Hah I forgot to add that cannae happened a 109 years before marius' reforms. But it ok we all make mistakes :P

Battle of the Bulge.

Battle of the Solar System, future, hundreds of millions killed.

battle of britain cos it told the nazis that there was somewhere that they ouldn't just roll some tanks over and call it theirs, although it was more a british staving-off as opposed to a proper victory

Spitsbergen Battle (1945) (A final battle to World War 2. In early May, German troops stationed on Svalbard from Operation Sizillien (1943) lost radio contact with Berlin (and the Europe rest). They regained connection in August, and asked for nonexistent reinfocements. On September 4 (two days after Japan's surrender), a Norwegian hunting boat arrived and the Nazi troops surrendered. A final battle to the bloodiest war, making it 2195 days. (Though the common end date is Japan's surrender, which would make it 2193 days))
what about the guy who didn't surrender until 1973 from Japan?

Battle of Tours, (732 AD)

this is the fella:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda

1371 Battle of Marica-Serbian forces were annihilated and the commanders were killed

The most important battle which could have changed our life today is for me the Battle of Moscow in 1941. If Stalin surrendered in that critical moment, Nazi Germany would have had time enough to prepare against an US entry in war (and time enough to prepare nuclear weapons). So, as an amazing irony, one of the most terrible tyranes of the history is the saver of Europe.

How am I leaving out Welsh impact? The longbowmen in both battles, as well as Poitiers, were mainly comprised of Welsh and English and I stated as much.

emphasis on welsh

Piss the Welsh is right. The Longbow was a Welsh and Gaelic invention, the English just copied it when they realized how many defeats they endured against them (like the battle of Bannockburn) so nothing glorious about that.

The Longbow despite being quite rudimentary, helped a lot against the French knights and the heavy cavalry, however finally those victories were a matter of time, because when the French developped the combination artillery/calvalry and improved their armors and fortifications, the Longbows were out-of-date.
After the Siege of Orléans in 1429, the English lost progressively all their continental possessions.

Crecy and Agincourt were overwhelming English victories (...) thanks to French stubborn pride

"stubborn pride" ahahah as usual, you are just giving your own judgement here (French bashing).

at its peak england controlled france
(well france controlled england but still)

Yeah it was not England which controlled France, because England itself was controlled by a French dynasty, the Plantagenêt from Anjou, and the French-norman noble houses replaced all the ancient Anglo-saxon ones when William the Conqueror conquered Britain.

What I wonder is if England had won the Hundred' Years War. Would it still have continental territory today? At its peak, England controlled most of the western half of France.

That would have been interesteing to see indeed, because I think France and England would have finally merged into a single entity, and that would have changed everything in the next centuries (if that possible union lasted for a long time).
The Plantagenêt dynasty ruling England was not far on getting the French crown, when Charles VI the Mad of France signed the Treaty of Troyes which recognized and gave the crown of France to Henry V the English king and his successors.

Bannockburn was not won because of the longbows. The scottish barely used the weapon! Whereare you getting your history from??

It is stubborn pride when you continue to use the same tactics over and over again despite theor repeated failure. The French nobility were enamored with chivalry and wanted to have the romantic charges instead of attacking on foot as the English did. I'm actually French so there is no bashing there.

The situation was super complicated. The English were French vassals, and France wanted to check England's power. England at the same time was trying to control France. That's the basis of what I understand. Super confusing.

Whereare you getting your history from??

I must ask you the same question in return. Because your information is partial/incomplete.

The French nobility were enamored with chivalry and wanted to have the romantic charges instead of attacking on foot as the English did.

Well the exact same thing happened when the English tried to conquer Welsh kingdoms and the gaelic kingdom of Alba.
But that romantic thing (again a subjective judgement) has nothing to do with the feudal organisation that France had during that period.
Chilvary and Feudality were dominant in Europe, because they were effective not because of romantism. But after the 100 years war, that changed, and the Noble lords little by little gave up their power for the kingdom and feudality ended.

I'm actually French so there is no bashing there.

Ah vraiment? Le fait que tu sois français ne change en rien cela. Je suis moi-même très critique envers l'histoire de mon pays. Et l'auto-dénigrement est plutôt courant en France, bien plus que dans les pays anglo-saxons dû à notre histoire.

The situation was super complicated

Yes it was ^^ you could compare it to the Game of Thrones' universe: betrayals, struggle for power, family, love and hate... G.R.R Martin himself said he got inspired from the English War of the Roses and the Accursed Kings of France.

Edited 3/27/2015 15:43:50

Ah vraiment? Le fait que tu sois français ne change en rien cela. Je suis moi-même très critique envers l'histoire de mon pays. Et l'auto-dénigrement est plutôt courant en France, bien plus que dans les pays anglo-saxons dû à notre histoire.

Ah, really? The fact that you are French changes nothing here. I am very critical against my country's history. And the autacriticisms are very popular in France, and more kind to the Anglosaxons.

Speak French or English, but not both.

^ Juq I was only talking to him, do not see anything bad about that. Btw your google translation is really wrong.

Edited 3/27/2015 15:56:56

Except I wasn't speaking of feudalism at all. Merely of their military tactics where the French stubbornly charged the English defensive positions and were slaughtered by the longbows and superior defensive positioning of the English (fighting on foot is far better for defense). Didn't help that a third of the French army at both Poitierrs and Agincout left the field without fighting, negating their numerical supremacy.

In both cases the French were foolhardy and overconfident, attacking a strong defensive position when they didn't have to. The English were in far more difficult positions, lacking food and reinforcements and yet the French did them. Favor and attacked. The Scottish did the same thing at Neville's Cross.

And what is your source for the Scots having longbows at Bannockburn? They certainly didn't have them a few years later at Neville's Cross

Tsh. I translated myself; there were a few words I had trouble with.

But my point still stands: Speak English or French.

Also, does Google have a monopoly in everything on the West?

Re: Google
Pretty much. It's my go-to site for most everything, including translation. Like you, I roughly translated it myself and arrived at the same basic points. I use translate more for writing than reading. Also mail, search and maps

Opening your world a bit:

https://translate.yandex.ru

The translator engine I most use (when I use one).

About Bannockburn just checked I admit to have been wrong, I misunderstood that source. If you want a correct example then: Battle of Cymerau, where Anglo-Norman forces lost against the Welsh using Longbows.

Edited 3/27/2015 16:15:13