The World's Most Important Battles

[joseph1944]

Pearl started the war for us, but in the Pacific, Midway was the battle that turn the tide against Japan.
They never recover from the lost of 4 carriers, plus how many aircraft and front line crews?
If the Japanese had won, they then would have a base on Midway and Wake. Hawaii would then be in range of attack. We would not have any carriers in the Pacific.

The first of the Essex class was not commissioned until Dec. 42 and could not sail until Jan of 43. The Japanese would have had 6 months to build up forces on Midway. All of our fighter had to be shipped to Hawaii, the range is to far. Only bomber had the range to fly out to Hawaii. They could have bombed Midway but we know how many bomber were lost over Germany before the P-51 show up.

Thinking about it for a minute, just think what that would have done to the African and European war. We would have been forced to sent troops to Hawaii to defend it from invasion and would have to delay the African campaign.

Cuadalcanal would also been delay for several month and maybe until 44.
We would have been force to take Midway back before continuing the war in the Pacific.
The battle of Midway for us would have needed at lease 6 to 8 carriers, remembering that the Japanese would have still have their 4 plus any more that was being built.
Also if the Japanese had a base at Midway their Subs would be base there and the US would be again force to have a large force of Subs and Destroyers between Hawaii, San Francisco, LA, and San Diego, or the Japanese would had lot of fun with our shipping.

A note to all; Guy and dolls, when you post something about war and the military, think about what you are posting prior to posting. In another thread Serb said the Russian people would kick the US A$$ in a war. Maybe yes and maybe no.

Just like in this thread, someone said Midway was not important, well it was important, and I just showed how important it was.

In another thread someone said Patton was no great General. When Patton took over the Army in African he beat Rommel while fighting Ike, Monty, the American press and who ever. If Ike would have follow Patton plan in Sicily, we could have capture several thousand German troops. In Europe they took his gas away to slow him down. If Ike would have just allowed Patton to kick A$$ and conquer who know how far he would have gone. Maybe Berlin? Ike was more a politician than a General.

All Monty did in Europe was get several thousand troop kill in Arnhem (8000 KIA). Monty did some good, he kept the Germans out of Egypt.

[notyoueither]

Monty fought a defensive battle in prepared positions with massive superiority in men and material. Haig could have kept the Germans out of Egypt.

But whatever, the British must have their heroes, even though it was the resolve of the nation and not the skill of the commanders of the army that is due the glory.

The fleet was a bit different.

[orange]

The fact that Stalingrad has four more votes than Tours is somewhat disturbing

[notyoueither]

It's famous. And it did represent the turning of the tide in the most recent most important struggle. I'm not surprised or disturbed. Give the Russians some credit.

[orange]

of course it's important...but do you really rate it above Tours? I mean Nazi Germany couldn't have lasted, taking Stalingrad or not...(well...holding it)...but Tours would have completely and utterly changed everything we know if the Moors had won a decisive victory. Can you imagine the impact on language, religion, customs, colonization???

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by orange
of course it's important...but do you really rate it above Tours? I mean Nazi Germany couldn't have lasted, taking Stalingrad or not...(well...holding it)...but Tours would have completely and utterly changed everything we know if the Moors had won a decisive victory. Can you imagine the impact on language, religion, customs, colonization???

I agree with orange

[Ecthy]

Manzikert 1071

[leunames]

I am going to go with the trend of Byzantine battles and say that if you're going to count Poitiers 732 as an important battle, you are overlooking a battle of far more significance. True that it was pivotal in that Arab advance through the Iberian peninsula was checked, but if you're going to talk about battles that checked Arab power, you cannot look any further than the first Arab Siege of Constantinople, 674-678. Long before Chalres Martel or Pipin were even born the Byzantines had continously clashed with the Arabs in battle after tiresome battle. While Charles Martel's defeat of the Muslims was significant, that fact remains that the heart and homeland of the formidable Islamic Faith lay in the Middle East.

In 674 a vast naval force under the orders of Caliph Muawija reached the sea walls of Constantinople and a 5 year siege began. Some Byzantine sources at this time estimated the assualting force to consist of 250,000 troops, though of course this is heavily biased and probably untrue. Nevertheless the assault force at Constantinople is widely agreed to have been substantially larger than the Moors that fought with Charles Martel. The relative importance between these two battles is clear enough. Poitiers was far from the center of Arab power, and victory there would have been part of a long arduous process of pressing on through Europe. The Byzantine Empire was the bullwark that held the front doors of Europe, indeed which were the very gates of Constantinople, closed to Arab incursion. The fact that the Arabs continuously launched both incredible forces and petty raids against the old capital of the Roman Empire states who the Arabs viewed as their greatest threat. Indeed Muslim generals and sovereigns would be burried with their graves facing west, to Constantinople, for the conquest of the city was a prime objective of all of Islam for some 800 years.

With the Arab defeat at Constantinople, the first decisive victory in the history of the world by Christian forces over Muslim invaders came to pass. This was the first time that the inexorable expansion of Islam had been repulsed at last, and it took no less than the capital of the Byzantine Empire to provide the victory.

Constantinople had been, and would continue to be for several more centuries, Europe's first and last line of defense against the frontline of Muhammad's legions of soldiers. That the heartland of Islam is in the Middle East, against which Byzantium provided the only obstacle into a Europe that had just begun to reach the level of sophistication of the Romans, makes this battle far more important that 732. For if Constantinople had been overwhelmed, the last vestiges of the Roman Empire would have been destroyed soon enough, and the creation of a road to all of Europe virtually paved from Baghdad, Damascus and all the other powers of Islam would have been insured.

Like my professor of Byzantine history, it's sad how this battle continuously gets sidetracked by lesser battles like Poitiers. To quote George Ostrogorsky,

"In the defence of Europe against the Arab onslaught this triumph of Emperor Constantine IV was a turning point of world-wide importance, like the later victory of Leo III in 718 [the second Arab siege of Constantinople], or Charles Martel's defeat of the Muslims in 732 at Poitiers at the other end of Christendom. Of these three victories which saved Europe from being overwhelmed by the Muslim flood, that of Constantine IV was the first and also most important. There is no doubt that the Arab attack which Constantinople experienced then was the fiercest which had ever been launched by the infidels against a Christian stronghold, and the Byzantine capital was the last dam left to withstand the rising Muslim tide. The fact that it held saved not only the Byzantine Empire, but the whole of European civilization."

I am sorry for the long post, but I hate seeing credit go somewhere when someone else deserves it more.

[Tingkai]

It seems to me that a lot of the battles mentioned fall into the category of an inevitable victory.

If the Americans had lost at Midway, it would not have had a significant outcome on the war. The US industrial capablity was bound to overswamp the Japanese and the atomic bomb brought the war to an end.

At Stalingrad, the Germans were stretched to the limit. Even if they had capatured the city, they didn't have the resources to protect their lines. So the Russian winter attack was likely to have succeeded regardless of what happened at Stalingrad.

If the Germans won at Kursk, there is no guarantee that they would have done anything other than delay the inevitable.

The Battle of Moscow, or the lack thereof, is probably more significant. If there Germans take Moscow then the Russian's supply and communication lines get disrupted.

Saratoga probably falls into this category. Washington's army suffered numerous defeats and yet continued fighting. If the Americans lose at Saratoga, it would just be one more defeat. (Although I'm not sure about the influence a defeat would have on getting support from the French and Spanish).

[orange]

leunames - I agree, but the reason that I argue that Tours was more important is because of the differences in makeup between the east and west at the time. Constaninople falling the Moors would indeed be a very critical in the development of that region, but the Byzantines were more capable of defending the region after Constantinople, possibly even reclaiming it at a later date. The defeat of Martel's forces at Tours would have been it for Christian Western resistance. Who could possibly stand a chance against the Moors had they had free reign over western Europe? Germanic peoples? Not a chance...not organized enough...and their raiding style would be useless against a largely nomadic mobile force. I'd say the Moors would have control of all of Western and Northern Europe, perhaps Italy, and a way of eventually encircling the Byzantines, crushing Christianity in its historical tracks. The fact that the Franks won at Tours was defining in the shaping of the future of Western Europe, and because of this, the world (since the events of Western Europe came to affect the world on SO many different levels)

[leunames]

Yes, that's true, the discrepancy between east and west was great. But it would have been disastrous should Constantinople had fallen. What I didn't put in the post was how grave the situation in Constantinople was during the siege: there wasn't enough food/supplies to hold out continuously. In the western borders of the empire the slavs and Bulgars held dominion, and in fact the second siege in 718 featured these westerners allied with the Arabs in an all out land and sea assualt on the city.

Constantine was charged by the Patriarch to defend the city as his duty to God. Should the battle had gone ill, Constantine probably would've died, leaving not only the city in Islamic hands but the empire bereft of an emperor. Needless to say this would have created internal strife within the remaining provinces, while the Arabs had assumed control of the city.

Yes the Moors would probably have advanced unchecked, but consider this. The forces Muawija threw was an enormous force, and it was defeated only through the utilization of Greek Fire during the siege. The caliphs at this time could field larger armies than the Moors, and the line of supply between Damascus and Constantinople would be firm and secure, ensuring a steady stream of troops and fresh reinforcements. The result is the whole of the Arabian world mobilizing entire armies through to Europe. Since the Byzantines are still devestated from the sack of Constantinople and have no emperor, with civil war probably ensuing, they are no longer a threat. Now the slavs and bulgars in the balkans would be equivalent to your Germanic tribes, except of course the slavs and bulgars were organized. However keep in mind that the Byzantine Empire constantly fought against the slavs/bulgars and the Arabs, frequently at the same time, and managed to hold all enemies at bay. With Constantinople in Arab hands, the vastly superior forces of Islam would just swallow the slavs and bulgars, and the germanic tribes would fall soon, and soon enough the pope in rome would see the crescent amid the ancient churches instead of the cross. All of Europe would be Muslim, and Charles Martel, should he have even been born, would have faith in Islam, and Poitiers would never have happened.....

With the capture of Constantinople, the road to Rome and Paris was wide open. Most of the Byzantine legions were drawn from Asia minor, with substantial amounts from Thrace and the Balkans. Once the Arabs controlled the capital, Asia Minor was completely gone. With that the imperial armies would be able to field forces smaller than the slavs or bulgars, and that's considering the empire has no internal strife following the fall of the capital, and/or the death of the emperor.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by orange
Who could possibly stand a chance against the Moors had they had free reign over western Europe? Germanic peoples? Not a chance...not organized enough...and their raiding style would be useless against a largely nomadic mobile force.

The Moors and the other Moslems were fairly dependent on the composite bows they used. They wouldn't work as well in Europe. The glues and sinews lost there resiliance in humid conditions. Bad weather and the arrows wouldn't go far and continued bad weather might even lead to delamination. Those things took years to make by experts and their expertise was in making bows for desert conditions.

They sure were great bows in the deserts though.

[Dinner]

I think one of the world's most important battles occured when Mohammad's forces tried to retake Mecca in 732. If they had lost then the moslem religion would have been crushed and christianity would have become the sole dominate religion of the old world west of India. Unfortunately, they won and the next 1300 years were marked by religious warfare.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Xeones
ill vote for thermopylae. if not for that resistance, persia very well may have overrun greece. yes, the final victory of that conflict was salamis, but that could not have happened without the time gained by the spartans at thermopylae. and consequently, neither could the next couple thousand years of european history/dominance.

Not quite. Europe was largely insigificant in the grand scale of things until at least some time around the Renaissance at the earliest. Until then, it was a backward place, lagging behind technologically, scientifically, and culturally.

It was just not a happening place as my prof used to say.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Ain Jalut 1260 AD: One that most people don't know about. Baybars and his Mamluks become the only power to defeat a mongol army, putting a stop to their westward expansion forever.

Actually it was the death of Ghengis Khan that ended the Mongols' westard expansion. The point being that if he didn't did in 1227, it was likely that the Mongols would have continued to expand into Europe instead of sitting around and consolidating.