Great battles that changed history

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by SMACed on 01-25-2001 08:25 PM Quick, turn this in to a "great fake civ2 battles that changed fake civ2 history" thread before anyone notices

I'll notice!

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

OK, I'll cast a vote in the real history and 'fake civ history' categories.

For real history, cpoulos, wouldn't you say Stalingrad was more significant than Kursk? Kursk was a pretty much no-win situation for the Nazis anyway, just because the Soviets had the edge in men and materiel by 1943... (my 2 cents worth)

Greatest battle in CivII history has got to be the epic Egyptian invasion of the Sioux empire. Although the Egyptians suffered massive casualties due to Sioux cruise missiles (at sea) and even worse losses (especially among the elite paratroops) on land, the foothold established by the Egyptians allowed them to besiege and capture the Sioux capital. Once Little Bighorn fell, the Sioux resistance crumbled, and the gains made by the Egyptians were enough to put them on a par with the real enemy... the Zulus!

Sure, maybe you've never heard of that battle... but it's the one Civ game I played that really sticks in my memory.

STYOM

[Chris 62]

For six: I picked Kursk over Stalingrad because the Nazis still had a chance to win the war after Stalingrad. Guderian was in the process of rebuilding the panzer forces, and if unmolested by Hitler, would have had them ready by 1944. By throwing them away at Kursk, the nazis had lost the war. And please stay on point. If you want to do that other stuff, that's what the O.T. forums are for!

[Captain Nemo]

Kursk was actually only a victory in the Soviet propaganda. Most of the facts revealed recently show it as a stalemate with a humongous loss of life and materiel on the Soviet side. The Germans losses were very light at Kursk, but the offensive stalled when Hitler pulled back several of the main panzer-divisions to bolster the crumbling Italian front.

My entries:

1. Stalingrad was the turning point of the War and broke the German's perceived invicibility. Moscow in December 1941 might actually really have been the turning point of WW2 although the Germans expanded their gains on the Southern front in 1942 but they never came closer to Moscow again...

2. How about Gettysburgh? A Union loss there would have split the United States in two permanently and may even have led to its disintegration. Certainly the United States power and impact in the 20th Century would have been greatly limited.

3. 1066 Hastings... Beginning of England's greatness? It certainly impacted history and brought in a complete new leadership to the Country, leadership that shaped England's world impact for Centuries to come.

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by Captain Nemo on 01-27-2001 05:14 PM Kursk was actually only a victory in the Soviet propaganda. Most of the facts revealed recently show it as a stalemate with a humongous loss of life and materiel on the Soviet side. The Germans losses were very light at Kursk, but the offensive stalled when Hitler pulled back several of the main panzer-divisions to bolster the crumbling Italian front.

One of the problems with this kind of topic is so many important fights get left out. Now onto shaker ground: Debating the designer of RED FRONT, a scenario I think is fantastic, on an eastern front issue. On the surface the german losses may seem light, but they were in the units that could least aford the losses. The panzertruppe never recovered from Kursk. Hitler paniced over the Husky landings in Italy. The forces sent (2SS panzer corp,I.E. the leibstandarte and das reich), never even made it near the battle zone in Italy. Once the soviets began their counter-offensive the entire northern shoulder of the kursk strike force was wiped out and the soviets blew a hole in the german defences all the way to the Dneiper River. Thanks to Mansteins' backhand blow the soviet Uranus offensive(Stalingrad) was stopped and the front restored. After Kursk, nothing but logistics and Stalin's dirty tricks could stop the soviets. If Hitler had listened to Guderian he would have had panther tanks that were reliable(unlike the real ones,which were mantinence nightmares), and more importantly, highly trained crews who could use them more effectivly. But thankfully Hitler was to much of an idiot to do this(Thank god).


------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Wiglaf]

quote: Greatest battle in CivII history has got to be the epic Egyptian invasion of the Sioux empire. Although the Egyptians suffered massive casualties due to Sioux cruise missiles (at sea) and even worse losses (especially among the elite paratroops) on land, the foothold established by the Egyptians allowed them to besiege and capture the Sioux capital. Once Little Bighorn fell, the Sioux resistance crumbled, and the gains made by the Egyptians were enough to put them on a par with the real enemy... the Zulus! Sure, maybe you've never heard of that battle... but it's the one Civ game I played that really sticks in my memory.

I think we all have one game that we can't stop thinking about, I know I do

Oh, cpoulos, just trying to keep the thread from being moved, you'll thank me later...

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by SMACed on 01-27-2001 10:05 PM Oh, cpoulos, just trying to keep the thread from being moved, you'll thank me later...

It's only tounge in cheek, dude!

[BeBMan]

Another important battle was Hattin 1187, where Saladin´s army defeat the christian forces, the beginning of the end of the crusader states in the Holy Land.

And the Turkish defeat at Wien (Vienna), in the 17th century (don´t know exactly when, 1638???)

------------------
Civ2000

[James Fox]

A more crucial Islamic victory than Hattin would be Manzikert in 1071 (or was it 1072?). Before, the Byzantine (Eatern Roman) Empire was the strongest state in the area, afterwards, it had been reduced to a mere kingdom that was gradually destroyed and shoved around by the turks and crusaders. If the turks had not won at mazikert, there would never have been an Ottoman empire, and the Greeks would still control Aisa Minor.

[Prometeus]

Ankara, 1402... by defeating Yildrim Sultan Bajazid, Timur-lenk gave more time to Europe ( 50 years or so ) to develope industries and commerces, so they were able to fight later Ottoman Turkisk espansion.

[johnmcd]

All these battles are so regional that I may as well tout a super regional one of my own.

I would say that the Battle of Bannockburn is the most significant because it makes me happiest.

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by johnmcd on 01-28-2001 07:07 PM I would say that the Battle of Bannockburn is the most significant because it makes me happiest.

That's right,show those Limeys that Scotland means buissiness!


------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[East Street Trader]

The Battle of Hastings is certainly regional so can't really be in.

I have an admiration for Harold, though. He knew William was coming but while waiting for him Harold's brother (a rival and enemy) landed in the North with a Norse army of allies led by Harald Hardrada.

Harold had to force march his army to Stamford Bridge, just outside York, fight and win a pitched battle, only then to force march his men back down South, arriving in time to face William.

The shield wall of the house carls, standing on top of a small hill, held out against the mailed Norman knights. William knew that if he could not defeat Harold there and then he was in big trouble. So he tried a trick. His men retreated, simulating a route. The shield wall broke as the English pursued the aparently defeated foe. But when they all reached level ground, the mailed knights turned and, disorganised and without the hill to slow the horses, it was soon all over.

It seems to me those house carls were some fighting men - and Harold must have been an inspiring leader. To fight the Vikings and the Normans, two among the most fearsome of history's fighting forces, within a short time and with two long forced marches in between - and to come close to winning twice - is striking stuff.

[Prometeus]

quote: Originally posted by johnmcd on 01-28-2001 07:07 PM All these battles are so regional that ...

A butterfly wings' whirlwind in Tokio causes a tornado in LA...

[Albert B]

Ok, I've been following this thread since the beginning but I have a pretty limited knowledge of the details of most wars/battles. However, it occured to me recently that with the title 'battles that CHANGED history' (or maybe more appropriately prevented an alternative history), how can the Battle of Concord not be listed by anyone? This may not be the official name of the battle but I am talking about the beginning of the American (United States more correctly) revolution. In history classes here, it is labelled 'the shot heard around the world'. Whether you like the U.S. or hate it, this definately altered the course of world events. Even if you don't choose this particular battle, something fromt this era almost must be present in such a list. The American revolution strongly influenced the French some 10 or 11 years later. It also marks the beginning of the end of British dominance over much of the world.

Another one I would nominate would be Pearl Harbor. Until the Japanese bombed this U.S. naval base, the political situation here had us doing everything possible to stay out of WWII. Afterwards, we had no choice but to join in. Also, something I was reading recently notes that had the Japanese included a fuel storage area near the ships in the attack, the U.S. would have been much more severly hampered and would not have been able to manage any type of offensive for many months in the Pacific realm. On the European front, the British and others may have ended the war in due time, the influx of U.S. forces greatly influenced the outcome and sped up the ending date of the war.

Again, if you are looking at battles that changed the course of world events, these two must rank high because they each have had a strong influence on shaping the world into its modern form.