Except there was a subsequent period shortly thereafter where the Dutch were the supreme naval power only to be given up back to the British when William III issued his edict subjecting the Dutch navy to British control. Furthermore, given that the British and Dutch already dominated the seas as evidenced by raiding Spanish galleons with impunity and the obvious ineptitude of the Spanish armada there just wasn’t a change in the course of history.
Did not change the course of history. The British already ruled the waves.
Of of the ‘runner’ up battles from the panel was New Orleans. Basically the historian claimed that if the British had won they would have torn up the current peace treaty and split the nation in two…altering the course of world history considerably.
No battle(if I may call it a battle) change the course of history to the extent caused by the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The subsequent diaspora resulted in the spread of Christianity, and the vacating of ethnic Jews, leading to the birth of Islam, and finally the present day Palistinian/Israeli conflict and the peripheral western/islamic discord that threatens to blow up the world. There is plenty of historical events in the intervening years that resulted as well.
Interesting thread, which I am benefitting from greatly.
I would just like throw an as yet unmentioned American Revolutionary battle into the mix: The Battle of Brooklyn. If Washington doesn’t “succeed” in getting his army into Manhattan, well, that’s the end of that.
One battle that I’m surprised hasn’t made the list is the Invasion at Normandy. If that failed, the Allied Forces would have expended a vast amount of resoures for naught, rendering them virtually impotent and thus allowing Hitler to focus more of his resources and attention on his Eastern Front.
I look forward to seeing where my thinking may be flawed.
I think the Normandy Invasion and the Battle of Waterloo have one problem in common. They were fought against enemies who were long past their prime. Of course they were significant events in their wars and a different outcome would have had dramatic consequences, but I think in way both were more “logical conclusion” than “decision”.
I think, even if the Normandy Landings had been unsucessful, the ultimate outcome of the war would have been the same - probably the only difference would be Paris being liberated by Koniev rather than LeClerc.
By 1944, Hitler’s only real chance (in retrospect) would have been through concentrating on nuclear research rather than rocketry. And even if the first atomic bomb had been dropped on London or Moscow rather than Hiroshima, I don’t think we can say that there definitely would have been an Axis victory in Europe.
I’d like to nominate the Battle of Milvian Bridge. Politically it might have made little difference if Constantine or Maxentius won the undisputed claim to be emperor, but if Constantine had lost, Christianity’s road to becoming the dominant European religion might have been much, much longer.
Thus making all of Europe (rather than just the eastern half) into Soviet puppet states. This would have made for quite a different wolrd. I think Normandy does qualify.
This might indeed have happened if Stalin had defeated Hitler without American involvement, by no means an implausible scenario if the Battle of Britian had been lost. However, I don’t think the exact timescale for the liberation of Europe in 1944 would have made a great difference. Stalin might have had a little more leverage at Yalta, but I don’t think he’d have been given all of Germany, let alone anything else, purely on the basis of Normandy failing.
We had a thread last year, I believe, about whether or not Operation Sea Lion would have worked; the general consensus, supported by cites of actual war college war games on the subject, was that the Germans simply did not have the capability in 1940-41 to conquer Britain.
I’m also inclined to say Marne is more important than Stalingrad, which is sort of the cliche response to questions and threads on this subject. Stalingrad was a terrible disaster, but Germany’s stayed on the offensive until after Kursk, the REAL turning point of the Eastern Front. A German victory at Stalingrad might well have done Germany little good; they were overextended on that front anyway and pushing further forward would not likely have helped matters. The loss of Sixth Army was bad, but losing the entire army group would have been worse.
By comparison, if the Germans get through the Marne, Germany defeats France in 1914, WWI is won by the Central Powers, and history changes completely.
Actually, Trafalgar was very important. I just finished reading To Rule the Waves, a history of the Royal Navy. The author presents a very detailed examination of the changes that were made permanant in the RN as a result of Nelson’s victory. Had he lost, it is likely that the Royal Navy would have lost most of its funding and influence, with incalculable effects on British (and world) history.
On the assumption that Lenin would not have come to power without the war. If the old European monarchies had survived intact into the 1920’s, Bolshevism might have been less overwhelmingly sucessful, but I still think that it would have had a fighting chance, and the situation in the latter half of the twentieth century would have been much the same as it turned out to be.
Tamerlane, no offense, but that opinion of yours is not universally accepted by historians who study the subject; it isn’t even what one might call the majority opinion on the subject.
I’m not going to debate you on the subject; this isn’t the thread for it. But one does grow tired of people who offer their own perspective as if it is the one correct answer and treat the persistent unwillingness of others to adopt it as some sort of stupidity or naivete.
This is a fair criticism. It’s probably unfair of me to react like this is something everyone should know and is utterly, indisputable fact. I could make an argument that Tours would be rather more important than I’m giving it credit - I just think it would be a weaker argument. And as I see it repeated so often and think it is by far one of the most overhyped historical battler that I tend to react…sharply. Or at least firmly :D.
None taken, but I think insomuch as it gets repeated a lot by many respected historians, I think it is more that it is a self-replicating meme. It just doesn’t hold up as the climactic struggle it has been made out to be. If anything Toulouse in 721 might have been as or more significant. At most I think you could plausibly argue that Charles Martel would have been unable to take the offensive in the 730’s and in lack of that Muslim control might have been stranghtened and become much more entrenched and lasting in the Languedoc. Maybe France would have become more permanently destabilized and fragmented.
But Tours preventing the conquest of Europe, which is what it is usually cast as? I just can’t see it. How exactly were the Spanish Umayyads supposed to have held Europe on their lonesome? They didn’t even bother to take out Asturias. Now the failure of the second siege of Constantinople in 717-718 or even Harun al-Rashid’s aborted ( bought off ) advance late in the 8th century? Those are think are far more significant events. But Tours? Overhyped.
Although it’s obviously very important, the Battle of Manzikert should be docked a few style points given that the losing side actually captured and kept Manzikert itself.
It was probably the last time that a negotiated settlement between England and Germany could have taken place. While they did have roosevelt in their corner , it was not until pearl harbor that Germany declared war on the States and brought them into it.
Part of the problem is time , even had Germany “won” the battle of Britain in the air , all that really means is that they owned the airspace over the islands and could roam at will. The royal navy and the army are still in being , but it might have brought the politicians over to the concept of negotiating an armistice on german terms.
Sea lion itself is still in existence , but taking a closer look at the invasion force , makes it look like an exercise in political maskirova, and gives the brits an out for explaining to the people why a political settlement is desirable at this point in time , especially if the american congress maintains its isolationist stance and does not move to declare war on what must have looked like a losing cause.
At that point , India , Canada , and Australia are players left on her side, and ominously , the American Battle line is in San Fransisco , soon to be home ported in Pearl harbor. Makes for interesting speculation what happens in the UK is gelded politically , while the RN remains in being, concidering what happened to the French Fleet.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the Battle of San Jacinto, a short battle that stands as probably the single most decisive victory in the history of the United States.
