What Is Each Nation's Greatest Moment of Military Glory?

[Old Tanker]

Oh and lets have Hastings as well, just so the Eurosceptics have something to rant about.

 

I find the Brit take on the BoH somewhat confusing as it is taken as a positive by many.

 

As an American I take Drake's victory as the most important as without I would be a POM somewhere over there drinking warm beer or digging coal in Wales.

[DB]

Contrast that to many BOB airfields that have been turned into parks or industrial estates.

Turning them into race tracks suits me fine, though. We race at three of them*. (Pembrey, Snetterton, Silverstone)

 

David

 

(*) Wartime airfields, not BOB airfields.

[DB]

I find the Brit take on the BoH somewhat confusing as it is taken as a positive by many.

I think the whole thing has to be taken into context with the battle fought at Stamford Bridge and the Herculean effort to get down to Hastings and damn near win that one as well - it's all about playing the game, not winning

 

David

[Olof Larsson]

Im also surprised nobody cited Marborough and the Battle of Blenheim, I guess Wellington must have usurped his position.

 

Well, to me it semms like Blenheim was rather a english/austria/dutch/danish victory,

while Wellingtons victories were brittish/spanish/portugese

or brittish/prussian/dutch/hanovarian/nassauian(?)/brunswickian(?).

 

BillB's examples seems about right IMHO.

[Tomas Hoting]

For Austria (and the rest of Europe):

 

The Siege of Vienna 1529 & The Battle of Vienna 1683, which stopped the expansion of the Ottoman empire into Europe

(decisive moments in European history)

 

For Serbia:

 

The Battle of Kosovo (or Battle of Amselfeld) 1389

[Old Tanker]

For Austria (and the rest of Europe):

 

The Siege of Vienna 1529 & The Battle of Vienna 1683, which stopped the expansion of the Ottoman empire into Europe

(decisive moments in European history)

 

Weren't the Poles major players in those battles ?

[Exel]

Many great moments, but I'll agree with CV that in the end the greatest of all will have to be Tali-Ihantala 1944. It was the culmination of all previous achievements.

 

I wonder what would be an appropriate high point for Sweden. Maybe something in the 30 years war? Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631?

Edited November 18, 2007 by Exel

[Old Tanker]

One of the most critical battles of WWII that is largely ignored is the" The Battle of the Atlantic".

Maybe because the victory was co-shared between the Canadians, Brits and the Americans.

But the world would surely be different without that shared victory.

[Tomas Hoting]

Weren't the Poles major players in those battles ?

 

Yes, during the Battle of Vienna, together with the Austrians, Franconians, Swabians, Bavarians and Saxons...

They were led by the king of Poland, Johann III Sobieski.

 

A joint European effort, so to speak.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Tomas Hoting

[hojutsuka]

The question was about Nation´s Greatest Moments. Prussian history is part of German history, therefore Germany is correct.

Hmmm... By that reasoning, Bannockburn counts as Britain's moment of military glory, as Scottish history is part of British history. And Braddock's defeat by the French and Indians count as a moment of military glory for the United States, as the history of French colonial efforts in and around what became Pittsburgh is part of American history.

 

Hojutsuka

[Olof Larsson]

Many great moments, but I'll agree with CV that in the end the greatest of all will have to be Tali-Ihantala 1944. It was the culmination of all previous achievements.

 

I wonder what would be an appropriate high point for Sweden. Maybe something in the 30 years war? Battle of Breitenfeld in 1631?

 

We have quite a few succesful battles of course

(often fairly small in size compared to the battles of mayor countries of course)

But few of our victories led to any polical gains.

 

But I'd say Breitenfeld (1631) as it was the battle, that made Sweden a major power.

 

The march over the belts (1658) and Narva (1700) were great victories,

that the kings ruined because of hunger for even more power (Karl X) or shear stupidity (Karl XII).

 

Fraustadt (1706) was also magnificient, but it was a battle in a war,

we did not need to fight, while we were in a dire need to fight the russians

that held our baltic provinses and had already started to build a new capital on ockupied territory.

[DemolitionMan]

@hojutsuka: The definition of the Germans as a nation can fill books. But it´s my understanding that although there hasn´t been a nation state till 1871, the question if Prussia, Bavaria etc and their seperate state history belongs to German history altogether has never been in doubt. To compare it with Scotland vs England and the like seems logical only on the first view. Although seperated state-wise for centuries, Germans have always been one nation.

[Guest bojan]

For Serbia:

 

The Battle of Kosovo (or Battle of Amselfeld) 1389

 

That was the one with best PR, but IMO most important one was Battle on Marica in 1371.

[Ariete!]

For Italy I pick the Piave defensive battle of June 1918; another one, in a slightly different perspective, is the Alpine Corps retreat in Russia in January 1943, culminating in the battle at Nikolajewka on 26 January.

 

Cannae, Beneventum, etc.

 

Legnano 1176

Lepanto 1571 *

Solferino 1859 *

Milazzo 1860

Porta Pia 1870

 

Agree with “Piave 1918”

 

(*): both of these were ‘international’ efforts.

 

If we’re doing “splendid disasters” I would put in El Alamein.

[sunday]

Cannae, Beneventum, etc.

 

Legnano 1176

Lepanto 1571 *

Solferino 1859 *

Milazzo 1860

Porta Pia 1870

 

Agree with “Piave 1918”

 

(*): both of these were ‘international’ efforts.

 

If we’re doing “splendid disasters” I would put in El Alamein.

 

Porta Pia more in the sense of battle with major repercusion, I suppose.

 

Not the least, the repercusion in the Rome skyline of the "Monumentissimo"...

[Redbeard]

For Denmark-(Norway) I guess the follwing could be contenders:

 

Land:

Copenhagen 1659

Sehestedt 1813

Fredericia 1849

Mysunde 1864

Tuzla 1994

 

Sea:

Koege Bay 1677 (and 1710)

Dynekillen 1716

Marstrand 1719

Helgoland 1864

 

Tuzla 1994 was only a skirmish involving 2/3 of a tank squadron, but it marked an important step away from the distrust in military means that since 1864 had been an underlying factor in Danish politics.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[swerve]

For Denmark-(Norway) I guess the follwing could be contenders:

 

Land:

Copenhagen 1659

Sehestedt 1813

..

Sea:

Koege Bay 1677 (and 1710)

Dynekillen 1716

Marstrand 1719

.....

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

 

I sometimes wonder what might have happened if Sweden & Denmark had faced outward in co-operation, instead of fighting. Something like "You have the land, & we will have the sea": the Swedish army & Danish fleet. If the Treaty of Kalmar hadn't gone wrong . . . .

 

[Edit] Dammit, you've been there already -

http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/sho...ead.php?t=36999

Edited November 19, 2007 by swerve

[Guest aevans]

There is no glory in war.

[Brummbaer]

Cannae, Beneventum, etc.

 

Legnano 1176

Lepanto 1571 *

Solferino 1859 *

Milazzo 1860

Porta Pia 1870

 

Agree with “Piave 1918”

 

(*): both of these were ‘international’ efforts.

 

If we’re doing “splendid disasters” I would put in El Alamein.

You are right, I was too focused on recent history...

Perhaps more than Milazzo 1860 I'd say Milazzo 260 b.C. in the first Punic War, and add Scipio's iberian and north african campaigns in the second.

[Redbeard]

There is no glory in war.

 

You express a very common view since early 20th century, but it wouldn't be difficult to find examples of men seeking and finding glory in war all through the history of mankind. That of course doesn't exclude all the bloody brutality also so obvious, it probably is a precondition of the glory part. It is just our times that has been alienated to the glory part, mainly due to the extraordinary slaughter of WWI. The problem is however, that without the glory part you put huge strains on the mental health of the fighting men - they seriously risk end up either broken down or cold blooded killers.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Guest aevans]

You express a very common view since early 20th century, but it wouldn't be difficult to find examples of men seeking and finding glory in war all through the history of mankind. That of course doesn't exclude all the bloody brutality also so obvious, it probably is a precondition of the glory part. It is just our times that has been alienated to the glory part, mainly due to the extraordinary slaughter of WWI. The problem is however, that without the glory part you put huge strains on the mental health of the fighting men - they seriously risk end up either broken down or cold blooded killers.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

 

Glory is a rationalization for the results of war, not a legitimate reason for engaging in war. It's nothing but self-righteous spin. I consider it a absolutely positive development that we've begun a process of removing glory from the discussion. War should be a means, even for the soldiers. Glory makes it an end, sufficient in itself. Nobody needs that.

 

BTW, I'd rather have an army of cold blooded killers than an army of hot blooded ones. Cold blooded killers know when to quit, hot blooded ones don't.

[hojutsuka]

@hojutsuka: The definition of the Germans as a nation can fill books. But it´s my understanding that although there hasn´t been a nation state till 1871, the question if Prussia, Bavaria etc and their seperate state history belongs to German history altogether has never been in doubt.

I agree completely that the history of Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Baden, et cetera form part of German history.

 

To compare it with Scotland vs England and the like seems logical only on the first view.

Can you clarify this? It looks logical even on second view...

 

Although seperated state-wise for centuries, Germans have always been one nation.

Well, I can understand that you believe that...

 

But in what sense were Germans "one nation" in 1866? Certainly not in a political sense. So it has to be a "nation" in the cultural sense, a group of populations sharing (more or less) a common culture.

 

But this cultural nationality would include the German population of the Austrian Empire as well. And as Austria was supported by Saxony, Hannover , Kurhesse, Bavaria, Wuerttemberg, Baden, et cetera, there were more Germans (in the cultural sense) on the losing side of Austro-Prussian War of 1866 than there were on the winning side.

 

In your original post you suggested that the Battle of Königgrätz was a important battle in history.

 

Probably overlooked, but for Germany the Battle of Königgrätz 1866 might stand out for it´s affect on history.

I have no quarrel with the importance of the battle in history, but I do not think it can be regarded as Germany's moment of military glory, when more Germans were on the losing side than on the winning side.

 

The decisive effect of the battle was to replace Austria with Prussia as the leader of the smaller German states. It guaranteed that when Germany eventually came into existence it would not include the Germans of Austria. In that sense, the Battle of Königgrätz was a tragedy for the idea that all Germans were and should be one nation...

 

Hojutsuka

[Guest aevans]

The decisive effect of the battle was to replace Austria with Prussia as the leader of the smaller German states. It guaranteed that when Germany eventually came into existence it would not include the Germans of Austria. In that sense, the Battle of Königgrätz was a tragedy for the idea that all Germans were and should be one nation...

 

You're assuming that a greater Germany organized under the Austrians (1) would have included the Prussians. That doesn't seem very likely.

 

1. And what do you do then about the non-German rest of the Austrian empire? Let it go under the Hungarians? Devolution?

[hojutsuka]

You're assuming that a greater Germany organized under the Austrians (1) would have included the Prussians. That doesn't seem very likely.

Well, this is all pure fantasy and speculation of course. But let me ask you why you think it so unlikely?

 

If Prussia had lost the war, I would expect Austria to take back Silesia. Saxony, Hannover, Kurhesse would get chunks of Prussian territory in Germany, say as much territory as the Prussians grabbed from Saxony in real life. This would leave a truncated Prussia which would have a hard time matching Austria again.

 

Austria would reorganize the German Confederation, which it would dominate. Considering that Bavaria and other members of the German Confederation had dithered and failed to help Austria effectively in 1866, Austria would probably insist on a tighter integration of the members and more authority to the Federal Diet (which of course will be redesigned to be permanently dominated by Austria). The question is, will Prussia be a part of this new Confederation?

 

I think it would be to Austria's advantage to "allow" (really force) Prussia to be part of this.

 

First, at least on paper this will be the "same" German Confederation as it existed before 1866. Prussia was part of it then, and to exclude Prussia means making an explicit change.

 

Second and much more importantly, Prussia as an excluded outsider would be much more dangerous to Austria than Prussia bound by the Confederation dominated by Austria.

 

An independent Prussia could try for foreign allies and build a new army to possibly challenge Austria.

 

Austria could present the reformed Confederation as the united front of Germany in foreign policy. Military provisions could include more unified structure with smaller states having troops directly under the Confederation war ministry (effectively under Austrian War Ministry), Confederation inspectors to assure that member states' military forces were organized, equipped, and trained to a uniform standard (and incidentally to keep an eye out for anti-Austrian activities), general staff training and planning at Confederation level, etc.

 

You will recognize that this is exactly what Prussia did after 1866 with the North German Federation.

 

A truncated Prussia in such a tight Confederation dominated by Austria is far less dangerous to Austria.

 

1. And what do you do then about the non-German rest of the Austrian empire? Let it go under the Hungarians? Devolution?

I am not up to mapping the course of this alternate history for decades.

 

Even in real life, it was only in 1918, after the gigantic convulsions of the Franco-German War and World War I, that a true unified German state (minus Austria) emerged (and of course in 1918 Hungary had broken away...).

 

What I do see as reasonable is that an Austrian victory in 1866 might have seen the establishment of something close to the Prussian North German Confederation of real life, but including southern German states from the beginning, with truncated Prussia as a member, and Austria dominating as Prussia did in real life. As to how, or whether, this grouping of Germans would lead to a truly unified German state, I am afraid I cannot give an answer....

 

Hojutsuka

[Guest aevans]

What I do see as reasonable is that an Austrian victory in 1866 might have seen the establishment of something close to the Prussian North German Confederation of real life, but including southern German states from the beginning, with truncated Prussia as a member, and Austria dominating as Prussia did in real life. As to how, or whether, this grouping of Germans would lead to a truly unified German state, I am afraid I cannot give an answer....

 

From what I've read, the Austrians weren't interested in Germany as a nation. They just wanted political influence in the former Empire lands to protect their northern and western flanks. Even if the Prussians lost in 1866, I don't think it would have led to a great German nationalistic movement under the Austrians. Most of the time they considered German nationalism a threat and the rest of time a dangerous tool that could be used, but only if not allowed to get out of hand.