The most decisive battles of world history

[Mott the Hoople]

He is probably the only general in history who could have blown the Peninsula campaign. He makes a great argument for the Civil War being a divine punishment on Americans and Confederates.

That’s hyperbole. The Union proved they had a lot of Generals who could have blown that campaign.

 

[Minister of Truth]

That’s hyperbole. The Union proved they had a lot of Generals who could have blown that campaign.

The ones you speak of are criticized for being overly aggressive (which is especially bad when you don't know what you are doing). Meade and Burnside would have won easily.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The ones you speak of are criticized for being overly aggressive (which is especially bad when you don't know what you are doing). Meade and Burnside would have won easily.

Burnside? Burnside? Oh Hell No!!! Maybe Meade but certainly not Burnside. Are you forgetting about Burnsides stupendous screw up at Fredericksburg? He was probably the most incompetent commanding General on either side. LOL A very congenial fellow and a very skilled politician but Burnside was, like McClernand, a political General who was way in over his head.

Meade, you definately have a point about as, technically speaking, he was in command of the Army of the Potomac during the peninsular campaign, but subordinate to Grant.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Burnside? Burnside? Oh Hell No!!! Maybe Meade but certainly not Burnside. Are you forgetting about Burnsides stupendous screw up at Fredericksburg? He was probably the most incompetent commanding General on either side. LOL A very congenial fellow and a very skilled politician but Burnside was, like McClernand, a political General who was way in over his head.

Meade, you definately have a point about as, technically speaking, he was in command of the Army of the Potomac during the peninsular campaign, but subordinate to Grant.

McClellan is the most incompetent general in US history. I sometimes wonder if he was actually just a traitor, instead.

 

[Bourbon]

My Divorce of Wife #1 ... she got NOTHING!

I was in and out in 45 minutes and still made my 10:30 Tee-Time

I should have just told the valet to keep it running.

 

[Cypress]

Sherman was a great General but he didn’t have Grants ability to adapt to changing conditions on the battlefield or Grants command ability in combined theater operations which is what made Grant truly unique and the first modern general. No General in history had commanded two armies in different theaters of war. Grant commanded five. Grant should be retroactively be promoted to General of the Armies (5 star) with seniority to outrank all American Generals except Washington, but that would take an act of Congress and vengeful Southern politicians would never permit it. It’s silly to think that Black Jack Pershing outranks Grant but he does.

It really speaks to how treasonous the South was (and perhaps still is) that a great American general - perhaps the greatest of all time - is not really given the full due he deserves as both a military commander, and as a person who - almost singlehandedly - saved the United States of America.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

McClellan is the most incompetent general in US history. I sometimes wonder if he was actually just a traitor, instead.

I can't agree with that. McClellan was inept at commanding a war. He was also incredibly arrogant and a complete snob. He was also an excellent engineer, a very good small unit tactician (he was elevated to command due to his victories in what is now West Virginia over....none other than Robert E. Lee. He was also very talented at organization, supply and logistics and his work that were very influential in the Unions ultimate victory. He was also highly regarded by his officers and men. There was a reason why Lincoln elevated him and then later recalled him. He had many excellent qualities. Commanding an Army wasn't one of them.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It really speaks to how treasonous the South was (and perhaps still is) that a great American general - perhaps the greatest of all time - is not really given the full due he deserves as both a military commander, and as a person who - almost singlehandedly - saved the United States of America.

It also speaks poorly of the North that after the war they really didn't give a shit while Southern historians created the Lost Cause Mythologies to rationalize their defeat and Northern Academics were to apathetic to refute them. It wasn't really until the early 20th Century that academics stood up and took notice and started refuting the revisionism of the Southern historians but by then these mythologies had taken root with the American public and the damage was done. Now people passionately believe in such complete and total nonsense that The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. Lots of people passionately believe that nonsense even though it's super easy to refute.

If you want to read a good book on the history of the Civil War Lost Cause Mythologies read Edwin Bonekempers "The Myth of the Lost Cause". It's a comparative short read.

I'd also recommend Ron Chernow's Biography on Grant.

Though it is Southern centric and does propagate quite a few of the Lost Cause Mythologies I also recommend reading the three volume history on the Civil War by Shelby Foote. Despite some of its historical inaccuracies its great escapist reading. One of America's greatest historians to be sure. Those books are a treasure. Speaking of National Treasures...so are Grants memoirs. A must read if you want to understand American Civil War military history and very well written. Grants clarity on writing of events that had occurred many years before he wrote them is nothing short of mind boggling. His concise and clear writing style does give you insight into why he was a great General. When Grant gave you an order, there was no misinterpreting it. He said what he meant and he did so with an amazing degree of clarity.

 

[Cypress]

It also speaks poorly of the North that after the war they really didn't give a shit while Southern historians created the Lost Cause Mythologies to rationalize their defeat and Northern Academics were to apathetic to refute them. It wasn't really until the early 20th Century that academics stood up and took notice and started refuting the revisionism of the Southern historians but by then these mythologies had taken root with the American public and the damage was done. Now people passionately believe in such complete and total nonsense that The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. Lots of people passionately believe that nonsense even though it's super easy to refute.

If you want to read a good book on the history of the Civil War Lost Cause Mythologies read Edwin Bonekempers "The Myth of the Lost Cause". It's a comparative short read.

I'd also recommend Ron Chernow's Biography on Grant.

Though it is Southern centric and does propagate quite a few of the Lost Cause Mythologies I also recommend reading the three volume history on the Civil War by Shelby Foote. Despite some of its historical inaccuracies its great escapist reading. One of America's greatest historians to be sure. Those books are a treasure. Speaking of National Treasures...so are Grants memoirs. A must read if you want to understand American Civil War military history and very well written. Grants clarity on writing of events that had occurred many years before he wrote them is nothing short of mind boggling. His concise and clear writing style does give you insight into why he was a great General. When Grant gave you an order, there was no misinterpreting it. He said what he meant and he did so with an amazing degree of clarity.

Thanks to you and others, this thread has been chock full of good insights and decent intel.

Which makes it a remarkable contrast to the racism, girlish gossip, mediocrity, and petty grievances jpp dot com is mostly known for.

One of my sentimental favorites from the list in the OP is 479 B.C. Plataea—Greece Wins Freedom
Because I tip the hat to any victory of western reason and western democracy over corrupt eastern mysticism and imperial hegemony.
Simply put: THIS IS SPARTA!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Thanks to you and others, this thread has been chock full of good insights and decent intel.

Which makes it a remarkable contrast to the racism, girlish gossip, mediocrity, and petty grievances jpp dot com is mostly known for.

One of my sentimental favorites from the list in the OP is 479 B.C. Plataea—Greece Wins Freedom
Because I tip the hat to any victory of western reason and western democracy over corrupt eastern mysticism and imperial hegemony.
Simply put: THIS IS SPARTA!

I think what’s interesting between the ancient Greeks and the Romans is that the Greeks thought deeply and created the philosophical framework of western thought and tradition. The Romans, however, showed us how to do what the Greeks thought.

 

[cawacko]

Good thread. Interesting discussion.

 

[Cypress]

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.

Indeed it was, consequential for both North America and for the balance of power on the European continent.

It was also just plain old entertaining to hear about the Battle of Quebec from a military historian, because there were so many comical blunders by the French, and pure sheer blind luck attributed to actions by the British that it almost seems like something out of a movie.

 

[Cypress]

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.

My contribution to the internets today is to acknowledge the totally excellent Korean turtle ships.
It basically does not get any more bad-ass than 17th century war ships equipped with flame throwers, and covered in armored spikes to impale enemies attempting to board.

Geobukseon ("Turtle Ship") of Great Admiral Yi Sun-shin – the combat ship that helped to save Korea

Used by Admiral Yi Sun-shin during the Hideyoshi Invasions in the 16th century, these innovative warships were instrumental in effectively defeating the Japanese invaders.

Turtle ships participated in the war against Japanese naval forces supporting Toyotomi Hideyoshi's attempts to conquer Korea from 1592 to 1598. Korean Admiral Yi Sun-Shin is credited with designing the ship. His turtle ships were equipped with at least five different types of cannons. Their most distinguishable feature was a dragon-shaped head at the bow that could launch cannon fire or flames from the mouth. Each was also equipped with a fully covered deck to protect against arrow fire, musket-shots, and incendiary weapons. The deck was covered with iron spikes to discourage enemy men from attempting to board the ship.

A dragon head mounted on the bow of the vessel emitted foggy sulfur gas to effectively throw the enemy fleet into disarray, as well as to hide the ship itself as it approached and maneuvered among enemy ships. The dragon head housed a cannon inside as well. The dragon head, both fuming fire and shell, served as a form of psychological warfare in shocking Japanese soldiers.

The question of whether the "turtle ship" was really an armored battleship was first raised in the 1880s and remains unsolved today. The affirmative argument is mostly asserted by Western scholars based on Japanese records. There are many Japanese documents from the Imjin Invasions that note "the enemy (Joseon) has ships that are covered in iron that we cannot break with our cannons."

http://www.antiquealive.com/Blogs/Geobukseon_Turtle_Ship.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_ship

 

[Cypress]

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?

So I did some cursory research, and the only significant military engagement after Liepzig, was when the coalition led by Prussia invaded France in 1814, and defeated Napolean on his home turf. Although Napolean launched a counter offensive, he was defeated and Paris was occupied.

Transitioning to the 20th century, there is no question that Stalingrad was the lethal injury to Nazi Germany that thwarted Hitler's dreams of world domination. And probably my favorite world war 2 movie is Enemy at the Gates, a story about Russian sniper Vasily Zaytsev with the Battle of Stalingrad as the back drop. Gripping stuff, man!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Indeed it was, consequential for both North America and for the balance of power on the European continent.

It was also just plain old entertaining to hear about the Battle of Quebec from a military historian, because there were so many comical blunders by the French, and pure sheer blind luck attributed to actions by the British that it almost seems like something out of a movie.

That's why I'm fascinated with North American Military History on the Frontier. Most people today lack the frame of reference what it was like to command armies in a vast wilderness of old growth forest. Can you imagine how terrifying it had to have been for the European combatants? If not...a trip to an old growth forest and the discovery of how quickly you could become hopelessly lost and just simply how damned spooky it is to be in an old growth forest with climax zone trees and a canopy would cure that. Hell even most of todays avid hunters and hikers have never been in an old grown forest.....now imagine a vast content covered with one and fighting a war for Empire in one?

Not me!!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

My contribution to the internets today is to acknowledge the totally excellent Korean turtle ships.
It basically does not get any more bad-ass than 17th century war ships equipped with flame throwers, and covered in armored spikes to impale enemies attempting to board.

Koreans often don't get their historical due. They were one of the few nations in the path of the Mongol Hordes in the 13th century that suceeded, though at a steep cost, at repelling them. A remarkable achievement considering they crushed everyone else.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So I did some cursory research, and the only significant military engagement after Liepzig, was when the coalition led by Prussia invaded France in 1814, and defeated Napolean on his home turf. Although Napolean launched a counter offensive, he was defeated and Paris was occupied.

Transitioning to the 20th century, there is no question that Stalingrad was the lethal injury to Nazi Germany that thwarted Hitler's dreams of world domination. And probably my favorite world war 2 movie is Enemy at the Gates, a story about Russian sniper Vasily Zaytsev with the Battle of Stalingrad as the back drop. Gripping stuff, man!

You haven't read the book have you? It was another case, for me, where the movie didn't live up to expectations after having read the book first. The movie glosses over more than 75% of the book.

 

[Cypress]

Koreans often don't get their historical due. They were one of the few nations in the path of the Mongol Hordes in the 13th century that suceeded, though at a steep cost, at repelling them. A remarkable achievement considering they crushed everyone else.

Good insight.

Western military history buffs tend to neglect the martial history of east and south Asia.

I recently saw a very good Korean movie, about a naval engagement between the South Korean navy and the North Korean navy in 2002 - during the World Cup in Seoul no less! It is referred to as Second Battle of Yeonpyeong. I do not even remember hearing about it, which goes to show you how news from east Asia tends to get neglected here.

It was really interesting seeing a movie about the South Korean Navy and I recommend it - it was on Netflix, and the movie is callned "Northern Line Limit"

 

[Cypress]

You haven't read the book have you? It was another case, for me, where the movie didn't live up to expectations after having read the book first. The movie glosses over more than 75% of the book.

I totally forgot there was a book, thanks for reminding me!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I totally forgot there was a book, thanks for reminding me!

As a book, it's not a pleasant read. You kind of wonder how the author kept his mind and emotions centered when researching such slaughter on an unprecedented scale. After a while of reading page after page of death and destruction it starts to grate on your nerves. The story on the snipers doesn't even take up a chapter of the book. Some real sick shit went on there.

Like when the German Pilots on the first day of the battle strafed a park filled with civilians and killed over 40,000 innocent people.