Most important naval battle in history?

[Joe McCarthy]

I've taken the liberty of deliberately excluding several battles that took place in East Asia as they have little relevance to Europeans.

[Wyn]

Lepanto.

[Joe McCarthy]

In terms of the creation of the modern world, it's hard to beat Chesapeake Bay. Ironically, many have never heard of it, as it tends to be overshadowed by Yorktown.

[Joe McCarthy]

Battle of Chesapeake Bay:

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/242640/1/Naval-Battle-In-Chesapeake-Bay.jpg

http://www.nps.gov/colo/historyculture/images/untitled1.jpg

http://www.wikigallery.org/paintings/226001-226500/226099/painting1.jpg

[Lábaru]

Battle of Lepanto "La más Grande Ocasión que Vieron los Siglos".

http://elmurodelossiglos.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/the_battle_of_lepanto_veronese.jpg

http://www.art-prints-on-demand.com/kunst/juan_luna_y_novicio/131_0635475_battle_lepanto_15_hi.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto


“When people talk as if the Crusades were nothing more than an aggressive raid against Islam, they seem to forget in the strangest way that Islam itself was only an aggressive raid against the old and ordered civilization in these parts…

[Joe McCarthy]

Battle of Lepanto "La más Grande Ocasión que Vieron los Siglos".

http://elmurodelossiglos.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/the_battle_of_lepanto_veronese.jpg

http://www.art-prints-on-demand.com/kunst/juan_luna_y_novicio/131_0635475_battle_lepanto_15_hi.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto

As important as Lepanto was in breaking Ottoman power in the Mediterranean, without Chesapeake Bay, the United States of America may very well not exist. It was responsible for preventing the British from being resupplied at Yorktown.

[Don]

Obviously Lepanto.

[Lábaru]

As important as Lepanto was in breaking Ottoman power in the Mediterranean, without Chesapeake Bay, the United States of America may very well not exist. It was responsible for preventing the British from being resupplied at Yorktown.

But the British are European and Western, world had not changed much with his victory.

Lepanto...

Victory gave the Holy League temporary control over the Mediterranean, protected Rome from invasion, and prevented the Ottomans from advancing further into Europe. Lepanto was the last major naval battle fought almost entirely between oar-powered galleys, and has been assigned great symbolic importance since then.

[Agrippa]

I voted for the Spanish Armada, because a successful invasion of Britain would have really changed the course of history, whereas many of the other battles would have just prolonged the more or less inevitable in my opinion.

My second choice would have been Lepanto, because of its significance in the defence of the occident, while I think Europeans would have made it otherwise too, whereas to change the course of history significantly, the battle between the English and Spanish was really decisive for the future developments.

[Great Dane]

What about the Battle of the Coral Sea? It stopped the southward advance of the Japanese, prevented the invasion of Australia and New Zealand. It was also the first naval battle in which aircraft carriers engaged one another.

[Magister Eckhart]

The necessity of the survival of the Classical High Culture for the birth of the West as we know it makes Salamis, which made Thermopylae and subsequently Plataea possible. Only Tours rivals it in importance.

[Eliades]

Good thread.

My answer is either the Battle of Lepanto, or the Spanish Armada.

[Svipdag]

If the Ottomans had won the Battle of Lepanto, would there ever have been a Battle of Chesapeake Bay ? Would there, indeed, ever have been a United States ?

I say "NO." Without that crucial victory, the entire subsequent history of
Europe and all of that of the Americas would have borne little or no resemblance to the events of the past 440 years.

[Vasconcelos]

I picked Lepanto, if I could have picked two, I'd add the battle of Salamina.


BTW, no battle of Diu in 1509 againt the Ottomans? Bad.
It totally changed the Europe-Asia trade - by ensuring the Portuguese control of the Indian Ocean trade route - and marked the comence of European colonialism in Asia, by giving the Portuguese control of key points that made the Indian Ocean a lot safer for them.

I still wouldn't chose it as the most important, but it definity is worth a spot in the poll.

[Don]

If the Ottomans had won the Battle of Lepanto, would there ever have been a Battle of Chesapeake Bay ? Would there, indeed, ever have been a United States ?

I say "NO." Without that crucial victory, the entire subsequent history of
Europe and all of that of the Americas would have borne little or no resemblance to the events of the past 440 years.

An evidence.

If that victory were made by english and not spanish, Lepanto would have probably more than 50 great films of jewllywood and no one on Europe, America, Asia, Africa or Oceania will have any doubt about the importance of the most decisive battle for our world.

But were the spaniards the ones who defended europe.

For bad and good.

For bad:
No one in jewllywood honored these men who saved our world with one single film. Tabu to honor these inquisidores spaniards with nothing more than lies and amerindian/moor characters representing them and propaganda about how moor and muslims or amerindian, cruel and evil we are.

These heroes, like El Manco de Lepanto a random spaniard who wrote Don Quijote de la Mancha, who gave all to save our world, will never be honored because they were spaniards. Only these who are the true enemies of Europe would dare to support this infamy and dishonor.


For good:
Luckily, for all of us, this battle was fought by the most courageous, brave and best warriors of Europe: Los Españoles.
...



And in consequence, for now, we europeans, americans (from USA to Argentina) and the world... are NOT islamics.


...

As a curiosity, recently I visited a Cristo, a figure of christ that is custodied in the Cathedral of Barcelona.
This cristo is called El Cristo de Lepanto and is the one on board in the Nave Capitana de Don Juan de Austria in the battle.
Is dark due to the smoke and inclemency of the event.

I knelt in front of this symbol that saw the battle, that gave strength to my people, as a show of respect to all those men who did so much, gave all they had, for me and for us and received so little thanks, even insults.

The section was solitaire.
The Cristo only saw me, a young man, and an old woman, I can remind, in the shadows.

Forgetting, feeling shame or even letting others dishonor our heroes (of all europeans and descendants) and their deeds is another sygn of the decadence of our societies.

Quizas, al final, nuestras sociedades no merecían a aquellos hombres ni a sus gestas.
Seguramente, después de todo, perderemos.


Maybe, after all, we didn't deserve to be saved by these men of honor.

[Magister Eckhart]

I'm not surprised to see so many going for Lepanto, since I almost voted that way myself, but why so many for the defeat of the Armada? It seems to me that defeating foreigners at Salamis and Lepanto is much more important than Europeans defeating Europeans.

[Agrippa]

What about the Battle of the Coral Sea? It stopped the southward advance of the Japanese, prevented the invasion of Australia and New Zealand. It was also the first naval battle in which aircraft carriers engaged one another.

That reminds me on the Crimean War - important too and a "big test" for more modern warfare, but finally not much more in the course of history.

Real importance comes from the results, the direct results of the battle, not just the war. My question is always, would the victory of this or that side being almost sure if the battle was one?

I guess if the Spanish would have landed on England, the might have conquered the island and England is not just one island or colony, but was the heart of a future Empire and even if the Spanish would have lost on the long run, this would have significantly changed the development in England itself this or that way.

Again for the Spanish Armada:


The fleet was composed of 151 ships, 8,000 sailors and 18,000 soldiers, and bore 1,500 brass guns and 1,000 iron guns. The full body of the fleet took two days to leave port. It contained 28 purpose-built warships: twenty galleons, four galleys and four (Neapolitan) galleasses. The remainder of the heavy vessels consisted mostly of armed carracks and hulks; there were also 34 light ships present.

In the Spanish Netherlands 30,000 soldiers[10] awaited the arrival of the armada, the plan being to use the cover of the warships to convey the army on barges to a place near London. All told, 55,000 men were to have been mustered, a huge army for that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada#Planned_invasion_of_England

The English kingdom really fought for its own survival, for what it was good, this was about a serious invasion...

Even the Greeks might have finally succeeded agains the Persians without too much changes, the Ottomans were slowly but consequently on their way down, but the English ascent and special development, especially for Calvinism, Anglicanism, Capitalism, law and finally banks plus Plutocracy could have been intercepted.

If the battle on the sea would have been lost, England would have been conquered and would have changed itself, this or that way, in any case significantly.

[Arrow Cross]

While I went with Lepanto because of its significance on a great part of Europe, let us not forget the geo-political boundaries of empire-building in the early modern period.

The Ottoman Empire was already overstretching itself by 1571, it was in no small part the leadership of Suleiman the Magnificent (who died five years prior) that kept driving it forward on all fronts. Armies took more and more time to deploy and reach the theatres of operation, winters put a halt to major offensives, the legendary burocratic system was on a descent to corruption, and while the empire relied on acquiring more sheer land to be given to their soldiers in payment, resistance kept increasing as they drove deeper and deeper into Europe.

Even if they had taken Vienna and won Lepanto, they wouldn't have been able to overrun Western Europe, and would have been beaten out in a century at most, as in the case of Hungary. Still, even such short-term occupations would have caused major traumas, losses in life, and a serious setback in the development of Southern European culture.

[Magister Eckhart]

While I went with Lepanto because of its significance on a great part of Europe, let us not forget the geo-political boundaries of empire-building in the early modern period.

The Ottoman Empire was already overstretching itself by 1571, it was in no small part the leadership of Suleiman the Magnificent (who died five years prior) that kept driving it forward on all fronts. Armies took more and more time to deploy and reach the theatres of operation, winters put a halt to major offensives, the legendary burocratic system was on a descent to corruption, and while the empire relied on acquiring more sheer land to be given to their soldiers in payment, resistance kept increasing as they drove deeper and deeper into Europe.

Even if they had taken Vienna and won Lepanto, they wouldn't have been able to overrun Western Europe, and would have been beaten out in a century at most, as in the case of Hungary. Still, even such short-term occupations would have caused major traumas, losses in life, and a serious setback in the development of Southern European culture.

This is by and large the reason why I chose Salamis. The Persian Empire was actually in a position to overrun and conquer Greece.

[Lábaru]

That reminds me on the Crimean War - important too and a "big test" for more modern warfare, but finally not much more in the course of history.

Real importance comes from the results, the direct results of the battle, not just the war. My question is always, would the victory of this or that side being almost sure if the battle was one?

I guess if the Spanish would have landed on England, the might have conquered the island and England is not just one island or colony, but was the heart of a future Empire and even if the Spanish would have lost on the long run, this would have significantly changed the development in England itself this or that way.

Again for the Spanish Armada:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada#Planned_invasion_of_England

The English kingdom really fought for its own survival, for what it was good, this was about a serious invasion...

Even the Greeks might have finally succeeded agains the Persians without too much changes, the Ottomans were slowly but consequently on their way down, but the English ascent and special development, especially for Calvinism, Anglicanism, Capitalism, law and finally banks plus Plutocracy could have been intercepted.

If the battle on the sea would have been lost, England would have been conquered and would have changed itself, this or that way, in any case significantly.

I think not, Spain just did not have enough men to keep a safe place on strong countrie like England for many years, the Spanish were decimated by plagues and famine, in Spain the men no cultivated the land. The ideal in Spain was the noble gentleman "Hidalgo", who earned his life military, with his sword, even those who were not soldiers, not liked to be peasants.

This was a problem, because Spanish too much depended on the American gold and wins against our multi-front war. The fact is that we suffer a lot of hunger, despite our splendor and power. Our population did not grow demographically, but our own soldiers yes dying, and were not easily replaced.

What I mean is that we were few, I doubt that England would have spent more than a few of years under our power, had not changed much the future.

But a Muslim southern Europe, with the nightmare of the Muslim religion, brainwashing, that is another thing.

and better not think the addition of an full land of America Muslim, with Islam, as catchy as tar....

Sorry if I do not explain my point well, I'm so limited with my English.

[Joe McCarthy]

But the British are European and Western, world had not changed much with his victory.


Wow, I disagree there. As Carlyle said, the American Revolution launched the era of democratic revolutions. Without it the French Revolution, for good and bad, probably wouldn't have occurred, and America itself would have remained a repressed colony, unable to develop in the way it has. It's entirely possible we wouldn't even be having this conversation without it.

[Joe McCarthy]

I voted for the Spanish Armada, because a successful invasion of Britain would have really changed the course of history, whereas many of the other battles would have just prolonged the more or less inevitable in my opinion.

My second choice would have been Lepanto, because of its significance in the defence of the occident, while I think Europeans would have made it otherwise too, whereas to change the course of history significantly, the battle between the English and Spanish was really decisive for the future developments.

I think using your reasoning Salamis surpasses both.

[Joe McCarthy]

What about the Battle of the Coral Sea? It stopped the southward advance of the Japanese, prevented the invasion of Australia and New Zealand. It was also the first naval battle in which aircraft carriers engaged one another.

Overshadowed by Midway and Australia proper was not under threat. In general the threat to Australia, though very real, is overstated a bit. But that's another thread...

I've tried to limit the options to battles that have some argument for being rated first either for their effect on our civilization or their influence on naval warfare. None of the other battles I'm seeing mentioned on this thread qualify in my opinion. It's possible I've missed one, but I don't think so.

[Joe McCarthy]

The necessity of the survival of the Classical High Culture for the birth of the West as we know it makes Salamis, which made Thermopylae and subsequently Plataea possible. Only Tours rivals it in importance.

Very hard to refute your reasoning, and for those picking Lepanto the reasoning is doubly strong for Salamis.

[Joe McCarthy]

If the Ottomans had won the Battle of Lepanto, would there ever have been a Battle of Chesapeake Bay ? Would there, indeed, ever have been a United States ?

I say "NO." Without that crucial victory, the entire subsequent history of
Europe and all of that of the Americas would have borne little or no resemblance to the events of the past 440 years.

It's hard to overstate the importance of Lepanto, but alas, it's being done on this thread.

Lepanto was important, but England wasn't concerned, France was aligned with the Ottomans, and the Holy Roman Empire was neutral and refused to send troops. It's possible the Ottomans would have invaded Italy, but it's by no means a certainty that they would have conquered Europe. Indeed, they rebuilt their fleet almost immediately. The short term effect was rather slight, and much of the impact was psychological.

It's very hard to see how an Ottoman victory in 1571 keeps England from colonizing North America a few decades later.

On the other hand, Chesapeake Bay prevented Cornwallis from escaping or smashing the French and Americans during the Yorktown campaign. It was the linchpin of the whole campaign, and thus the revolution itself.

More on the Yorktown campaign:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1312.html


From today’s perspective, it is difficult to appreciate the long odds faced by Americans and their French allies in the Yorktown campaign of 1781. The prospects for George Washington and his northern army at the start of the year were not bright. They were keeping a lonely vigil outside of New York City, monitoring the actions of Sir Henry Clinton's vastly superior British forces.

The situation in the South also was dismal. The Americans had won an important victory at Cowpens (January 1781), but later suffered a string of defeats. The British commander, Lord Charles Cornwallis, completed his sweep through the Carolinas and in May entered Virginia to root out the sources of American resistance.

Further, the American populace was weary of the war, the government was broke and soldiers in all theaters were not inclined to commit to lengthy terms of service.

Nonetheless, it became evident to Washington and his French allies that a possible opportunity was developing to trap Cornwallis’s army in a position where they could not be resupplied or reinforced. To accomplish this, however, would require moving two armies, one American and the other French, over 450 miles to Virginia.

If those movements were detected early on by the British, then the scheme would collapse and a possibly disastrous encounter would occur in the North. Further risk was provided by the uncertainty of French naval aid. If Chesapeake Bay could not be temporarily sealed off from the British fleet, then Cornwallis would be reinforced by sea and stand an excellent chance of defeating his exhausted opponent in Virginia.

The gamble paid off for Washington. Events in different locations evolved in a manner that enabled the allied armies to march safely to their destination, while the French navy managed to secure the Chesapeake for a brief time before a British relief fleet arrived. These events included:

Cornwallis in Virginia (May - August 1781). Cornwallis conducted raids in Virginia, refused to send troops to Clinton in New York and fortified a defensive position taken at Yorktown.

Washington and Rochambeau to Virginia (August - September 1781). Washington initially favored an attack on British positions in New York in 1781, but later when his hand was forced, did a masterful job of moving his army to the southern theater.

Battle of the Capes (September 5, 1781). Good fortune, solid French seamanship and British ineptitude contributed to denying Admiral Graves the opportunity to reinforce or evacuate Cornwallis's army at Yorktown.

Siege of Yorktown (October 1781). Cornwallis's confidence in his ability to hold Yorktown declined as enemy artillery pounded his fortifications. Supplies and ammunition ran low, and an evacuation attempt failed.

Surrender at Yorktown (October 19, 1781). The failure of Clinton's relief fleet to arrive, plus the numerical superiority of the Franco-American forces, necessitated Cornwallis's capitulation on terms approaching unconditional surrender.

[Vasconcelos]

You're nearly using the American point of view while ignoring the rest of Europe. Might aswell rename the topic "Most important naval battle for America in history?".

[Joe McCarthy]

You're nearly using the American point of view while ignoring the rest of Europe. Might aswell rename the topic "Most important naval battle for America in history?".

On the contrary, I haven't even voted, and if anything I'm inclined to vote for Salamis, as there probably wouldn't even be a Europe without it.

I rather think that Lepanto is getting all of these votes in part to Southern chauvinism. But that's just my opinion. It's also unclear why America should simply be ignored, as you seem to be implying it should.

[Vasconcelos]

Southern chauvinism? Only 2 Spainards and one Portuguese voted for Lepanto so far, that's a 33% of Lepanto's total votes coming from Southern Europe.

[Joe McCarthy]

Southern chauvinism? Only 2 Spainards and one Portuguese voted for Lepanto so far, that's a 33% of Lepanto's total votes coming from Southern Europe.

Notice I said in part. My assumption is that other votes are due mostly to it being Muslims that were opposed, possibly a superficial knowledge of military history, and arguably some real reasoning for choosing it.

There are other issues though besides opposing alien hordes. A lot of these battles had much to do with the jostling of power among European states, and thus arguably influenced European history more than Lepanto. Take the Battle of the Downs - it ended the era of Spanish sea power, and can be said to be the beginning of the transfer of power from Southern to Northern Europe.

[Groenewolf]

I'm not surprised to see so many going for Lepanto, since I almost voted that way myself, but why so many for the defeat of the Armada? It seems to me that defeating foreigners at Salamis and Lepanto is much more important than Europeans defeating Europeans.

It could be possible that they voted this way, because the defeat of the Armada plays a more important role in their national narrative(s).

[Agrippa]

I think not, Spain just did not have enough men to keep a safe place on strong countrie like England for many years, the Spanish were decimated by plagues and famine, in Spain the men no cultivated the land. The ideal in Spain was the noble gentleman "Hidalgo", who earned his life military, with his sword, even those who were not soldiers, not liked to be peasants.

This was a problem, because Spanish too much depended on the American gold and wins against our multi-front war. The fact is that we suffer a lot of hunger, despite our splendor and power. Our population did not grow demographically, but our own soldiers yes dying, and were not easily replaced.

What I mean is that we were few, I doubt that England would have spent more than a few of years under our power, had not changed much the future.

But a Muslim southern Europe, with the nightmare of the Muslim religion, brainwashing, that is another thing.

and better not think the addition of an full land of America Muslim, with Islam, as catchy as tar....

Sorry if I do not explain my point well, I'm so limited with my English.

Well, at that time England itself was still split in a way, with many religious and political groups, never forget that fact. If the Spanish would have won the invasion, they would have get massive support from other people of the British islands and beyond to change the course of the English development.

So to me it is not really, if talking about this event, about England becoming "a complete Spanish colony", but rather the course of history and developments in England being completely overturned, not to forget the different colonisation story then - every changed...

The Muslims were stopped already, it was just about them moving somewhat more forward or backward earlier or later, it was not decisive and the land battles of Vienna were in the end much more important than Lepanto I'd say.


Chesapeake Bay

The British campaign, well, I don't think they would have really crushed the revolution if this battle would have been lost by the French navy. Again, Clinton showed deficits and made many mistakes before, so did the whole operation - I think the war would have just lasted somewhat longer otherwise, I doubt the British would have won it.

The best chances to keep down the rebellion were given some years earlier already and they lost.


Salamis

The Persian influence being sometimes overstated it seems to me, I don't think a Persian victory would have really significantly changed the Greek people and their way of life and on the longer run they would have succeeded in any case, because of certain factors, especially their military potential.

Also, I considered too how close the battles were and I think that what happened to the Spanish Armada was really significantly influenced by what we might call "bad luck" and "chance", even though the British used certain innovations for their ships and cannons, it was far from being such a clear case before the battle started.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Agrippa
The British campaign, well, I don't think they would have really crushed the revolution if this battle would have been lost by the French navy.

America was war weary as it was and was losing the war. Had Cornwallis managed to get resupplied, and worse, would have defeated Washington and Rochambeau, history might have taken a VERY different turn. I imagine the British would have made some concessions, but America would have remained a colony, and like all colonies, would have been repressed so as to keep it from becoming a threat to the mother country. This would have necessarily prevented the US from expanding, attracting immigrants, and embarking on its experiment of liberty that allowed for so much innovation. As I said earlier, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. The majority of technological advances over the last, say, 150 years, have been American.


The Persian influence being sometimes overstated it seems to me, I don't think a Persian victory would have really significantly changed the Greek people and their way of life and on the longer run they would have succeeded in any case, because of certain factors, especially their military potential.


The question here is the nature of Persia, and how they assimilated conquered cultures. They did this so well that some of their leading figures, such as Haman, weren't even ethnic Persians. It's virtually a certainty that Athenian democracy would not have developed in the way it did under Persian despotism, and needless to say, Herodotus' work, that which launched the discipline of history as we know it, would not have been written.

I have some difficulty believing Spain could have held England even had it succeeded after landing. Phillip II was doing much to break the treasury in combating Protestantism and trying to crush the rebellion in the Netherlands. In many ways he was both Spain's best ruler and its worst. He both brought Spain to glory and set the stage for its decline.

[Magister Eckhart]

It could be possible that they voted this way, because the defeat of the Armada plays a more important role in their national narrative(s).

Fair enough, but what's more important to us here? European preservation or English national preservation? Not that I'm any fan of the Spaniards myself, but it seems to me that national grievances are kind of petty in this setting.

[Groenewolf]

Fair enough, but what's more important to us here? European preservation or English national preservation? Not that I'm any fan of the Spaniards myself, but it seems to me that national grievances are kind of petty in this setting.

I myself voted for the battle of Salamis. Since a lot of development of the Classicial world would not have taken place if the Persians had won. Which would mean that one of the pillars of European civilization would have been missing.

However most here think about their own countries/nations first and an European-wide context second/third.

[Agrippa]

On the other hand many Greek cities flourished even under Persian rules, with philosophical schools, economic development, even their own military. Don't forget the reasons for the Persian campaigns were often uprisings of the Greeks in Asia minor which had no big problem to get that far at least.

So even if Salamis would have been lost, they might have never conquered all of Greece and in those parts they ruled, they would have most likely established a rather superficial administration and the whole thing would have been cleared in the next uprising to put it that way.

But ok, one can discuss many of these battles in many ways :)

[Joe McCarthy]

Fair enough, but what's more important to us here? European preservation or English national preservation? Not that I'm any fan of the Spaniards myself, but it seems to me that national grievances are kind of petty in this setting.

Am I to take it that you believe Muslim vs. European conflict is necessarily more important than European vs. European conflict? Was the Ottoman seizure of Cyprus more important for European history than the Norman conquest?

I'd argue that even Jutland was probably more important than Lepanto. The result led to Germany employing unrestricted submarine warfare which wound up being the casus belli for America entering the Great War. Had America stayed out, Germany would almost certainly have won, which would have altered history dramatically. The failure of the British at Jutland also prevented another Trafalgar, and thus was a badly missed opportunity for them to destroy the High Seas Fleet right then and there.

[Radola]

Bitva na Bajkalském jezeře 16. srpna 1918 - námořní bitva v níž československá flotila potopila jednu loď rudých a poničili nepřátelský přístav a nádraží v Mysové. Pravděpodobně jediná námořní bitva svedená československou flotilou.

The Battle of Lake Baikal - 1918 - Czechoslovakian flottila sunk one ship of the Red Russians and damaged the port + the railway station in Mysova. The supreme commander was of course General Gajda. It probably was the only naval battle in our history. (Despite the fact many Czechs and Slovaks served in Austro-Hungarian navy of course) ...

[2DREZQ]

I voted for Midway. Nationalist Myopia.
It is easy to give a great deal of weight to "The Battle of X" in in 1327 because it had gone the other way "The Battle of Y" in 1459 "would never even have been fought." Thus, a strong case can be made for whatever battle came earliest. If one somehow lends less weight to this POV it 'evens things out' a bit.

Otherwise, it might be when Able sank Cain's toy boat in the bathtub.

[Joe McCarthy]

I voted for Midway. Nationalist Myopia.
It is easy to give a great deal of weight to "The Battle of X" in in 1327 because it had gone the other way "The Battle of Y" in 1459 "would never even have been fought." Thus, a strong case can be made for whatever battle came earliest. If one somehow lends less weight to this POV it 'evens things out' a bit.

Otherwise, it might be when Able sank Cain's toy boat in the bathtub.

An argument can be made for Midway. We were lucky to win, and had we lost we might've been knocked out of the war. At the very least Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Guam, etc., would have been vulnerable to the Japanese, and had they managed to consolidate their hold on East Asia (admittedly that's rather unlikely), we could have a new Mongol empire on water facing us today.

[2DREZQ]

An argument can be made for Midway. We were lucky to win, and had we lost we might've been knocked out of the war. At the very least Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Guam, etc., would have been vulnerable to the Japanese, and had they managed to consolidate their hold on East Asia (admittedly that's rather unlikely), we could have a new Mongol empire on water facing us today.

FDR might have been forced to take the Pacific off the back burner. Resources devoted to winning there would have lengthened the war in Europe. I can't see, barring an anti-miracle, how Germany could have won (well, less resources to Uncle Joe...maybe...), but a prolongation of the conflict there for a few more years would have left Europe in...what is a word for something beyond "destroyed"? A United States far more battered than we were might have been in no mood to do the Marshall Plan. The timelines diverge from there in infinite directions, all of them downhill.

[Joe McCarthy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway


Between 4 and 7 June 1942, approximately one month after the Battle of the Coral Sea and six months after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States Navy decisively defeated an Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) attack against Midway Atoll, inflicting irreparable damage on the Japanese fleet. Military historian John Keegan has called it "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare."

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g310000/g312018.jpg

http://www.usmilitary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/naval-battle-of-midway.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g410000/g414423.jpg

http://www.warchat.org/pictures/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_battle_in_midway.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g700000/g701851.jpg

[Vasconcelos]

The tactic was great, but that doesn't make it the most important in history. Personally I consider it a far cry from Diu or Lepanto, for example.

[Magister Eckhart]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway



http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g310000/g312018.jpg

http://www.usmilitary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/naval-battle-of-midway.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g410000/g414423.jpg

http://www.warchat.org/pictures/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_battle_in_midway.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g700000/g701851.jpg

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_F4U1h2dbP9o/SrtN_52ghsI/AAAAAAAAA3Y/iF-_xQFSc2s/IMG_1626.JPG

It's certainly not the history the Japanese choose to remember. Though, they have their heroes like we have ours.