The five most important battles of all times.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not according to Manstein himself. I believe he went as far as to say that had Hitler not attempted to micromanage it, the Axis could've won the Eastern Front.

What Manstein was talking about was that Hitler refused to let the generals play their own game. Manstein, for example, heavily favored an elastic defense, while Hitler, for propagandistic reasons, adamantly refused to let soldiers retreat or withdraw. When Manstein was actually able to do this, like at Third Kharkov, it worked spectularly. Its no surprise that Hitler essentially ignored this Riposte because Manstein had disobeyed him.

The fact is, however, that Manstein in his memoirs could not see both sides of the field. We know from Soviet records that the deck was stacked before the battle even began. The salient was filled with layers of concentric defenses, and the troops therein fresh and fully supplied. It was quite obvious (and further helped by espionage) that the assault would come in two pincers, near the "base" of the salient. The plan was to let the Germans break against this wall, so to speak, and then hit them in their own flanks in what would then become two mini-salients. For von Kluge, this happened nearly immediately, as the entirety of the Bryansk Front immediately fell under assault when Kursk began. He hardly even made it into the salient before his drive stopped, because of the excessive demand at all other fronts, but especially around Orel, near the base of his own salient. While Manstein performed much much better (Zhukov even commented that he was surprised by Manstein's progress), he had essentially ground to a halt himself by the time Hitler ordered the operation ended. He had essentially no chance of ever uniting with von Kluge, primarily because Kluge had already folded and Orel had already fallen. Further, Zhukov had seven full Soviet armies waiting near Voronezh to begin the counteroffensive, and when these entered the battle, they proved how walloped the Germans had been during the assault.

It just occurred to me that you (or he) could also be talking about the plan for an earlier offensive. I remember that Manstein wanted to begin more than a month earlier, to keep the Soviets on their heels after Kharkov, but was told to wait for shipments of the new Panther and Tiger tanks before beginning. We know from looking at Zhukov's memoirs, however, that he did not begin building the concentric defensive works until after Manstein's originally proposed assault date. So maybe its concievable that he would have done better had he been able to hit faster. But, then, it is also true that he would not have had the force he did IRL. I don't think Tamerlane's observation about troop strength holds much weight, really, so I'm inclined to think that Manstein was wet-dreaming when he thought he could beat the Soviets by this point.

Whether or not that's true is highly disputable, but nevertheless it had a large blow to the morale of the German officer corps.

Hitler certainly fired many capable commanders in favor of unquestionably loyal ones. Ironic that most of those he fired were those who initiated (Guderian) or proposed (Manstein, Bock) retreat, or who resigned when Hitler would not let them play how they wanted to (Leeb).
 
Does anyone else consider Zama to be an important battle?
 
To be fair, I think Manstein's speculation on what could have been, is if the general command had complete control from before Stalingrad. He still intended to fight on as best he could and hope for a miracle, but felt frustrated in doing so. And it is interesting that after penetrating the farthest on the southern flank of the salient, he broke a Russian counterattack in the largest tank battle in history. He took a pounding but had local superiority for awhile, and refused for a few days Hitler's order to retreat, which was a twist. He must have thought he could do some more damage, or at least that's how I look at it.



Does anyone else consider Zama to be an important battle?

Its hard to say what would have happened if Masinissa's Numidian mercenaries, had decided to double cross the Romans. I think Hannibal needed a better battle plan too, but if he had his old cavalry superiority he would have won this one. Given their supreme effort of survival after Cannae, Rome would not let this one go. Marcellus was dead and without Scipio, Nero would have been the best general they had left. Hannibal's reputation would have emerged tenfold. Carthage may have gotten a critical breathing spell, again assuming they still had allies. But it probably would have ended in their destruction a little bit earlier than it did. Carthage just didn't have enough friends and didn't have a fleet. So one man's action or inaction in this case could make a difference, but I wouldn't give them high odds of having a substantially different outcome.
 
it is safe to say that we know nothing of the "most important battles of all times". The earlier the battle the more impact it would have.
 
Oh, here's one: the Battle of Bailén. It inspired Spanish patriotism to such a degree that Joseph Bonaparte's reign became untenable, thus turning Spain into a mire that slowly drained French resources, largely contributing to Napoleon's downfall.
 
Lepanto is hardly important, it just signified what was to come in the future, of Muslim(Read: Ottoman) decline, infact, the Ottomans rebuilt every ship they lost, and more a few years after Lepanto. It's only importance was as a first sign of what's to come.

IMO, without details:

1. Stalingrad
2. Tannenberg Forest
3. Manzikert
4. Siege of Vienna
5. No battles spring to my mind specifically, but the original Otto-Balkan wars pre-1453 IMO

As you can see, I consider Rome and the Ottoman Empire the pinnacles of world changers. I don't know enough about history to comment anything farther east then Baghdad sadly.
 
Lepanto is hardly important, it just signified what was to come in the future, of Muslim(Read: Ottoman) decline, infact, the Ottomans rebuilt every ship they lost, and more a few years after Lepanto. It's only importance was as a first sign of what's to come.

This logic seems to me to be rather dubious. Perhaps the 16th century was the apex of Ottoman power because of their loss of naval supremacy over the Mediterranean (it is true that they rebuilt their navy quickly, but they lost their experienced sailors; the Habsburgs dominated maritime trade from that point on), rather than their loss of naval supremacy being a symptom of their decline.
 
But what truly matters to the Ottoman Empire, more than Med. Domination, is Aegan domination, which wouldn't be. Challenged until Galipoli. Although by Hapsburg, you mean Spanish? We can't really know that, seeing as the Ottomans weren't challenged navally again post-Lepanto, AFAIK. Typing from an Itouch, don't judge my grammar.
 
The 17th Century Ottoman occupation of Crete turned into a 20 year debacle, while the Venetian navy, no longer rowing galleys, inflicted a series of crippling defeats on the Ottoman navy. They closed the Dardanelles for awhile, causing hardship in Constantinople as well as the soldiers on Crete. The Turks eventually got the island though.
 
One single battle laid the ground for the world as we know it today. In 701 bc, the king of Assyria, Sennacherib sent an army to destroy the kingdom of Judah. Hezekiah, king of Judah appealed to Egypt's military commander at the time, Taharqa for aid. Taharqa marched a Kushite army to Judah, defeated the Assyrians and saved Jerusalem from annihilation. Had this not happened, the Assyrian empire would have eradicated the Hebrews, effectively wiping out Judaism. Whithout Judaism, Christianity would never be birthed and subsequently neither would Islam. A world without these three religions would be scarcely recognizable to us today. Imagine that if you can.
 
One single battle laid the ground for the world as we know it today. In 701 bc, the king of Assyria, Sennacherib sent an army to destroy the kingdom of Judah. Hezekiah, king of Judah appealed to Egypt's military commander at the time, Taharqa for aid. Taharqa marched a Kushite army to Judah, defeated the Assyrians and saved Jerusalem from annihilation. Had this not happened, the Assyrian empire would have eradicated the Hebrews, effectively wiping out Judaism. Whithout Judaism, Christianity would never be birthed and subsequently neither would Islam. A world without these three religions would be scarcely recognizable to us today. Imagine that if you can.

:eek: Oh noes indeed. Thankfully the Jews are God's chosen people and were therefore incapable of losing.
 
Necroed thread closed.

Please feel free to start a new one, if you want to continue the discussion. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom