15 Decisive Battles

Discussions on other historical eras.
Post Reply
THECLASH
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 26 Jul 2004, 21:45

#76

Post by THECLASH » 18 Aug 2004, 01:10

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".

Patras
Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 11 Jul 2003, 19:07
Location: somewhere near Japan

#77

Post by Patras » 18 Aug 2004, 14:46

Yes, Lord Gold, most of them were from Catalonian and Aragon,

From Encyclopedia Britannica, edition 1911:

"Almogávares (in Spanish) or Almogàvers (in Catalan) (from the Arabic Al-Mugavari, a scout), the name of a class of Spanish soldiers, well known during the Christian reconquest of Spain, and much employed as mercenaries in Italy and the Levant, during the 13th and 14th centuries.
The Almogávares (the plural of Almogavar) came originally from the Pyrenees, and were in later times recruited mainly in Navarre, Aragon and Catalonia. They were frontiersmen and foot-soldiers who wore no armour, dressed in skins, were shod with brogues (abarcas), and carried the same arms as the Roman legionaries-two heavy javelins (assegay, Spanish azagaya, Catalan atzagaia, the Roman pilum), a short stabbing sword and a shield.."



The chiefs were catalonian and Aragonian: Roger de Flor, Roger de Lauria, Muntaner, Rocafort, Entenza, etc etc and when Byzantium betrayed and killed the Chiefs, the war between Almogavares and Byzantium Empire is named in Greek: "Catalonian Revenge"

Best Regards


Patras
Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 11 Jul 2003, 19:07
Location: somewhere near Japan

#78

Post by Patras » 18 Aug 2004, 16:11

a French chronicler in the last third of the XIIIrd. Century describes the Almogavares as rough and aggressive people who did not live in villages and cities, but in mountains and woods. They raided the Islamic land where they stole what they could, and they took people as captives. They fought on foot; they were strong, resistant, frugal; able to walk for many hours every day and they were simply dressed.
The Chronicler says that they were Catalan, Aragonites, and highlanders; meaning that they were from the border mountains between Aragó, the Valencian Land, and Castille.
This is easy to understand: Spain, being a border region between Christendom and Islam, became in the Middle Ages a setting for an almost millennial conflict between the spanish-Christians and the moslem to dominate the land.
Maybe they weren´t "polite" and they didn´t believe in "Flower Power" or in "Peace and Love".. With no intent to make myths of them, the history of these fierce and sometimes -possibly cruel foot soldiers, who were the antithesis of the idyllic knight, is an intrinsic part of the history of Spain.

Maybe they could change the history... if the kingdoms Castille and Aragon were sent 40.000 almogavares to East... Who knows? Maybe not even Turkey existed and actually Siria, Jordan, Iran, Irak would be christian countries based on west civilization... but with only 6.000 men, nobody could do more than them, I think.

Regards

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#79

Post by Victor » 19 Aug 2004, 12:22

Patras wrote: Lepanto is was a land battle over the sea
IMO, in order to have a land battle you need land. :) Lepanto was more a hand-to-hand combat at sea, but not a land battle in the real sense of the word. There was no maneuvering done by infantry, no cavalry etc.
Patras wrote: Charles I organized and sent a Imperial Army (Spanish, german and italian) to help Wien (Vienna) sieged by turkish.. Between them one Spanish Tercio that was between the best troops in the defence of Vienna:
From what I read, Ferdinand fled to Bohemia after Charles rejected his pleas for help. He hired the mercenary commander Nicholas von Salm, who arrived with 1000 Landsnechte and 700 Spanish musketeers and took over the command of the 25,000 strong Austrian garrison. IMO, the few Spanish troops in the Vienna garrison can't justify a claim to an all-Spanish victory there. Also it wasn't actually a battle, but a siege (with the Christians on the defense), which was something pretty different.
Patras wrote: After the Ottoman failure to take Vienna in 1529, Sultan Suleiman led his army west again in 1532. But Charles V and Ferdinand of Austria had assembled a large force before Vienna and Suleiman declined the gambit
It seems to me that so did Charles and Ferdinand. :wink:
Patras wrote: Like Lepanto in 1571, Malta was a great victory for the Catholic King
Again, this wasn't a battle but a siege (and again with the Christians on the defense) and it wasn't an all-Spanish victory.
Patras wrote: This little controversy is because you have written about "Turkish tactical superiority" and I can´t see any superiority. I know turkish soldier is great, from Mohácz till Korea, but never Turkish army demostrated to be better than the Spanish infantry.
No, it started because of your claims on Spanish conquest of the, Balkans, Anatolia and Middle East.
I will restate my arguments of why this was a practical impossibility.

1. Never in the 16th century had a Christian army attacked the heart of the Ottoman Empire. Generally throughout the century the Christians were fighting defensive battles against the Ottomans.
2. The Ottoman Empire’s resources exceeded that of the Hapsburgs (for example, just a year after Lepanto the Ottoman fleet was rebuilt and ready for battle)
3. The Ottoman army would fight on its own territory and be closer to its supply base, while Spanish would be further from it and with the new Ottoman fleet in their back and being constantly harassed by Akinjis and other Ottoman light cavalry.
4. Phillip II's fundamentalist Catholicism would not attract the Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans to his side, on the contrary.
5. The Ottoman tactical superiority (IMO). And this subject is worth detailing.
The weapon that I think gave this superiority was the artillery, which they used in very large numbers and in a different way as the Christians did. Generally, the Janissary musketeers and the Ottoman artillery were placed behind the provincial infantry and the heavy Janissary infantry. These would put up a small resistance and move aside until the attacking enemy forces would reach the artillery and musketeers and be shattered by their fire. Then they would surround the remains and annihilate them, while the Sipahis charged down from the flanks the rest of the enemy army and the Akinjis would infiltrate behind enemy lines and attack the missile troops or baggage trains, causing panic. Turanic tactics of deceit at its best.

The Spanish had one the best armies in the world in the 16th century, but it was more adequate in fighting European Christian armies in open field or defend fortresses. Remember Nicopolis in 1396, where some of the best knights of Europe, who would have crushed any Western Christian army through their charge, were defeated by these deceit tactics.

szopen
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 May 2004, 16:31
Location: poznan, poland

#80

Post by szopen » 24 Aug 2004, 08:49

Mohacz was also quite decisive battle.. because of detah of Louis! If he woudl survive, he COULD produce an offspring which would produce diamterally different central Europe, and, well, world too. Jagiellon block would last for another decades and in the end, who knows..


It's quite suprising that nobody touched the battle of Warsaw. If Poland would lost, it would mean revolution in Germany and maybe few other central European states; Even if they would be defeated, Germany would be rearmed as bastion against bolsheviks. The history would be totally different.

As for Hastings, well, no offense, but battle was decisive only in very indirect way. There were no visible (for the European history) effects until XVII century or so.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#81

Post by Victor » 24 Aug 2004, 09:02

szopen wrote:Mohacz was also quite decisive battle.. because of detah of Louis! If he woudl survive, he COULD produce an offspring which would produce diamterally different central Europe, and, well, world too. Jagiellon block would last for another decades and in the end, who knows..
I would also rate Belgrade some 70 years before as a decisive battle, as Janos Huniady/Iancu de Hunedoara's Crusader army stopped the Ottoman advance into Central Europe for a while.
szopen wrote: It's quite suprising that nobody touched the battle of Warsaw. If Poland would lost, it would mean revolution in Germany and maybe few other central European states; Even if they would be defeated, Germany would be rearmed as bastion against bolsheviks. The history would be totally different.
I don't think that even in the case of a Polish defeat, the Soviets' would have been allowed by the Allies to remain there.

User avatar
Vulkan
Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 13 Aug 2004, 17:41
Location: Spain

#82

Post by Vulkan » 27 Aug 2004, 18:30

What an entertaining topic this one is!!.
Bearing in mind that the proposed issue: the 15 most decisive battles in world history, is an extremely oversimplified summary of the fates of arms that have shaped the world during the past 3000 years, it is difficult that we will ever reach consensus. Nevertheless, the arguments raised herein to rate a particular battle as decisive are most enlightening from the social-historic point of view. I do bear into consideration that most contributors to this forum just do it for fun and do not pretend an scholar attitude in their opinions. Herein I will make an attempt to provide a systematic approach to the issue in question.

In my opinion, a few “decisive battle” ratings in this thread can just be regarded as utterly astounding: honestly, assigning global consequences to an struggle between two native tribes down in South Africa, the Mhlatuze river battle, is simply unrealistic. Of course, you can always appeal to some "butterfly effect" but I do not believe that this is the point intended in this forum.

Some posts could be grouped together in a category that I would define, with all due respect, as "Patriotic" or as "Nationalistic". In such opinions there is a marked correlation between the location of the participant and the relevance of some battle, rated as decisive, in the history of this person's country rather than in world history. I believe that most of these "decisive battle" ratings, though perfectly acceptable in this context, stem out of passion rather than out of a critical analysis of world history.

Most post are indeed argumentative and provide sound, historical arguments to rate or not a particular battle as decisive. However most of these fall into an insuperable pitfall: they evaluate the decisiveness of a battle in retrospective from today's point of view, taking into consideration long-term events, extremely long in most cases, which cannot be solely traced to the outcome of one particular battle. In most of these cases, the main argument for assigning the "decisive" status to a battle is its importance in the genesis of some nation that, in the long run, has played a major role in world history. These are some examples: The battles of Hastings, Yorktown and Sekigahara have been proposed herein as decisive battles based on their pivotal consequences in the building-up of England, USA and Japan respectively. Following an identical argumentative line, as it has been previously expressed in this forum, those battles that have turned out to be central in the formation of France, Russia, Spain, Germany, Italy, China ..........(in here your favourite nation) should, rightfully so, be also rated as decisive. But I don’t really think that this is the analysis that R.M. Schultz pretended in his initial proposal. On the other hand, and sticking to the same examples, no arguments have been provided to illustrate how Hasting, Yorktown or Sekigahara decisively altered the events and the circumstances that were shaping the world AT THOSE PARTICULAR MOMENTS OF HISTORY and I believe that this is the point that we are trying to get at.

I believe that in order to identify in a systematic way those battles that have been decisive in world history, first of all we should make an effort to: 1) identify the geographycal area/s where the main action was taking place. Where was the world being essentially moulded at a particular time in history and 2) Identify the main forces, trends, cultures, philosophies, in most cases antagonistic, that were shaping the world at a particular period in history.

Following these guidelines, I will now make an attempt myself

These are my suggestion.

1 — Salamis/Platea 480/479 BC
2 — Issos, 333 BC
3 — Zama, 202 BC
4 — Adrianopolis, 378
5— Covadonga, 718
6 — Manzikert, 1071
7 — Lepanto, 1571
8 — Spanish Armada, 1588
9 — Rocroi, 1643
10 — Vienna, 1683
11 — Valmy 1792
12 — Russia, 1812
13 — Tsushima, 1905
14 — Stalingrad 1942
15 — Midway 1942

The first battles rated as decisive in this list refer to ancient Greece. Hardly anyone would doubt that the helenistic culture has been a milestone in the genesis of the world as we know it. During this period (680-300 BC), I am confident that most of us will agree on that world history was unfolding mainly in the shores of the Mediterranean sea. I am also confident that most of us will agree on that, at this time and in this scenario, the main, antagonistic forces were the Greece versus the Persian empire. As such, I would rate as decisive the battles of SALAMIS and PLATEA (480 and 479 BC) since they decisively curtailed Persia's invasion of Greece, thus allowing the survival of Greek culture. Following this rationale, I would also rate as decisive the battle of ISSOS (333 BC) that almost immediately led to the fragmentation and disappearance of the Persian empire.
To analyze the next period we don’t need a change of geographical scenario: the Mediterranean and Europe. The decline of Greece led to the thriving of new mediterranean powers eager to fill the vacant niche. Among these, the republic of Rome and Carthage. These two titans fought for over 50 years (264-202 BC) for the dominance of the Mediterranean. Thus, I would rate the battle of ZAMA (202 BC) as decisive since it brought about Rome’s hegemony on the region and the end of Carthage as a significant adversary (to be ultimately and bloodily destroyed in 146 BC).
Rome is synonymous to “the world” for the next 500-odd years. I would not regard Teutoburger Wald as a decisive battle. At the time, it was only a temporary setback that just fixed the empire’s northern frontiers, that had already been defined by Rome’s self limitations more than anything else, as stated before in this forum. Though the decadence of Rome is not primarily a consequence of military setbacks, I would rate also as decisive the battle of ADRIANOPOLIS (378) that led to the final disintegration of the (western) Roman Empire.
The fall of the Roman Empire leads us to the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages. The origins of Europe’s modern nations. Countless battles that shuffle dynasties and change nations boundaries once and again. Though most of these dynastic and territorial disputes are indeed fundamental in Europe’s history (therefore “world history” at this particular time). I think that there are yet other forces, far more important in the shaping of the world at this time, whose consequences have been much more influential and far-reaching in world history and are indeed latent even today. I am referring to the religious struggle between Christianity and Islam.
Under these premises, I would consider as decisive the battle of COVADONGA (718), the defeat of the moors by the Visigothic king Pelayo established the northern limits to islamic expansion in western Europe and prevented Islam from settling further north. From then on, only minor raids, as the one defeated at the battle of Tours, took place.
The battle of MANZIKERT (1071) that brought about the collapse of the Christian Byzantine empire and established the islamic Turkish empire as a force to be reckoned with in the Mediterranean should also bear the status of decisive in the clash between Islam and Christianity.
This religious struggle continued in ernest well into the Renaissance and up to the 17th century (has it stopped??). At this point, the battle of LEPANTO (1571) should be rated as decisive. The alliance of the Mediterranean Christian powers gave Turkish naval power a blow from which it never recovered, thus preventing the expansion of Islam by sea. Likewise, the Battle of VIENNA (1683) set the limits of Turkish expansion in Eastern Europe and constituted the turning point after which Turkish-islamic influence over Eastern Europe did nothing but decline.
The 16th century introduces yet another religious turmoil that is pivotal in the making of modern civilization: the antagonism between Catholicism and Protestantism will throw European nations against each other for many years to come. In this context, The defeat of the SPANISH ARMADA (1588) is certainly decisive as it allowed the prevalence of Britain as the standard-bearer of Protestantism. Though not directly a religious clash, I would classify the battle of ROCROI (1643) as decisive as it marked the decline of Spanish (Catholic) influence in northern Europe.
And we get into the 18th century, marked by the struggles against absolutist monarchies. No. I shall not rate as decisive Saratoga or Yorktown. From the 18th century perspective, the American Revolution was just another British colonial struggle and far from having immediate global consequences. In 1782 it was far from evident that the 13 colonies would eventually become a world megapower.
The French Revolution. Though an uninteresting battle from the military point of view, I would definitively rate VALMY (1792) as decisive. Valmy saved the Revolution and all that it stood for. A French defeat at Valmy and the Revolution’s child, Bonaparte, would have been no more than an artillery colonel.
And Bonaparte’s quest to master Europe (thus the world) met its fate in the Russian steppes. The RETREAT FROM RUSSIA (1812) caused the annihilation of the Grand Armee, the disaffection of many French generals to the Napoleonic cause, the defection of former allies Austria and Prussia and prompted the assembly of the coalition that was ultimately to defeat Napoleon. Leipzig and Waterloo, though fateful as they were, were just unavoidable consequences of the tide that originated in the Berezina.
And into the 20th century. The battle of TSUSHIMA (1905) the dawn of Japan as a world power and, more importantly, the demonstration that nations outside Europe had something to say about world affairs.
Finally, the world threatened by absolutism in its most sinister manifestation: Nazism and its allies. The turning point in the European theatre was undoubtedly STALINGRAD (1942) and Japan’s expansion was definitively thwarted in midway (1942).

I am certain, and I hope, that many of you will not agree with me. The point that I would like to get through is that these issues should be tackled in an unpassionate, scientific fashion.
Even though the ultimate goal is just to have fun!!!!!

szopen
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 May 2004, 16:31
Location: poznan, poland

#83

Post by szopen » 31 Aug 2004, 14:13

Victor wrote:
I don't think that even in the case of a Polish defeat, the Soviets' would have been allowed by the Allies to remain there.
What, they would send them diplomatic protests?

Judging by allies' behaviour AND reactions in neighbouring countruies after Soviets would took Warsaw, they would stay there. While i doubt that they would took anything besides Baltic countries, and even not whole Poland, Soviets would stay ni heart of Europe. And it would definetely change the course of history, since Allies would have to use Germany as "bulwark" against bolshevism, maybe Posen area etc would return to Germany...

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#84

Post by Andy H » 01 Sep 2004, 14:47

Vulkan

Thank you for your post. A very enjoyable read.

I will leave others to argue the other decisive battles, but I would like to discuss the choice of Stalingrad over the Battle of the Atlantic.

Certainly by the end of the Stalingrad battle, the German Army had reached its nadir at that point, but one could argue that even if it had won that battle, its reprocussions wouldn't have been that decisive, given the state of the German Army & economy.

Any further German advance east was very problomatic at best, whilst any further advance south was very difficult both on the military and logistical front's.

When one discusses the Battle of the Atlantic I mean the period from June 1940 to Jan 1942, for after Jan 1942 with the involvement of the USA the outcome of the battle/war was only a matter of timing.

What is the outcome for Europe if Germany wins the Battle of the Atlantic?. Well Britain's economy would collapse and the ability to feed its population and arm its soldiers, seamen and airmen is curtailed. Britain would eventually sue for peace. With Britain out of the war, there could never be a second front in Europe, the lend-lease material to Russia would become a trickle if any at all, and most importantly, without US involvement within continental Europe it would free up manpower & resources for the continuing campaign in Russia.

Andy H

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#85

Post by Victor » 01 Sep 2004, 17:25

szopen wrote: What, they would send them diplomatic protests?

Judging by allies' behaviour AND reactions in neighbouring countruies after Soviets would took Warsaw, they would stay there. While i doubt that they would took anything besides Baltic countries, and even not whole Poland, Soviets would stay ni heart of Europe. And it would definetely change the course of history, since Allies would have to use Germany as "bulwark" against bolshevism, maybe Posen area etc would return to Germany...
The Entente did carry out several military actions against the Bolsheviks and supported the Whites during the Civil War. After the failure to defeat the Revolution it tried to contain its spreading outside Russia (see Hungary). Thus I believe that a Bolshevik Poland would not have been tolerated in the West.

Polynikes
Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 03:59
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

#86

Post by Polynikes » 03 Sep 2004, 16:21

IMO, for any battle to be regarded as decisive, a significant change must follow.

It is NOT enough for the consequence of the battle to be that a certain army won or won the war.

For example the battle of Omdurman 1898 was significant in ending the islamic uprisng and threat to Egypt yet hardly a "decisive battle" in world terms because nothing changed because of the British victory in that war - it was status quo.

Whereas the Defeat of the Spanish Armarda 1588 was a world changing event - had Spain won then the infant English (later to become British) empire would've died young. The world shifted after 1588. It was a significant point in the world history timeline that wouldn't have happened had the Spanish won.

Secondly, there needs to be an element of doubt about the battle. For example Kursk was the greatest armoured battle of all time but was it really a "decisve battle"?
Some have argued it was by intrepting "decisive" as being the same as "big".
IMO, the result of WWII was already decided by the time of Kursk so all that the campaigns and battles were in actual fact deciding was not WHO would triumph but WHEN.

User avatar
Vulkan
Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 13 Aug 2004, 17:41
Location: Spain

#87

Post by Vulkan » 08 Sep 2004, 13:28

Andy H wrote: What is the outcome for Europe if Germany wins the Battle of the Atlantic?. Andy H

I absolutely agree with you..but we had to stick to 15 battles. Actually, I was tempted to rate El Alamein, alongside with Stalingrad, as decisive. What would have happened if the Germans seized control of the Suez channel and deprived allies from controlling N. Africa?. Can you imagen the germans in control of the african tip of the strait of Gibraltar??

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#88

Post by Victor » 08 Sep 2004, 22:35

Vulkan wrote: I absolutely agree with you..but we had to stick to 15 battles. Actually, I was tempted to rate El Alamein, alongside with Stalingrad, as decisive. What would have happened if the Germans seized control of the Suez channel and deprived allies from controlling N. Africa?. Can you imagen the germans in control of the african tip of the strait of Gibraltar??
That would be Alam Halfa, not El Alamein, because it was then when Rommel had his last chance to take Egypt.

User avatar
Wm. Harris
Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 04 Mar 2003, 23:10
Location: Festung Kanada

#89

Post by Wm. Harris » 09 Sep 2004, 01:57

Readers of this thread may be interested to know that John Keegan compiled a similar list on the world's most decisive naval battles in A History of Warfare. I'll quote it here:
Salamis 480 BC: Defeat of Persia's invasion of Greece.
Lepanto 1571: Muslim advance into western Mediterranean checked.
Armada 1588: Spain's offensive against Protestant England and Holland frustrated.
Quiberon Bay 1759: Anglo-Saxon success in struggle with France for dominance in North America and India ensured.
Virginia Capes 1781: Victory for the American colonists guaranteed.
Camperdown 1797: Dutch naval competition with the British extinguished for good.
The Nile 1798: Napoleon's ambition to dominate both shores of the Mediterranean and reopen struggle for India thwarted.
Copenhagen 1801: Mastery of North European waters conveyed to Britain.
Trafalgar 1805: Napoleon's naval power finally destroyed.
Navarino 1827: Inaugurated dissolution of Ottoman Empire in Europe.
Tsushima 1905: Established Japan as dominant power over China and in North Pacific.
Jutland 1916: Collapsed Germany's ambition to operate and oceanic navy.
Midway 1942: Denied Japan control of the Western Pacific.
March Convoy Battles 1943: Forced withdrawal of Germany's U-Boat's from the Battle of the Atlantic.
Leyte Gulf 1944: Established incontestable power of the United States over Imperial Japanese Navy.
Not that I agree with all of those, but they are his submissions.

Quiberon Bay is I think a very worthwhile consideration. In a short term sense it crippled the French navy during the Seven Years War. In a long term sense, it gave Britain the upper hand in the war that really made her a world power, not just a European one (credit for this is often erroneously given to the victory at Quebec). An argument could be made that the course of world history would have been quite different had Admiral Hawke not defeated Marshal de Cornflans in the treacherous seas off the coast of France.

Along similar lines, I would like to suggest Singapore 1942 for one of history's most decisive battles. Not only was it a disaster for Britain in the Far East, but it also exploded the myth that Britain, or any European nation really, was still in a position to maintain large overseas empires and project their power around the globe. Ever since the end of WW1, Britain had been terminally weakened. As a nation, she was still clinging to a large empire, but the power she needed to hold on to that empire had been extinguished. Moreover, Britain's position in the hearts and minds of her colonial peoples, particularly in India, was getting shakier.

The disaster at Singapore was the proverbial straw that broke the British Empire's back. It showed in the clearest possible terms that their day in the sun was over, and it did it in a way that defeat at the hands of fellow Europeans (Germany and Italy) could not have. It was a huge catalyst for nationalism in India and South-East Asia, and indirectly forced Australia to cut any significant ties she had with the mother country. Most importantly, it convinced people in Britain that the empire as they knew it could no longer be maintained, which of course had implications for millions of people around the world. In essence, Singapore brought to a conclusion what had started at Quiberon Bay.

Just my thoughts.

Bill

User avatar
Vulkan
Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 13 Aug 2004, 17:41
Location: Spain

#90

Post by Vulkan » 09 Sep 2004, 10:22

Victor wrote:That would be Alam Halfa, not El Alamein, because it was then when Rommel had his last chance to take Egypt.
Quite, but it was in El Alamein where the gremans were decisively routed.

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”