(Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


Ecofact -> (9/21/2001 11:37:00 PM)

Doh! Sorry Dan. I think I cited you under Gen. Urquhart comment. Apologies to both




Dan in Toledo -> (9/22/2001 1:50:00 AM)

here are some interesting links concerning Ancient Rome: web page web page




GI Seve -> (9/24/2001 4:41:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Dan from Toledo:
Here are my reasons:
5. Saratoga: allowed the Americans to recieve French help. Without it we would have lost. The world would have been deprived of the most powerful nation in human history.

Well I would correct that USA is one of the most powerful nations in the history and future of world,but there can be many different opinions about it being the most powerful nation. You have to think about concepts here like technology for example Romans didn't have nukes still they controlled really big part of Europe,nothern africa,eastern asia and on those days that nation was enormously powerful by using only hand to hand weapons(chariots were created but mainstay of roman army was heavily armed foot infantry : legionaires). There can be many other examples like that and some ppl more wiser than me can discuss about those.




Matthias -> (10/3/2001 3:40:00 AM)

Just a thought. Maybe add El Alamein. Had Rommel not been stopped, and the Brits get knocked all the way out of North Africa, the Germans would have access to all of the oil in North Africa. Had they had these supplies, they would have been able to stockpile oil and such. They would have also had a much easier time defending Italy, because they would have only had to reduce Gibraltor to make entry into the Mediterranean Sea impossible. Without the distraction of Italy, D-day may never have happened, and Europe may have had to learn German.




Drex -> (10/8/2001 3:05:00 AM)

They definitely would have access to the oil in Iran and Iraq ( no oil in North Africa yet) and Britain would have to travel around the Cape of Good Hope to reach India, which would make reinforcements incredibly difficult.




vlar -> (1/22/2002 1:25:00 AM)

I decided to bring this thread back just to post my thoughts. I think the battle of Metaurus was probably the single most important battle in history. It was a battle in the second punic war 9 years after Cannae and 5 years before Zama both of which were mentioned in this thread and I think it was more important than either one of them and even than the two combined. Metaurus (207 BC)

In 208 B.C., Hasdrubal Barca (Hannibal’s brother) finally slipped out of Spain and moved to unite with his older brother in a maneuver designed to bring overwhelming Carthaginian superiority to bear on Rome and thus, hopefully, end the conflict. Since the Roman navy controlled the seas, Hasdrubal basically followed the path blazed by his brother into Northern Italy at the beginning of the war. In 207 B.C., Hasdrubal’s army began to move down the eastern coast, where it was intercepted and screened by a consular army under the Praetor for Gaul, L. Porcius Licinus. The Consul responsible for protecting Northern Italy was M. Livius Salinator, who now moved in with another consular army, which brought the opposing, forces to approximate parity.

C. Claudius Nero, the other consul for that year, was tasked with screening Hannibal’s army in the South. Nero realized from captured dispatches that Hannibal knew neither where Hasdrubal’s army was, nor its future plans. Once Hannibal figured out his brother’s intentions he would likely move north and join with him, creating a new Carthaginian juggernaught that could end the war. To prevent this, Nero used what would later become known as the Central Position to bring numerical superiority against one force while screening the other.

Nero took a small, but elite, part of his army (6,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry) and headed north. In an historic forced march, Nero covered the length of the peninsula in six days to unite with Livius and give the Roman forces local superiority over Hasdrubal. To maintain the surprise, Nero’s men entered the Roman camps at night, and the men doubled up until the morning. Livius was for waiting a day or so to let Nero’s men rest, but Nero feared for his command in the South if Hannibal ever figured out what was afoot. Nero’s theory prevailed, and the attack was launched, without rest, the next day.

The Romans – in one of those remarkably indicative instances of allowing ritual and procedure to overrule intelligence – then blew the surprise, literally, by using their standard horn signals to get their troops up and about. This let Hasdrubal, who knew the Roman signal system, to realize that an additional force was probably present in the Roman camps. When the Romans left their camps in battle array Hasdrubal followed suit; the sight of a large formation of men in dirty armor then confirmed his own, worst fears. He immediately knew that the Romans had numerical superiority, so he withdrew his forces back into camp.

That night Hasdrubal attempted to cross the Metaurus River and escape the Roman trap. However, the rain soaked Metaurus was uncrossable at most places, and the local guides deserted the Carthaginians in the night, leaving Hasdrubal high, dry, and on the wrong side of the river. At dawn Livius and Nero moved up in battle order leaving Hasdrubal no choice but to fight. Where the battle was actually fought is still open to conjecture, but it was clearly not a location of Hasdrubal’s choosing. With an uncrossable river at his back, a large Roman army to his front, and his Gallic allies looking for the nearest bus out of town, the Carthaginians were in an unenviable position. From what we do know, Hasdrubal used the terrain on his left flank to almost literally prop up his Gauls (approximately 10,000), most of whom were drunk or hung over. In the center he placed his Ligurians (approximately 8,000) in deep formation because of the limited frontage afforded by the terrain. His best troops – his North African heavy infantry (trained to fight in the Roman manner) and his Iberians (approximately 14,000 total) – he placed on his right.

The Roman consular armies of Porcius and Livius moved forward to attack the Carthaginians, but the limited frontage imposed by the terrain kept the Roman numerical advantage from having an immediate impact. On the Roman right, Nero was having trouble traversing a ravine opposite the shaky Gauls. If he moved against the exposed left flank of the Carthaginian center he, being unaware of the lack of commitment on the Gauls’ part, would in turn expose his own flank to a potential Gallic counterattack.

With the two armies fully engaged in the center, the Roman cavalry on the Left were able to drive off the small contingent of Numidians, thus exposing the Carthaginian right. (They appear to have avoided confrontation with the few elephants Hasdrubal had.) Nero, seeing the opportunity, took his best troops and countermarched across the field behind the Roman lines and around the heights to fall on the Carthaginian rear. The Carthaginian front line collapsed when their position was turned, and the traditional slaughter of the enemy began. The Carthaginians lost 10,000 men to the Roman 2,000. The Carthaginian losses would have been higher but the Romans let most of the Gauls flee back to their homes to spread the word that Rome was back in town. Hasdrubal, realizing that all was lost, rode, alone, into a Roman cohort to meet death in true Barcid fashion.

With the battle concluded, Nero immediately led his forces south to take up their old positions opposite Hannnibal’s army. Nero announced his victory by tossing Hasdrubal’s head into his brother’s camp. Shorn of any hope of reinforcement, Hannibal was soon called back to Carthage to defend the city from Scipio Africanus. If Hasdrubal won and his army managed to link up with Hannibal they could conquer Rome itself and the roman empire would never have existed. Carthage would become a superpower in the mediteranean. Since the roman empire influenced the western civilization in countless ways it's impossible to imagine the world today if the romans lost the battle of Metaurus.




toundra -> (1/22/2002 7:14:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Gen.Hoepner:
3-Portiers(?)-The moors are stopped by Charle Magne


Ouch!
Charles Martel not charlemagne... By the way The battle as been won by an infantry army over a cavalry army, shield wall vs lance. Also Guillaume le conquérant he is French he don't need a Brits name... Oops i just saw Ecofact message. It was not really a minor raid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The struggle was not over after just one battle!! Arabs were just stoped near Poitier and not deafeated, the war against the arabians was long
Charles martel kicked them out of France after something like 30 years (not sure) [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Toundra ]





vils -> (1/22/2002 8:31:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Dan in Toledo:
Zakhal: What is this Finnish/Swedish battle? I've never heard of it.

Me neither. And to correct it: there wasn't any Sweden nor Finland during that time (200-400 a.d.) Maybe the local vikings got beaten by the woodmen from finland, but that is nothing i have ever heard of, which shows it's not of any importance at all But Finland was part of the Svea Rike for many hundred years, but that is a completely different story.




ananias -> (1/23/2002 1:24:00 AM)

I´d say one quite important battle (at least from a Scandinavian and especially a Finnish viewpoint) was the battle of Tali-Ihantala, biggest battle ever fought in North Europe, where the Finnish army managed to stop the advence of the Red Army, thereby securing Finland´s independence and giving the rest of the Scandinavic nations a nice little bumper to that nasty bear nextdoor. All my thanks to the men who fought there, and in other, minor, but still very important battles of that war.




Ozgur -> (1/23/2002 4:35:00 PM)

One interesting note from the battle of Uhud Muhammed is wounded and the muslıms were defetaed: The crucial flank attack made by Makkeian Cavalry was commanded by Khalid Bin Velid; a member of pagan forces that time; later accepted Islam and became one of the best known Muslim commanders in military history. Also a leading figure in the thread of "best generals of all time". Actually, aware of the flank attack Muhammed did employ 70 archers to a dominating hill however they abandoned their places in order to take their share from the victory which they thought imminent. That gave the Khalid the opportunity to attack muslim forces from behind.




nelmsm1 -> (1/25/2002 12:23:00 PM)

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.




Frank W. -> (1/29/2002 2:04:00 AM)

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....




BvB -> (1/29/2002 3:35:00 AM)

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




ratster -> (1/29/2002 8:47:00 AM)

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?...




asgrrr -> (1/29/2002 2:53:00 PM)

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.




asgrrr -> (1/29/2002 3:08:00 PM)

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".




Jap Lance -> (1/30/2002 3:46:00 AM)

[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.




asgrrr -> (1/30/2002 6:00:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Jap Lance:
[QUOTE] the Red army was much too strong to be stopped before a new Allied attempt.
Not quite. The progress of the Red army would have made any allied landing that much easier because resources would have been moved east. And in any case, the Iron Curtain would simply have moved slightly to the west, hardly a phenomenal historical development.




Unknown_Enemy -> (1/30/2002 4:57:00 PM)

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.




asgrrr -> (1/30/2002 8:07:00 PM)

quote:

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?




Unknown_Enemy -> (1/30/2002 11:53:00 PM)

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.




asgrrr -> (1/31/2002 2:32:00 AM)

quote:

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.




ratster -> (1/31/2002 11:55:00 AM)

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 ]





Unknown_Enemy -> (2/1/2002 2:06:00 AM)

First "whose that penetrator moron who dare to refute my arguments ? " 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 .




asgrrr -> (2/1/2002 2:17:00 AM)

It truly takes a big man to retrace his steps in an argument... I rarely do
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.




Jo van der Pluym -> (2/3/2002 3:05:00 AM)

quote:

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.




Adnan Meshuggi -> (2/4/2002 11:19:00 PM)

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 – and the germans knew that – 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 – 1000 tanks more, 5000000 soldiers more, well that could have been the difference between defeat and draw...)
3. The moral aspect for the americans – 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...




Unknown_Enemy -> (2/5/2002 8:34:00 PM)

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 ?




Raverdave -> (2/10/2002 1:27:00 PM)

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




asgrrr -> (2/10/2002 8:22:00 PM)

quote:

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?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.859375