Decisive Battles and The End of War

[Teallaura]

I was thinking about this recently while working on a sermon. Military history is far from my specialty so I'm asking, am I mistaken in my understanding that most wars do not end with the decisive battle? That is, the decisive battle is not usually the final battle. Battles and skirmishes, it seems to me, are fought even after the decisive battle in many if not most instances. Am I correct?

How would I go about researching that - sans reading every military history I can find (I don't wanna know that badly! ).

Thanks!

[Amazing Rando]

A major battle of the war of 1812 (New Orleans) was fought long after the peace treaty was signed because of the delay in notifying everyone that the war was over.

[Durthorin]

I was thinking about this recently while working on a sermon. Military history is far from my specialty so I'm asking, am I mistaken in my understanding that most wars do not end with the decisive battle? That is, the decisive battle is not usually the final battle. Battles and skirmishes, it seems to me, are fought even after the decisive battle in many if not most instances. Am I correct?

How would I go about researching that - sans reading every military history I can find (I don't wanna know that badly! ).

Thanks!

There is a military axiom that no single battle decides a war in modern warfare. (Ancient warfare no so true, in those days a single battle often did decide the entire war.. since both sides had all their warriors and only one army.)

Look here and see if that helps.

http://www.lbdb.com/DecisiveBattles.cfm

[Teallaura]

A major battle of the war of 1812 (New Orleans) was fought long after the peace treaty was signed because of the delay in notifying everyone that the war was over.

Yeah, that was the one that had come to mind. (Not all that impressive really - I happen to know all the words to "The Battle of New Orleans". Songs I remember - history not so much. )

There is a military axiom that no single battle decides a war in modern warfare. (Ancient warfare no so true, in those days a single battle often did decide the entire war.. since both sides had all their warriors and only one army.)

Look here and see if that helps.

http://www.lbdb.com/DecisiveBattles.cfm

Thanks! I'll check it out!

[Tladatsi]

Durthorin is correct. In ancient times, wars basically consisted of a single battle. Once that battle was over, the war was over. When the Phillistines (Sea People) marched south along the coast of what is now Isreal, they defeated each of the Canaanite cities in a single battle and burnt their cities to the ground. They prepared to invade Egypt. However the Egyptian army and navy met them in Canaan and completely crushed the Phillistines is a single decisive battle (the first ever recorded combined land-sea battle). This was about 1100 BC. The surviving Phillistines settled in five citites along the coast where they were stopped by the Egyptians (pretty much in modern Gaza). The built five cites on the ruins of some of the Canaanite cities they destroyed.

Having said that, there are often decisive battles that reverese the direction of the war. Gettysburg in the US Civil War or Stalingrad in WW II. While neither ended the war, both were crushing defeats that marked a decisive shift in momentum. The Conferates and Nazi were basically in retreat for the reast of their respective wars.

I was thinking about this recently while working on a sermon. Military history is far from my specialty so I'm asking, am I mistaken in my understanding that most wars do not end with the decisive battle? That is, the decisive battle is not usually the final battle. Battles and skirmishes, it seems to me, are fought even after the decisive battle in many if not most instances. Am I correct?

How would I go about researching that - sans reading every military history I can find (I don't wanna know that badly! ).

Thanks!

[Teallaura]

Okay, I'm a bit confused. I can see where small wars like between small nations or city states might well end in a single battle - makes sense. But what about long campaigns like Alexander the Great's conquests or the campaigns of Rome? Are they not ancient enough or exceptions or what?

I can get more confused it you like - I'm good at it.

[Darth Executor]

Okay, I'm a bit confused. I can see where small wars like between small nations or city states might well end in a single battle - makes sense. But what about long campaigns like Alexander the Great's conquests or the campaigns of Rome? Are they not ancient enough or exceptions or what?

I can get more confused it you like - I'm good at it.

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

[SpinyNorman]

Durthorin is correct. In ancient times, wars basically consisted of a single battle. Once that battle was over, the war was over. When the Phillistines (Sea People) marched south along the coast of what is now Isreal, they defeated each of the Canaanite cities in a single battle and burnt their cities to the ground. They prepared to invade Egypt. However the Egyptian army and navy met them in Canaan and completely crushed the Phillistines is a single decisive battle (the first ever recorded combined land-sea battle). This was about 1100 BC. The surviving Phillistines settled in five citites along the coast where they were stopped by the Egyptians (pretty much in modern Gaza). The built five cites on the ruins of some of the Canaanite cities they destroyed.

Having said that, there are often decisive battles that reverese the direction of the war. Gettysburg in the US Civil War or Stalingrad in WW II. While neither ended the war, both were crushing defeats that marked a decisive shift in momentum. The Conferates and Nazi were basically in retreat for the reast of their respective wars.

Actually it was Gettysburg combined with the fall of Vicksburg.

[Durthorin]

Okay, I'm a bit confused. I can see where small wars like between small nations or city states might well end in a single battle - makes sense. But what about long campaigns like Alexander the Great's conquests or the campaigns of Rome? Are they not ancient enough or exceptions or what?

I can get more confused it you like - I'm good at it.

A function of size, when nation state moved out of the single city state one single army stage an into empires such as Persia that had the ability to loose a battle and still raise a second or even third army. Often at this time if a king died in the battle the war was still effectivly over. There are a number of factors that start going into it at this stage.

[ShadowLands]

Having said that, there are often decisive battles that reverese the direction of the war. Gettysburg in the US Civil War or Stalingrad in WW II. While neither ended the war, both were crushing defeats that marked a decisive shift in momentum. The Conferates and Nazi were basically in retreat for the reast of their respective wars.

Midway is another classic example. It was the most decisive victory of the war in the Pacific Theatre. Though the war against Japan continued three years after the battle, Midway effectively crippled the Imperial Japanese Navy such that they could not muster an adequate aero-naval defense in the Pacific isles.

[Tladatsi]

A function of size, when nation state moved out of the single city state one single army stage an into empires such as Persia that had the ability to loose a battle and still raise a second or even third army. Often at this time if a king died in the battle the war was still effectivly over. There are a number of factors that start going into it at this stage.

Suffice it to say, it is possible for a single battle to decisively end a war, it is just not too common. Also, history books and military historians rarely report on such wars and battles as they are really not particular interesting (with the possible exception of the battle I mentioned above).

Far more commonly it is a single battle that reverses the momentum of the war.

[Cyrus Johnson]

There is a military axiom that no single battle decides a war in modern warfare. (Ancient warfare no so true, in those days a single battle often did decide the entire war.. since both sides had all their warriors and only one army.)

Not always. Look at the slapdown delived by the Carthagenian Hannibal on the Roman Legions in Cannae (and other spots). That battle is even today studied as a classic example of encirclement with inferior forces. The Roman losses were nauseating...60-65,000 men butchered against 6-7 thousand Carthagineans...more than the American total in Vietnam. And yet Hannibal was made to wander about the Roman countryside for a while, never having forced Rome to come to terms. Eventually Rome found a general to bust him up.

[The Curtmudgeon]

A major battle of the war of 1812 (New Orleans) was fought long after the peace treaty was signed because of the delay in notifying everyone that the war was over.

Not to drag this thread off topic, but it can be argued that N'awlins was not a major battle of 1812, simply because it did come after the peace treaty was already signed. The point being that the peace treaty was not re-negotiated, nor is it likely that it would have been had the British won there. If the Brits had won and occupied the city, as was their intention, they would simply have been forced to hand it back since the peace treaty negated any potential effects of the battle. Since the Americans (and pirates!) won, which didn't upset the results of the treaty, nothing was done except bury the fallen (those that the Looziana crocs hadn't already taken care of).

So although N'awlins was possibly the largest single land battle of the war, it was not significant. If you're using "major battle" merely in terms of size, then yes, it was major, but I contend that that's not a useful criteria. Cannae would be another example of a major-in-size-but-insignificant battle, since Hannibal couldn't (or at least didn't) capitalise on it, except for the very significant point that it introduced a major tactical shift (a tactical shift that the British were to re-learn at Islandhwana a few millenia later -- and the Zulus did no better in the long haul than Hannibal).

The (still, Battle of New Orleans is a great song!) Curtmudgeon

[Cyrus Johnson]

I was thinking about this recently while working on a sermon. Military history is far from my specialty so I'm asking, am I mistaken in my understanding that most wars do not end with the decisive battle? That is, the decisive battle is not usually the final battle. Battles and skirmishes, it seems to me, are fought even after the decisive battle in many if not most instances. Am I correct?

How would I go about researching that - sans reading every military history I can find (I don't wanna know that badly! ).

Thanks!

Getting back to the OP, yes, it is correct to say that most wars simply do not end with one decisive battle. Usually the losing side will continue to stagger along for a while before the final realization kicks in and they are ground down to the last. Even in Nazi Germany with the Russians pounding down the Brandenburg Gate, they held out some hope in the last days that the British and Americans would turn and help them defeat the Soviets together.

It's hard to even find examples where one side just gives up after a major loss, in modern times. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the 1896 war (if you want to call that modern) between England and Zanzibar. The whole war lasted only 45 minutes as the Sultan's army and his only armed vessel were decimated after a Royal Navy bombardment. The Sultan himself retreated to the German embassy where he was granted asylum. Then the British sent the Zanzibar government a bill for the shells.

[Durthorin]

Not always. Look at the slapdown delived by the Carthagenian Hannibal on the Roman Legions in Cannae (and other spots). That battle is even today studied as a classic example of encirclement with inferior forces. The Roman losses were nauseating...60-65,000 men butchered against 6-7 thousand Carthagineans...more than the American total in Vietnam. And yet Hannibal was made to wander about the Roman countryside for a while, never having forced Rome to come to terms. Eventually Rome found a general to bust him up.

The key point is that Carthage and Rome had both reached a stage were they could and did have multiply armies in the field. Loosing a battle didn't end a war in most nation state wars after they acheived this. As I said earlier in reference to Alexander's conquest of Persia.. IF the defeated side had the ability to raise another army. Then the war could and often did continue