Turning Point Battles
- Thread starter Mowque
- Start date
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Well, speaking of the less known battles, what about Marchfeld (Moravské pole)?
It was both a decisive battle (the Bohemian king died in it and his forces were crushed) and it determined the future history of Central Europe: Habsburgs rose to power (they secured Austria), planting the seeds of their future hegemonial ambitions. Bohemia lost the last great ruler of the Přemyslid dynasty, leading to the future accession of Luxembourg to the Bohemian throne.
It's not that hard to imagine that had Otakar II won the battle and if it had been Rudolf von Habsburg who died that day, Habsburgs woul have remained a footnote in history books and Central Europe would look VERY different today.
It was both a decisive battle (the Bohemian king died in it and his forces were crushed) and it determined the future history of Central Europe: Habsburgs rose to power (they secured Austria), planting the seeds of their future hegemonial ambitions. Bohemia lost the last great ruler of the Přemyslid dynasty, leading to the future accession of Luxembourg to the Bohemian throne.
It's not that hard to imagine that had Otakar II won the battle and if it had been Rudolf von Habsburg who died that day, Habsburgs woul have remained a footnote in history books and Central Europe would look VERY different today.
Yeah, Marchfeld is an interesting story. What would you say about Riade ?
How about an example of a battle which is often considered decisive, but probably isn't: Waterloo 1815. It was an epic battle, that analysts have often puzzled over why he didn't win, but no leading figures were killed, and if Napoleon had won, do you think he would steamroller all over Europe again, start the War of the 6th or 7th Coalition ?
His support in France was still pretty shaky, as soon as he got far enough from home embroiled with his enemies, the citizens of Paris would have probably declared their own provisional government, they already ran him out of town once before. Maybe Wellington would not have made PM and maybe some long delayed social reforms under the Georges would have gotten started earlier. Waterloo made the original list only because if nothing else it gave closure and certainty.
There is a probability of course, that Napoleon would score some immediate successes and then adopt a conciliatory tone. Maybe even the other Kings of Europe by now needed some rest after the 'Nightmare of Europe'. Unless some revolutionary movement started early that somehow identified with his cause(?), or there were rivalries developing that split the alliance, I think not.
Now what about Sevastopol ? Huge painful campaign for both parties, but Russia was prepared to bleed a little for her Balkan and Black Sea ambitions. Very little was gained by the Allies. Had they simply settled for a diplomatic compromise, Turkey would still have been isolated against Russia, but that happened 25 years later anyway as their empire crumbled. Britain would not have the Charge of the Light Brigade and Florence Nightingale, but the lessons of logistics, hygiene, and attrition in large scale modern warfare seemed largely missed anyway. If Russia had shattered and humiliated the allies, it may have fed her ambition and resulted in a significantly different realignment of European powers. I think in judging decisive battles it's easier and more certain to consider the impact of what did happen, because after all, it did.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I consider Salamis the most important battle in all of history. That could have been a turning point for all western culture had the Greeks not won.
Zama I also consider important. Hannibal had already won 3 battles against the Romans and had Scipio been defeated here, Hannibal would have marched on Rome and the Punic wars may have turned out differently.
Tours is important. Its debatable how much influence Islam would have gained in Europe is the franks had been defeated.
Later wars that are important would include Battles of the Marne(1st), Trafalgar, spanish Armada, Gettysburg, etc.
Gettysburg is important because it would have been a severe blow to the morale of the union troops. Destroying the army of the Potmac may be caused Lincoln to lose the presidential election in 1864.
Also battles like Moscow(both Napoleon and Hitler's) were important.
Other huge ancient battles like Xianpiang in the warring states or Red Cliffs in the three kingdoms I consider less significant because either way you put it, both sides were still Chinese.
Zama I also consider important. Hannibal had already won 3 battles against the Romans and had Scipio been defeated here, Hannibal would have marched on Rome and the Punic wars may have turned out differently.
Tours is important. Its debatable how much influence Islam would have gained in Europe is the franks had been defeated.
Later wars that are important would include Battles of the Marne(1st), Trafalgar, spanish Armada, Gettysburg, etc.
Gettysburg is important because it would have been a severe blow to the morale of the union troops. Destroying the army of the Potmac may be caused Lincoln to lose the presidential election in 1864.
Also battles like Moscow(both Napoleon and Hitler's) were important.
Other huge ancient battles like Xianpiang in the warring states or Red Cliffs in the three kingdoms I consider less significant because either way you put it, both sides were still Chinese.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
A persian victory would not have ended greek culture. The persians might, in a best scenario for them, impose a form of loose vassalage to the greek cities. and it wouldn't last.
Differently? He'd been marching around Rome for over 10 years, with nothing to show for it...
Imperialmajesty
Emperor
Tsk Tsk, no love for the Battle of Saratoga.
I liked the wording on the wiki article that says "Greek culture would have been stunted, if not absorbed". So much history would have changed if Greece had become a satrapy.
Imperialmajesty
Emperor
No, it wasn't a turning point. The outcome was more or less inevitable even before.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Well, he did manage to defeat Rome in 3 battles. Scipio spefically returned back to fight him.
Psh. We had already won, it was only a matter of how long is it going to take to march into Germany.
More than just three...and all it got him was "stuck in southern Italy"...which the Qarthadastim didn't even control after he left...sure Zama wasn't important but it didn't change world history, Rome wasn't about to go down the tubes.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Is Rome had lost Zama, the region might have been co-dominated by Carthage-Rome instead of just Rome.
Imperialmajesty
Emperor
Ehh... I think that in the end, Rome would have eliminated Carthage somehow.
If they had lost the Battle of Zama they'd probably scratch up yet another of their inexhaustible-manpower-legions, or they'd wait for twenty or thirty years and try again, having driven the Qarthadastim totally out of Iberia and part of Africa.
Imperialmajesty
Emperor
Perhaps in the face of a stalemate with Carthage, Rome might simply decide to expand in another direction, and as you said, come back in 20 years and crush Carthage.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
They were already kind of taking turns between attacking Macedonia and Carthage. The odd thing was that they took so long to actually crush those polities and turn their territory into provinces.
After the First Punic War it was clear that Rome already had the military power to expand. What it didn't have, yet, was the willingness to reach very far, as expansion disturbed the balance of power withing the Republic.
After the First Punic War it was clear that Rome already had the military power to expand. What it didn't have, yet, was the willingness to reach very far, as expansion disturbed the balance of power withing the Republic.
plarq
Crazy forever
For the Warring States period, a United Chinese nation based on Yellow River plains would be decisive on the question "if Chinese proper would be conquered by nomads in the Mongolian steppe or Manchurian/Korean forest"
So is Battle of Red Cliff in 208 AD--the allied victory delayed the unification of China by half a century, which might contribute to the rise of nomad tribes in the north in the 3rd century, and a period of nomads domination of Yellow River plains in 3rd century to 6th century AD. The period also laid foundation of the rise of Tang Dynasty, a Sinicized Sino-Turkic Dynasty.
I think one should include in that also battles between the caliphate and Byzantium, like two sieges of Constantinople, and the battle of Akroinon.
Serutan
Eatibus Anythingibus
I'm surprised Sekigahara hasn't been mentioned - unless there is reason to believe that Ishida and
his allies would also have kicked the Europeans out of Japan...
[rant]Gettysburg is so overrated it's not funny. Even if Lee wins, he can't stay up North
indefinitely. As Hudson said, the chances of European intervention at that point were remote. [/rant]
If there is one battle in that war that can be said to be a true turning point from a military standpoint, I think it's Shiloh - the Confederacy's best chance to tip the scales back in its favor,
and it failed. From a political standpoint, it's probably Anteitam - both because it allowed the
Emancipation Proclomation to be issued, and snuffed out a real possibility of European intervention.
his allies would also have kicked the Europeans out of Japan...
[rant]Gettysburg is so overrated it's not funny. Even if Lee wins, he can't stay up North
indefinitely. As Hudson said, the chances of European intervention at that point were remote. [/rant]
If there is one battle in that war that can be said to be a true turning point from a military standpoint, I think it's Shiloh - the Confederacy's best chance to tip the scales back in its favor,
and it failed. From a political standpoint, it's probably Anteitam - both because it allowed the
Emancipation Proclomation to be issued, and snuffed out a real possibility of European intervention.
Similar threads
