"Medieval battles more significant than Agincourt" Topic

"It is more than 600 years since Henry V led England to victory at the battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415, defeating a French army significantly bigger than his own. But despite deservedly being one of the most famous battles of the Middle Ages, Agincourt is not necessarily one of the most significant of the era, argues medieval warfare expert Dr Sean McGlynn. Here are 9 important medieval battles, from the battle of Hastings in 1066 to the battle of Bosworth in 1485…"
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

The most important battles such as Poitiers, Tannenberg, Grandson… are missing

Well…
Mohi 1241 was a crushing victory for the Mongols, and yet they withdraw within a short time. So its effect vs. a crushing defeat of the Mongols is what? Especially when compared to Lechfeld?

I think the definition of "significance" is not clear here.

Constanzo also mentions other battles – with nearly a millenium over half a continent, I doubt that there will ever be a definite list. Some were pretty important because of what happened not – if fore example, Charles the Bold had won the siege of Neuss or the ensuing battle with the Reichsheer (which in reality was more of a standoff) he would probably have won the support of large parts of the Empire, with all the ensuing resources that the typical effective Burgundian style government might have yielded here. Being named the next Emperor is just the start of it. He might have been even ready for action when the English army showed up for the combined campaign vs. France. No house of Habsburg, especially not on their way to conquer Burgund, Spain and later Hungary by marriage.

Well, that said, nice read. I have seen worse.

As '9 important' battles it works. Particularly in England's history.

Definitely not the 'most' important by quite a bit.

Manzikert, Kosovo Poljets, and the Fall of Constantinople might rank a fair bit higher.

I suppose had the Hungarians won Mohi, they would have been even stronger. The king may well have been able to consolidate and regain the crown lands which he had started to do before the invasion. Afterwards, he had to give away more lands, partly in exchange for the local ruler to build fortified settlements which had been the best defence against the Mongols.
The Hungarians would likely have exploited the resultant power vacuum in what is now the Ukraine. Wallachia etc. could have been more firmly tied to the Hungarian crown. Whether that would have made them less likely to get involved in the west (e.g. against Bohemia and in Naples) or whether they would have been able to do so even more effectively with larger resources is unknowable, but either way history was likely different as a result of the battle. Who knows – maybe they would have been in a better state to contest the Ottomans. They had a decent enough go as it was.

Bosworth, on the other hand…

Good to see Bouvines getting deserved recognition.

The problem with Agincourt is that Henry V didn't live long enough for the consequences to take their otherwise inevitable effect.

Phil

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

What Goragrad said. Sack of Constantinople by the Normans of the 4th Crusade would be a must also.

The Siege of Orleans, where the French rallied behind Joan of Arc, and defeated the English.

link

After that, the English suffered a number of other defeats too.

Agincourt is chiefly important for not deciding stuff. Had Henry V been thoroughly defeated, the 2nd half of the Hundred Years War in all probability wouldn't have happened.

(And we might well have held that it was unimportant because Henry's badly outnumbered army obviously never stood a chance.)

Another vote for Bouvines, huge step in creating modern France's boundaries today.

x2 for The last Conformist.