Battles that shaped a century

The one that immediately sprang to mind was Trafalgar. Led to a dominance in commerce and finance that lasted a century and allowed the further expansion of the British Empire to enormous size.

Waterloo, if only for symbolic effect. It marked the final defeat of Napoleon and ushered in a new century with a new global superpower that was the British Empire. It really marked an end of an era.

WITSEND said:

The one that immediately sprang to mind was Trafalgar. Led to a dominance in commerce and finance that lasted a century and allowed the further expansion of the British Empire to enormous size.

Click to expand...

The impact of Trafalgar is rather overstated, Napoleonic naval warfare was still very much in full swing after the battle. The main impact of it was psychological with the French changing their strategy, to credit the battle as the only sole reason for the British dominance in commerce is not that accurate. Britain was well capable of expanding and sending expeditions to far territories well before the battle was even fought.

Mastersonmcvoidson said:

The impact of Trafalgar is rather overstated, Napoleonic naval warfare was still very much in full swing after the battle. The main impact of it was psychological with the French changing their strategy, to credit the battle as the only sole reason for the British dominance in commerce is not that accurate. Britain was well capable of expanding and sending expeditions to far territories well before the battle was even fought.

Click to expand...

Totally disagree. Up until Trafalgar command of the oceans was still very much up for grabs. There was a realistic threat that the French, particularly with help from other European allies could defeat and overwhelm the RN. After the battle the RN was never at any point in danger of losing it's dominance until after WW1. In retrospect it also ensured the eventual defeat of Napoleon.

It was the dominance of the sea that enabled the British to control most of the worlds trade routes and generate huge wealth. That wealth was then re-exported the UK providing more overseas investment than the rest of the world combined. Can't think of many more significant outcomes for a single battle.

WITSEND said:

Totally disagree. Up until Trafalgar command of the oceans was still very much up for grabs.

Click to expand...

I would argue that it was up for grabs even after it. The French certainly didn't give up on naval warfare and put considerable resources into naval expansion, particularly after 1807. They attempted to launch expeditions to British overseas territories such as to San Domingo in 1806, the Indian Ocean and conducted various naval sorties. These sorties usually amounted to little but they happened. The French made several attempts to get more allies and ships, for example Denmark and Portugal. The contest for the oceans was still very much alive after 1805. By 1813 the French fleet was more than rebuilt.

WITSEND said:

There was a realistic threat that the French, particularly with help from other European allies could defeat and overwhelm the RN.

Click to expand...

On paper maybe, the French and Spanish had more seaworthy ships deployed in 1804 and 5 but this does not mean that they could overwhelm the RN. The British blockade denied the French commerce and prevented them from going out to sea, resulting in under trained crews. The French Ships of the Line were usually heavier and carried more guns than their British counterparts and had a different strategy but their fire rates were slower. They were not necessarily inferior to the British in technological terms but it was shown that the British could and did win even in more difficult situations. In terms of strategy Napoleon's invasion plan couldn't work in 1805, at least not after the French failed to gather more Spanish ships. The 20 Ships of The Line that the French and Spanish mustered at Cape Finisterre were far from enough to overwhelm the British fleets in the Channel and the North Sea.

WITSEND said:

After the battle the RN was never at any point in danger of losing it's dominance until after WW1.

Click to expand...

I can understand where this is coming from and partially agree. Though I believe that the French invasion of Britain was hardly possible in 1805. On paper the combined Franco-Spanish fleet was more numerous than the British one and after 1807 the nominal strength of the whole Continental System combined would give the British a run for their money, but in practice many of these fleets such as the Swedish one or the Russian one or even the French one were not in a position to concentrate all their strength effectively to overwhelm the British.

WITSEND said:

In retrospect it also ensured the eventual defeat of Napoleon.

Click to expand...

I would say this is simplistic but don't quite understand what you mean, could you elaborate your logic here?

WITSEND said:

It was the dominance of the sea that enabled the British to control most of the worlds trade routes and generate huge wealth. That wealth was then re-exported the UK providing more overseas investment than the rest of the world combined. Can't think of many more significant outcomes for a single battle.

Click to expand...

This is true, but I wouldn't pin it on a single battle. As already said the naval struggle for commerce continued well beyond 1805.

Naomasa298 said:

Tsushima. This battle led to the entry of Japan into WW2 and its ultimate defeat.

Click to expand...

I am not sure I would go that far. The Japanese owned the Russians through most of the second Russo-Japanese war. Most of the world powers already realized they were seeing the emergence of a major Asian power even before the battle.

MG1962a said:

second Russo-Japanese war

Click to expand...

Second? Not counting the Soviet border clashes in the 1930s, which Japan lost, were there any other Russo-Japanese Wars under that name other than the one in 1904-1905 in which the Battle of Tsushima was fought.

Mastersonmcvoidson said:

Second? Not counting the Soviet border clashes in the 1930s, which Japan lost, were there any other Russo-Japanese Wars under that name other than the one in 1904-1905 in which the Battle of Tsushima was fought.

Click to expand...

LOL - you are absolutely right. For some reason my addled brain thought the Sino-Japanese war in 1894 was between Russian and Japan

What about Tours 732? It permanently halted the Muslim advance into Europe--though TBF the overthrow of the Umayyads in 750 and their replacement by the Abbasids might have likewise halted or at least significantly slowed Muslim expansion into Europe.

Also, what about the Marne 1914? Had Germany managed to win there and its logistics would have allowed it to advance all of the way up to Paris, then Germany would have quickly won WWI in the West and this would have paved the way for a likewise quick German victory in WWI in the East--thus significantly affecting the rest of the 20th century.

In addition, what about Vienna 1683? After all, it permanently halted the Ottomans' advance into Europe, no?

Moscow 1941 also ensured that Nazi Germany will not defeat the USSR and will not win WWII--thus ensuring that the USSR rather than Nazi Germany is going to be the second superpower during most of the rest of the 20th century.

Futurist said:

Moscow 1941 also ensured that Nazi Germany will not defeat the USSR and will not win WWII--thus ensuring that the USSR rather than Nazi Germany is going to be the second superpower during most of the rest of the 20th century.

Click to expand...

And what if they took Moscow? The Soviet Union wasn't going to just fall apart, the war would continue and I doubt Germany could defeat the USSR in any scenario. Even if they reached the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan Line I doubt they would be able to get the Soviets to surrender. The circumstances would probably get the U.S. into the war anyway so even if the USSR falls somehow I think that the Western Allies will win eventually.

Mastersonmcvoidson said:

And what if they took Moscow? The Soviet Union wasn't going to just fall apart, the war would continue and I doubt Germany could defeat the USSR in any scenario. Even if they reached the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan Line I doubt they would be able to get the Soviets to surrender.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, the Soviet Union's railroad system was largely based on Moscow. If Moscow falls, then it's going to be much harder for the Soviet Union to move troops across the country. Likewise, if Moscow falls, Leningrad probably likewise falls and then the Nazis' logistical situation should significantly improve given the central railroad location of those two cities.

The circumstances would probably get the U.S. into the war anyway so even if the USSR falls somehow I think that the Western Allies will win eventually.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but this would mean that Americans are actually going to need to have the willpower to sustain their war effort up to the point that the US actually manages to develop nukes--and lots and lots of them. AFAIK, the US nuclear weapons program was top-secret until 1945, so it might be hard to motivate Americans to fight all of the way up to the very end. Without a second front, it's going to be much harder for the Western Allies to do something such as D-Day--at least not without lots and lots of nukes.

Futurist said:

AFAIK, the Soviet Union's railroad system was largely based on Moscow. If Moscow falls, then it's going to be much harder for the Soviet Union to move troops across the country. Likewise, if Moscow falls, Leningrad probably likewise falls and then the Nazis' logistical situation should significantly improve given the central railroad location of those two cities.

Click to expand...

Yes, but this does not mean an automatic Soviet capitulation. Soviet Union was not France where the Germans could just take the capital and win. They could and did destroy the Red Army, but behind it was another Red Army, and another Red Army and this would continue on. The Battle of Moscow was important but I don't think that the Germans would automatically win had they taken it.

Futurist said:

Perhaps, but this would mean that Americans are actually going to need to have the willpower to sustain their war effort up to the point that the US actually manages to develop nukes--and lots and lots of them. AFAIK, the US nuclear weapons program was top-secret until 1945, so it might be hard to motivate Americans to fight all of the way up to the very end. Without a second front, it's going to be much harder for the Western Allies to do something such as D-Day--at least not without lots and lots of nukes.

Click to expand...

I believe that the Americans would be pretty committed, they had the resources and the safe geographic location to fight and I believe that they very much had the willpower to defeat the Axis.

Mastersonmcvoidson said:

Yes, but this does not mean an automatic Soviet capitulation. Soviet Union was not France where the Germans could just take the capital and win. They could and did destroy the Red Army, but behind it was another Red Army, and another Red Army and this would continue on. The Battle of Moscow was important but I don't think that the Germans would automatically win had they taken it.

Click to expand...

They certainly wouldn't automatically win, but it would be a much steeper climb for the Soviet Union to continue the fight after the fall of Moscow. In other words, the capture of Moscow (and Leningrad) would give the Nazis a crucial advantage--just like the Fall of France did the previous year. (The Fall of France was not a total victory for the Nazis because Britain was still in the war, but it was nevertheless a huge triumph for them.)

I believe that the Americans would be pretty committed, they had the resources and the safe geographic location to fight and I believe that they very much had the willpower to defeat the Axis.

Click to expand...

Possibly, but if an invasion through France will not be possible, the Americans might have to send a lot of their own troops over to the Eastern Front to help the Soviets. Theoretically, an eventual Allied victory would still be possible, but it's probably going to involve a much, much greater cost of Allied lives in comparison to real life.

BTW, there's actually an alternate history book about this topic called Festung Europa: The Anglo-American/Nazi War.

Great battles of the eighth century that, like the eighth century itself, made no real difference whatsoever.

702 - Battle of Varnakert. Armenians defeat the Umayyad army garrisoning the land. A couple years later the Arabs come back, defeat the Armenians, toss their leaders in a church, and light it on fire.

732 - Battle of Tours. An over-hyped Umayyad raid into Frankia that took advantage of squabbling between the Merovingians and the dukes of Aquitaine. Even had it led to conquest, that would likely have been lost quickly when the Umayyad empire blew up two decades later.

741 - Battle of Akroinon. Leo III and Constantine V defeat a major Umayyad raid into Asia Minor. Far from securing Constantine V's accession to the throne when Leo died the following year, Constantine had to engage in one of the bitterest civil wars in Byzantine history. Far from stopping raiding in Asia, long-distance, damaging raids continued and even increased during the first half century of Abbasid rule.

751 - Battle of Talas. Men killed each other. Arab expansion doesn't go much beyond this point. Tang expansion doesn't go much beyond this point.

773-774 - Siege of Pavia. Charlemagne conquers the Lombard capital and sets the example for future Frankish potentates in how to get bogged down south of the Alps.

Naomasa298 said:

For a moment, I thought the thread title was "Beatles that shaped a century".

Click to expand...

Ringo!