# Top 5 battles that changed the course of history **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 31, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-5-battles-that-changed-the-course-of-history/337822 "2005-12-31T04:17:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-5-battles-that-changed-the-course-of-history/337822/101 "2006-01-06T01:10:50Z")
> [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](#): > > While it might not have altered the England was _then_ Viking victories at Stampford Bridge and then over the Normans would almost certainly changed the way the world is _now_. There would be no French influence on the English language and no Hundred Years War, among other things. True enough ( assuming Harald and his heirs could hold on ). > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Adrianople wasn’t a critically important battle, but it was significant. Significant, yes, but as you say not critical. It didn’t break the Eastern Empire ( the proximate army defeated ) and the Western’s fall was due to a whole confluence of factors, not just the Goths. > [@](#): > > Chalons… historical imperative? The Huns would have stopped soon, thanks to internal matters and length of control issues. Even less significant than Tours( 😛 ), for exactly the reasons you stated. Attila was not looking to move his horde west, he just wanted plunder. If anything the Germanic hosts that helped win the victory as allies were far more of a threat. I’d say it ranks right about with, or perhaps a bit behind, Otto I’s victory over the Magyars at Lechfeld. > [@](#): > > Badr. Without the victory at Badr, Mohammed might have never started anything more than a cult. Hmmm…interesting possibility. > [@](#): > > Hattin was where Saladin defeated Guy, bringing the Holy Land under arab rule, and removing the Europeans decisively. Ah, more a symptom than a decisive moment I think. It hurried things along, but the Crusading states were probably always doomed. Really relatively few pitched battles were fought in the Levantine Crusades anyway. It was simply a matter of the Muslim forces have vastly superior resources locally _if unified_. Once a strong central authority reasserted itself in the region, the balance tipped heavily in its favour. > [@](#): > > Hm. A good one. Bouvines. Phillip’s victory created France, and John’s lackluster showing led to the Magna Carta. Otto’s loss weakened the Holy Roman Empire significantly enough that they no longer threatened to conquer Europe. I think Philip of Swabia’s death ( Otto’s assassinated rival and predecessor ) was what really broke the HRE. Otto IV was already a weak reed with a limited power base… Bouvines was significant, but considering the erosion of Angevin influence on the continent by that point, I’m not sure if anything less than the death of both Philip II and his son Louis on the field could have retrieved the situation much. > [@](#): > > Crecy brought the English back to the forefront… and began the end of the dominance of cavalry. I’m reluctant to give too much global significance to any of the battles of the Hundred Years War. Calvary continued to be the arm of decision right down into the early 18th century at least and the English learned their tactics from the Scottish wars ( Bannockburn, and even more importantly the Scottish campaigns of Edward III certainly predicted Crecy ). Crecy was less about the battlefield supremacy of the longbowman ( which ultimately didn’t last all that long ) than it was about the folly of lauching a frontal assault against a prepared defensive position. But I will agree that Crecy definitely revised the previously low opinion of English arms. > [@](#): > > Defeat of the Spanish Armada. That’s a big one. What if the Spanish had crushed the English, and then went on to rule England? Someone wrote a book on that. Turtledove? It’s very possible. **Silenus** just covered this, but the Spanish Armada was almost certainly a lost cause even before they set out, a victim of poor coordination and ( despite all the prodigious effort that went into it ) planning. Farnese’s army was probably incapable of boarding and making the trip to England intact under the circumstances ( which had little enough to do with England and far more with the situation in the Low Countries ), thus no invasion was really possible. > [@](#): > > Sekigahara? That was the turning point in Tokugawa Iyeasu’s campaign, which led to a 267 year long dynasty, until the Meji Restoration. I agree with **Sturmhauke** - it was more a matter of under who, not if a new Shogunate would be established. > [@](#): > > It was Naseby that gave Parliament the upper hand over the King of England. If it had gone the other way, he might be an absolute monarch to this day. That battle is what established democracy in England. As it happens I’m currently reading Austin Woolrych’s Battles of the English Civil War: _Marston Moor, Naseby, Preston_ ;). A victory at Naseby would have revived and strengthened the Royalists, but I doubt it would have decisively won the war - they were already in the hole after having lost the north after Marston Moor. Even if it had been decisive I think far too many of the ‘Royalists’ were moderates, former supporters of Pym alienated by the extremists, for the situation to return to the unfettered absolutism of the 1630’s. A return to the compromised of 1641 or something like it I suspect is more likely. > [@](#): > > Trenton, Saratoga (Thank you, France), Brooklyn (The escape!) and Yorktown (Bringing down Parliament) were all critical. Were any of those lost, the country might not be here. The American ones are hard to quantify - it has been argued that the British were incapable of winning at all due to logistic issues and that anyway it wasn’t pitched battles that won the war, but attrition. I’m not sure I agree with the first point, but Washington may have performed his greatest service by just holding the army together at Valley Forge. As a tactician he was nothing special, but as a charismatic leader he certainly was. > [@](#): > > Battle of the Nile stopped Napoleon in Egypt, giving the Brits essential control over the Middle East, leading to Israel today… and it gave them Malta, which really shredded the German campaigns in WWII. Very critical, that. I’m dubious that Napoleon’s campaigns in the Middle East would have amounted to all that much for _Napoleon or Britain_. Locally it might have toppled the Ottoman government, but its hard to see how Nappy could have engineered that to benefit him that much. India I think was simply too far away to be threatened overland - the British might have actually done him a favor by crushing that pipedream ;). A march on India from Syria brings to mind Alexander the Great and not in a good way. > [@](#): > > Manilla Bay gave the US a Pacific arm… and was the first strike of the completely steel fleets. The ramifications of the Phillipenes change geopolitics to this day. Minor, I think, other than locally. > [@](#): > > Marne. If the Germans had taken a swift strike through France like they planned, France would have been much stronger come WWII. As it was, the trench fighting changed everything for years. This one I can go along with, as in an earlier post. > [@](#): > > The British loss in the battle of Singapore was the tipping point that led to the unravelling of their empire. But “they” still won in the end. Of short-term importance only, other than as another example of the vulnerability of surface ships to air attack. > [@](#): > > Midway was a pure showcase of American Can-Do, and proved the true master of the sea was the aircraft carrier. It also was the breaking point, from when on the Japanese had lost the war. Slowly. But surely. Midway was the turning point, but it was also a roll of the dice for Yamamoto, who I think had the right of it in his pessimism over Japan’s ability to win a long war. A major victory would have a terrific gut punch and delayed a U.S. recovery even further, but change the course of the war? I’m sceptical > [@](#): > > Suchow was the point at which China became Red. If you don’t think that’s significant… The Suchow campaign was the death blow, but the KMT were already back on their heels. Pushing the PLA back would have meant a continuation of the war, but still on inferior footing. > [@](#): > > Inchon, I mark as the first effective military action sponsored by the United Nations. The UN had teeth. A brilliant campaign, but not ultimately decisive due to the Chinese entrance shortly thereafter. > [@](#): > > Finally, Desert Storm. The United States was no longer a mere superpower. The first truly accurate war, the first war in real time. Planes diverted mid-mission to new targets. Computer aided gunnery. The Hundred Hour War. > The fourth biggest army was, simply, no comparison to the first. This was something new in history. Too early to quantify, but given the aftermath I don’t think you can call it decisive. > [@mswas](#): > > The one where the Mongols introduced the Bubonic plague into Europe by catapulting corpses into that major port city on the Black Sea. I forget the name of the city though. The plague was coming anyway. Even if that interesting tactic led to its quicker spread ( arguments have been raised against it ), it would still have been there eventually. The Mongols certainly do get credit for a lot of spectacular victories though. > [@xtisme](#): > > How about The Battle of Lützen? Though the Swedes win and defeat Wallenstein, Gustavus Adolphus is killed. Things might have been different had he lived and continued to rule…and been able to solidify the Swedish empire. Interesting thought - he might have been able to bring an earlier ( much earlier ) close to the war. On the other hand maybe not and it likely wouldn’t have vastly changed the landscape by that point anyway. You’d still probably end with a fractured Germany, an empowered Sweden ( but still an inherently unstable empire due to lack of base resources ), an independent Hapsburg empire in the south, an eventually enfeebled Spain and an at least strengthened ( if perhaps not quite as dominant as it turned out ) France. > [@Tevildo](#): > > This is probably a bit too parochial, but how about Bosworth? Would a victorious Richard III and his sucessors have managed to get England into as strong and prosperous a state as Henry VII achieved? If not, would we now be seeing Portugese or Dutch as the dominant language of the world? I really don’t think Henry VII was all that much more clever or competent than Richard III - Henry just happened to win by the skin of his teeth when Richard gambled wrong on the battlefield. Richard III was curious in that he was essentially the only English king whose power base was primarily in the north, something that probably contributed to the instability of his short reign. But long term I don’t know that this would have been a crippling deficit, especially if his last major rival were eliminated. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-5-battles-that-changed-the-course-of-history/337822/102 "2006-01-06T01:44:14Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > See Post #7. 😃 Yes, and so? Ok, if you must, next time I’ll add “I agree with xxxx in adding yyyyy”. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-5-battles-that-changed-the-course-of-history/337822/103 "2006-01-06T05:05:15Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > The Suchow campaign was the death blow, but the KMT were already back on their heels. Pushing the PLA back would have meant a continuation of the war, but still on inferior footing. -Tamerlane Agreed, the Chinese civil war had been lost much earlier. One could say that the KMT was in the coffin when they lost the race to take over Manchuria. I would throw out Khalkhin-Gol battle aka Nomonhan incident in 1939. This was the Japanese/Mongolian/Russian battle/campaign on the Manchuria/Mongolia border a stones throw away from Siberia. Japanese victory could have led to extended campaigns in Siberia, and created a two front war for Stalin. Big success could have seen Japan carve out an empire of Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia and Siberia. Stretching further, then Japan would not have invaded south through China and attacked Pearl Harbor. Obligatory wikpedia link [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol) Wikpedia’s assessment:Influence on World War II Although this engagement is little-known in the West, it had profound implications on the conduct of World War II. It may be said to be the first “decisive battle” of World War II because it determined that the two principal Axis Powers, Germany and Japan, would never geographically link up their areas of control, since the defeat convinced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group, favored by the army, which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was untenable. Instead the South Strike Group, favored by the navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum- and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies, gained the ascendancy, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor two and a half years later in December 1941. It was the first victory for the famed Soviet general, Georgy Zhukov. The battle experience gained by the Siberian army was put to good use in December 1941 outside Moscow, under the command of Zhukov, when Siberian divisions spearheaded the first successful Soviet counteroffensive against the German invasion of 1941. The decision to move the divisions from Siberia was aided by the Soviet’s masterspy Richard Sorge in Tokyo who was able to alert the Soviet government that the Japanese were looking south and were unlikely to launch another attack against Siberia in the immediate future. In addition, as a result of this battle, Japan was reluctant to attack the Soviet Union, preferring eventually to fight the United States. The enormous deterrent effect upon the Japanese is almost inexplicable on the historical record, suggesting something missing in the account. It is speculated that this could be either Japanese losses being much greater than revealed, or the Japanese military regime feeling its status vulnerable to internal insurrection if obviously defeated in war, particularly to the revolutionary egalitarian principles of the USSR. As neither side in this battle was open about their opinions as to its result, Adolf Hitler had no idea when he declared war on the United States. He had hoped to gain Japanese support against the Soviet Union with this act, unaware that his ally was unwilling to do so because of the previous encounter. The battle is also featured in the fictional book Dance Dance Dance by Haruki Murakami ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-5-battles-that-changed-the-course-of-history/337822/104 "2006-01-06T17:00:10Z")
> [@China Guy](#): > > Agreed, the Chinese civil war had been lost much earlier. One could say that . Japanese victory could have led to extended campaigns in Siberia, and created a two front war for Stalin. Big success could have seen Japan carve out an empire of Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia and Siberia. Stretching further, then Japan would not have invaded south through China and attacked Pearl Harbor. > It may be said to be the first “decisive battle” of World War II because it determined that the two principal Axis Powers, Germany and Japan, would never geographically link up their areas of control, since the defeat convinced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group, favored by the army, which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was untenable. Instead the South Strike Group, favored by the navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum- and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies, gained the ascendancy, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor two and a half years later in December 1941. > > In addition, as a result of this battle, Japan was reluctant to attack the Soviet Union, preferring eventually to fight the United States. The enormous deterrent effect upon the Japanese is almost inexplicable on the historical record, suggesting something missing in the account. It is speculated that this could be either Japanese losses being much greater than revealed, or the Japanese military regime feeling its status vulnerable to internal insurrection if obviously defeated in war, particularly to the revolutionary egalitarian principles of the USSR. As neither side in this battle was open about their opinions as to its result, Adolf Hitler had no idea when he declared war on the United States. He had hoped to gain Japanese support against the Soviet Union with this act, unaware that his ally was unwilling to do so because of the previous encounter. This was likely one of the biggest things that caused the Axis to lose WWII. The Japanese somehow seemed to think that they coudl win WWII all by themselves. However, just abouit every simulation & wargame shows clearly that - other than soem miracle- the Japanese failing to aid their German allies here is what lost the Axis any chance to win WWII. If the Japanese had attacked the Russians, American entry would have been delayed, American build-up also delayed, and the Russians would have folded like a house of cards- IMHO. It’s even possible that the Axis could have “won” before the USA entered. It’s my opinion that no battle in WWII was really important or “changed the course of history”. WWII was very strategic, not tactical. It was Political decisions- mostly blunders by the Axis- that “changed the course of History” in WWII. Some of these are: Appeasement (blunder?? by the Allies) Hitler not listening to Raeder & Doenitz who wanted to build up a raider/sub navy if war was going to be before 1944. Blunder Britian picking Churchill- who althogh not the greatest strategist had one BIG thing going for him- bulldog determination and the ability to pass this on to the brits. Good decision. Hitler delaying Barbarossa. Blunder Japan not attacking Russia. Blunder Japan attacking the USA- instead of “freeing colonies from their European Imperialist masters”. Blunder Axis refusing to believe that their codes could be broken- Blunder. (The Allies breaking those codes- Good.) The USA going “U-boot” in it’s sub tactics vs Japan- instead of following Brit, French or Japanese sub strategy. Good decision. Thus, it is a series of political Blunders by the Axis- and a couple of good decisions by the Allies- that “decided” WWII. Not battles. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-5-battles-that-changed-the-course-of-history/337822/105 "2006-01-09T15:36:24Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, the rational of the folks at Viewpoint (IIRC) was that Antietam was the battle that decisively made sure the Europeans wouldn’t enter the war…and that allowed Lincoln to free the slaves so that it didn’t look like a desparation move by the North. YMMV…though I think the battle was important I wouldn’t have ranked it on the top 5 for world changers. > > -XT I don’t think that any American Civil War battles belong on this list. Although the North’s victory was not a forgone conclusion, I don’t see one battle that conclusively turned the battle one way or another. IF there were on battle though, I’d pick Vicksburg over either Antietam or Gettysburg. Vicksburg was critical battle in that it opened up the Mississippi. If the North had lost that battle, which took place at the same time as the victory at Gettysburg, it may have effectively mitigated the victory at Gettysburg, halting any potential momentum. Additionally, if Grant was defeated there, political forces, both from other Northern generals who were jealous of Grant, and those out side of the government, may have precluded Grant from obtaining major command outside of the West. That may have prevented a Union victory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-5-battles-that-changed-the-course-of-history/337822.md?page=5)