What are the most significant small battles?

[onejayhawk]

Defining small is tricky. do we count the breakout engagements of the Six Days? A battle of 1000 men is smallish today, but would have constituted the bulk of many ancient armies.

So, small in context, yet an entire battle. The assault on Golan, in the first of the Six Days, was an engagement in a larger battle, not a battle in its own right, despite being physically separate from the assaults on the west bank and Sinai. Also, significant raids do not count, though the line there also blurs.

To count, a significant portion of the effective strength of at least one combatant needs to be in play. The strategic, political and historic impact needs to be far out of proportion to the numbers of combatants.

My candidate is the battle of San Jacinto, which ended the era of Mexican expansion and eventually increased the land mass of USA by 25%. At the time, almost no one but the immediate combatants noticed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto

J

 

[Kyriakos]

There were a number of such small-scale battles, which mainly took place without the main sides having decided to go to all-out war, but it is highly probable that they caused an escalation then (due to many factors).
Iirc the first Byzantine-Seljuk battle took place when a raiding seljuk army was returning from Syria, and its commander asked the local Byzantine province archon to allow his army to pass in exchange for some of the loot. The answer was negative, and a battle was the result, in which the local archon lost. Supposedly this made the seljuks think that the Byzantine Empire was not as out of their reach as originally thought. But it has to be noted that Matzikert was not really a result of defeat of the Empire in battle, cause half of the army left (and another part of it never got to the field in the first place) as a direct result of a noble practising the nice tactic of betrayal so that he could have even more cash and titles back in the safety of Constantinople.

Another critical smallish "battle" was the raid by the revolted Ionian city-states to Sardis, the capital of the local Persian satrapy. The raid burned down Sardis, but failed to capture its fort. (Supposedly) Due to the force being in part made from contingents of Athens and Eretria (in Euboea), Darius decided to invade the other side of the Aegean. In 490 BC that first Persian invasion ended, with the battle of Marathon, and a new era had dawned indeed.

 

[Domen]

Battle of Blood River in 1838 was significant for history of South Africa. But it was small only from one side - the other side had huge numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River

One more similar battle, was the battle of Vegkop in 1836:

http://www.historyswalk.co.za/?page_id=487

Defence of Jasna Góra in 1655 - it created a morale-rising myth of similar significance for Poland as the myth of Alamo later was for the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jasna_Góra

Plus, it was actually successful (unlike the defence of Alamo).

 

[sydhe]

Classic examples are Badr, which involved less than 2000 people (maybe less than a thousand), but was crucial in the rise of Islam, and Trenton, which involved 4000 soldiers at most. The Battle of Cowpens involved fewer than 3000 soldiers. Custer's Last Stand didn't involve more than a few thousand combined from both sides, including Reno's battle. The combined forces in St. Clair's defeat were about 2,000, which is about 500 more than in Harmer's Defeat. Of these, Badr's the most important.

 

[History_Buff]

I certainly wouldn't count Little Bighorn as a particularly important battle.

 

[Masada]

I've always thought that Pedro II's defeat at the Battle of Muret to be significant. It ended Aragon's influence over Tolosa, and the broader Midi and replaced it with the influence of Simon de Montfort and later the French Crown.

 

[Domen]

The Northern Cheyenne Exodus was significant for its participants, because it led to the establishment of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation in Montana (one of few cases when Northern American Indians actually fought out some land from the Whites, rather than inversely). Although the Northern Cheyenne Exodus was not a single battle, it seems that the most significant battle of that exodus was the Battle of Punished Woman's Fork:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cheyenne_Exodus#Battle_of_Punished_Woman.27s_Fork

US forces in the Battle of Punished Woman's Fork numbered 238 soldiers.

I don't know how large was the Cheyenne force in that battle, but surely they were vastly outnumbered by the US Army, because the total number of Cheyennes who participated in the Northern Exodus was between 297 and 353 - including both warriors, old men, women and children, not just warriors.

Another significant battle of that exodus (due to the significant war booty captured) was the battle at Turkey Creek:

The Cheyenne, anticipating pursuit, prepared an ambush at Turkey Springs.[10] While one band prepared rifle pits at the springs, other bands fanned out over the country looking for supplies. In one case, attacking and killing two cowboys, they obtained two mules, in another, attacking some cowboys during breakfast, obtained both breakfast and a Sharps carbine.[11]

==============================

As the result of their small battles and small exodus, the group of Cheyennes won territory from the USA - 440,000 acres:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cheyenne_Indian_Reservation

 

[Quackers]

I don't know whether it counts as a "small" battle by comparison with the time but I would say the Battlle of Stamford Bridge may count. Severely weakened the English just in time for the Normans to give the Kingdom of England a good kicking; hugely significant in changing the history in our set of wet rocks. Still, I hadn't learned about it untill i stumbled upon on it on wikipedia. It is small in terms of public knowledge

 

[H4run]

Battle of Badr, it was like 300 from the Muslim and approximately 1000 from the Arabian tribes, if the 300 Muslims were lost and slaughter it will result the major lost of many key figure in Islam history, and the most important thing is, this was nearly all the Muslim that available at that time (they were highly minority at that time). So if the Muslim lost in the Battle of Badr, there will be no Islam in history, and the History of the world goes to radically different direction.

 

[bhsup]

The Battle of Quebec

Huge implications for the future of North America, but relatively small forces on each side. Also, on a more personal note, huge implications for the future of one Benedict Arnold...

 

[Domen]

Battle of Gollheim - totally unknown, most certainly small (if a direct duel between commanders of the opposite armies could take place - ending with the death of one of them - it must have been a small battle), yet very important for the future of the Habsburg dynasty and their Empire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Göllheim

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know whether it counts as a "small" battle by comparison with the time but I would say the Battlle of Stamford Bridge may count. Severely weakened the English just in time for the Normans to give the Kingdom of England a good kicking; hugely significant in changing the history in our set of wet rocks. Still, I hadn't learned about it untill i stumbled upon on it on wikipedia. It is small in terms of public knowledge

It's quite well-known in the North, but, then, I suppose it would be. Northerners, like Scots, have a talent for remembering every half-way notable event, invention or development that occurred between the Humber and the Tweed, some of which are even true.

 

[Kyriakos]

I read that William the (not yet) Conqueror did wait to see the outcome of Harald III's campaign in England, which ended in Stamford Bridge. So it is probable that if Harald had secured the throne then William would no longer intervene (not sure if they had an arrangement there). It is also (it seems) probable that if Harald had won then there would have been less than the tens of revolts which kept happening after Hastings, along with foreign invasions by Danes who wanted some more cash

 

[Plotinus]

When I subtitled Sky Sports they kept going on about Stamford Bridge. I was impressed at the level of historical discussion on the channel until I realised.