Great Military Battles (& Campaigns) in History

[jusplay4fun]

I want to discuss some of the Great Battles in History. I do not want to severely limit the criteria, but I do want a fun discussion of ideas on some or many of the key battles in history. One factor I am considering is whether the battle represents an inflection point in history, where the results of the battle decide the arc of history for a "long time" (no set # of years) after the battle. If the losing side had won the battle, history would be profoundly impacted. BUT this is not the sole criteria.

Of course, the SIZE of the Battle is key too: # of fighters involved, # of casualties, length of battle are things that come to mind. Again, these are not the ONLY criteria for consideration. (I think we all can learn as we discuss; some may choose not to learn or be willing to change their views when confronted with opposing opinions, of course.)

I will likely look at some lists posted by others online, but I will offer TWO to start this discussion. At this point, these are not in any particular order. I hope to learn and get some new insights in the discussion, and, of course, a bit of debate and friendly disagreement would and can be FUN, too.

A) Cortez conquers the Aztec Empire. The arc of history may not have changed if Cortez lost, but the pace of the European migration to the New World (i.e., North and South and Central Americas) would and/or could have been delayed. Cortez did not have that many men, perhaps a few hundred, vs. upward toward a million living in and around Mexico City (I am not sure of the exact or approximate number here, without looking that up). He did have the aid of tribes opposed to the Aztecs; some may have been vassal tribes. He was lucky to "find" a native woman who was a primary translator for him who could speak the Aztec Language.

Most of know some of the details of the battle; they are very interesting. Cortez faced HUGE odds against his win; some remind me of the DICE complaints in this Forum, BUT I DIGRESS.

There were two main motivations for New World Conquests, as I understand things: 1) pursuit of riches, mostly in the form of gold and silver, and later, via other commodities; and 2) the spread of Christianity. Exploration and a chance for many for a new start in life can be contributing factors.

As far as the arc of history, his conquest and sending back to Spain LOTS of Gold (and perhaps some silver) ENCOURAGED more conquests. Pizzaro later goes to the Andes and conquers the Incas and sends LOTS of silver to Spain. I think the famous "pieces of eight" were minted from the silver mines in the Andes. The conversion of natives to Christianity was profound as human sacrifice, so endemic to many New World peoples (in addition to the Aztecs and Incas, I think the Mayans, NOT conquered by Spain) all had human sacrifice as part of their religious observation. And Christianity had other impacts on the New Worlds. The conquerors did introduce a new set of moral laws to the Americas, but these did not prevent atrocities to be committed against the native populations.

Let me stop here and add my second battle in a new post.

I will add that I did search a bit in this Forum and did not see a similar thread. (There is one on NAVAL battles and of course, the recent thread on Military Leaders.) There were 5 pages when I searched "battles" and some 20 pages on "battle" in this Forum.

[HitRed]

I would consider Cortez conquers the Aztec Empire a campaign, not a battle.

[jusplay4fun]

B) Battle of Stalingrad

This is one of the key battles on the Eastern Front, Russia (or USSR) vs. Germany. I see 2-3 key battles that changed the course of WW2, one each in the European and Pacific theaters of War (from the perspective of the USA). The battle for North Africa can offer another key battle in that war.

Stalingrad had many fighters involved and many casualties. I am not sure that the Russians would have lost the war vs. Germany with a German victory here at Stalingrad, as the whole Eastern front was so HUGE. However, the Russians would have suffered a LARGE SETBACK, imo.

In the Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943),[17][18][19] Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in Southern Russia. Marked by fierce close-quarters combat and direct assaults on civilians in air raids, it is one of the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare, with an estimated 2 million total casualties.[20] After their defeat at Stalingrad, the German High Command had to withdraw considerable military forces from other theaters of war to replace their losses.[21]

The German offensive to capture Stalingrad, a major industrial and transport hub on the Volga River that ensured Soviet access to the Caucasus oil wells, began in August 1942, using the 6th Army and elements of the 4th Panzer Army. The attack was supported by intense Luftwaffe bombing that reduced much of the city to rubble. The battle degenerated into house-to-house fighting, as both sides poured reinforcements into the city. By mid-November, the Germans had pushed the Soviet defenders back at great cost into narrow zones along the west bank of the river.

On 19 November, the Red Army launched Operation Uranus, a two-pronged attack targeting the weaker Romanian and Hungarian armies protecting the 6th Army's flanks.[22] The Axis flanks were overrun and the 6th Army was cut off and surrounded in the Stalingrad area. Adolf Hitler was determined to hold the city at all costs and forbade the 6th Army from attempting a breakout; instead, attempts were made to supply it by air and to break the encirclement from the outside. Heavy fighting continued for another two months. At the beginning of February 1943, the Axis forces in Stalingrad, having exhausted their ammunition and food, surrendered[23] after five months, one week and three days of fighting.

skip to....

The initial objectives in the region around Stalingrad were to destroy the industrial capacity of the city and to block the Volga River traffic connecting the Caucasus and Caspian Sea to central Russia. The Germans cut the pipeline from the oilfields when they captured Rostov on 23 July. The capture of Stalingrad would make the delivery of Lend Lease supplies via the Persian Corridor much more difficult

Significance
Stalingrad has been described as the biggest defeat in the history of the German Army.[177] It is often identified as the turning point on the Eastern Front, in the war against Germany overall, and in the entire Second World War.[178][179][180] The Red Army had the initiative, and the Wehrmacht was in retreat. A year of German gains during Case Blue had been wiped out. Germany's Sixth Army had ceased to exist, and the forces of Germany's European allies, except Finland, had been shattered.[181] In a speech on 9 November 1944, Hitler himself blamed Stalingrad for Germany's impending doom.[182]

The destruction of an entire army (the largest killed, captured, wounded figures for Axis soldiers, nearly 1 million, during the war) and the frustration of Germany's grand strategy made the battle a watershed moment.[183]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

#183 = Bell, P. M. H. (2011). Twelve Turning Points of the Second World War. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

[jusplay4fun]

I would consider Cortez conquers the Aztec Empire a campaign, not a battle.

The Key battle was the defeat of the Aztecs in their capital, what is now Mexico City. After that, there were battles against elements of Aztecs and/or their allies or vassals, but the course of the CAMPAIGN was set by the first real battle.

[HitRed]

I would consider Cortez conquers the Aztec Empire a campaign, not a battle.

The Key battle was the defeat of the Aztecs in their capital, what is now Mexico City. After that, there were battles against elements of Aztecs and/or their allies or vassals, but the course of the CAMPAIGN was set by the first real battle.

You seem to be changing terminology. Battle, campaign, now 'first real battle'.

The battle is the Siege or Fall of Tenochtitlan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Tenochtitlan

[jusplay4fun]

In May 1521, Cortés returned to Tenochtitlán, and after a three-month siege the city fell. This victory marked the fall of the Aztec empire. Cuauhtémoc, Cuitláhuac’s successor as emperor, was taken prisoner and later executed, and Cortés became the ruler of a vast Mexican empire.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/aztec-capital-falls-to-cortes

I see that my memory of the Aztec Conquest was not so simple as one key battle as there were two times that Cortez took Tenochtitlán, but I think my overall point stands.

also:

The Fall of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire, was a decisive event in the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire. It occurred in 1521 following extensive manipulation of local factions and exploitation of pre-existing divisions by Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés, who was aided by the support of his indigenous allies and his interpreter and companion La Malinche.

Although numerous battles were fought between the Aztec Empire and the Spanish-led coalition, which was itself composed primarily of indigenous (mostly Tlaxcaltec) personnel, it was the siege of Tenochtitlan—its outcome probably largely determined by the effects of a smallpox epidemic (which devastated the Aztec population and dealt a severe blow to the Aztec leadership while leaving an immune Spanish leadership intact)—that directly led to the downfall of the Aztec civilization and marked the end of the first phase of the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire.

The conquest of Mexico was a critical stage in the Spanish colonization of the Americas. Ultimately, Spain conquered Mexico and thereby gained substantial access to the Pacific Ocean, which meant that the Spanish Empire could finally achieve its original oceanic goal of reaching the Asian markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Tenochtitlan

[HitRed]

Yes it was a campaign.

[jusplay4fun]

I want to discuss some of the Great Battles in History. I do not want to severely limit the criteria, but I do want a fun discussion of ideas on some or many of the key battles in history. One factor I am considering is whether the battle represents an inflection point in history, where the results of the battle decide the arc of history for a "long time" (no set # of years) after the battle. If the losing side had won the battle, history would be profoundly impacted. BUT this is not the sole criteria.

Of course, the SIZE of the Battle is key too: # of fighters involved, # of casualties, length of battle are things that come to mind. Again, these are not the ONLY criteria for consideration. (I think we all can learn as we discuss; some may choose not to learn or be willing to change their views when confronted with opposing opinions, of course.)

I will likely look at some lists posted by others online, but I will offer TWO to start this discussion. At this point, these are not in any particular order. I hope to learn and get some new insights in the discussion, and, of course, a bit of debate and friendly disagreement would and can be FUN, too.

A) Cortez conquers the Aztec Empire. The arc of history may not have changed if Cortez lost, but the pace of the European migration to the New World (i.e., North and South and Central Americas) would and/or could have been delayed. Cortez did not have that many men, perhaps a few hundred, vs. upward toward a million living in and around Mexico City (I am not sure of the exact or approximate number here, without looking that up). He did have the aid of tribes opposed to the Aztecs; some may have been vassal tribes. He was lucky to "find" a native woman who was a primary translator for him who could speak the Aztec Language.

Most of know some of the details of the battle; they are very interesting. Cortez faced HUGE odds against his win; some remind me of the DICE complaints in this Forum, BUT I DIGRESS.

There were two main motivations for New World Conquests, as I understand things: 1) pursuit of riches, mostly in the form of gold and silver, and later, via other commodities; and 2) the spread of Christianity. Exploration and a chance for many for a new start in life can be contributing factors.

As far as the arc of history, his conquest and sending back to Spain LOTS of Gold (and perhaps some silver) ENCOURAGED more conquests. Pizzaro later goes to the Andes and conquers the Incas and sends LOTS of silver to Spain. I think the famous "pieces of eight" were minted from the silver mines in the Andes. The conversion of natives to Christianity was profound as human sacrifice, so endemic to many New World peoples (in addition to the Aztecs and Incas, I think the Mayans, NOT conquered by Spain) all had human sacrifice as part of their religious observation. And Christianity had other impacts on the New Worlds. The conquerors did introduce a new set of moral laws to the Americas, but these did not prevent atrocities to be committed against the native populations.

Let me stop here and add my second battle in a new post.

I will add that I did search a bit in this Forum and did not see a similar thread. (There is one on NAVAL battles and of course, the recent thread on Military Leaders.) There were 5 pages when I searched "battles" and some 20 pages on "battle" in this Forum.

I will concede to HitRed that I was a bit "sloppy" in my wording. A) Should read "Cortez defeats the Aztecs in their capital city, to start the fall of the Aztec Empire." I used my initial phrasing in an expedient manner to reflect both the key BATTLE and its overall impact on the arc of History. I also used that initial phase for the sake of brevity.

[jusplay4fun]

Yes it was a campaign.

And you are wrong, AGAIN.

[jusplay4fun]

C) again, no particular order, BUT:

I will add the battle where Charles Martel and the Franks turned back the Muslim invasion in Western Europe. (Without looking it up, I think it was around 735 AD.) IF that had not occurred, much of France would have been occupied by Muslim well into the Middle Ages, and that may have had a profound influence on Western European (and thus American) History. It took until 1492 (yes, THAT year) for the Spanish, united under Ferdinand and Isabella to force the Muslims out of Spain.

As I recall, Charles Martel was the grandfather of Charlemagne, but again, I am not sure and thus am relying on my memory.

So the Muslims would have very significantly influenced French History and Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire would not be what it was in History, RIGHT?

NOW to consult sources, besides my memory:

Battle of Tours, also called Battle of Poitiers, (October 732), victory won by Charles Martel, the de facto ruler of the Frankish kingdoms, over Muslim invaders from Spain.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Tours-732

At the Battle of Tours near Poitiers, France, Frankish leader Charles Martel, a Christian, defeats a large army of Spanish Moors, halting the Muslim advance into Western Europe. Abd-ar-Rahman, the Muslim governor of Cordoba, was killed in the fighting, and the Moors retreated from Gaul, never to return in such force.

Charles was the illegitimate son of Pepin, the powerful mayor of the palace of Austrasia and effective ruler of the Frankish kingdom. After Pepin died in 714 (with no surviving legitimate sons), Charles beat out Pepin’s three grandsons in a power struggle and became mayor of the Franks. He expanded the Frankish territory under his control and in 732 repulsed an onslaught by the Muslims.

Victory at Tours ensured the ruling dynasty of Martel’s family, the Carolingians. His son Pepin became the first Carolingian king of the Franks, and his grandson Charlemagne carved out a vast empire that stretched across Europe.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/battle-of-tours

[jusplay4fun]

Re-reading some of the posts here, it occurred to me that HR would rather nit-pick campaign vs. battle and not add anything significant to this discussion. Whatever floats his boat.

[jusplay4fun]

This one, Battle of Midway, overlaps with the thread about Naval Battles, but I want to include it here.

The Battle of Midway, together with the Guadalcanal campaign, marked the turning point in the Pacific.[27][28][29] Between June 4–7, 1942, the United States Navy decisively defeated a Japanese naval force that had sought to lure the U.S. carrier fleet into a trap at Midway Atoll. The Japanese fleet lost four aircraft carriers and a heavy cruiser to the U.S. Navy's one American carrier and a destroyer. After Midway, and the exhausting attrition of the Solomon Islands campaign, Japan's shipbuilding and pilot training programs were unable to keep pace in replacing their losses while the U.S. steadily increased its output in both areas. Military historian John Keegan called the Battle of Midway "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare."[30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_history_of_World_War_II

....while naval historian Craig Symonds called it "one of the most consequential naval engagements in world history, ranking alongside Salamis, Trafalgar, and Tsushima Strait, as both tactically decisive and strategically influential".[10]

Luring the American aircraft carriers into a trap and occupying Midway was part of an overall "barrier" strategy to extend Japan's defensive perimeter, in response to the Doolittle air raid on Tokyo. This operation was also considered preparatory for further attacks against Fiji, Samoa, and Hawaii itself. The plan was undermined by faulty Japanese assumptions of the American reaction and poor initial dispositions. Most significantly, American cryptographers were able to determine the date and location of the planned attack, enabling the forewarned U.S. Navy to prepare its own ambush.

Four Japanese and three American aircraft carriers participated in the battle. The four Japanese fleet carriers—Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū and Hiryū, part of the six-carrier force that had attacked Pearl Harbor six months earlier—were sunk, as was the heavy cruiser Mikuma. The U.S. lost the carrier Yorktown and the destroyer Hammann, while the carriers USS Enterprise and USS Hornet survived the battle fully intact.

After Midway and the exhausting attrition of the Solomon Islands campaign, Japan's capacity to replace its losses in materiel (particularly aircraft carriers) and men (especially well-trained pilots and maintenance crewmen) rapidly became insufficient to cope with mounting casualties, while the United States' massive industrial and training capabilities made losses far easier to replace. The Battle of Midway, along with the Guadalcanal campaign, is widely considered a turning point in the Pacific War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

And one more point, the NAME itself suggests a key turning point (or an INFLECTION Point) in the War.

[HitRed]

I love the Battle of Midway but Guadalcanal was the turning point.


Ships launched into the Pacific Theater in WW2. Slow but worth it. 13 min.

[jusplay4fun]

I love the Battle of Midway but Guadalcanal was the turning point.


Ships launched into the Pacific Theater in WW2. Slow but worth it. 13 min.

As I quoted already:

The Battle of Midway, along with the Guadalcanal campaign, is widely considered a turning point in the Pacific War.

The key battle is often an inflection point, with a gradual "change of tide" and NOT an abrupt change, such as on and off. Often, the significance of the particular battle is not known until much later, when analysis can be done and one (the combatant) can catch his (or her) breath to appreciate what JUS got done.

Again, you want to quibble and not advance the discussion. You offer no inflection point, jus a change from 1.31 degrees to 1.34 degrees of inclination.

My point is still valid. 0-2; one more and your OUT.

[HitRed]

I don't have to quote other people. Guadalcanal is the turning point of the Pacific war.

[jusplay4fun]

I don't have to quote other people. Guadalcanal is the turning point of the Pacific war.

But you quote God.

And if you quote yourself in some matters and can find NO one to back you up, then it is merely the opinion that is merely of ONE person. That holds little value.

And if I already quoted it, why do you point out in an attempt to make my statement appear as wrong? I have already found others (who are experts in the field) who support my statement. So your statement AGAIN holds little value. THEREFORE, you struck OUT, again, HR.

[HitRed]

Well your 3 strikes and I’m still posting. Looks like your out system failed.

[jusplay4fun]

Well your 3 strikes and I’m still posting. Looks like your out system failed.

The fact that you post ONLY proves ONE thing, that you can post. You again FAIL, HR.

Go check with God and check your score. I am sure He is telling you that you won. It must be wonderful to be always right in your mind and your reality.

You AGAIN missed my point, this time about the 3 strikes. They prove that you are WRONG again, not that you cannot post. Your logic is quite lacking; that is apparent. You continually prove that you draw bad conclusions from the facts and postulates presented. 0-4. O, for the Love of God..!

I see no point in trying to debate with you. You cannot understand logic and you ignore facts. You cannot offer anything to the discussion here about Battles, except to TRY TO offer pedantic fault-finding to what I state and offer as informed opinion. You only offer your own opinion. And the more you post and respond to me, the more I realize how uninformed you are. Your points here are not worth reading. A long time ago I came to that same conclusion about your Jesus posts; they are NOT worth reading.

[HitRed]

fail4fun, you fit your our posts perfectly. You have become what you claim to hate.

[DoomYoshi]

July 3, 1866 - Prussia defeats Austrian empire at Koniggratz.

The Austrians has superior numbers and a fortified position, yet still lost.

The outcome of the battle was Prussia being the dominant European power, which led to France declaring war in 1870, which led to the destruction of the French Empire, collapse of the papal states, unification of Germany and Italy and then indirectly led to World War I (due to the Alsace-Lorraine region still being German after that).

[jusplay4fun]

July 3, 1866 - Prussia defeats Austrian empire at Koniggratz.

The Austrians has superior numbers and a fortified position, yet still lost.

The outcome of the battle was Prussia being the dominant European power, which led to France declaring war in 1870, which led to the destruction of the French Empire, collapse of the papal states, unification of Germany and Italy and then indirectly led to World War I (due to the Alsace-Lorraine region still being German after that).

Königgrätz was the decisive battle of the Austro-Prussian War. The Prussians then continued to pursue the defeated Austrian Nord-Armee and fought a series of minor clashes, with the last skirmish being fought at Blumenau on July 22, just as the Peace of Prague to put a halt to the fighting was being signed. It provided a great opportunity for Prussian statesmen, by clearing a path toward German unification, in particular with the Little Germany (Germany without Austria) solution, with the subsequent foundation of the North German Confederation. The outcome also ensured that Prussia would have a free hand when a war with France came to pass in 1871.

After this Prussian victory, France attempted to extract territorial concessions in the Palatinate and Luxembourg.

Thanks, DY.

JP

[HitRed]

Taliban Afghanistan Campaign 2021

[jusplay4fun]

Taliban Afghanistan Campaign 2021

Again, no analysis, no elaboration, no HITS, NO RUNS and HR leaves no one left on base. HR fails to deliver a HOME Run or even a BUNT or foul ball. HR strikes out again.

HR falls further behind by the score of 0-5

[Dukasaur]

Taliban Afghanistan Campaign 2021

Not a battle. A series of pre-negotiated surrenders.

[jusplay4fun]

0-6 is now the score for HR. I scored one on his error.