 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Captain Nemo
|
|
Red Front
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
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
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:12
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johnmcd
|
|
Edinburgh
Oct 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
East Street Trader
|
 |
London, United Kingdom
Jun 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert B
|
 |
Indianapolis, IN USA
Dec 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johnmcd
|
|
Edinburgh
Oct 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
yes indeed, however I would say that the tornado is the more important event.
I think Hastings is more than a regional battle though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hendrik the Great
|
|
Good old Germany!
Oct 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
Two battles I think no one mentioned yet but that certainly changed history were:
1) The Battle of the Teuteburger Wald in 9AD. Varus lost all his 3 Legions against the united German tribes being lead by Armin. This marked the end of Roman attempts to colonise and romanise the German territories east of the Rhine and secured their permanent independence from Rome.
2) The Fall of Constaninople in 1453 AD. The end of the Roman Empire and of the ancient times. The seperation from the Indian spice sources started the search for a sea way to India and marked among others the beginning of the Renaissance in Italy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sieve Too
|
|
New Hampshire, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert B on 01-29-2001 08:32 AM
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.
|
The first battle was at Lexington Green. Second battle was at Concord. Both were easy victories for the British.
quote:
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.
|
Yes, which is why I selected Saratoga. While Lexington may have been the beginning, by itself it was just one of a dozen of occasions where colonials rise up against the mother country. What was signficant about Saratoga was that the unbeatable Britsh were actually defeated. Without Saratoga, there would have been no involvement from the French and no ultimate victory.
quote:
The American revolution strongly influenced the French some 10 or 11 years later.
|
True, but again Lexington was too small of a battle - more of a police action really. In any case it was insignificant enough to probably not even be reported in France.
quote:
It also marks the beginning of the end of British dominance over much of the world.
|
Quite the contrary. The UK grew in size and power dramatically for another 100 years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert B
|
|
Indianapolis, IN USA
Dec 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sieve Too on 01-29-2001 09:52 AM
Yes, which is why I selected Saratoga. While Lexington may have been the beginning, by itself it was just one of a dozen of occasions where colonials rise up against the mother country. What was signficant about Saratoga was that the unbeatable Britsh were actually defeated. Without Saratoga, there would have been no involvement from the French and no ultimate victory.
|
Sorry, I actually missed/forgot that you had commented on this one. And this would be a better example than mine.
Another good example from the U.S. revolution would be George Rogers Clark's victory at Vincennes. He took a very small 'army' of frontiersman (about 170 men, many of whom where French volunteers) on a horrendous winter march from near St. Louis to Vincennes and captured the fort located there by tricking Hamilton into believing that he had 600 or more men instead of the 150-200. Also, the men with him where such marksmen that they could not even risk firing on the attackers because each time they opened a firing port, they lost another man. British forces where never able to recapture the land which led to the U.S. being able to claim the land in the mid-west and move the border up to the Great Lakes when the treaties where signed. If you want more information about this, visit here.
quote:
Originally posted by Sieve Too on 01-29-2001 09:52 AM
Quite the contrary. The UK grew in size and power dramatically for another 100 years.
|
I defer to you for such knowledge. I was trying to pull knowledge from long ago. The info on George Rogers Clark is a bit more solid. I grew up basically on the land he retired to after the war in Clarksville and have read several books about him. Also, I looked up some of the information I couldn't quite remember from the above listed website (mostly numbers and the British general's name).
Anyway, great topic/discussion cpoulos, even if it is a bit off topic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert B on 01-29-2001 01:47 PM
Anyway, great topic/discussion cpoulos, even if it is a bit off topic.
|
There is a reason that my topics are here in the general area and not in the off-topic forums. If you notice in the threads I start, I often comment about things as they move along. Also, you will notice that alot of younger people contribute here, and that I offer only encouragement to their contributions. In the O-T's people feel free to rip up anyone at will. The O-T's are repleat with loud mouth no-it-alls, who often get insulting if the thread goes against their pet thoery. I had one women tell me I couldn't comment on Europe because I wasn't born there, and I have a degree in modern european history! Such narrow mindedness pervades the O-T's, but here in the general topic area you get a different breed. If you check the boards, I also contribute in the Spanish Forum(Hi Jay Bee!), because free thinkers can be found there also. So as long as Ming will permit me, you will see my topics here, not in the O-Ts. I will comment in them, but I won't start topics there. This not to say that there are no good people in the O-Ts, as they are legion. But it only takes a few to ruin a topic for everyone else, and in the O-Ts you are sure to find a loser spammer, or opinionated idiot who will destroy it for everyone else. I just wanted to clear the air on this. Feel free to knock me if you like,but do it in the O-Ts. Here please stay on topic.
------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.
[This message has been edited by cpoulos (edited January 29, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johnmcd
|
|
Edinburgh
Oct 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpoulos on 01-29-2001 12:02 PM
Let me state here that every battle changed history (At least for one side) in some way… As for things being regional, you could make that argument for most engagements.
|
Well, yes. Most battles changed history one way or another but the title does say ‘Great Battles’, which makes citing every skirmish between the Scots and the English a bit pointless. I think you could make the regional argument for most battles but I thought that the point of this thread was to sort the wheat from the chaff, to sort those battles of real consequence from those that changed very little. Take the battle of Mons Graupius- Romans v Picts in Scotland (though the Scots still lived in Ireland back then). The Romans deal out a severe doing to the Picts but don’t take any new territory, the Picts take a severe doing from the Romans but continue their guerrilla raids as before. Thousands killed, nothing changed. The battle of the Somme on the other saw thousand killed and mankind never looked on himself in the same way again, little land was won or lost but philosophy pretty much had to start again.
What most battles change is who is living and who is dead, not much more. Few battles win wars or change the course of history. For all the consequences of Hastings it didn’t really introduce any big ideas to the British Isles that wouldn’t have arrived anyway. It didn’t change the situation of the Vikings, it led to neither the conquest of Scotland nor the liberation of Wales, it didn’t overhaul the social situation of the masses. All that did happen was that a previously wealthy class was rendered dead and another previously wealthy class was rendered wealthy and abroad.
I think that the truly eventful battles are few and far between. I wouldn’t say anything from the American War of Independence would count. The young country carried on pretty much as it would have for another hundred and fifty years- it continued to mimic the culture and art of the UK and Europe, it continued along the same economic path it had been on trading with the UK and the other colonies. Probably the only big difference that came out of it was that as a colony the States would have seen the emancipation of the slaves a hundred years earlier, or as a colony the economic interest of maintaining slavery would have meant that the practice would have endured a lot longer in other British colonies. The US would have secured its independence anyway, like Australia and Canada did.
I dunno, I just don’t believe that battles change that much really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
East Street Trader
|
|
London, United Kingdom
Jun 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
While I have greatly enjoyed reading what we have all had to say on battles and can understand that the more measured (and polite) tone of posts made in this forum is more to your taste, cpoulos, I can also understand, I think, the policy of those who own the site as regard where threads appear (and to where they can be moved).
It is, in fact, that very policy which preserves the particular style of this forum (which you like), while allowing OT to be more frenetic.
To illustrate, many fewer threads are started here and people go on contributing, thoughtfully, to the same thread for periods of weeks or even months. Unless it is hugely popular, the shelf life of a thread in OT is measured in hours.
I welcome that difference because here I can easily follow, and sometimes contribute to, threads directly relevant to Civ2 which stay accessible and relevant over an extended period. I think something would be lost if the number of topics posted went up a lot - in off topic I sometimes return to a thread but then hesitate to add a further comment because it would bump a two day old thread in which everyone but me has seemingly lost interest. I would not hesitate to bump even a two month old thread here, confident that the topic of the thread will retain an abiding interest for all of us.
You might consider giving OT one or two more chances. A good deal of the brash stuff can be shrugged off as just coming from youngsters. And the quality of that board will certainly benefit from the addition of your threads.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-01-2001 07:06
|