Matrix Games Forums

A very comprehensive list from everyone but I would like to include Gettysburg. Insured that the United States would stay just that. Wonder what would have happened in WWI or WWII if there was a divided America. Harry Turtledove has a series of interesting "what if" novels along that same tack.

mmhhh...what about the battle of britain?

if german´s gained the absolute air supority over england,there could have been a invasion of the island....let´s assume that the german´s won that fight..so britain nocked out of the war. hitler could concentrate all of his force to russia. with this add. strength the capture of moscow and leningrad would be possible....but if this really had brought the victory over the soviets is another question....

Wow, there is some immense historical knowledge here! It would be hard to narrow world history to the 10 most important battles. I'd say Waterloo is important in that it sealed Napoleon's fate. But even if he had won, would it have been decisive enough to have significantly changed things and kept him in power?
WWII: Stalingrad insured German could not win and Kursk I think insured that they would loose. In the west some people made good points with the air war over Britain and El Alamein. Without Britain as a base it is hard to imagine the US getting a foothold in Europe. And if the germans won at Alamein (and I really don't see how they could at that point) that would've opened all sorts of options to the axis. In the Pacific inspite of the comment that Midway is overrated, I'd still include it. Yes, the US eventually would've replaced losses from a defeat there, but the Japanese could not replace theirs. Had they won there it would have given them time to deal with Aus/NZ with far less US interference and substantially lengthening the war. And while on the Pacific had the Russians not beaten the Japanese at the start of the war, they may have been forced to maintain a larger force there which in turn could've helped the germans vs the russians in '41.
In the US Civil War, even though I'm a huge fan of Gettysburg and live only an hour from it, I'd have to say that a Union loss there would not have ended the war and that Vicksburg was more important by cutting the south in two.
Well, I'd better end this as it's already a bit lengthy... besides, I'm down to only one beer in the fridge -- better get a resupply... BvB

How about the siege of Syracuse(200 ish B.C.). Archimedes was killed, what might he have come up with had he lived, and how might it have affected history?...

Very interesting thread, messrs. I am an armchair historian, so let's see what you think of my hand.
First, let's get straight the meaning og significance here. To me a historically significant battle is one whose respective outcomes would/did steer the course of history in radically different directions. The actual outcome must be in some way unexpected, a sure thing is of no significance.
Campaigns can be named (if not too long), as they are not always decided by a single battle.

1. The Armada, 1588.
No doubt a controversial choice for a winner. The outcome of this battle was phenomenally important to european history, and therefore the world. If Spain had successfully landed its troops in England the consequences would have been:
- England defeated and occupied (obviously);
- France utterly surrounded by Spain;
- Spanish hegemony at sea secures the connection to the low countries, making the "spanish road" from Italy (target of french spoiling attacks) redundant. Dutch insurrection, unsupported by England, fails;
- The catholic side is victorious in the 30 years war. Protestanism is confined to Scandinavia;
- EUROPE IS DOMINATED BY A SUPERPOWER WITH HEGEMONY BOTH ON LAND AND SEA. THE ENTIRE WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS EVENTUALLY DRAWN INTO THE SPANISH CIRCLE, CREATING AN EMPIRE WITHOUT CHALLENGERS!
- Europe dominates the world in the modern era as a single entity.

2. Greek campaigns of Persians, -480/490.
The outcome is truly incredible, ensuring the survival of the civilization that is set to rule the world. Rated after the Armada, because Greece was so insignificant at the time, and major hurdles remained.

3. Persian campaign of Alexander -331...

4. Moskva, 1941.
The Soviet Union snatches survival from the jaws of defeat. German victory in WW2 is avoided.

5. Jerusalem, 1099.
Defined the nature of Christian/Islamic relations for centuries to come.

6. Napoleon in Russia, 1812.
Napoleon's army is destroyed, leading to the destruction of his empire, previously secure.

7. Baghdad, 1258.
The mongols deliver a knock-out blow to the arabs. Turks dominate the islamic world for the next 6 centuries.

8. Battle of France, 1940.
A stunning victory.

9. Trafalgar, 1805.

10. Marne, 1914.
Germany is denied victory in WWI.

Having said that, I also want to give negative votes to some popular battles:

Waterloo 1815: No significance. Napoleon was faced with 5 great powers with their armies marching on France. He had no chance of winning.

Teutoburger forest -9?: Slight significance. There was nothing in germany worth conquering.

Poitiers 721: Small significance. The moors had outstretched themselves.

Normandy 1944: Small significance. The outcome of WW2 was already decided.

Colonial battles in North America (18. cent.): No significance. The wars were decided at sea and in Europe.

American revolution battles: Slight significance. No effect on the Anglo-Saxon domination of the world.

Gettysburg 1863: Small significance. Decided in advance, and other result without strategic consequences.

Lepanto, 1571: Small significance. Militarily ineresting, but inconsequential to the "current of history".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Penetrator:

Normandy 1944: Small significance. The outcome of WW2 was already decided.

What about the Red Army coming from the East?. Though an Allied defeat in Normandy would have meant a stronger German defense on the East Front for at least another year, the Red army was much too strong to be stopped before a new Allied attempt.

Normandy 44

It is an important battle for western europe,
as if germany's fate was already decided on the eastern front, the France landing decided of the max entents of Staline's conquests.

From August 44, the new bomber targeting systems enabled allied crews to a bombing accurency of 200m instead of the previous 1 km. So even if the normandy landing failed, Germany's production system was about to be wiped out. And that alone would have ensured the russian a total victory.

I would guess that without US landing in europe,
most of western Europe would have called each other 'comrade' for the next 50 years, assorted with a strict communist party dictatorship.

So I strongly disagree with Penetrator, as this battle had a decisive influence on Europe's current situation.

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
Normandy 44

I would guess that without US landing in europe,
most of western Europe would have called each other 'comrade' for the next 50 years

---

As we know, the allies were able to mount a new invasion already in august 44, albeit with smaller forces, but forces that were entirely independent of overlord. And what if overlord had failed? That does not entail the destruction of the enormous armies that were assembled England, and most likely negligible shipping losses. What would there have been to stop the allies from mounting a new invasion in a matter of months or even weeks? And even so, these troops could have crossed into France almost without opposition by the time the Russians were approaching the Rhine. There is no convincing argument to the proposition that the failure of overlord by itself would have given the whole of continental europe to the Russians. Isn't this a slight case of sentimentalism?

Sentimentalism ? Not exactly.

I fully agree that should have overlord failed, another invasion would have been launched somewhere else.

But you will have a hard time to convince me that such an operation would have been planned in a few weeks. Even if you consider that most of the planning preparations used for Overlord could be reused, it is a very difficult operation to deal with. Especially when you just had your *** kicked.

In a timeline of six month, soviet soldiers were assaulting (razing) Berlin thus ending the war. Then you may have some other issues to consider. Even if France was not snatched by Staline, its local communist party was by the end of war the most popular of all french political party.

With soviet "brothers" just at the door of france, how can we know which way it could have gone ?

Then what about german nuclear research ?
From what I read, Germany was was less than 1 year from optaining an atomic bomb. (Could someone confirm/refute if you know anything on the subject thanks)

I stick to my position that failure of overlord would have made a hudge difference for the future of Europe.

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:


In a timeline of six month, soviet soldiers were assaulting (razing) Berlin thus ending the war.

---

Close to 11 months passed between D-day and entry of soviet army into Berlin. Without a western front, it would have taken that much longer. Are you really saying that the allies would have been unable to secure a landing within a year??? Beside that, you can maintain your position all you want, but possiblies/maybies will not convince me like fact and logical argument does.

hmmm, well the allies did invade southern France(Anvil?) in August (roughly 10 weeks after Normandy?), which was a larger operation than Overlord. There was also the Italian front...

Can't remember the source, but AFAIK the Germans had essentially given up on their heavy water experiments and were not close to a bomb, several years away away least. An allied airstrike on the main German heavy water facility contributed to this situation as I recall, my poor memory...

edit: Dragoon, not anvil.

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: ratster ]</p>

First "whose that penetrator moron who dare to refute my arguments <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> ? "

Of course he is wrong, let me see :

Soviets razed Berlin in May 45, that would have left almost 1 year to the allied to prepare another landing, should overlord have failed. Uurps, may be he was not so wrong.

Looking further to Hitler's general situation in june 44, he was in a fully desesperate situation, so I would say that the important decision was to send troops in europe. Which battle was lost or won was then of secondary importance, as Hitler's army was already being chopped to bits by the soviets.

I think this thread defined "decisive battle" as battles of unexpected results which changed the course of history.

Then I have to admit (I hate that!) that overlord cannot qualify as such. Oh well, may be the moron is just me <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> .

It truly takes a big man to retrace his steps in an argument... I rarely do <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Of course, as you say, the bottom line is significance on a global, mankind-historical scale. Even though D-day was a phenomenal event in its time it falls short of that category.

Originally posted by Tom1939:

1456 Nádorfehérvár.

We hungarians beat the hell out of an army of 150.000 turks stoping the invasion against us and europe for nearly 70 years. We did it with largely inferior forces as a small medium power in europe, against an asiatic superpower.

---

Tom1939

I have hear from a Dutch friend of me that there was a battle between about a small group Hungarians that fight to the last man (and winning)against a Turkish Army. Does you know if he means this battle. And if so not have you more info about the battle of 1456 Nádorfehérvár. And where in Hungary is this.

Well; the invasion 44 was a short thing and a defeat in a early stage could have change a lot.
Why ?

1. The weather and the tides of the chanel with high/low water, combinied with the full moon, the allied had a narrow time table.
2. An allied defeat in the first 2 weeks would have had bad consequences...
a.) The allied invasion in south france would have been stopped
b.) The russian invasion WOULD HAVE LAUNCHED LATER 8Stalin feared a allied defeat in france, so he waited untill he could be sure that this was the second front..
c.) The weather and the moon situation would have stopped an invasion in france for more than 6 months &#8211; and the germans knew that &#8211; so many troops could be withdrawn from france to russia...
d.) With that, the german situation is not so desperate as it was in reality, and a russian assault could have been a defeat (no great chance for that, but it was even so a success with great losses for the russians &#8211; 1000 tanks more, 5000000 soldiers more, well that could have been the difference between defeat and draw...)
3. The moral aspect for the americans &#8211; losing 50000 soldiers and more (think of the elite airborne divisions...!!) would hit the allieds very hard and without the belivining of the own strengh, it could be dangerous

Just my 2 cents of the invasion...

That 's what I thought.

During my posts with Penetrator, I went back to my history books, and I compiled a few things which changed my views.

Industrial capacity of the reich was being anihilated by flight bombing. The Germand had their only romanian oil production facility wiped out, which left them just with synthetic fuel.

So almost 3 nazi planes out of 4 were grounded, and panzer move were reduced to bare minimum. Not to mention the shortage of other materials, which lead to the end of production of APCR rounds.

You also have Hitler managing the war. In december 44 just when the allied were about to launch a major offensive, Hitler had withdrew some units to send them to the eastern front, he was convinced that the allied were spend, unable to mount another attack for the coming months. Just as in 1943, he was yelling that the soviet will not be able to mount major offensives one after another. As it seems, he was living in a reality far beyond germany'own.

From the reich's situation by june 1944, even if they had crushed the landing, they would have been unable to mount an attack to knock down the soviet army. In fact, just to try to stop the rampaging soviet armor, they would probably had to send everything they had to the eastern front, leaving France open to an unopposed landing.

Then think about it : if the allied were crushed within two weeks, then they would habe been left with 2/3 of their army intact, still waiting to land somewhere. Most of the heavy stuff took some time to arrive in france, allied forces experimented lots of trouble to land their stuff until Cherbourg port was put back in action.

In june 44, every historical record shows that Hitler was only delaying defeat.

Look at the thread, the definition of decisive battle is something like 'unexpected result which changed the course of history'.

So, try to answer honestly :
- Was the overlord operation of an unexpected result ?
- Could Hitler could have won the war if overlord failed ?

Gentelmen,

A wonderful thread!

Now bringing the time-line a little closer to us all, I am amazed that no one has mentioned the Yom Kippur War. Israel was a hairs breath from loosing that one! It is all so one of the first wars in which missiles were used in great numbers against armour

Originally posted by Raverdave:
Gentelmen,
A wonderful thread!
Now bringing the time-line a little closer to us all, I am amazed that no one has mentioned the Yom Kippur War. Israel was a hairs breath from loosing that one! It is all so one of the first wars in which missiles were used in great numbers against armour

---

Ahem... This would rank among the most momentous events of human history would it?