History's list of most decisive battles
-
Here are some of the battles, if changed, would have caused great impact and changes to our modern world. This is just some of the battles I have thought.
(Please note I am not well versed in Asian histories, so for decisive battles for that region please feel free to add, same goes to those other battles that I have missed.)
Ancient Age: 500 B.C - 476 A.D
Qin Shi Huang unites the whole of China and became the first Chinese Emperor, a title that was to stay for 2000 years.
Battle of Salamis - Athenian Navy defeated Persian Fleet, saving the whole of Greece from threats of Persian invasion
Battle of Zama: Roman general Scipio Africanus defeated Hannibal at the battle of Zama, saving the Roman Republic from further Carthagian threat.
Battle of Milvian Bridge: Roman ursurper Constantine defeated his rival Pagan Emperor Maxentius, making himself the first Christian Emperor of the empire, and eventually made Christianity offical religion of the empire.
Battle of Catulonian field: Roman General Flavius Aetius, defeated Attila the Hun, saving the Western Roman Empire, indeed Europe from be conquered and ruled by Asian savages.
MIDDLE AGES: 476 A.D to 1453 A.D
Battle of Yarmuk: Eastern Roman armies (Bzyantines) crushed by the newly emerged Islamic horde at Yarmuk, Syria, which will open up the fall of Eastern Mediterrean and North Africa to Muslims conquerors.
Battle of Tours: Charles Martel, the Frankish king defeated the muslim armies invading France from Spain, saving Western Europe from being overrunned by Islamic conquerors and preserving Christianity of Europe.
Seige of Arce: The last Christian city in the holy land, was all the remains of the land won by Christian crusaders, fell back into the Muslim armies.
Kamikaze: Not really a battle but more of luck, Japan is saved from invasion of the armies of Kublai Khan when a typhoon destroyed the Mongol Invasion Fleet.
Battle of Orleans: Joan of Arc led her armies and defeated English troops for the first time and changed the tide of Hundred's year war.
Seige of Constantinople: The once largest and most magnificent fortress capital city of the Bzyantine Empire fell into Turkish hands after a long seige, killing the last flame of the Former Roman Imperial glory and ending the middle age.
THE RENAISSANCE AND AGE OF DISCOVERY: 1453 to 1527
Note: This is difficult for me to conclude when does renaissance ends, I roughly put it at 1527, when Rome, the seat of Papacy was sacked by troops of Emperor Charles IV.
(I stop here for first....too long....will continue to add so meanwhile people please feel free to add more battles ) -
DDay..
-
Battle of Midway
-
Chip in a little bit for now:
Battle of Changpin-Decisive victory for state of Qin over Zhao,Zhao's loss of 400000 physically able men(surrendered but executed) meant that the only state powerful enough to oppose Qin wouldnt be able to recover again and would be conquered along with other states 30 yrs later after the battle, signifying the unification of China.
Battle of Okehazama-Daimyo Oda Nobunaga surprise counter-attack over rival daimyo Imagawa Yoshimoto,causing the latter's death. Imagawa clan declined while Oda Nobunaga survived,who would latter dominate Japan and paved the way for unification,ending the Warring State era(Sengoku Jidai).
Battle of Sekigahara-Victory of Tokugawa clan and 'Easterm' faction of Toyotomi clan(the leading clan prior to the battle) over the 'Western' faction led by Ishida Mitsunari. Tokugawa Ieyasu,the daimyo of the clan,would latter assumed the title of shogun and found the Tokugawa shogunate,whose regime would provide stability and great influence upon the nation character of the Japanese people. -
How do you define "decisive" when it comes to battles? What are the criteria for battles to be classified as "decisive"? It's necessary to come to grip with these questions first, otherwise we'd just end up with a list of battles which does not really enlighten us in meaningful ways.
-
Battle of Hastings
Trafalgar
Midway.
Battle of Britain.
Siege of Stalingrad. -
decicisive in the sense that it affects the outcome of the war. For example the battle for Normandy resulted in the fall of Nazi Germany. The Battle of Midway had more or less destryoyed Japan's sea power and their offensive capability.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:How do you define "decisive" when it comes to battles? What are the criteria for battles to be classified as "decisive"? It's necessary to come to grip with these questions first, otherwise we'd just end up with a list of battles which does not really enlighten us in meaningful ways. -
A very good question.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:How do you define "decisive" when it comes to battles? What are the criteria for battles to be classified as "decisive"? It's necessary to come to grip with these questions first, otherwise we'd just end up with a list of battles which does not really enlighten us in meaningful ways.
To summarise,it is one that has great significance which has a military or political impact(or both), in turns of swifting of 'fortunes' of the belligerents and thus the tide of war and wheel of history,or even one signifiying the end of hostility. -
Battle of Khalkin Gol where the Japanese Kwantung Army attempted to invade Mongolia & thereon to Siberia for resources.
If they weren't defeated by the Russians (led by GK Zhukov), they wouldn't have turned South. -
Second Battle of El Alamein.
The brilliant Desert Fox Rommel was finally stopped there. -
I would like to ask, in Chinese lore/history there have been battles which have involved between 100,000 to 500,000 men per side. or a total of around 200,000 to 1million men per battle.How did they keep them supplied? or are these numbers made up and more of it given to exegeration?(sp) I mean truely,The persians againest alexander were reported to have between 500,000 to 1 million soldiers and yet historians have more or less knocked that number down to 100,000 or there abouts.
I know China is big and all, but even now,with logistical support where it is, it's hard to keep half a million men supplied out there. -
well ... i guess we have to get rid of our modern mindset when we think about such things .... modern armies require a lot more stuff to get going, food, ammo, water, fuel, and odds and ends like toilet paper to paper and batteries .... and yet hitler managed to throw about 3 million men at Stalin during the start of his Russian campaign eh ? ....Originally posted by |-|05|:I would like to ask, in Chinese lore/history there have been battles which have involved between 100,000 to 500,000 men per side. or a total of around 200,000 to 1million men per battle.How did they keep them supplied? or are these numbers made up and more of it given to exegeration?(sp) I mean truely,The persians againest alexander were reported to have between 500,000 to 1 million soldiers and yet historians have more or less knocked that number down to 100,000 or there abouts.
I know China is big and all, but even now,with logistical support where it is, it's hard to keep half a million men supplied out there.
ancient armies don't require that much .... arrows and spare weapons perhaps, fodder for horses and fresh horses, food for men, which were pretty spartan affairs during those times, and that's about it eh .... so what's so unbelievable about it ? ...
-
Food and fodder in those days were rather bulky, unlike the combat rations we have now. Moreover transport was slow and inefficient, and liable to attacks by the enemy. Logistics in those days was not any easier than now. Given the level of technology and food production capable of supporting the population in those ancient times, I doubt those battles could have involved any more than 100,000 men at most.Originally posted by Fatum:well ... i guess we have to get rid of our modern mindset when we think about such things .... modern armies require a lot more stuff to get going, food, ammo, water, fuel, and odds and ends like toilet paper to paper and batteries .... and yet hitler managed to throw about 3 million men at Stalin during the start of his Russian campaign eh ? ....
ancient armies don't require that much .... arrows and spare weapons perhaps, fodder for horses and fresh horses, food for men, which were pretty spartan affairs during those times, and that's about it eh .... so what's so unbelievable about it ? ... -
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned ODS. That's the biggest steaming can of whup-ass that's ever been opened on anyone.
-
Also, not forgetting battle of the bulge aka Battle of the Ardennes in WW2.
-
battle of chi bi. (bet Cao Cao and the Sun who hav the help of Zhu ge liang)
-
I dont think there is a need to carry too much of food and fodder. Firstly the ration of horses can be found practically everywhere in China. Supply can be supplemented from hunting in the forest. And usually supplies come along with reinforcement to prevent them from being attack.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Food and fodder in those days were rather bulky, unlike the combat rations we have now. Moreover transport was slow and inefficient, and liable to attacks by the enemy. Logistics in those days was not any easier than now. Given the level of technology and food production capable of supporting the population in those ancient times, I doubt those battles could have involved any more than 100,000 men at most. -
why no battle of waterloo?
-
Originally posted by Kyoy:
Dunno about that. It didn't end the war, although it might have had a huge effect if the German offensive had worked.
Also, not forgetting [b]battle of the bulge aka Battle of the Ardennes in WW2. [/b] -
well ... i guess we have to get rid of our modern mindset when we think about such things .... modern armies require a lot more stuff to get going, food, ammo, water, fuel, and odds and ends like toilet paper to paper and batteries .... and yet hitler managed to throw about 3 million men at Stalin during the start of his Russian campaign eh ? ....
Well i have rid myself of modern mind sets.
ancient armies don't require that much .... arrows and spare weapons perhaps, fodder for horses and fresh horses, food for men, which were pretty spartan affairs during those times, and that's about it eh .... so what's so unbelievable about it ? ...
For example,the Romans who were purely infantry with a sprinkling of horses and packed animals.
The animals carried it's own food plus tentage and other camp gear.The soldiers carried their armour,shield,his cooking gear,a spike for fortification,weapons and his rations. Which were made of barley and hard tack oat meal thingy.
All in all he had about 30 kg worth of gear. Food was provided locally through supply dumps which had to be set up the year before. And was usually gathered frm all over the empire.
The animals seldom grazed. and they never lived off the land unless they really had no choice. And even then they seldom had more then 50,000 soldiers in a place. Mainly they moved seprate and attacked together. usually 2 or 3 leigons together.(around 6,000men with 4000 axluia each)
So there we have it. How did the Chinese do it?? They had food and water for all those men. The land cannot support that if there is a million men.(talking abt region here not the whole empire)
Arrows had to be fashioned and honestly because of the rate of fire they used them pretty damn fast.However i have heard that the Chinese do have grain supply dumps.Though i wonder about the water situation.
And Hitler threw 3million men acrossing the entire front. That's thousands of miles.And that's with trains and perservertives hahah.dont think there is a need to carry too much of food and fodder. Firstly the ration of horses can be found practically everywhere in China. Supply can be supplemented from hunting in the forest. And usually supplies come along with reinforcement to prevent them from being attack.
Reinforcements are likely to consume quater of what they protected.
I'm assuming these battles most likely involved a max of 100,000 a side.Though i'm not well versed in Chinese history,could some one explain how they supplied their soldiers? Like chinese sources and stuff. -
I won't call it decisive. The German offensive was stalled, in part due to the 101st Airborne's amazing ability to hold on to Bastogne even when they were trapped and surrounded. (Who can forget McAuliffe's rebuff to German calls to surrender: 'NUTS!'Originally posted by Gedanken:Dunno about that. It didn't end the war, although it might have had a huge effect if the German offensive had worked.
)
Even if the offensive had worked and the Germans managed to fight all the way to Antwerp, chances are that the Allies could have still choked off the pencil-like thrust and won.
By the way, that was how the Allies failed in Operation Market Garden. Their supply lines were overextended, and the Germans attacked the flanks of the pencil-like thrust. It's not too hard to imagine that the poorer-equipped Germans would have fared even worse. -
The key to the German loss at Bastogne was their failure to capture all of the corssroads. Had they done so, they would have cut Allied supply lines and prevented reinforcements.
-
Battle of e bluge
-
Dien Bien Phu
A peasant army decisively defeating a western power in modern day set piece battle.
After DBP, the French basically packed up and left Indochina. -
And you know it's really sad that the french were winning the commies at one point of time during the whole war.Originally posted by moca:Dien Bien Phu
A peasant army decisively defeating a western power in modern day set piece battle.
After DBP, the French basically packed up and left Indochina.