The most decisive battles of world history

C

Cypress

Well-known member
According to Dr. Gregory S. Aldrete, Professor of History at University of Wisconsin, these are the most decisive battles of world history, in chronological order. I learned a crap load from this class, and two of my take-aways are:

The most innovative, and coolest battlefield innovation of its time were the Korean turtle ships.

One of the most obscure, but potentially one of the most significant battles on the eve of World War 2 was Khalkin Gol in 1939 in Mongolia, between forces of the Soviet Red Army and the Kwantung Army of Imperial Japan This totally obscure and little-known battle purportedly contributed to the outbreak of war in both the Pacific and in Europe and ultimately influenced the outcome of world war 2.
1274 B.C. Kadesh—Greatest Chariot Battle
479 B.C. Plataea—Greece Wins Freedom
331 B.C. Gaugamela—Alexander’s Genius
197 B.C. Cynoscephalae—Legion vs. Phalanx
31 B.C. Actium—Birth of the Roman Empire
260–110 B.C. China—Struggles for Unification
636 Yarmouk & al-Qadisiyyah—Islam Triumphs
751 Talas & 1192 Tarain—Islam into Asia
1066 Hastings—William Conquers England
1087 Hattin—Crusader Desert Disaster
1260 Ain Jalut—Can the Mongols Be Stopped?
1410 Tannenberg—Cataclysm of Knights
Frigidus, Badr, Diu—Obscure Turning Points
1521 Tenochtitlán—Aztecs vs. Conquistadors
1532 Cajamarca—Inca vs. Conquistadors
1526 & 1556 Panipat—Babur & Akbar in India
1571 Lepanto—Last Gasp of the Galleys
1592 Sacheon—Yi’s Mighty Turtle Ships
1600 Sekigahara—Samurai Showdow
1683 Vienna—The Great Ottoman Siege
1709 Poltava—Sweden’s Fall, Russia’s Rise
1759 Quebec—Battle for North America
1776 Trenton—The Revolution’s Darkest Hour
1805 Trafalgar—Nelson Thwarts Napoleon
1813 Leipzig—The Grand Coalition
1824 Ayacucho—South American Independence
1836 San Jacinto—Mexico’s Big Loss
1862 Antietam—The Civil War’s Bloodiest Day
1866 Königgrätz—Bismarck Molds Germany
1905 Tsushima—Japan Humiliates Russia
1914 Marne—Paris Is Saved
1939 Khalkin Gol—Sowing the Seeds of WWII
1942 Midway—Four Minutes Change Everything
1942 Stalingrad—Hitler’s Ambitions Crushed
Click to expand...
 
OK...where I agree and disagree with the good professor. I don’t agree with him on Actium. Actium does mark the end of the Roman Republic but it wasn’t decisive. It was the end point of a long process that began with the Grachian reforms, exacerbated by the Germanic invasions, the Marian Reforms and the Social Wars that led to the Dictatorships of Sulla and Caesar. By the time of the rise of Octavian and the beginning of the Principate the Republic was pretty much already dead.

I would argue the battle of Zama was more decisive where in the first Carthagenian war Hannibal met his match in Scipio Africanus. The decisive outcome of Zama was that Rome had extended its hegemony to control the entire Mediterranean region. That did not change until the crisis of the third century AD. Actium did not change that. Roman hegemony was already at 90% of its fullest extent. Actium marked the change of Roman form of government from a Republic designed to govern a small city state to the Principate which was competent at governing an international empire.
 
Next is Ain el Jailut. The elite Mamluke warriors showed that the Mongols could be defeated in battle and marked the extent of the Mongol Empire...but the Mongol Empire existed for another 100 years. It wasn’t that decisive. I would argue the Conquest of the Xia empire where the Mongols mastered siege warfare was the decisive point from which the Mongols became the largest contiguous empire in human history.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
OK...where I agree and disagree with the good professor. I don’t agree with him on Actium. Actium does mark the end of the Roman Republic but it wasn’t decisive. It was the end point of a long process that began with the Grachian reforms, exacerbated by the Germanic invasions, the Marian Reforms and the Social Wars that led to the Dictatorships of Sulla and Caesar. By the time of the rise of Octavian and the beginning of the Principate the Republic was pretty much already dead.

I would argue the battle of Zama was more decisive where in the first Carthagenian war Hannibal met his match in Scipio Africanus. The decisive outcome of Zama was that Rome had extended its hegemony to control the entire Mediterranean region. That did not change until the crisis of the third century AD. Actium did not change that. Roman hegemony was already at 90% of its fullest extent. Actium marked the change of Roman form of government from a Republic designed to govern a small city state to the Principate which was competent at governing an international empire.
Click to expand...

It is good to see your brain power contribute.

Professor Aldrete explicitly said this list was just based on his opinion, but that it is fun to hear the opinion of others. He concedes there is nothing sacrosanct about his list.

I was a little surprised that Dr. Aldrete picked Antietam over Gettysburg as his American Civil War pick....but after listening to his reasoning, it sort of made sense, even though Anteitam was really a tactical battlefield draw. Strategically, it ended up being very consequential to the ultimate outcome of the war. .

I also think Dr. Aldrete was a little light on east Asian military history. During 4,000 years of Chinese civilization, I think the course could have been weighted a little more towards east Asia. But, I think that might be Dr. Aldrete's bias, training, and expertise showing through - he is an expert on Greco-Roman history and western antiquity.
 
In modern history, I would rank the 1968 Tet Offensive as one of the most consequential military events of the late 20th century.
A tactical battle field win for US forces, but strategically it had long term and lasting consequences for both the outcome of the war, and for U.S. foreign policy over the next half century.
 
Cypress said:
It is good to see your brain power contribute.

Professor Aldrete explicitly said this list was just based on his opinion, but that it is fun to hear the opinion of others. He concedes there is nothing sacrosanct about his list.

I was a little surprised that Dr. Aldrete picked Antietam over Gettysburg as his American Civil War pick....but after listening to his reasoning, it sort of made sense, even though Anteitam was really a tactical battlefield draw. Strategically, it ended up being very consequential to the ultimate outcome of the war. .

I also think Dr. Aldrete was a little light on east Asian military history. During 4,000 years of Chinese civilization, I think the course could have been weighted a little more towards east Asia. But, I think that might be Dr. Aldrete's bias, training, and expertise showing through - he is an expert on Greco-Roman history and western antiquity.
Click to expand...
I do agree with him in that the odds of Britain and/or France intervening in the American Civil War all but vanished because the outcome of Antietam permitted Lincoln to publish the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a major strategic blow to the Confederacy but it wasn't decisive. I would argue that the Lee's catastrophic blunder at Gettysburg combined with Grants brilliant and decisive campaign at Vicksburg were the true turning point in the American Civil War. The Confederacy still had the upper hand after Antietam in that they had a huge defensive advantage over the Unions advantage in men and materials. Vicksburg not only cut the Confederacy in half it permitted Grant, the greatest general of the American Civil War to direct the combined forces of five armies in the field, all with the same strategic goals that crushed the Confederate Armies in the field and ended the war. Therefore I would argue that Vicksburg was the most decisive battle of the American Civil War. After Vicksburg it was all over but the fat lady singing thanks laregely to Grants genius.
 
I would also agree with the Professor on Quebec. It was the decisive battle of the seven years war in North America and one of the most decisive battles in North American history given its long term consequences.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I do agree with him in that the odds of Britain and/or France intervening in the American Civil War all but vanished because the outcome of Antietam permitted Lincoln to publish the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a major strategic blow to the Confederacy but it wasn't decisive. I would argue that the Lee's catastrophic blunder at Gettysburg combined with Grants brilliant and decisive campaign at Vicksburg were the true turning point in the American Civil War. The Confederacy still had the upper hand after Antietam in that they had a huge defensive advantage over the Unions advantage in men and materials. Vicksburg not only cut the Confederacy in half it permitted Grant, the greatest general of the American Civil War to direct the combined forces of five armies in the field, all with the same strategic goals that crushed the Confederate Armies in the field and ended the war. Therefore I would argue that Vicksburg was the most decisive battle of the American Civil War. After Vicksburg it was all over but the fat lady singing thanks laregely to Grants genius.
Click to expand...

All good insights.

Although the Russo-Japanese war is fairly obscure, and little-remembered by most in the west (my grandfather served in that war), I thought the professor was insightful to highlight the naval disaster suffered by the Russian navy at Tsushima, and the ultimate crushing defeat of the Russian Imperial Army.

I do not think most people realize this, but Russia's defeat at the hands of the Japanese in 1905 had very direct consequences weakening the authority of the Tsar, and ultimately leading to revolution, and emboldening revolutionaries. In some ways, I think the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, and 80 years of Soviet communism can draw direct linkages back to the disaster at the Straits of Tsushima and the Russia's humiliating defeat at the hands of Japan.
 
Saratoga? Seems it would have been the American Revelotion battle over Trenton, Burgoyne wins at Saratoga and he would have split the colonies north and south

Waterloo? At least it is always noted as the end of Napolean more so than Trafalgar, then again it got a public square named after it rather than a train station

List certainly is a conversation piece
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I do agree with him in that the odds of Britain and/or France intervening in the American Civil War all but vanished because the outcome of Antietam permitted Lincoln to publish the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a major strategic blow to the Confederacy but it wasn't decisive. I would argue that the Lee's catastrophic blunder at Gettysburg combined with Grants brilliant and decisive campaign at Vicksburg were the true turning point in the American Civil War. The Confederacy still had the upper hand after Antietam in that they had a huge defensive advantage over the Unions advantage in men and materials. Vicksburg not only cut the Confederacy in half it permitted Grant, the greatest general of the American Civil War to direct the combined forces of five armies in the field, all with the same strategic goals that crushed the Confederate Armies in the field and ended the war. Therefore I would argue that Vicksburg was the most decisive battle of the American Civil War. After Vicksburg it was all over but the fat lady singing thanks laregely to Grants genius.
Click to expand...

Vicksburg didn't crush the South's ability to invade the North, if Lee had won at Gettsburg he would have been able to circle back and cut off Washington, I'd still pick Gettsburg as the decisive battle of the Civil War
 
archives said:
Saratoga? Seems it would have been the American Revelotion battle over Trenton, Burgoyne wins at Saratoga and he would have split the colonies north and south

Waterloo? At least it is always noted as the end of Napolean more so than Trafalgar, then again it got a public square named after it rather than a train station

List certainly is a conversation piece
Click to expand...

I began by thinking leaving Waterloo off was a major oversight.

Professor Aldrete explained that Napaleon was basically finished off at Leipzig. Waterloo may have been his last stand, but at that point the Europeans had finally "learned" how to defeat Napoleon and Waterloo was almost a foregone conclusion. Leipzig, strategically, is where the European allied nations dealt Napoleon and the French Army a lethal injury.
 
Cypress said:
I began by thinking leaving Waterloo off was a major oversight.

Professor Aldrete explained that Napaleon was basically finished off at Leipzig. Waterloo may have been his last stand, but at that point the Europeans had finally "learned" how to defeat Napoleon and Waterloo was almost a foregone conclusion. Leipzig, strategically, is where the European allied nations dealt Napoleon and the French Army a lethal injury.
Click to expand...

Make sense, not really that familiar, but didn't Napolean win a battle inbetween Leipzig and Waterloo against Prussia? And why Trafalgar, didn't it occur years before any of those battles, and was France ever really a naval threat?
 
archives said:
Make sense, not really that familiar, but didn't Napolean win a battle inbetween Leipzig and Waterloo against Prussia? And why Trafalgar, didn't it occur years before any of those battles, and was France ever really a naval threat?
Click to expand...

I am not even remotely an expert on the Napoleonic Wars, but according to Professor Aldrete, Trafalgar prevented Napoleon from achieving universal European domination, because it ended his ability to invade Britain. It basically was thought to have "saved" England. That makes it sound to me like an 19th century version of the Battle of Britain of 1940-fame.

Between the catastrophic invasion of Russia, and the strategic defeat at Liepzig, that ability of Napoleon and the French Army to achieve battlefield dominance was essentially ended. The French loses were simply too catastrophic to be able to continue to dominate Europe. That is, in part, what made Waterloo a foregone conclusion of sorts.

I do not have the knowledge to know of any battle against Prussia post-Leipzig.
 
Cypress said:
I am not even remotely an expert on the Napoleonic Wars, but according to Professor Aldrete, Trafalgar prevented Napoleon from achieving universal European domination, because it ended his ability to invade Britain. It basically was thought to have "saved" England. That makes it sound to me like an 19th century version of the Battle of Britain of 1940-fame.

Between the catastrophic invasion of Russia, and the strategic defeat at Liepzig, that ability of Napoleon and the French Army to achieve battlefield dominance was essentially ended. The French loses were simply too catastrophic to be able to continue to dominate Europe. That is, in part, what made Waterloo a foregone conclusion of sorts.

I do not have the knowledge to know of any battle against Prussia post-Leipzig.
Click to expand...

I just recall some encounter where they though Napolean had rebounded after Leipzig, too lazy to google it, I'll take your interpretation, never liked Napolean anyways, suffered from the short guy syndrome

So what about Saratoga rather than Trenton?
 
archives said:
Vicksburg didn't crush the South's ability to invade the North, if Lee had won at Gettsburg he would have been able to circle back and cut off Washington, I'd still pick Gettsburg as the decisive battle of the Civil War
Click to expand...
Well I think we agree but for different reasons. Both Vicksburg and Gettysburg combined were the decisive turning point in the American Civil War but even had Lee had won Gettysburg it still would have been a catastrophic strategic blunder. Lee's strategy was based on a false premise that he couldn't support. That attacking DC would have resulted in a negotiated peace. Not only was that a dubious proposition but Lee simply didn't have the men and resources to remain in Pennsylvania, it was very unlikely he could have lived off the land given Union pursuit and resources. It's also highly unlikely that The Army of Northern Virginia could have taken DC given its extensive lines of fortifications made it the most well defended city on the planet at that time. Eventually Lee would have had to return to Virginia with the same net results. The complete and utter waste of the Confederacies defensive advantages that utterly wasted the Confederacies limited resources in man and materials that played a major role in the Confederacies losing the war.

Lee was a brilliant battle field tactician but his decisions to invade Maryland (Antietam) and Pennsylvania (Gettysburg) were the greatest strategic military blunders in the entire military history of North America. A great strategist Lee was not and his failed strategies were a significant reason why the Confederacy lost a war they probably should have won. Probably the worst thing that happened to the Confederacy during the Civil War was when Gen. Joe Johnston was injured at the second battle of Manassass and was replaced by Lee. Johnston's strategy of defending the confederacies interior lines and forcing the Union invaders to pay in lakes of blood while conserving Confederate resources very well could have been a winning strategy. Lee's going on the offensive proved suicidal for the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Well I think we agree but for different reasons. Both Vicksburg and Gettysburg combined were the decisive turning point in the American Civil War but even had Lee had won Gettysburg it still would have been a catastrophic strategic blunder. Lee's strategy was based on a false premise that he couldn't support. That attacking DC would have resulted in a negotiated peace. Not only was that a dubious proposition but Lee simply didn't have the men and resources to remain in Pennsylvania, it was very unlikely he could have lived off the land given Union pursuit and resources. It's also highly unlikely that The Army of Northern Virginia could have taken DC given its extensive lines of fortifications made it the most well defended city on the planet at that time. Eventually Lee would have had to return to Virginia with the same net results. The complete and utter waste of the Confederacies defensive advantages that utterly wasted the Confederacies limited resources in man and materials that played a major role in the Confederacies losing the war.

Lee was a brilliant battle field tactician but his decisions to invade Maryland (Antietam) and Pennsylvania (Gettysburg) were the greatest strategic military blunders in the entire military history of North America. A great strategist Lee was not and his failed strategies were a significant reason why the Confederacy lost a war they probably should have won. Probably the worst thing that happened to the Confederacy during the Civil War was when Gen. Joe Johnston was injured at the second battle of Manassass and was replaced by Lee. Johnston's strategy of defending the confederacies interior lines and forcing the Union invaders to pay in lakes of blood while conserving Confederate resources very well could have been a winning strategy. Lee's going on the offensive proved suicidal for the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

Two quick questions, if Lee had won Gettsburg and marched toward DC wouldn't he have gotten support from sympathizers in Maryland which I believe was under Marshall Law at the time? Seemingly would have thrown a monkey wrench into Union designs at the time

And also, what if he had marched to Philadelphia, with Meade's armies in retreat who would have stopped him in any direction he traveled?
 
archives said:
Two quick questions, if Lee had won Gettsburg and marched toward DC wouldn't he have gotten support from sympathizers in Maryland which I believe was under Marshall Law at the time? Seemingly would have thrown a monkey wrench into Union designs at the time
Click to expand...

Not likely as Maryland was basically a southern state under occupation anyway. His only shot would have been to hold DC under siege.



And also, what if he had marched to Philadelphia, with Meade's armies in retreat who would have stopped him in any direction he traveled?
Click to expand...

Lack of supply lines, fresh troops, etc. Besides, Lee wasn't super keen on this northern invasion to begin with after the Antietam Campaign
 
archives said:
Two quick questions, if Lee had won Gettsburg and marched toward DC wouldn't he have gotten support from sympathizers in Maryland which I believe was under Marshall Law at the time? Seemingly would have thrown a monkey wrench into Union designs at the time

And also, what if he had marched to Philadelphia, with Meade's armies in retreat who would have stopped him in any direction he traveled?
Click to expand...
No he wouldn't have. Lee made exactly that assumption when he invaded Maryland and it simply didn't happen. Maryland stayed loyal to the Union. In fact invading Maryland cause many fence sitters in that State to turn their allegiance in favor of the Union.

As for the other "what if?" The previous battles of the Army of the Potomac vs The Army of Northern Virginia in Virginia were never decisive and by that I mean they never resulted in the destruction of either Army as an effective fighting force. There is little evidence to believe that would have happened at Gettysburg cause, as we know, it didn't but for the sake of argument lets say it did. After the Battle of Gettysburg Lee's numerically inferior army suffered over 25,000 casualties. It also consumed most of the ammunition and material supplies and food that the Army of Northern Virginia had. So even if they had won a decisive victory against the Army of The Potomac (which was very unlikely to begin with) the Army of Northern Virginia was still a spent force
that lacked the military force needed to break the encircling fortifications surrounding DC. Also keep in mind the superior lines of communication and transportation that the Union had and that Union forces in the west were the Confederacy was losing badly could have transported large numbers of troops and materials in a short period of time, via the rail roads, as they did during the Chattanooga campaign. That, again, would have inevitably forced the Army of Northern Virginia back into Virginia.

So there is not really a whole lot of basis in fact that this could have happened. The reality is that Lee took an incredibly audacious gamble in invading Pennsylvania, took much needed resources from the Confederate western Armies, and the western theater of the Civil War is where the war was really won, and failed on an epic scale that contributed hugely to the Confederacy losing the war.

The "What if?" I would give you to consider is what if Davis had refused to provide Lee's request for more troops and supplies, ordered him to stay in northern Virginia on the defensive and had provided those recources to Johnston and Pemberton in the west to fight Grants invading army which had taken the extraordinary risk of invading Mississippi while cutting both his lines of supply and communications? What if Davis had ordered Lee to give up additional troops and resources to the Chattanooga campaign which would have at worst delayed the taking of Atlanta to after the 1864 election? Then a negotiated peace would have been far more probable.

With that you can begin to see what I mean about Lee being a very poor strategist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top