Top 5 battles that changed the course of history

Great Debates
81

I’d have to argue against both Trafalgar and the Battle of France.

In the case of Trafalgar, while a French/Spanish victory would have been a major immediate upset for the British, I think the general superiority of the Royal Navy was up to a quick recovery, (and the loss of ships of the line would not have been as disasterous as the loss of an equal number of frigates). The Channel Fleet was still in existence, so I think it would have been similar to the naval defeats the British suffered in the early stages of WW I, none of which, including Jutland, affected the main British fleet’s control over the western European approaches. Neither the French nor the Spanish could afford to make a major increase in the resources devoted to their fleets, while Britain could, and would. More to the point, however, I believe that it would have been very difficult for the British to lose the battle given their general superiority in training and abilities, and the best outcome for their opponents would have been to not lose as badly.

For the Battle of France, a German loss would certainly have had a major effect on WW II, but, again, I just don’t see it happening. The French were likely incapable of pulling off a victory once the Germans poured through the Ardennes, given the underlying factors which lead to the quick collapse of the French Army, and the British had nowhere near enough forces to seriously affect the outcome by themselves. I don’t think that a battle in which it is so unlikely that the outcome would change is a serious candidate.

I would agree with Hastings, as it was very much a near-run thing, and a loss by William would probably have resulted in the majority of his forces buggering off back to France. Don’t forget that his army was not a single entity, but a collection of his own feudal troops and those of other feudal lords and younger sons who joined up in the hopes of loot and land. If he lost, even if he survived, would the invaders have held together for a second try or just done some local looting and rembarked. And if he lost once, would he have been able to assemble an army for a second try?

82

Well, I’ve been reading Panzer Battles, by F. W. von Mellenthin. He was one of the men in General Staff at the time, and… truthfully, from his perspective, it doesn’t look like he had any real concern that the French had much of a chance of stopping them. They were prepared for the last war, and the Maginot forts were… even if they had been useful, they were in bad sight lines. That, coupled with the horrid gouging that their military aged males took in I, meant the French were just something to steamroller.

Adrianople wasn’t a critically important battle, but it was significant. It brought the Goths on the scene… and most importantly, was where calvary became supreme over infantry.

Chalons… historical imperative? The Huns would have stopped soon, thanks to internal matters and length of control issues.

Badr. Without the victory at Badr, Mohammed might have never started anything more than a cult. Not a great victory, but a hugely important one.

Hattin was where Saladin defeated Guy, bringing the Holy Land under arab rule, and removing the Europeans decisively.

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.

Crecy brought the English back to the forefront… and began the end of the dominance of cavalry.

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.

Sekigahara? That was the turning point in Tokugawa Iyeasu’s campaign, which led to a 267 year long dynasty, until the Meji Restoration.

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.

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.

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.

Tel El Kebir continued it, giving them Egypt and the Suez.

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.

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.

(Second Marne ended it, though)

The British loss in the battle of Singapore was the tipping point that led to the unravelling of their empire.

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.

Suchow was the point at which China became Red. If you don’t think that’s significant…

Inchon, I mark as the first effective military action sponsored by the United Nations. The UN had teeth.

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.
So, there you go, a selection of lesser considered points in time. See any you like?

83

Ok, I am an extreme lightweight in this thread but I want to post something anyway. 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.

Erek

84

Theodosia/Caffa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffa

85

If we are talking about how differently the world would be if the results of a battle were reversed, then what about the Battle of Tannenberg? This defeat ultimately led to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk allowing Germany to put all of their resourses into the western front and led to the ultimate downfall of the Tzar. Of course the Romanov dynasty may have fell in the 1920’s, but would the Communists have been able to take over at that later date? Also remember that the Germans sent Lenin to St. Petersberg in a sealed railroad car. Would this have happened if the Russians had won at Tannenberg?

86

I agree that after Germany broke through the lines that France was pretty much screwed. It’s probably too much to ask that the French tanks were deployed in a more modern fashion, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suppose that they could have defended the Ardennes more effectively and stopped the German advance there.

If Tokugawa had failed to unite Japan, some other daimyo probably would have before too long. The particulars would have been different, but I doubt that Japanese history on the whole would be significantly altered.

87

Interesting analysis. I think you’re on to something here. This battle could have gone the other way, IMO. If it did, then the changes to today’s world might significant, as you pointed out.

Oh, and whoever said the Six Day War: That’s another good one. No more Isreal. That’s certainly a major change.

88

The thing is, the WWII assault wasn’t through France, but through Belgium, and the static defenses just weren’t there. The French could not win that battle, they were ten years preparing for the wrong fight. Even if the French hadn’t been suckered by the southward feint, the panzer tactics and experience the Germans had was too strong to overcome.

89

Just think, if the battle of New Orleans hadn’t been fought with alligators stuffed with gunpowder the course of history of Johnny Horton and Jimmy Driftwood’s career would certainly have been different.

90

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.

-XT

91

A couple of points in reply to E-Sabbath’s list.

Crécy. I’m not sure that the Hundred Years War was really that significant on a global, or even a European, scale. The basic political map at the end of the 15th century probably wouldn’t have been vastly different even if Edward had lost at Crécy; after all, Agincourt, a far more “historic” victory, only led to a transient shift of power to England from France.

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?

Naseby. The English Civil War was undoubtedly important, but, again, did it have long-term consequences? The Glorious Revolution may have been rather bloodier if James II had been in a position to rule in the same way as his father, but I think the Stuarts would have eventually been thrown out, one way or another. Would eighteenth-century English history have been vastly different under a republic? The Hanoverian kings may have had more political power than the current monarch, but they were still under a reasonable level of parliamentary control.

92

Crecy isn’t significant for the battle, as for what it did to the face of warfare, setting up the longbowman and pikeman, the bloody infantry, over the cavalry, something that held true all the way to WWI and the tank.

Naesby I want to analyze in more detail, but my thrust is that it led the way to making the american republic and democracy in general, possible, breaking the King to the roughly current position, where the King reigns, but does not rule. Could, but does not.

93

But it was a dead-end technology. They perfected anti-alligator technology in the 1820s and by 1830 all armies were protected against alligator-based attacks.

94

True, of course, although the first battle (as opposed to siege) in which firearms were used might be a more important candidate on this view. Not sure which one that would be - Formigny?

  • nods * - I agree that it was a vital change in the English constitution and one of world-wide importance, but I would argue that that it had either been established by Lenthall before the fighting started, or wasn’t officially secured until the Bill of Rights in 1689. The purely military aspects of the Civil War are secondary to the social ones. Of course, that’s true of any war that can be said to change the world. :slight_smile:
95

Oh, no. The English Yeoman is easily much more important than the production firearm, in my opinion. You can see a direct line from him to the Thin Red Line and Roarke’s Drift.

96

Oh, a second note: No comments on the defeat of the Spanish Armada? I think that really was history-changing. If they’d landed, England would have been at Spain’s mercy.

97

I have to disagree as to the importance of Stalingrad, unless you are referring to the Russian Operation Uranus, rather than the battle for the city itself. Had the German Sixth Army quickly defeated the Russian 62nd Army and moved on, German lines wouldn’t have shortened one inch, and their huge left flank still would have been screened only by the pathetic Hungarian, Romanian and Italian armies. The correlation of forces almost demanded that the German advance in the south was doomed, regardless of how far the Germans actually advanced. Had Paulus rooted out the Russian defenders and crossed the Volga, IMO Operation Uranus would simply have been delayed, not averted.

In place of Stalingrad, I would submit that the German invasion of Yugoslavia decided WWII. While Yugoslavia quickly succumbed (well, at least the formal forces of Yugoslavia), it delayed Barbarossa a month, a month that turned out to be critical on the outskirts of Moscow.

Sua
Sua

98

Not that important, IMO. The Armada was poorly led, poorly staffed, and the barges Parma was planning on using to invade could be swamped by a small amount of chop. Besides, the English really didn’t win the battle, per say. By the time it was over, they were out of water, out of ammo, and had done relatively little damage to the Armada. What they did do was threaten the Spanish flanks, so the French admiral, who was really not into the fight to begin with, decided to sail around Ireland and return to Spain. It was the North Sea and Channel weather that defeated the Armada, not “stout English ships.”

99

Hastings was likely the battle that was both most critical and also a “coin toss”.

I’d give a nod to Midway for the same reason.

I don’t think that the Marne really could have “gone either way”- no land battle in “the trenches” really would have changed much- a few miles either way. Sure, the Germans had big plans but no battle- even those with a 'smashing" victory really changed things much.

Stalingrad wasn’t all that critical either. The decision of Hitler to delay Barbarossa is what changed the war.

No one battle in the US Civil war was all that critical either. If Lee had won Gettysburg, the North still would have won.

I’d add Battle of Tsushima- if Japan had lost it- there might not have been a “WWII” - at least as far as the USA & Japan that is.

100

See Post #7. :smiley: