More impactful battles

?

  • Battle of Teutoburg Forest (9AD)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Battle of Stamford Bridge (1066)

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Battle of Grunwald (1410)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Battle of Lutzen (1632)

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Battle of Vienna (1683)

    Votes: 12 52.2%
  • Battle of Tsushima (1905)

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Battle of the Marne (1914)

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Total voters
    23
Feb 2019
794
Serbia
#21
Result of the war is not always should be determined by pre war goals. There are a lot of examples in history of that.

France started the war with the goal to retain all Spanish possessions. Not just put Bourbon on Spanish throne.

France was weakened as result of the war, not just Spain. Enemies of France managed to make serious gains at the expense of France and Spain.

Situation was actually very bad for France in 1709. It was on the brink of complete defeat. Louis was ready to accept all the demands of his enemies. However, one of the demands was for Louis to use his own army against Philip in Spain. That was humiliation Louis could not accept and continued to fight.

Grand Alliance put an end to French ambitions and dominance with Nine Years War and War of Spanish Succession.

Looking at it like that I think we should look into goals of individual participants. Britain and the Dutch for example wanted to preserve the balance of power and prevent a Franco-Spanish alliance, so it could be said that Britain and the Dutch won as they achieved their goals there at least partially.

Austria wanted their candidate in Spain until the end, thus in 1711 when Archduke Charles became Charles VI of Austria the Grand Alliance withdrew their support for him as they saw this would violate the balance of power. Austria failed its goal so it can be said that they partially lost even if they gained territory, they wanted all of Spain and only got some of it.

I think that the situation in 1709 is irrelevant to this, after Denain the allied gains in northern France pretty much reversed. In the end France accepted the peace terms and its pre-war goal still held for putting their candidate in Spain, so France won at least partially there.

I submit that it was a stalemate, however I think that the discussion of the result of the war should be in its own thread, until 1711 the Grand Alliance supported the goal of a Habsburg in Spain, by 1713 France was ready to accept the treaty the allies had offered so during the war some of the goals of individual states a few times.
 
Likes: Gvelion
Sep 2016
1,204
Georgia
#22
Looking at it like that I think we should look into goals of individual participants. Britain and the Dutch for example wanted to preserve the balance of power and prevent a Franco-Spanish alliance, so it could be said that Britain and the Dutch won as they achieved their goals there at least partially.

Austria wanted their candidate in Spain until the end, thus in 1711 when Archduke Charles became Charles VI of Austria the Grand Alliance withdrew their support for him as they saw this would violate the balance of power. Austria failed its goal so it can be said that they partially lost even if they gained territory, they wanted all of Spain and only got some of it.

I think that the situation in 1709 is irrelevant to this, after Denain the allied gains in northern France pretty much reversed. In the end France accepted the peace terms and its pre-war goal still held for putting their candidate in Spain, so France won at least partially there.

I submit that it was a stalemate, however I think that the discussion of the result of the war should be in its own thread, until 1711 the Grand Alliance supported the goal of a Habsburg in Spain, by 1713 France was ready to accept the treaty the allies had offered so during the war some of the goals of individual states a few times.
I should've phrased it better. I am not saying that France was clearly or completely defeated. It's was more like ,, French overall defeat ''.

Likewise, France achieved overall victory in Dutch war. Even though with Dutch Republic it ended in restoration of status quo , France still defeated Spain, Holy Roman Empire and Brandenburg - Prussia. France started the conflict only against Dutch Republic, but by the end of 1673 half of Europe declared war against French. However, France managed to defeat it's new enemies and with Dutch Republic situation returned to pre war situation ( except tariff of 1667 was changed to 1664 ). France finally established itself as most powerful country of Europe after that.

Ivan the Terrible crushed Livonian order, but other neighbors started conflict against Russia. In the end, Livonian war resulted in Russian defeat.

War of Spanish Succession was more of overall victory for enemies of Louis.
 
Feb 2019
794
Serbia
#23
I should've phrased it better. I am not saying that France was clearly or completely defeated. It's was more like ,, French overall defeat ''.

Likewise, France achieved overall victory in Dutch war. Even though with Dutch Republic it ended in restoration of status quo , France still defeated Spain, Holy Roman Empire and Brandenburg - Prussia. France started the conflict only against Dutch Republic, but by the end of 1673 half of Europe declared war against French. However, France managed to defeat it's new enemies and with Dutch Republic situation returned to pre war situation ( except tariff of 1667 was changed to 1664 ).

Now it makes more sense, looking at it like that and the situation that followed afterwards then yes, I agree that the war was a French strategic defeat overall as they were indeed contained, however looking at the goals and the war itself, particularly for Austria then it boils down to individual goals. If we look at what happened afterwards Austria lost its Italian gains not long after. Not even a decade after the war ended we had the Quadruple Alliance where Spain tried to reconquer its territories and even challenged France. These aren't too relevant to the war itself between 1701-1714 but if we look at the developments that followed then it gets much more confusing but these aren't really the topic of this discussion.
 
Likes: Gvelion
Sep 2016
1,204
Georgia
#24
Now it makes more sense, looking at it like that and the situation that followed afterwards then yes, I agree that the war was a French strategic defeat overall as they were indeed contained, however looking at the goals and the war itself, particularly for Austria then it boils down to individual goals. If we look at what happened afterwards Austria lost its Italian gains not long after. Not even a decade after the war ended we had the Quadruple Alliance where Spain tried to reconquer its territories and even challenged France. These aren't too relevant to the war itself between 1701-1714 but if we look at the developments that followed then it gets much more confusing but these aren't really the topic of this discussion.
There was also a real chance for Austria to lose Austrian Netherlands in 1748. French achieved victories at Fontenoy, Lauffeld, Rocoux and occupied those territories. However, Louis XV decided to boost his international reputation and gave back all his conquests.

I think we should concentrate on immediate results of war and developments in first few years after the conflict. Otherwise, WW1 shouldn't count as a victory for France as well. Since we know what happened 20 years later.

War of Spanish Succession was a success for Britain, Dutch, Savoy and Austria received a pretty good compensation for letting Bourbon to sit on Spanish throne. So yeah, I would say it was overall victory for Grand Alliance and defeat for France.

Russia started Livonian war only against Livonian order. They destroyed Livonian order and achieved their goal. However, war ended in victory for Poland-Lithuanian commonwealth and Sweden. Russia had to witness it's enemies dividing Livonia between themselves and getting stronger as the result.

Napoleon completely failed in his initial goals of invading Britain in 1805. While Austria and Russia were defeated, Britain ( member of Coalition ) managed to destroy Napoleon's fleet and crush his hopes for invasion. In the end, that would eventually bring doom to Napoleon.
 
Feb 2019
794
Serbia
#25
There was also a real chance for Austria to lose Austrian Netherlands in 1748. French achieved victories at Fontenoy, Lauffeld, Rocoux and occupied those territories. However, Louis XV decided to boost his international reputation and gave back all his conquests.

I think we should concentrate on immediate results of war and developments in first few years after the conflict. Otherwise, WW1 shouldn't count as a victory for France as well. Since we know what happened 20 years later.

War of Spanish Succession was a success for Britain, Dutch, Savoy and Austria received a pretty good compensation for letting Bourbon to sit on Spanish throne. So yeah, I would say it was overall victory for Grand Alliance and defeat for France.

Russia started Livonian war only against Livonian order. They destroyed Livonian order and achieved their goal. However, war ended in victory for Poland-Lithuanian commonwealth and Sweden. Russia had to witness it's enemies dividing Livonia between themselves and getting stronger as the result.

Napoleon completely failed in his initial goals of invading Britain in 1805. While Austria and Russia were defeated, Britain ( member of Coalition ) managed to destroy Napoleon's fleet and crush his hopes for invasion. In the end, that would eventually bring doom to Napoleon.

I was just focusing on the war itself from 1701-1714 and the war goals for individual nations, however I already said I agree that in the Grand scheme of things it was a French strategic defeat as they were contained and the balance of power was preserved, as was shown in the aftermath.
 
Likes: Gvelion
Sep 2016
1,204
Georgia
#26
I was just focusing on the war itself from 1701-1714 and the war goals for individual nations.
Thirty years war is especially good for that sort of thing. It evolved into all-European conflict and Habsburgs didn't plan to fight Sweden or France in 1620, for example. When we look at the results for individual nations, France and Sweden achieved victory in Thirty Years war. Then we have France still fighting Spain after 1648 and ending the war only in 1659. There is also Dutch Revolt during that time, of course.

Germany achieved victory against Russia in WW1, but was defeated on Western front and lost the war overall.

Many conflicts usually consisted and ended in separate treaties between various opposing forces. Because of that, we have to look at individual nations and examine what results they've got.

This was the case for Dutch war as well.
 
Mar 2014
37
Paris (France)
#27
France started the war with the goal to retain all Spanish possessions. Not just put Bourbon on Spanish throne.
From what I know, it's the other powers that declared war on France and started military operations against the French.
The Austrians first started sending troops against French garrison in north Italy before even declaring war.
I don't mean Louis XIV was full innocent but he was applying Charles II will and securing his grandson kingdom. I think stating France started the war is more than an exaggeration.
 
Sep 2016
1,204
Georgia
#28
From what I know, it's the other powers that declared war on France and started military operations against the French.
The Austrians first started sending troops against French garrison in north Italy before even declaring war.
I don't mean Louis XIV was full innocent but he was applying Charles II will and securing his grandson kingdom. I think stating France started the war is more than an exaggeration.
Louis accepting Charles II was basically the start of war. Louis understood it perfectly and all other countries too. Before death of Charles, there were several negotiations between Louis and others on how to divide Spanish possessions in Europe. Louis even considered to not put Philip on Spanish throne and get European territories of Spain for him. However, in the end Louis accepted Charles II will and tried to retain all Spanish possessions in Europe.

Everybody knew that would trigger war.
 
Feb 2011
1,076
Scotland
#29
I, as I seem to be doing a lot these days, completely agree with Diocletian. Teutoberg Forest didn't really change much. Was Augustus really that interested in making Germania a full province? There wasn't a town large enough to even serve as a provincial capital. It's hard to civilise a place if there is no settlement to civilise! .
There was the settlement uncovered at Waldgirmes, 100Km East of the Rhine, with the first known stone buildings in Germany- a full Forum and Basilica, with Equestrian statue of Augustus. This may have been a trading settlement originally, but it was Roman and developed over nearly 20 years into a nascent civil settlement and possibly the provincial capital. There may be other such sites not yet discovered. Waldgirmes was destroyed in the aftermath of Teutoberger Wald, which rather suggests expulsion from a developing province rather than armies wandering about an undeveloped Germany.
 
Likes: Olleus
Mar 2014
37
Paris (France)
#30
Louis accepting Charles II was basically the start of war.
I don't think so : England and Netherlands did recognize Philip V as the king of Spain in 1701. Otherwise they would have declared war immediately after the proclamation.
The proclamation took place on the 24th of November 1700 and the declaration of war took place the 15th of May 1702 so 18 months later.