Decisive battles of history that didn't much change things

What would be a good list of decisive battles in history, the sort that get listed in books titled "decisive battles of history" whose effects are greatly overrated?

This is my list of seven, for starters, covering the period before 1900:

Cannae
Actium
Adrianople (the 378 battle)
Poitiers/ Tours
Hastings
Rocroi
Waterloo

The Spanish Armada could be listed, if you consider that a battle. Any of the famous English victories in the Hundred Years War as also candidates. I considered listing Marathon but the battle may actually have changed quite a deal.
 
If the English had not won Agincourt and various other battles during 100 years war than the war would not have lasted 116 years. In an era where a single battle could decide a war, a war going on for that long is incredible even from our modern viewpoint.

During that time period France was basically absent from European politics. That is a big change.
 
Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift, 1879. The tech gap between the Zulus and British was just too big.
Waterloo, 1815. Even if it could have caused a financial crisis in Britain, i wouldn't have changed much, since the Vienna Congress' treaties had already been signed days before the battle, and the Austrians and Russians were raising a very large army. Napoleon also had no friends in Europe anymore, except for maybe the Walloons.
Borodino, 1812. Even if Napoleon had committed the Guard and destroyed more of the Tsar's army, the latter would not surrender, and the former would be left with even less troops to defend the Grande Armée from harassment by Russian troops during the retreat.

I would mention Gettysburg, but then i remember that defeat in that battle could influence the 1864 election towards Lincoln's disfavour.
 
Last edited:
I would, however, digress on the opinion over Hastings and Adrianople.
For the former, England would be less involved in French affairs despite still having some dynastic connections to that country, and Normandy could end up being properly subjugated by the Capetians.
For the latter, the Roman Empire could avoid its diplomatic crises with the Goths and the civil war that erupted after the Valentinian dynasty went extinct.
 
Some have pointed out that Gettysburg was more likely to go the other way and get the Army of Northern Virginia caught in an exposed position and destroyed, shortening the war.

However, though I think the battle is over-rated, Lee actually being able to make the Army of the Potomac to retreat again, which is the most he could have accomplished, and this time in a northern state, would have caused serious problems for the Union. They would have needed a new commander for the Army of the Potomac, which is OK if our POD is that Hooker is the commander but not so much if Meade gets beaten, since he was pretty much the first Union general who could handle the job. There is panic in northern cities and the "draft riots" are much worse. The CSA actually gained from getting the Army of the Potomac out of Virginia and being able to raid Pennsylvania, but this goes more so if they win the battle. Reinforcements would have to be pulled from the western armies, just as the reinforcements went from east to west after Chickamauga, and that doesn't stop the fall of Vicksburg but probably does stop the Tullahoma campaign.

There is always the chance with these things that the northern leadership could have a collective nervous breakdown.

The decisive battle of that war was Fort Sumter, because once the federal government has an excuse to conquer the Confederacy, 19 out of 20 times things end the same way.
 
Actium -if Octvaian survives the battle he keeps trying and eventually wins, like he did with Sextus Pompey. If he gets defeated and killed things change. But the Roman aristocracy was not going to let Marcus Antonius create a Mediterranean centered on Alexandria, so if he wins the Civil War he either doesn't try that, returns to Rome, and becomes Princips much like Octavian, or he actually tries that and gets assassinated. Incidentally, more descendants of Anthony were Roman Emperors than of Octvian. Actium is the sort of thing where historians need a big battle to mark the end of/ start of an era.

Roicroi- it keeps getting listed but why is it considered to be decisive?

Hastings- its very likely French aristocrats either conquer England or marry into the Anglo-Saxon royal house and introduce French institutions. It didn't necessarily have to be William the Conqueror. If he had failed, pretty much someone else would have been able to do something similar later. In fact, the French aristocratic house that got established on the English throne was the Plantengenet House of Anjou, but after the invasion the issue was resolved by negotiation.
 
What would be a good list of decisive battles in history, the sort that get listed in books titled "decisive battles of history" whose effects are greatly overrated?

This is my list of seven, for starters, covering the period before 1900:

Cannae
Actium
Adrianople (the 378 battle)
Poitiers/ Tours
Hastings
Rocroi
Waterloo

The Spanish Armada could be listed, if you consider that a battle. Any of the famous English victories in the Hundred Years War as also candidates. I considered listing Marathon but the battle may actually have changed quite a deal.

Battle of Lepanto. The Ottomans did not lose their Naval supremacy in the Eastern Med. They were not prevented in taking Cyprus. They quickly rebuilt their navy in a year. There is only a morale victory.
 
What would be a good list of decisive battles in history, the sort that get listed in books titled "decisive battles of history" whose effects are greatly overrated?

This is my list of seven, for starters, covering the period before 1900:

Cannae
Actium
Adrianople (the 378 battle)
Poitiers/ Tours
Hastings
Rocroi
Waterloo

The Spanish Armada could be listed, if you consider that a battle. Any of the famous English victories in the Hundred Years War as also candidates. I considered listing Marathon but the battle may actually have changed quite a deal.

Additional:
Battle of Stamford Bridge. The Saxons still lost against William of Normandy. If King Harald Hadrada did won, he would have to face with his weakened the troops of William of Normandy. I am not really familiar with the Middle Ages history of England but I am pretty sure William would win unless a 'Hadrada' happened to him...
 
With the Amercain Civil War, I suspect that if you re-ran the same conflict with the same forces a hundred different times, maybe seventy times out of fifty the federal forces are mopping up the last non-guerilla resistance in the southern states in 1863.

So you count Gettysburg and Vicksburg as the battles where the North finally got its act together. But you could argue that the really decisive battles in the conflict are where the South is able to delay the northern advance by a few additional months. And both Gettysburg and Vicksburg, or at least the campaigns, can count for both.
 
Hastings- its very likely French aristocrats either conquer England or marry into the Anglo-Saxon royal house and introduce French institutions. It didn't necessarily have to be William the Conqueror. If he had failed, pretty much someone else would have been able to do something similar later. In fact, the French aristocratic house that got established on the English throne was the Plantengenet House of Anjou, but after the invasion the issue was resolved by negotiation.
Actually, the dynasty that was installed on the English throne right after Hastings were the Dukes of Normandy. The Angevins only ascended to the throne after The Anarchy, which sprung after Henry I died without a legitimate male heir, was resolved.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I have to say agincourt as well as the three other great English victories of the Hundred Years' War-while they memorialized in English historiography, literature and art they didn't really change the outcome.

I have to disagree with Lepanto-while the ottomans rebuilt their fleet it did prevent the ottomans from having serious ambitions in the western med. It also ensured a continuing sense of Christian unity against the "Turk".

A lot of hannibal's victories-problem is the Carthaginian oligarchs hated him and his family and he simply could not destroy rome(which would have been the clincher) no matter how many Roman armies he destroyed in the field.

And it kind of varies-the more modern the war the less important individual battles are.

And other factors are always in play-some victories are absolutely crucial-for example every victory Alexander won lose one and the conquest falls to pieces and Alexander likely perishes.
 
Agincourt is my favorite example, because it's by far the most famous battle of the Lancastrian phase, but that ends in an overwhelming, catastrophic defeat for the English crown.

I have to say, the overall impact of the Duke of Marlborough's victories doesn't match their tactical significance and the praise heaped on him by historians. The Austrian netherlands stayed out of French hands, sure, but Spain still ends up falling decisively into French orbit for the next century.

Leuthen was definitely impressive, and helped keep Prussia on the board, but the war continued for six years afterwards, and came right down to the wire.
 
Agincourt is my favorite example, because it's by far the most famous battle of the Lancastrian phase, but that ends in an overwhelming, catastrophic defeat for the English crown.

I have to say, the overall impact of the Duke of Marlborough's victories doesn't match their tactical significance and the praise heaped on him by historians. The Austrian netherlands stayed out of French hands, sure, but Spain still ends up falling decisively into French orbit for the next century.

Leuthen was definitely impressive, and helped keep Prussia on the board, but the war continued for six years afterwards, and came right down to the wire.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Azincourt was under Charles VI le Fol, no ?
At the beginning of Charles VI's reign, England was down to a few ports in France. So assuming Azincourt is a French victory, you'd likely see the HYW end 30 years earlier at the very least. This is 30 years during which the Dukes of Burgundy haven't yet accrued massive power. This is 30 years France has if it wants to punch its way into Savoy, Provence or Catalonia.
 
Top