I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the Battle of Vienna. If any single battle turned back the Moslem invasion of Europe, that was it.
I think Yorktown is overrated in significance. The British had spent 7 years trying to conquer America and had failed. By that time the British failure to reassert herself over America had already been determined. The Revolution was a lot like Veitnam. There was nothing stopping Britain from raising another army except for the realization that the war was already lost. That realization was from 7 years of warfare not any specific battle.
Psst. Kanicbird. Read the opening post. Post-Roman. Or I’d cite Salamis, rather than having somewhat harder work to do.
If we ignore the OP, I’d go with Thermopylae instead of Salamis
I’ve always felt Waterloo was overrated (probably because it was a major victory for the British army). By the time that battle was fought, Napoleon’s reign had pretty much on its last legs. It was the equivalent of the Battle of Bastogne in WWII - even if the historical losing side had won a major victory on that particular day, they would still have lost the war at some other battle a few weeks later. I think Trafalgar or Borodino or Leipzig were the real turning points in the Napoleonic Wars.
I’d also argue that there were no decisive battles in the American Revolution or the American Civil War or World War I. In those wars, it was the overall balance of forces and a long campaign of battles that decided who won and lost. No individual battle in those wars was likely to have changed the eventual outcome.
I’m going to assume “post-Roman” to mean after 1459 - the year Constantinople fell, the Roman Empire ended, and the modern world began.
Battle of Gravelines (1588) - defeat of the Armada started Britain’s rise to power and ended Spain’s.
Battle of Plassey (1757) and Battle of the Plains of Abraham (1759) - two battles which combined started the British Empire
Battle of Borodino (1812) - For the reasons I mentioned above
Battle of Königgrätz (1866) - Decided the Austro-Prussian War which led to the creation of Germany
Battle of the Atlantic (1940-1943) - Britain stays in WWII and Germany begins to lose the war
Sigh. Constantinople fell in 1453 not 1459.
Tamerlane, no, the proper thread for debating exactly what HAPPENED at Tours is a thread about the Battle of Tours. By the way, you might want to stop over at Wikipedia, where the article on the battle, sadly, is quite biased in the opposite way (though I’ve warned everyone there I intend to flag for POV if it isn’t cleaned up pronto! 
).
This is the thread for saying your position on how important the Battle of Tours was in general. Given that this depends upon your viewpoint on what actually happened both at the battle, and microhistorically surrounding the battle, your opinion might differ from others. 
Saint Cad: Which Battle of Vienna do you propose to nominate? The Ottomans were at the gate twice, IIRC. But losing Vienna wouldn’t have been that bad for Europe; by the time Vienna was imperiled, there was a substantially more well-developed Europe than in the early 700’s when the western advance of Islam petered out (I’m trying very hard not to stir Tamerlane’s pot here). And further advance past Vienna would have been VERY difficult; the topography isn’t easy.
Little Nemo, no one considers the “Roman” times to include everything up to 1453’s fall of the Byzantine Empire. The so-called “Roman” emperor stopped being Roman quite early on; given that Charles the Great was crowned a “Roman” emperor in 800, one would have to assert that the Greek Empire in based in Constantinople was no longer “Roman” by that time.
I interpret the OP to mean battles since the fall of “Rome”, essentially from the time of the last Western Roman Emperor.
Clothahump, the Battle of San Jacinto didn’t determine diddly. By comparison, the battles at Buena Vista and Cerro Gordo during the Mexican-American War were far more instrumental in deciding the whole “who is gonna own the lands north of the Sonoran Desert and Rio Grande” issue. Which, while important to the United States, wasn’t that important to Mexico, which simply never had the resources to properly exploit those lands to begin with.
Here is a news flash: No one battle “changes the course of history.” While they certainly can have very large impact upon the situation of the time, the end result of wars is far more often the result of the dynamic processes involved than the result of an individual significant event. Of all the times in history that a single battle could be considered “machrohistoric,” they would likely have to have involved leaders who, had they died in the battle, would not have accomplished grand things which, having been accomplished, resulted in a significantly different landscape and historic process. And, even then, it’s difficult to say that any one such person was that important on the long-standing influences in an area.
For example, suppose that at the Battle of Issus, Alexander had been killed. Clearly, the Greek storm across all of the Southwestern part of Asia would have been ended. But did the efforts of Alexander, in the long run, change all that much for Persia, India, Afghanistan, and Egypt? Or would the up and coming Roman state have managed all it did regardless of whether Greeks had ever controlled those lands? And can we call Issus “macrohistoric?” After all, Alexander fought a lot of battles; he could have been killed at any one of them. His “untimely” death undoubtedly brought a halt to Macedonian expansion, so which battle was it that “changed history?”
Similarly, in our time frame, what if Charles the Great dies early in battle? The great kingdom of the Franks never gets established. The various German tribes end up in ceaseless wars among themselves, and never achieve any counterweight to the Greek empire; Western Christianity fizzles out unable to overcome the forces arrayed against it to the East, North and South. Or maybe not; possibly the Franks would have established a kingdom of power regardless of who lead them, based upon the dynamics of the land they inhabited, the lack of serious opposition in their area, and the need for the Pope to turn to the Franks to use as a counterweight to the forces involved in the religious struggles in Italy.
Personally, I think any attempt to list battles that “changed the world” is doomed to failure; it relies upon personal prejudices to decide what “changed the world” and it ignores the fact that underlying trends were far more important, which, in a way, is really the point Tamerlane was making.
I’ve read it. I actually take little or no ( depending on the day - my slight hangover and alcohol-induced insomnia might be giving me clarity this morning 
) issue with “…the concept of Tours as a macrohistorical event favoring western civilization and Christianity.” Emphasis added. Just with extreme versions thereof, like Gibbon’s. At least the article does address the other POV, even if to only give it short shrift :D.
But I solemnmly promise to be less dogmatic in the future and preface my frothings with more qualifiers :).
Agree completely.
Mostly agreed. Manzikert for example was a catastrophic defeat largely because the Byzantine state had become a hollow shell - arguably the death of the capable reformist Isaac Comnenus in 1059 after a two year reign was much more significant and even that was just one link in the chain. Afterall systematic Turkish settlement didn’t really begin until ~two years after the battle - it should have been repairable damage.
However I wouldn’t overstate that - occasionally single battles really are pivots. As above I think Hastings is one of the most clear-cut examples.
Yep.
But it can be a fun exercise anyway, if only to see different POV’s about what people consider important.
- Tamerlane
I’ve always heard that had the French won decisively at Waterloo the main British army on the continent would have either been wiped out or at least had its retreat to the sea cut off. This would have at the minimum secured ole Bony once more as ruler of France. That in itself would have been pretty significant as I doubt the Brits would have stood for it for long…but it would have taken them a while to mobilize another army to renew the war. I don’t see how Napoleon was on his last legs at all…not with the reception he got in France on his return.
Arguably couldn’t Napoleon have renewed the wars? Weren’t there other countries or forces that would have rejoined him (the folks in Belgium spring to mind…probably others as well)? This could have completely restarted the Napoleonic wars, which, win or lose for France would have had a profound effect on future history.
-XT
You have to look at how Waterloo was lost. It was von Blucher and the Prussians that won it…all the Brits did was not lose. If Napoleon had beaten Wellington that day, he would still have had to deal with a Prussian army nearby, and a rapidly mobilizing Austria. Nope…Nappy was done for by that time. The Hundred Days were a last-gasp, sort of like the Battle of the Bulge. They both looked important, but in the long run weren’t.
Hastings, on the other hand…
Hastings is only superficially a case in point.
If Hastings was vital, then what do you do about Stamford Bridge? If Harold Godwinson dies at Stamford Bridge, instead of at Hastings, what happens when William the Bastard lands in the south of England? Which, then, is the pivotal battle?
And, had William lost at Hastings, but not been killed, can it truly be said he would not have eventually succeded in accomplishing the conquest of England? There were reasons the Normans were so successful throughout Europe in matters of conquest, and the Anglo-Saxon kingdom was very unstable.
I prefer to look at Hastings for what it was, that is, a battle the result of which was history as it happened, and at a turning point in that history for that part of the world, of which there can be no doubt.
Pretty much what Silenus said. If the French had won at Waterloo, the British and the Prussians would just have brought in new troops. And if they hadn’t, the Austrians or the Russians would have attacked anyway. Napoleon was doomed to defeat; the only issue was who was going to defeat him first.
Wellington himself hadn’t thought Waterloo was the decisive battle. The day after his victory he was telling his officers that while they deserved credit for turning back the French offensive, Napoleon would just fall back to Paris and raise a new army. Wellington expected he would have to link up with the allied armies and they would have to launch a joint attack on Paris to really defeat Napoleon.
I’ll admit I was pushing a point with my particular definition of “post’Roman”. But in my defense, the OP did specify battles from “modern Western history”.
A victory by Harald Hardraada would not have so fundamentally altered the cultural milieu of England, which at the time was very Scandinavian in orientation.
Whichever one William wins, if he does and if it was the shatteringly decisive victory that Hastings was.
Hard to say. England’s resources were ultimately greater than Normandy’s, neither Harold Godwinson nor Hardraada were incompetent military leaders and there is no telling that a William rebuffed could have reformed the alliance that he marshalled in his “first” attempt.
But he might well have eventually succeeded - which just means that it might not have been Hastings but a different battle. Or, it might ( as you so cogently argued ) might not have been any single encounter at all, but a series of them, none all that much more significant than the other.
But Hastings was, essentially, a single encounter and it was devastatingly successful. Now if Harold Godwinson had still died, but his brothers had lived to regroup and fight another series of running battles with the the aid of the brothers Leofricson from the north, but still lost ( or won ) - then I might not ( almost certainly would not ) give Hastings such weight.
I think that instability is a little overrated, but yes the Normans certainly had a very successful system going for them. No argument there.
Hmmm…well I’m not sure I’m saying much different. Matter of degree perhaps.
- Tamerlane
Mind you I am aware of the residual Saxon resistance and of Sweyn Estrithson’s abortive invasion attempts. But after Hastings William was firmly in the catbird seat and the war were his to lose.
- Tamerlane
Tet. This battle started the concept that, in the era of mass communications, you could lose militarily but still prevail if a strong enough image was put into an open society’s mind.
A simplified nugget is that we saw no video of a Viet Cong assasination squad targeting and killing an entire family in Saigon, but later that day, when one of them was captured by the South Vietnamese and summarily executed on film, the war became too nasty and complex for the average American.
I think the illusions and delusions created by this symbolic victory culminated on 9/11/01, when a nation with over a quarter-billion population was supposed to be cowed by the murder of 3,000.
You don’t think that if the French had decisively defeated the British army at Waterloo that the whole alliance would have been in danger of disintigrating? As for the Prussians and Austrians I thought that Napolean still had significant support in both of those countries (didn’t some Prussian/Austrian groups fight FOR Napolean even at Waterloo? Or am I misremembering?). Maybe I’m just looking at this wrong but there was a great potential for disaster for the British at Waterloo…and had they lost that army where were they going to get another one quickly? And without the British (and with a decisive victory under his belt) could the other allies have defeated Napolean and a revigorated France on their home turf? They lost to Napolean over and over after all…on THEIR home turf.
-XT
But that was before Moscow and Leipzig. Nappy was on his last legs, and even beating the British (which the French almost did) would have exhausted his army to the point a pack of Cub Scouts could have beaten it, much less von Blucher and the Prussians. The Alliance would have regrouped and smashed Napoleon no matter what. Germany was lost to the Empire, as was Spain, Italy, and everything else. All that a French victory would have gotten France was an even worse ass-kicking. Then even Tallyrand wouldn’t have been able to salvage anything from the rubble.
I admit that my take on the Napoleonic wars was formed from a combination of Horatio Hornblower and Richard Sharpe novels and the History Channel so I’ll conceed the point.
-XT
This isn’t a single battle so much as a short campaign, but I’m going to nominate the German invasion of France in WWII. There was a thread recently about this, and a lot of Dopers thought that France lost mainly because they were blindsided by Germany’s new tactics. If they were better prepared (say, if they had Gen. Bruce Wayne), they would not have overstaffed the Maginot Line, instead placing more troops on other borders. Also, they would have shelled the crap out of the German armor advance through the Ardenne, blocking the road and forcing the Germans to find another route. If France had held off the Germans for longer, Britan might have been able to send reinforcements rather than staging an emergency evacuation at Dunkirk, leaving behind a bunch of war materiel to be captured. If France and Britan had ultimately repelled Germany, the war would have been over much sooner - Germany would not have been able to use France as a staging point for U-boat attacks on American supply convoys, or to launch air raids and rockets against Britan. There would have been no need for an invasion of Normandy, as American troops could just land at will in friendly French ports. It may even be that the Holocaust would have been cut short.