doc mcb | 04 Oct 2014 6:01 a.m. PST |
link Vehemently disagree with their choices, except for salamis and Lepanto. No Trafalgar? no Midway? no New Orleans? |
MajorB | 04 Oct 2014 6:22 a.m. PST |
New Orleans was a naval battle? Or do you mean the Battle of Lake Borgne? Lepanto – ueah I'd agree with that one Battle of Yamen – never heard of it! Quiberon Bay – possibly but Trafalgar is far more inportant IMHO Spanish Armada – again possibly, but it is arguable that the Spanish were defeated by the weather rather than English gunnery Salamis – yeah, definitely So I would add Trafalgar and Midway as you suggest and I'd also include Tsushima Just my 2p worth. |
The G Dog | 04 Oct 2014 6:41 a.m. PST |
Yamen *might* have qualified as a game changer if the Chinese had not turned inward a century later and dismantled their great Treasure Fleet. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Midway without a doubt. I'd argue that Memphis in the American Civil War marked a turning point in that conflict. But I'm a little biased toward the ACW. Other major battles that were decisive? |
Winston Smith | 04 Oct 2014 6:50 a.m. PST |
That is the site that tries to cram too much into too few choices. All it does is throw out "Top Ten" or "Top Five" lists. Then throw in a few Clauzewitz quotes. If they annoy people they are happy. One of Tango's favorites! |
doc mcb | 04 Oct 2014 6:57 a.m. PST |
I am not Tango. New Orleans was certainly a naval battle, and arguably won the war. Imagine instead that Farragut failed to take it. In retrospect it seems lopsided, but F took a huge risk running the forts and then taking on a fleet with three ironclads -- two of them monsters -- with none of his own. Of course MISSISSIPPI wasn't finished yet and LOUISIANA wouldn't go -- but F didn't know that. Change LOUISIANA and MISSISSIPPI to two operational ARKANSAS class and fight it out; it is anything but certain for the USN to win. |
MajorB | 04 Oct 2014 8:13 a.m. PST |
New Orleans was certainly a naval battle, and arguably won the war. OH! You're talking about the capture of New Orleans in 1862 rather than the Battle of New Orleans in 1814? |
Huscarle | 04 Oct 2014 9:37 a.m. PST |
How about Actium the final battle for the Roman Republic? If Antony & Cleopatra had won that, then what changes for Roman history? |
KTravlos | 04 Oct 2014 10:27 a.m. PST |
From a western point of view, here is my take, though I would not say they are the only important naval battles. Actium- A victory of Antony and Cleopatra would had meant another 50-100 years of instability in the Roman Republic (two different power centers, and roman-Ptolemaic friction) . Not sure it would survive them. Salamis- A Persian victory would mean no Athenian golden century. I still think representative democracy and theater would had developed, but it would take longer time. Glorious First. A decisive French victory there might had led to the fall of Ireland (or Irish independence if that is your cup of tea) and probably changed the Napoleonic wars.
1ST Battle of Port Arthur (the surface action). If the Russian had won decisively here, the Japanese war plans would had collapsed. This might had meant no 1905 revolt, and maybe a more evolutionary opening of the tsarist regime (I do think the 1905 revolt was justified). It may had also meant the underdevelopment of the Japanese navy. Lissa: An Italian decisive victory might had meant Italy getting Dalmatia, Trieste and Tyrolia in 1866. This means that Italy may had ended up being more loyal to the German-Austrian Alliance, which may had changed the calculations that led to world war 1. but I am sure there are others |
Inari7 | 04 Oct 2014 10:57 a.m. PST |
I would put forth Battle of the Aegates Islands. First Punic War. Without victory at sea against the Carthaginians the Roman empire would have only been a regional power rather then the world power it became. |
GildasFacit | 04 Oct 2014 12:39 p.m. PST |
Salamis – yes Actium – No, A&C would have been defeated in the land battle even if they had won at sea The Chinese one – can't decide, probably yes because we are too Eurocentric in our history and this WAS important for a large proportion of the world at the time Midway – only if you allow Trafalgar because both stopped the rise of an empire but didn't directly lead to its defeat. You have both or neither Any ACW battle – no way, it was only a colonial sideshow at the time Difficult to decide which was the critical battle in the 1st Punic War. It was really the attrition over a number of actions that the Carthaginians failed to recover from. Lissa – don't be silly. You can't count a battle that was won by the least inept admiral of two outdated fleets of minor nations. Port Arthur was a land war – ships only complicated the issue, they never could have decided it whoever won. Lepanto is difficult. It should have been decisive but wasn't. The Turks were back three years later with a fleet larger than any Christian fleet available because the coalition that won at Lepanto was back to fighting among themselves again. It did make the Ottomans more cautious and it may be said to mark their high-point in naval supremacy in the Med. Just goes to show the article is right – not that easy to class naval battles as 'decisive' at all. |
Mserafin | 04 Oct 2014 1:19 p.m. PST |
I'm going to throw the Virginia Capes/Chesapeake into the mix. Ensuring the British surrender at Yorktown, and thus ending the American Revolutionary War, seems kind of important. |
Mikasa | 04 Oct 2014 1:32 p.m. PST |
|
IronDuke596 | 04 Oct 2014 2:05 p.m. PST |
Ahh you beat me to it; Jutland, Tsushima, Pearl Harbor and Midway. These Naval battles significantly impacted the operational and strategic direction of their respective wars. |
GildasFacit | 04 Oct 2014 2:27 p.m. PST |
Jutland could hardly be called decisive. The Germans lost their nerve, not the battle. Pearl Harbour wasn't decisive – they missed the carriers Midway & Tushima I already mentioned I do believe that you have to look at the results of a battle within their timeframe, not many years later. Both the ACW and the AWI were NOT major conflicts as far as the 'movers and shakers' of that era were concerned. Their long term effects MAY have been significant but not without many other events having to happen too. Possibly here a problem with the definition of 'decisive'. I'd class Pearl Harbour as 'of critical importance' to WW2 and future history but not a 'decisive' battle. |
Katzbalger | 04 Oct 2014 5:36 p.m. PST |
Tsushima was--in that it help set the conditions for revolution in Russia, if nothing else. Midway because it did destroy a major portion of the carrier (and pilot) strength of the IJN, and after that battle, they really weren't able to carry effective offensive action (for the most part). Trafalger vs. Quiberon Bay: Quiberon Bay doomed the French forces in the Middle East, but Trafalger really ended any hope of effective naval action by Napoleon, so I'd go with the swap. Salamis--for obvious reasons! Virginia Capes is actually pretty important, but I don't know if the Brits would have kept on fighting in North America for much longer even if that one ended up a loss for the French. I suspect the answer is "yes" which would make this a VERY decisive battle after all, but who knows. Or by decisive, do we mean one side seriously whooped up on the other? Rob
|
Toronto48 | 04 Oct 2014 7:47 p.m. PST |
Trafalger and Jutland would have been included on the list if the French and Germans had won. The battles were important because they preserved the status quo that was in existence prior to the battle The larger navies won. A British defeat at either or both battles would have resulted in major strategic changes up to and including the invasion of Britain. Pearl Harbor destroyed or damaged a number of obsolescent American ships that would have had little influence on the early war The US would still have declared war if there had been no Pearl Harbor on the basis of the Japanese attak on the Philippines Likewise Tsushima again confirmed an existing strategic situation that had been established by earlier Japanese victory An unlikely Russian victory could have meant the isolation of the Japanese Army Midway just made an inevitable American victory a little faster. The Chesapeake battle was similar is by that date the alliance of the American colonies with a number of European powers was a major step towards independence that Yorktown speeded up |
GarrisonMiniatures | 05 Oct 2014 4:43 a.m. PST |
Pearl Harbour and Midway I would disagree with. Pearl Harbour speeded up the US entry to war, plus gave the US a sense of moral outrage, but in the long term that's all. Midway didn't seriouslt affect the outcome of the war. US lost? they would have won the next one. However it seemed at the time, Japan could never have seriously won the war at sea. The US and UK navies were simply too powerful. Jutland yes. Likewise Trafalgar. Losing either would/could have had a serious effect on their respective wars. Lepanto yes because of the moral effects – after that the Ottomans were on the back foot. Armada not sure. That's one that would be yes if Spain had won it. Rest I'll go with GildasFacit. |
GildasFacit | 05 Oct 2014 6:20 a.m. PST |
I had to think a bit about the Armada as, in some ways it was like Lepanto – not long after the Spanish had enough ships and men to try again, but they didn't. They did attempt to copy some of the ship design ideas and fighting practices but still failed to beat English ships at sea. It was decisive to my mind in that it badly damaged Spanish prestige and left their trade routes wide open to English interference (not always very successful though) and secured the English colonies in the New World. This did have both short-term and long-term consequences but I think the short-term ones are enough to classify it as a decisive battle. I could be persuaded to accept Jutland but reluctantly. Both sides made many wrong assumptions about the battle and the Germans calculated the risk based on those and decided it wasn't worth it. The British did the same and decided they had no choice but to offer battle whenever and wherever the High Seas fleet offered it, a decision based more on tradition and bravado than on cold logic (at least IMHO). You could reasonably argue Jutland was decisive because the Germans realised that, even though they hadn't been beaten, they could not win. Interesting though the argument is that a battle, if it had gone the other way, would have been decisive DOES make it decisive; I'm not persuaded. Much though I like twisted logic of that sort it would cause too many wrong attributions of 'decisiveness' to allow it. Also looking for the top 5 globally you really are very limited to conflicts between the major states of the time. Naval battles of some wars between smaller nations were locally decisive (take some of the South American ones as examples) but not if you are just looking for the top 5.
|
GarrisonMiniatures | 05 Oct 2014 11:46 a.m. PST |
What about campaigns rather than secific battles? German U Boat campaigns in WW1 and WW2 were decisive in that they failed, US Pacific sub campaign was decisive in that it succeeded – and, in my view, far more significant than either Pearl Harbour or Midway. |
IronDuke596 | 05 Oct 2014 4:12 p.m. PST |
Re GildasFacit comments; although others have commented on the previously mentioned battles that; "significantly impacted the operational and strategic direction of their respective wars." This is what makes a battle 'decisive'. Jutland--Germany's huge fleet became a "fleet in being" it never came out again nonetheless, it tied down the RN in shadowing duties. Simply put the German fleet was neutralized throughout the war, which was a significant impact upon naval operations and German imperial ambitions. Pearl Harbor; yes tactically it was a marginal victory ie not getting the American carries and more importantly not completely destroying the harbor infrastructure, which could have had a significant operational impact on the Pacific War for at least another 12 to 18 months. Strategically, it was a significant mistake to attack Pearl Harbor because it brought the U.S. prematurely into the war, as has been mentioned. Note that the Japanese Imperial Naval general staff were totally against Yamamoto's mission. They preferred a strategy that would permit Japan to use its navy to consolidate Japanese control of the Asia Pacific region. A good discussion resulting from a good question.. Thanks all. |
ochoin | 08 Oct 2014 3:48 p.m. PST |
"it tied down the RN in shadowing duties" What else had the Grand Fleet to do? |
hagenthedwarf | 08 Nov 2014 11:33 a.m. PST |
I do not think Midway is one of the top five decisive naval battles. What would have been the result of a Japanese victory? Just a longer war and more casualties before the inevitable American victory. What about the Battle of the Atlantic? A German victory would result in British surrender and potentially fascism victorious in Europe. And then … ? Would a German victory at Jutland have the same impact for WWI? These two seem to have truly game changing potential but I am not sure about the others. Salamis was big but the Persians still needed to be defeated by land to eject them from Europe and their influence lingered for generations. The same with Lepanto; it had a major impact but it still needed land campaigns to beat Turkish armies whose success was as much limited by the distance of the Emperor's march from Istanbul as by their own force of arms. Perhaps there is something in the Punic Wars as the Romans had to get to Africa somehow but equally the resources the Romans had enabled them to keep going after defeats until they could get a win. |
capncarp | 11 Nov 2014 4:49 p.m. PST |
While not necessarily "decisive" I must in all good conscience submit the Battle off Samar, a handful of tin cans and DE's running interference against an entire Japanese battlefleet (ncluding the Yamato!); going on a "death ride" to give the US Jeep carriers a chance to escape. |