The most decisive battles of world history

[Cypress]

According to Dr. Gregory S. Aldrete, Professor of History at University of Wisconsin, these are the most decisive battles of world history, in chronological order. I learned a crap load from this class, and two of my take-aways are:

The most innovative, and coolest battlefield innovation of its time were the Korean turtle ships.

One of the most obscure, but potentially one of the most significant battles on the eve of World War 2 was Khalkin Gol in 1939 in Mongolia, between forces of the Soviet Red Army and the Kwantung Army of Imperial Japan This totally obscure and little-known battle purportedly contributed to the outbreak of war in both the Pacific and in Europe and ultimately influenced the outcome of world war 2.

1274 B.C. Kadesh—Greatest Chariot Battle
479 B.C. Plataea—Greece Wins Freedom
331 B.C. Gaugamela—Alexander’s Genius
197 B.C. Cynoscephalae—Legion vs. Phalanx
31 B.C. Actium—Birth of the Roman Empire
260–110 B.C. China—Struggles for Unification
636 Yarmouk & al-Qadisiyyah—Islam Triumphs
751 Talas & 1192 Tarain—Islam into Asia
1066 Hastings—William Conquers England
1087 Hattin—Crusader Desert Disaster
1260 Ain Jalut—Can the Mongols Be Stopped?
1410 Tannenberg—Cataclysm of Knights
Frigidus, Badr, Diu—Obscure Turning Points
1521 Tenochtitlán—Aztecs vs. Conquistadors
1532 Cajamarca—Inca vs. Conquistadors
1526 & 1556 Panipat—Babur & Akbar in India
1571 Lepanto—Last Gasp of the Galleys
1592 Sacheon—Yi’s Mighty Turtle Ships
1600 Sekigahara—Samurai Showdow
1683 Vienna—The Great Ottoman Siege
1709 Poltava—Sweden’s Fall, Russia’s Rise
1759 Quebec—Battle for North America
1776 Trenton—The Revolution’s Darkest Hour
1805 Trafalgar—Nelson Thwarts Napoleon
1813 Leipzig—The Grand Coalition
1824 Ayacucho—South American Independence
1836 San Jacinto—Mexico’s Big Loss
1862 Antietam—The Civil War’s Bloodiest Day
1866 Königgrätz—Bismarck Molds Germany
1905 Tsushima—Japan Humiliates Russia
1914 Marne—Paris Is Saved
1939 Khalkin Gol—Sowing the Seeds of WWII
1942 Midway—Four Minutes Change Everything
1942 Stalingrad—Hitler’s Ambitions Crushed

[Mott the Hoople]

I have no idea why Tom is groaning you unless it’s just general rancor. I think this is an excellent topic.

[Mott the Hoople]

OK...where I agree and disagree with the good professor. I don’t agree with him on Actium. Actium does mark the end of the Roman Republic but it wasn’t decisive. It was the end point of a long process that began with the Grachian reforms, exacerbated by the Germanic invasions, the Marian Reforms and the Social Wars that led to the Dictatorships of Sulla and Caesar. By the time of the rise of Octavian and the beginning of the Principate the Republic was pretty much already dead.

I would argue the battle of Zama was more decisive where in the first Carthagenian war Hannibal met his match in Scipio Africanus. The decisive outcome of Zama was that Rome had extended its hegemony to control the entire Mediterranean region. That did not change until the crisis of the third century AD. Actium did not change that. Roman hegemony was already at 90% of its fullest extent. Actium marked the change of Roman form of government from a Republic designed to govern a small city state to the Principate which was competent at governing an international empire.

[Mott the Hoople]

Next is Ain el Jailut. The elite Mamluke warriors showed that the Mongols could be defeated in battle and marked the extent of the Mongol Empire...but the Mongol Empire existed for another 100 years. It wasn’t that decisive. I would argue the Conquest of the Xia empire where the Mongols mastered siege warfare was the decisive point from which the Mongols became the largest contiguous empire in human history.

[Cypress]

OK...where I agree and disagree with the good professor. I don’t agree with him on Actium. Actium does mark the end of the Roman Republic but it wasn’t decisive. It was the end point of a long process that began with the Grachian reforms, exacerbated by the Germanic invasions, the Marian Reforms and the Social Wars that led to the Dictatorships of Sulla and Caesar. By the time of the rise of Octavian and the beginning of the Principate the Republic was pretty much already dead.

I would argue the battle of Zama was more decisive where in the first Carthagenian war Hannibal met his match in Scipio Africanus. The decisive outcome of Zama was that Rome had extended its hegemony to control the entire Mediterranean region. That did not change until the crisis of the third century AD. Actium did not change that. Roman hegemony was already at 90% of its fullest extent. Actium marked the change of Roman form of government from a Republic designed to govern a small city state to the Principate which was competent at governing an international empire.

It is good to see your brain power contribute.

Professor Aldrete explicitly said this list was just based on his opinion, but that it is fun to hear the opinion of others. He concedes there is nothing sacrosanct about his list.

I was a little surprised that Dr. Aldrete picked Antietam over Gettysburg as his American Civil War pick....but after listening to his reasoning, it sort of made sense, even though Anteitam was really a tactical battlefield draw. Strategically, it ended up being very consequential to the ultimate outcome of the war. .

I also think Dr. Aldrete was a little light on east Asian military history. During 4,000 years of Chinese civilization, I think the course could have been weighted a little more towards east Asia. But, I think that might be Dr. Aldrete's bias, training, and expertise showing through - he is an expert on Greco-Roman history and western antiquity.

[Cypress]

In modern history, I would rank the 1968 Tet Offensive as one of the most consequential military events of the late 20th century.
A tactical battle field win for US forces, but strategically it had long term and lasting consequences for both the outcome of the war, and for U.S. foreign policy over the next half century.

[Mott the Hoople]

It is good to see your brain power contribute.

Professor Aldrete explicitly said this list was just based on his opinion, but that it is fun to hear the opinion of others. He concedes there is nothing sacrosanct about his list.

I was a little surprised that Dr. Aldrete picked Antietam over Gettysburg as his American Civil War pick....but after listening to his reasoning, it sort of made sense, even though Anteitam was really a tactical battlefield draw. Strategically, it ended up being very consequential to the ultimate outcome of the war. .

I also think Dr. Aldrete was a little light on east Asian military history. During 4,000 years of Chinese civilization, I think the course could have been weighted a little more towards east Asia. But, I think that might be Dr. Aldrete's bias, training, and expertise showing through - he is an expert on Greco-Roman history and western antiquity.

I do agree with him in that the odds of Britain and/or France intervening in the American Civil War all but vanished because the outcome of Antietam permitted Lincoln to publish the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a major strategic blow to the Confederacy but it wasn't decisive. I would argue that the Lee's catastrophic blunder at Gettysburg combined with Grants brilliant and decisive campaign at Vicksburg were the true turning point in the American Civil War. The Confederacy still had the upper hand after Antietam in that they had a huge defensive advantage over the Unions advantage in men and materials. Vicksburg not only cut the Confederacy in half it permitted Grant, the greatest general of the American Civil War to direct the combined forces of five armies in the field, all with the same strategic goals that crushed the Confederate Armies in the field and ended the war. Therefore I would argue that Vicksburg was the most decisive battle of the American Civil War. After Vicksburg it was all over but the fat lady singing thanks laregely to Grants genius.

[Mott the Hoople]

I would also agree with the Professor on Quebec. It was the decisive battle of the seven years war in North America and one of the most decisive battles in North American history given its long term consequences.

[Cypress]

I do agree with him in that the odds of Britain and/or France intervening in the American Civil War all but vanished because the outcome of Antietam permitted Lincoln to publish the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a major strategic blow to the Confederacy but it wasn't decisive. I would argue that the Lee's catastrophic blunder at Gettysburg combined with Grants brilliant and decisive campaign at Vicksburg were the true turning point in the American Civil War. The Confederacy still had the upper hand after Antietam in that they had a huge defensive advantage over the Unions advantage in men and materials. Vicksburg not only cut the Confederacy in half it permitted Grant, the greatest general of the American Civil War to direct the combined forces of five armies in the field, all with the same strategic goals that crushed the Confederate Armies in the field and ended the war. Therefore I would argue that Vicksburg was the most decisive battle of the American Civil War. After Vicksburg it was all over but the fat lady singing thanks laregely to Grants genius.

All good insights.

Although the Russo-Japanese war is fairly obscure, and little-remembered by most in the west (my grandfather served in that war), I thought the professor was insightful to highlight the naval disaster suffered by the Russian navy at Tsushima, and the ultimate crushing defeat of the Russian Imperial Army.

I do not think most people realize this, but Russia's defeat at the hands of the Japanese in 1905 had very direct consequences weakening the authority of the Tsar, and ultimately leading to revolution, and emboldening revolutionaries. In some ways, I think the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, and 80 years of Soviet communism can draw direct linkages back to the disaster at the Straits of Tsushima and the Russia's humiliating defeat at the hands of Japan.

[archives]

Saratoga? Seems it would have been the American Revelotion battle over Trenton, Burgoyne wins at Saratoga and he would have split the colonies north and south

Waterloo? At least it is always noted as the end of Napolean more so than Trafalgar, then again it got a public square named after it rather than a train station

List certainly is a conversation piece

[archives]

I do agree with him in that the odds of Britain and/or France intervening in the American Civil War all but vanished because the outcome of Antietam permitted Lincoln to publish the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a major strategic blow to the Confederacy but it wasn't decisive. I would argue that the Lee's catastrophic blunder at Gettysburg combined with Grants brilliant and decisive campaign at Vicksburg were the true turning point in the American Civil War. The Confederacy still had the upper hand after Antietam in that they had a huge defensive advantage over the Unions advantage in men and materials. Vicksburg not only cut the Confederacy in half it permitted Grant, the greatest general of the American Civil War to direct the combined forces of five armies in the field, all with the same strategic goals that crushed the Confederate Armies in the field and ended the war. Therefore I would argue that Vicksburg was the most decisive battle of the American Civil War. After Vicksburg it was all over but the fat lady singing thanks laregely to Grants genius.

Vicksburg didn't crush the South's ability to invade the North, if Lee had won at Gettsburg he would have been able to circle back and cut off Washington, I'd still pick Gettsburg as the decisive battle of the Civil War

[Cypress]

Saratoga? Seems it would have been the American Revelotion battle over Trenton, Burgoyne wins at Saratoga and he would have split the colonies north and south

Waterloo? At least it is always noted as the end of Napolean more so than Trafalgar, then again it got a public square named after it rather than a train station

List certainly is a conversation piece

I began by thinking leaving Waterloo off was a major oversight.

Professor Aldrete explained that Napaleon was basically finished off at Leipzig. Waterloo may have been his last stand, but at that point the Europeans had finally "learned" how to defeat Napoleon and Waterloo was almost a foregone conclusion. Leipzig, strategically, is where the European allied nations dealt Napoleon and the French Army a lethal injury.

[archives]

I began by thinking leaving Waterloo off was a major oversight.

Professor Aldrete explained that Napaleon was basically finished off at Leipzig. Waterloo may have been his last stand, but at that point the Europeans had finally "learned" how to defeat Napoleon and Waterloo was almost a foregone conclusion. Leipzig, strategically, is where the European allied nations dealt Napoleon and the French Army a lethal injury.

Make sense, not really that familiar, but didn't Napolean win a battle inbetween Leipzig and Waterloo against Prussia? And why Trafalgar, didn't it occur years before any of those battles, and was France ever really a naval threat?

[Cypress]

Make sense, not really that familiar, but didn't Napolean win a battle inbetween Leipzig and Waterloo against Prussia? And why Trafalgar, didn't it occur years before any of those battles, and was France ever really a naval threat?

I am not even remotely an expert on the Napoleonic Wars, but according to Professor Aldrete, Trafalgar prevented Napoleon from achieving universal European domination, because it ended his ability to invade Britain. It basically was thought to have "saved" England. That makes it sound to me like an 19th century version of the Battle of Britain of 1940-fame.

Between the catastrophic invasion of Russia, and the strategic defeat at Liepzig, that ability of Napoleon and the French Army to achieve battlefield dominance was essentially ended. The French loses were simply too catastrophic to be able to continue to dominate Europe. That is, in part, what made Waterloo a foregone conclusion of sorts.

I do not have the knowledge to know of any battle against Prussia post-Leipzig.

[archives]

I am not even remotely an expert on the Napoleonic Wars, but according to Professor Aldrete, Trafalgar prevented Napoleon from achieving universal European domination, because it ended his ability to invade Britain. It basically was thought to have "saved" England. That makes it sound to me like an 19th century version of the Battle of Britain of 1940-fame.

Between the catastrophic invasion of Russia, and the strategic defeat at Liepzig, that ability of Napoleon and the French Army to achieve battlefield dominance was essentially ended. The French loses were simply too catastrophic to be able to continue to dominate Europe. That is, in part, what made Waterloo a foregone conclusion of sorts.

I do not have the knowledge to know of any battle against Prussia post-Leipzig.

I just recall some encounter where they though Napolean had rebounded after Leipzig, too lazy to google it, I'll take your interpretation, never liked Napolean anyways, suffered from the short guy syndrome

So what about Saratoga rather than Trenton?