1. I doubt any single battle changed the course of history in any grand sense (though obviously any event at all that occurred in the past can be said to have changed history a bit). The power of states doesn’t generally turn on individual battles. The battles are a symptom rather than a cause. The fact Rome didn’t fall after Cannae is one example of this.
2. This is a list of such battles that seems to be limited to an English public school view of history where England’s glory transitions seamlessly from Rome and classical Greece. Other people have history too: Issus, Plassey, Yorktown, battle of the Yellow River, Horns of Hattin, Las Navas de Tolosa, the siege of Haarlem, Poitiers, Bannockburn, Austerlitz, Borodino, Bílá hora, Grunwald, Kosovo Pole, Mohacs, al-Harra, Chaldiran, Marj Dabiq, Manzikert, Panipat …
1. I think you are correct in the general sense, of course, especially with your excellent point about Cannae. Generally, events do not turn on individual battles, and counterfactual speculation, although entertaining, is a fool’s errand. Still, there are a few battles that do seem pivotal, and not only because of their long-term significance on global history, but also because they could have plausibly (without expending too much effort in terms of one’s counterfactual imagination) gone the other way. Salamis is one of those instances, Tours/Poitiers another, and the 1529 failure of Suleiman the Magnificent to take Vienna with overwhelming force still yet another. (The reason I would not ultimately include the 1683 invasion is precisely because in that instance it seems the Ottoman defeat was more or less inevitable, despite John Sobieski’s last minute heroics. Within a decade the Ottomans were in full retreat, and within a decade and a half or so they were signing a capitulation treaty to the Hapsburgs.)
2. Obviously, all battles are significant to those who fight them. And presentism should be avoided in history. However, history is not really about the past. As the great American historian Frederick Jackson Turner pointed out, if you’re in it for that you are not a historian but an antiquarian. History is about us, right now. And although a medieval battle between the Khmer and the kingdom of Siam had significant repercussions on the history of that region it did not have global historical implications. If Ain Jalut had gone the other way, one could speculate no one could have stopped the Mongols after that.
Good picks. I think I'd argue with Lepanto through, was it really that decisive? At the end of the day I think it was more famous than decisive to be honest, the Holy League fell apart quite quickly after it, the Ottomans rebuilt their fleet quite quickly, and both the Spanish and the Ottomans declined into second rate naval powers within a century, where the role of the Mediterranean also diminished quite rapidly in the next decades already.
These lists are fun but I'm not sure they amount to much. All those battles were historically important but there were plenty more, as has already been noted, that were as, or even more, pivotal.
I also feel the need to pick you up on your depiction of Trafalgar as astonishing. Everyone involved new it was a foregone conclusion before it happened. The French admiral had to be forced out of port under the threat of execution by Napoleon. The real work had been done at the Glorious 1st of June and Nile and the by the relentless and gruelling blockading work done over the intervening years. Not glamorous work but the key to the French and Spanish fleet, impressive as it was, being hopelessly unnderprepared for Trafalgar.
I’d say the Miracle on the Vistula of 1920 was one of the most important ones in the 20th century: basically stopped the Soviets from taking over all of Europe.
Was Cannae decisive? It was a catastrophic defeat but did not break Roman will. In fact it should have demonstrated to Carthage that within the limits of 3 century BCE war and statecraft, that they needed a different approach.
I would add that Cannae has had an insidious effect on military thinking through the quest for decisive battle. It polluted Imperial German thinking through the Schlieffen Plan employed in 1914, and possibly again in Russia in 1941. One could even say the post WW2 US approach to war ran aground against North Vietnam.
Seeking decisive battle(s) may not be the path to attainment of one’s war aims. Unfortunately for some, it’s more “fun”.
Great list… for a “b” I vote for: Stalingrad, Yarmuk/al-Qadisiyyah, The Mongol invasion of Bagdad, Potlava, and The Burning of the Imperial palace in China
I submit Hiroshima as the most decisive battle of all time. Many would reject this as not being a battle … which makes my point all the stronger.
One airplane delivered one bomb on one city. All wars fought since then have been waged with nuclear war as the backdrop.
Imagine, if you will, a pair of heavy weight boxers circling each other before a single knock-out punch is thrown, the one and only punch of the match. Was it not a boxing match because only one punch was thrown? Was it not real?
In fact, Hiroshima was so real that it redefined war into two categories — nuclear and conventional. That alone qualifies it as the greatest of all time.
Which does NOT negate the fact that these 5 Battles did change history, and should be studied by all who would know history. I appreciated reading this article.
Saratoga Campaign in the American Revolution. Brought the French into the war, which was decisive. Enables French Revolution, downfall of British empire, etc.
Would definitely argue one of Yarmuk or al-Qadisiyyah. If we’re talking transformative here, in my opinion those two battles were far more world-altering than a couple of the ones listed here.
I enjoy these lists and will say that, while awesome, Cannae did not change Rome's trajectory. They were resilient and stubborn before the battle and remained so for centuries after. Myriads of generals steeped in military history have continued to aspire to their own Cannae, so in that sense it continues to be important...
Interesting choices. I would put Salamis over Marathon, however, if I had to pick one from the Persian Wars. For sure Tours, but the Battle of Constantinople(717) was just as significant and for the same reason. I would for sure include the 1529 Siege of Vienna and maybe also the 1683 one too. An argument could be made for Ain Jalut. Personally, I think the Battle of Britain was the real turning point of WWII (at a time when the Americans were still neutral and the Soviets could be seen as nominal allies of the Axis - especially if you were Polish).
Great List CC! I would also add that the Battle of Tours in 732 AD was perhaps the most important Battle in medieval Europe.
It was fought between the Frankish forces led by Charles Martel and the Umayyad Caliphate’s army.
The victory of the Franks halted the Muslim expansion into Western Europe and secured Christianity as the dominant faith in the region.
This battle was a turning point that preserved the foundations of Western European culture and political structures.
Had Charles Martel succumbed at the battle, the world would not have heard of his grandson Charlemagne.
Great list. The next 5 would be Gettysburg, D-Day, Thermopylae, Vienna, and Stalingrad.
Interesting choices & great summaries. I would have included Tours, Yorktown & D-Day.
And possibly Bosworth.
Great summaries.
1. I doubt any single battle changed the course of history in any grand sense (though obviously any event at all that occurred in the past can be said to have changed history a bit). The power of states doesn’t generally turn on individual battles. The battles are a symptom rather than a cause. The fact Rome didn’t fall after Cannae is one example of this.
2. This is a list of such battles that seems to be limited to an English public school view of history where England’s glory transitions seamlessly from Rome and classical Greece. Other people have history too: Issus, Plassey, Yorktown, battle of the Yellow River, Horns of Hattin, Las Navas de Tolosa, the siege of Haarlem, Poitiers, Bannockburn, Austerlitz, Borodino, Bílá hora, Grunwald, Kosovo Pole, Mohacs, al-Harra, Chaldiran, Marj Dabiq, Manzikert, Panipat …
1. I think you are correct in the general sense, of course, especially with your excellent point about Cannae. Generally, events do not turn on individual battles, and counterfactual speculation, although entertaining, is a fool’s errand. Still, there are a few battles that do seem pivotal, and not only because of their long-term significance on global history, but also because they could have plausibly (without expending too much effort in terms of one’s counterfactual imagination) gone the other way. Salamis is one of those instances, Tours/Poitiers another, and the 1529 failure of Suleiman the Magnificent to take Vienna with overwhelming force still yet another. (The reason I would not ultimately include the 1683 invasion is precisely because in that instance it seems the Ottoman defeat was more or less inevitable, despite John Sobieski’s last minute heroics. Within a decade the Ottomans were in full retreat, and within a decade and a half or so they were signing a capitulation treaty to the Hapsburgs.)
2. Obviously, all battles are significant to those who fight them. And presentism should be avoided in history. However, history is not really about the past. As the great American historian Frederick Jackson Turner pointed out, if you’re in it for that you are not a historian but an antiquarian. History is about us, right now. And although a medieval battle between the Khmer and the kingdom of Siam had significant repercussions on the history of that region it did not have global historical implications. If Ain Jalut had gone the other way, one could speculate no one could have stopped the Mongols after that.
Good picks. I think I'd argue with Lepanto through, was it really that decisive? At the end of the day I think it was more famous than decisive to be honest, the Holy League fell apart quite quickly after it, the Ottomans rebuilt their fleet quite quickly, and both the Spanish and the Ottomans declined into second rate naval powers within a century, where the role of the Mediterranean also diminished quite rapidly in the next decades already.
These lists are fun but I'm not sure they amount to much. All those battles were historically important but there were plenty more, as has already been noted, that were as, or even more, pivotal.
I also feel the need to pick you up on your depiction of Trafalgar as astonishing. Everyone involved new it was a foregone conclusion before it happened. The French admiral had to be forced out of port under the threat of execution by Napoleon. The real work had been done at the Glorious 1st of June and Nile and the by the relentless and gruelling blockading work done over the intervening years. Not glamorous work but the key to the French and Spanish fleet, impressive as it was, being hopelessly unnderprepared for Trafalgar.
I’d say the Miracle on the Vistula of 1920 was one of the most important ones in the 20th century: basically stopped the Soviets from taking over all of Europe.
Interesting list.
Was Cannae decisive? It was a catastrophic defeat but did not break Roman will. In fact it should have demonstrated to Carthage that within the limits of 3 century BCE war and statecraft, that they needed a different approach.
I would add that Cannae has had an insidious effect on military thinking through the quest for decisive battle. It polluted Imperial German thinking through the Schlieffen Plan employed in 1914, and possibly again in Russia in 1941. One could even say the post WW2 US approach to war ran aground against North Vietnam.
Seeking decisive battle(s) may not be the path to attainment of one’s war aims. Unfortunately for some, it’s more “fun”.
Excellent choice! I had completely forgotten Cannae. And as another of your readers wrote, the Battle of Tours stopped the Maur expansion.
Great list… for a “b” I vote for: Stalingrad, Yarmuk/al-Qadisiyyah, The Mongol invasion of Bagdad, Potlava, and The Burning of the Imperial palace in China
I submit Hiroshima as the most decisive battle of all time. Many would reject this as not being a battle … which makes my point all the stronger.
One airplane delivered one bomb on one city. All wars fought since then have been waged with nuclear war as the backdrop.
Imagine, if you will, a pair of heavy weight boxers circling each other before a single knock-out punch is thrown, the one and only punch of the match. Was it not a boxing match because only one punch was thrown? Was it not real?
In fact, Hiroshima was so real that it redefined war into two categories — nuclear and conventional. That alone qualifies it as the greatest of all time.
Which does NOT negate the fact that these 5 Battles did change history, and should be studied by all who would know history. I appreciated reading this article.
Saratoga Campaign in the American Revolution. Brought the French into the war, which was decisive. Enables French Revolution, downfall of British empire, etc.
Would definitely argue one of Yarmuk or al-Qadisiyyah. If we’re talking transformative here, in my opinion those two battles were far more world-altering than a couple of the ones listed here.
I enjoy these lists and will say that, while awesome, Cannae did not change Rome's trajectory. They were resilient and stubborn before the battle and remained so for centuries after. Myriads of generals steeped in military history have continued to aspire to their own Cannae, so in that sense it continues to be important...
Interesting choices. I would put Salamis over Marathon, however, if I had to pick one from the Persian Wars. For sure Tours, but the Battle of Constantinople(717) was just as significant and for the same reason. I would for sure include the 1529 Siege of Vienna and maybe also the 1683 one too. An argument could be made for Ain Jalut. Personally, I think the Battle of Britain was the real turning point of WWII (at a time when the Americans were still neutral and the Soviets could be seen as nominal allies of the Axis - especially if you were Polish).