Most signifigant battles of the last thousand years

[1894]

Managed to squeak a side trip while we ( mom , wife , and I ) were in the area.
This place makes a good argument that it was one of the most important battles in world history in the last 1K years.
The battles at Saratoga NY.
Turning point in both world history as well as U.S. history.

One link :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Saratoga

Thoughts ? Please discuss .

[gamekeeper]

Interesting link.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... Fvlef70oHw

[Blaine]

Interesting link.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... Fvlef70oHw

You fellas were formidable enemies, and are invaluable friends....(I even overlook burning down the Whitehouse I don't suppose you would do it again, would you? )

[jeepnik]

I would suspect that many of what some people consider the "most significant battles" may well have never been even slightly considered. Historians determine such things, but quite often the historians have never been in a battle. If they had, I'm sure they would find the one's they had been in were much more "significant" than, say, the Battle of the Bulge (unless of course that was a battle they were in).

In short, the "significance" of a thing must necessarily be colored by one's relationship to that thing.

[Charles]

The Allied D-Day invasion of France was a pretty big battle and changed the history of allot of people and countries.

[Blaine]

The Allied D-Day invasion of France was a pretty big battle and changed the history of allot of people and countries.

And, it was successful (in no small way) because of the Soviets keeping Hitler knocked down in the East.
After a short reflection, I'd say the most important war that never took place would have been gathering up the German Army, and marching on the Soviets when they could have been easily taken.... Roosevelt and Churchill should not have given away Europe so easily....

[AJMD429]

Wasn't a 'battle' exactly, but Hiroshima was a game-changer, in both good and bad ways.

I think the whole American Revolution was a singularly important thing though, because it really was the first time and only time the technology-gap between two cultures (us and American Indians) was so great we could win and basically take over a huge mass of land to 'start from scratch'. Most times one culture takes over a chunk of land that size it has to be done with an already-existing foreign invading government and their military machine, which means that although the new people may indeed take over the area, they will be citizens of an already-existing government and its vast military and industrial resources, which prior to the U.S. existing, meant a socialist oligarchy or some other limited-freedom, controlled-economy environment. However in our case, the technology overall was low enough that the British couldn't really supervise their colonies over here (no satellite or radio or all that), so we got started off as a rebellious bunch of folks who wanted government to stay out of the way, and when we got around to creating a government, we set it up so the people were to be in control of the government, not the other way around. Combined with a huge and rich-resource bunch of land, and the subsequent free-market environment which facilitated leaps and bounds of innovation and technology, and within a century the rabble had finished the Indian Wars, and had started to emerge as the world-leader. Overt challenges to that over the next half-century were in vain.

Of course now we have gotten complacent, bureaucratic, corrupt, lazy, and to some degree started bullying other nations on the one hand, yet letting them stomp all over us in other ways - most of it seems driven by lobbyists and back-room political/economic dealings, or trying to support the price of oil, or recreational drugs to enrich the cartels and governments who support them. In the case of both, our own government uses them to leverage more power over the citizenry, and levy more taxes. Whether or not we can return more to what we were like in our heydey remains to be seen.

Firearms were a large part of the technology that empowered the citizen vs. the government, along with the printing-press and the willingness of churches to defy the kings once in awhile. Now the technology of satellites and surveillance has started to tip the balance back against freedom, and the churches are back to their old habits of courting power at the expense of defending religious freedom.

Anyway - I think the various pivotal battles of the American Revolutionary War certainly rank as significant to the whole world history just on that basis.

[Ji in Hawaii]

I think the battle of Midway was very significant, it could have gone either way but lucky for the world it did not, and changed the whole course of the Pacific war from that moment on..

[Ysabel Kid]

You fellas were formidable enemies, and are invaluable friends....(I even overlook burning down the Whitehouse I don't suppose you would do it again, would you? )

Please? Pretty PLEASE???

[mav]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

My parish feast day Oct. 7, Our Lady of Victory


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

I don't think the date, 9/11, was chosen by accident.

[olyinaz]

Managed to squeak a side trip while we ( mom , wife , and I ) were in the area.
This place makes a good argument that it was one of the most important battles in world history in the last 1K years.
The battles at Saratoga NY.
Turning point in both world history as well as U.S. history.

One link :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Saratoga

Thoughts ? Please discuss .

It's a fascinating battle and the exploits and eventual fate of Benedict Arnold are intertwined. Good stuff!

I feel that French King Charlemagne was, by far, the most important King in Western history and you can add just about every battle he ever undertook as some of the most important in world history (OK, I'm cheating - 1300 years) because he not only reforged a European Empire some 300 years after the collapse of Rome, but he (and his sons) pushed Islam back out of Europe. Were it not for the FRENCH you very well might be speaking Arabic and groveling to the Ayatollahs and Imams! Thank God for Charles The Great - he gets a huge thanks from me every time I think of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne

[don Tomás]

[bdhold]

Saratoga was the battle that ultimately won our revolution because the French joined the war over that victory.
At Yorktown, the French troops outnumbered Americans 4 to 1 (also, there were more Americans in the British Army than British). The French Caribe fleet, on loan for just 6 weeks, prevented any possible escape or reinforcement for Cornwallis.
We fought the first war of attrition and the first guerrilla war. Washington was a great leader, because he listened to his generals - he wanted all the information before he made a decision - and he led an 8-year well-organized retreat - that was his best thing. We lost almost all the battles, but won the war.
Early on, Washington wanted an infantry attack on Boston, and we would have lost the war before the declaration of independence over that decision. Henry Knox told him to line up his artillery and troops on the hills so the British in Boston could see them, and they would sail away, which they did along with all the Boston torries. We had no gunpowder for the cannons - it was a big bluff.

Daniel Morgan won two decisive victories in the southern campaign, Cowpens and Guillford Courthouse, using a specific tactic - drawing a blind enemy charge into a well-fortified position. Wellington studied this tactic and used it against Napoleon's army (Ney's charge) at Waterloo. (Napoleon was retired with a migraine headache and certain of victory when Ney charged - he likely wouldn't have fallen for it). The location of Waterloo was no accident. Wellington had "kept this land in his back pocket" for many years just for this tactic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmRnij1gufM

Hand of God can't be overlooked. The Irish potato famine did more to win the Civil War than any individual battle. The immigrants were cannon fodder for the north, and the Civil War was a war of attrition the south couldn't possibly win.

When the British invaded Washington in 1814, the American Army was off invading Canada. The British did burn the white house, but God sent a hurricane and tornado to defeat the British. They suffered 5000 casualties and withdrew from Washington without raising the city - opposed only by God.

The British and Americans were never friends before WWII. They financially supported the South in the Civil War. WWI was unpopular with most Americans because of widespread disdain for the British, including our large Irish and large German populations. After WWI, the English Admiralty worked on plans for a world war against the US.
In 1940, FDR began a major propaganda campaign to elevate the British in public opinion.

[FWiedner]

Here's my list:

Defeat of the Spanish Armada , 1588 - Colonial Spain was the richest and most powerful nation on earth, and England was a nearly bankrupt and colony-less 2nd rate power. With the providential defeat of the great spanish fleet, their days of colonization, their transport of wealth from remote colonies and the new world, and their military control of those colonies virtually ended with bakruptcy and the rise of England, in subsequent years, as the world's predominant colonial and naval power.

Fall of the Bastille, 1789 - The culmination of a period of revolution wherein the ancient regimes of royalty and aristocracy were put down in favor of modern concepts of individual liberty and democratic governments.

Napoleon's defeat/retreat from Moscow, 1812 - The destruction of the Grand Army ended years of oppression and war inflicted upon Europe by Napoleon, created a fresh enthusiasm in central Europe for democratic style governments, and left England as the single most influential power in the region.

Bolshevik Revolution, Storming of the Winter Palace, 1917 - The event leading to the formation of communist Russia and the USSR, which largely determined the path of international politics during the mid and latter 20th century.

Battle of Britain, 1940 - Hitler knew very well that his occupation of Europe meant little if he could not bring Britain under his yoke, and he failed.

Stalingrad, 1942 - Hilter threw almost 400,000 troops at the Russians and was resoundingly deafeated, thus effectively halting the Nazi juggeraut that had overrun Europe. Thus weakened, spirit broken, the armies of the Third Reich lost momentum and defeat became the more usual outcome of their efforts from that point forward.

Hiroshima, 1945 - Everbody knows this story. (Dang, is it hot today, or what?)

[Blaine]

Even though Stalingrad received the attention, some believe it was the two (failed) counter-offensives from Kharkov that drained the effectiveness from the Axis troops....

[FWiedner]

Statistics for the Don region campaign vary, as they will, but the estimate is between 1.75 and 2 million Axis and Soviet military casualties, with something in the range of 1.25 million of those being from the Red Army.

Whatever else one may think of the political philosophies involved or of the leadership techniques leveraged to encourage human sacrifice on such a scale, that, Sir, is a determined defense of one's Homeland from an aggressive foreign invader.

[bdhold]

everything about WWII was a delaying action until a nuclear weapon could be built.

When we got Enrico Fermi, that war was won.

[Blaine]

Statistics for the Don region campaign vary, as they will, but the estimate is between 1.75 and 2 million Axis and Soviet military casualties, with something in the range of 1.25 million of those being from the Red Army.

Whatever else one may think of the political philosophies involved or of the leadership techniques leveraged to encourage human sacrifice on such a scale, that, Sir, is a determined defense of one's Homeland from an aggressive foreign invader.

Not trying to argue, but, at that point in Stalin's war, he had almost as many NKVD behind the regular troops shooting anyone retreating.....That bastage should have been shot at Yalta...Khrushchev would have been the better leader and strategist....

[FWiedner]

Statistics for the Don region campaign vary, as they will, but the estimate is between 1.75 and 2 million Axis and Soviet military casualties, with something in the range of 1.25 million of those being from the Red Army.

Whatever else one may think of the political philosophies involved or of the leadership techniques leveraged to encourage human sacrifice on such a scale, that, Sir, is a determined defense of one's Homeland from an aggressive foreign invader.

Not trying to argue, but, at that point in Stalin's war, he had almost as many NKVD behind the regular troops shooting anyone retreating.....That bastage should have been shot at Yalta...Khrushchev would have been the better leader and strategist....

I thought I said that...

[El Chivo]

Even though Stalingrad received the attention, some believe it was the two (failed) counter-offensives from Kharkov that drained the effectiveness from the Axis troops....

Yes but if you're talking about turning points, Stalingrad was it. Although a case could be made for the counter-offensive from Moscow the year before. Kharkov was probably the first time the Russians employed anti-blitzkrieg tactics, i.e., a zone defense to slow down the Nazi spearheads and spoil their timetable. Before that the Germans were punching through and pinwheeling around, surrounding armies and destroying them. But when they lost their mobility, they were done.

Hard to pin down only one battle in the Eastern front, but that was the decisive area for the war, he could well have gone on to take over all of Europe and the Middle East, India too. What's amazing is what the conquered countries had in store for them, nothing but slavery and planned starvation.

[Blaine]

Statistics for the Don region campaign vary, as they will, but the estimate is between 1.75 and 2 million Axis and Soviet military casualties, with something in the range of 1.25 million of those being from the Red Army.

Whatever else one may think of the political philosophies involved or of the leadership techniques leveraged to encourage human sacrifice on such a scale, that, Sir, is a determined defense of one's Homeland from an aggressive foreign invader.

Not trying to argue, but, at that point in Stalin's war, he had almost as many NKVD behind the regular troops shooting anyone retreating.....That bastage should have been shot at Yalta...Khrushchev would have been the better leader and strategist....

I thought I said that...

Ok...Though, I think you have mistaken Murder/Coercion for Leadership. Even the brutal Sun Tzu took better care of his men than that...

[FWiedner]

Ok...Though, I think you have mistaken Murder/Coercion for Leadership. Even the brutal Sun Tzu took better care of his men than that...

Modern sensibilties and sensitivities rarely accomodate the the outlooks and attitudes of those generations gone by. Some breeds of men see life from a more severe vantage than others.

In the time of our Lord, men used to starve wild carnivores and then feed condemned prisoners to them.

I think Rahm Imanuel (sp?) still does that in Chicago.

[Blaine]

I think Rahm Imanuel (sp?) still does that in Chicago.

In Chicago, starving lions are scared of the police, and Obama's Sons....

[missionary5155]

Greetings
I our modern times I will whole heartedly agree with Midway and tie in Guadelcanal. From then on the the japs seldon took another offensive operation of expansion except on the Asia mainland.
Over in Europe... The Battle for the Atlantic. If the East bound convoys could have been stopped there was nothing to stop the German advance... except the lunacy of the man in charge.
Mike in Peru

[Washita]

Greetings
I our modern times I will whole heartedly agree with Midway and tie in Guadelcanal. From then on the the japs seldon took another offensive operation of expansion except on the Asia mainland.
Over in Europe... The Battle for the Atlantic. If the East bound convoys could have been stopped there was nothing to stop the German advance... except the lunacy of the man in charge.
Mike in Peru

Yes. Churchill said the U-Boat war was the only thing in the war that really scared him. If England had lost that one, it's doubtful that Russia could've won, and without Russia and England it's doubtful America could've gained a toehold in Europe. The battle of the Atlantic was the most crucial one in modern times in my opinion. With Nazi Germany out of the picture for America, Japan would've been a pushover, by comparison. The U.S. and U.K. always had a "Germany first" policy.

[bdhold]

the astounding part there was the tonnage of Liberty ships that were continually manufactured to replace the U-boat attrition.

[1894]

I'm glad I started this thread , I've learned a lot !
At Saratoga , I think their reasoning for the battle being important is along these lines.
The colonies were not winning a lot of battles and were becoming war weary and losing hope and faith . Other nations were not willing to overtly side against the British as they were the world power of the day .
That all changed when Gates ( and the others ) chose not to just let the Brits retreat and call it good enough . They forced the Brits to actually lay down their arms and sign a surrender ( not something the Brits did very often ) . Then made the red coats head back to Canada with their tails between their legs .
This showed the colonies and the rest of the world that maybe , just maybe , the Brits can be defeated . We were re-invigorated , other countries decided to openly support us , and thus the tide turned.
Well at least that is what I gathered from our short visit there .
That and if Arnold had died from that leg wound he would probably hold a much more favorable spot in our history books.

[1894]

Please keep this going , I'm learning a lot about history in this thread

[El Chivo]

I'd like to hear more about earlier wars, ones I don't know much about. They might have had a greater effect on us today. Like the one that introduced the Magna Carta, etc.

Would it have mattered much if we had lost the Revolutionary War? Except for a 3% tea tax, I doubt if America's development would have been all that different. We adopted most of England's philosophies anyway, and were already too big for them to control. If we had been like Canada or Australia, it wouldn't have been that different.

Midway and Guadalcanal were important, but I don't think Japan had any chance to take us over. They could have solidified their hold on the Far East perhaps. What those wins did was shorten the war considerably, saving us many casualties. Whereas the Nazis had pretty good footholds on our continent, through their friends in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, who would have loved to help them.

One thing I caught from one of the old newsreels - I never really understood why Hitler went into North Africa, except to help bumbling Mussolini. But he was going after the Middle East and the oil. His push on the Caucasus was really part of that. It was a pincer movement on the Middle East, and a breakthrough on either front would have given it to him.

He probably should have gone south that first year in Russia, while they were still disorganized, and left Moscow alone. Going after Moscow galvanized the Russians. They might have let him have the southern route without a fight. Then he would have had the Middle East in his pocket, and all that oil.

About Stalin's program of executing soldiers, it is harsh, but you'd have to be in his shoes.
It's a simple and direct solution to the problem of soldiers running away. And he just finished starving millions of farmers when he turned their farms into state collectives. Their culture is harsh and not particularly appreciative of human rights. We'd probably do the same thing if we were in a truly desperate position.

They also had penal battalions which were used as cannon fodder and to clear minefields, and it didn't take much for a unit to screw up and get put into that category. The Germans had penal battalions too, given high risk tasks until they were all dead.

[66GTO]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

My parish feast day Oct. 7, Our Lady of Victory


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

I don't think the date, 9/11, was chosen by accident.

You and I are thinking along the same lines (turning back the Muslim invasion of Europe), but I was thinking more of 1492 and Granada, Spain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_G ... at_Granada

I shudder to think what the outcome on history would have been had the Muslims overtaken and ruled Europe just as the New World was opening up. I shudder for the future of Western Civilization because the Isamist are now taking over the Western world by assimilation, because of the cowardice of our "leaders".

[olyinaz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

My parish feast day Oct. 7, Our Lady of Victory


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

I don't think the date, 9/11, was chosen by accident.

You and I are thinking along the same lines (turning back the Muslim invasion of Europe), but I was thinking more of 1492 and Granada, Spain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_G ... at_Granada

I shudder to think what the outcome on history would have been had the Muslims overtaken and ruled Europe just as the New World was opening up. I shudder for the future of Western Civilization because the Isamist are now taking over the Western world by assimilation, because of the cowardice of our "leaders".

It's a huge and interesting subject. Charlemagne took up what his father started and had huge success, but the fall of Granada largely signified the end of the "The Reconquista". Some good reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquis ... _Caliphate

THANK GOD the b'tards were pushed out, even if the means were sometimes brutal. If only the crusades had been more successful...

[Blaine]

THANK GOD the b'tards were pushed out, even if the means were sometimes brutal. If only the crusades had been more successful...

They are conquering large areas of the USA without firing a shot

[Sixgun]

Battles that affect who? The way I see it the biggest battle that meant anything was the recent victory by us against that whatever-he-is in Washington concerning "assault" weapons, registration, ammo sales, gunshow sales, whatever.

Had that passed, we ALL would not be happy at the moment. God Bless the NRA.----------------6

[GonnePhishin]

The massive tank battle fought at Kursk during the summer of 1943 between the Nazi's and Ruskies, IMO was the decisive turning point of Hitlers war against Stalin in the East. After losing massive quantities of tanks and men, the Germans were forced to go on permanent defensive after this.

[El Chivo]

Kharkov was probably the first time the Russians employed anti-blitzkrieg tactics, i.e., a zone defense to slow down the Nazi spearheads and spoil their timetable. Before that the Germans were punching through and pinwheeling around, surrounding armies and destroying them. But when they lost their mobility, they were done.

You know what, I was thinking about Kursk when I replied to the thread about Kharkov, so many battles.

Which (later) battle was it where the Russkies routed the Germans, and rode into them on horseback with sabers, killing 50,000?

[piller]

Agincourt! First example of truly modern warfare where noncombatants were specifically targeted, and where artillery (arrows) were used to defeat foot soldiers and tanks (knights in tarnished armor).

[Blaine]

Another decisive thrust into the Axis guts was on July 3, 1941 when Churchill ordered the French Fleet to either go to a USA port, British Port, or for the crew to scuttle their own ships. At Mers-el-Kébir, the French took high offense to this, and Churchill ordered the French ships destroyed. Had the French Fleet been turned over to the Axis enemies, they could have overwhelmed British sea power and with the combined British, French, and Axis fleets America would have been made short work of.....Most French ships were recovered. Later when unoccupied Southern France was taken over by Hitler, the French did indeed scuttle their ships......They were severely punished by Nazis for this dastardly deed......

[bdhold]

That and if Arnold had died from that leg wound he would probably hold a much more favorable spot in our history books.

there would be a lot of kids named Benny

[bdhold]

...
Yes but if you're talking about turning points, Stalingrad was it.

the actual turning point was when Hitler stopped his own offensive to the Caucasus and the Russian oilfields and turned it toward Stalingrad. The credit must go to Stalin for changing the name of the city from Tsaritsyn.

[J35]

I always liked John Bricks book about Timothy Murphy


.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Murphy_(sniper)


-----J

[Canuck Bob]

We have a running program on the tube regarding the War of 1812. Significance is very personal but it established a border and a separate identity for my country. We were being over-run by the Republicans at York who were seeking the stores of powder and arms. The General ignited it instead and it changed the direction of the war. It was a real big bang apparently. The heritage is the world's longest undefended border ever.

It is important to note that it was against Upper Canadians and indians. The Brits were hopelessly outnumbered without Canadians. England was tied up a bit with a guy named Napoleon at the time. There were many displaced Loyalists who had relocated as well. We have always had a very deadly volunteer militia force and the natives were outstanding soldiers and tacticians when properly supplied and supported. The old folks when I was a kid always called Americans republicans and did not refer to a political party but a political label. The Americans were seen as allies of the French in war and politics.

I think of major significance more as warfare's direction. Chariots were a big deal. Gunpowder maybe the biggest but I vote for airpower. The cannon made an unbelievable impact. A bit of trivia, first aerial bomb dropped in anger? Baghdad a long time ago, what goes around does seem to come around.