Military History: Decisive battles that turned the tide

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I made started this thread to have a discussion on great battles known and unknown that turned the tide of war ....any war . Lets start.

[GoldenEagle]

Saratoga - American Revolution

Lets face it, we were getting our ass kicked before that battle.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

A very overlooked battle during WWII is Stalingrad .
This is really where The Russians kept the Nazi juggernaut in check . Giving England ample time to prepare for an onslaught and shifting men and material to the eastern front instead of towards a possible invasion of england .

[Qwikshot]

Gettysburg

and

Battle of Midway

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Battle of Leyte Gulf.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
Saratoga - American Revolution

Lets face it, we were getting our ass kicked before that battle.

Actually, we won at Lexington and Concord.

The problem is that any battle that was British vs Colonials in a real battlefield setting was simply a slaughter...it was the sneak attacks and drawing out the war was how we proved to win...

Washington Crossing the Delaware and sneak attacking the Hessians would be a definate moment in Revolutionary History...but I agree, I think Saratoga enticed the French to join our movement...

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Dola: There's this very decisive battle in either Spain or Italy where the Moorish hordes were defeated by a small band of European Allies ....It is said that if the Allies lost tht one Europe would have certainly been Muslim.....If anyone could give me the battle's name and info on it I would be very happy .
I believe it might have been the Battle of Lepanto but I could be wrong .

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER
Dola: There's this very decisive battle in either Spain or Italy where the Moorish hordes were defeated by a small band of European Allies ....It is said that if the Allies lost tht one Europe would have certainly been Muslim.....If anyone could give me the battle's name and info on it I would be very happy .
I believe it might have been the Battle of Lepanto but I could be wrong .

Didn't Charles Martel lead the Europeans forces against the Muslims in that one...?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Charles Martel
Born about 688; died at Quierzy on the Oise, 21 October, 741. He was the natural son of Pepin of Herstal and a woman named Alpaïde or Chalpaïde. Pepin, who died in 714, had outlived his two legitimate sons, Drogon and Grimoald, and to Theodoald, a son of the latter and then only six years old, fell the burdensome inheritance of the French monarchy. Charles, who was then twenty-six, was not excluded from the succession on account of his birth, Theodoald himself being the son of a concubine, but through the influence of Plectrude, Theodoald's grandmother, who wished the power invested in her own descendants exclusively. To prevent any opposition from Charles she had him cast into prison and, having established herself at Cologne, assumed the guardianship of her grandson. But the different nations whom the strong hand of Pepin of Herstal had held in subjections, shook off the yoke of oppression as soon as they saw that it was with a woman they had to deal. Neustria gave the signal for revolt (715), Theodoald was beaten in the forest of Cuise and, led by Raginfrid, mayor of the palace, the enemy advanced as far as the Meuse. The Frisians flew to arms and, headed by their duke, Ratbod, destroyed the Christian mission and entered into a confederacy with the Neustrians. The Saxons came and devastated the country of the Hattuarians, and even in Austrasia there was a certain faction that chafed under the government of a woman and child. At this juncture Charles escaped from prison and put himself at the head of the national party of Austrasia. At first he was unfortunate. He was defeated by Ratbod near Cologne in 716, and the Neustrians forced Plectrude to acknowledge as king Chilperic, the son of Childeric II, having taken this Merovingian from the seclusion of the cloister, where he lived the name of Daniel. But Charles was quick to take revenge. He surprised and conquered the Neustrians at Amblève near Malmédy (716), defeated them a second time at Vincy near Cambrai (21 March, 717), and pursued them as far as Paris. Then retracing his steps, he came to Cologne and compelled Plectrude to surrender her power and turn over to him the wealth of his father, Pepin. In order to give his recently acquired authority a semblance of legitimacy, he proclaimed the Merovingian Clotaire IV King of Austrasia, reserving for himself the title of Mayor of the Palace. It was about this time that Charles banished Rigobert, the Bishop of Reims, who had opposed him, appointing in his stead the warlike and unpriestly Milon, who was already Archbishop of Trier.

The ensuing years were full of strife. Eager to chastise the Saxons who had invaded Austrasia, Charles in the year 718 laid waste their country to the banks of the Weser. In 719 Ratbod died, and Charles seized Western Friesland without any great resistance on the part of the Frisians, who had taken possession of it on the death of Pepin. The Neustrians, always a menace, had joined forces with the people of Aquitaine, but Charles hacked their army to pieces at Soissons. After this defeat they realized the necessity of surrendering, and the death of King Clotaire IV, whom Charles had placed on the throne but two years previously, facilitated reconciliation of the two great fractions of the Frankish Empire. Charles acknowledged Chilperic as head of the entire monarchy, while on their side, the Neustrians and Aquitainians endorsed the authority of Charles; but, when Chilperic died, the following year (720) Charles appointed as his successor the son of Dagobert III, Thierry IV, who was still a minor, and who occupied the throne from 720 to 737. A second expedition against the Saxons in 720 and the definitive submission of Raginfrid, who had been left the county of Angers (724), re-established the Frankish Monarchy as it had been under Pepin of Herstal, and closed the first series of Charles Martel's struggles. The next six years were devoted almost exclusively to the confirming of the Frankish authority over the dependent Germanic tribes. In 725 and 728 Charles went into Bavaria, where the Agilolfing dukes had gradually rendered themselves independent, and re-established Frankish suzerainty. He also brought thence the Princess Suanehilde, who seems to have become his mistress. In 730 he marched against Lantfrid, Duke of the Alemanna, whom he likewise brought into subjection, and thus Southern Germany once more became part of the Frankish Empire, as had Northern Germany during the first years of the reign. But at the extremity of the empire a dreadful storm was gathering. For several years the Moslems of Spain had been threatening Gaul. Banished thence in 721 by Duke Eudes, they had returned in 725 and penetrated as far as Burgundy, where they had destroyed Autun. Duke Eudes, unable to resist them, at length contented himself by negotiating with them, and to Othmar, one of their chiefs, he gave the hand of his daughter But this compromising alliance brought him into disfavour with Charles, who defeated him in 731, and the death of Othmar that same year again left Eudes at the mercy of Moslem enterprise. In 732 Abd-er-Rahman, Governor of Spain, crossed the Pyrenees at the head of an immense army, overcame Duke Eudes, and advanced as far as the Loire, pillaging and burning as he went. In October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe. It was this battle, it is said, that gave Charles his name, Martel (Tudites) "The Hammer", because of the merciless way in which he smote the enemy.

The remainder of Charles Martel's reign was an uninterrupted series of triumphant combats. In 733-734 he suppressed the rebellion instigated by the Frisian duke, Bobo, who was slain in battle, and definitively subdued Friesland, which finally adopted Christianity. In 735, after the death of Eudes, Charles entered Aquitaine, quelled the revolt of Hatto and Hunold, sons of the deceased duke, and left the duchy to Hunold, to be held in fief (736). He then banished the Moslems from Arles and Avignon, defeated their army on the River Berre near Narbonne, and in 739 checked an uprising in Provence, the rebels being under the leadership of Maurontus. So great was Charles' power during the last years of his reign that he did not take the trouble to appoint a successor to King Thierry IV, who died in 737, but assumed full authority himself, governing without legal right. About a year before Charles died, Pope Gregory III, threatened by Luitprand, King of Lombardy, asked his help. Now Charles was Luitprand's ally because the latter had promised to assist him in the late war against the Moslems of Provence, and, moreover, the Frankish king may have already suffered from the malady that was to carry him off—two reasons that are surely sufficient to account for the fact that the pope's envoys departed without gaining the object of their errand. However, it would seem that, according to the terms of a public act published by Charlemagne, Charles had, at least in principle, agreed to defend the Roman Church, and death alone must have prevented him from fulfilling this agreement. The reign, which in the beginning was so full of bloody conflicts and later of such incessant strife, would have been an impossibility had not Charles procured means sufficient to attract and compensate his partisans. For this purpose he conceived the idea of giving them the usufruct of a great many ecclesiastical lands, and this spoliation is what is referred to as the secularization by Charles Martel. It was an expedient that could be excused without, however, being justified, and it was pardoned to a certain extent by the amnesty granted at the Council of Lestines, held under the sons of Charles Martel in 743. It must also be remembered that the Church remained the legal owner of the lands thus alienated. This spoliation and the conferring of the principal ecclesiastical dignities upon those who were either totally unworthy or else had naught but their military qualifications to recommend them—as, for instance, the assignment of the episcopal Sees of Reims of Reims and Trier to Milon—were not calculated to endear Charles Martel to the clergy of his time. Therefore, in the ninth century Hincmar of Reims related the story of the vision with which St. Eucher was said to have been favoured and which showed Charles in hell, to which he had been condemned for robbing the Church of its property.

But notwithstanding the almost exclusively warlike character of his reign, Charles Martel was not indifferent to the superior interests of civilization and Christianity. Like Napoleon after the French Revolution, upon emerging from the years 715-719, Charles, who had not only tolerated but perpetrated many an act of violence against the Church, set about the establishment of social order and endeavoured to restore the rights of the Catholic hierarchy. This explains the protection which in 723 he accorded St. Boniface (Winfrid), the great apostle of Germany, a protection all the more salutary as the saint himself explained to his old friend, Daniel of Winchester, that without it he could neither administer his church, defend his clergy, nor prevent idolatry. Hence Charles Martel shares, to a certain degree, the glory and merit of Boniface's great work of civilization. He died after having divided the Frankish Empire, as a patrimony between his two sons, Carloman and Pepin.

Yes Martel was at the decisive battle ....But not Lepanto
The Decisive Battle was The Battle of Poitiers...
Lepanto was also a decisive battle but hundreds of years later and mainly a Sea battle .

[samifan24]

The Battle of the Bulge.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Here it is....on a side note....Cervantes the author of ''DON QUIXOTE '' fought in the battle and by all accounts distinguished himself well during the fight and was wounded .



Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop,
Purpling all the ocean like a bloody pirate's sloop,
Scarlet running over on the silvers and the golds,
Breaking of the hatches up and bursting of the holds,
Thronging of the thousands up that labour under sea
White for bliss and blind for sun and stunned for liberty.
Don John of Austria met his fleet off Messina and saw that he had 300 ships, great and small, under his command. The Pope himself had outfitted twelve galleys and the depth of his war chest had paid for many more. Don John's eye must have gazed with pride on the 80 galleys and 22 other ships that had been provided by his half-brother Philip II of Spain. Each of these Spanish galleys held a hundred soldiers on top of the rowers who propelled the ship through the water and no less than 30,000 men in the service of Spain would fight at Lepanto. The next largest contingent was that of Venice. No longer the dominating power of yesteryear the Venetians could still assemble a fleet of more than a hundred vessels beneath the winged Lion of St. Mark standard. The Venetian ships were poorly manned, however, and the necessity of stationing Spanish soldiers on Venetian ships led to friction and in some cases blows.

It was the Venetians, however, who provided the technological cutting edge that was to win the battle. In the Venetian fleet were six galleasses. Broader in the beam than regular galleys and with a deeper draught they were so difficult to manouevre that they had to be towed into battle by speedier vessels. Despite their lethargy of movement, they were the most powerful ships in the Mediterranean. Their broad beam and deeper draught gave them a stability as a gun platform hitherto unknown. On their prow was constructed a kind of walled platform mounted with swivel guns that presaged the armoured turrets of later battleships by almost 300 years. The sides and the stern of the galleass were also heavily armed and a wooden deck protected the rowers. On its bow there was a long point that could effectively crush any smaller vessel that was unfortunate enough to be in the galleass' way. A total of 80,000 men manned the ships of the Holy League. Of these 50,000 toiled at the oars and the remaining 30,000 were soldiers.

On September 17th 1571, Don John moved his fleet eastwards and at Corfu they heard that the Turks had recently landed and terrorized the Christian population. They then moved on and as they lay anchored off the coast of Cephalonia, terrible news reached them. Famagusta, the last Christian stronghold on Cyprus had fallen to the Turks. All the defenders who had survived the assault were tortured and then executed. The news enraged the men of Don John's fleet and stiffened the resolve of the commanders to engage the Moslems as quickly as possible. There was one other piece of disturbing news: the Turkish fleet under the command of Ali Pasha had been reinforced by a Calabrian fisherman turned Moslem and corsair. His name was Uluch Ali and he was now the Bey of Algiers, that notorious nest of the Moslem corsairs feared by all Christian ships plying their trade in the Mediterranean. Don John moved his force towards the anchorage of Lepanto where he knew the Turks to be waiting and during the night of October 6th, with a favourable wind behind him, Ali Pasha moved his fleet westward toward the mouth of the Gulf of Patras and the approaching ships of the Holy League.

The action that was to follow was the biggest naval engagement anywhere on the globe since the Battle of Actium in 30 B.C. and the tactics had changed little since then. Both commanders hoped to rapidly come to grips with their enemy, board them and let the soldies fight it out to the end. The only major difference was that in 1571 the ships carried guns and those on the galleasses in particular would have a crucial effect. When the Turkish fleet was sighted Don John split his force into three sections. On the right of the Christian line he placed the Venetians under Barbarrigo, on the left Andrea Doria leading the Genoese and papal galleys. The centre he took for himself. In reserve was Santa Cruz with a force of 35 Spanish and Venetian ships. Before the action began Don John ordered his men not to fire until they were close enough to be splashed by Moslem blood. He also ordered the iron rams to be removed from his ships as he knew that gunfire and close quarter fighting would be of more use than attempts to ram. Two galleasses were towed into position in in front of each Christian division.

The Turks, initially arrayed in a giant crescent-shaped formation, quickly separated into three sections also. The centre, under Ali Pasha, pushed forward and the action opened when the cannon of Don John's two centre galleasses began to do great execution among Ali Pasha's advancing ships. Seven or more Turkish galleys went down almost immediately. The Turks were not lacking in courage, however, and they pressed on in the face of intense fire from the galleasses, the galleys' guns and arquebus and crossbowmen on the Christian decks. Ali Pasha tried to come alongside the Christian ships in the hope of boarding and here the legendary steadfastness under fire of the 16th and 17th century Spanish infantryman came to the fore and attack after attack was beaten off by killing shots from their arquebuses. Then Don John gave the order to board Ali Pasha's flagship. In a wild melee of attack, retreat and counterattack played out on decks awash with the blood of the slain, the air rent by the screams of the wounded and dying the Spaniards forced their way onto the Turkish galley three times. Twice they were beaten back but finally they stormed the Turkish poop and a wounded Ali Pasha was beheaded on the spot. His head was spitted on a pike and held aloft for all to see and the Ottoman battle flag, never before lost in battle, was pulled down from the mainmast. The Moslem centre broke and retired as best it could, their courage forgotten by the elated Spaniards.

On the flanks things had not gone so well. Mohammed Sirocco commanding the Turkish right sailed in close to the rocks and shoals of the northern shore of the gulf to outflank Barbarrigo's Venetian galleys. On the left of the Turkish line Ulach Ali did the same, swinging as close as he could to the southern shore in an attempt to surround Andrea Doria's ships. Sirocco knew well the waters of the Gulf Of Patras and he succeeded in his manoeuvre. Barbarrigo was surrounded by eight enemy galleys and fell dead from a Turkish arrow. His flagship was taken and retaken twice and when aid finally came and Sirocco's galley was sunk, the Turkish admiral was ignominiously pulled from the water and, like Ali Pasha, immediately beheaded. Mercy was a quality not much in vogue in the wars between the crescent and the cross. On the Christian right, Ulach Ali, perhaps lacking the knowledge of local waters that had given Sirocco his initial success, was unable to turn the Genoese flank. He did, however, spot a gap in the line and skillfully brought some of his galleys through and took part of Don John's centre in the rear. The Capitana flagship of the Knights of St. John, its commander skewered by five arrows, was boarded, seized and towed off as a prize of battle. In the Christian reserve, Santa Cruz saw this happening and made haste to recover the captured ship. Uluch Ali, realising that discretion is often the better part of valour, pulled back leaving the Capitana in Christian hands. Doria's division had been roughly handled by Uluch Ali's remaining ships and it was only after Don John had secured the Christian centre and come to Doria's aid that the last of the Algerine ships were beaten back.

The engagement had lasted for more than four hours and when the smoke finally cleared it became apparent that this was a major victory for the Holy League and a bitter defeat for the Turk. Almost 8,000 of the men who had sailed with Don John were dead and another 16,000 wounded. On the brighter side 12,000 Christian galley slaves had been released from their servitude to the Ottomans. The Turks and Uluch Ali's Algerines had suffered much more grievously: at least 25,000 of them had been killed.

The day belong to Don John, the Holy League and Christendom. When the news of the victory broke, church bells were rung all over in Europe in a spontaneous outburst of joy and thanksgiving.


Vivat Hispania!
Domino Gloria!
Don John of Austria Has set his people free!
Cervantes on his galley sets the sword back in the sheath
(Don John of Austria rides homeward with a wreath.)
And he sees across a weary land a straggling road in Spain,
Up which a lean and foolish knight for ever rides in vain,
And he smiles, but not as Sultans smile, and settles back the blade....
(But Don John of Austria rides home from the Crusade.)

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER
A very overlooked battle during WWII is Stalingrad .
This is really where The Russians kept the Nazi juggernaut in check . Giving England ample time to prepare for an onslaught and shifting men and material to the eastern front instead of towards a possible invasion of england .
Check out the movie "Enemy at the Gates." :)

Tarkus

[Buddy Grant]

WW2
Did not turn the tide but still important as Germany's first falter during WW2:
Battle of Britain

Definately turned the tide:
Stalingrad

Did not turn the tide but the nail in the coffin for the Nazi's:
Operation Citadel (Kursk)

[sabotai]

Enemy at the Gates = Awesome movie.

I'll offer up Inchon - Korean War

[HornedFrog Purple]

A couple of my favorites is the Battle of Waterloo and Operation Torch in the Desert War by the Allies in WW2.

[samifan24]

I second Operation Torch.
And of course the Invasion of Normany.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

To an extent in The PTO Bataan and Corregidor ,though a defeat
was a morale victory since they held for 5 months against all odds and became the rally cry for the fight in the pacific .

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
Gettysburg

and

Battle of Midway

Was Gettysburg really the turning point of the war? I mean sure, the South lost mass amounts of men, but so did the north. The south was being aggressive and trying to cut off Northern supply routes. I really dont think this is what cost them the war. I think it was more of the brutallity by General Sherman in the South that was more demoralizing. But think what if the south had one Gettysburg? Would the war have had a different outcome?

[Tarkus]

Operation Flashpoint was one of the greatest battles I've ever witnessed.

Tarkus

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
Was Gettysburg really the turning point of the war? I mean sure, the South lost mass amounts of men, but so did the north. The south was being aggressive and trying to cut off Northern supply routes. I really dont think this is what cost them the war. I think it was more of the brutallity by General Sherman in the South that was more demoralizing. But think what if the south had one Gettysburg? Would the war have had a different outcome?

Gettysburg was the turning point of the war, there is no battle greater, Sherman would've never made the charge through Atlanta if Lee wasn't repulsed just what, a couple days ride to Washington D.C.?, in PA.

Lee actually losing I think would be the first thing. This was Lee's last ditch effort to end the war, if the South had defeated the North, it was considered that France and England would both support the Southern cause (due to the fact that cotton demand was high, and they saw a means of controlling U.S. concerns)

So yes, if the South had "won" the battle, they would have run unchallenged across the Northern countryside, and charged into D.C., which would have demoralized a North impatient with mounting losses (battles and men), idiot generals (Lincoln had a revolving door policy until Grant, and even then, there was an incident in which he would've been replaced by Sherman, but Sherman declined the invitation, very loyal to Grant). The North no longer wanted the war. The win against Lee, against an invading Southern army that was dominant in the battlefield, was significant in the cause. Grant would then take the helm and the bloody battles of contrition that followed simply ended the Southern's will to fight, Lee would surrender rather than give witness to the brutal destruction of his countrymen.


Meade ultimately hindered it from being a more decisive victory by not giving chase to Lee's battered remnants. They had to cross a river to retreat.

Also, Sherman faced little opposition in his charge to Atlanta, much of it had been disposed of.

[Chief Rum]

Anrhydeddu, where are you? :)

I'm sure Gettysburg had tremendous importance to the direction of the Civil War, but the turning point? That's hard to say. The Union also defeated Lee in two other major excursions up north, didn't they? I'm pretty sure one of those ended at Antietam, an equally pivotal and bloody battle. I sometimes think Gettysburg gets focused on too much because of Lincoln's famous address delivered at the cemetary dedication there some months later.

Anyway, my understanding was that the key to turning the tide of the Civil War did happen near Independence Day in 1863--but in the Arkansas-Tennessee area, where Grant captured Vicksburg at nearly the same time that the Battle of Gettysburg was fought.

Interesting biography of Charles Martel. I have nothing to add to it except that I had always thought the battle was called the Battle of Tours. But maybe I just misunderstood a simple statement that the battle was fought near Tours (or the Muslims were turned back at Tours, etc.).

As for WWII, no doubt that in the Pacific Theater, the Battle of Midway turned the tide of the naval aspect of the war, but I really felt the real turning point was in the bloody assault on and eventual capture of Guadalcanal.

Chief Rum

[ACStrider]

I'll ditto the Vickburg comment by Chief Rum, although I would consider all the activity surrounding that date as the turning point of the war considering that the outcomes led to change in Southern strategy. Lee was forced to withdraw from Maryland and never returned, and the Mississippi River was now no longer bottlenecked at Vicksburg giving the midwestern forces of the North free access to the southern mid west.

I'll also throw out an oldie but goodie...The Battle of Hastings...

Also a comment on a few others made...The Battle of the Bulge and Leyte Gulf...although both had the potential to be disaters for the allies, the momentum was clearly on the side of the Allies at that point in the war. The turning point had occured long before then so it might not be fair to categorize them as a turning point.

[andy m]

that one where Ug the caveman killed 5 dinosaurs. turned the tide of human history.

[ColtCrazy]

I'd have to agree with Chemical Solider on WWII. I think the turning point for Germany was the their failure at Stalingrad and the subsequent counter-attack by the Russians. The Germans were on the defensive after that.

As for the American-Japan Pacific theatre, I'd say Midway. Our naval dominance is what eventually won us the war and Japan's forces were never the same after that battle.

The battle at Orleans for the Hundred Years War (though you could definitely argue multiple turning points there considering how long it was)

Rourke's Drift in the Zulu War. The Zulu Army, some 5,000 strong, had just wiped out a British garrison of 1500 at Ishlandwana(sp) and then were defeated themselves by a garrison of less than 200 at Rourke's Drift.

[Fritz]

A small point here. "Turning the tide" and decisive battle are very different.

For instance, Stalingrad was a turning point for the war in the east, but not decisive. The loss of initative, men, and material was important, but was the outcome of the war in the east certain after this battle? I don't feel that it was.

[Fritz]

Dola,

I would suggest that the loss of von Paulus' Army in Russia must be taken in context with the loss of von Armin's Army in North Africa a few months later.

[GoldenEagle]

I think what Cheif said hit the nail right on the head. There is no doubt that Gettysburg was an important moment in US history, but was really the turning point of the war?

The people of the South were also growing impatient of the war. They wanted to attack, they wanted to win. Lee was being aggressive and it cost him the battle and maybe, just maybe, the support of other countires. But I dont think it cost him the war.

I dont think the French or the English would have supported the South. Cotton was being discovered in other parts of the world, so they really didnt need it. At one time, the French considered invading the South. They later decided against because they know it would have caused to reunite.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally posted by Fritz
A small point here. "Turning the tide" and decisive battle are very different.

For instance, Stalingrad was a turning point for the war in the east, but not decisive. The loss of initative, men, and material was important, but was the outcome of the war in the east certain after this battle? I don't feel that it was.

But if you look at Germany's progress in Russia, it was all downhill after the loss at Stalingrad. Many men were killed or captured, and Hitler lost one of his top generals. It was disaterous to Germany and really started the Russian offensive. It may not have ended the war, but it was the beginning of the end for Germany.

Another WWII point. It may never be considered a turning point, but it did have ramifications leter. Hitler's decision to stop attack the RAF and bombing London instead kept him from seeing through Operation Sea Lion. Had the RAF been destroyed, and an invasion of England happened, how would have the war turned out then? I realize the chances of success are severely limited, but his decision to bomb London instead was a costly one.

[Anrhydeddu]

Chief, I just read this and as you expect, I certainly take exception to what had been said about the "turning points" of the American Revolution and the Civil War. Let's see if I can get my thoughts together on this.

A “turning point” is not apparent at the time and can only be best determined after the war. But the mistake the many makes is that a turning point only involves a battle. That’s not true because while battles can be won, the war can be lost off of the battlefield. At some point, the public (and private) will to put forth the effort can undermine any success on the battlefield. Of course news of a defeat can hasten such attitudes but with many on the homefront physically removed from the horrors of a battle, it is what goes on around them and the message they send to those running the war can become the real turning point. This was exactly what happened in the American Civil War in the Confederacy. But more on that in a minute.

Here’s another thought. In every war, there are “turning points” on both sides. In hindsight, there can be a turning point for the victor and a turning point for the loser – and sometimes, they are not the same event!

American Revolution

I’ve been doing more reading on the American Revolution in the past year than I have on the Civil War (and that’s saying a lot). What I firmly believe was the turning point for the Americans was the Battles for Trenton and Princeton (good call, Qwikshot). It was not just the defeat of the Hessians enjoying their holiday parties (in the scale of things, it was no more than a raid). There was something else going on. Actually two things. Washington, through his network of spies and informants (which was crucial in the end in explaining how the Americans avoided losing), knew of the great dissension of his command, even Congress was having doubts. Also, it was at the time that many of the enlistments were running out and he could have been left with an army of no more than 1000 men (which would have caused him to lose hope). Through his passion of his strong will and his determination to make a difference, he commanded his men against all odds against the Hessians. The results of winning both battles sent the British back to New York, gave his small army the much needed morale boost, got Congress off of his back, opened doors for Franklin in gaining an audience and raised the stature of Washington in the eyes of many.

But as said before, there was turning point for the British as well and it certainly was not Trenton/Princeton. I believe the turning point was the Battle for New York. Surprised? This was one of the British strongest victory in the war and one of Washington’s biggest defeats. How could this have turned against the British? Because they let Washington escape (not only across the East River) but north the Harlem Heights. When the flotilla of 15,000 British soldiers moved across the East River, Howe remained on the east side of Manhattan and decided to have a party to proclaim his great “victory”. Knox’s men with most of the American artillery was down in the Battery (at the southern tip). All Howe had to do was to move across Manhattan to trap Knox and then send a few thousand north to stop Washinton’s army from fortifying in the Heights. He did neither. He truly was the McClellan of the American Revolution and did not want to risk anything that would cause concern for his reputation with the Crown. From that point on, Washington brilliantly changed his overall strategy from a war of attrition (which was impossible to win) to one of cat and mouse. That is, never engaging the full British army directly and letting them, in their arrogance and incompetence, come after them (which they did not do, they were waiting for the Americans to attack them). Because of this, Washington was able to buy all of the time needed for the cause of liberty to grow (thank the British for burning Manhattan and atrocities in the South and the New England coast for fanning the flames of resentment and turning off loyalists) and of course, for Franklin and Deane to get the needed monies and armaments from France and eventually, the troops and naval blockades.

I will do the Civil War later.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by ColtCrazy
Another WWII point. It may never be considered a turning point, but it did have ramifications leter. Hitler's decision to stop attack the RAF and bombing London instead kept him from seeing through Operation Sea Lion. Had the RAF been destroyed, and an invasion of England happened, how would have the war turned out then? I realize the chances of success are severely limited, but his decision to bomb London instead was a costly one.
Well said, CC. You beat me to the bunch. I certainly wouldn't underestimate the impact of the Battle of Britain as a turning point, and Hitler's decision to bomb London which you cite above was a doozy.

If the Luftwaffe had indeed defeated the RAF - which they were on the verge of doing - then Hitler would have committed to Operation Sealion. The issue then would come down to whether the meager German amphibious and transport elements could have successfully navigated the Channel and landed an effective force of infantry and armor on English soil. It is certain that the Royal Navy would have done everything in their power to stop such an invasion, and German air superiority would have been crucial. Suffice to say this would have been one hellacious battle.

If the Germans successfully got a foothold in England proper (and I agree that's a big if), then the game might have been up. And if England surrendered, the whole war changes completely. Germany gains access to the Middle East (and its oil), there is no second front to drain military resources, and the U.S. has no staging area for an invasion, just to name a few impacts. Russia faces the full might of the German war machine, rather than a portion of it.

I have one comment regarding Gettysburg. If the Confederates had won the battle, they would have been in no condition to exploit it. The Army of Northern Virginia would have been decimated in the process. Unless you completely re-write the battle, Meade would have fresh corps available while Lee would not. Lee was seeking a devastating, Napoleanic-style victory, and it just wasn't going to happen.

[sachmo71]

Turning point of WWII: Battle of the Atlantic.

A few more ships sunk here or there; no Enigma code broken; a few more German subs put to see in '41; and England is forced to make peace with Germany. It amazes me when I read about how close of a thing it really was.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by ColtCrazy
But if you look at Germany's progress in Russia, it was all downhill after the loss at Stalingrad. Many men were killed or captured, and Hitler lost one of his top generals.

I did say that "Stalingrad was a turning point for the war in the east." I just don't feel that it was the thing that led to the defeat of Germany.

I suggest that the Russian's could have given up Stalingrad and still been in Berlin in '45.

on the side: I don't think I know anyone who would rate v. Paulus as one of Hitler's <i>best</i> generals. At least not in terms of command.

[ColtCrazy]

Thanks, WSU. I actually did a pursuasive speech in college to point out the 3 things that lead to Hitler's defeat. The Battle of Britain was one, Stalingrad two, and opening the second front late in the year was 3. You'd have to think with the RAF gone, Hitler would have put everything he had into England.

Fritz, you may very well be right. If you use the Battle of Britain argument, Hitler is already lost and gaining Stalingrad would have held off the inevitable. However, Stalin himself put a lot of emphasis in Stalingrad's defense and losing that might have undermined some Russian pride. While we agree to disagree on the turning point, I will agree with you that Paulus was not one of his best generals, but he was high ranking one...a big coup for the russians.

sachmo, it is odd to know how close it was. Look at all the "what ifs" Hitler had. Many times he had chances to turn things in his favor, Germany definitely had its chances....probably a lot more so than Japan had.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Turning point of WWII: Battle of the Atlantic.

A few more ships sunk here or there; no Enigma code broken; a few more German subs put to see in '41; and England is forced to make peace with Germany. It amazes me when I read about how close of a thing it really was.
Good point.

What's even more amazing to me is the ridiculous lack of preparation by the U.S. Navy on the Atlantic seaboard, and the subsequent HUGE successes of a mere seven U-Boats off our shores in early 1942. I know a lot about this campaign, and it simply boggles the mind. A few more subs committed here, and who knows what might have happened.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Good point.

What's even more amazing to me is the ridiculous lack of preparation by the U.S. Navy on the Atlantic seaboard, and the subsequent HUGE successes of a mere seven U-Boats off our shores in early 1942. I know a lot about this campaign, and it simply boggles the mind. A few more subs committed here, and who knows what might have happened.

The U.S. Navy was committed to the Pacific. The Atlantic basically was a suicide run to supply Europe, there was nowhere to hide.

The Japanese were a bigger threat, any island closer to the U.S. was a bigger chance of an airfield being close enough to bomb mainland U.S., plus the need to protect a multitude of nations with resources the Allies could use...

[HornedFrog Purple]

You are not allowed to say this kind of stuff. Everyone knows there was no threat to the continental US in WWII. ;)

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
You are not allowed to say this kind of stuff. Everyone knows there was no threat to the continental US in WWII. ;)

The Japanese made it as far as the Aleutians...by then though it was too late.

[sachmo71]

The Japanese wouldn't have had much success invading mainland USA. Not enough troops to avaliable...unless they wanted to abondon China.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by sachmo71
The Japanese wouldn't have had much success invading mainland USA. Not enough troops to avaliable...unless they wanted to abondon China.

I never said they would invade, just bomb...it would have had the morale equivalent of the Dolittle Raid on Tokyo...

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
I never said they would invade, just bomb...it would have had the morale equivalent of the Dolittle Raid on Tokyo...

Actually, my response was more directed at Horny. I guess quotes would have helped...doh!

[HornedFrog Purple]

Heh sorry I was crossreferencing threads where the mere suggestion of a threat to the mainland was deemed rubbish. Sorry.

[Qwikshot]

Okay, sorries...

[Qwikshot]

dola, I'm fearful I killed this thread...two more battles


Spanish Armada - routed in an invasion attempt at England, Protestantism may have not survived.

Trafalgar - British repulse French invasion force...Horotio Nelson "thanks god to have done my duty" before expiring.

[sachmo71]

Was there a bigger come from behind victory than the defeat of the Spanish Armada? Good one, Qwikshot!

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Was there a bigger come from behind victory than the defeat of the Spanish Armada? Good one, Qwikshot!

Thanks, the Spanish Armada defeat basically ended Spain's position as a global player...they've been a shell of a nation since that point (that an the inbreeding). Monarchs were so weird.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by ColtCrazy
Thanks, WSU. I actually did a pursuasive speech in college to point out the 3 things that lead to Hitler's defeat. The Battle of Britain was one, Stalingrad two, and opening the second front late in the year was 3. You'd have to think with the RAF gone, Hitler would have put everything he had into England.

I might pick a different 3.

for argument's sake how about:

1.) Invading Poland
2.) Failure to properly adapt german economy, manufacturing, and military for multiyear warefare
3.) Declaring war on the US

***bonus***
4.) Getting tied up in Italy's messes (balkans/greece/africa)

Let us assume we look for 3 AFTER after June 41 and assuming a war with the US.

1.) Failure to commit a unified drive on Moscow
2.) Failure to commit to unrestricted submarine warfare, esp vs the US, earlier
3.) Failure to provide german military with winter capability in 41.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
Thanks, the Spanish Armada defeat basically ended Spain's position as a global player...they've been a shell of a nation since that point (that an the inbreeding). Monarchs were so weird.

The defeat of the Spanish Armanda is big because without it, we wouldnt be talking about half the battles on our list. Its funny how Spain went from the world power to a non-factor overnight. I hope the US will not end up this way.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally posted by Fritz
Let us assume we look for 3 AFTER after June 41 and assuming a war with the US.

1.) Failure to commit a unified drive on Moscow
2.) Failure to commit to unrestricted submarine warfare, esp vs the US, earlier
3.) Failure to provide german military with winter capability in 41.

Great points Fritz. Combine 1 and 3 and Hitler's big mistake was launching his Russian offensive too late in the year and changing his tactics midway. Had he started a few months earlier, like May, and then concentrated on Moscow, Germany probably would have taken it and still had time left in the year before winter to turn south.
One of the classic world war pictures of Germany's lack of winter gear was one of russian laughing at German whicker-like boots.

About declaring war on the US, would the US not have got into it anyway, or would they have concentrated on Japan alone? I'd like to think the US would have gotten involved anyway.

And again, for arguments sake ;) is invading Poland really a mistake, considering Germany's initial successes? Maybe more of a French mistake for not attacking Germany while they were preoccupied.

All this WWII talk makes me want to play Hearts of Iron again. or at least Strategic Command.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

If you go into ancient times The Battle of Marathon by the greeks and as well as Thermopylae . Great last stands there .

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

dOLA : The Battle of Marathon in, 490 B.C.E, was a pivotal encounter in the reign of Persian King Darius I. As the first Athenian victory of the Persian Wars, it marked the beginning of the end for the Medo-Persian World Power. The Athenians along with the Eretrians had assisted the Ionaian Greeks in their previous attempts to overthrow Sardis. Now Darius set about punishing the Athenians and the Eritreans. He selected two of his most trusted Generals, Artaphernes and Datis to spearhead the attacks. Artaphernes was to lead a siege against Eretria while Datis was to close in on Athens.


Datis landed a force of between 15 and 20,000 lightly armed soldiers on the mainland of Greece. They camped on the plains of Marathon, about twenty miles from Athens. Soon an Athenian force of about 10,000 heavily armed troops, supplemented by 1,000 Plateans marched to meet the enemy. They were commanded by Callimachus and Miltiades.


You May Be Owed
Unclaimed Money
To Find Out, Enter Your Last Name Here:

The Greek commanders delayed their attack, hoping to be reinforced by the Eritreans, who they were expecting to be victorious over the forces of Artaphernes. When they got word of the fall of Eritrea, however, they decided advance toward the awaiting Persian forces. A formation of Greek spearmen went up into the hills overlooking the Marathon plains. The Persians began to unleash an arrow attack on the Greeks, at which the Greeks charged towards their enemy. The Greek forces on the outer edges of their formation – the wings – advanced ahead of the center formation. As the Persians moved in to meet the Greek center, the troops on the flanks closed in around them, in a classic double envelopment that left the Persians exposed from both sides. Heavy close-in fighting ensued. The Persians, however, were now at a great disadvantage despite their superior numbers. In total the Persians lost about 6,400 men, while the Athenians casualties were only 192.


The triumphant Greek troops now marched back to Athens. There they prepared to meet the renewed Persian attack which they knew was sure to come. The Persians, however, apparently lost heart when they saw the Athenians readied for battle and their fleet never anchored. Thus, the Battle of Marathon, while a strategically insignificant encounter, was important in the respect that it gave the Athenians the confidence to resist the Persians. This was to prove pivotal ten years later when a full scale Persian attack threatened their very existence.


The story of the Greek soldier who ran from the battlefield in triumph to Athens ( a distance of 22.5 miles) with the news of the victory only to collapse of exhaustion after exclaiming, “Rejoice! We conquer!”
20 years later there would be another great stand by the Spartans .

[ACStrider]

Hehe...as a Texan I have to say the Alamo. It was a "loss" but a turning point at the same time. Winning the battle at the expense of 10-1 casulties is certainly enough to motivate the opposing side and stall any further offensive. If not the Alamo then the battle of San Jacinto.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by ColtCrazy
Great points Fritz. Combine 1 and 3 and Hitler's big mistake was launching his Russian offensive too late in the year and changing his tactics midway. Had he started a few months earlier, like May, and then concentrated on Moscow, Germany probably would have taken it and still had time left in the year before winter to turn south.
One of the classic world war pictures of Germany's lack of winter gear was one of russian laughing at German whicker-like boots.


This still leaves Leningrad and the troops not quartered in what we presume to be still standing cities. Even parts of Russia to the south could be deathly cold.

I do agree that starting in June was a terrible mistake


About declaring war on the US, would the US not have got into it anyway, or would they have concentrated on Japan alone? I'd like to think the US would have gotten involved anyway.


Oh, the US probably would have gotten involved at some point, but perhaps not. If we were fully focused on the "yellow peril" the war in Europe might not have been an easy sell for Roosevelt. As it was, Europe First, was not the obvious policy.

A non declaration would have atleast delayed the entry of the US into the war. enough delay could have kept the allies out of NW Africa and Italy until 44.


And again, for arguments sake ;) is invading Poland really a mistake, considering Germany's initial successes? Maybe more of a French mistake for not attacking Germany while they were preoccupied.


Absolutely. This is the "one step over the line" that starts the general war.

One thing I forgot to add to my lists was "treating the western soviet lands like conquerors and not liberators." Liberated Belorussians and Ukrainians could have made willing fascist cohorts.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

You May Be Owed
Unclaimed Money
To Find Out, Enter Your Last Name Here:


Really? :)

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally posted by ACStrider
Hehe...as a Texan I have to say the Alamo. It was a "loss" but a turning point at the same time. Winning the battle at the expense of 10-1 casulties is certainly enough to motivate the opposing side and stall any further offensive. If not the Alamo then the battle of San Jacinto.

You know all the years I have been here as a native Texan, I have never been to the Alamo. Thanks for reminding me.

[GoldenEagle]

I have been to the Alamo and I must say that it is a neat little place. You can still feel the tension there today

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I have always wanted to go to The Alamo and feel the tension that I heard permiates through places of significance .
Maybe someday I will visit this hollowed ground and feel it for myself .

[ACStrider]

The thing that caught my attention about the Alamo is how small it was. It lives up to such a large myth that it's easy to picture it as this huge fortress or something. But when you actually visit, it's hard to picture that a major batle actually took place there. It's strange walking around in that area of San Antonio because it's such a peaceful and beautiful city. And then you come across the Alamo where it's a strange mixture of beauty and the ghosts of the past. It's startling and eerie and really gives you pause.

[Fritz]

didn't they move the alamo?

[GoldenEagle]

I think it being in downtown San Antonio helps its causes. It is a small buidling, but one that I was so impressed by. But then again, I am a big history buff. My mom and sister didnt share my passion.

[Fritz]

a battlefield to see is the Custer Battlefield at little bighorn.

[Mountain]

The landing at Inchon during the Korean "conflict." McArthur's last great masterstroke.

[sachmo71]

The Alamo is smaller than it was during the battle...the part you see today is the Chapel. The entire compound that surrounded the Chapel no longer exists.

http://home1.gte.net/konman/AlamoCompound.jpg

[ACStrider]

Ah, nice call (and pic) Sachmo. It does make a lot more sense. It's been a while since I was down to SA, I really should make another drip down there sometime...maybe ctch a Spurs-Mavs game if a ticket's available. =) I remember that there's another spanish mission/fort in the area that is really big, but I can't remember the name.

Golden Eagle - I guess I'm a little lucky. History has been something that I've always grown up with. My dad is a trivia magnet (no joke...don't play Trivial Pursuit against him...you'll lose). I've seriously considered buying him a ticket to LA so that he could try out for Jeopardy, but I digress. He easily could teach college level (and frankly knows more then most history professors) but he needs a doctorate if he wants to do that. Growing up with this background made it easy to enjoy and study history. He's probably the best teacher that I had in high school, and I had some pretty good teachers.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Yeah I agree about the feeling of tension. I have been to Hawaii and the memorial, it is very eerie.

On a semirelated note if you have a chance to come up this way, check out the JFK Memorial and the book depository. It is the same kind of thing every time I go over there.

[ACStrider]

Pardon my ignorance here, but is the JFK Memorial in Dallas? I'm probably moving to Dallas next fall. If so, I would love to catch that piece of our history.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Yeah. Here is a link to some stuff in Dallas along with the memorial, but the pictures dont really do it justice.

http://www.visionsdfw.com/v_VirtDFW/pois.htm

[Chief Rum]

Thanks for reminding me, HFP. I have never been to Alamo (want to someday), but I was having trouble identifying with the eerie tension you guys were talking about.

You mentioning the Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor reminded me, since I visited there years ago. And, yes, I remember that very well. Seeing parts of the Arizona through the water was very offputting, and I was definitely struck by the feeling of being in a place of history. Tragic history, but history.

I can't remember for sure, but isn't it true that the same 1000 men who died trapped in the hulls of the Arizona are still down there, and that it has been named an official burial site (never to be used again, of course)?

Chief Rum

[HornedFrog Purple]

Yes the Arizona was never broken into. Where it sits is where it was sunk.

If I remember, in 1950 a flagpole was erected on top of it and Eisenhower later made it a memorial with the plaque, then they finished the building sometime in the early 60's. The building is bow-shaped like an old conquistador.

If anyone else ever has a chance to go to Hawaii it would be worthwhile to go there.

[Leonidas]

Nova recently did a special on the Alamo. They used the journals of Santa Anna's second in command, who said some things that defied conventional history. Like that many people were captured, to include Davy Crockett. He claimed Crockett was later executed. He made these claims to denounce Santa Anna, whom he disliked.

Naturally, many Texans don't like this notion. While the archeologists could neither prove nor disprove the whole Crockett thing they did use several obscure details from his journal and found they could disprove none of them. As a matter of fact, they discovered many things previously unknown about the Alamo based on his writings. They also had some historians who said the defense of the Alamo was actually poorly conceived and they should have been able to hold out longer but had one wall poorly defended.

Still, made for a great rallying cry and is a unique part of our history.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Well Discovery Channel has a special on the ALAMO tonight at 9 00 Debunking certain things and stuff .

[ACStrider]

Well, when you're outnumbered at a rate of 2000 to 189, it's really hard to imagine that it could be defended better then it was. They had a weak wall but still managed to take down roughly 1,600 attackers. I would be interested to hear how the Nova documentary would account for the surviving women's stories which stated that no men were left alive. Interesting theories, though.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Ive heard Urban Legends that some defenders actually escaped or were captured and let go .

[AgPete]

Was it a top ranking officer? I thought a private (or the Mexican Army equivalent) also wrote stories of Alamo survivors. I know one historian brought this information out a while ago and it pissed off Texan historians. Texas has its own version of the Daughters of the American Revolution but they concentrate on Texas history. I want to say the historian was even sued by them. If I recall, didn't he say one of the victims had a racoon skin hat and that was why people thought it might be Davy Crockett?

Originally posted by ACStrider
Pardon my ignorance here, but is the JFK Memorial in Dallas? I'm probably moving to Dallas next fall. If so, I would love to catch that piece of our history.

You should definitely check it out. I went there once. It's on the same floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository where Oswald set up. It was eerie standing right next to where Lee Harvey Oswald shot the President. What I remember most though is a quote from LBJ pasted on one of the walls in which he confesses that he believes there is a good chance more than one shooter was involved and that we will probably never know the truth.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I dont remember but my History teacher in HS told me to keep an open mind and told us about possible survivors.If anyone has any info or sites please post a link .

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

If I remember correctly I think it was a lower ranking officer (a Lieutenant perhaps) that wrote it in his diary as well as a few from the enlisted /conscripted ranks .

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
You mentioning the Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor reminded me, since I visited there years ago. And, yes, I remember that very well. Seeing parts of the Arizona through the water was very offputting, and I was definitely struck by the feeling of being in a place of history. Tragic history, but history.
For those who might be interested, here's a link to the National Park Service website:

U.S.S. Arizona Memorial (http://www.nps.gov/usar)

[JPhillips]

Inchon was definately the turning point in the first phase of the Korean War, but the heroic defense around the Pusan perimeter was more important. The troops there were constantly shifted from hot spot to hot spot to buy enough time for a US counter attack. At first they were left without anything to stop NK tanks and were basically buying time by giving their lives. The troops, both US and ROK, that kept the NKs from overrunning the Korean peninsula were the decisive factor until the Chinese got into the game.

[Anrhydeddu]

American Civil War:

The Battle of Antietam was the turning for the South (negative)

and the capture of Atlanta which led to the re-election of Lincoln was the turning point for the North (positive)

[GoldenEagle]

This thread has aroused my curiosity on the Alamo. I will try to do some research later and post my findings.

[Leonidas]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AgPete
[B]Was it a top ranking officer? I thought a private (or the Mexican Army equivalent) also wrote stories of Alamo survivors. I know one historian brought this information out a while ago and it pissed off Texan historians.


As I stated, it was Santa Anna's number two, his second ranking officer who wrote the journal. I'd say he was high ranking. His intent was to discredit Santa Anna, whom he perceived as his rival. The discredit was from the fact that executing these men was a dishonrable act in the eyes if the Latino soldier.

The theory was not proved, but it was also not disproved. Obscure facts from the journal were proven correct, and no obscure facts were disproven. Thus the new hypothesis is that since lessor facts were proven true, and none disproven, the journal could be considered by some as legit. Just the way historians work.

As for the JFK thing, I highly recommend it. Outstanding exhibit. If you go in with an open mind it dispells many of those conspiracy theories. Lots of hard facts that are hard to argue with. Besides, I can clearly remember a somewhat psycopathtic cohort I visited it with who was so ecstatic that he could exclaim to the world he ate a hot dog on the grassy knoll.