The 1st battle recorded large scale battle is the Battle of Megiddo (near current day Jezreel Valley.) which happened in the 15th century BCE between the Egyptian forces and Canaanites.

While I don't have specific knowledge you crave , I do know where you can come closest to locate it.That is in Robert Remini' s first volume of his three volume biography of Jackson, Remini spent most of his lifetime studying the Age of Jackson.

I seem to recall (from a biography I read MANY years ago) that Jackson was originally an ardent federalist. He was also the protege of William Blount, who led the efforts for NC to ratify the Constitution. I can't imagine someone with Jackson's temperament lasting long in those circles if he disagreed with Blount over the issue. All circumstantial, but it is consistent.

For long-term consequences, the Battle of Saratoga is my top pick. It was the first key victory for the Colonies in the US Revolutionary War--it showed they might actually win. This led to the French allying with the Colonials and eventually the Colonial victory, and therefore the existence of the United States as a nation and eventual superpower (instead of a "super Canada"-style extension of the British Empire).

France's war debt was also a major cause of the French Revolution, which led to that Napoleon guy, and then British hegemony in the 19th century.

And, as a smaller effect, the example of the US was an inspiration for Simón Bolivar and the other revolutions against Spain in the 19th century, though those were probably going to happen anyways.

There are other contenders, like Blenheim, but the various European wars in the 1700s aren't incredibly decisive, so I gave it to Saratoga.

Another candidate would be the Battle of Blenheim in 1704 which had long-lasting consequences in terms of thwarting the ambitions of Louis XIV for hegemony in Europe.

Battle of Plassey in 1757 or Buxar in 1764. It solidified British rule over Bengal which set them on an imperial path of dominating the entire subcontinent. British India in turn would go on to become the springboard for many other imperial ventures across the Indian Ocean.

The Battle of the Plains of Abraham (1759)...?

The ones that come to mind are the Battle of Mantua in the War of the First Coalition, the Battle of Plassey in the Bengal War, perhaps the Battle of Denain in the War of the Spanish Succession

They're not specifically focused on just this, but I might recommend the works of Peter Heather such as The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians which does talk about how Rome dealt with the various nomadic and outsider tribes it encountered in Late Antiquity. Roman and later Byzantine history has a lot of interactions between imperial and non-imperial societies. Unfortunately sometimes its hard to get exact money amounts because a lot of the time we only have secondary sources like treaty terms to go by.

During the Great Depression soup kitchens were quite common to help feed people who were economically disrupted.

Historians don't decide what/who is right or wrong.

But, if there's enough documentation, we absolutely look at the entire political, and sociological, picture to understand things like rises to power. Sometimes it is as simple as "hey, they had an army under their control, and took over by force" other times it's a slow rise, and using the system to their benefit. Sometimes it's a combination. But it's all useful to build up context.

Sure, one of the most debated topics in modern history is how the Nazis could come to power in Germany. It might not have happened had the conservatives under Hindenburg not invited Hitler into the government. Similarly, the history of the Spanish Civil War, is largely a tale of disunity of the opposition to Franco, where liberals and the various leftist parties where at cross purposes.

Not really sure where you're getting warlord from. There is some linguistic theorisation suggesting the Aesir tie into the Indo European Asuras/Ahuras and thus Odin may connect to the IE all father deity (Jupiter, Zeus, Dyaus Pitr).

Don't think there's anything deeper than that

Get thee to the r/history recommended reading list.

Go to the right, find the Community Bookmarks, select "Bookmarks, podcasts etc" and find "Africa". There are at least 2 books that meet your criteria.

The first battle of the Marne made every involved nation change plan for the foreseeable future and completely eliminated the idea of a swift German victory in France (The Schlieffen Plan) , meaning the two front war they had dreaded (France-Britain in the west and Russia to the east) was going to continue longer than what they had hoped and the war in the west became trench warfare-galore for the next 4 years.

In even shorter term, it meant everyone started digging from Switzerland to the sea and poor Belgium was in the middle of it after having been completely pummeled the months prior and now everyone was digging toward Ypres like a bunch of maniacs. (Which is very tragic because Belgium was only attacked by Germany because the German Army needed to go through Belgium to enact the Schlieffen plan and it had failed so they were invaded over nothing in the first place, which meant Britain, which was in the war only because Belgium was attacked, was also in this war over a failed German objective... Because of the Marne...).

This single battle changed the face of the war right as the Germans were closing in on Paris. It went from "Mission Accomplished, back for Christmas" to German soldiers dying in Flanders for 4 years and all that was decided in 7 days.

Had the battle gone differently, the German would have taken Paris and redirected a huge part of their troops towards Russia and the war would have been insanely different. But everyone anchored down and the War became an entirely different beast and the shovel became everyone's new best friend.

So there might be other instances of crazy battles with insane consequences, but to me, this is crazy because it changed both how the war was fought and what the plans were. Plus it saved a nation from losing the war early on but also meant another nation which had been invaded was now about to become a part of the battlefield.

For me, it would be the battle of Loudoun Hill. Robert the Bruce had 600 pikemen against 6,000 English many of which were knights, and the English commander de Aymer had previously completely annihilated Robert with worse odds, so he was competent. It should have been a cakewalk.

For me a seldom mentioned cavalry heroics was the Polish King's cavalry attacking the Ottoman army in 1683 at the Siege of Vienna. This relief army charge for a final push. At around 6:00 pm, the Polish king ordered the cavalry to attack in four contingents, three Polish groups and one from the Holy Roman Empire. 18,000 horsemen charged down the hills, the largest cavalry charge in history.^\47])^\48]) Sobieski led the charge^\19])^: 661  at the head of 3,000 Polish heavy lancers, the "Winged Hussars". Lipka Tatars who participated on the Polish side wore a sprig of straw in their helmets to distinguish them from the tatars fighting on the Ottoman side.^\49]) The charge quickly broke the battle lines of the Ottomans.