15 Decisive Battles

[Epaminondas]

Battle of Trafalgar? As long as Napolean couldn't cross the channel, his victories on the continent were always in jepordy.

[Sommerhielm]

Without the Normans, the English wouldn't exist...they'd be a Saxon/Norse kingdom, economically and culturally backward.

The Tudors and Stuarts couldn't come to power and so the British Isles remain a dark set of islands on the periphery of Europe - like Scandinavia.

No English expansion into the New World. No English or British empire...a quite different world today.

The battle of Hastings changed the world more than any other battle ... though you can make a case for Dunkirk.

You don't know what you are talking about.
Sweden and Denmark-Norway (and before 1389 as seperate kingdoms) punched above their weight at the European political scene in the timespace 1066-1812 when one thinks about population and resources.
Among other things they had higly centralized and effective governments,
dominating nearby areas such as Northern Germany and the Baltic countries,
triumphing over powerful foes such as the Hanseatic League, Poland, Novgorod and for a long time, Russia.

Keeping England in the Nordic cultural sphere does'nt equal backwardness.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Tenochtitlan 1519. Cortez' violent submission of the Aztecs against impossible numerical odds very much sets the tone for several hundred years of absolute European dominance over the rest of the world.

Tenochtitlan was conquered in 1521, not in 1519. Didn't you here about Noche Triste and Spanish retreat?

was more important the battle of Otumba.. This battle was the end of aztec hope for winning.. in this battle, spaniards conquested the "Decision" in Otumba, after that battle nobody could avoid the conquest of Mexico.. Tencochtitlan is the symbol, Otumba the "decisive" battle in the campaing.

Otumba is often considered as inconclusive battle or even Spanish defeat... After the battle of Otumba there were almost no Spaniards left who were not wounded or dead - even Cortez was wounded several times during Noche Triste, his tragic withdraw, and finally battle of Otumba near the borderland of Triple Alliance.

If not help of one of his Indian allies - Confederation of Tlaxcallans, Cortez and his men would be crushed - after Otumba his army was unable to fight - he needed many months to heal wounds, and he received great reinforcements from Kuba before he finally attacked Tenochtitlan - and please don't forget, that together with Cortez around 150,000 natives fought against the Aztecs in Tenochtitlan - and what he had after Noche Triste and the battle of Otumba? - almost all his Indian allies left him - only Confederation of Tlaxcallans stayed with him, and invited crushed Spanish army with open hands into their cities, where it could rest and recover all terribly heavy casualties.

By the way - i have read excellent book on this material: "Tenochitlan 1521" by Ryszard Tomicki from series "Historical Battles" - book has 236 pages of text + some ilustrations (for example some from Indian chronicles written in XVIth century):



Decisive was the battle of Tenochtitlan A.D. 1521, not Otumba or any other Cortez battle

[Jon G.]

Tenochtitlan 1519. Cortez' violent submission of the Aztecs against impossible numerical odds very much sets the tone for several hundred years of absolute European dominance over the rest of the world.

Tenochtitlan was conquered in 1521, not in 1519...

Right! Good job taking me to task for a post made 3½ years ago In the bigger context of this thread - that is, the Cliff's Notes of 15 battles that altered the course of mankind - the year definitely matters. The rest however doesn't.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

I don't think so.

I don't think it wasn't decisive. If Cortez had lost this battle, it would have had great influence on Europe (Spanish gold) and on Aztecs as well as on other non-Aztec-natives.

Would Spaniards really manage to conquer Mexico if Cortez suffered defeat? Even if they would manage, we have still one big question - how long would it take?

I really think that it would be very difficult - Aztecs were great enemies who were learning very fast.

At first, they were afraid of horses, during Noche Triste they realised that horses can be killed, but they still didn't really know how to fight against them - during the battle of Otumbo they received a bloody lesson of how they shouldn't fight against cavalry, and they realised that long spears can be very efficient against horses.

During the siege of Tenochtitlan, they knew how to stop cavalry charges - they formed special units equipped with long spears, they knew that infantry needs to stand still in formation if it wants to have chances against cavalry - and they didn't afraid of horses any longer.

Every day of the siege of Tenochtitlan, resistance of defenders was harder - if Cortez lost in 1521, the next expedition would met in combat with men who knew their enemies very well (and members of this new Spanish expedition wouldn't know Aztecs at all), and would certainly met with even much heavier resistance.

[Jon G.]

I don't think so.

I don't think it wasn't decisive. If Cortez had lost this battle, it would have had great influence on Europe (Spanish gold) and on Aztecs as well as on other non-Aztec-natives...

Yes. That was the general thrust of my 2004 post.

[Alaric]

actually the Germans were stopped by noble efforts made by the Soviet army, airforce, and people. I read that out of 100 bombers sent by the Nazis to bomb Moscow only a few made it due to heavy anti-aircraft shelling and the ramming of their ships by Soviet pilots. The ramming technique (which if properly done was not a suicidal attack) was perefected during this time and it caused the battle for Moscow to end. You can read more about the battle in "Russia's Heroes".

I fail to understand people who can in one sentence properly refer to the Wermacht as Germans in one sentence and in the next classify it as "the Nazis". Yet you refer to Russian forces as Soviet (which is a communistic term meaning council) but not as "the communists".

Off-topic comment removed by moderator.

[Jon G.]

An off-topic comment was removed from the post above. Alaric, you're welcome to challenge other members for erroneous terminology. You are however not welcome to equip other members with particular political views based on their misuse of terminology.

Please abide by this. Ad-hominem attacks are not tolerated on this forum, and we don't want threads about historical subjects to develop into discussions about present-day politics.

[Alaric]

An off-topic comment was removed from the post above. Alaric, you're welcome to challenge other members for erroneous terminology. You are however not welcome to equip other members with particular political views based on their misuse of terminology.

Please abide by this. Ad-hominem attacks are not tolerated on this forum, and we don't want threads about historical subjects to develop into discussions about present-day politics.

Very well, although it was not intended as any kind of attack. I was going to email you regarding further clarification, but your email address is not listed in the profile.

[Jon G.]

Alaric - just use the PM system by hitting the small PM icon on my profile to the right.

[Alaric]

• Battle of Mhlatuze River
Historical Result: Decisive Zulu Victory ultimately does not affect the modern world.
Hypothetical Result: Decisive Ndwande Victory matters nothing to my Eurocentric world view.

• Marne
Historical Result: Strategic French Victory thwarted German conquest of France.
Hypothetical Result: Decisive German Victory would have ended WW1 as a German triumph, the Kaiser would remain in Berlin, and all would be right with the world!

A man after my own heart!

Since this thread is in the pre-WW1 forum, I'll confine it to battles of that time. Here are a couple I think should replace any post-July 1914 battles:

Manila Bay 1898 Now the Spanish-American War was pretty much a foregone conclusion, but I cite this battle because the original poster had this as his criteria for Decisive: "that it changed the course of the world we live in significantly, not just the course of a war." With that in mind, I propose that the Battle of Manila Bay, 1 May 1898, did change the course of the world we live in. The victory of Commodore Perry's fleet secured the Philippine Islands for the United States, although there were relatively small land battles afterward, and of course an intense guerrilla war which history records as the "Philippine Insurrection". It firmly placed a large American presence in the Pacific, central Pacific for the next 100 years, which was destined to bring America into conflict with Japan after their victory in the Russo-Japanese War. In fact, this "Splendid Little War" as Theodore Roosevelt called it, also provided Guam to the U.S., and the Hawaiian Islands were annexed as well. We all know what that meant for future Japanese-USA relations, as the Philippines were developed to be an extensive naval and airbase as well as a large army stationed there and a key route for Pan American airlines whose Clipper Ship flying boat fleet so concerned the Japanese in the 1930's.

Gaugamela 331 BC Thisis the battle that ended the Persian monarchy. I know some might say that Issus had to be successful for Gaugamela to take place, which is true, but then the same could be said for siege of Tyre, couldn't it? Darius III fled the battle, in sight of all the troops of his combined army (from all over the Persian Empire) when victory was still obtainable, and thus insured the collapse of morale of his army and their defeat by Alexander's Greco-Macedonian army. Alexander become ruler of most of the known world after that.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

I would add to this list one of those battles:

Vienna 1683

or

Zenta 1697

Both battles were very important - i really don't know which was more important?

First of them - Vienna 1683 - stopped Turkish expansion and Turkish march to conquer Europe and destroy Western civilization and culture.

1645-1669 - Ottoman Empire defeats the Republic of Venice and conquers Crete
1662-1664 - Ottoman Empire defeats Habsburg Monarchy and conquers part of modern day Hungary
1665 - Ottoman Empire defeats Habsburbg Monarchy and seizes almost half of modern day Slovakia
1658-1666 - Ottoman Empire defeats Transilvania (Siebenbürgen)
1672 - Ottoman Empire attacks Poland, captures the fortress of Kamieniec Podolski, signs a treaty with Polish king and receives Podolia as the payment for piece - most part of Polish society is disgusted and blame the king - Polish Parliament recognizes a treaty as illegal
1673 - The war starts again, Ottoman Empire is defeated in the battle of Khotyń and losts Kamieniec Podolski, but most part of Podolia stays in Turkish hands
1672 - Ukrainian Hetman, Peter Doroszenko acknowledges Turkish superiority and becomes Turkish vassal
1677-81 - Turkish-Russian war, Ottoman Empire wins - in 1678 Czehryń is captured, in 1681 a treaty is signed
1683 - Ottoman Empire attacks Habsburg Monarchy, Turkish army force Austrian armies to withdraw and the siege of Vienna starts - when it was formed, it was the biggest Turkish army of the whole XVIIth century, and later huge Tatar reinforcements joined to it.

And what happened later - we all know - the relief of Vienna.

After that battle, Ottoman Empire never seized a single piece of land in Europe - it was also important because the Great Vizier Kara Mustafa was executed after it - and it was the end of mighty family of Köprulu rule over Ottoman Empire, under the rule of which, it became the strongest in its history - maybe, only MAYBE, except Suleyman times - and was also very agressive, even more agressive, if it comes to European countries, than in Suleyman times.

The other one - the battle of Zenta - was the greatest massacre of Turkish army during this war - 20,000 to 30,000 men casualties and 87 cannons lost (as the result of the battle of Vienna 1683 they suffered 15,000 killed + dead Kara Mustafa - the greatest vizier of all times).

But one is certain - the war of 1683-1699 definietly destroyed Ottoman domination and it should be considered as the turning point in Europe versus Ottoman Empire conflict. After 1699 decline of Ottoman power was started and it was constantly and gradually (but quite fast) falling till the end in 1923.

[Polynikes]

You don't know what you are talking about.

Always a good way to start a reply - especially after so many YEARS!

Sweden and Denmark-Norway (and before 1389 as seperate kingdoms) punched above their weight at the European political scene in the timespace 1066-1812 when one thinks about population and resources.
Among other things they had higly centralized and effective governments,
dominating nearby areas such as Northern Germany and the Baltic countries,
triumphing over powerful foes such as the Hanseatic League, Poland, Novgorod and for a long time, Russia.

No slight on the Scandinavians - all fine people but who didn't shape world events like the French, Spanish, British, Germans.

When discussing the great European colonial powers, you don't list the Swedes or Danes do you?

Keeping England in the Nordic cultural sphere does'nt equal backwardness.

I'm sure Sweden can lay claim to all manner of achievements but that was not the point - England would not have risen as a major power had not the Normans invaded.

Indeed I'm not sure a people called the English would ever have existed - it would just have been a Saxon-Norse kingdom.

Hastings, like the Spanish Armada, had long lasting influences upon the shape of world politics.

Without Hastings, there would be no USA for example.

[col. klink]

I haven't read all the posts on this subject but I'm intrigued about Nomohan/Kahlkin Gol. In a way I think it's one of the most important battles of WWII though iit took place before the invasion of Poland in that if the Japanese had had some sort of successful outcome or maybe even just a stalemate they would still have had considered the option of a major operation against the Soviets in the east some time in the ealy 1940s while the Nazis were invading the western portion of the Soviet Union.

[SpanishBriton]

No come on guys let's be honest , we are talking about battles that affected the WORLD and not just England as i see people listing the battle of Hastings (??) one more thing the book The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: from Marathon to Waterloo is too anglocentric , i don't recommend it to anyone as it is very biased

here is my list of the 11 most important battles according to me (not in order)

Battle of Thermopylae
Battle of the Metaurus
Battle of Chalons
The Second Arab Siege of Constantinople
Battle of Toulouse
Battle of Tours
Battle of Lepanto
Battle of Vienna
Battle of Anctium
Battle of Stalingrad
Battle of Normandy (Normandy Campaign)