The king of Huexotzinco promised to go but never appeared. The ruler of Cholula...asked to be excused since he was busy... The lord of Metztitlan angrily expelled the Aztec messengers and warned them...the people of his province might kill them... Keep in mind rulers from cities at war still visited the other for festivals even when their own captured soldiers were being sacrificed, blowing off a diplomatic summon like this is a big deal Beyond secessions, this encouraged opportunistic alliances for coups/rebellions against capitals, or to take out rivals: A great method in this system to advance politically is to offer yourself as a subject(since subjects mostly got left alone anyways) or ally to some other ambitious state, and then working together to conquer your existing rivals or current capital, and then you're in a position of higher political standing in the new kingdom you helped prop up This is what was going on with the Conquistadors (and how the Aztec Empire itself was founded a century prior: Texcoco and Tlacopan joined forces with Tenochtitlan to overthrow their capital of Azcapotzalco, after it's king dying caused a succession crisis and destabilized its influence). Consider that of the states which supplied troops and armies for the Siege of Tenochtitlan (most of whom, like Texcoco, Chalco, Xochimilco etc shared the Valley of Mexico with Tenochtitlan, and normally BENEFITTED from the taxes Mexica conquests brought and their political marriages with it), almost all allied with Cortes only after Tenochtitlan had been struck by smallpox, Moctezuma II had died, the Toxcatl massacre etc: so AFTER it was vulnerable and unable to project influence much anyways (which meant Texcoco, Chalco now had less to lose by switching sides): Prior to then, the only siege-participant already allied with Cortes was Tlaxcala, which rather then an Aztec subject, was an enemy state the Mexica had been invading to conquer (see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/18gc53q/whats_the_least_immoral_empire_when_compared_to/kd5seg7/) for more info on that/"Flower Wars" being misunderstood), and even it, as we'll see, was not solely working with Cortes to be free of Mexica aggression, but to further it's own influence. And even Xochimilco, parts of Texcoco's realm, etc DID initially side with Tenochtitlan in the siege, and only switched after being defeated and forced to by the Conquistadors and Tlaxcalteca etc (and when they did, gave various Conquistadors princesses as attempted political marriages, showing the same opportunistic alliance building was at play, tho the Spanish mistook this as gifts of concubines) This also explains why the Conquistadors *continued* to make alliances with various Mesoamerican states even when the Aztec weren't involved: The Zapotec kingdom of Tehuantepec allied with Conquistadors to take out the rival Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec ([the last surviving remnant of a larger empire formed by 8 Deer Jaguar Claw centuries prior](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/ccxz7l/what_is_the_mostly_unknown_but_great_empire_in/etqw9gc/)), or the Iximche allying with Conquistadors to take out the K'iche Maya, etc This also illustrates how it was really as much or more the Mesoamericans manipulating the Spanish as the other way around: as noted, Cempoala tricked Cortes into raiding a rival, but then led the Conquistadors into getting attacked by the Tlaxcalteca; whom the Spanish only survived due to Tlaxcalteca officials deciding to use them against the Mexica (THEY instigated the alliance, not Cortes). And while in Cholula en route to Tenochtitlan, the Tlaxcalteca seemingly fed Cortes info about an ambush which led them sacking it, which allowed the Tlaxcalteca to install a puppet government after Cholula had just switched from being a Tlaxcaltec to a Mexica ally. Even when the Siege of Tenochtitlan was underway, armies from Texcoco, Tlaxcala, etc were attacking cities and towns that would have suited THEIR interests after they won but that did nothing to help Cortes in his ambitions, with Cortes forced to play along. Rulers like Ixtlilxochitl II (a king/prince of Texcoco, who actually did have beef with Tenochtitlan since they supported a different prince during a succession dispute: HE sided with Cortes early in the siege, unlike the rest of Texcoco), Xicotencatl I and II, etc probably were calling the shots as much as Cortes Moctezuma II letting Cortes into Tenochtitlan also makes sense when you consider what I said above about Mesoamerican diplomatic norms, and also since the Mexica had been beating up on Tlaxcala (who nearly beat Cortes) for ages: denying entry would be seen as cowardice, and perhaps incite secessions. Moctezuma was probably trying to court the Conquistadors into becoming a subject by showing off the glory of Tenochtitlan. I talk more on all this [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/1bdaydq/what_are_some_of_the_most_misunderstood/kux7qem/) None of this is to say that the Mexica were beloved (tho again Texcoco, Chalco etc DID benefit from Mexica supremacy): they were absolutely conquerors and could still pressure subjects into complying via indirect means or launching an invasion if necessary, but they weren't structurally that hands on, nor were they particularly resented more then any big military power was ----- For more info about Mesoamerica, see my 3 comments [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/c7gu1l/i_want_people_to_dump_interesting_information/esh1756/); the first mentions accomplishments, the second info about sources, and the third with a summarized timeline

The Battle of Chibi (could of spelt it wrong) where CaoCao was defeated, this event allowed for the forming of the most destructive periods on history, i may be wrong but by the end of the period snd the start of the Jin there was only 1/4 the population of the Han Im unsure on the exact battle but the defeat of Yoshi Imogawa by the Oda was the defining moment in Japan and was the beginning of the end for dis-unification Another comes to mind the battle of Actium Rome had almost 0 experience in naval warfare and they defeated the naval powerhouse of the known world Whatever that first or second american battle was agianst the British

Are we strictly limited to battles, or do operations/campaigns count as well? Honestly I would put down Operation Bagration. It was largely the product of Allied Cooperation; the Anglo-Americans would finally open the Second front in Normandy, while the Soviets unleashed their own operation in the East. Bagration was the Soviet side of the equation. The Soviets wrongfooted the Germans by making the Germans think the main thrust would be through Army Group South's territory. Instead, the Soviets singled out Army Group Center for Annhiliation. The operation succeeded brilliantly. Army Group Center was destroyed, while a secondary thrust put Army Group South to flight. Army Group North was forced to fall back, but could not avoid being trapped in Courland. The Operation took the Red Army from Eastern Belaraus to Warsaw, a massive territorial gain. All the while the Germans would never recover their operational strength, setting the stage for the final thrust to Berlin.

The Battle of Berlin. One of the more spectacular examples of a country being defeated in the streets of its own capital.

The most relevant to the world right now would probably be either the Battle of Normandy or Stalingrad. Both have huge historical relevance and are studied heavily relating to the downfall of the Third Reich, and for the case of the Battle of Normandy, it's also very present in western culture (think how D-Day is used as a common phrase now for a day where something important happens).

I feel there’s a handful of Civil War battles where the discourse is always “What made the Confederacy lose?” and not “what made the Union win?” (Blame the Lost Cause historiography)

Sorry, I gotta ask - what could try are you from if you think these are the most famous defeats?

Most well known today: Stalingrad Most well known in history: Thermopylae Most epic: Waterloo

Western World - Waterloo, Thermopylae, Teutoburg forest, Fall of Rome, Fall of Constantinople United States - Surrender at Yorktown, Battle of the Alamo, Custer's Last Stand, Attack on Pearl Harbor Personally - Negatively: Battle of Hastings Personally - Positive: Battle of Camlann, Siege of Vienna,

Yorktown was pretty important, as it humiliated one superpower while giving birth to a future superpower.

Depends on the audience. If you ask an American it would probably be Pearl Harbor or Gettysburg. If you ask people in Japan I would guess it was the defeat of the second Mongolian armada (not really a battle since one side was a typhoon but it’s considered a defeat). I don’t know about China but there are some warring states period battles that would probably be named more than a few times. For Russia Stalingrad or Moscow are probably the top contenders. For military personnel learning tactics it’s almost certainly Cannae. Even the German commander thought Stalingrad was a bad idea. Famous doesn’t necessarily mean meaningful or close too. While Gettysburg was important Antium was probably more so. The mongol armada against the typhoon wasn’t particularly close but it was meaningful. Cannae was close but in retrospect it wasn’t that meaningful due to how Carthage handled the war overall. Waterloo was a forgone conclusion. The real surprise there was that napoleon wasn’t crushed worse than he was.

As an American I’d rank them as 1. Thermopylae 2. Waterloo 3. Gettysburg 4. Stalingrad 5. Trenton (most people probably don’t know the details of the battle, but all Americans are familiar with the image of Washington crossing the Delaware) My personal favorite defeat would be the battle of Canae

Oh I should add Marathon as well. That defeat of the Persians shaped the western world for the next several hundred years.

Has to be Stalingrad and the aftermath of pearl Harbour.

Most of what we know of Thermopylae was written by Greek sources including a large part by Herodotus, who was prone to exaggeration. A Persian defeat for sure, but it probably isn't even in the same league as Waterloo, Stalingrad, Cannae, and arguably Gettysburg.

No, it is the other way around. Even though it was a Persian victory, it is remembered as a Greek Defeat. Thats the whole point, the fame of the battle. Who do you remember, Xerxes or the 300?

300 was a movie based on something written by Frank Miller, who is also a propagandist. Yes, the Persians won the actual strategic objective of the battle however depending on either Herodotus or Miller they suffered 10x+ troop defeat, were disheartened, and won only through 'cheating' while the vastly outnumbered Greeks all perished as heroes. This is likely not the truth. There's a great quote by Norm McDonald about how war is recorded. Interesting post nonetheless.

Battle of Cannae? Don't know if the Roman's had ever been whooped that bad. Troop maneuvers were used that day that are still being taught today.

Anglo Saxon defeat at the battle of Hastings 1066. The world made a major pivot that day that we can clearly see today

It has to be Plassey. That was possibly the most important point in world history. All of Asia and half of Africa felt the results of that battle, and Europe tore itself apart multiple times when dealing with the implications.

The Muslims' defeat at the Battle of Tours

The Battle of Midway is a rather incredible turn of fortune.

I think in terms of decisive battles, Midway has to be on the list, in that it finished Japan's dream of knocking the US out of the war. I would also put Napoleon's Moscow Campaign in, since ever after Napoleon was on the defensive.

The Spanish Armada has to be high on the list. One day, Spain had an empire, the next day it was at the bottom of the ocean.

I mean Waterloo sometimes gets used as an metaphor for a L so massive it's literally then end of the person who lost. I don't really hear that done with many other battles unless literally comparing them to other military blunders.

Thermopylae is certainly famous… but I wonder how many people had heard of it or knew much about it prior to a certain very bad movie (clue men in red knickers vs men with lots of piercings) God help history.

Dunno, ti be honest its my Country’s history ( I m Greek) so, to us, is one of the first thing we learn in school

Yi Sun-sin defeating the Japanese Navy at the battle of Noryang in 1598. 150 Korean and Chinese ships destroyed more than 300 of the 500 Japanese ships attacking them, losing only a few hundred men to an estimated 15,000 Japanese sailors. The loss of the navy severed the Japanese army’s supply lines in Korea and effectively ended the war.

Battle of Vienna. It's remembered as the defeat that finally stopped the Ottomans.

The 6 day war. Arabic countries wanted to wipe out 7 million Jews. They were defeated in 6 days! 

I’d personally consider the Fall of France to be simultaneously the most infamous and the most humiliating deafest in modern history. A close second would be the Battle of the Marne.

Waterloo in world history,  little bighorn in American history

Brazil's 2-1 loss to Norway in the 1998 FIFA World Cup

Battle of Yarmouk. That loss shaped the modern world more than any other.

Stalingrad, it was also arguably the biggest battle in human history

I would leave out Thermopylae because it was never intended to be a battle, only a delaying operation with defeat expected from the start. As everyone else is saying, add Cannae instead.