Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

What was the worlds most important battle
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Ikki View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Guanarteme

Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378 		  Quote Ikki Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What was the worlds most important battle
    Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 20:25
Kursk was only the confirmation of the facts: the red army was now the more powerful. The turning point was Stalingrad, with near 250.000 germans deads and another 150.000 allieds, plus (+-) 400 hundred thousand russians, and i don' count the other casualties...; for Germany, the losses of equipment (in tanks, airplanes, truks... six months of production) and trained men was by far more heavy in Stalingrad than in Kursk, and more important, the moral shock was absolutelly terrible.

The only thing that Kursk overpass to Stalingrad is the size of the armies, but was only 2 weeks (yes, very intense), and Stalingrad was an effort of half year. This battle play in other league


Edited by Ikki
Back to Top
Maljkovic View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294 		  Quote Maljkovic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 10:28
Borodin. Napoleon never recovered.
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200 		  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 12:27
he didnt stand a chance...he had 200,000 the Allies had 700,000, however his return did accelerate the allies to put their differences aside at the Versailles Treaty...and kudos to Metternich for inviting France too...genius politician
Back to Top
Maljkovic View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294 		  Quote Maljkovic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:10

Originally posted by mamikon

he didnt stand a chance...he had 200,000 the Allies had 700,000, however his return did accelerate the allies to put their differences aside at the Versailles Treaty...and kudos to Metternich for inviting France too...genius politician

It wouldn't of been the first time he beat the odds. And considering the impotance of Europe at that time, it is deffinatelly the most important battle of all times. Leipzig was only a conclusion, and Waterloo merely an echo.
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200 		  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:18
I still think  Leipzbig was the decisive one

you are correct, Waterloo was just an echo. Even if allies did lose Waterloo somehow, Napoleon would still not be able to create an Empire, he would just keep his throne. Whereas if he had won in Leipzig, there would have been no coming back for all seven allies.
Back to Top
Maljkovic View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294 		  Quote Maljkovic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:28
Napoleon lost Leipzig because at Leipzig he had conscript forces, inexpirienced and unmotivated. If he won Leipzig, he would have lost the next one for sure, because he had no more reserves left. He was on a downhill slope since Borodin. 
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200 		  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:32
yeah...Borodino was decisive too, I wanted to say that one, but he won so...
Back to Top
Hannibal Barca View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168 		  Quote Hannibal Barca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 23:10
That depends on what you call a victory my friend. While it was essentially a tactical victory for the French, they lost just as many men as the Russians did. The Russians actually were very smart to retreat. I think what Maljkovic means is that it was a strategic victory for the Russians. They were able to escape with most of their army in tact which led to them laying down a scorched earth polivy for the French. It was much like the lead up to Waterloo where Napoleon failed to route the prussian forces before facing Welington.
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200 		  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 00:06
by  "win" I mean the Russians retreated, but the fact that he lost as much as the Russians did, his troops were weary, and in almost everyway he lost. However the actual battle he won.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 00:16

For me, It is May battle

(Nuru Pasa destroyed Armenio-Russian army in Caucasus mountains
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200 		  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 00:47
wasnt Nuru Pasha an Ottoman general...and if a battle titled "May" really did take place, how does it stand as the World's most important battle?

Edited by mamikon
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 00:57

, for me, I said before

Becouse that was the turning point that led to establish Azerbaijan Demokratic Republic in 1918, first republic in the east
Back to Top
Artaxiad View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 488 		  Quote Artaxiad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 11:15

, for me, I said before

Becouse that was the turning point that led to establish Azerbaijan Demokratic Republic in 1918, first republic in the east

This thread is entitled "What was the world's most important battle?". I guess your world revolves around Azerbaijan.


Back to Top
benzs_s View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Mar-2006
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote benzs_s Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 04:58
I'm going to go back to the ancient times and say the Battle of Zama, which effectively decided the fate of the ancient world... had Scipio been defeated by Hannibal, arguably Carthage would have swallowed up the infantile Roman Empire and changed entirely the path of the Europe at the time.

Edited by benzs_s
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231 		  Quote Heraclius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 09:05

Originally posted by benzs_s

I'm going to go back to the ancient times and say the Battle of Zama, which effectively decided the fate of the ancient world... had Scipio been defeated by Hannibal, arguably Carthage would have swallowed up the infantile Roman Empire and changed entirely the path of the Europe at the time.

 I think if Hannibal had won at Zama little would have changed.

 Rome wanted Carthage beaten no matter what the cost, it wouldnt have stopped until it had Carthage begging for peace and Hannibal vanquished. The republic had been torn up by Hannibal, 10's of thousands perhaps far over 100,000 Romans lay dead on the field and countless thousands homeless after the repeated ravaging of Italy. Rome would have risen another army in time and Hannibal would have to fight again and again eventually Carthage having the fewer resources and men simply had nothing left to offer.

 It wasnt in Romes character to allow all of what Hannibal did to go unavenged, if there was to be peace, it'd be under Romes terms or there would be no peace at all.
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Hannibal Barca View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168 		  Quote Hannibal Barca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 15:56
Yes we have to realize that Hannibal would have had to begin his entire campaign all over again. The Romans would know what to expect and they would know how to fight him. You could argue that he would continue to surprise the Romans as Rommel was able to launch to campaigns against the British in which he made it even further the second time. So......idk.
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
Back to Top
benzs_s View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04-Mar-2006
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote benzs_s Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 11:50
It would have at least led to a titanic battle of some proportions, engulfing a great deal more of the Mediterranean than it had before. As far as conjecturing as to a result of this battle, it's pretty pointless, but I do wonder if Rome's interests in Greece (particularly the stresses in Macedonia) might have counted against them in a context of an extended 2nd Punic War?

I still maintain that the Battle would have changed a lot more than people would think.
Back to Top
Mameluke View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Mameluke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 16:44

Originally posted by Ikki

Kursk was only the confirmation of the facts: the red army was now the more powerful. The turning point was Stalingrad, with near 250.000 germans deads and another 150.000 allieds, plus (+-) 400 hundred thousand russians, and i don' count the other casualties...; for Germany, the losses of equipment (in tanks, airplanes, truks... six months of production) and trained men was by far more heavy in Stalingrad than in Kursk, and more important, the moral shock was absolutelly terrible.

The only thing that Kursk overpass to Stalingrad is the size of the armies, but was only 2 weeks (yes, very intense), and Stalingrad was an effort of half year. This battle play in other league

Ikki your Russian  casualty figures for Stalingrad have been updated since glasnost and perestroika. According to the "Army book of Land Battles" compiled by Colonel J.D. Morelock, 6th Army at the beginning of Operation Blau numbered 330,000 men. When Paulus surrendered, 91,000 men went into captivity. When the casualties for the entire campaign are included, we come to a total Axis figure of 1,500,000 killed, wounded, missing, and captured. That includes Germans, Italians, and Rumanians. Soviet casualties were certainly higher. Recent figures released after the fall of the Soviet Union indicate a staggering 1 million DEAD. The wounded and missing are another story. However, a battle's decisiveness is not just measured by casualties. The fact was that the Wehrmacht was still a formidable fighting machine even after Stalingrad. It still managed some brilliant victories such as Kiev and Kharkov. However after Kursk, the Panzerwaffe, the spearhead of the German armed forces, was practically gutted. Germany did not win any significant victories after that.

All the best, Mameluke
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war
Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749 		  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 17:05

Ummm...I dont think you can say as what happened in Asia usually wont affect Europe.

Interesting people are saying D-Day. Because well, D-Day meant little. The Russians won WW2. Kursk is much more likely.

I'd argue the sieges of Constantinople becaus eif Islam had won than possibly we'd have a European Muslim Empire that could well have started going East. China Vs Islam would have been interesting.
Back to Top
Ikki View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Guanarteme

Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378 		  Quote Ikki Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 17:23
Originally posted by Mameluke


Ikki your Russian  casualty figures for Stalingrad have been updated since glasnost and perestroika. According to the "Army book of Land Battles" compiled by Colonel J.D. Morelock, 6th Army at the beginning of Operation Blau numbered 330,000 men. When Paulus surrendered, 91,000 men went into captivity. When the casualties for the entire campaign are included, we come to a total Axis figure of 1,500,000 killed, wounded, missing, and captured. That includes Germans, Italians, and Rumanians. Soviet casualties were certainly higher. Recent figures released after the fall of the Soviet Union indicate a staggering 1 million DEAD. The wounded and missing are another story. However, a battle's decisiveness is not just measured by casualties. The fact was that the Wehrmacht was still a formidable fighting machine even after Stalingrad. It still managed some brilliant victories such as Kiev and Kharkov. However after Kursk, the Panzerwaffe, the spearhead of the German armed forces, was practically gutted. Germany did not win any significant victories after that.

All the best, Mameluke


Thanks very much for the info, Mameluke.

You are right when say that the casualties don't say very much about a battle, Passchendaele (WWI) was a huge battle with many casualties but the effects wasn't very important.

But, when the people compare Stalingrad with other battles always talk about the losses in men and equipment. Right, Stalingrad surpass to all the battles in both concepts, and more important is more crucial in the follow fields: morale, strategical situation. The own russians of that time know it, that is the reason why they say "from Stalingrad to Berlin", and not "from Kursk to Berln" or "from Minsk to Berln"


cheers
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.