Battles that were famous but insignificant?

I can only really think of the battle of waterloo. Even if bapolean won, he had Russians and aaustrians amd Prussian weeks away. While not even being in control of France and depleted manpower.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Battle of Carrhae by fricking far.
    Then Manzikert i guess,
    Second siege/battle od Vienna.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      are u dumb? Manzikert was one of the most important battles of the middle ages. Turkgays never would have stood a chance if Byzantines would'nt have had intrigues among Generals.~~*Doukas*~~

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Manzikert itself had little to no impact on the border of the empire
        It was the civil wars after that lost them Anatolia

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Battle of Carrhae
      How? The death of Crassus completely shifted the balance of power.
      Do you think Crassus and all his money (and thus men) would have had no impact on Ol' Julius' plans?

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Battle of New Orleans, war was literally over by then, celebrated by americans because it was the closest they came to a significant victory after their failure to take canada and their navy being swept from the eastern seaboard.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was significant in that it made Andrew Jackson the biggest hero in America and catapulted him to the Presidency

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    San Lorenzo. A brief skirmish that happened to involve Jose de San Martin's life being saved in a heroic sacrifice made by a private named Juan Bautista Cabral. Of limited strategic value but well known for the aforementioned rescue of the man who would later be Argentina's liberator.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    By this logic, you could also say Cannae. Hannibal would have lost anyway to Roman manpower. I wouldnt call Cannae insignificant though. Battles can still be significant even if the victor loses the war.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not the OP but I agree with him, and not trying to be a dick, but in what way was Waterloo significant? Cannae forced the Romans to revert to their previous strategy, ensuring the war would drag on for several more years, is still studied today, and beyond that was a massive loss of people for Rome. It's easy on multiple levels to see the significance of Cannae, whereas Waterloo was a battle in a war Napoleon couldn't have possibly won

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't agree that Napoleon fought for a lost cause (He had won against overwhelming odds 5 times).
        Waterloo could have been another case of Bonaparte's military genius overcoming Numbers and supplies.
        There were battles in history wich simply defined new concepts of tactics and strategy. Thus a battle can be significant, even if it didnt change the course of a war. If it introduced new measures of defeating the enemy they were significant.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >
          Waterloo could have been another case of Bonaparte's military genius overcoming Numbers and supplies.
          What you are describing here effectively already happened. The Six Days Campaign. And Napoleon still lost that war because the odds were too against him for individual victories to matter.
          >There were battles in history wich simply defined new concepts of tactics and strategy. Thus a battle can be significant, even if it didnt change the course of a war. If it introduced new measures of defeating the enemy they were significant.
          I agree. This is what Cannae was. I don't believe this is what Waterloo was.

          D Day by far. Whole western front had no purpose but to crush the worker's revolution as fast as it could go. Soviets won all by themselves anyways and were on the verge of freeing europe from the yoke of bourgeoise imperialism.

          Sounds like D-Day was incredibly relevant in your worldview

          Yeah I'm not sure how you could argue this, like it's not meaningful that the Soviets didn't take over the entirety of continental Europe, unless you believe that they would have just retreated to the borders of East Germany afterwards anyway.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Napoleon's prior victories against overwhelming odds came from 1) French tactical and operational innovations introduced during a period of intense reform during the 1790s when audacious commanders such as Napoleon were able to put to test theories that had been introduced following France's defeat in the Seven Years War, and 2) exploiting coalition failures to coordinate and differing diplomatic objectives in order to divide and conquer. By 1815 the coalition powers had fully implemented the military reforms that gave France an early edge and had smoothed over a lot of the difficulties in coalition management. Of course Napoleon was still a superb commander and could adapt to changing situations like no other, but he was also handicapped in 1815 by lacking some of his most competent subordinates, notably Berthier. I don't think victory was ever in the cards in 1815.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    D Day by far. Whole western front had no purpose but to crush the worker's revolution as fast as it could go. Soviets won all by themselves anyways and were on the verge of freeing europe from the yoke of bourgeoise imperialism.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Soviets won all by themselves
      You know what Lend and Lease is boy?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Irrelevant statistically speaking
        The war was over for Germany when Barbarossa stalled
        Lend lease shortened the war it didn’t change the outcome

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >western front had no purpose but to crush the worker's revolution as fast as it could go.
      jesus you people live in a bizzaro world

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like D-Day was incredibly relevant in your worldview

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      yeah I'm sure stalin was real bummed out that hilter had a whole new massive front to deal with

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, by this logic, any battle where the outcome seems inevitable in hindsight is insignificant. The battle is just cursed as the last battle. Not for the tactical or strategic results but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
    >Kursk is insignificant because the Nazis would have lost all those tanks anyways
    >Midway is insignificant because the Japs would lost all those carriers anyways
    >Bulge is insignificant because the Nazis would have done a last minute attack anyways
    >Saratoga is insignificant because Burgoyne would have surrendered eventually anyways
    >Gettysburg is insignificant because the Confederates would have lost anyways
    >Soviets capture of Berlin is insignificant because the Allies would have captured Berlin eventually anyways
    And on it goes...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *