The most decisive battles of world history

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

To be fair if Haig was a war criminal then so was Foch, Falkenhayn, Ludendorf and Hindenburg. So I won't go that far. All of these commanders were far outside their reckoning with their traditional military training that when confronted with modern industrial weaponry that gave a serious advantage to the defensive that they were completely clueless on how to maintain the offensive. Hell, neither did we. Nor could they have continued to have fed men into a merciless meat grinder without the consent of the political class who, in many cases, were moral cowards of the highest order who criticized commanders like Haig for their profligate spilling of blood but who did not have the moral courage to stop it when it was within their power to do so.

I think the most damning criticism of Haig is that he was a competent and very qualified man who had all the requisite training and experience to hold high command. He however proved to be incredibly lacking in imagination and disconnected from the troops he lead and their suffering. Ultimately though he was one of the winning generals, which is what his plaudits are layed upon and hey...winning at war does mean something. But in the end his victory was Phyrric as, you noted, it was the death knell of the British Empire and the end of the Edwardian value system.

 

[Cypress]

To be fair if Haig was a war criminal then so was Foch, Falkenhayn, Ludendorf and Hindenburg. So I won't go that far. All of these commanders were far outside their reckoning with their traditional military training that when confronted with modern industrial weaponry that gave a serious advantage to the defensive that they were completely clueless on how to maintain the offensive. Hell, neither did we. Nor could they have continued to have fed men into a merciless meat grinder without the consent of the political class who, in many cases, were moral cowards of the highest order who criticized commanders like Haig for their profligate spilling of blood but who did not have the moral courage to stop it when it was within their power to do so.

I think the most damning criticism of Haig is that he was a competent and very qualified man who had all the requisite training and experience to hold high command. He however proved to be incredibly lacking in imagination and disconnected from the troops he lead and their suffering. Ultimately though he was one of the winning generals, which is what his plaudits are layed upon and hey...winning at war does mean something. But in the end his victory was Phyrric as, you noted, it was the death knell of the British Empire and the end of the Edwardian value system.

It is a fair point.

There really had not been a major war in Europe since the Napoleonic wars, and military tactics most certainly had not kept abreast of military technology. The Generals who grew up studying Napoleonic tactics were obviously completely unprepared for the reality of machine guns, trenches, and chemical warfare.

Most European powers spent the 19th century using their military power to push around utterly inferior foes in the colonies, in China, in Africa, in South Asia. That kind of one-sided conflict left them unsuspecting of the conflagration that was unleashed in 1914-15.

It really is the only modern war I know of, where periodically entire armies and military formations just refused to follow orders, mutinied, and refused to fight. That really says something about the hell those men were being put through by the politicians and the generals. I think it may be unprecedented in warfare before or since.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It is a fair point.

There really had not been a major war in Europe since the Napoleonic wars, and military tactics most certainly had not kept abreast of military technology. The Generals who grew up studying Napoleonic tactics were obviously completely unprepared for the reality of machine guns, trenches, and chemical warfare.

Most European powers spent the 19th century using their military power to push around utterly inferior foes in the colonies, in China, in Africa, in South Asia. That kind of one-sided conflict left them unsuspecting of the conflagration that was unleashed in 1914-15.

It really is the only modern war I know of, where periodically entire armies and military formations just refused to follow orders, mutinied, and refused to fight. That really says something about the hell those men were being put through by the politicians and the generals. I think it may be unprecedented in warfare before or since.

Yes well in Republics and modern Democracies people have rights and when you are lining them up and machine gunning, gassing and blowing them up by the millions, with little consideration for their lives...well then it's not surprising at all that they mutinied on such a large scale.

 

[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.

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?

<snip>

I have listened to several historians of ancient Greece and at this point I am going to make the call that Professor Aldrete is mistaken in identifying Plataea as the pivotal battle of the Greek-Persian wars.

The Persians were broken at the naval engagement of Salamis. It was at Salamis that they were shook to the core, their over-confidence was utterly deflated, and they began having second thoughts about their anticipated overwhelming victory. Xerxes actually turned tail and ran for home after Salamis taking most of the Persian army with him, and leaving Mardonius with a smaller Persian force to subdue Greece. Fighting on the home territory of the Greeks, it was really only a matter of time before the army of Mardonius was reduced, out-manned, out-performed, and out-matched by the Greeks. And thus, Plataea might even be considered a foregone conclusion.

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

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

The way the Auglaize turns and joins the might Maumee is a beautiful site.

 

[archives]

Saratoga isn't on the list, had the British won there the Revolutionary War may have come to a quick conclusion

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The way the Auglaize turns and joins the might Maumee is a beautiful site.

It is indeed. I’ve paddled a canoe through that junction more than once.

 

[Cypress]

Saratoga isn't on the list, had the British won there the Revolutionary War may have come to a quick conclusion

I am no expert on the Saratoga campaign, other than it was a major strategic victory for the continental army with consequences for the entire war effort.

The fun part about being an armchair historian, in my opinion, is contemplating the "what if" of historical events; the hypotheticals, the alternative outcomes.

Right now I am studying who would emerge victorious if they ever met on the field of battle - Roman legions, Han Dynasty armies, or Mayan jaguar warriors.
That kind of mental thought experiment, to me, is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

It is indeed. I’ve paddled a canoe through that junction more than once.

I went from the rapids at Waterville to Toledo in a canoe!

 

[archives]

I am no expert on the Saratoga campaign, other than it was a major strategic victory for the continental army with consequences for the entire war effort.

The fun part about being an armchair historian, in my opinion, is contemplating the "what if" of historical events; the hypotheticals, the alternative outcomes.

Right now I am studying who would emerge victorious if they ever met on the field of battle - Roman legions, Han Dynasty armies, or Mayan jaguar warriors.
That kind of mental thought experiment, to me, is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

I suppose it would depend upon the location, but I'd go with the Han Dynasty armies, numbers alone would a major factor

And if the British won at Saratoga, they would have just about ended the colonies open resistance, separated New England from the rest of the colonies, and kept France, with all the aid they later offered, on the sidelines

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I went from the rapids at Waterville to Toledo in a canoe!

Catch any Walleye on the way? That's one of the best Walleye producing rivers in the country.

 

[Mason Michaels]

Catch any Walleye on the way? That's one of the best Walleye producing rivers in the country.

I don't fish,but during the walleye run,in Front of FT Meigs,fisherman will be elbow to elbow on both sides of the river,as far as you can see from
The Maumee ,Perrysburg bridge.
People from all over and Canada

 

[Cypress]

According to Vasily Bartold, a preeminent scholar of Central Asian history, the Battle of Talas (751 A.D.) was a watershed moment in world history which determined whether central Asia would come under Muslim influence, or Chinese Buddhist/Confucian influence.

"The earlier Arab historians, occupied with the narrative of events then taking place in western Asia, do not mention this battle; but it is undoubtedly of great importance as it determined the question which of the two civilizations, the Chinese or the Muslim, should predominate in the land (of Central Asia).

- Vasily Bartold

 

[Cypress]

The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest...

a hideous encounter in the forests of Germany that some commentators have marked as a decisive turning point in the history of Europe.

The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was a regular ambush effected on a huge scale. Iron Age German warfare was small-scale and low-intensity, very much on the “primitive” model. The Romans had encountered such guerrilla tactics in their previous campaigns in the German forests. Larger barbarian armies generally vented their fury in the fi rst onslaught; after that, they could be butchered. Arminius’s plan was to keep the Romans on the defensive and allow his men to sustain their assault. Accounts of the actual battle vary, but the fullest account (in Dio) can be supplemented from other sources. The major disagreement is over duration: Was it a long, drawn-out, three-day affair or a single furious assault?

Following the defeat, the bases east of the Rhine were abandoned, and the Rhine River became Rome’s permanent northern frontier.

Source credit - Professor Garrett G. Fagan, The Pennsylvania State University

 

[Minister of Truth]

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.

You could go with Cannae being the most significant battle in Roman history. It had a lot to do with the decline and fall of the Republic.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

My Papa spent a summer vacation driving us around to the great Civil War battle sites of the mid-Atlantic region. It was pretty bloody cool!

You know, you are not the first person I've heard who said that Robert E. Lee was totally over-rated as a general and as a strategic thinker. The deity-status this slave-owning, treasonous rebel acquired in the southern states probably colors and biases our perspective of him.

It does but make no mistake Lee was a great General and in the first two years of the war he was the best General on either side. Eventually Grant out grew Lee as he constantly learned, changed and grew as the war progressed to outstrip Lee at almost every level. So eventually did other Union Generals such as Sherman, Thomas and Sheridan but at the beginning of the war Lee was clearly the Superior General. The General who probably grew the most, after Grant was Sherman. Sherman was anything but a good General when the war started.

Lee is rightly considered the last great Napoleonic era General. He was a tactical genius, a past master of maneuver, a brilliant engineer (something he doesn’t get enough credit for) and an inspiring leader (his greatest quality).

His major flaws as a commander were he had one theater myopia, utilized inadequate staff, was a poor disciplinarian, was lousy at relieving incompetent or poorly performing officers, was weak in logistics and supply (one of his biggest flaws), and refused to make or be responsible for political decisions and made poor strategic decisions.

So though via lost cause mythologies he has been deified the truth is he was both a great General and over rated. He certainly wasn’t the greatest General the Civil War produced. That distinction belongs to Grant. I don’t think he was even the Confederacies best field General. I think that distinction belongs to Forest.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Any general that annihilates treasonous anti-American rebels is okay in my book, and thank you for the intel on our great American general, U.S. Grant.

This reminds me that I need to start a list of the top military leaders in world history.

Mine is going to have Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Ghengis Khan near the top of my list.

I don't think any American leaders are going to penetrate the top ten, but Tecumseh Sherman is a sentimental favorite of mine, because blitzkrieging deep into rebel territory and terrifying rebel traitors is something I can really respect.

If you use the criteria of conquering territory and holding it Grant would rank #5 as he conquered a territory of 750,000 square miles with over 9 million inhabitants.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

I am mistaken here. Gen. Grants official rank is General of the Army. That means he is the third highest ranking US General Officer only behind the two officers ranked as General of the Armies.

MacArthur and his supporters tried very hard to have him promoted to General of the Armies but he never had a real chance of that happening due to his egotistical prima-dona personality.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You could go with Cannae being the most significant battle in Roman history. It had a lot to do with the decline and fall of the Republic.

I would argue that honor belongs to Arousio.

 

[archives]

It does but make no mistake Lee was a great General and in the first two years of the war he was the best General on either side. Eventually Grant out grew Lee as he constantly learned, changed and grew as the war progressed to outstrip Lee at almost every level. So eventually did other Union Generals such as Sherman, Thomas and Sheridan but at the beginning of the war Lee was clearly the Superior General. The General who probably grew the most, after Grant was Sherman. Sherman was anything but a good General when the war started.

Lee is rightly considered the last great Napoleonic era General. He was a tactical genius, a past master of maneuver, a brilliant engineer (something he doesn’t get enough credit for) and an inspiring leader (his greatest quality).

His major flaws as a commander were he had one theater myopia, utilized inadequate staff, was a poor disciplinarian, was lousy at relieving incompetent or poorly performing officers, was weak in logistics and supply (one of his biggest flaws), and refused to make or be responsible for political decisions and made poor strategic decisions.

So though via lost cause mythologies he has been deified the truth is he was both a great General and over rated. He certainly wasn’t the greatest General the Civil War produced. That distinction belongs to Grant. I don’t think he was even the Confederacies best field General. I think that distinction belongs to Forest.

Wouldn't Gettysburg lower Lee's ranking as a great General, I realize even the best can make errors, but that was a debacle for Lee start to finish