The Most Descisive Battle

[The Yankee]

I like Sekigahara.....mainly because I've gotten very interested in the time period and the battle itself. Yes, I'm that shallow!

It would be hard to choose a most decisive battle because they all changed the fate of the respective times. Perhaps Japan would not have been so isolated under Ishida or they may have tried invading Korea again and who knows what would happen from there, or maybe we would not have the high level of art that we do from the Tokugawa period. We don't know. That was just an example.

 

[onejayhawk]

I was torn between the most historically significant, Zama, and the most ridiculously out of proportion to the balance of forces, Midway. I leave it to speculation what would have happened had Hannibal defeated Scipio. It is entirely possible that nothing of substance would have changed, but my personal feeling is that Carthage and Rome would have devided the Mediteranian East and West. With Carthage in control of Iberaa and the west African coast, inevitably they would have discovered the Americas, centuries earlier than Columbus.

Midway is almost impossible to cinsider as real. Even given perfect intel and fully operational combat forces, there is no way the US fleet should have a)survived and b)sunk all the Japanesee carriers.

One note for other. Where is the Love for the most significant battle of the 20th Century, the 6 Days War?

 

[privatehudson]

I'd hardly rate the 6 days war as more important than stalingrad or D-day to be fair. Also I'd personally rate the Yom Kippur war more important because the Israeli's came much closer to loosing that war than the 6 day one.

 

[Speedo]

I don't think it's possible to pin one single battle. IMO the most important in American history would be Gettysburg- had the south won it, I think it is very possible that they could have won the war. If that had happened, we'd probably be on civil war #10 or so by now.

Midway is very significant also IMO, one of the most important of the 20th century. You have to remember what would have happened had we lost it- PACFLT would have been down to one laid up carrier (Saratoga IIRC) to defend the Hawaiian islands. And you and I know that Japan would have come for Hawaii. I don't think we could have stopped them. That would leave the entire west coast open. Would they have been bold enough to attempt and invasion? I doubt it- but they could park carriers off of the coast and constantly bomb the west coast cities, a massive blow to morale. Perhaps in the end our industrial would have come through, but WW2 would have gone on much longer.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Benderino
My 3 choices would be Poiters, Yorktown, and Stalingrad. Just think about their repercussions for a moment.

Very well, I shall.....

.....ok, I have thought about it.

I agree with Poiters and Stalingrad, but I'm not so sure about Yorktown.

"For two years Washington had been working towards a decisive conclusion of the war. An intelligence service led by Benjamin Franklin, one of the American commissioners in Paris, kept him informed of events in Great Britain and France. As a result of these reports, Washington was convinced that British public opinion was definitely turning against continuing the American war. Another British military disaster such as that at Saratoga would bring irresistible pressure on the king and his ministers to make peace and recognize American independence.
At the beginning of 1779, the Americans were no longer fighting alone against Great Britain. Spain had joined France, and Britain faced the prospect of a major European war. Consequently, more and more British naval and military forces would be taken away from the war in America."
(quoted from Microsoft Encarta)

In effect, in Civ3 terms, Britain was suffering from severe 'war weariness', as well as threats to her other dominions around the world.
Had the British prevailed at Yorktown, or had even inflicted a defeat upon the American & French forces, it would not have led to victory, as the 'war weariness' and threat of a wider war would still remain.

I think that the British surrender at the end of the Saratoga campaign of 1778 was more decisive. Had this succeeded, then MAYBE the rebellion could have been crushed. But as the conflict wore on, and once France and Spain had joined in, victory was no longer possible for the British. She was doomed to lose a long war, but might have won a short one.
Yorktown gave the peace party in Britain an excuse to end hostilities, but it would have ended anyway once France and Spain became involved (although the war may have dragged on for a couple of years longer).

Originally posted by privatehudson
About Gettysburg:-
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.

Ah, but what about Lincoln's re-election chances the following year?

Had Lee won at Gettysburg, and roamed freely about north of Washington, this surely would have been a serious political embarrassment to Lincoln's leadership....
....because quite frankly, I cannot see any other way the south could have won!
Being outnumbered, and with little industrial infrastructure, a military victory for them was impossible. Their only hope was to force a peace....and victory at Gettysburg was the best chance they had.

 

[privatehudson]

Speedo: What it probably would have meant was a change from the "europe first" to the "pacific first" attitude that prevailed in the Allied camp during the war. America's resources would have been put into the pacific whilst a defensive war was maintained in Europe with possible raids and such on europe, annoying the Russians naturally no end.

Of course this would probably not extend the pacific war by too long, the concentration of resources would be telling, but the European war may have dragged on many more years with all that entailed, including a better equipped German Wermacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, not a good thing in anyone's book.

Ah, but what about Lincoln's re-election chances the following year?

Had Lee won at Gettysburg, and roamed freely about north of Washington, this surely would have been a serious political embarrassment to Lincoln's leadership....
....because quite frankly, I cannot see any other way the south could have won!
Being outnumbered, and with little industrial infrastructure, a military victory for them was impossible. Their only hope was to force a peace....and victory at Gettysburg was the best chance they had

It's possible, but unlikely. Unless Lee had won a signifigant victory I can't see Meade just letting him march round the state doing what the hell he liked, and Lincoln would be ranting at him to attack constantly. Had lee won that well he no doubt would have tried to take washington to force lincoln into a settlement. As for re-election, I think McCellan was doomed when a portion of his party basically forced a "peace at all costs" issue onto the agenda of the party. McCellan had a chance of winning before that, but not that many northerners wanted peace at any price, hence his defeat in the election.

I'm not sure about it being their best chance though, before Antietam/Sharpsburg had Lee been able to pull off a similar affect to that you describe, though he had less men, his proximity to the capital and McCellan's almost total lack of ability when it came to taking action he could have easily pushed on to threatening Washington. Remember that this is prior to the emancipation proclomation being declared, the UK and France would be far more willing to intervene should such an event occur.

Considering McCellan really only beat Lee because he captured his battle plans, and still took 2 days to attack him, and despite outnumbering him STILL failed to drive him off the field and ruin his army you really have to wonder how on earth McCellan wasn't sacked straight away, let alone managed to remain as popular as he did, the army loved him, by any stretch of the imagination though, he was as much use on campaign as a choclate teapot

 

[Sarevok]

this is a close vote, but hastings is winning now.

 

[Sarevok]

Lynx did this poll at this school, here are the results:

Zama, 2
Catalaunian Fields, 4
Tours, 4
Hastings, 5
Orleans, 3
Constantinople, 5
Lepanto, 3
Sekigahara, 2
Poltava, 2
Yorktown, 3
Trafalgar, 1
Waterloo, 10
Gettysburg, 22
1st Marne, 0
2nd Marne, 2
Midway, 13
El Alamein, 1
Stalingrad, 23
Kursk, 1

106 People

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Kryten




"For two years Washington had been working towards a decisive conclusion of the war. An intelligence service led by Benjamin Franklin, one of the American commissioners in Paris, kept him informed of events in Great Britain and France. As a result of these reports, Washington was convinced that British public opinion was definitely turning against continuing the American war. Another British military disaster such as that at Saratoga would bring irresistible pressure on the king and his ministers to make peace and recognize American independence.
At the beginning of 1779, the Americans were no longer fighting alone against Great Britain. Spain had joined France, and Britain faced the prospect of a major European war. Consequently, more and more British naval and military forces would be taken away from the war in America."
(quoted from Microsoft Encarta)

In effect, in Civ3 terms, Britain was suffering from severe 'war weariness', as well as threats to her other dominions around the world.
Had the British prevailed at Yorktown, or had even inflicted a defeat upon the American & French forces, it would not have led to victory, as the 'war weariness' and threat of a wider war would still remain.

I think that the British surrender at the end of the Saratoga campaign of 1778 was more decisive. Had this succeeded, then MAYBE the rebellion could have been crushed. But as the conflict wore on, and once France and Spain had joined in, victory was no longer possible for the British. She was doomed to lose a long war, but might have won a short one.
Yorktown gave the peace party in Britain an excuse to end hostilities, but it would have ended anyway once France and Spain became involved (although the war may have dragged on for a couple of years longer).

Ok ok. This is all very true. Without Saratoga, Yorktown would never have happened, since the French wouldn't have joined up. They are both very important victories, nonetheless. I do believe it was innevitabel that the colonists would have won, just because the Brits wouldn't have been able to continue fighting forever.

I'm glad to see we agree on the other 2 though, funny man

 

[Sarevok]

i know, im curious why i didnt put saratoga up ther instead of yorktown.

 

[Benderino]

They are both good.

 

[Sarevok]

but which is more descisive?

 

[Steph]

Originally posted by Sarevok
Lynx did this poll at this school, here are the results:
106 People

What country / city?

What kind of school?

 

[Kafka2]

Originally posted by naervod
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.

In a poll like this you have to take a conscious step away from determinist thought and apply historical weighting in favour of recent events.

Otherwise you have to conclude that the most significant battle was when Harry the Homo Erectus accidentally brained his Uncle Ug with a knobbly stick.

 

[Sarevok]

you can guess by the statistics, the poll was done in the US. I was on the plane back and i PMed lynx to do the poll at his school. Apparently his group doeset know a damn thing about history . It was a high school.

 

[Ossric]

ultimatly, one cannot say which battle was the most decisive. One can never know how the future would have been like if one battle/war would have turned out the other way. To many variables to calculate, to many possible end results that could emerge. Therefore, all the battles that have been sponsored here, have had a big imact on the future, but nobody can ever say which was the most decisefull...

What if Alexander The Great never dead so young?
What if Napoleon had won the war?
What if the Nazi's had won?
What if the Southern troups (US) had won the civil war?
What if the Romans hadn't won from the Carthagians?
......

 

[Sarevok]

ya ya, but some could have bigger effects.

 

[Lynx]

put up my results eh? they can now all see how ignorant my classmates are

 

[Sarevok]

yup, very ignorant fools you asked.

 

[puglover]

I voted Gettysburg, but Saratoga was an equally decisive battle if not more. The British thought they could cut the Colonies in half by taking Saratoga. This would destroy America's slim hope of winning and keep the Colonies under British control. However, through a mix-up in communications, one of the major factors on the British side (General Howe) never got the orders of the campaign. Thus, General Burgoyne lost his army to the Americans. Saratoga was kept by the Americans. The French noticed this victory and thus felt safe enough to finance the Revolution. Because of French money and supplies, the American Colonies were able to defeat the British and become an independent. If the British were victorious, America wouldn't have recieved French aid, the Colonies would be divided, and the Revolution would be lost.