AHC- make a victory bigger to cause a big change

Many alternate histories have been written about how a victory or defeat in a battle could cause rippling change, but what about a victory being more decisive making a change? The challenge is to take a battle in history, and give the victor an even greater victory than OTL, and cause big ripples, and briefly summarize the changes here. Good luck
 
Koniggratz - 1866

I think my choice would be the Battle of Koniggratz.

Although this might seem an odd choice, given just how decisive the defeat of the Austrians was, if the Prussians had pushed further, and destroyed the Northern Army entirely it would have had significant ripples.

The General Staff was very much in favour of pushing on and demanding territory from Austria, occupying Vienna to prove their point. This would have had several serious knock-ons - it might have brought Russia or France into the war, or both, to prevent Prussian dominance of the region. It would have caused the Hungarians to contemplate rising up against Vienna and maybe precipitated the collapse of the Empire altogether.

IOTL it was Bismarck who pulled the Army back after the battle, but if Koniggratz had been as decisive as Sedan, with the destruction on an entire army, it would have been much harder to hold the Army back from pushing onwards into Austria itself.
 
Napoleonic Wars: Wagram, Friedland, Eylau etc. Even for Napoleon's decisive or strategic victories, the stronger the victory, the harsher the peace terms that could be imposed and the less likely said country enters the war against Napoleon again. Especially if state is made an absolute puppet, annexed or dismembered into pieces. Borodino might be an opportunity to destroy the Russian Army while Lutzen and Dresden could be more decisive to secure Napoleonic victories.
Crimean War: Successful assault on Saint Petersburg or a faster Crimean and Sevastopol campaign.
Russian-Turkish or Balkan Wars: Exploiting victory with an assault on Constantinople if victory is stronger and earlier with less fear for Ottoman and diplomatic consequences.
After 1900 [if allowed]
WW1: Battles of the Marne and East Prussia had the potential of destroying enemy armies and worsening the retreat of the vanquished. Better performance at Gallipoli would strengthen the Ottomans and weaken the enemy for the coming campaigns and the same can be stated for those on the western front.
[For the former, WW1 ends earlier in 1918 with the Germans controlling less of Belgium and France and/or more of the Russian Empire with a better performance in the east. Latter provides effects for independent Turkey and the Middle East if not impacting WW1.]
WW2: Many battles. [Dunkirk resulting in the British Expeditionary Force lost, a better Battle of Britain, Operation Compass exploited and being faster, Crete with less paratrooper casualties, Barbarossa battles, more damage on Pearl Harbour and troops captured by Japan, an American carrier saved and/or one more Japanese carrier lost in 1942 battles, more Soviets encircled in the lead up to Stalingrad and Kursk or Germans during and after the battles, battles for the Marianas and Leyte Gulf with a more aggressive pursuit of the Japanese forces, Ukrainian campaign, Operation Bagration and subsequent Soviet offensives destroying an extra German army group or making more communist nations, D-Day, Italian and Western campaigns and pursuit encircling more German troops in the west and getting the Allies into Berlin, weakening the Soviets and more decisive Soviet exploitations of Polish and Balkan victories, less costly Pacific battles and an earlier nuclear bomb.]
[Excluding pyrrhic and indecisive or not strategic victories.]
Too many battles to list, seriously.
 
Napoleonic Wars: Wagram, Friedland, Eylau etc. Even for Napoleon's decisive or strategic victories, the stronger the victory, the harsher the peace terms that could be imposed and the less likely said country enters the war against Napoleon again. Especially if state is made an absolute puppet, annexed or dismembered into pieces. Borodino might be an opportunity to destroy the Russian Army while Lutzen and Dresden could be more decisive to secure Napoleonic victories.
Crimean War: Successful assault on Saint Petersburg or a faster Crimean and Sevastopol campaign.
Russian-Turkish or Balkan Wars: Exploiting victory with an assault on Constantinople if victory is stronger and earlier with less fear for Ottoman and diplomatic consequences.
After 1900 [if allowed]
WW1: Battles of the Marne and East Prussia had the potential of destroying enemy armies and worsening the retreat of the vanquished. Better performance at Gallipoli would strengthen the Ottomans and weaken the enemy for the coming campaigns and the same can be stated for those on the western front.
[For the former, WW1 ends earlier in 1918 with the Germans controlling less of Belgium and France and/or more of the Russian Empire with a better performance in the east. Latter provides effects for independent Turkey and the Middle East if not impacting WW1.]
WW2: Many battles. [Dunkirk resulting in the British Expeditionary Force lost, a better Battle of Britain, Operation Compass exploited and being faster, Crete with less paratrooper casualties, Barbarossa battles, more damage on Pearl Harbour and troops captured by Japan, an American carrier saved and/or one more Japanese carrier lost in 1942 battles, more Soviets encircled in the lead up to Stalingrad and Kursk or Germans during and after the battles, battles for the Marianas and Leyte Gulf with a more aggressive pursuit of the Japanese forces, Ukrainian campaign, Operation Bagration and subsequent Soviet offensives destroying an extra German army group or making more communist nations, D-Day, Italian and Western campaigns and pursuit encircling more German troops in the west and getting the Allies into Berlin, weakening the Soviets and more decisive Soviet exploitations of Polish and Balkan victories, less costly Pacific battles and an earlier nuclear bomb.]
[Excluding pyrrhic and indecisive or not strategic victories.]
Too many battles to list, seriously.

This is great, but what I was looking for was a more in depth analysis of a particular battle and its consequences. A look at any of these battles could be interesting. After 1900 is allowed, but there is no place specifically for the AHC's, so I posted here.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Antietam...

Many alternate histories have been written about how a victory or defeat in a battle could cause rippling change, but what about a victory being more decisive making a change? The challenge is to take a battle in history, and give the victor an even greater victory than OTL, and cause big ripples, and briefly summarize the changes here. Good luck

Antietam...

Even with McClellan as CG of the Army of the Potomac, if the V Corps is committed and led with any sort of audacity at all, a significant portion of the Army of Northern Virginia is broken up and scattered and Lee - if he can get away - has much less to rebuild with... or at Antietam, it's a "Lee to the rear" situation and he stops one, which leaves Longstreet in command.

So the 1863 US offensive - if, for example, Grant gets the command - starts off strong and keeps going, and there's an 1864 equivalent of Appomattox.

War ends in the autumn of 1864.

Best,
 
Battle of the Chesapeake (1781):

The French fleet of the Comte de Barras arrives in time to rendezvous with de Grasse before the battle, giving the French a more significant edge. The British remain as incompetent and disorganized as OTL (with conflicting signals and general slowness to react). The result is that the British fleet is mostly destroyed, rather than withdrawing mostly intact as OTL. Cornwallis is still forced to surrender at Yorktown, but now the French have clear naval superiority in the New World; the losses mean that Rodney can't pull off the Battle of the Saintes (much of his OTL fleet having been lost), and thus Jamaica falls to a Franco-Spanish operation.

This marks the beginning of a broader series of offensives, aiming to take the British Windward Islands, and to force the surrender of the British force in New York (both considered as objectives following the fall of Jamaica). Meanwhile, Nathaniel Greene's Southern Campaign goes more or less as OTL, driving the British out of their remaining holdings in the Southern US, Facing the loss of even more of their empire, the British negotiators at the Treaty of Paris are forced to make even more significant concessions: the Spanish get Jamaica and the Bahamas, the French get more Caribbean sugar islands, and the US gets significantly more of *Canada.

At the same time, the profits from the additional annexations don't off-set the increased costs from a prolonged war, so the French still find themselves on the path to Revolution. The Spanish come out of the war looking even better than they did OTL; unfortunately Carlos III is due to die very soon, and be replaced by a series of incompetents who will squander all Spain's advantages. Jamaica and the Bahamas are tempting targets for the US; if history goes somewhat parallel, they will likely be targets for American filibuster expeditions or outright military conquest at some point during the 19th century.

Speaking of the US, the additional Canadian land will likely bring its own complications (especially if they get any of Quebec, with its Catholic French population). But that's a discussion in numerous other TLs, so I will stop there.
 
Chaldiran. Have it go any better for Selim I of the Ottomans and you'll probably be able to kill or capture Ismail I of the Safavids, drastically changing the makeup of the early 16th century Near East.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
At Poltava (1709) Charles XII is killed and Russia takes Finland 100 years earlier than OTL, in a follow-up campaign. Sweden becomes militarily irrelevant as Denmark becomes a major power in the Baltic, annexing Scania and Gottland. Russia dominates eastern Europe as Tsar Peter makes it the strongest power on the continent. Early access to Finnish ports allows Russia to expand overseas.
 
Plevna 1877.

If it falls quickly or even without a siege at all[1] the Russians reach Constantinople in much better shape, and can't be pressured into moderating their peace terms. San Stefano is maintained.


[1] Istr that earlier in the campaign the Russians had actually taken Plevna, but neglected to garrison it, so that Osman Pasha was able to slip into it later.
 
Solferino.

Austrians are routed, and the peace deprives them of Venetia as well as Lombardy. With no dispute over Venetia to come between them, there's nothing to stop Napoleon III allying with Austria to keep Prussia in her place.
 
Battle of Chalòns

Have the Roman Empire kill Attila and most of his army in the battle rather than having a battle resulting in indecisive bloodshed, which could effectively end his reign of terror in Europe. This will give the Empire the much needed money (from ransacking his camp and gold) and will send the Huns into a civil war. Therefore the Empire will get around 10 years of rest instead of the havocking of Attila before new barbarians arise.
 
Last edited:
Top