Shedman | 14 Sep 2015 4:02 p.m. PST |
|
wrgmr1 | 14 Sep 2015 4:59 p.m. PST |
Tough choices. My top pick would the battle of Hastings because it significantly changed Britain. Second would be the Battle of Britain. Had the Germans succeeded in destroying the RAF and invasion was possible. The ensuing naval battles would have been horrendous. |
Phillius | 14 Sep 2015 5:31 p.m. PST |
Interesting. I picked Naseby as it was the end of the Royalist Cause, and the end of the best chance of a move towards a balanced democracy. |
steamingdave47 | 15 Sep 2015 12:02 a.m. PST |
@Phillius- in what wat would a Royalist victory have lead to "a move towards a balanced democracy". The whole point of the Royalist campaign was to cement " Divine Right of Kings" into governance of the British Isles. |
KTravlos | 15 Sep 2015 2:49 a.m. PST |
I have to say the Boyne and assorted Glorious Revolution conflicts for me. A victory for James, considering the breadth and size of the forces arrayed against him in the Glorious Revolution, might had led to a massive change of the political character of the Three Kingdoms, and at the very least an independent Irish state 300 years before 1921. Furthermore the least result of his victory (detaching Ireland from the Union of Scotland and England) would have had a profound impact on the foreign policy of the English monarchs, and a profound impact on European politics. It would not had nullified English influence (England by itself had the resources to affect the continent, even with a independent Scotland and unruly Ireland at the door-step) but it would have limited some of the things it could pull off against Louis XIV. I mean for all the others, I still think some kind of English or Anglo-Danish or Anglo-Saxon state would had been established, and that centralization would had happened to a point. But a independent Ireland? Or Jacobite reestablishment ? Potentially major changes. |
KTravlos | 15 Sep 2015 2:51 a.m. PST |
steamingdave47 I think Phillius means that a draw or defeat of the Parliament at Naseby might had led to a compromise peace, which would had avoided the excesses of the Cromwellian Dictatorship. I am not sure. Charles I is a bit of Ferdinand II (Hapsburg). Unable to compromise. |
Phillius | 15 Sep 2015 3:15 a.m. PST |
What KTravlos said. I don't believe Britain had a chance of a good system of government coming out of the Civil War, no matter who won. But the Westminster system that eventually developed, was fundamentally flawed by the continuation of the original system where two out of three components were not elected. Over the centuries that resulted, very rapidly in one component becoming titular only, and very recently, the other component becoming a rubber stamping exercise. Which like many systems resulted in an un-fettered single house system that merely responds to whatever public opinion is prevalent at election time. However, given what happened in the West Island last night (Oz for the uninitiated), perhaps "blindly ignorant of any form of public opinion" is also evidence of the one house system. |
Dave Knight | 15 Sep 2015 3:28 a.m. PST |
I voted for the Armada Probably because I have recently seen a documentary which brought home how easily if could have gone the other way. |
Tarleton | 15 Sep 2015 3:53 a.m. PST |
Hard to choose but I voted for the Armada too. I think that a Spanish victory with the following invasion and Spanish rule would have meant an end to England. |
Supercilius Maximus | 15 Sep 2015 8:45 a.m. PST |
Third vote for Armada – a Catholic England, essentially part of the Spanish empire, would not have become the industrial, agricultural, economic and social powerhouse that it did. Not just the British Isles, but the whole world would have been different. |
Huscarle | 15 Sep 2015 12:05 p.m. PST |
I voted Hastings, as that fundamentally changed England forever (& to a slightly lesser extent, Wales, Ireland & Scotland too), getting us embroiled in so many European wars. If Hastings had gone the other way, then so much of our history would have been changed, and almost certainly no British Empire. |
Whirlwind | 15 Sep 2015 12:26 p.m. PST |
If Hastings had gone the other way…almost certainly no British Empire. How so? |
Yesthatphil | 15 Sep 2015 12:49 p.m. PST |
Naseby for sure … vote now lest the Scots hijack the poll Phil |
Ceterman | 15 Sep 2015 3:26 p.m. PST |
I'm from Virginia. But I would vote for The Battle of Britain. Result: Saved The World. Thanks Britain, ya'll done good. Peter |
Guthroth | 01 Oct 2015 1:08 p.m. PST |
Naseby. Parliamentary democracy was ensured by it. Battle of Britain ? Good for morale, but the Germans never stood a ghost of a chance of a successful invasion. |