Battles along Navigable Rivers in Early Modern Europe?

[Faeelin]

I've been thinking about Burgoyne's march to Saratoga, and the plan for Howe to join him by advancing up the Hudson.

Thinking about how it would play out, what battles have there been along major waterways in early modern Europe? The closest I can think of would be Aspern-Essling, but surely there have been more.

 

[katchen]

If Thomas Newcomen had applied his early steam engines to propelling boats and ships early in the 18th Century, not just pumping water out of mines, 18th Century campaigns such as the War of the Spanish Succession and the Seven Years War would indeed have followed rivers and might well have turned out very differently, both in Europe and in the rest of the world. It would make for some interesting TLs to butterfly in early development of the steamboat.

 

[Just a Rube]

Well, river crossings (either bridges or fords) are natural choke points for army movement, so they've been the scene of quite a few battles. If you know your enemy can only take a few paths, it makes it easier to find them and attack.

To take an example, not entirely at random, the Battle of Tewkesbury (1471) in the Wars of the Roses occurred by the banks of the River Severn, because the Lancastrian army was trying to link up with reinforcements coming from Wales, and the Yorkists were trying to intercept before they could meet up.

 

[Roberto]

I feel like the tactics used in the ARW reflect the lack of development in late colonial America. There wasn't too much in the way of a road system, and supply chains must have been frayed thin in places like Valley Forge, upstate(upcolony?) NY. As such, navigable rivers were the most logical route for any invading army in North America, and this was reflected in both the Seven Years War and the War of 1812. Europe had both a better road network and a higher population density, which I imagine lessened the emphasis on riverine campaigns.

Interesting image:

 

[carlton_bach]

Indeed, much of the orientation of campaigns along rivers had to do with that, but there were some places where European campaigns followed rivers rather than crossed them. The most prominent one that comes to mind is the Austro-Ottoman campaigns of the late 17th century that pretty much followed the course of the Danube from Vienna to Belgrade and onwards. IIRC the Russians went to the Crimea ands Astrakhan much the same way.

 

[katchen]

Indian campaigns always seemed to fight their way either up or down the Grand Trunk Road along the Ganges River, whether we are talking about Chandragupta Maurya fighting from Bihar to Punjab or the Kushans or the Sultanate of Delhi or the Muhgals fighting their way down the Ganges from Punjab. Or the British working their way up the Ganges from Calcutta in the early 19th Century.

 

[Simreeve]

Indeed, much of the orientation of campaigns along rivers had to do with that, but there were some places where European campaigns followed rivers rather than crossed them. The most prominent one that comes to mind is the Austro-Ottoman campaigns of the late 17th century that pretty much followed the course of the Danube from Vienna to Belgrade and onwards. IIRC the Russians went to the Crimea ands Astrakhan much the same way.

Would you count Charles I's advance from Oxford against London, or was the distance involved in that too short for you to consider the choice of route significant enough?
I seem to recall that the French used the Moselle valley as their main route for one or more invasions of Germany.
The French march eastwards down the Danube valley to join forces with the Bavarians against Austria in 1704, and Marlborough's march [partly] through the Rhine valley to thwart them? I don't know how much the rivers themselves were being used to transport supplies for those armies, although as Marlborough's logistics arrangements were noticeably good I'd be surprised to find that he hadn't shipped anything at all up the Rhine from the Netherlands. Otherwise, of course, we just have the simple facts that (a) the river-valleys provided easier routes than did the areas of higher (and often rougher) ground bteween them and (b) cities important enough to be targets for invasions tended to be built alongside fair-sized rivers in the first place...

 

[Faeelin]

I feel like the tactics used in the ARW reflect the lack of development in late colonial America. There wasn't too much in the way of a road system, and supply chains must have been frayed thin in places like Valley Forge, upstate(upcolony?) NY. As such, navigable rivers were the most logical route for any invading army in North America, and this was reflected in both the Seven Years War and the War of 1812. Europe had both a better road network and a higher population density, which I imagine lessened the emphasis on riverine campaigns.

You've got something of a point. Burgoyne's army ran out of supplies invading from Canada, and the American invasions of Canada ran into the same problem. The campaign up the Hudson was designed to isolate New England from the other states, so a bit different, which is why I find it interesting.

 

[RGB]

Generously. half the medieval battles occurred at river crossings, for example. In medieval Russia, it was common for half or more of the troops to travel to battle-site by boat, though interestingly there weren't that many battles where boats met boats or even boats met horsemen (on fords and rapids). There are a few though.

Finally in China history is replete with entire naval battles across the Yangtze and the Pearl and Yellow Rivers.