The most decisive battles of world history

[Mott the Hoople]

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

Well I think we agree but for different reasons. Both Vicksburg and Gettysburg combined were the decisive turning point in the American Civil War but even had Lee had won Gettysburg it still would have been a catastrophic strategic blunder. Lee's strategy was based on a false premise that he couldn't support. That attacking DC would have resulted in a negotiated peace. Not only was that a dubious proposition but Lee simply didn't have the men and resources to remain in Pennsylvania, it was very unlikely he could have lived off the land given Union pursuit and resources. It's also highly unlikely that The Army of Northern Virginia could have taken DC given its extensive lines of fortifications made it the most well defended city on the planet at that time. Eventually Lee would have had to return to Virginia with the same net results. The complete and utter waste of the Confederacies defensive advantages that utterly wasted the Confederacies limited resources in man and materials that played a major role in the Confederacies losing the war.

Lee was a brilliant battle field tactician but his decisions to invade Maryland (Antietam) and Pennsylvania (Gettysburg) were the greatest strategic military blunders in the entire military history of North America. A great strategist Lee was not and his failed strategies were a significant reason why the Confederacy lost a war they probably should have won. Probably the worst thing that happened to the Confederacy during the Civil War was when Gen. Joe Johnston was injured at the second battle of Manassass and was replaced by Lee. Johnston's strategy of defending the confederacies interior lines and forcing the Union invaders to pay in lakes of blood while conserving Confederate resources very well could have been a winning strategy. Lee's going on the offensive proved suicidal for the Confederacy.

[archives]

Well I think we agree but for different reasons. Both Vicksburg and Gettysburg combined were the decisive turning point in the American Civil War but even had Lee had won Gettysburg it still would have been a catastrophic strategic blunder. Lee's strategy was based on a false premise that he couldn't support. That attacking DC would have resulted in a negotiated peace. Not only was that a dubious proposition but Lee simply didn't have the men and resources to remain in Pennsylvania, it was very unlikely he could have lived off the land given Union pursuit and resources. It's also highly unlikely that The Army of Northern Virginia could have taken DC given its extensive lines of fortifications made it the most well defended city on the planet at that time. Eventually Lee would have had to return to Virginia with the same net results. The complete and utter waste of the Confederacies defensive advantages that utterly wasted the Confederacies limited resources in man and materials that played a major role in the Confederacies losing the war.

Lee was a brilliant battle field tactician but his decisions to invade Maryland (Antietam) and Pennsylvania (Gettysburg) were the greatest strategic military blunders in the entire military history of North America. A great strategist Lee was not and his failed strategies were a significant reason why the Confederacy lost a war they probably should have won. Probably the worst thing that happened to the Confederacy during the Civil War was when Gen. Joe Johnston was injured at the second battle of Manassass and was replaced by Lee. Johnston's strategy of defending the confederacies interior lines and forcing the Union invaders to pay in lakes of blood while conserving Confederate resources very well could have been a winning strategy. Lee's going on the offensive proved suicidal for the Confederacy.

Two quick questions, if Lee had won Gettsburg and marched toward DC wouldn't he have gotten support from sympathizers in Maryland which I believe was under Marshall Law at the time? Seemingly would have thrown a monkey wrench into Union designs at the time

And also, what if he had marched to Philadelphia, with Meade's armies in retreat who would have stopped him in any direction he traveled?

[Irish Exit]

Two quick questions, if Lee had won Gettsburg and marched toward DC wouldn't he have gotten support from sympathizers in Maryland which I believe was under Marshall Law at the time? Seemingly would have thrown a monkey wrench into Union designs at the time

Not likely as Maryland was basically a southern state under occupation anyway. His only shot would have been to hold DC under siege.

And also, what if he had marched to Philadelphia, with Meade's armies in retreat who would have stopped him in any direction he traveled?

Lack of supply lines, fresh troops, etc. Besides, Lee wasn't super keen on this northern invasion to begin with after the Antietam Campaign

[Mott the Hoople]

Two quick questions, if Lee had won Gettsburg and marched toward DC wouldn't he have gotten support from sympathizers in Maryland which I believe was under Marshall Law at the time? Seemingly would have thrown a monkey wrench into Union designs at the time

And also, what if he had marched to Philadelphia, with Meade's armies in retreat who would have stopped him in any direction he traveled?

No he wouldn't have. Lee made exactly that assumption when he invaded Maryland and it simply didn't happen. Maryland stayed loyal to the Union. In fact invading Maryland cause many fence sitters in that State to turn their allegiance in favor of the Union.

As for the other "what if?" The previous battles of the Army of the Potomac vs The Army of Northern Virginia in Virginia were never decisive and by that I mean they never resulted in the destruction of either Army as an effective fighting force. There is little evidence to believe that would have happened at Gettysburg cause, as we know, it didn't but for the sake of argument lets say it did. After the Battle of Gettysburg Lee's numerically inferior army suffered over 25,000 casualties. It also consumed most of the ammunition and material supplies and food that the Army of Northern Virginia had. So even if they had won a decisive victory against the Army of The Potomac (which was very unlikely to begin with) the Army of Northern Virginia was still a spent force
that lacked the military force needed to break the encircling fortifications surrounding DC. Also keep in mind the superior lines of communication and transportation that the Union had and that Union forces in the west were the Confederacy was losing badly could have transported large numbers of troops and materials in a short period of time, via the rail roads, as they did during the Chattanooga campaign. That, again, would have inevitably forced the Army of Northern Virginia back into Virginia.

So there is not really a whole lot of basis in fact that this could have happened. The reality is that Lee took an incredibly audacious gamble in invading Pennsylvania, took much needed resources from the Confederate western Armies, and the western theater of the Civil War is where the war was really won, and failed on an epic scale that contributed hugely to the Confederacy losing the war.

The "What if?" I would give you to consider is what if Davis had refused to provide Lee's request for more troops and supplies, ordered him to stay in northern Virginia on the defensive and had provided those recources to Johnston and Pemberton in the west to fight Grants invading army which had taken the extraordinary risk of invading Mississippi while cutting both his lines of supply and communications? What if Davis had ordered Lee to give up additional troops and resources to the Chattanooga campaign which would have at worst delayed the taking of Atlanta to after the 1864 election? Then a negotiated peace would have been far more probable.

With that you can begin to see what I mean about Lee being a very poor strategist.

[evince]

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

because he doesn't understand what you are posting about

so basically because hes an idiot

[Mott the Hoople]

Not likely as Maryland was basically a southern state under occupation anyway. His only shot would have been to hold DC under siege.





Lack of supply lines, fresh troops, etc. Besides, Lee wasn't super keen on this northern invasion to begin with after the Antietam Campaign

But Lee didn't have the resources to do that. Lee's Army had taken staggering loses at Gettysburg and used up most of its supplies and ammunition. They simply didn't have the material resources to attack DC and it would have only taken a few days for the Union to have brought the neccessary troops from the west in by railroad to repel Lee, . As for Lee not being keen on the Northern invasion...meh...it was still his idea and his strategy that he sold Davis on.

Up to that point the war, even if the odds were against the Confederacy, was still possible for the them to win. After the double calamity of Gettysburg and Vicksburg it wasn't. The collapse of the Confederate armies in the west was a death knell to the Confederacy.

[Irish Exit]

But Lee didn't have the resources to do that. Lee's Army had taken staggering loses at Gettysburg and used up most of its supplies and ammunition. They simply didn't have the material resources to attack DC and it would have only taken a few days for the Union to have brought the neccessary troops from the west in by railroad to repel Lee, . As for Lee not being keen on the Northern invasion...meh...it was still his idea and his strategy that he sold Davis on.

Up to that point the war, even if the odds were against the Confederacy, was still possible for the them to win. After the double calamity of Gettysburg and Vicksburg it wasn't. The collapse of the Confederate armies in the west was a death knell to the Confederacy.

The whole thing about both northern campaigns were highly dependent on resources. He would have an easier time holding DC than Philly as he could bring supplies up from coastal Virginia. Northern VA was pretty leveled, but not most of the state. It would have been a symbolic victory at least as Lincoln would have fled to Philly or NYC just as Davis moved the CSA capitol south after Richmond fell albeit just a technicality before they attempted to high tail it to Cuba.

[Mott the Hoople]

The whole thing about both northern campaigns were highly dependent on resources. He would have an easier time holding DC than Philly as he could bring supplies up from coastal Virginia. Northern VA was pretty leveled, but not most of the state. It would have been a symbolic victory at least as Lincoln would have fled to Philly or NYC just as Davis moved the CSA capitol south after Richmond fell albeit just a technicality before they attempted to high tail it to Cuba.

Lincoln wouldn't have gone no where. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia simply didn't have the numbers or materials to take on the circle of fortifications surrounding DC. It would have been Fredricksburg all over again. As for Philly that would have been like a dog chasing a car...what's he going to do when he catches it? LOL I don't think your considering that the Civil War was not the Napoleonic Wars. They could deploy troops quite rapidly across large distances of real estate via the rail roads. Lee having defeated the Army of the Potomac was in and of itself highly improbable and even had that happen the odds of Lee being able to take advantage of it were also highly improbable.

[Cypress]

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?

I am no expert in the Revolutionary War, and would be willing to entertain a case about the strategic importance of the Battle of Saratoga.

Dr. Aldrete picked Trenton, because it was the make-or-break moment of the American Revolution. The Revolution would have either failed and withered away at Trenton -- or it would live on to fight another day. That obviously makes it of paramount historical importance, vastly exceeding what must have appeared at the time to simply be an insignificant tactical battlefield victory for the Continental Army.

[Adolf_Twitler]

The Trojan Horse is still my favorite story of innovation in Battle.

Tokyo Rose was probably my 2nd choice, not for decisiveness, but for silliness on the battlefield!

[Mott the Hoople]

I am no expert in the Revolutionary War, and would be willing to entertain a case about the strategic importance of the Battle of Saratoga.

Dr. Aldrete picked Trenton, because it was the make-or-break moment of the American Revolution. The Revolution would have either failed and withered away at Trenton -- or it would live on to fight another day. That obviously makes it of paramount historical importance, vastly exceeding what must have appeared at the time to simply be an insignificant tactical battlefield victory for the Continental Army.

Saratoga was huge. It cut British access to the Finger Lake country in New York off to approach from Canada and prevented the British from invading the foundling US from Canada. That was one less front the Continental Army had to deal with and allowed Gen. Sullivan (under Gen Washington's orders) to isolate the Iroquois from the British and make mince meat out of the Iroquois league in the Mohawk River Valley. Between that and the Great Chain at West Point that limited access to the Hudson River the British were cutoff from the interior of pretty much all of New England with the exception of Boston and New York Harbors.

[Cypress]

Saratoga was huge. It cut British access to the Finger Lake country in New York off to approach from Canada and prevented the British from invading the foundling US from Canada. That was one less front the Continental Army had to deal with and allowed Gen. Sullivan (under Gen Washington's orders) to isolate the Iroquois from the British and make mince meat out of the Iroquois league in the Mohawk River Valley. Between that and the Great Chain at West Point that limited access to the Hudson River the British were cutoff from the interior of pretty much all of New England with the exception of Boston and New York Harbors.

Certainly meets the criteria of a strategic victory.
On a sidebar, my Canadian relative take pride in their successful defense against the American invasion of upper Canada.

Another tangent - I believe the case can be made that one oversight in the list in Post #1 is the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century.

It seems to me, that was not only a strategic outcome, but a historic one. One that we can still feel the effects of five centuries later. It was the ending of the last vestiges of the Eastern Roman Empire, and it created a permanent division at the Bosporus between Christian Europe and Muslim Asia; a geographic, cultural, and political division we are still feeling today.

[Irish Exit]

Lincoln wouldn't have gone no where. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia simply didn't have the numbers or materials to take on the circle of fortifications surrounding DC. It would have been Fredricksburg all over again. As for Philly that would have been like a dog chasing a car...what's he going to do when he catches it? LOL I don't think your considering that the Civil War was not the Napoleonic Wars. They could deploy troops quite rapidly across large distances of real estate via the rail roads. Lee having defeated the Army of the Potomac was in and of itself highly improbable and even had that happen the odds of Lee being able to take advantage of it were also highly improbable.

Lincoln would have fled and trains only work when the tracks haven't been torn up. DC then wasn't DC today. Jubal Early got within 6 miles of the Capitol and chose to withdraw thinking DC was more heavily defended than it was.

[archives]

No he wouldn't have. Lee made exactly that assumption when he invaded Maryland and it simply didn't happen. Maryland stayed loyal to the Union. In fact invading Maryland cause many fence sitters in that State to turn their allegiance in favor of the Union.

As for the other "what if?" The previous battles of the Army of the Potomac vs The Army of Northern Virginia in Virginia were never decisive and by that I mean they never resulted in the destruction of either Army as an effective fighting force. There is little evidence to believe that would have happened at Gettysburg cause, as we know, it didn't but for the sake of argument lets say it did. After the Battle of Gettysburg Lee's numerically inferior army suffered over 25,000 casualties. It also consumed most of the ammunition and material supplies and food that the Army of Northern Virginia had. So even if they had won a decisive victory against the Army of The Potomac (which was very unlikely to begin with) the Army of Northern Virginia was still a spent force
that lacked the military force needed to break the encircling fortifications surrounding DC. Also keep in mind the superior lines of communication and transportation that the Union had and that Union forces in the west were the Confederacy was losing badly could have transported large numbers of troops and materials in a short period of time, via the rail roads, as they did during the Chattanooga campaign. That, again, would have inevitably forced the Army of Northern Virginia back into Virginia.

So there is not really a whole lot of basis in fact that this could have happened. The reality is that Lee took an incredibly audacious gamble in invading Pennsylvania, took much needed resources from the Confederate western Armies, and the western theater of the Civil War is where the war was really won, and failed on an epic scale that contributed hugely to the Confederacy losing the war.

The "What if?" I would give you to consider is what if Davis had refused to provide Lee's request for more troops and supplies, ordered him to stay in northern Virginia on the defensive and had provided those recources to Johnston and Pemberton in the west to fight Grants invading army which had taken the extraordinary risk of invading Mississippi while cutting both his lines of supply and communications? What if Davis had ordered Lee to give up additional troops and resources to the Chattanooga campaign which would have at worst delayed the taking of Atlanta to after the 1864 election? Then a negotiated peace would have been far more probable.

With that you can begin to see what I mean about Lee being a very poor strategist.

Yes, informative, you must have a Civil War interest

[archives]

Saratoga was huge. It cut British access to the Finger Lake country in New York off to approach from Canada and prevented the British from invading the foundling US from Canada. That was one less front the Continental Army had to deal with and allowed Gen. Sullivan (under Gen Washington's orders) to isolate the Iroquois from the British and make mince meat out of the Iroquois league in the Mohawk River Valley. Between that and the Great Chain at West Point that limited access to the Hudson River the British were cutoff from the interior of pretty much all of New England with the exception of Boston and New York Harbors.

Are you one of those kids who's pop planned vacations around battle sites?