Ten most decisive battles in world history (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

Christians defeating the Moors in Spain (cannot remember what battle that was). Created the faiths that Europe has today, please no affiliation to values.

You might be referring to the Battle of Covadonga in 722, which began the Reconquista. However, the high water mark of the Moors did not end until Charlemagne defeated them at the Battle of Tours in 733.

I'm not sure what you meant about the creation of the faiths as there were Mozarabes during the period of Arabic rule. The Mozarabes were Iberian Christians who continued to follow the Christian religion but adopted Arabic ways and culture (this is distinct from Mudejares who were Arabs who remained in Spain during the Reconquista whose areas had been captured by the Christians).

 

[debrito]

You might be referring to the Battle of Covadonga in 722, which began the Reconquista. However, the high water mark of the Moors did not end until Charlemagne defeated them at the Battle of Tours in 733.

I'm not sure what you meant about the creation of the faiths as there were Mozarabes during the period of Arabic rule. The Mozarabes were Iberian Christians who continued to follow the Christian religion but adopted Arabic ways and culture (this is distinct from Mudejares who were Arabs who remained in Spain during the Reconquista whose areas had been captured by the Christians).

Brad,
Granada (Alhambra) the last bastion on the El-Andalus Califat in Spain fell in 1492

 

[jazzeum]

Brad,
Granada (Alhambra) the last bastion on the El-Andalus Califat in Spain fell in 1492

Rod,

I'm aware of that, having lived in Spain and studied Spanish history, but I thought he might have been referring to the Reconquista.

Brad

 

[Scott]

...

Gettysburg - I believe as some historians do that it was the highwater mark of the Confederacy. I believe it was the last time Confederacy took the offensive.

....
QUOTE]

Except Hood's and Early's campaigns among a few other's in 1864. Going the furthest North might be what the High Water Mark means. Thought I'd add that before the "Council of Confederate Correcters" chimes in.

 

[Scott]

Yes, but it was Constantine that signed the "Edictum Mediolanense" which made life alot easier for Christians. Yes, Christianity existed in the empire before this battle but the toleration was very very low. If anything I would call it a Bloody toleration.

A "vision" and new logos on their shields certainly helped the moral of Contantine's men. His Mom, St. Helena, must have been pleased. Suposedly Constantine's dad was a secret Christian. Galerius and Diocletian were certainly bad guys in regards to Christians.

Interesting stuff!

 

[panda1gen]

Thanks to Chris and everyone for a great thread, entertaining and informative, with a global perspective.

 

[6th Wisconsin]

Regarding ACW battles, it is hard to find one that is decisive in the way of Yorktown or Waterloo because the end of the war was a matter of time and attrition. Perhaps Gettysburg was a turning point toward that end, in that Lee lost a lot of good commanders and never was able to take the offensive again. I think Vicksburg was more important though in that it split the Confederacy and brought Grant eastward. Maybe Meade would have succeeded without him, but Grant was relentless in pushing Lee and destroying his fighting capabilities over time. Antietam was such an inconclusive battle, but to me it was highly important in elevating the stakes of the war to another level with the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation following.

Stalingrad - bled the German army and captured many that were not killed. To me, this was the singular most important battle in Europe during WWII.

It could be argued that the Normandy landings were decisive if you take the standpoint that once the allies got onto the continent it was only a matter of time before the industrial might of the US and the westware-driving Russian army would force the issue. This is certainly a very arguable one, but I think there is a case for it.

 

[Jack]

Regarding ACW battles, it is hard to find one that is decisive in the way of Yorktown or Waterloo because the end of the war was a matter of time and attrition. Perhaps Gettysburg was a turning point toward that end, in that Lee lost a lot of good commanders and never was able to take the offensive again. I think Vicksburg was more important though in that it split the Confederacy and brought Grant eastward. Maybe Meade would have succeeded without him, but Grant was relentless in pushing Lee and destroying his fighting capabilities over time. Antietam was such an inconclusive battle, but to me it was highly important in elevating the stakes of the war to another level with the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation following.

Stalingrad - bled the German army and captured many that were not killed. To me, this was the singular most important battle in Europe during WWII.

It could be argued that the Normandy landings were decisive if you take the standpoint that once the allies got onto the continent it was only a matter of time before the industrial might of the US and the westware-driving Russian army would force the issue. This is certainly a very arguable one, but I think there is a case for it.

Perhaps Dunkirk might deserve a mention as it helped to ensure that Britain would remain undefeated in the West when Hitler turned his attentions eastward. Perhaps this is in the same vein as Britains naval supremacy during the Napoleonic Wars - it did not defeat Napoleon but it left him feeling compelled (or able) to take other actions such as the invasion of Russia. An undefeated England in the West has on more than one occasion been the the great gift of the Empire to the World!

The Battle of the Atlantic would make a fitting addition to any list as well.

 

[Mitch]

totally agree with the battle of Atlantic was one of the ones that I put as its often overlooked how pivotal the battle was and, how costly to both sides.

I think we should also, look at the battles after stalingrad like those associated with Kharkov as they stabalised the russian front and ensured the war would not end as quickly as it would have after the german army in the east was brought to the brink in the southern losses
Mitch

 

[debrito]

Perhaps Dunkirk might deserve a mention as it helped to ensure that Britain would remain undefeated in the West when Hitler turned his attentions eastward. Perhaps this is in the same vein as Britains naval supremacy during the Napoleonic Wars - it did not defeat Napoleon but it left him feeling compelled (or able) to take other actions such as the invasion of Russia. An undefeated England in the West has on more than one occasion been the the great gift of the Empire to the World!

The Battle of the Atlantic would make a fitting addition to any list as well.

Not sure that we read the same history references, to considering Dunkirk as important history battle … Come on It was 300 thousand men running away whit a tale between the legs scared to death, and luck them that Hitler made his first tactical error, because he could easily destroy the entire BEF in a blink of eyes.

 

[Currahee Chris]

I think all of us are in agreement- so many of these battles/wars have been fought basically because of the outcome of a war/battle fought before it- scary when you sit and think what might be waiting around the corner!! {sm2}{sm2} The people who fought and lived through those times were all probably thinking there was no way things could ever be as bad or horrible as what they went through yet we never seem to learn unfortunately. {sm2}

 

[debrito]

Great thread! I agree with most of the battles mentioned but thought I would toss in my 2 cents as well.

The Battle of Milvian Bridge (312) Emperors Constantine and Maxentius. If Constantine had not defeated Maxentius the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity may have never happened.

The Battle of Warsaw AKA Miracle at Vistula (1920) Pivotal battle after WWI where Russia was attempting to establish dominance and spread Communism to Poland, Germany and other European countries. The Polish were thought to be defeated but stunned the Russians and crippled Bolsheviks military (Russians) with a huge victory.

I also have to comment on the Russians destroying the Nazi War machine. Yes, give credit where credit is due. The Russians were very important and did a tremendous job. But you have to wonder how they would have faired if there was no Western Front, no Italy, North Africa or Pacific. Would the Japanese have opened another front up on Russia? Would the Russians be able to advance against a whole united German military force that had not been broken up on many fronts? We will never know but one thing that is for certain is that all the Allies destroyed the Nazi War Machine.

But you have to wonder how they would have faired if there was no Western Front

I would like to comment on this part of your post Sahara.
Don’t forget that the West front was open on June 1944 by the time the Soviets (as you prefer) were on the preparation of operation Bragation occupation of Poland, so the Red Army , the biggest army ever , was already by itself unstoppable kicking the Germans out from the east toward the final blow for the battle of Berlin 1945. Concerning the possibility of a Japanese attack Russia, I don’t think that would be a major issue for the consequences on the outcome of wwii. If I do remember correctly, ONLY the Mongols were able to really conquered and occupied Russia.....nobody else...

 

[Mitch]

Although supposition, I think a Japanese attack on russia or, at least the threat would have more than likely altered the course of the war as the russians would not have been able to withdraw the fresh snow trained siberian troops that were used to stop the germans when they regained the momentum of attack against Moscow.
Mitch

 

[lancer]

Although supposition, I think a Japanese attack on russia or, at least the threat would have more than likely altered the course of the war as the russians would not have been able to withdraw the fresh snow trained siberian troops that were used to stop the germans when they regained the momentum of attack against Moscow.
Mitch

Just a note, there was never any chance that the Japanese were going to open another front against the USSR. All their real offensive strength was being used in the Pacific. The Japanese also learned their lesson about fighting the Russians during the Nomonhan Incident. The Russians inflicted large and painful losses on the Japanese and the Japanese had no wish to engage them again if it could be avoided. The Japanese lived in constant fear that the Russians would open up a second front on them. A Japanese invasion was just not going to happen after the pasting at Nomonhon. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Al...

Agreed but, had the implied threat survived, who knows the outcome of the eastern campaign. I know Ribbentrop was massively dissapointed that the russians were able to find out that there would be no liklihood of Jap troops moving against mainland russia and, that the japanese readily gave over this information.
Mitch

Just a note, there was never any chance that the Japanese were going to open another front against the USSR. All their real offensive strength was being used in the Pacific. The Japanese also learned their lesson about fighting the Russians during the Nomonhan Incident. The Russians inflicted large and painful losses on the Japanese and the Japanese had no wish to engage them again if it could be avoided. The Japanese lived in constant fear that the Russians would open up a second front on them. A Japanese invasion was just not going to happen after the pasting at Nomonhon. -- Al

 

[Sahara]

But you have to wonder how they would have faired if there was no Western Front

I would like to comment on this part of your post Sahara.
Don’t forget that the West front was open on June 1944 by the time the Soviets (as you prefer) were on the preparation of operation Bragation occupation of Poland, so the Red Army , the biggest army ever , was already by itself unstoppable kicking the Germans out from the east toward the final blow for the battle of Berlin 1945. Concerning the possibility of a Japanese attack Russia, I don’t think that would be a major issue for the consequences on the outcome of wwii. If I do remember correctly, ONLY the Mongols were able to really conquered and occupied Russia.....nobody else...

I guess I'm not understanding your post. Are you saying that no one but the Russians (y do I prefer soviets?)played a part in Germanys demise. As I recall from 1940 to 1945 the rest of the allies were a continous thorne in side of Germany whether it be North Africa, Italy etc.... Granted the Russians took Berlin but can you imagine what would have happened if Patton had the leash taken off. That man found ways to get things done. So I guess what I'm saying is the allies always found a way to keep thr Germans busy where resources needed to be shifted appropriately on several fronts to take on multiple threats.
I still stand firmly when I say this was a group effort that achieved overall victory. Just one question. Did the russians fight on multiple fronts such as the rest of the allies? Or for that matter like Germany. You have to admit Germany would have been a lot harder to defeat if they had all their resources avail.

 

[debrito]

As the name says is World War II that means multiples countries was involved into it. What I was trying to say from the beginning and to honour the Title of the original thread is: Some Battles wasn’t strategic decisive in world history, on this case WWII, but for sure they all together contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany, no doubt about that....

For example when Mitch stated that

Battle of Britain was a true defeat for the German war machine,

I complete disagreed, nothing really changed outside England, the Blitzkrieg still terrorizing Europe and the Wehrmach still unbeaten and they will continue to be until Hitler decided to invade Soviet Union the year after.

I still believe what I have said before; the Soviets won on the battlefield the WWII in Europe.
BBC classic documentary War in the East says ‘’ the Soviet Union Fought and Won the biggest war in the 20th Century. More people fought and died in east front than all WWII theatres combine’’

Winston Churchill said, ‘’ before El Alamein it was only defeat, after El Alamein was only victory’’ in my time table Battle of Brittan was before El Alamein...

The same for Battle of Bulge D-day any others

Regards

 

[waynepoo]

As the name says is World War II that means multiples countries was involved into it. What I was trying to say from the beginning and to honour the Title of the original thread is: Some Battles wasn’t strategic decisive in world history, on this case WWII, but for sure they all together contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany, no doubt about that....

For example when Mitch stated that

Battle of Britain was a true defeat for the German war machine,

I complete disagreed, nothing really changed outside England, the Blitzkrieg still terrorizing Europe and the Wehrmach still unbeaten and they will continue to be until Hitler decided to invade Soviet Union the year after.

I still believe what I have said before; the Soviets won on the battlefield the WWII in Europe.
BBC classic documentary War in the East says ‘’ the Soviet Union Fought and Won the biggest war in the 20th Century. More people fought and died in east front than all WWII theatres combine’’

Winston Churchill said, ‘’ before El Alamein it was only defeat, after El Alamein was only victory’’ in my time table Battle of Brittan was before El Alamein...

The same for Battle of Bulge D-day any others

Regards

I agree with what all have said, I'll add this, the axis did three very stupid things that ensured their demise. 1. Hitler did not invade the U.K. very stupid! 2. Hitler did invade the U.S.S.R very, very, stupid! 3. Imperial Japan attacked the U.S.A very, very, very stupid!.
Waynepoo.

 

[Jack]

I am going to celebrate my 200th post with a thread hijacking!

If this post were to read 'the ten most decisive events in world history' not one of these battles would make the list. Battles, and by extension, wars, are seldom decisive events in themselves. They do not usher in a new world, they are generally the death rattle of the old. The longer the war the less likely there is to be any really significant turning point in history - this is distinct from influence, because of course they change things, but never as decisively as those involved in such life and death struggles think.

 

[waynepoo]

I am going to celebrate my 200th post with a thread hijacking!

If this post were to read 'the ten most decisive events in world history' not one of these battles would make the list. Battles, and by extension, wars, are seldom decisive events in themselves. They do not usher in a new world, they are generally the death rattle of the old. The longer the war the less likely there is to be any really significant turning point in history - this is distinct from influence, because of course they change things, but never as decisively as those involved in such life and death struggles think.

Jack,
True and decisive hijacking , and starting to go beyond my pay grade , happy 200th mate.
Waynepoo.