The most decisive battles of world history

[Cypress]

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.

I hear you.

The Nazis considered the Slavic people to be subhuman - Untermensch- - and utterly expendable. That is, in part, why the Nazis had no moral restraint in treating Russian soldiers, civilians, and prisoners of war with sheer barbarity and callous disregard for life. The Nazis never engaged in barbarity against western Armies at the scale they did against Slavic armies the eastern front.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I hear you.

The Nazis considered the Slavic people to be subhuman - Untermensch- - and utterly expendable. That is, in part, why the Nazis had no moral restraint in treating Russian soldiers, civilians, and prisoners of war with sheer barbarity and callous disregard for life. The Nazis never engaged in barbarity against western Armies at the scale they did against Slavic armies the eastern front.

No they didn't. On the Western Front, for the most part, the German soldiers were disciplined about not shooting medics as they didn't want their medics shot.

 

[Cypress]

No they didn't. On the Western Front, for the most part, the German soldiers were disciplined about not shooting medics as they didn't want their medics shot.

Good point.
I also think the German Army, while keen to kill and defeat allied soliders, had a nominal level of respect for - or at least restraint towards - French, British, Canadian, Americans that they simply did not have for Russians, Poles, or Ukrainians - whom they considered Untermensch, unworthy, beneath contempt, and completely expendable.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Good point.
I also think the German Army, while keen to kill and defeat allied soliders, had a nominal level of respect for - or at least restraint towards - French, British, Canadian, Americans that they simply did not have for Russians, Poles, or Ukrainians - whom they considered Untermensch, unworthy, beneath contempt, and completely expendable.

What I don’t understand is why they considered Eastern Europeans subhuman with all the Irish around.

 

[Cypress]

What I don’t understand is why they considered Eastern Europeans subhuman with all the Irish around.

Poor Irish, they get no respect.
They probably will never live down the fact they stayed neutral in WW2, while the rest of us were killing Nazis in the defence of western democracy! What the hell??

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Poor Irish, they get no respect.
They probably will never live down the fact they stayed neutral in WW2, while the rest of us were killing Nazis in the defence of western democracy! What the hell??

Well I’m of Scotch Irish descent and I’ve never forgotten the line about the Irish in Blazing Saddles. So I like to make fun of the Irish on that score.

 

[Cypress]

This is Professor Aldrete's criteria for what constitutes a decisive battle.

My current submission is the Battle of Chinkiang, purportedly the last battle of the First Opium War. This strategic victory for the British brought to China a century of foreign, colonial domination - and I believe the argument could be made that 20th century Chinese nationalism, anti-foreign sentiment, even the Chinese civil war and the victory of Mao Tse Tung can be traced back to roots in the Opium War.

What makes a battle decisive?

First, it was one that was militarily decisive in that the defeat of one military force by another resulted in an immediate and obvious transfer of political power.

Second, perhaps the most common type of decisive battle is one that subsequently had important social, political, or religious effects. In many cases, these battles may not have seemed pivotal at the time but have been recognized only in retrospect as demarcating a turning point

Other Considerations

My list tends to favor battles that curbed or ended the growth of various expansionist empires because without such key defeats, those empires might well have extended their political and cultural domination yet further.

Finally, some battles were selected as decisive because they represent the introduction of a key technological advance or the triumph of one type of military force over another. In the technology category could be considered the Battle of Midway, which set the pattern for future naval clashes being decided by air power rather than big guns.

Examining decisive battles can be a useful analytical tool because it encourages us to view history not as a boring and immutable timeline but, instead, as a series of constantly branching pathways whose outcomes and effects are frequently unpredictable and whose real significance only emerges with the passage of time.

source credit: Professor Gregory S. Aldrete, University of Wisconsin

 

[Cypress]

Having watched a lecture on the Battle of Plataea, it is hard to imagine there even would have been a western civilization as we know it, had the Persian prevailed. That arguably make Plataea the most consequential military event by a country mile, from the perspective of western civilization.

The Greeks commitment to liberty, democratic institutions, intellectual freedom, and artistic expression would never have been transmitted to Rome, and then to western European civilization had Spartan King Pausanias failed to crush the Persian onslaught.

You have to wonder about the hand of fate too. I have never put much stock in fate, but maybe there is more to it than I imagine. The hubris of Xerxes, the tactical genius of Spartan King Pausania, and many fortunate coincidences led to a resounding and seemingly unlikely Greek victory.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This is Professor Aldrete's criteria for what constitutes a decisive battle.

My current submission is the Battle of Chinkiang, purportedly the last battle of the First Opium War. This strategic victory for the British brought to China a century of foreign, colonial domination - and I believe the argument could be made that 20th century Chinese nationalism, anti-foreign sentiment, even the Chinese civil war and the victory of Mao Tse Tung can be traced back to roots in the Opium War.

My list tends to favor battles that curbed or ended the growth of various expansionist empires because without such key defeats, those empires might well have extended their political and cultural domination yet further.


What about battles that have the opposite affect? What about Battles which were a turning point where an expansionist empire expanded dramatically after a victory?

I would provide as an example the frontier Battle of Fallen Timbers, where General Mad Anthony Wayne defeated the last successful Native American Coalition to stand against the United States Government (and the British Colonial government prior to that).

in the late 18th Native American Coalitions centered in the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes region had blocked American expansionism at the Appalachian Mountains. Trickles of settlers emigrated into the vast American interior but most were thwarted by these Native American Coalitions of Shawnee, Miami, Wyandote, Mingo, Ottawa, Delaware, etc,.

After the American Revolutionary War ended and our new Constitutional Government was in place President Washington put his focus on the settlement of the vast American interior. His first attempt to displace the Native Americans, so that settlers could enter the interior, ended in catastrophe with the first battle ever by the US Army ending in a defeat known as St. Clair's Massacre at the headwaters of the Wabash river (at present day Ft. Recovery, OH).

Washington's next attempt proved spectacularly successful as he chose the right man for the job in Gen. Mad Anthony Wayne. Wayne properly trained and supplied a small army that routed the Native American coalition that culminated in the battle of Fallen Timbers near current day Toledo, OH.

After Fallen Timbers the Native Americans who had waged war against American encursions, fairly successfully for nearly 200 hundred years were spent as a military force and what had been a trickle of settlers into the interior held back by this Native American coalition became a flood and within two generations the entire interior of the United States had become settled.

So though Fallen Timbers was a small frontier battle in which there was a small number of combatants the long term consequences were profound. It was an unmitigated catastrophe for Native Americans for whom to this day they have never recovered and it opened an entire continent open to settlement by European settlers that was a turning point for America becoming the great continental empire that it is today.

 

[Cypress]

My list tends to favor battles that curbed or ended the growth of various expansionist empires because without such key defeats, those empires might well have extended their political and cultural domination yet further.


What about battles that have the opposite affect? What about Battles which were a turning point where an expansionist empire expanded dramatically after a victory?

I would provide as an example the frontier Battle of Fallen Timbers, where General Mad Anthony Wayne defeated the last successful Native American Coalition to stand against the United States Government (and the British Colonial government prior to that).

in the late 18th Native American Coalitions centered in the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes region had blocked American expansionism at the Appalachian Mountains. Trickles of settlers emigrated into the vast American interior but most were thwarted by these Native American Coalitions of Shawnee, Miami, Wyandote, Mingo, Ottawa, Delaware, etc,.

After the American Revolutionary War ended and our new Constitutional Government was in place President Washington put his focus on the settlement of the vast American interior. His first attempt to displace the Native Americans, so that settlers could enter the interior, ended in catastrophe with the first battle ever by the US Army ending in a defeat known as St. Clair's Massacre at the headwaters of the Wabash river (at present day Ft. Recovery, OH).

Washington's next attempt proved spectacularly successful as he chose the right man for the job in Gen. Mad Anthony Wayne. Wayne properly trained and supplied a small army that routed the Native American coalition that culminated in the battle of Fallen Timbers near current day Toledo, OH.

After Fallen Timbers the Native Americans who had waged war against American encursions, fairly successfully for nearly 200 hundred years were spent as a military force and what had been a trickle of settlers into the interior held back by this Native American coalition became a flood and within two generations the entire interior of the United States had become settled.

So though Fallen Timbers was a small frontier battle in which there was a small number of combatants the long term consequences were profound. It was an unmitigated catastrophe for Native Americans for whom to this day they have never recovered and it opened an entire continent open to settlement by European settlers that was a turning point for America becoming the great continental empire that it is today.

"General Mad Anthony Wayne" -- that totally sounds like a made up name in a crappy Hollywood movie!

Concerning your post, that is precisely the beauty of human curiosity and scholarly inquiry. You can take the best of your historical knowledge and make a case for it.

I never heard of this battle, but I think you have sold me on it using your logic and rhetoric in the best Aristotelian tradition!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

"General Mad Anthony Wayne" -- that totally sounds like a made up name in a crappy Hollywood movie!

Concerning your post, that is precisely the beauty of human curiosity and scholarly inquiry. You can take the best of your historical knowledge and make a case for it.

I never heard of this battle, but I think you have sold me on it using your logic and rhetoric in the best Aristotelian tradition!

You've heard of the City of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, haven't you? It's named after Anthony Wayne. He earned his nickname during the American Revolutionary war where as one of Washington's Generals he was known for his impetuosity and his temper. Gen Wayne was probably the greatest American General during the Frontier/Indian Wars and it's a damned shame that our school children are not taught about this Great American. Though I'm pretty sure most Native Americans wouldn't hold a very high opinion of him.

I like the story of how Gen. Wayne named the city of Defiance, OH. While he was attempting to conquer Western Ohio Gen Wayne had a fort built on a bluff at the junction of the Maumee and Auglaize rivers. After the Fort was built Gen Wayne asked the officer he had put in charge of building the fort for his assesment of it's construction. The officer said "Why General I defy all the savages in hell to take this fort." and General Wayne said "Then we shall call it Fort Defiance.". The name stuck.

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

 

[Cypress]

You've heard of the City of Ft. Wayne, Indiana, haven't you? It's named after Anthony Wayne. He earned his nickname during the American Revolutionary war where as one of Washington's Generals he was known for his impetuosity and his temper. Gen Wayne was probably the greatest American General during the Frontier/Indian Wars and it's a damned shame that our school children are not taught about this Great American. Though I'm pretty sure most Native Americans wouldn't hold a very high opinion of him.

I like the story of how Gen. Wayne named the city of Defiance, OH. While he was attempting to conquer Western Ohio Gen Wayne had a fort built on a bluff at the junction of the Maumee and Auglaize rivers. After the Fort was built Gen Wayne asked the officer he had put in charge of building the fort for his assesment of it's construction. The officer said "Why General I defy all the savages in hell to take this fort." and General Wayne said "Then we shall call it Fort Defiance.". The name stuck.

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

I like little anecdotal tales like that.

Here is one of my favorite battlefield anecdotes.

"So much the better....we'll fight in the shade."

Greek historian Herodotus recounted an incident that preceded the Battle of Thermopylae:

The Spartan Dienekes was told that the Persian archers were so numerous that when they shot their volleys, their arrows would blot out the sun.
He responded, "So much the better, we'll fight in the shade".

Today, Dienekes's phrase is the motto of the Greek 20th Armored Division.


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Laconic_phrases

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I like little anecdotal tales like that.

Here is one of my favorite battlefield anecdotes.

My favorite military quote was from WWII when during the Battle of the Bulge (can’t remember his name) was when the Commander at Bastogne was told by the Germans to surrender that he was completely surrounded and in the most succinct reply ever responded “Nuts”.

 

[Cypress]

My favorite military quote was from WWII when during the Battle of the Bulge (can’t remember his name) was when the Commander at Bastogne was told by the Germans to surrender that he was completely surrounded and in the most succinct reply ever responded “Nuts”.

I like that one too. It must have confused the heck out of the Germans. "Nuts" is an American colloquialism whose context the German translators - having been trained in and British English at continental universities - likely would not have understood.

I have another video course by professor Aldrete on my watch list.

History's Great Military Blunders and the Lessons They Teach

Perhaps a topic for a future thread.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I like that one too. It must have confused the heck out of the Germans. "Nuts" is an American colloquialism whose context the German translators - having been trained in and British English at continental universities - likely would not have understood.

I have another video course by professor Aldrete on my watch list.

History's Great Military Blunders and the Lessons They Teach

Perhaps a topic for a future thread.

I’d be very disappointed if Arausio wasn’t on it. Quintus Servilius Caepio had to be the greatest villains in Rome’s entire history. He known for havin stole the gold of Tolosa (which was more gold than in entire Roman treasury) and lost the battle of Arausio the greatest defeat in Roman history.

 

[Cypress]

I’d be very disappointed if Arausio wasn’t on it. Quintus Servilius Caepio had to be the greatest villains in Rome’s entire history. He known for havin stole the gold of Tolosa (which was more gold than in entire Roman treasury) and lost the battle of Arausio the greatest defeat in Roman history.

As always, I appreciate your knowledge of antiquity and the Roman empire.

The only Roman battle I see on professor Aldrete's syllabus is Carrhae, 53 BC...

Carrhae, 53 BC - The Roman military suffered one of its most humiliating defeats at the hands of the smaller Parthian force at the Battle of Carrhae. Discover how this shocking defeat involved glaring intelligence failures, overconfidence, and poor decisions, as well as crafty use of terrain and exploitation of weakness.

But there were so many epic battles involving the Roman legions, I am sure you could devote an entire course to Roman strategic victories - and defeats. The battle you mentioned undoubtedly merits consideration.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

As always, I appreciate your knowledge of antiquity and the Roman empire.

The only Roman battle I see on professor Aldrete's syllabus is Carrhae, 53 BC...


But there were so many epic battles involving the Roman legions, I am sure you could devote an entire course to Roman strategic victories - and defeats. The battle you mentioned undoubtedly merits consideration.

It does. Arausio ultimately played a huge role in the fall of the Roman Republic.

Carrae played a role in that too as the death of Crassus ended the first Triumvirate and plunged the Republic back into Civil War. It also set the Eastern extent of Roman conquest. The Parthians were a foe the Romans couldn’t conquer.

 

[Cypress]

It does. Arausio ultimately played a huge role in the fall of the Roman Republic.

Carrae played a role in that too as the death of Crassus ended the first Triumvirate and plunged the Republic back into Civil War. It also set the Eastern extent of Roman conquest. The Parthians were a foe the Romans couldn’t conquer.

Herodotus maintained that the fundamental reason for most strategic military disasters is an excess of hubris. Which, apparently, Crassus had in spades.

My suggested contribution to the theme is the Battle of the Somme, 1916.

Half a million dead British soldiers over the course of two months. Basically, an entire generation of young British men wiped out. A futile effort that only resulted in a gain 100 yards of territory - at the cost of bleeding the British empire dry. A military disaster of epic proportions. I think the argument could be made that the decline of the British empire, the reduction of Britain to second-tier power status, began at the Somme in 1916.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Herodotus maintained that the fundamental reason for most strategic military disasters is an excess of hubris. Which, apparently, Crassus had in spades.

My suggested contribution to the theme is the Battle of the Somme, 1916.

Half a million dead British soldiers over the course of two months. Basically, an entire generation of young British men wiped out. A futile effort that only resulted in a gain 100 yards of territory - at the cost of bleeding the British empire dry. A military disaster of epic proportions. I think the argument could be made that the decline of the British empire, the reduction of Britain to second-tier power status, began at the Somme in 1916.

Absolutely it did and you could make an argument that few commanders in military history were as god awful bad as Gen. Haig.

It's understandable how a General could make a terrible mistake, like Haig did on the first day of the Somme. Other Great generals made similar mistakes. General Grants attacks at Cold Harbor come to mind though his casualties were no where near what Haig's were n the first day of the Somme. Grant never repeated that mistake either.

But what is unconscionable and unforgivable of Haig was to keep repeating the same mistake over and over and over again every day for nearly 6 months without changing either his tactics or his strategic viewpoint. Just walk your men in a line abreast across no mans land because they weren't trained as professional soldiers and couldn't be trusted to follow orders to it was far better to just march them at a walk into machine gun cross fire and certain death and the men were to accept this.

Haig, Foch and Falkenhayn were probably the biggest pieces of shits that ever commanded armies in human history. They shouldn't have been let to lead boy scouts let alone soldiers. It amazes me to this day that the European public simply didn't machine gun the entire aristocratic class after the war.

Thank God above America had a man of Pershing's caliber to tell those Donkeys...no...you can't lead American troops. I mean...they didn't get it...he wasn't saying they wouldn't be permitted to lead American troops...he was saying they were so incompetent as to be incapable of leading American troops. If he hadn't we would have certainly have suffered hundreds of thousands in casualties.

The lesson to be learned from WWI is that a strategy of attrition is the hallmark of a moron in command. WWI is an appalling example of how utterly degenerate Europe's ruling class was at that time.

 

[Cypress]

Absolutely it did and you could make an argument that few commanders in military history were as god awful bad as Gen. Haig.

It's understandable how a General could make a terrible mistake, like Haig did on the first day of the Somme. Other Great generals made similar mistakes. General Grants attacks at Cold Harbor come to mind though his casualties were no where near what Haig's were n the first day of the Somme.

But what is unconscionable and unforgivable of Haig was to keep repeating the same mistake over and over and over again every day for nearly 6 months without changing either his tactics or his strategic viewpoint. Just walk your men in a line abreast across no mans land because they weren't trained as professional soldiers and couldn't be trusted to follow orders to it was far better to just march them at a walk into machine gun cross fire and certain death and the men were to accept this.

Haig, Foch and Falkenhayn were probably the biggest pieces of shits that ever commanded armies in human history. They shouldn't have been let to lead boy scouts let alone soldiers. It amazes me to this day that the European public simply didn't machine gun the entire aristocratic class after the war.

Thank God above America had a man of Pershing's caliber to tell those Donkeys...no...you can't lead American troops. I mean...they didn't get it...he wasn't saying they wouldn't be permitted to lead American troops...he was saying they were so incompetent as to be incapable of leading American troops. If he hadn't we would have certainly have suffered hundreds of thousands in casualties.

The lesson to be learned from WWI is that a strategy of attrition is the hallmark of a moron in command. WWI is an appalling example of how utterly degenerate Europe's ruling class was at that time.

I like the way your brain works.

To me, it seems like Haig was basically a war criminal. I do not understand why he was treated as a hero at the time in England, and received so many medals and awards for what amounted to his butchery of an entire generation of British youth.

We have to remember also, that the war actually did lead to outright revulsion and revolts against the aristocracy. Maybe not so much in the UK - but there were leftwing and rightwing riots all over Germany in 1919, and famously the Russian army ultimately refused to follow orders from the Tsar or the provisional government, and the Russian aristocracy faced the full wrath of the Russian people. That said, I am not sure the Bolshehviks would have actually ever succeeded in their coup, if not for the disaster of WW1. Russia undoubtedly would have evolved into either a constitutional monarchy, or a socialist republic. But I am not convinced that totalitarian Leninism was a forgone conclusion absent the incompetence and avarice of Tsar Nicholas, the Russian nobility, or the provisional government.