Turning Point Battles

[Mowque]

How much stock can we put with "Battles That Changed History" I'm thinking Tours, Gettysburg, Manzikert and the like. Are they are important and earth shattering as the books claim, or not? Or are only some of them?

 

[LightSpectra]

Tours wasn't a world-changing battle. This has been discussed on this board many times: suffice to say, most of the Islamic conquests were against decaying remnants of the Roman Empire and even if they had won Tours, it's not like they would've been able to completely conquer the Franks. Gettysburg is debatable. I would say it was an important battle, in conjunction with Vicksburg, since it prevented Franco-British intervention on behalf of the Confederacy. And I couldn't tell you much about Manzikert.

Some good turning point battles in history: Salamis, the Syracuse Expedition, Aegates Islands, Teutoburg Forest, Parma, Ain Jalut, Orléans, Gravelines, Lützen, Lepanto, Blenheim and Malplaquet in the same war for both sides, Poltava, Saratoga, Borodino (debatably), San Jacinto, Puebla, Britain, and Midway.

 

[Dachs]

The outcome of a tactical engagement is frequently of great import, but not always, and most often it is how the figures involved react to the postbattle situation that is more decisive. Manzikert, for example, in and of itself decided very little; the failure of the imperial government to effectively respond to the civil war situation that was created in part by the engagement's issue (but in even greater part by nonmilitary decisions made by the key people involved) was what allowed the Seljuqs to do much of anything at all, and the almost shocking failure of the Komneni emperors to recapture the entirety of Anatolia sealed the issue and made the Rûm sultanate more than just a transient occurrence along the lines of the caliphal invasions of Anatolia in the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries.

Spectra, your reasoning behind your opinion of Gettysburg is wrong.

Also at the list.

 

[Mowque]

Some good turning point battles in history: Salamis, the Syracuse Expedition, Aegates Islands, Teutoburg Forest, Parma, Ain Jalut, Orléans, Gravelines, Lützen, Lepanto, Blenheim and Malplaquet in the same war for both sides, Poltava, Saratoga, Borodino (debatably), San Jacinto, Puebla, Britain, and Midway.

What makes these battles important? I'm not asking for specifics, but what makes a battle a 'turning-point' in your mind?

 

[privatehudson]

Gettysburg is debatable. I would say it was an important battle, in conjunction with Vicksburg, since it prevented Franco-British intervention on behalf of the Confederacy.

I believe I mentioned this in detail on another thread. The chances of the Confederacy tempting either European power into intervention based on the results of a successful Gettysburg campaign were about nil.

 

[vogtmurr]

For posterity, some good discussion has taken place on this fairly recently at
5 Most Decisive battles

and for the record, this debate

Tours wasn't a world-changing battle. This has been discussed on this board many times: suffice to say, most of the Islamic conquests were against decaying remnants of the Roman Empire and even if they had won Tours, it's not like they would've been able to completely conquer the Franks. ....

did not end in that unanimous conclusion, I would say.

 

[aronnax]

Here we go again, the billionth thread on "Most Decisive Battles Ever". They are always reused again and again just in different names to make it seem that they are starting something original. And it is always the same routine. Firstly, some one would take some cliche battle that is highly misunderstood by school history and hollywood and see it as the Most important/Greatest/life-changing battle. And it is always the same few battles.
A) We have the "Save Europe from Islam" Battles:
1) Poiters/Tours
2) Siege of Vienna
3) Lepanto
4) Siege of Malta

B) And then the "Stop Mongol advance" Battles
1) Ain Jalut
2) Great stand on the Ugra river

C) Then there are the "Britain Saves the World" Battles
1) Waterloo
2) Trafalgar
3) Nile
4) Spanish Armada
5) Battle of Britain

C) Then there are the WWII Battles
1) D-Day
2) Stalingrad
3) Midway

D) Then there are the "America saves the World" Battles
1) Yorktown
2) Saratoga
3) Anything against Japan and Hitler
4) Gettysburg

E) Then there are the "Puny Greece versus Mighty Persia" Battles
1) Salamis (Everybody's personal favourite)
2) Marathon
3) Thermopylae (due to that damn movie)

And many more. Some will post battles of the neglected Asian nations in an attempt to sound worldly and well-read.
1) Sedan
2) Sekigahara
3) Fall of Constantinople
4) Talas
5) Your mom
And then people will squabble about Why is it not as decisive as it seems and why it is as decisive as it seems, and then some brilliant poster, usually Steph or Plotinus or Knight-Dragon swoops in and says this in a lengthy but awesome post that means basically this

"It is not possible to have a most decisive battle because all battles were influenced by battles before it and then later contribute to factors that lead to future battles. Due to the butterfly Effect, logic and common sense, the most decisive battle ever would be the first battle ever, which is probably when Ugg killed Thor with a rock."

And then people will ignore the brilliant message by Steph/Plotinius/Knight-Dragon and post cliche battles like the ones listed above.

Are we done with yet?

 

[vogtmurr]

Are we done with yet?

Well not quite, good list but you forgot
WWI) First Battle of the Marne

WWII) El Alamein

plus Orleans, Poltava, possibly Legnano, Bouvines,....

 

[privatehudson]

I always liked the Terry Pratchett quote on the butterfly effect which ran something like:

Lets find that bloody butterfly whose flapping wings cause all these storms we've been having recently and get it to stop!

 

[aronnax]

Well not quite, good list but you forgot
WWI) First Battle of the Marne

WWII) El Alamein

plus Orleans, Poltava, possibly Legnano, Bouvines,....

I will kill you.

 

[Mowque]

No, I'm not trying to make another list! I want to talk about the concept, not the battles!

 

[vogtmurr]

I will kill you.

tch tch - physical threats aren't allowed on this forum

I neglected to mention Tannenberg in WWI. And as a token for the "neglected Asian nations in an attempt to sound worldly and well-read": Yique - so many things could have gone differently there if Han and Wei had acted in a responsible, reasonably cooperative manner. It would have significantly forestalled the rise of Qin, especially if they managed to kill or capture Bai Qi.

No, I'm not trying to make another list! I want to talk about the concept, not the battles!

How do you do one without the other ? Of course some battles are of greater importance than others, just as some people have a greater impact than others. The previous link refers to some discussion along that line. There are cases where a long trend of previous history gets completely reversed and results in a radically different outcome, on the hinge of fate of one battle. Others are right in saying that every piece of history is the product of a million pieces before it, they can't be viewed in isolation. There are a million variables that affect how and why that battle took place, and more than 50% of those variables are probably not other battles. However, that doesn't invalidate a quasi-scientific method of identifying those battles which decided to a bigger extent, the subsequent course of history.

Analogy:
Important: Krog kills Og who would have been the great great grandad 10,000 generations removed of Jesus Christ, Mohammed, or Buddha.
Unimportant: Krog kills Og who is genetically challenged and has a few sterile, idiot offspring.

If by 'concept' you mean a method of determining those which had a bigger impact, you could hypothesize what might have happened if the battle had either not taken place or had the opposite outcome, then you get into how probable that is, and whether it was just a matter of time before the same outcome would be reached anyway. In other words, the battle itself has to be an issue in some doubt that could have gone either way, if someone didn't do this, or did do that. It's potentially an exhausting and imprecise exercise but makes for an interesting conversation.

 

[negZero]

If I see someone claim that Battle of Britain was a turning point, am going to build time-machine and destroy the RAF myself.

 

[vogtmurr]

If I see someone claim that Battle of Britain was a turning point, am going to build time-machine and destroy the RAF myself.

why would you say that ?

 

[red_elk]

I would point out the Battle of Ain Jalut, which stopped mongolian crusade in the Middle East.

For WW2, there were a few turning point battles:
1. Moscow battle
2. Stalingrad
3. Kursk battle
4. Operation "Bagration"

On the other fronts - Pearl Harbor, which brought the USA into war.

 

[vogtmurr]

I don't see how Bagration was a turning point

 

[red_elk]

You probably right, it was not a turning point. Very important strategical victory would be more correct.

 

[BananaLee]

"It is not possible to have a most decisive battle because all battles were influenced by battles before it and then later contribute to factors that lead to future battles. Due to the butterfly Effect, logic and common sense, the most decisive battle ever would be the first battle ever, which is probably when Ugg kill Thor with a rock."

Amen.

I really doubt any battle was a turning point in itself. We have absolutely no idea what would have happened if the Battle of Britain was lost, because Sealion would still have had endless possiblities. The pressures of invasion could easily spark off some inspiration in someone to develop something we probably couldn't imagine.
The point is, it is very difficult to nail down a "pivotal moment" and to limit our choices to battles makes it even less likely that a true "pivotal moment" could be chosen.

 

[negZero]

why would you say that ?

Because the Nazis didn't have the ships to invaded and then support an attack on Britain.

 

[vogtmurr]

Because the Nazis didn't have the ships to invaded and then support an attack on Britain.

I agree - Britain was in no immediate danger from an invasion, though we do say that with a bit of hindsight they didn't have then.

But with more forthright generalship than Goering, the RAF would have collapsed. A few more weeks of attacks on airfields and the Luftwaffe may have been able to pick it's targets with impunity. Britain was under great economic strain, and the Uboat war was still to come. Targeting shipping and production could have paralyzed her ability to take the war to North Africa, Greece, or start its own bomber offensive. I think it would have been hard to give Sealion serious consideration before spring 1941 and only after massive preparations and training, but Barbarossa may have kept to its original timetable. True, it was a fundamental weakness of the Luftwaffe that it was a short range tactical air force, but losing the initiative in the air would have been a decisive defeat to Britain's interests, and at that time they were on their own. Doubt if Churchill would have rolled over though

Anyway, the loudly proclaimed truisms of cause and effect don't change the fact that some battles are more important than others. To say they aren't is simplistic and deterministic, it leads one to a fatalistic assertion that the outcome of all future events is determined by the past. I guess we can just shut all threads down of this type.

The point is, it is very difficult to nail down a "pivotal moment" .

Yes I will agree with that statement.