Overrated Battles
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6201
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 08:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Overrated Battles
Posted By: poirot
Subject: Overrated Battles
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 05:18
|
I am going to start a thread on overrated battles. Based on the discussions in earlier threads, I was under the impression that many forumers think that historians tend to overemphasize the importance of many familiar battles. Here is my list of overrated battles, compiled based on my perspective and on that of opinions expressed by many forumers: Gettysburg Hastings Bunker Hill Trenton Talas Chibi Ain Jalut Agincourt Tours Lepanto Kosovo Waterloo Normandy ------------- AAAAAAAAAA "The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells |
Replies:
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 05:21
|
Hm, well you seem to have beat me to the best ones, Normandy and Tours
entering my mind immediately. And then Waterloo comes to mind and I
find that there too, very frustrating, poirot! Khesan isn't a bad one,
won the battle but didn't win the war.
------------- |
Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 06:05
|
Could you motivate your choises? To me most of the battles in Poirots list seem very important and decisive for the outcome of history To me, the battle of Balaclava is grossly overrated - it's wellknown almost entirely due to romantic poems like the "Charge of the 600" and "the thin red line" |
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 07:27
|
poirot are you kidding? Tours,Agincourt,Ainjalut,Normandy are overrated battles. ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid 
|
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 07:48
|
If not Tours The Aarbic language now is a mian language in Europe. I can't continue the discussion but I agree with you in Gettysburg,Trenton,Talas and Lepanto.
------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid
|
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 07:54
|
About Kosovo which battle you mean the first or the second please specify becuae there are difference between two battle. ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid
|
Posted By: Alkiviades
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 08:23
|
Tours (Poitiers): A moorish raiding party returns home with lotsa loot from the Frankish countryside. Frankish leader ambushes them and the full-will-loot Moors can't fight, succumb and flee. Extremely overated. Compare that with the siege of Constantinople by the Arabs or the siege of Vienna by the Ottomsans and you'll understand why it is overrated indeed. Normandy: By that time, the outcome of WW2 was practically decided. Everybody was working for "the day after". USA-UK did not want USSR to gain too much power, so they stalled for almost a year the opening of the western front Stalin was begging for. Out of a dozen different locations, they picked Normandy and landed an overwhelming force, impossible to be stopped by the forces the Germans had in France at the time. How was this "decisive" or whatever, escapes my mind. If you are looking for "decisive" in WW2, try Midway, El Alamein, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk. Normandy was a great (and bloody) show. Waterloo was just beating a dead corpse till it got to the rigger mortis phase... and still, that corpse managed to put up a good fight (but nothing past that). |
Posted By: El Cid
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 14:05
|
I think Tours and Agincourt are overrated, and they don't have the importance that historians have given them. As opossite, battles as Hastings, Lepanto and Waterloo have defined and detrminated our actual history. What do you think? ------------- The spanish are coming! 
|
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 16:31
| Ain Jalut is overated hulega was leaving syria and his reargaurd small army was overwelmed by 120,000 mamelukes,historians say oh this battle repulsed the mongols from egypt but it was HOMS 1281 which was the decisvie battle. |
Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 17:57
|
El Alamo. The claims about the cassualties on the mexican side are way too exagerated. It was merely an siege of 13 days and a final assault that lasted 1:30 hours and the execution of the texicans. More texicans were captured and eventually executed at Goliad and it is not mentioned as often as El Alamo. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 18:04
|
Why is Kosovo overrated? It was the battle which made Serbia into a pasalic for the next 500 years... I also disagree with Waterloo. Had Napoleon won the battle, things would have been different indeed. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 18:07
|
I have always wondered about that since I as a child saw that old Hollywood movie (with John Wayne) about Alamo, where like 10 000 dead mexicans litter the ground in a thick carpet of bodies... How many casualties did they really suffer? |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 18:21
|
El Alamo is one of the greatest bits of propaganda in history. The battle itself only became famous because Davy Crockett died in it- an illiterate frontiersman who ran for the American congress and encouraged a personality cult of himself. This created a martyr out of him and the loss at Alamo made for a good rallying cry for the texans who later ambushed a part of the Mexican army, which suffered a few hundred casualties in that ulteroir battle. The Alamo battle itself was not very impressive either: about 150 Texans, the great majority of them of Mexican origin, holed up in an old mission and besieged by about 5000 Mexican troops. I believe that after 13 days, the mission was breached and Santa Anna gave the order for "no prisoners". It was nothing more than a skirmish really, but it was used for propaganda purposes later on. As for the whole "Americans standing up against tyrrany thing", which the American media and then Hollywood created, it is also false. Most Texans in the battle were as I said, of Mexican origin. The main reason why they were fighting was because Mexico had abolished slavery to deal with the American immigration in Texas, and they wanted to gain an autonomy which would enable them to keep slaves. Then the Americans took this as a cry for freedom... Oh the irony! ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 18:25
| Im wondering the same thing about Kosovo, if you're talking about the one in 1389, it had huge significance to the people of the balkans...it turned the Serbian empire into an ottoman province...or was the starting phas eof it. The battle of Kosovo was the fule to Patriotic risings, it was the material for poets and a hope for a better tomorrow. |
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 18:29
The Serbian Empire had died before then. Serbia then split until feuding principalities(pretty much all of the Balkans was like that). The Battle of Kosovo was the unison of Serbs, Bosniaks & Albanians(mixed in with Croats and Romanians I believe) against the expansion of the Sultan under the leadership of Lazar. Even if the Battle was won I dont know what it would have brought besides a two or bit more decades of freedom, The Ottoman Empire was a united unit, whil the Balkans even among its own, they were fighting. Albanians were killing Albanians nevermind feuding over control with Serbs, Serbs against Serbs etc. The Ottomans would no doubt have taken the land after a while. ------------- |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 20:29
Yes True. the Bosnian King Tvrtko sent substanial numbers of forces. The Albanian states i believe and the various serbian states. Croatia had not existed as an independent state at this time for almost 300 years, it had been annexed by Hungary in the 11th or early 12th century. Although, Hungary might have send forces that would have included croats. The state of serbia really did not exist realisticly the king was one of the claimants to the throne and had his substanial territory however, its also important to note that at this time the King of Bosnia and the territory that's Herzegovina now, had been crowned King of Serbia a few years before the battle, so he had a few of the western serbian lands his hands. The battle was resureccted in the nationlalistic movement of the 19th century and was over romanticized by serbs. Just like the Battle of Tours, which was more of a raiding party that was defeated by Charles Martel than a real invasion force, which the Frankish state probably would not have been able to contain. And even if they had the ability it'd take them more than one battle. After the battle, Martel turned it into a big propaganda campaign to gain more power in French Politics. ------------- |
Posted By: Janissary
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 22:17
|
What does overrated means??? ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 22:19
|
Given more importance than it should have, I think. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 22:41
|
I think had the Serbians won at Kosovo it would merely have delayed the
inevitable. The Turks would quickly have recovered and simply invaded
again. Their ability to destroy armies like at Maritsa and Nicopolis is
clear enough that they had plenty of martial ability left, only when
they were as heavily stretched as distant Vienna would a defeat really
prove decisive.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 22:56
| I can see your point, they most likely would have invaded again, but perhaps winning at Kosovo might give them a better chance to get organized and perhaps make a bigger Christian army, say from Eastern Europe: Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, some of the Italian states... after all the Polish-Hungarian King Wladislaw III did attempt and succeeded a bit to drive the Turks out of the Balkans until he got overconfident, with venice speaking of reinforcements by sea to make sure no turks cross the bosphorus and also promised reinforcement from Vlachs and Byzantium. |
Posted By: Janissary
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 23:01
|
Thank u!!! I think this is Stalingrad Waterloo Constantionopl 1453 Carrhae and etc. ------------- |
Posted By: Texas
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 00:41
okay lets see what facts are right and wrong in your post 1. Davy Crockett was not formerly educated but could read and write 2. Davy Crockett not only run for congress but won several times 3. Battle of San Jacinto ---------------1125 mexican soldiers and 783 Texans 630 mexicans died ---------------- the rest almost entirely taken prisoner--including the President of mexico ---------Santa Anna 9 texans killed and roughly 30 wounded 4. number of troops at the battle of The Alamo------------ 183 Texans - give or take a couple roughly 2400 mexicans in San Antonio and roughly 1800 involved int he final assualt all Texans killed ---------------roughly 600 mexicans killed and wounded --or 1 in 3 in the assualts 5. Texas Army at the alamo was made up of people from all over USA and Europe and Texas with very very few of spanish surnames not saying Capt Sequin and his men followed a hero's path ----ps if i can provide an entire list of the defenders to prove my point 6. The slave was very much a liberal view of why but lets examine that ------ birth place and homes of some the Alamo defenders before coming to TEXAS COUNTRY OF BIRTH & nbsp; & nbsp; # of defenders from that country England ; ; ; ; ; 10 NY &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; 8 Penn &n bsp; &n bsp; &n bsp; &n bsp; &n bsp; 10 Ireland ; ; ; ; ; 11 Mass. & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; 4 Ohio &n bsp; &n bsp; &n bsp; &n bsp; &n bsp; &n bsp; 1 New Jersy & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; 1 Germany ; ; ; ; ; 1 Wales & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; 1 Denmark ; ; ; ; ; 1 Illinois &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; 1 Scotland &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; &nbs p; 3 52 of defenders came from non Slave holding countries ----------------so they werent fighting for slavery in all likely hood and most people as in the south never owned slaves Now some of the main reasons were closing of the border to further settlers and trade embargos (with no trade with the USA -----------one could spend 4 cents for a pound of pork but 5 dollars for a razor or 2 dollars for a pencil), false imprisonment of Texas leaders (Stephen F Austin for one), closed ports, Texas leaders wanting Texas to become an indepentent state in the Republic of Mexico not part of cohullia and finally ---------- the dissolution the constuitional rights, suspending of legislative bodies and Santa Anna putting him self up as absolute ruler/ dictator --------------to Americans freedom and righst were ideals worth fighting for -they were not just words. 7. As far as standing up to tryanny ------read 2 of Travis's notes from the Alamo a. His famous letter
b. William Barret Travis left behind a detailed record of heroes in the making. But as a divorced father of a three-year-old son, he also left us a poignant reminder of the human cost of war. "Take care of my little boy," he wrote a friend in the last days of the siege. "If the country should be saved, I may make for him a splendid fortune. But if the country should be lost and I should perish, he will have nothing but the proud recollection that he is the son of a man who died for his country."
Almsot everything in your post was wrong ------------other the fact there was an Alamo, Davy and the mexicans and texans were there.
------------- |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 01:33
I hear the Frankish army had around 60,000 men and the Andulusian Muslims had around 50,000 calvary. This is a raiding party??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_tours - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_tours |
Posted By: Alkiviades
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 03:01
|
Those numbers are extremely exaggerated. It's somehow like the battle
at Chalons - If you believe Jovanes, both sides had abot 1.000.000 in
total, when in reality Attila and Aetius together had no more than
120.000 men at their disposal. A couple of very good estimations about Tours talk about 10-15.000 Moors vs. 20-25.000 Franks, and I think this is a very good estimation and realistic as well. The fact that the Muslims were a raiding party is not questioned - they didn't set on conquest, they just came into France to loot and plunder and when Martell met them they were on their way home. There is really no point to a 50.000 men big raiding party, is there? |
Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 04:57
|
If you take a look at Kosovo you will see it was just a tie but in sequnces it was a disaster. What then is the importance of the Battle of Kosovo? It was a cultural defeat, a religious defeat. It became the symbol of Turkish power and Serbian defeat, not to be forgotten , revenge was always over the horizon. The grand Serbian culture, which flourished under Tzar's Dushan and Milutin, was only a memory, after Serbia's knights, armies and hopes died at the field of Kosovo. The Turkish victory at Kosovo, was not as much political as it was cultural. because The military destiny of Serbia was sealed at Maritza 18 years ago. ------------- "May the eyes of cowards never sleep" Khalid Bin Walid
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 09:48
|
Invasion of Normandy may be overrated or not, it depends on how you look at it.
Yes, Russians were already winning the war. So, it didn't effect World War II much, but Europe would be under Soviet influence even today, if Americans didn't invade Northern France. ------------- |
Posted By: Janissary
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 16:14
|
In the Chalons, Tolal numbers was between 180-200 thousand men. ------------- |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 16:31
|
The numbers at Chalons was probably about 80-100 in total at the very most, the accounts of 300,000 are insanely exaggerated as was the norm. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 16:34
 Typo, or cunningly disguised revisionism. -------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 21:20
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 22:18
|
Battle of the bulge, easly the most over rated battle of the secound world war. I actualy made this argument from this other forum, so i will just copy and paste my writings. Americas role in the defeat of Nazi germany is over exsaterated Three Main Subjects have been over exsatered what america did during the war. #1-Allied Air Bombing  #2-D-Day and The battle of the bulge  Proberly the two most over rated battles of the war in europe. First of notice when these battles took place, 1944. In 1944, germany was screwed, the soviet advance was all ready at the doors of germany, and it was pretty certin that it will continue into germany with or with out a 2nd front in the west. Militerly, D-day is over rated, first off as a said befor, the german has lost the war allready. But the value of D-day politicly was more then any one could imagine. D-Day, prevented communism to spread into western europe, and it protected americas future intrests after world war 2. At the time of the invasion, over 7/10 of the german army was on the eastern front fighting the soviets, when the allies landed in france, they pretty much were fighting weak divisions of german soldiers, and it was no were at the scale of the fighting on the eastern front. Battle of the bulge  Like
seriously I have no idea why this battle is so importent. Ill give you
a little back round on this battle. In december of 1944, germany made a
last ditch effort to regain controll on the western front. So, It
gathered up to 300,000 men to launch a suprise attack, it failed.
Bottom line, win or loss, germany was still screwed!!!!! The battle its
self drained further fuel that germany need'ed to fight a war, and even
if they did win the battle, they still had fuel problems and they were
not able to go further then belguim. A allied counter-attack would of
pushed the germans were they were befor with support from allied
fighters and bombers. The reason this battle apeals to many people is
becuase the fact that a out numberd group of soldiers defeated a german
army group. #3-Lend-Lease Act  Lend-lease act was a goverment act to aid nations from nazi germany. This greatly helped Britian in its final hour(Battle of Britian), and the soviet offensive into germany. Mainly, the most importent lend-lease euimpent the soviet army got was trucks to move supplies with the quick soviet advance into germany. But with out the trucks, the USSR would of been just fine. They allso used still used horse and wagons to transport supplies too, just like many other nations during world war two. The soviet war industry would of just diverted some of its resources to produce some more trucks, but that should not be hard. Givin the fact that soviet factories in some area's out prodcued american tank/airplane/guns factories. Allso, the factories were safely in the ural mt's, away from german bombers and attack. What i am
trying to say that americas role in europe during world war 2 over
shadows what happen on the eastern front, and that many people still
think that america was the desiding factor for the defeat of nazi
germany while neglecting the sacrofice of british and soviet soldiers
befor america join the war in late 1941. *Revised on 7/1 |
Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 01:02
Decebal is right. The Alamo defenders fought under the mexican flag. The national coat of arms was replaced by the legend 1824 that stands for the year of implementation of the MEXICAN Federalist Constitution. Jim Bowie and Travis were MEXICAN CITIZENS , by the way. The corp gathered by Santa Anna was about 6,000 people indeed, but many of them were also the women that followed to their men and served as nursers and took care of feeding the troops. The skirmish only involved to 1,400 men not the 6,000 men as claimed by the Tejanos. The mortality could not reach the claimed 1,500 men due only 1,400 participated on the 1 hour and 30 minutes battle. some sources quotes no more than 250-500 dead or wounded on the mexican side. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo The tejanos were warned about their fate and still resisted and in a bluff they fired a cannon while the mexicans were trying to get from they the surrender. Santa Anna spared the life of the women and children by allowing the non combatant to evacuate the Alamo. |
Posted By: prithviraj
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 02:37
|
Samyukta, the princess of Kanauj, married Rajput king Prithviraj Chauhan after he won the battle of Tarain against Muhammed of Ghori. She is described by historians as “having thick, black hair and eyes like the black bee moving in the petals of the white lotus”. She was the most beautiful queen in the world then. There are numerous poems and scriptures written about the passion of their romance. However, their love marriage was shortlived, as soon after that, the Muslim invader Muhammed of Ghori again challenged Prtihviraj and defeated him. Ghori captured Prithviraj and killed him cruelly. There are numerous versions of what exactly happened after that. Many say Samyukta was raped by Ghori and she committed suicide as she couldn’t bear the shame. Some say she died a natural death. Others say she was raped repeatedly by Ghori again and again till her death. She may be died due to constant rapes made on her by cruel Ghori. The Gaurids under their cruel Sultan Muhammed of Ghori invaded India because: The Gaurids wanted Rajput women because they were obviously very beautiful and because their own women were ugly like themselves and had just as much facial hair as them. Muslims invaded India for 4 main reasons 1) to forcibly spread Islam 2) to rob India of its wealth (which they had little of) 3) to kidnap Hindu noble women and mainly 4) to kill handsome Hindu Rajput warrior Kings like Prithviraj Chauhan and rape their charming, beautiful and lovable wives like Queen Samyukta. |
Posted By: prithviraj
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 02:38
|
At the time, when Khwaja Sahib entered India, King Shahabuddin Ghauri was defeated by Prithviraj and his army retreated to Ghazni. people asked Khwaja Sahib (R.A) and his companions not to proceed further as the king of Muslims had been defeated. But all the Saints of the group said : "You were dependent on swords but we have faith in Almighty." Thus the caravan reached at the bank of Ravi river after passing through Fort Shadman and Multan. Across the Ravi was located Lahore the capital of Punjab and the high rise spires of temples were telling the tales of splendor of the city. They crossed river and stayed at the mazar of Hazart Ali Bin Usman Hijweri, known as Data Ganj Bakhsh (R.A) just out side city wall. After leaving Lahore, Khwaja Gharib Nawaz (R.A) reached Samna (Patiala) and stayed there. Though apparently, people there were sympathetic but in reality they were enemy to him and wanted to harm him. and the mother of Prithviraj, King of Delhi and Ajmer was an astrologer and after having knowledge through her astrology, she informed her son about signs of a person who will be the cause of his destruction. In view of this prediction, the king asked the artists to sketch the person who resembled Khwaja Gharib Nawaz (R.A) and sent these sketches to all the border areas. He also ordered his men to kill the person resembling with sketch as and where found. Thus when Khwaja Gharib Nawaz (R.A) reached Samna, King?s men seeing the resemblance, tried to stop him. But Khwaja Sahib (R.A) comprehended their inner feelings through Divine inspiration. So he along with his companions slipped from the hands of their enemies safely and reached Ajmer. Khwaja Gharib Nawaz (R.A) and their companions used to take bath and performed ablution daily on the bank of Anna Sagar. One day, some of the followers were stopped by the King men for taking bath on the bank of the Anna Sagar and threatened them violently, The followers returned to Khwaja Sahib and informed him about the happening. He asked one of his followers to go and fight with that men. His cruel follower killed all those men by cutting down their coupling organ. On hearing what had happened to his men, King Prithviraj went their with his army. But Muinnudin Chisti escaped from there. King Shahabuddin Ghauri who was in Khurasan, dreamt an old Saint, saying : " O Shahabuddin ! Almighty has granted you kingdom of India. Get up and proceed towards India. Raja Prithviraj was newly married and was enjoying with his wife and delighted with his queen's company. It is the right time to attack his huge force. Come on." After it, the Saint disappeared. When the king awake, he was under a peculiar state of mind. The voice was still echoing in his ears, saying ? proceed towards India. Success will be yours?. The King decided to invade hindustan again. Ghauri on Expedition to India King Shahabuddin Mohammed Ghauri was defeated by king Prithvi Raj one-year back in the field of Tara-en(Tradri) with great difficulties, but Ghori could save himself and reached Ghazni.Since he wanted to defeat Prithvi Raj, he was preparing for a war secretly. But he did not expected to go for a battle against India after such a short span of time. The Dream created great enthusiasm in his heart and he ordered his army to proceed on the expedition. On the eight day, he himself proceeded on the crusade. The army officers were very much surprised over the rush for the expedition. But nobody dared to enquire about it . When the army camped in Peshawar, an old man of royal family asked " O king though the preparations are on small scale, but the intention is still secret?" The King took a deep breath and said. "You don?t know, what happened to me. Can you recall last year?s defeat that is a blot on my face, be sure that neither I havechanged my clothes nor I have taken rest on the bed. I not even touched my wife after that defeate." Hearing the king, the old man encouraged Shahabuddin Ghauri, prayed for his victory and said, If your lordship has the intention then act according to the need of the hour. Kindly call the Emirs and Chiefs to your court, grant them pardon and honour them, so that they could fight for you and may sacrifice their lives for you and wash the earlier defeat. The king liked the idea. So after reaching Multan, he called the court and granted a general pardon to all the Emirs and Chiefs. Then he addressed them" TO FIGHT FOR HIM". Every chief swore to fight till last breath for the cause after putting their hand on swords. Condition of Prithviraj Chauhan: After defeating Ghori in the firat battle, Prithviraj eloped with his lover Samyuktha, the princess of Kanouj. Prithviraj married Samyuktha and the royal couple continued their honeymoon endlessly. Prithviraj forgot his duties as an emperor and spent all the valuable times with his lovely wife Samyukta and he never the harem. Nor did Samyuktha remember her husband about his duties. They forgot themselves in their love and lust. Ghori collected his force and again invaded India not only to kill Prithviraj but also to rape his charming and lovable wife Samyuktha. Prithviraj was alarmed by this news and the Chauhan ruler was fully alive to the rise of this “beef-eating Mlechha named Ghori in the north-west who had captured Garjani [Ghazni]”. Prithviraj again formed a vast army that was many times greater in numerical strength than that of Ghori. A Decisive War Shahabuddin took the advantage of the opportunity and he ordered for war in the evening, left the army camp as it is and after taking a long round of many miles crossed the river in the darkness of the night, and caught the enemy unaware. The emperor did not loose his senses and face the attack with a part of his army. Later the rest of his army also joined him.Rai Pithora?s army was comprised of three thousand elephants, three lakhs cavalry and a large number of swordsmen, while king Shahabuddin Ghauri had an army of one lakh twenty thousand soldiers. Since Rai Pithora was very sure about his victory, so he did not bother for an organized fight and ordered the entire army to charge against the enemy, On the contrary, King Shahabuddin, adopting war tactics, divided army into four parts under the command of four able generals and sent them to fight one after another. Rajput fought with great courage and bravery that disappointed the Sultan?s army. But he adopted another tactic. He lagged behind in an organized manner showing that he is defeated. Rajputs followed them in a disorganized manner. When the king saw the Rajputs disorganized, he attacked with his fresh army. There was a fierce fight till noon. Raja Prithvi Raj came out of the warfield and stayed under the shadow of tree with his participating 150 chiefs. A final attack was decided. Everyone took an oath and came into warfield. Raja?s army was tired as it was fighting since morning. The Sultan sensed the opportunity. He launched a very strong attack with his fresh 12,000 swordsmen who all of a sudden reached in the heart of enemy?s army. When the other chiefs of king?s army saw the scene, They also pressed the enemy from left and right. In a moment, thousands of Rajputs were killed. The rajput?s army became panic. Meanwhile the elephants force, back bone of Raja?s army was also crushed by cruel muslim warriors. Rajputs tried their best to face the position but in vain. Lusty Gharib Nawaz?s (R.A) words were to be proved true, and they were. It was dusk when the sultan?s army dominated the enemies. A number of Raja?s including Khande Rao were killed while some other?s escaped. Rai Pithora also wanted to escape but was captured and slashed on the banks of Saraswati river. Raja was taken as a prisoner along with Ghori. In the end Shahabuddin Ghauri immerged victorious and the hold of Muslims on northern India became stronger. Later the Rajput?s king-doms like Saraswati, Samana, Kohram and Hansi were captured without any difficulty. Then Sultan proceeded to Ajmer. Nobody challenged him but the son?s of defeated and slain Rajas tried to stop him. But they were massacred in no time by Ghori. After reaching Ajmer, he taken over the kingdom to Prithvi Raj. Prithviraja who had been made captive and who refused to swear submission was beheaded by cruel Ghori. Then Ghori marched straight to Prithviraj's Harem and captured his beautiful and lovely wife Samyuktha before Jauhar. He raped Samyuktha again and again till her death. Ghori even killed the new born infant of Prithviraj and Samyuktha. All other women of Raja's harem were also been captured. King Shahabuddin at the Feet of Khwaja Sahib The evening was falling when Shahabuddin finished his raping in Ajmer. He heard Azan which made him surprised. On inquiring, people told him that some Fakir?s who had arrived a short time ago, used to call like this five times daily. The king took the direction. The Jamaat for prayers was ready. He joined it. Gharib Nawaz (R.A) was leading the Namaz. As and when the prayers were over, and the king saw Khwaja Shaib (R.A), he was very much surprised , Since he recognized the man who predicted his victory in the dream. He wanted to fall flat on the feet of Gharib Nawaz (R.A) but the Khwaja embraced the king instead. Khwaja Gharib Nawaz (R.A) blessed him and asked him to sit. When he regained, he made a request for Bayt. Khwaja Gharib Nawaz (R.A) accepted the request and made him his disciple. Ghori offered 12 beautiful women captured from raja's harem. Nawaz accepted it with great pleasure and raped all those women on that same day. After staying in Ajmer for few days, Sultan Shahabuddin Muhammed Ghauri marched towards Kannouj and captured it. He appointed his faithful Slave Qutubuddin Ebak, Viceroy of India and went back to Ghazni. Qutubuddin captured rest of small kingdoms in north India in a very short span of time and soon the Muslims got hold of the entire north India. Thus with the help of a cruel muslim magician saint ghori defeated prithviraj. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 10:13
Okay, I concede that my numbers were somewhat wrong. But really, does it make that much of a difference in the overall scheme of things? I said 150, you said 184... I said a few hundred Mexican troops died, you said 630... I said most defenders were Mexican, you gave me 52 out of 184 that weren't. Who are the other 132? Davy Crockett created a personality cult of himself. His death is the main reason why the battle of the Alamo became famous. Granted, Santa Anna was a dictator; but the reason why he imposed the embargo and curved immigration from the US is that he feared that the US wanted to annex certain areas of Mexico, including Texas. History in the end proved that he wasn't wrong after all. The point that I'm really trying to make is that the Alamo was a battle without a lot of importance, that involved few Americans, but which was transformed into a battle which carries a great symbolic value for the USA, who had very little to do with it. Read Jalisco's post for some additional valuable comments ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: aghart
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 19:18
|
Hastings and Waterloo overated !! get real. Is it a coincidence that most people who think this is the case are "non" Europeans? ------------- Former Tank Commander (Chieftain)& remember, Change is inevitable!!! except from vending machines |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 20:08
|
Waterloo was overated, if it hadn't of happened. The Allied would still be intact, the Prussian army was still intact and Russia, Prussian and British armies had been dispatched and were arriving soon. Napoleon was Aylesbury Ducked whatever anyways. Hastings wasn't, If William had lost the Norman empire which had repercussions across most of Europe would never have been. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Alkiviades
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 22:40
| Ditto on Hastings. Waterloo... as I said, beating a dead horse. Something like the fall of Constantinople story of a death foretold... |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 13:58
|
why woudl ever somebody consider Hastings an important battle at all, could somebody please explain??? ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2005 at 17:15
If William of Normandy hadn't won this battle, world would be very different. It is for sure that there won't be USA, Canada, Australia and other lands like we know them today. History in India would be very much different. We just couldn't imagine how different could be the world today if Anglo-Saxon England would survive after 1066. It's hard to tell. Anglo-Saxon England had more common culture with Scandinavia in 11th century than with other continental Europe like Normandy, France, Germany asw. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2005 at 15:19
|
and what exactly have Normans got to do with that? are you saying the british empire was created by Normans? ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 05:16
When Normans conquered England they brought many things like vassal and sengnior relationships. There weren't and knights in Anglo-Saxon England before Normans conquest. Kings of Norman England inherited many lands possesions in France, which later led to the Hundred Years War. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 13:50
|
what has feudalism and the hundred years war got to do with the British empire? ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 20:30
I just wanted to say in previous posts that if the Normans lost the battle in Hastings 1066, there won't be any Hundrey Years War and later royal dinasties and of course there won't be any British empire like you know it from history now. It was really decisive battle. If the Anglo-Saxons won that battle, maybe there would be an Anglo-Saxon empire not British.  And this Empire could be quiet different.Some battles change the history of countries for long time period. So I think that Hastings is among them. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2005 at 14:57
|
the hundred years war was fought between the Anjou-Plantagenet dynasty and the French crown, not between Normans and French. and you can't say the Brits created an empire just because Normans once conquered them. ------------- |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 01:27
I'm not trying to argue that the Battle of Normandy had any effect on World War II but its effect on the post war world was huge. The Soviets clung to every piece of land they got, hence East and West Germany and if the Soviets had been able to take as much as they wanted or even invoke Communist movements in the Western countries history would've been much different.
Even if the Soviets played nice and gave Western Europe back, the lack of a second front would've prolonged the war and preoccupied their armies long enough so that they couldn't invade Manchuria, help the Red Chinese and install a Communist government in North Korea.
The Battle for Normandy is overglorified but in the context of history it was still very important. ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 03:04
|
I would have to say that there is one battle that conforms to this - Salamis. I've been doing some reading up on this battle by famous military historians, and frankly I can see their point when I read the primary sources. Firstly, Herodotus's account of the amount of ships that Xerxes actually had was completely overrated and implausible for the tactical situation - had Xerxes 1'200 ships, he would have left around 500 at Salamis to hem in the small number of Athenians ships and used the remainder to proceed with his flanking action upon the Greek defenses at the neck of the Peloponnese. Moreover, wreckage is told in sources to have floated south towards a small island which the Persians had garrisoned in order to pick off any Greek boats attempting to escape or pursue - the direction of this wreckage implies storms in the vicinity before the battle, and we thus have two reasons why Xerxes' forces could not have been as large and well-equipped as Herodotus states that they were. Moreover, after the Persians had sacked the acropolis and the rest of Athens, they beached their vessels - according to Herodotus - in the various small bays in the area, and these bays - even if we allocate the ships the smallest space that they need to be beached, and even if they are in combat positions (the stern in the water, ready to move out quickly), there is nowhere near enough space to allow for this Persian fleet to be beached around Salamis. Xerxes was no fool, and frankly after he had sacred the acropolis and had made it unsafe for the Athenians to return to Attica from Salamis for the time being, there would have been no need to send his entire fleet against the small Athenian and mixed Greek force around Athens. The above is basically a rejection of the terms of engagement for the battle, which is usually what makes people think it so impressive - yes, Themistocles' intervention was clever, as was the use of the small bay in Salamis to hide a detachment to hit the Persian flank, but on the other hand, the Phoenician and Persian sailors couldn't use their superior sailing skills because they were sailing right into the sun, and the course was too narrow to allow all of them to take evasive action quickly. Moreover, in the terms of the Persian war, it was one defense of one city in Northern Greece that had already been overrun, and yes, people will say "but that city is Athens" - that may be so, but the tactical situation doesn't change just because of the later glory of the city, and I believe that this has given the battle a disproportionate amount of credibility. The ultimate defense of Greece lay at Plataea and Marathon in many respects, and it was actually the weather and the sea battle of Thermopyle that reduced the Persian forces (admittedly this "sea battle" at Thermopyle was a small series of isolated engagements) enough to mean that they had to engage the Athenians in Salamis for their own sake - any larger a force and they wouldn't have needed to bother. If the Persians actually had a force exceeding 1'000 ships, why bother to engage and risk losing them by going into Salamis when they already have the citizenry isolated on the island, and the small navy sulking in the shadows of the Saronic gulf! These Persian war battles always get to me...people colour them with ridiculously too much tactical significance. It seems that, although the Greeks did have some excellent victories against the Persians, these had luck as a massive factor and the Persians suffered from extraordinary amounts of bad luck. ------------- |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 13:11
How do you mean? If Napoleon wins at Waterloo, the Russians are still en route and in force. There will still be cossacks patrolling the streets of Paris shortly. It might have made a difference for Napoleon personally. No idea what the Russians would have done with him. Otoh Napoleon only gave himself up to the British in the mistaken belief that they would somehow treat him like the gentlemen he expected them to be. Boy, was he in for a shock! ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 15:39
|
Can anyone come up with a list of ten battles that aren't overrated? ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 16:58
|
Battle of Plassey. The Brits became a power in one part of one region in Bengal. Yet it is "the start of British rule in India". The conquest of India was a process not an event.
------------- |
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 17:10
|
IF this is not in here then Waterloo could be an overrated one, the battle was already decided before it even begun. ------------- Sun Tzu All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 17:25
|
Military enthusiasts tend to try and attach more significance to a battle or have it represent something it may not have been. The Battle of Plassey is a good example of this and I would assume this is done in order to draw attention to the field of military history. ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 17:28
open a new thread!  ------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 19:27
|
OK, let's consider 'overrated' in terms of "historians tend to
overemphasize the importance of many familiar battles". I think there
is a difference between what gets 'attention' in the more popular media
vs. what historians say about it. Regarding some specific battles
mentioned: Normandy - in terms of it being the loss that in and of itself led to Germany's defeat, sure that view is 'overrating' it. However, I'm not sure 'historians' hold that view. If one considers the possible alternate history that might flow from a result in Normandy such as the Allies being 'crushed on the beaches', one might see what importance it had, even aside from the defeat of Germany. The British likely would have told the Americans "I told you so" and insisted on an 'indirect' campaign in the Med. The Germans would have been 'freed up' to a significant extent to concentrate forces against the Soviets. Perhaps the Germans may have inflicted a defeat on the Red Army. Stalin felt that he had been left to shoulder the burden of fighting the war on land against Germany, and may have even suspected the west of arranging this deliberately so as to weaken the Soviets. A Soviet victory may have led to Soviet domination of western as well as eastern Europe. Stalingrad - sure it gets alot of 'press', but then it was one of the critical battles of the ETO. The only sense in which Stalingrad is 'overrated', is if one believes that Germany was 'doomed' from the start and was going to lose no matter what happened. In that case, none of the battles fought in or around Europe during WWII are 'important'. Waterloo - this is an interesting one. Naturally it gets alot of 'press', for being Napoleon's final battle if nothing else. On the other hand, I believe that it is 'underrated' in some sense. Many of those who have studied history a bit express the opinion that 'Waterloo didn't matter because Napoleon never had a chance'. However, the French army in 1815 was in many ways actually better than the one that had fought so well in 1814. Further, the British and Prussian had 'stuck their necks out' in Belgium, and Napoleon's opening of the campaign had successfully defeated the Prussians and 'separated' British and Prussians. It was only the failure of Ney to understand his part that allowed the British to withdraw in good order from Quartre Bras and then Ney's role in 'bashing his head' against strong British position at Waterloo coupled with Grouchy's failure to effectively pursue the Prussians after Ligny that setup the vulnerable position the French were in at Waterloo with the reinforcing Prussians coming in on the flank. In terms of the strategic situation, it is not completely obvious that the Tsar would be willing to mount another 'campaign to Paris', which he saw as being largely to the advantage of the Germanic powers. Austria had been less than enthusiastic about their previous participation, and with control of the territory they coveted there is no reason to believe there would have been any more enthusiastic about another campaign against Napoleon. On the other hand, the Battle of the Bulge / Ardennes Offensive in 1944 really was the dying gasp of an already defeated Germany. The only effect was probably to make the Rhine crossing easier and allow the Russians a bit easier time in the east, by draining Germany's remaining reserves to no good effect. The net result didn't really change much, other than perhaps ending the war a few weeks earlier. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 19:34
how so? ------------- |
Posted By: Samara
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 21:26
|
Cameron is battle overrated. 200 french resist to 2000 mexican warriors. ------------- "All is loose, just the honour" Francis in the battle of Pavia |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 21:35
|
Tours and all subsequent battles in France.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 22:02
well
Major-General Sir Norman Stewart, certainly had a hand in it. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 12:27
In terms of numbers, morale and being 'rested'. The core of the French army in 1814 had been campaigning continuously during the previous year's campaign. To re-build the class of 1815 had been called up early, and still relatively small numbers were available. After so many years of fighting the French had become disillusioned. The 1814 campaign was viewed by many as having been 'caused' by Napoleon who didn't know when to stop, as opposed to previous invasions which had been 'forced' on France by the invaders. In the end his own marshals, those who owed everything to Napoleon, turned against him. The Allies didn't wait, but invaded France 'early' in 1814, giving Napoleon little time to prepare. Contrast that with 1815, where the army had been 'rested' for a year. The class of 1815 was 'recalled', but note not the class of 1816. The Allies were slower in getting their act together in 1815, with the Russians and Austrians in particular being less enthusiastic. The French had been 're-motivated' to fight by their brief experience with the Bourbon restoration. In 1815 the French were invading Belgium rather than falling back into France. They were also fighting an enemy that they had a chance against. This all meant higher morale. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 15:10
|
well, there are two major reasons why the 1815 Army was only a shadow of its former glory: first reason, many Generals refused to serve Napoleon again, amongst them the two best cavalry commanders France had left, Nansouty and Latour-Maubourg. one of the reasons we have Grouchy which became in 1815 the last Napoleonic French Marechal. second reason: the Army wasn't consoldiated at all, the first curiassiers had no curiasses, the french army underwent a re-organization under the Bourbons and again after Napoleons return from elba, which caused some regiments to fight at Waterloo with Royalist insignia. also, after the 1814 campaign, not only generals but also individual soldiers had lost their faith in Napoleon, which caused the instant collapse of Napoleons Army of the North after Waterloo. ------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 15:21
Needless to say I disagree with your characterization. Sure, the 1815 army was a 'shadow of its former glory', if by 'former glory' you are considering 1807. However, the French army was also a 'shadow of its former glory' in 1814. So it is important to keep in mind that we are comparing 1815 to 1814, and not to some earlier point in time. Regarding the leadership, some marshals may have declined to serve, and in some cases Napoleon declined their offer to serve, wisely or not (e.g. Murat). However, more important than the leaders that were available was Napoleon's choice of how to use those that were available. Having Ney and Grouchy as his 'wing commanders' was not the best choice. Davout was available, but was left back in Paris. Arguably losing Berthier was critical, however, there were better choices than to use Soult in his place. The marshals / generals had already lost faith in Napoleon during the 1814 campaign, in fact after Leipzig. That was part of the reason Paris did not resist and his marshals abandoned him so readily. It is true that the morale of the 1815 was 'brittle', in that one major defeat 'broke' them. However, that doesn't imply that the situation was any better in 1814, in fact it was even worse. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 15:31
|
i disagree the Marshalls backstabbed Napoleon, i think it was rather vice versa. Marmonts corps was almost destroyed at Fere-Champenoise and defending Paris was fruitless. seeing the suffering of Leipzig, he didn't wanted Paris to see the same fate, though the other French forces put up a decent fight. the army of 1814 achieved more with less troops and still most of the same generals and high spirited soldiers that served Napoleon before. nothing of that remained in 1815.
------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 15:38
Regarding the marshals, we'll have to agree to disagree. Your comment about Leipzig is telling, that defeat was what caused soldiers to 'lose faith' in Napoleon. I would say that the critcal difference in performance between 1814 and 1815 was Napoleon himself. The 1814 campaign was one of Napoleon's finest, however, the force he had to work with was inadequate. In 1815, Napoleon started off strong but then performed very poorly during the 3 critical days. That was my original point - in 1814 Napoleon performed superbly but his army wasn't up to the task. In 1815 overall he had a better force at his disposal, but Napoleon himself failed to perform at the critical point in time. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 16:13
|
the French Army didn't lost faith in Napoleon after Leipzig at all, none of the memoirs and recollections of soldiers indicate anyhting of the like. Napoleons plans were always good, but sometimes the execution of those was quite different. given the varying sucesses of him was not result of Napoleon but his Army, or rather the armies he faced, this is what led to the myth of Napoleon having heights and lows in commandership. ------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 16:30
Not everyone in the French army wrote memoirs. Nor would they be likely to portray themselves as less than loyal. However, some of the 'higher ups' had hopes to maintain their positions after Napoleon's fall. In some cases those hopes were initially realized, e.g. Ney, in many other cases they were not. In any case even Ney came to be disillusioned under the Bourbons, and thus in many cases Napoleon's command was more welcomed and accepted in 1815 than it had been in 1814. Regarding Napoleon's performance, I strongly disagree. He definitely had his highs, when he was 'on top' of things, and his lows, when he seemed inexplicably lethargic. In his 'prime' there is no way he would have allowed Ney to run the battle at Waterloo the way that he did early on. Much time was wasted, when the British may have been defeated before the Prussians could intervene. Napoleon's 'inconsistent' leadership later in his career is clearly not a 'myth', it is well recorded in the history of his campaigns. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 19:22
|
in case of Napoleon, he wasn't hismelf present when Ney made this decision because of his stomach problems he left the command post a couple of times. and Ney, like Murat is special when it comes to shifting alliances. they were the only two commanders who first shifted their loyalty away and then back to Napoleon, others were more consistent. so Ney is not representative in the least when it comes to the notions of the french soldiery and generalcy.
------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 19:28
As you said yourself:
So, other commanders did in fact 'shift their loyalties', from serving Napoleon to not serving him. Ney was perhaps somewhat unique in flipping back again, however, he was not unique in hoping to hold onto a high position after Napoleon's first abdication. Regarding Napoleon's 'illness', that may have contributed to his poor performance, perhaps it was the entire cause of it. However, the point in that for whatever reason, Napoleon's performance in 1815 was much weaker than his performance in 1814. The army, on the other hand, was better in some ways in 1815 than it was in 1814 (being bigger being an important difference!). ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 20:02
|
yeah but Ney was the only one who got court-martialed. also Napoleon was not weaker in his descisions nor determination in 1815 than before, remember the night march to Charlerois, his plan to deal with both enemy armies separately and his victory at Ligny, eventually he was only weak one day, the day of Waterloo. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 21:49
| Tours is not overated,but at the same time it was only one battle in the larger islamo-frankish conflict and was just one of several battles, |
Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 22:09
|
I was surprised to find Gettysburg on that list. I would probaly agree with Antietam but not Gettysburg.
For geographic reasons (Cumberland Pass) and communications (major road intersection). For political reasons - this was first major Union victory. I believe loosing that battle would open Pennsylvania (major Union state) and force union to negotiate truce with CSA. Forcing negotiations was also reason for Lee to attack Union states. This is the time of Union low. The riots in New your and other signs of dissatisfaction with war. |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 01:00
Certainly Napoleon had his moments even in 1815. IMHO he made a good decision in going after the British and Prussians in Belgium, rather than waiting for the Allies to come to him. He manoeuvered his army into an advantageous position, allowing him to 'separate' the British and Prussians and concentrate on one (the Prussians) to defeat them, even though the combined total Allied force outnumbered his own. However, it was the consistency that was lacking. In the end he failed to follow up on his initial success (for whatever reason - medical or other) and ultimately lost. The point I was trying to make originally was that Napoleon's performance in 1814 was superior, but his force was inadequate. In 1815 he had an adequate force, but ultimately the failure was his in the latter stages of the campaign in Belgium. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 19:53
well, other than that, i always read the war was won in the west, and gettysburg wasn't exactly in the western theater so either one statement must be false... ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 19:54
yeah i can agree with that. ------------- |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 23:37
Yes, the war was most definitely won in the west. The Vicksburg and Chattanooga campaigns allowed the Atlanta and Savannah campaigns which decimated the already inferior Confederate economy. The Confederates won tons of battles in the Northern theater and none of them seemed to bring them closer to victory. Winning Gettysburg was a luxury for the Union, probably not the decisive battle. ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 19:24
|
so you would say Vicksburg was the decisive battle?
------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 20:10
|
It is of course difficult to point to just one battle that resulted in the 'collapse' of the CSA in the western theater. Vicksburg was no doubt important, although helping to open the Miss. River for the use of the Union was probably more important than severing the CSA links with their far west (such links were not that important to the CSA). However, it should be noted that Port Hudson also needed to be taken even after Vicksburg fell in order for the Miss. to be open all the way to the Gulf. If I had to choose just one battle, I would go with Chattanooga. Up to that point the CSA had managed to 'contain' any significant Union progress in the area. The CSA defeat at Chattanooga led directly to the 'collapse' of the front and the drive all the way to Atlanta and ultimately Sherman's infamous 'march to the sea' which not only 'gutted' the Confederacy but ultimately 'outflanked' the AoNV and produced the final total collapse of Confederate resistance. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 04:34
|
i) Gettysburg. Destroyed some of Lees best divisions, 25000 casualties, he was never able to replace them and his strategic options at that point whittled down to "react" to what the union did, he no longer had reserves which he could use effectivly, Jubal Early in '64 not withstanding.
ii) The Overland Campaign of '64. At the start the lines are exactly where they were in '61, at the end Lee was pinned down before Petersburg near Richmond, with all the mobility of a crippled elephant.
iii) Vicksburg, opened up the Missisipi, granted that was a process not an event, but still.
So for overrated battles? Well Union victories were usually strategic triumphs, triumphs that were unlikely to be overturned and were each a death blow to the CSA. I would go with (for overrated battle), Antietam, Lee was not destroyed, he had managed to prove he could be on the offenive, and the Union army was badly mauled.
------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 20:36
|
actually some argue that Antietam was in fact the most important battle in the eastern theater, not Gettysburg. ------------- |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 03:17
|
Antietam probably wasn't too important militarily aside from being another "death blow" as Sparten called it. Antietam was very important in that it gave President Lincoln a result decent enough for morale to give his Emancipation Proclamation. This speech turned the war into a moral crusade against slavery and ensured the European powers wouldn't help the Confederacy. Any involvement would've made the Union blockade less effective at the very least. ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 00:41
From purely military viewpoint it was an embarrassing bloody stalemate. It did show Union generals as pretty inept. Only heroism of soldiers prevented a debacle. Union army outnumbered CSA 2:1 and could not get its act together. Lee's army escaped to Virginia in pretty good shape. The timing of Emancipation Proclamation was more a spin to make this battle look as a resounding victory. Gettysburg on other hand is an uncontested victory that turned the tide of Civil War. |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 02:11
|
How did it turn the tide? If the Confederates win at Gettysburg, they would still have suffered high casualties, and Union forces would move back and establish a new defensive position. The battle wouldn't have helped the Confederacy win any of the decisive campaigns such as Chattannoga in the Western Theater and it was this theater that proved more important. ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 22:03
but this is just as much true for Gettysburg. tactcially the battles were not too different actually, also the strategical outcome was the same. the southerners route to the north was only closed by Sheridans valley campaign. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 06:14
|
Temujin, at Gettysburg, Lee lost soime of his best and most experienced men, men he was never able to replace. 25000 casualties, almost all from battle hardened formations. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 13:25
This is accurate. The ANV was gutted at Gettysburg and was not able to undertake the offensive after that. The war for them became a matter of attritional defense, but one they could not win. The frontal assault on the third day was reflective of their desperate situation, as the entire campaign was reflective of the desperation of the Confederacy.
Had Lee taken Harrisburg with its rail connections, he still would not have had sufficient forces to move against Washington. The city had virtually impregnable field fortifications, in depth, and a very large garrison.
The only advantage of the temporary success would probably have been to delay the moves on Chattanooga and Atlanta.
|
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 21:30
|
Well said pikeshot. The Battle of Gettysburg was very convenient for the Union out but had Lee not lost those 25,000 at Gettysburg, he would've lost them a little further north. ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 21:42
You know, the Confederate command had little regard for the importance of Vicksburg - look at the commander there. They felt that as long as the CSA controlled the banks of the Mississippi south to New Orleans, the river was not very important!  The Union generals were in virtual agreement that the control of the valley would lead to control of the rail communications, and the CSA would not be able to regain control ever.
I have sometimes felt (and sometimes not) that the 1863 campaign in middle Tennessee was the actual crucial event of the war. Gettysburg destroyed the offensive capacity of the ANV; Vickburg opened the Miss. Middle Tennessee (Tullahoma and Chattanooga) opened the South to a strategic thrust into its guts that would kill it. Grant and Thomas and Sherman understood modern war. The Confederate generals mostly understood war as decisive Napoleonic battles, but they never had the resources to deliver decisive results.
Lee was a great general, but he was no Bonaparte, and the CSA was not 1806 France.
Any opinions on the middle Tennessee campaign(s)? The strike into Georgia afterwards seems to be the decisive one.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 22:29
yeah it was the last major offensive, but it was still similar to Antietam and the later sieges of Petersburg and Richmond were not too different from the Peninsular Campaign, another 7days camapign and the tables had changed again. ------------- |
Posted By: cavalry4ever
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 01:44
Besides the fact that CSA lost its best troops and generals, it could never replace, Gettysburg is the first major battle when Union stood its ground and won without a question, followed by the retrait. If Lee won this battle he would cut northern states in half and this was his plan. Also important think to remember is that some of best Union troops from Gettysburg were shipped to New Your to put down a major revolt. There was a serious discontent through Union states and sentiment was pushing toward negotiation with CSA. One more Confederate victory and history would look quite different. You have to also understand that lasted over three years with liittle to show on Union side. The fact that union did not pursue the Confederates after this battle will help in choosing Grant as Union Army Commander. The fact that Grant will get his command without string attached, free of political interference may be related to gen. Reynolds which died heroically at Gettysburg. He was considered to be brightets Union general and did not accept command because Lincoln refused ti give him the free hand. The idea was planted and that is what gen. Grant will get. You keep forgetting that Pennsylvania was sitting on very important communication and trade routes and Maryland was neutral with a lot of Confederate sympathizers ( look up Baltimore riots). Sheridan Valley campaign was an aberration. South lost war and did not pay attention to Shenandoah Vaolley. Sheridan was dispatched by Grant to finish what was becoming a major annoyance for Union. Lot of peple thought that it was a poor use of man and skills of CSA gen. Yubal Early to fight something that had no chance of succeeding. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 18:24
|
any troop losses were decsisive for the CSA and which great generals were lost at Gettysburg? i can't recall even one. the Union Army actually followed up the CSA but due to Stuarts cavalry they never came close enough. Baltimore is alsoa different story, many people from maryland, whcih was a slave-holdign state, were inf avour of the CSA and fought in teh CSA army, but pennsylvania was not. ------------- |
Posted By: mini
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 18:08
| Hastings was an extremly important battle as it decided the fate of England(The Nation that would later own a quater of the world!!!). As well as this the battle was no way a fore gone conclusion.Harold held a strong position on the hill that the Normans spent the whole morning trying to capture and the only way they did was by drawing Harolds troops off it when they ran away. |
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 18:24
|
Well To me Manikert 1071 because the Byzantines realy only lost 8,000 but it was the after effects and general shcok that sent shockwaves throughout the empire (virtually losing all of Anatolia). The battle really resulted more in a mental scarring than a physical one for the Byzantine empire. ------------- Sun Tzu All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu |
Posted By: chean
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 13:07
|
Have to say anyone saying Hastings was unimportant obviously hasn't studied English history. At the beginning of 1066 England was an Anglo-Saxon country, with Anglo-Saxon people, nobility, laws, culture etc. By the end it was a Norman country with not only different rulers but different culture, laws, rights, social standing and allegances. The appearance and order of England - not to mention it's future - was profoundly changed by the victory.
The next few years would see a ruthless culling of all the old Anglo-Saxon nobility and their replacement with new Norman barons, the start of castle building on a near unmatched scale in English history and a brutal subjugation of the common people. This was as a result specifically of the battle of Hastings, because if William had lost there it's highly unlikely he would have been able to try again (if he had managed to survive the battle that is!).
|
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 15:44
|
The Battle of the Atlantic.... My guess is that Great Britian exaggerated the U-boat "peril" to give the impression that Britain was on the verge of collapse and bring America into the war. Even in their short lived glory days, the U-boats experienced steady losses and Great Britain was in no serious danger of being cut off. By summer 1941, the U-Boat to shipping loss ratio from attacks on properly escorted convoys are starting to be un-economical for the U-boats. The U-boats get a brief second life by rampaging through unescorted American shipping in the summer of 1942. But... now attacks on escorted convoys are not sustainable for the U-boats. German U Boat command ignores the statistics. By Black May, 1943 U boats are suffering horrendous casualties. By 1944, U Boat operations are equivelant to Kamikaze missions.
|
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 15:46
|
were there any missions in 1945? ------------- Sun Tzu All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 17:08
|
Actually I think I'd agree that the Battle of the Atlantic has been overrated - not that it wasn't a serious affair, but it wasn't as big a threat to Britain's survival as the battle of Britain was, say.
On the other hand I don't think it was Britain at the time that exaggerated its importance, but subsequent historians attempting to heighten the possibility of a German victory.
With regard to pulling the US into the war, that sounds more like the other Battle of the Atlantic in ww1. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 17:38
|
Marathon and Salamis. For the Persians it was just a frontier battle and thats it like all the other frontier battles in those days. Plus Persians ruled the eastern half of the greek world and they didn't distroy their civilization or culture or even rule them directly.AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 17:48
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 19:12
yeah we know about Normans and their local importance for Britian but English are not Normans. the failure here is to understand that the Normans were only a sidenote in world history, a phenomenon limited to the middle ages. there is no serious argument Normans were responsible for future English/British exploits. |
Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 19:53
I think that it also applies in WWII. For example, Britain convinced the United States to assign destroyer escorts to convoys west of Iceland long before the United States actually entered the war. The U.S. ships were escorting legitimate targets in a combat zone so it was only a matter of time before a destroyer (USS James Greer?) was sunk and public opinion inflamed.
In convincing the U.S. to escort the convoys, Britain probably exagerrated the impact of the U-boast to give the impression that they were on the verge of collapse and thus the U.S. escorts were needed for Britain's very survival. In reality, the British losses from U-boats, though heavy, were bearable and the British situation was steadily improving.
Yes, as a testimony to the enormous dedication and sacrifice of the crews, U-boats continously sailed (and were systematicaly sunk) until the last days of the war.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 20:07
| in fact German U-boats in ww1 sunk more total tonnage than in ww2. |