Greatest Battles

My top 5:

1. Battle of Moscow 1941/42 - First defeat of the the Geman seemingly unstoppable Panzers, has shown the world that the Wehrmacht is not invincible and that eventual victory is possible
2. Battle of Warsaw 1920 - The Polish army routed the advancing Red Army, saving the war-ravaged Europe from destabilisation and communist takeover
3. Battle of Sedan 1870 - Prussia crushes France, bringing the French 2nd Empire to an end, hailing the beginning of German Second Reich, which led to WW1 and ultimately to WW2
4. Battle of Moscow 1812 - Napoleon captures Moscow, but is forced to retreat, completely losing his Grande Armee, and this spells the eventual defeat of Napoleon
5. Fall of Constantinopol 1453 - Turks capture Constantinopol, finally extinguishing the Byzantine empire, the last remnant of the Roman Empire. Greek scholars flee from the Turks together their books to Northern Italy, reinforcing Rennaissance
 
Going back in history:

-Battle of Salamis(Greek victory)
-Battle of Marathon(Greek Victory)
-Battle of Zama(Roman Victory)
-Battle of Hastings(Norman victory *1066)
-Battle of Orleans(French Victory)
-Battle of Saratoga
-Battle of Waterloo(Napoleanic defeat)
-Battle of Geetysburg
-Battle of the Marne(1st and 2nd)
-Battle of midway
-Battle of Stalingrad
 
1. Stalingrad 1942 - Hitler, "Russia is finished". Stalin, "Not one step back". Really the beginning of the end for Germany. The entire 6th army of 300,000 is lost here, being one of the finest and best equipped armies ever. Really as historically important as it gets.

2. Verdun 1916 - The loss of innocence for Europe, and one of the most deadliest. After Verdun, the entire attitude of Europe, not just in war, but also culture, changed. The Battle of Verdun set the tone for future national conflicts, in which total war is declared and the entire nation is mobilized.

3. Shanghai 1937 - Largest battle of WW2, if included in WW2. This was the defining moment for Chinese resistance towards Japan. Most said China would fall in 2 weeks. Battle of Shanghai took 3 months for the Japanese to win. After this, China decides to resist until the end, even after the loss of the capital at Nanking, important cities such as Beijing and Wuhan. If the Chinese surrender like the French did, 1.2 million Japanese soldiers would be turned loose on the rest of Asia, going through Burma, India, to the oil fields of the Middle East. Who knows what would happen if the Japanese had rubber in SE Asia, and oil of the Middle East.

4. Tsushima 1905 - Defining moment of Japanese prominence, and for the Europeans, being soundly defeated by an Asian power.

5. Gettysburg 1865 - Defining moment in US history, and also the beginning of the end for the south. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address still resonates in the minds of Americans today.

6. Austerlitz 1805 - Great victory for Napoleon, who was the sole pride of the French, ever. Motivation provided for the rest of the Napoleonic wars.

7. Normandy 1944 - Greatest amphibious landing ever. One of the grandest battles in terms of scale and planning. Great victory for the Allies allow the reinvasion of Europe.

8. Hiroshima 1945 - Not a battle but a defining moment of the modern world. The beginning of the Atomic age

9. Defeat of the Zhao 3rd century BC - Qin defeats Zhao army and kills 300,000 Zhao people by burying them alive. Enabled the founding of the first Chinese dynasty and the notion of a unified China that prevails through over 2200 years of history.

10. Sekigahara 1465 - Tokugawa victory in the greatest battle of the Japanese warring states saw to it the establishment of the Tokugawa shogunate for the next 400 years.

Theres some more, particularly in Europe since that is the center of western civilization. I'll name them later maybe.
 
I would add Battle of Stalingrad to my list, considering that it was a VERY BIG and extremely important battle (and besides I was born in that city :D ), but if not for the Russian victory in the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad would have never taken place, as the Soviet Union would most certainly have collapsed after loss of Moscow.
 
Slight correction: Gettysburg was 1863 as far as I remember.
 
I'll bite. Particularly I'll add one BIG one that not many people remember much.

1) Normandy. Huge battle. A large number of seemingly minor factors could have radically changed the outcome, ranging from Omaha Beach never happening to the Allies getting booted right back into the ocean.

2) Tours. Definitely big, definitely underrated.

3) GOLAN HEIGHTS. This Israeli battle was amazing--the Syrian commander drove into Israel practically unopposed. Thinking it was a trap, it was so easy, he stopped his tanks to have lunch. That gave the Israelis just enough time to mobilize and just barely win. Had the Syrians not stopped, no more Israel. Wow.

4) Bull Run (first). A few minor twists could have ended the Civil War right then and there, after the first battle, in either side's favor. Again, had the Confederates not "stopped for lunch," they would have driven clear into Washington DC and won the war. No more United States.

5) Anzio. AGAIN, had the Americans exploited their beachhead, WW2 Italy would not have been a deadlock. Germans in the south would have been cut off, and Normandy may not have even been necessary. Additionally, the mistakes in this battle were what inspired MacArthur later to land at Inchon, in the Korean War--which was a huge success.


Finally, I think the Arab-Israeli 1967 Six-Day war deserves an honorable mention. Wow, what an upset victory. Had the Israelis not preemptive struck, no more Israel. Again. And now we're seeing the Saudi peace proposal which involves those very lands captured in that war/battle.
 
How could I forget Golan Heights. *slaps forehead*

That was a true modern feat of arms.

A couple Isreali battalions held back two Syrian Armored DIVISIONS and quite possibly saved Isreal from extintion.

Most of the rest of the IDF was still mobilizing or holding back the Egyptians in the Sinai.

I would put that one way up on the list. Good post tetley.
 
... "A battle which has made the world what it is, in which a slight change in outcome could have altered history radically." By the very nature of the question, this involves a degree of speculative history; and ah, the difficulty in selecting a limited number. My nominations for the five most important battles in history, based on what effect an alternative outcome may have had:

1. Salamis 480 b.c. The Greek victory of the Persians marked the end of Persian dominance in the Aegean, and so spelled eventual doom to Persian efforts to invade Europe, which quickly culminated at Plataea in 479 b.c. This victory promoted the flowering of an advanced Greek culture, one that was profoundly different than the Middle Eastern cultures that might have come to dominate the entire Mediterranean had the Persians proven victorious in establishing a foothold for its empire on the western shores of the Aegean. And through Alexander's conquests, which Salamis made possible, this culture -- as Hellenism --spread throughout the Middle East as far as the Indus River; and in spite of Greece's eventual conquest by Rome, this cultural influence spread throughout the western Mediterranean as well, thus providing one of the foundations not only of Western Civilization, but also of Eastern Orthodox and Islamic civilizations.

2. Siege of Constantinople, 717-718 a.d. Technically this not a battle, though this does include the Battle of Adrianople as well as two major naval engagements in the Bosporus. But in the long run, of the many confrontations between the Byzantine Empire and Islamic Civilization, this is probably the most important. As the only significant power in Europe of the period, the fall of Constantinople in 718 a.d. (as opposed to 1453 a.d.) would have had implications that are hard to fathom; it is doubtful that any of the nascent European kingdoms could have survived the advance of Islam through the Balkans and central Europe, and Western Civilization may have been overwhelmed at its inception. There may never have been a Crusades, a Battle of Lepanto or a Siege of Vienna; indeed, the Battle of Tours may have featured a victorious Islamic army advancing from central Europe rather than Africa and Spain. Throughout its long, fitful, and sometimes pathetic decline, Constantinople remained a bulwark against an Islamic advance into the heart of Europe.

3. Trafalgar, 1805 a.d. While it is likely that Napoleon's Empire would have eventually exhausted itself from overextension, Trafalgar doomed any effort that Napoleon might have undertaken to strike at Great Britain directly. While a conquest of Great Britain may have been short-lived, the very occupation of Great Britain at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution would have radically altered British history, and so the history of the world. One must wonder what effect the ideals of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Code would have had on Great Britain; it is well known that they had a profound effect in French occupied Germany and Italy, providing the impetus for the development of nationalism and eventual unity -- which is why Austerlitz is also a battle of decisive importance in history. This ideological factor -- as well as the timing of the Industrial Revolution -- also distinguishes Trafalgar from the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588.

4. Gettysburg, 1863 a.d. Let us suppose that the vision that Lee had when he invaded the North in 1863 had come true: recognition from France and Great Britain of the Confederate States of America; the defeat of Lincoln in the 1864 elections to McLellan (an ugly thought right there!); and a negotiated peace settlement dividing the United States into two (and possibly three) very different nations. Imagine the course of the international relations between the northern states and Great Britain had British recognition forced a peace settlement. Imagine the "isolationism" in a North America divided. Imagine either of the two World Wars without the impact of U.S. intervention, prevented because of the political divisions in the North American continent. While Gettysburg is only a battle in a "civil war," it does deserve mention among history's most decisive.

5. Battle of Britain, 1940 a.d. Again, a lot of speculation. Had the Battle of Britain resulted in a decisive defeat for the British, and thence a negotiated settlement between Hitler and the British Empire, Hitler could have turned on Stalin with full force. There would probably would have been no North African campaign; there probably would have been no Balkan campaign, since it was primarily Britain's involvement with Greece that led Hitler to invade the Balkans. Rommel's two Panzer divisions and the full strength of the Luftwaffe may very well have spelled the difference between victory and defeat at Leningrad and Moscow in 1941 -- a blow that the Soviet Union probably could not have recovered from. And Hitler probably could have forced Great Britain to change its policies toward Japan, with the result of also influencing U.S. policy toward Japan. This might have resulted in the economic sanctions against Japan being lifted enough to discourage the Japanese from taking the fatal plunge against the U.S. and Great Britain in the Pacific/East Asian theater. And this might also have allowed the Japanese Army to continue to dominate Japanese military policy, possibly leading to a Japanese intervention in Siberia, which would have prevented Stalin from reinforcing Moscow with his east Asian forces, as he did so in late 1941.
 
Originally posted by Eli
There are plenty of less grandiose battles that had huge impact on history.

A good example from this region is the war of Assyria and Judea, after the fall of Israel. If the siege on Jerusalem had succeded and Judea had fallen, Judea's Jews(like the Israeli ones) would've been exiled and assimilated.
No Judaism, no Christianity, no Islam.
So close to ending so many of the world's problems. Assyria should have conquered and the world would be a better place. :D

j/k


Jeez, what history book are you reading.

The Muslims were the most agressive people of the era.
Give me a break.
Well the Christians were more aggressive. They went all the way to Jerusalem because the Pope said so. The Crusaders were crazy and horrible. THey were cannibles. They slaughtered Christian villages in the Middle East.

What history book are you reading.
Give me a break.
 
Originally posted by God

Well the Christians were more aggressive. They went all the way to Jerusalem because the Pope said so. The Crusaders were crazy and horrible. THey were cannibles. They slaughtered Christian villages in the Middle East.

What history book are you reading.
Give me a break.

Um, your history is a little selective.

Muslim campaigns in Spain and Portugal date in the 8th century. It was muslim attacks from Sicily resulting in the sack of Ostia and Rome that may have actually triggered the Crusades. While you can argue at their methods, the Crusaders goal was to liberate lands which were originally Christian and had been conquered by muslim invaders. And, of course, this is not even mentioning the Ottoman occupation of much of the Balkans area up until the 19th century.

All empires are "aggressive" otherwise they don't get to be empires.

/bruce
 
Originally posted by joespaniel
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich makes for some good reading on the subject. 2194 Days of War has alot of info on it too.

Or just watch the History Channel. :lol:

2194 Days of War is an excellent book. I'm currently reading it and am at the beginning of 1944. This book summarizes almost every day of the war in an easy to read format. It has taught me a thing or two about the war I didn't previously know.

As for The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich this is another great book chock full of details but one I never finished. It is a huge book!

Finally the History Channel, History International, and Discovery Wings Channel are all my favorites for TV viewing.
 
Originally posted by andycapp
Manzikert! The Seljuk Turk defeat of the Byzantine army at Manzikert (1071).

You are right and it is interesting to see that there is someone who knows about Malazgirt (or in West, Manzikert)
 
Originally posted by Andu Indorin

4. Gettysburg, 1863 a.d. Let us suppose that the vision that Lee had when he invaded the North in 1863 had come true: recognition from France and Great Britain of the Confederate States of America; the defeat of Lincoln in the 1864 elections to McLellan (an ugly thought right there!); and a negotiated peace settlement dividing the United States into two (and possibly three) very different nations. Imagine the course of the international relations between the northern states and Great Britain had British recognition forced a peace settlement. Imagine the "isolationism" in a North America divided. Imagine either of the two World Wars without the impact of U.S. intervention, prevented because of the political divisions in the North American continent. While Gettysburg is only a battle in a "civil war," it does deserve mention among history's most decisive.


Interesting, the same scenario unfolds assuming the secret orders were not found in a cigar wrapping papers that lead to the battle of Antietem according to Harry Turtledove. Had the orders not been intercepted, Turtledove proposes that Lee and Jackson would have been able to outflank and ultimately dispose of McLellan, ultimately forcing the North to recognize the South's independence.
 
Originally posted by animepornstar
3. breitenfeld 1631 :king: - the most important battle in the swedish history. it did also change the european warfare completly.

Brietenfeld 1632 was not the first battle in which the Sweds manifested the supremacy of their light, high speed-projectile cannons (which was the main advance the swedish had). At the time for this battle Europe was well aware what a dangerous opponent Sweden was, so it would be inaccurate to call this battle to importance for that reason. Ok, then, Gustavus Adolphus fell but he was nothing special as a general either.

I think there are battles who have been of more importance for Sweden in different ways. Consider:

Narva 1700: The quick victory over the three times stronger Russians gave the Sweds a exaggerated belief in the weakness and ineffectivety of the Russians, meanwhile a perhaps too strong belief in their own king and the effectivety of 'Indelningsverket' and Swedish technology and art of war. This would be important if you wiew history as a matter of ideas and that personal actions have little respect. On the other hand - and my belief is - that Karl XII was an incredibly intelligent person and leader and also, as Hermann Lindquist put it upon the event of Karl's XII death at Fredrikshald: "With him died an enormous will". I guess the development on long time had likely turned out about the same - perhaps Karl had been more likely to make out a peace with very good conditions, but that could on the other hand well have been Sweden disfourtune on a longer time scale.

But when I read about Carolus ideas for developing Sweden which he discussed with Polhem and Götz in Lund 1716, I just lament that he had this war forced upon him. He had been a very successful domestic leader I tell you.

Mats Norrman
mats.norrman@home.se
 
Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
Going back in history:

-Battle of Salamis(Greek victory)
-Battle of Marathon(Greek Victory)
(etc)

Actually I question the meaning of telling at all the importance of battles so long back. Say that Darius or Xerxes had won their battles and conquered Greece; it is not necessarily so that the Western world hadn't developed after lines very similar to the Alexandrine conquest of Asia Minor. Reason: the sucess of Alexanders conquest was very much based on that the Greeks represented an economical system which was much more benefitous for the common man and a state as well.

In the Persian Empire all taxes that the Great King collected went to Persepolis and Susa and were collected on limp in the Great Kings palaces. What happened when Alexander conquered the Persian Empire was simply said that all these treasures were set free on the market, like a great incetion in the economy, and the Greek trade policy meant a great advance for the individual bussinessmen and for the Asia Minor economies as well. The reason to why Alexander won so seemingly easy is simply that many Persian (and people under their rule) admired the Greeks and awed their economical system. I mean that many must have seen what they could benefit from a Greek victory.

If now Persia had conquered Greece is semms to me as very likely that the Greek economical system had influeced the Persians and a liberalization with economical reformes - sudden or not - had occured in the Persian Empire. It might have taken longer time if the Alexander conquest had not been, but many other examples from world history allows me to claim such a development was well possible.

There is by the way an excellent study on Ancient Economics by Jean-Philippe Lévy at University of Sorbonne.

Mats Norrman
mats.norrman@home.se
 
Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
Going back in history:

-Battle of Waterloo(Napoleanic defeat)

I think it could be a good thing to distinguish if "Great Battle" means an battle of importance and influence of being great in other respect. I have already questioned the meaning and justification in judging long past battles in a previous post. The same however often applies to modern battles as well. The napoleonic conquest in Russia has caused endless of historians to question his skill as stratege. However I consider it a good example on where a leader has no choice of acting or not in the way that the consequnces would likely turn out the same in the long race.

Consider: Before Napoleon attacked Russia, he had responded to the British blockade of France with a Trade-Embargo on England. In Russia however he had very small chances to control that the trade was actually stopped. Read: therefore the trade went on as before. Therefore his embargo was rather pointless. At this point he had two options: 1) Ignore it, and count with the war against Great Britain will likely not be won. 2) Launch the very questionable campaign of attacking Russias vast lands to force them to follow his embargo.

Ok he lost the Russian campaign disastrously, and was forced to retire to Elba. Then I cant see the meaning in raising Waterloo as an important battle. Had Napoleon lost it the situation would be the same as 1814. Had Napolen won it, the situation would have been the same as in 1811. Both got the same endresult.

But in this I can see one much more important thing to distinguish, which should be much more fruitful to discuss if one wants to make historial analysis. In 1812 Napoleon had actually no choice to turn the development onto a way that would actually gain him (at least he had no option where he could count with that this will happen). Neither he had in 1815. So I think the question should be:

* Where is the crucial point where a leader wins or looses the ability to control the further development of happenings?

The reasoning can be applied on military leaders as well as states and whole cultures.

-----------------------------

Other ways of considering a certain battle great is of course:

* It's size. Stalingrad with so many hunderds of thousands dead is a good candidate. Verdun as well.

* Influental in other way then gaining military advance for a part. For example when the Turks sieged Byzantion they showed the importance of Gunpowder and Siege Artillery, which must be said to have been influential.

* As including very sophisticated tactics by someone. (If this could be streched out to include military manuevers in general, my vote for greates sophistication would go to Erich von Manstein for the ways he logistically solved the German withdrawal from Caucasus directly after Stalingrad. That is a move that should be studied by all who want to be impressed be good tactics of logistics as well as strategics).

Mats Norrman
mats.norrman@home.se
 
Ive got one most people brobobly wouldnt have thought of.

The battle of Tours- this is where the Franks defeated the Muslims who were attempting to expand there empire from Spain into the rest of Europe. If they had won that battle, they would have probobly counguered all of modern day France. At this time the Franks were the only power besides the Byzantines who could face the mighty Muslim empire, if they had been defeated... who knows, we might all be speaking arabic right now.
 
I disagree with everyone who chose Tours or other battle involving the spread of Islam. Muslim expansion wasn not part of a 'master plan' to convert the world to Islam. Prior to the teachings of Mohammed, the Arabs had supplimented their income by raiding each other's tribes. Once Islam prevented them from harming other Muslims, the Arabs turned elsewhere. But Islam was attractive to the people in the conquered areas, so they converted, forcing raids further away. Most inhabitants were more than happy to convert, thanks to the oppresive rule of the Byzantines.
 
I'll put in another idea :

The Russian revolution in Petrograd (1917 I believe)
without the revolution oviets would have not come to power
there wouldn't be a civil war
WW1would be different
WWII would be a lot different
Almost 80 Years of world history would be completely rewriten
And the world would not be where it is today in technology, because there would be no cold war

Can anyone think of anything more significant?
 
Top Bottom