Most Important Battles Challenge (4)

Thanks for the debate, HG.I choose for my final round the Battle of Adrianople (378).Background Once the undisputed hegemon of the Western world, the Roman empire was suffering a decline from which, in our world, they never recovered. In 378, the Romans were led by the Eastern Roman emperor to stop the advance of the Gothic invaders at Adrianople, just outside of modern day turkey; they were crushed in a humiliating and decisive defeat. This defeat was a major turning point, which militarily devastated the Romans and psychologically invigorated their opponents--the days of unrivaled Roman hegemony were over.Implications Valens army was intended to deter the Gothic advance--they were to show strength and a brave face and, if deterence failed, to fight the Goths to keep them from advancing into the Balkans. They failed in virtually every respect. The Goths shattered their army, killing around 25,000 Roman soldiers, enough according to Strauss[1] "to imperil Rome's manpower needs." Had the Romans managed to win the battle (which, in all likelihood, they should have) the following changes to the world would have likely occurred:1). The Western Roman empire would not have been destroyed, or surely not as fast. Less than 30 years after this battle the goths sacked Rome[2], which was an incredibly massive psychological turning point (indeed, the first time in 800 years that Rome had fallen to an enemy). Stopping the Goths at adrianople would have kept them from sacking Rome, and Roman hegemony would not have ended that day. From this:A. The dark ages would be postponed, or not have occurred at all. The decline of classical culture and progress that occurred with the collapse of the Roman empire would have not occurred had the empire survived, and thus the development of humanity would be greater than it is today.B. Individual Freedoms would not be as respected as they are today. Roman hegemony would have ensured that English common law (which is the most freedom valuing legal system today) would never have existed, as continued Roman occupation of britannica would have wiped out much of anglo-saxon culture. Moreover, the quasi-stateless order that emerged under Feudalism where each man was essentially the soveirgn on his own land would not have occurred since the Roman empire would still rule, and these rights didnt exist under the Romans.C. The development of every Western European language (romance languages) would have been different as these developed from Latin after the Roman empire collapsed, and the surviving Roman empire would have kept the populations Latin speaking. 2. Moreover, a Roman victory here would have changed the course of the Eastern Roman empire as well. Indeed, the settlement of the Balkans by the barbarians (rendering these territories de-facto rival states) kept the Eastern side from ever regaining its strength. While this empire far outlived its western counterpart, had it survived strong during this era and been able to present a strong face to the armies of Islam perhaps the islamic conquest of Turkey and North Africa would have been prevented and the knowledge lost at the sack of Constantinople would have been saved. This would obviously have changed world history, as a typical example, WWI would have not occurred had the Balkans not devolved into the fragmented area it became with the settlement of different barbarian tribes in different terrirories. At the very least, without rival states to the North the Eastern empire could have asserted/kept its hegemony for longer in the Balkans and Turkey--thus there would be far more greco-roman culture and Greek speakers today. Who knows, the Empire may have even survived to this today! Thanks to my opponent for the debate. Sources:1. Strauss, Barry S. "The Dark Ages Made Lighter." What If: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. Vol. Collected. New York: American Historical Publications, 2001. 71-92. Print. 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(410)