Most Overrated Battles (as PoDs)?

John Fredrick Parker · Oct 28, 2012

Both pre- and post-1900 -- what are some battles that are cliched as being major turning points in history, and are treated as having far more AH capacity then they actually seem to exude?

As an example -- the Battle of Midway; often treated as the point where Japan lost the war (and that, had it gone the other way, Japanese Victory in the Pacific would have been plausible). Not close to being in the running.

Or, take the Battle of Gettysburg. The AH fiction treating this as the point when the CSA could just crush the AotP and curbstomp the Union is... well, there are threads on that.

Come to think of it, the US Civil War and WWII may have quite a few of these (as, I imagine, does the American Revolution), but if anyone can name Overrated Battles (again, in terms of AH potential) from other wars and conflicts, I'd be glad to hear them.

Avitus · Oct 28, 2012

Battle of Manzikert IMO, since Romanos IV may well have been overthrown and lost those lands even without a battle.

Yorel · Oct 28, 2012

Waterloo: Even if he had won, there is no guarantee Napoleon could have stayed in power with all of Europe coalised against him.

Mr.J · Oct 28, 2012

Yorel said:
Waterloo: Even if he had won, there is no guarantee Napoleon could have stayed in power with all of Europe coalised against him.

I'd argue that he almost certainly would not have stayed in power, but Waterloo was still important because it gave Britain and Prussia leverage at the Congress of Vienna. Without that the Congress would've been much more dominated by Russia and Austria.

John Fredrick Parker · Oct 28, 2012

Mr.J said:
I'd argue that he almost certainly would not have stayed in power, but Waterloo was still important because it gave Britain and Prussia leverage at the Congress of Vienna. Without that the Congress would've been much more dominated by Russia and Austria.

That actually brings up an interesting point, that there are indeed all kinds of TLs that depart at a significant battle, which indeed does have plenty of AH potential -- only it's of a completely different kind than the AH cliche assumes. Perhaps the textbook example of this is D-Day -- yes, there's all kinds of ways it could have gone wrong, yes, it would have completely changed the fate of Europe, but, contra Fatherland, it would not give the Nazis anything of a fighting chance, but rather leave the whole of Europe open to Soviet troops.

I'd say, though, that for the purposes of this thread I'd like to keep this weird subset of wrong cliche to a minimum, in favor of battles that, say, probably wouldn't have even necessarily changed the broad final outcome of the war...

Alex Richards · Oct 28, 2012

Well, Tours seems to be somewhat overblown as the 'battle that stopped the armies of Islam from conquering France'.

Archon of Thessaly · Oct 28, 2012

I have a few:
Agincourt 1415: great for shakespere and english moral........not for anything else as Henerys death annuled all he had achieved.

El Alamain 1942: New books and evidence suggests the battle had no pupose what so ever. Rommals forces were too small and spread ( not to mention lacking everything including oil) to really threaten the suez canal, and the torch landings by anglo- US troops would have forced him to retreat anyway. Even if mony could have wiped out the entire army their and then-he let rommel escape.

Trafalgar 1805: its a myth that the battle of trafalgar saved britain from invasion-invasion plans by then were ( in some cases literally) dead in the water. The french plan to lure the british fleet away from the channel had failed, the french/spanish fleet was trapped and napleon had moved most of his army to fight the austrians anyway. Other then restoring the british navies confidence and killing of the best british admiral-setting in years of rigid, uninmaginitive navel officers and speeling the end of her dominence- it achieved nothing.

John Fredrick Parker · Oct 28, 2012

This may risk getting off topic, but -- just how overrated is Waterloo? I mean, say Nappy doesn't get the hemorrhoids, and does his thing, the British are defeated... and then the Russians and/or Austrians take him down in a matter of weeks.

Yes, this gives Britain and Prussia more leverage, but hadn't the Congress already signed the big peace deals the previous year? Wasn't the Conservative Order that Metternich and Alexander asked for pretty much in effect anyway? What would really change in this situation?

Father Maryland · Oct 28, 2012

Err both Midway and Trafalgar were pretty important. I mean in the first the IJN lost what half it's irreplaceable flightdecks? And in the second the Franco-Spanish fleet was massacred?

Archon of Thessaly · Oct 28, 2012

John Fredrick Parker said:
This may risk getting off topic, but -- just how overrated is Waterloo? I mean, say Nappy doesn't get the hemorrhoids, and does his thing, the British are defeated... and then the Russians and/or Austrians take him down in a matter of weeks.

Yes, this gives Britain and Prussia more leverage, but hadn't the Congress already signed the big peace deals the previous year? Wasn't the Conservative Order that Metternich and Alexander asked for pretty much in effect anyway? What would really change in this situation?

I would say it had some effect in that it guaranteed the decline of the british army, in standards, officers and assured the continued use of commisons as it made wellington-the supporter of such anti-innotive methods the only creidible military man the british public listened too. So-while europian armies who had been defeated improved and became the leaders on the continent, the undefeated british army ( ironicly) decreased its standing. Had we lost-their might have been more reason to innovate.

Archon of Thessaly · Oct 28, 2012

Father Maryland said:
Err both Midway and Trafalgar were pretty important. I mean in the first the IJN lost what half it's irreplaceable flightdecks? And in the second the Franco-Spanish fleet was massacred?

Yes the franco-spanish fllet was massacared-it was just a pointless massacare because of wider events.

Elfwine · Oct 28, 2012

I disagree on Manzikert being inconsequetial to Romanus's position. Romanus was overthrown precisely because of his failure there - had he been successful, he would have been in a much stronger position to face the Ducids.

It's easier to blind a failure than a man who has supporters from winning.

As for Agincourt, it did take a generation to wipe out Henry V's gains, so I wouldn't say it was totally irrelevant.

I'm going to nominate the American invasions of Canada. The chances of an US containing Canada are slim, and the chances of winning it by force are even slimmer.

Archon of Thessaly · Oct 28, 2012

Elfwine said:
I disagree on Manzikert. Romanus was overthrown precisely because of his failure there - had he been successful, he would have been in a much stronger position to face the Ducids.

As for Agincourt, it did take a generation to wipe out Henry V's gains, so I wouldn't say it was totally irrelevant.

I'm going to nominate the American invasions of Canada. The chances of an US containing Canada are slim, and the chances of winning it by force are even slimmer.

The whole war of 1812 was utterly pointless. The pressganging of american sailors had already stopped and the most famouse battle of the war ( new orleons) was fought after the peace treaty!

John Fredrick Parker · Oct 28, 2012

Archon of Thessaly said:
The whole war of 1812 was utterly pointless. The pressganging of american sailors had already stopped and the most famouse battle of the war ( new orleons) was fought after the peace treaty!

Battles my friend, this thread is about overrated battles. (And, FTR, there's actually plenty of good ATLs -- Dead Skunk, etc -- on how US History would be irrevocably altered had Jackson not defeated the Brits at New Orleans.)

Elfwine · Oct 28, 2012

John Fredrick Parker said:
Battles my friend, this thread is about overrated battles. (And, FTR, there's actually plenty of good ATLs -- Dead Skunk, etc -- on how US History would be irrevocably altered had Jackson not defeated the Brits at New Orleans.)

Although I think that - Admittedly I haven't read Dead Skunk so I'm not sure i should say this - is more the reverse cliche.

Andy Jackson being killed at New Orleans matters to US politics, but it won't make Great Britain stronger.

John Fredrick Parker · Oct 28, 2012

Elfwine said:
Andy Jackson being killed at New Orleans matters to US politics, but it won't make Great Britain stronger.

Even if Andy had just decided it wasn't worth, say, allying with pirates, and pulled back, it'd still leave the British in a position to seriously impair US westward expansion depending on what they decided to do with the strategic city.

Archon of Thessaly said:
I would say it had some effect in that it guaranteed the decline of the british army, in standards, officers and assured the continued use of commisons as it made wellington-the supporter of such anti-innotive methods the only creidible military man the british public listened too. So-while europian armies who had been defeated improved and became the leaders on the continent, the undefeated british army ( ironicly) decreased its standing. Had we lost-their might have been more reason to innovate.

So, biggest difference is the Brits might get a clue and reform their army more? B/c if the (serious) non-military effects of the military PoD come in the form of future battles going differently with a better British army, those are the kind of changes that are so hard to examine -- what I'm getting at is that, in this case, it's effectively impossible to say what effect on history Waterloo actually has, or at least what changing it to a Napoleonic Victory would have.

Marko · Oct 28, 2012

From Croatian perspective there are Battle of Sisak (1593) which is hailed as the turning point in the Ottoman conquest of Europe and the Siege of Vienna (1683) which is also often hailed as the battle that turned the tide.

Darth_Kiryan · Oct 28, 2012

Siege of Vienna (1683), maybe.

Elfwine · Oct 28, 2012

John Fredrick Parker said:
Even if Andy had just decided it wasn't worth, say, allying with pirates, and pulled back, it'd still leave the British in a position to seriously impair US westward expansion depending on what they decided to do with the strategic city.

The strategic city they don't own?

Archon of Thessaly · Oct 28, 2012

John Fredrick Parker said:
Even if Andy had just decided it wasn't worth, say, allying with pirates, and pulled back, it'd still leave the British in a position to seriously impair US westward expansion depending on what they decided to do with the strategic city.

So, biggest difference is the Brits might get a clue and reform their army more? B/c if the (serious) non-military effects of the military PoD come in the form of future battles going differently with a better British army, those are the kind of changes that are so hard to examine -- what I'm getting at is that, in this case, it's effectively impossible to say what effect on history Waterloo actually has, or at least what changing it to a Napoleonic Victory would have.

It is difficult to examin, so i will reassurt to a military perspective then: even if he won at waterloo, it is doubtful that he would have won overall.

But one serous effect would be that the balence in europe is shattered, as britain and prussia will lose their sway, so the austrians snd russians who eventually win the war will be the ones to make the demands-starting firstly with exacuting napoleon ( no brits to ask for leniency), harsher tems for france, russia is free to take over more land in germany unopposed and cause a new war to break out over german or turkish hegomany sooner then in OTL- as with the end of ww2, the fact that all the major powers held power in europe at vienna meant that neither could afford war and peace for the next 50 years prevailed.

That is the long lasting impact of waterloo.