15 Decisive Battles

Discussions on other historical eras.
Post Reply
User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#91

Post by Victor » 09 Sep 2004, 11:07

Vulkan wrote: Quite, but it was in El Alamein where the gremans were decisively routed.
Given the numerical, aerial and intelligence superiority he enjoyed, Monty just accomplished a formality. It would have been more decissive if he would have succeeded in completely obliterating Panzeraemee Afrika, not letting Rommel escape the way he did.

I would qualify as a decisive a battle where both sides are on rather equal terms and both have chances to succeed, so that the outcome can't really be predicted. But at El Alamein, even if the ofensive failed, he could have mounted another one soon afterwards, as he was only getting stronger, while Rommel was getting weaker.

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

#92

Post by Vulkan » 09 Sep 2004, 11:10

Wm. Harris wrote: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
In my opinion, it is quite noticeable that John Keegan makes Britain's history synonymous to world history. Out of 14 battles, 9 (Armada, Quiberon, Virginia, Camperdown, Nile, Copenhagen, Trafalgar, Jutland, Atlantic 1943) involve the british navy (and only one british defeat!!). This is understandable since Britain has always been a naval power, as for decisiveness......
I agree on Armada.
Quiberon was part of a colonial clash between two european nations attempting to expand their empires. No global consequences whatsoever. The same applies to Virginia Capes.
Camperdown did, indeed, have major economic consequences in Britain (and in Holland) but whether sea merchant lines were dominated by Britain or by Holland made little differences to world affairs.
The Nile, Copenhagen and Trafalgar, though fateful, were not decisive setbacks in Napoleon's career. Indeed they highlight his plasticity to accomodate to adversity and his ability to change strategies. Napoleon was at the peak of his glory after, and much in spite, of these three battles (maybe as a consequence, now that I think of it :o ).
Jutland could be classified as one of the most indecisive battles in world history. Before Jutland, Germany was not a sea power. After Jutland, Germany was not a sea power. So it changed nothing.
My synpathy for 1943 Atlantic battles, they were indeed fateful for the final outcome of WWII.


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

#93

Post by Vulkan » 09 Sep 2004, 11:26

Actually, now that I think of it, Trafalgar could be somewhat rated as decisive, though not because of its consequences on Napoleon's career, but rather due to the fact that it destroyed the Spanish navy. Thus, Spain's ability to communicate with and to supply his colonial armies in South America was severely affected. Spain would eventually lost its american colonies and ceased to be a powerful nation to be taken into consideration in world affairs, much as a consequence of Trafalgar.

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

#94

Post by Wm. Harris » 10 Sep 2004, 03:21

Vulkan wrote:Quiberon was part of a colonial clash between two european nations attempting to expand their empires. No global consequences whatsoever.
None? The outcome of Quiberon Bay (and to some extent the battle of Lagos Bay which preceded it) decided whether the future course of European imperialism would be dictated by the British or the French. That wasn't exactly inconsequential to the course of world affairs.

Personally I would rate Quiberon Bay as more decisive than the 1588 Armada battles. The defeat of the Armada did not determine the downfall of the Spanish empire, nor did it signal the rise of England as Europe's dominant naval power. Spain remained immensely strong and influential in world affairs for a long time after 1588, and it took about an equally long time for England/Britain to rise to eminence (about the time of Quiberon Bay, in fact!). It simply wasn't a turning point -- events proceeded much the same for a long time after the summer of 1588 as they had before.

Had the Armada succeeded in landing an invasion force in England, the story might be different. But they didn't.

The effects of Quiberon Bay, meanwhile, were immediate and long lasting. France lost all hope of maintaining her power in the Americas or India through military means. Her position in Europe was also critically weakened since she could no longer threaten Great Britain with invasion (and wouldn't do so again for many years), and thereby dictate a favourable conclusion to the Seven Years War -- the outcome of which was immensely important to the course of European and world history.

Bill

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

#95

Post by Vulkan » 10 Sep 2004, 11:29

Wm. Harris wrote: Personally I would rate Quiberon Bay as more decisive than the 1588 Armada battles. The defeat of the Armada did not determine the downfall of the Spanish empire, nor did it signal the rise of England as Europe's dominant naval power. Spain remained immensely strong and influential in world affairs for a long time after 1588, and it took about an equally long time for England/Britain to rise to eminence (about the time of Quiberon Bay, in fact!). It simply wasn't a turning point -- events proceeded much the same for a long time after the summer of 1588 as they had before.
Bill
You are quite right, but Quiberon Bay was just a battle between two rival nations for the dominance of some overseas colony, the 1588 Armada battles went far beyond that. There was a key religious struggle underlying in this clash, that one between catholicism and protestantism. Something of capital importance in the moulding of then western society as we know it. This is just conjectural, but had Spain been triumphant in 1588 it is very likely that protestantism would have been wipped out.

So, though it is true that the defeat of the Armada was no immediate turning point, it guaranteed the survival of protestant philosophy and all that it stood for.

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

#96

Post by Vulkan » 10 Sep 2004, 11:39

Victor wrote: I would qualify as a decisive a battle where both sides are on rather equal terms and both have chances to succeed, so that the outcome can't really be predicted
I absolutely disagree. By definition, a decisive battle is one in which the outcome of a campaing / war is markedly determined. Irrespective of the sizes of the armies in contest and of their possibilities of success.

User avatar
Galahad
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 01:31
Location: Las Vegas

Decisive Battles, and Why

#97

Post by Galahad » 11 Sep 2004, 12:24

Here's my list of the 20 most decisive battles up to 1800.

1. Salamis/480 BC--It ensured that Greece would be allowed to develop its civilization, rather than become Persianized. Which ensured the development of Philip's Macedonia and Macedonian Army.....which led to the destruction of Persia and the Hellenizing of the entire Middle East.

2. Granicus/334 BC--If Alexander had lost here, there would have been no Issus or Gaugamela. He HAD to win in order for his conquest to truly get going; any check or loss would have wrecked his plans and probably his political control over Greece to boot.....assuming he survived the battle.

3. Mylae/260 BC--It made the Romans into a naval power, which led to the defeat of Carthage, which led to Rome's predominance and eventually to the Roman Empire. Hannibal had to march over the Alps because Rome commanded the sea.

5. The Sambre/57 BC--Julius Caesar came closer to being destroyed here than in any other battle he fought. If he had lost, he would have been destroyed politically, even if he'd survived. There would have been no conquest of Gaul, no crossing the Rubicon and no inheritance for Octavianus. The future would have wound up being VERY different. But winning set him on the path that led to becoming Dictator For Life....and the Ides of March.

6. Actium/31 BC--It ended the plague of Roman Civil Wars--and the Roman Republic. It also decided who would rule the Western World and so shape its future.

7. Teutoberger Wald/9 AD--It ended Augustus' plan to Romanize Germany (thus indirectly leading to this forum), which led to Rome having to defend a much longer and less-defensible frontier, and left the barbarians to come with a central location where they could organize for their attacks on Rome. Which eventually led to the exhaustion of the Western Empire and to its "fall".

8. Milvian Bridge/312 AD--It reunited the Roman Empire under one man, who reorganized both it and its army, thus giving both a new lease on life. Part of the reorganization was the establishment of a new capital at Nova Roma--Constantinople. Further, it put in power a man favorable to Christianity, and ended the long rule of pagan deities. The new capital, further, became the bastion that defended Europe during the Dark Ages, and which kept alive the learning and culture of the Ancient World. Consider the implications of no Constantinople and no Christianity.

10. Badr/624 AD--A small battle, as battles go, but if the Medinans under Muhammed had lost, much would have been different in the future.

11. The Yarmuk/636 AD--Winning this battle turned Islam from a backwoods religion into a world power. It shortly led to their control of most of the Middle East west of Persia, and all of North Africa, followed by Spain. It gave them the foundation of Greek and Roman culture on which their civilization was based, led to their becoming a naval power and eventually led to the destruction of the Byzantine Empire.

12. Siege of Constantinople/717AD-718AD--Winning here ensured that the Byzantine Empire would continue to exist, which in turn ensured that Europe had time to move out of the Dark Ages. This guaranteed that Islam would not Islamicize Europe and that Christianity and a Christian culture there would survive.

13. Hastings/1066 AD--This battle determined that England--and Britain--would develop as a fusion of cultures, rather than as an Anglic one, and would be oriented outward, rather than inward as it had been previous to the battle. This had considerable ramifications for the future history of the entire world.

14. Manzikert/1071 AD--This battle led to the Turks overruning Asia Minor, the heartland of the Byzantine Empire. That determined that the Byzantine Empire would eventually be destroyed by those same Turks.

15. Orleans--1429 AD--This battle ensured that France would not be dominated by England. In turn, this ensured that England would not become a backwater of a Plantagenet Empire. Had the English won, eventually, England would have become Gallicized due to the great difference in size and population between the two countries.

16. Armada/1588 AD--Winning here made certain that the Duke of Parma's army would not set foot on English soil, which meant that England would remain independent AND Protestant. It further ensured that England would--through command of the sea--be able to have access to the rest of the world. And it demonstrated the power of the new-model warship that had been developing in England, which same would rule the waves till the Age of Steam and Iron arrived.

17. Leutzen/1632 AD--This battle determined that Germany would remain Protestant, that Germany would be decimated by the Thirty Years War, and that the new-model army developed by Gustavus Adolphus and his advisors would dominate warfare in the future, and that France would become the leading power on the Continent for the next two centuries.

18. Malplaquet/1709AD--The bloodiest battle of the 18th Century, it determined that a peace would not be forced on France, that the War of the Spanish Succession would continue until a peace was made on terms favorable to France, and that the Duke of Marlborough would lose his influence and power. It further set the precedent for the battles to come in the 19th Century. Lastly, the prelude to the battle changed political history, because Louis XIV made a direct appeal to his people for support in order to form the army that fought at Malplaquet, rather than demanding it as his due from Divine Right. This, in turn, mobilized the emotions of the French nation; the battle was thus the prelude to the French Revolution.

19. Virginia Capes/1781 AD--This battle ensured that Cornwallis would surrender to Washington at Yorktown, which in turn led to Britain finally granting independence to the United States.

20. Turcoing/1794AD--The battle where the new army and tactics of France came of age, thus setting the stage for the future of land warfare, and for the predominance of Napoleon.

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

#98

Post by Victor » 11 Sep 2004, 15:09

Vulkan wrote:I absolutely disagree. By definition, a decisive battle is one in which the outcome of a campaing / war is markedly determined. Irrespective of the sizes of the armies in contest and of their possibilities of success.
By your own definition that would be Alam Halfa, as the Axis lost the initiative there, not at El Alamein.

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

Re: Decisive Battles, and Why

#99

Post by Victor » 11 Sep 2004, 15:16

Galahad wrote:14. Manzikert/1071 AD--This battle led to the Turks overruning Asia Minor, the heartland of the Byzantine Empire. That determined that the Byzantine Empire would eventually be destroyed by those same Turks.
Technically those were another branch of the Turks than the ones that eventually put an end to the Empire.

User avatar
Galahad
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 01:31
Location: Las Vegas

Turks and such

#100

Post by Galahad » 11 Sep 2004, 16:20

The Ottomans were the dominant grouping in what became known as the Ottoman Empire, which began as the Osmanli Sultanate in northwest Anatolia. But the majority of the Turks in the empire were those who had originally formed the Seljuk Turkish nation, or Sultanate of Roum. The majority of the population in THAT Sultanate was, however, Greek-speaking Christians.
Effectively, the same as the ruling class changed when the Seljuks overran eastern and central Anatolia, so also it changed when the Ottomans became dominant.
But the populations were mostly the same for both.

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

#101

Post by Patras » 12 Sep 2004, 14:22

I don´t think these battles were "decisive" for the world:

Teutoberger Wald/9 AD
Hastings/1066 AD
Orleans--1429 AD
Armada/1588 AD
Leutzen/1632 AD
Malplaquet/1709AD
Turcoing/1794AD

Maybe these battles had "decisive" but only for local dimention nor Hasting, Orleans, Leutzen, Malplaquet or Tourcoing changed the history of world.

Regards

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

#102

Post by Victor » 12 Sep 2004, 15:15

An off-topic post by ITAIM has been removed.

User avatar
Galahad
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 01:31
Location: Las Vegas

response

#103

Post by Galahad » 12 Sep 2004, 21:18

Patras writes: "I don´t think these battles were "decisive" for the world:

Teutoberger Wald/9 AD
Hastings/1066 AD
Orleans--1429 AD
Armada/1588 AD
Leutzen/1632 AD
Malplaquet/1709AD
Turcoing/1794AD

Maybe these battles had "decisive" but only for local dimention nor Hasting, Orleans, Leutzen, Malplaquet or Tourcoing changed the history of world."

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, and when saying something is decisive, the matter tends to be subjective. But in the case of the above, I don't think you're looking far enough into the ramifications when you say that they didn't change the history of the world.

Take Orleans, for instance.

The reason France didn't dominate Europe was because France was opposed by Britain, which built its opposition around the Royal Navy and the wealth brought by the trade which the Royal Navy's command of the sea and shipping lanes guaranteed.

Things would have been considerably different had there been no Britain opposing France, in several important ways.

First, France being larger and more populous would have guaranteed that France would have eventually been the senior part of the Plantagenet Empire, and that its culture would have dominated. For one thing, English Common Law would have gone by the wayside.

Likewise, Royal interests would have been continentally oriented, rather than being oriented towards matters maritime and trade--the same as they were for France during most of the long conflict between France and Britain.

Now, picture a Europe where a Plantagenet Empire dominates. For a start, it would have had free rein to colonize where it wanted, so North America, for instance, would have developed much differently from the way it developed when Britain dominated it. That can be demonstrated by the differences between the development of the 13 British colonies, as opposed to Canada and Louisiana. That's one major change, with a likely result being no United States, at least, a US that is very different from the one that eventuated.

Then you'd have Plantagenet Europe. The only possible real opposition to a Plantagenet Empire, militarily, would have been Austria. Do you think Austria could have defeated such by itself? It almost got crushed by France even when France was fighting with its strength divided by having to oppose Britain on the sea and Britain's surrogates on the land.

The likely result would have been an Austria that was subordinate to, or possibly amalgamated into, the Plantagenet Empire. Which would have meant Plantagenet domination and control of Germany. Which would have meant no rise of Prussia or the Prussian Army. For instance.

That leaves the Ottomans, Spain and Russia. Think any of them could have successfully opposed the Plantagenet juggernaut?

The end result would have meant that European interference overseas, in Asia, Africa and elsewhere, would have been controlled by, and for the benefit of, the Plantagenet Empire, rather than being divided amongst several quarrelling European states. It would have controlled India and India's wealth, for instance, rather than such being grabbed by Britain.

And with the Plantagenets dominating Europe, how would all the major wars that fill the last 500 years of European history have been able to take place? Particularly five wars, each of which was fought worldwide: the Seven Year's War, the War of the American Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, and World Wars I and II.

Yet you think that France maintaining its independence of Britain had no decisive effect that changed the way the world and its history developed?

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

Re: Turks and such

#104

Post by Victor » 12 Sep 2004, 22:11

Galahad wrote:The Ottomans were the dominant grouping in what became known as the Ottoman Empire, which began as the Osmanli Sultanate in northwest Anatolia. But the majority of the Turks in the empire were those who had originally formed the Seljuk Turkish nation, or Sultanate of Roum. The majority of the population in THAT Sultanate was, however, Greek-speaking Christians.
Effectively, the same as the ruling class changed when the Seljuks overran eastern and central Anatolia, so also it changed when the Ottomans became dominant.
But the populations were mostly the same for both.
True, but no "nations" existed in the Middle Ages, only states and ruling dynasties. Seen through this perspective, the Seljuks and the Ottomans aren't the same.

Btw, nice to see you back here again. :D

User avatar
Galahad
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 01:31
Location: Las Vegas

Hmmmm

#105

Post by Galahad » 12 Sep 2004, 22:50

Victor writes: "True, but no "nations" existed in the Middle Ages, only states and ruling dynasties. Seen through this perspective, the Seljuks and the Ottomans aren't the same.

Btw, nice to see you back here again."

True.....but Turks are Turks! And t'was Turks who killed off New Rome! <g>

And thank you.....I was bored and needed a history debate fix. <g>

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”