Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
Yup, another poll by me.
What battle in your opinion was the most desicive in history?
What battle in your opinion was the most desicive in history?
The Most Descisive Battle
- Thread starter Sarevok
- Start date
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
it is obvious that i couldnt list all of the major descisive battles, my apologies in advance for those who will likely be offended, (Xen).
Riesstiu IV
Deity
This is tough... there are a lot of battles in the list that if altered to have the loser be the victor would result in very serious changes of history.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
youre right lynx, it will be real hard voting probably because all of those battles were VERY decisive. If anyone needs explanation of a battle, ask me.
Since it was the most descisive battle in my country's history, I chose Sekigahara. What if Tokugawa had failed and the new shoguns had ended up as new rulers? (In all reality, i voted that because i figured no1 else would vote for it. If it was just me, id probably pick Hastings)
Since it was the most descisive battle in my country's history, I chose Sekigahara. What if Tokugawa had failed and the new shoguns had ended up as new rulers? (In all reality, i voted that because i figured no1 else would vote for it. If it was just me, id probably pick Hastings)
Riesstiu IV
Deity
If Zama had been won by the Carthiginians, the Romans would have had a serious setbeck for the expansion of the republic. I would imagine Hannibal would attempt to return to Italy and conquer it.
If the Huns had won a desicive victory at the Catalonian fields, the Germanic tribes would have been forced to join with Attila or be destroyed. I would imagine that Attila would invade the rest of the Western Roman Empire, and if history would repeat itself pope Leo would convince him to not take Rome. Perhaps the Western Roman Empire would last a little longer, but that is hard to say.
If Tours/Poitiers had been lost by the Franks, I would imagine the moslems would set up a Caliphate. I have no idea what kind of resistence the rest of Europe would have put up.
If Hastings was won by the Saxons, I would imagine that the a line of Saxon Kings would continue.
If the Huns had won a desicive victory at the Catalonian fields, the Germanic tribes would have been forced to join with Attila or be destroyed. I would imagine that Attila would invade the rest of the Western Roman Empire, and if history would repeat itself pope Leo would convince him to not take Rome. Perhaps the Western Roman Empire would last a little longer, but that is hard to say.
If Tours/Poitiers had been lost by the Franks, I would imagine the moslems would set up a Caliphate. I have no idea what kind of resistence the rest of Europe would have put up.
If Hastings was won by the Saxons, I would imagine that the a line of Saxon Kings would continue.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
I'm afraid that I disagree Riesstiu IV.
Carthage had already lost all her territory in Spain, and most of the territory and Numidian allies in North Africa to Rome, so Hannibal winning at Zama would have merely added maybe another year or two to an already lost war.
Attila's empire was only held together by his iron will, and fell apart after his death, so adding more Germanic tribes or even large chunks of the Western Roman Empire would not have changed this outcome.
But I do agree that Tours/Poitiers halted Moslem expansion into western Europe.
I myself am a great admirer of Major J.F.C. Fuller's huge 3 volume 'Decisive Battles of the Western World', which I urge everyone to read.
(Although I do disagree with some of his choices)
So then, going through Sarevok's poll list, here are my thoughts....
Zama (Rome>Carthaginians) 205 BC = no, Carthage had already lost Spain and her Numidian allies.
Catalaunian Fields (Rome=Huns) 451 AD = no, as Attila's empire was destined to fall apart.
Tours/Poitiers (Franks>Moslems) 732 AD = yes, it halted Moslem expansion.
Hastings (Saxons<Normans) 1066 AD = hmmm, would a Saxon England have made that much difference?
Orleans (French>ENGLISH
) 1429 = yes, or France would have become part of England.Constantinople (Turks>Byzantines) 1453 = yes, or the Ottoman Empire would not have existed.
Lepanto (Christians>Turks) 1471 = yes, or the Ottomans would have expanded in the Mediterranean
Sekigahara (West<Tokugawa) 1600 = no, as Japan would still have been isolated.
Poltava (Swedes<Russians) 1705 = yes, as the Russian Empire may not have existed.
Yorktown (Americans>British) 1781 = no, as the British were already losing....or at least, failing to win.
Trafalgar (British>French) 1805 = yes, as it maintained British naval supremacy and empire.
Waterloo (French<Allies) 1815 = no, as Napoleon has already lost the war because of the 1812 & 1813 campaigns.
Gettysburg (Union>Confederates) 1863 = yes, as it could have forced peace on the North.
1st Marne (Allies>Germans) 1914 = yes, as Germany could have won the First World War.
2nd Marne (Allies>Germans) 1918 = no, as Germany was already worn out, and couldn't fight on much longer.
El Alamein (Germans>British) 1942 = no, it was a sideshow, and Britain would have fought on regardless.
Stalingrad (Germans<USSR) 1942-43 = yes, as Russia was facing defeat, and had their backs to the wall.
Midway (USA>Nihon) 1942 = hmmm, American industrial might was bound to win anyway in the Pacific, providing that the USA didn't sue for peace. So yes, it raised American morale.
Kursk (USSR>Germans) 1943 = no, as had the Germans won, Russia was already too strong to defeat by then (but it certainly helped to hasten Hitler's defeat).
Of course, this is just my opinion.
Mîtiu Ioan
Deity
Hi all ... and especially Kryten ...
This is my choice and look why - because I belive that if the Germany won the WW1 the whole today world will be different : verry probably no more nazi/communist countries-ideology, the world will be not divided between "normal country" and "freaky ideological ruled" ones ... more somekind of "cvasi-Imperial divisions" of the world ... probably also more ( real ) different models of ruling societies and multi-culturalism ... and so on ...
Excuse me my bad English - but I belive I make myself somehow clear ...
Regards
This is my choice and look why - because I belive that if the Germany won the WW1 the whole today world will be different : verry probably no more nazi/communist countries-ideology, the world will be not divided between "normal country" and "freaky ideological ruled" ones ... more somekind of "cvasi-Imperial divisions" of the world ... probably also more ( real ) different models of ruling societies and multi-culturalism ... and so on ...
Excuse me my bad English - but I belive I make myself somehow clear ...
Regards
Some comments on Kryten comments :
Trafalgar (British>French) 1805 = yes, as it maintained British naval supremacy and empire.
For me it is the most decisive one. If the French were able to win there, they could have invaded England, and with this Napoleon may have been able to create a stable French dinasty, with strong links in Germany... Thinks could have been really different, perhaps we'll use French of this board instead of English.
Midway (USA>Nihon) 1942 = hmmm, American industrial might was bound to win anyway in the Pacific, providing that the USA didn't sue for peace. So yes, it raised American morale.
And it reduced the Japanese morale : it was the first Japanese naval defeat since 1592.
Trafalgar (British>French) 1805 = yes, as it maintained British naval supremacy and empire.
For me it is the most decisive one. If the French were able to win there, they could have invaded England, and with this Napoleon may have been able to create a stable French dinasty, with strong links in Germany... Thinks could have been really different, perhaps we'll use French of this board instead of English.
Midway (USA>Nihon) 1942 = hmmm, American industrial might was bound to win anyway in the Pacific, providing that the USA didn't sue for peace. So yes, it raised American morale.
And it reduced the Japanese morale : it was the first Japanese naval defeat since 1592.
Serutan
Eatibus Anythingibus
@Kryten: I disagree that Gettysburg was decisive. Even if Gettysburg had been a Union defeat, Vicksburg (of much greater strategic importance) would surrender anyway. Also, Lee would not have been able to remain in Pennsylvania even if he won,
due to being low on ammunition.
@steph: I wonder how much Midway reduced Japanese morale
(except for those who actually fought there) due to the extreme
measures the Japanese took to suppress the news. But there
is no question as to its effect on American morale.
due to being low on ammunition.
@steph: I wonder how much Midway reduced Japanese morale
(except for those who actually fought there) due to the extreme
measures the Japanese took to suppress the news. But there
is no question as to its effect on American morale.
Ossric
Hedonistic Ruler
like Kryten already pointed out, Waterloo was by no means the most decisive. Napoleon's power was already broken in Leipzig. Waterloo was merely "the postmortum spasm of a death French corps"
basicly, i have to agree with everything Kryten said..
basicly, i have to agree with everything Kryten said..
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
I have to say that whilst Trafalgar was important in maintaining naval superiority, the French had already left their invasion camps as early as the 31st August 1805, over a month before Trafalgar occurred. Whilst it ensured the immediate future of the nation, Napoleon no longer had any intention to invade. Given that France was then occupied until 1807 on the continent, the British navy could quite easily have rebuilt her losses, this was a time when a 30 gun ship took just 14 weeks to build after all.
Midway I think was less important than the effect of the American Carrier fleet not being in Pearl. Had they been destroyed before war even began, and with the newer carriers months away the pacific would have been for a short period a Japanese lake. This could have opened up a number of possibilities for the Japanese to pursue.
Hastings and the period around it it has been argued wrenched the English, one of the richest of Northern Europe's countries at that time from the grip of the Scandanavian and German peoples and into the camp of the latin Southern Europeans. In a book I have about what if's, a historian argued that England could be the cornerstone of an empire akin to Canute had it fallen into the hands of Hadrada. This northern empire, had it kept itself together would have been a powerful entity.
Waterloo is hard to write off. Whilst Napoleon had doomed himself by his earlier mistakes, a series of brilliant campaigns again such as he managed in his early career may have had a long shot at putting one european nation after another out of the conflict with him, that at least was his reasoning against the Allied and Prussian armies in the Netherlands. It's highly doubtful he'd have suceeded in this and even less likely that the allies would just allow a napoleonic france in their midst.
Gettysburg would only have made a difference had the British and French enforced a treaty on the Union by threatening to recognise the south and re-open trade routes with the Confederacy, by force if needs be. However likely this would seem due to the affect of Gettysburg, the British were tied by the fact that they were anti-slavery and could not morally ally themselves to the south.
Without such an intervention the south would have struggled badly. The union army probably would not have been shattered at Gettysburg unless something spectacular occurred, and reinforced could easily have held onto Washington with it's forts.
Midway I think was less important than the effect of the American Carrier fleet not being in Pearl. Had they been destroyed before war even began, and with the newer carriers months away the pacific would have been for a short period a Japanese lake. This could have opened up a number of possibilities for the Japanese to pursue.
Hastings and the period around it it has been argued wrenched the English, one of the richest of Northern Europe's countries at that time from the grip of the Scandanavian and German peoples and into the camp of the latin Southern Europeans. In a book I have about what if's, a historian argued that England could be the cornerstone of an empire akin to Canute had it fallen into the hands of Hadrada. This northern empire, had it kept itself together would have been a powerful entity.
Waterloo is hard to write off. Whilst Napoleon had doomed himself by his earlier mistakes, a series of brilliant campaigns again such as he managed in his early career may have had a long shot at putting one european nation after another out of the conflict with him, that at least was his reasoning against the Allied and Prussian armies in the Netherlands. It's highly doubtful he'd have suceeded in this and even less likely that the allies would just allow a napoleonic france in their midst.
Gettysburg would only have made a difference had the British and French enforced a treaty on the Union by threatening to recognise the south and re-open trade routes with the Confederacy, by force if needs be. However likely this would seem due to the affect of Gettysburg, the British were tied by the fact that they were anti-slavery and could not morally ally themselves to the south.
Without such an intervention the south would have struggled badly. The union army probably would not have been shattered at Gettysburg unless something spectacular occurred, and reinforced could easily have held onto Washington with it's forts.
Ossric
Hedonistic Ruler
good points. Only one side-note for historic correctness:
Waterloo was not in the Netherlands, the country now called Belgium was then the "Austrian Netherlands" under Habsburg rule & not a part of the United Netherlands ( as a result of the Vienna Convention 1815 )
Half of these battles, I know next to nothing about...
I chose Gettysburg, cause I know more about it than any other on the list.
If Lee had been successful in "destroying" the Union Army he could have tore ass throughout Pennsylvania, ripping up railroads, burning Harrisburg to the ground and the important rail junction at Reading. However, the victory at Vicksburg makes me think. I don't know if the Confederacy could survive it even if Gettyburg was won.
I chose Gettysburg, cause I know more about it than any other on the list.
If Lee had been successful in "destroying" the Union Army he could have tore ass throughout Pennsylvania, ripping up railroads, burning Harrisburg to the ground and the important rail junction at Reading. However, the victory at Vicksburg makes me think. I don't know if the Confederacy could survive it even if Gettyburg was won.
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
My 3 choices would be Poiters, Yorktown, and Stalingrad. Just think about their repercussions for a moment.
naervod
My current user title
Without a Greek victory at the Battle of Salamis none of those battles are likely to have occurred. I'm surprised that wasn't on the poll. Out of battles that are on the poll I would have to say Tours/Poitiers because with a Muslim victory, life would be ALOT different.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
unlike my other votes, this one is VERY close...
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
I just came back today, and im going to gove this poll to the people at my school tomorrow. expect results of Friday
Al Zan
King
Constantinople (Turks>Byzantines) 1453 The great Ottoman Empire destroy the once Great Byzantines.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Yes sorry, temporary brain failiure, at least they tell me it's temporary
Whilst being able to damage the infrastructure of the state, what really would this have achieved? Lee's aim was quite blunt and obvious, he may have invaded far to the north of the capital, but he clearly intended to draw Hooker/Meade north and force him into an engagement to protect the state and large cities. Now that was not strictly what happened at Gettysburg, but the point of such a battle was to destroy the Union army as a fighting machine in order to force the North into peace.
Had Gettysburg done nothing more than left Lee dithering about in Pennsylvania and harassing a still intact and close to supply lines Union army, ultimately he would have failed. This would not have forced Lincoln into considering peace in any way. This is why Longstreet was correct in suggesting Gettysburg should have been a battle where the Southern army was defending a good position the Union army had no option but to drive them from.
Similar threads
