Creasy's 15 decisive battles of the world

[Junius]

A little odd that Creasy passed over the Seven Years' War entirely. The campaign culminating in Wolfe's capture of Quebec City (1759) seems as decisive as anything in the eighteenth century. For one thing, the American revolution would have been entirely different in nature if the French had retained Quebec.

That's a good point. Especially considering it was a British victory and we know how fond he was of those. Perhaps if he had lived to see how much more important Canada has become he would have included it.

 

[LightSpectra]

That's a good point. Especially considering it was a British victory and we know how fond he was of those. Perhaps if he had lived to see how much more important Canada has become he would have included it.

If he lived to see how important Canada would become, he'd be less inclined to include that battle.

 

[Junius]

If he lived to see how important Canada would become, he'd be less inclined to include that battle.

Well they are part of the G-8. Loads of natural resources. Not hard to take Quebec and replace Blehheim, Valmy, or a couple others. Little surprised he didn't find room for one more British win.

 

[Evie]

Quebec is overplayed - the deciding battle for North America was...I forgot the name, a naval battle off the coast of France. With the RN's naval supremacy assured, they were able to cut off the French troops in the New World, who had gone on the offensive after Québec, beaten the British hard at the oft-forgotten battle of Ste-Foy, and the British were in turn besieged in Québec. The British were able to prevent French resupplies and reinformcement from reachign Québec (at the Restigouche), and to send their own, and that was history.

And even then, if France + allies had been dominating the war in Europe, which they weren't, British occupation of the New World would have done very little, because Britain would not have been in a position to tell the French "Guadeloupe or Canada".

 

[LightSpectra]

There was no decisive battle to determine if Britain would conquer Canada. Britain had overwhelming advantages that only a dozen French & Indian victories like Carillon and Monongahela could off-set. The Siege of Louisberg in 1758 is what nailed the final coffin for New France.

 

[Evie]

Doubtful - the American theater, as I said, get vastly overplayed. The decisive battles for New France were fought in Europe. If France had dominated the seven years war it wouldn't have mattered how occupied the New World was. If France had been crushed, England would have been able to demand the new world even without occupying it.

 

[LightSpectra]

Doubtful - the American theater, as I said, get vastly overplayed. The decisive battles for New France were fought in Europe. If France had dominated the seven years war it wouldn't have mattered how occupied the New World was. If France had been crushed, England would have been able to demand the new world even without occupying it.

That doesn't make much sense. There's an essential stalemate on the continent, but New France is conquered; therefore France lost its North American possessions. Sounds a lot like the American theater was the decisive element here!

 

[Dachs]

Doubtful - the American theater, as I said, get vastly overplayed. The decisive battles for New France were fought in Europe. If France had dominated the seven years war it wouldn't have mattered how occupied the New World was. If France had been crushed, England would have been able to demand the new world even without occupying it.

How well did that work out for France under Napoleon? Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

 

[GoodGame]

2. Syracuse. Not really seeing it. It may be interesting to speculate about what effect it would have to replace Rome with Athens, but i find it pretty farfetched to think Athens could have maintain rule over Syracuse even if they could somehow win the battle. Not to mention does that help them win the Peloponnesian War? Maybe, but i'm not convinced.

Generally, I think this one is more about the lasting effect of the fall of the Delian League to the Greeks, in terms of setting one location for political, rather than having it rotate.

Specifically that victory would help maintain Athens' prestige among the Greeks during the Peloponnesian war, not about the physical conquest.

But I'd agree as an alternative history, it'd just be a different kind of hegemonic empire, centered on Athens. The values might be a bit different than that of the Romans, and it might have a bit more satrapy than a Roman empire. I'm guessing this battle was chosen because of Romantic era idealism regarding humanism, the ancient Greeks, and Athens.

 

[GoodGame]

At the same time, whenever one makes a statement about the causality of any event in history, one is implicitly making a counterfactual argument as well. Say you claim that Abraham Lincoln was reelected to the Presidency in 1864 because of the capture of Atlanta and Sheridan's victories in the Shenandoah Valley. You're therefore implicitly saying that, had those things not occurred, Lincoln would probably not have been reelected; otherwise, you can hardly say that those things "caused" him to be reelected, right? Would it be unreasonable to claim that Sherman and Sheridan's operations in Georgia and Virginia were "decisive" as far as the election of 1864 went?

I like your reasoning about the implication of a counterfactual, but I think you're taking it to extreme. One can say that that one event helped cause another, like if A then B, but when can also argue that if A then B doesn't imply IFF (if and only if) A then B.

E.g. event A might have helped B occur (e.g. victory made the people trust more in honest Abe), but one can also argue that B was the product result of many causes, of which A was one. It could also be argued in a laws of probability way that effect of A could be achieved by some other event X.

E.g. Abe lost a decisive battle, resulting in loss of popular trust. Is it an impossibility that some other event X could have occurred that gained Abe a level of trust comparable to having won the battle? Is that battle still so decisive that losing it means Abe never wins the presidency, not even with actions in the realm of believable (e.g. Abe senses impending doom, so he kisses more babies)?

 

[Domen]

Blenheim is overrated IMO too. It shouldn't be there.

Poitiers is overrated too, as we already know. But back in 19th century this battle was blown out of proportion by European propaganda and also nobody studied Arab sources.

The battle of Kalka River in 1223 should be added. It was not yet the end for Rus but IMO it was a decisive blow which enabled the conquest of Rus in 1237 - 1238. Of course if you don't agree we can replace Kalka River by the battle of Sit River in 1238. Anyway the Mongol conquest of Rus was very important.

What about the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683?

Had the Ottomans won and captured Vienna, would the Habsburg Empire collapse?

Also Noche Triste in 1520 (we can call it "the first battle of Tenochtitlan") should be added. Had the Spaniards been completely annihilated during that battle, the entire European conquest of Mexico would have been delayed at least by many years, as well as colonization of both Americas in general.

The same could have happened in the battle of Otumba if not the unfortunate death of Aztec leader. The Aztecs were close to win that battle but after their leader died, they started to abandon the battlefield in different directions, allowing the remaining Spaniards to survive and retreat.

Several battles which were fought after 1851 must be included as well.

First of all, Gettysburg 1863. Lee would capture Washington if Confederates won.

==============================

I would also add the battle of Iganie on 10 April 1831.

That was one of the series of Polish victories in the so called Pradzynski's Offensive (Poles were advancing from Warsaw towards Brest-Litovsk) which started on 31 March.

Repeated blows were inflicted upon the Russians in the subsequent battles: 2nd Wawer (31 March), Debe Wielkie (31 March), 2nd Kaluszyn (2 April), Domanice (10 April) and Iganie (10 April).

At Debe Wielkie Poles captured Russian documents about dislocation & strength of their forces.

However, that last victory (Iganie) was not exploited and the final blow to Russian forces was not inflicted because gen. Skrzynecki decided to stop offensive operations of his forces after he received news about Russian main forces of gen. Ivan Dybich approaching Siedlce.

It was an excellent opportunity to beat also Russian main forces.

Skrzynecki decided to terminate the offensive, disobeying orders of Pradzynski.

One month later on 26 May 1831 at Ostroleka Skrzynecki was defeated by yet much stronger forces of Ivan Dybich, after which Poles lost the strategic initiative in the war and switched to defensive.

Had the victory at Iganie been exploited, the Kingdom of Poland might have won the war against Russia and regain independence. Especially that at that time the uprising was still in progress in Lithuania and if forces from Poland helped Lithuania yet in April (instead of May like in real), Vilno could be liberated.

And time in that war was working for Russia as Poland could not produce enough gunpowder.

The existence of independent Poland yet since 1830s would change history of this part of Europe during the next 90 years. We don't know if WW1 would happen and how would it look like in such case.

 

[holy king]

world?

isnt that list, well... a tad eurocentric?

 

[Domen]

Wasn't world during the last +/- 5 centuries "eurocentric"?

 

[Squonk]

It was important enough to get Austria's archenemy Poland to fight them by their side, nevertheless.

I'm also sceptical of the possibility of an Islamic Europe resulting from Ottoman victory in Vienna 1683, considering the military might, of for example France, as well the possibility of the German states galvanizing as a reaction to Ottoman expansion.
Thus 1683 might have shaken up history though due the latter in that Germany could well have been unified in the 1700's as an Anti-Turkish bulwark.

Poland was hardly Austria's archenemy. Sobieski was pro-french, but there was always a strong pro-austrian party. The previous king had a Habsburg wife, and the next one won against the french candidate.


Anyway, such lists may be fun, but are silly. The complexity of history can not be reduced to 15 points. Anyway, it all comes down to XIX/XX history. Why is Hastings or whatever deemed so important? Because of the British Empire that evolved centuries later. With the same strenght one could say that if Henry VIII went hunting instead of impregnating his lady with Liz I, it wouldn't form in the way we know, so in fact the most important battle of history was the one between Henry's lust and fondness of huntings, or whatever.

With that said, I'll make my own list, for the MidEastern/European world.

@Granicus (lumped with Issus/Gaugamela)
@Zama
@@Yarmuk and Al-Qadisiyya
@arab sieges of Cople
@Ayn Galut (lumped with Hims 1,2)
@Mantzikert
@Valmy
@Leipzig, perhaps
@Verdun (lumped with Somme etc)
@Warsaw
@Stalingrad

enough.

 

[Domen]

Poland was Austria's archenemy before 1683?

Definitely not - most of Polish kings were extremely pro-Habsburg...

Maybe in 16th century Poland and Austria were not very friendly. But 17th century?

 

[Yui108]

@Ayn Galut (lumped with Hims 1,2)

Why bother lumping them in? Homs was a rather desperate and moribund move by the Ilkhan.

 

[privatehudson]

First of all, Gettysburg 1863. Lee would capture Washington if Confederates won.

No he would not have.

Washington was ringed by heavy fortifications that would have made it impossible to take so long as there was men to defend them. Since this was before Grant had stripped them to reinforce the AoP Lee would have been throwing his army away had he tried to take the city.

 

[B-29 Bomber]

I hate "decisive battles". Especially when you try to compare it with the entirety of Human History.

Firstly, I hate these things because by right, every action and event ever is a decisive action in changing the face of the current time frame of human history because preceding every event, is another event that could only happen because of a preceding one.... <Put point between two mirrors>

When we say something is decisive, it is at that moment where it is an either or situation. You either pick the red pill and situation 1 happens or you pick the blue pill and situation 2 happens(often there are a lot pills and resulting situations as a well). But clearly, for something to be decisive, it needs to be a now or never moment. A point in time where whatever the decision picked, it is impossible or at least, incredibly hard to turn back and pick the second option.
Often in History, that is not the case. Most wars do not consist of two opposing sides with only one equally sized army for attack/defense each that results in a battle in which the complete destruction of one side's army happens.
It's often a series of battles and campaigns and a series of factor aside from one battle that results in Final Victory. Napoleon was finally defeated in a 50 different battles, not in one battle. Hitler wasn't finally defeated at Stalingrad, he was defeated in hundreds of battles across Europe. And this is if you dismiss economic, social and supply factors.

Decisive battles in the face of human History are in my opinion illogical. There are some battles that are more important than others, but in most cases, there are never decisive battles.

Yes I somewhat agree. Maybe it would sound better if we called it t=a turning point in a war? Such as your example of Stalingrad: It was a turning point due to the fact that its loss caused the Germans to turn to the defensive from that point on. I mean The Germans might have made some gains afterward but in general the momentum in The Great Patriotic War definitely shifted towards the Soviets(painfully or otherwise). Another Turning Point was the Battle of Midway. The Japanese Carrier Fleet was pretty much wreaked and wouldn't be a major factor in other battles. The Allies were also able to start their offensive shortly thereafter, too.

 

[GamezRule]

You could also argue that the turning point for the Japanese was when the United States stopped selling them resources to fight China.

 

[Masada]

Wasn't world during the last +/- 5 centuries "eurocentric"?

Poland is Asian.