Decisive Battles of the World of 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s

Here is some of The Most Important Battles of 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s

source: http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/mo...ttles.htm#1500

EDIT: I dont take credits for the text because I'm not the writer of the original text.. I have just made some minor changes..

I have done some minor changes.. But are these battles the most decisive battles of the world of 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s or is it more.. wanted to bring a thread discussion about 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s because I haven't seen so much discussion of the eras in Vestigia Vetustatis, just a few. well hope that this one is going to be a great discussion. I know there is more decisive battles but just more decisive to their country (that is fighting) alone than to the world..


1514, Battle of Orsha (Orsza). The Battle of Orsha halts Muscovy's expansion into Eastern Europe. It was one of the biggest battles of 16th-century Europe. The Polish-Lithuanian forces defeated the Muscovite army, capturing their camp, all 300 guns, and their commander. Due to the spectacular proportions of the defeat, information about the Battle of Orsha was suppressed in Muscovite chronicles. Even reputable historians of the Russian Empire such as Sergei Soloviov rely on non-Russian sources. Upset at word of the massive defeat, Muscovite ruler allegedly remarked that "the prisoners [were] as useful as the dead" and declined to negotiate their return.



1521, Siege of Tenochtitlan (modern day Mexico). It was the final, decisive battle that led to the downfall of the Aztec civilization and marked the end of the first phase of the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Tenochtitlan was a flourishing city with an estimated population of 200,000 ! The siege of Tenochtitlán began at a time when smallpox struck with a vengeance. Cortés's Indian allies suffered as well, with an estimated 40% mortality, but the effect on morale in Tenochtitlán, as they began to starve as well, must have been horrendous. Cortés took the city after a three-month siege, razed it, and captured the ruler, Cuauhtémoc, successor to Montezuma. The Spaniard founded present-day Mexico City on the ruins.


1525, Battle of Pavia: Spain and Germany defeat France in the decisive engagement of the Italian War. German and Spanish pikemen and arquebusiers descended on the French cavalry from all sides. Lacking room to maneuver, the French knights were surrounded and systematically killed. Suffolk and Lorraine, advancing to assist King Francis, were met by arriving German landsknechts, both having been killed. The French king fought on as his horse was killed from under him. The French suffered massive casualties, including many of the chief nobles of France; king Francis himself, was captured by the Spanish troops.


1533, Battle of Cuzco: Capital of the Inca empire taken by the Spanish. For Pizarro, this represented his ultimate goal - the occupation of the capital city. The importance of the Spaniards' horses was apparent to the defending Indians. The Indians "thought more of killing one of these animals [horses] that persecuted them so than they did of killing 10 men..." The Indians had only clubs and maces to fight against the mounted Spaniards with their armor, lances and swords, and the mountainous Andes did not provide enough suitable wood for pikes and arrows. The Spanish tactics of charging straight into the enemy time after time was remarkably brave and devastatingly effect.


1571, Battle of Lepanto: The Holy League's fleet consisted of 206 galleys and 6 galleasses, Ottoman Empire's fleet consisted of 220 galleys and 50-60 galliots. To this day, it is held by historians to be the most decisive naval battle occurring anywhere on the globe, in terms of size of the battle waged coupled with geopolitical ramifications, since the Battle of Actium of 31 BC. This battle marked the beginning of the downfall of "the Turk", the "Sempiternal Enemy of the Christian." One of the participants in the battle was Miguel de Cervantes, author of the world known masterpiece 'Don Quixote'.


1631, Battle of Breitenfeld: It was the battle where the redoubtable Gustavus II Adolphus sealed his fame and entered the annals of great military leaders, and from which some have labeled him as the Father of Modern Warfare for his unique mauneuver warfare style and early use of what is today referred to as combined arms tactics. While these matters are debatable as the innovations incorporated by Gustavus the Great were more derivative of others when taken singly, it is also true that he forged them and trained them into an army uniquely capable of high speed maneuver warfare with an extremely high rate of aimed fire.
Gustavus forces 23,000 swedes, 18,300 saxons (saxons escaped), casualties 3500 Swedes and 2000 Saxons dead. Tilly's forces 33,000-35,000, casualties 7,600 dead, 6000 captured (the captured later joined the swedish army.) Many deserted and Tilly only had around 6000-9000 men left after the battle.


1643, Battle of Rocroi: It was the first major defeat of a Spanish army in a century, although historians have noted that German, Walloon, and Italian troops actually surrendered first, while the Spanish infantry cracked only after repeated cavalry charges. The French carried out a huge cavalry encirclement, sweeping behind the Spanish army and smashing their way through to attack the rear of the Spanish cavalry that was still in combat with the reserves. The Battle of Rocroi put an end to the supremacy of Spanish military doctrine and inaugurated a long period of French military predominance. The 1659 Treaty of the Pyrenees ended the war in favour of France and confirmed the new reality brought about by Rocroi.


1683, Siege and Battle of Vienna: This battle had the most far-reaching consequences as it was the turning point in the 300-year struggle between the forces of the European kingdoms, and the Ottoman Empire. Approx. 70,000 German and Polish troops under King Jan Sobieski (nickanmed by the Turks The Lion of the North) defeated 130,000 Turks under Kara Mustapha Pasha. Instead of focusing on the battle with the relief army, the Turks also tried to force their way into the city, carrying their crescent flag. Four cavalry groups totalling 20,000 men, one of them Austrian-German, and the other three Polish, charged down the hills. The attack was led by the Polish king in front of a spearhead of 2000 heavily armed Polish Winged Knights.
Up till then that was the greatest cavalry charge in the history of Europe. It was not exceeded until the times of Napoleon. In honor of King Jan, the Austrians had erected a church atop a hill of Kahlenberg, north of Vienna. Also, the train route from Vienna to Warsaw is named in Sobieski's honor. Pope Innocentius XI regarded the defence of Vienna as his major achievement and the relief on his monument in St. Peter's was dedicated to this event, with the Catholic soldiers portrayed as ancient Romans.


1704 Battle of Blenheim (Höchstädt): It was a major battle of the War of the Spanish Succession. Eugene of Savoy (Austria) and Duke of Marlborough (England), defeated French-Bavarian army. and inflicted the first major defeat on the French for over 40 years. It ended King Louis XIV’s plans to dominate Europe and extend his power from Spain to Germany and Italy. Marlborough's descendant Winston Churchill wrote: “The destruction of the Armada had preserved the life of Britain: the charge at Blenheim opened her to the gateways of the modern world.” Eugene of Savoy's and Duke of Marlborough's forces: 52,000,
around 60 guns, casualties 4,542 killed,7,942 wounded.... Duc de Tallard's, Maximilian II Emanuel's, Ferdinand de Marsin's forces 56,000, around 90 guns, casualties 20,000,killed, drowned, or wounded, 14,190 captured.


1709 Battle of Poltava: It was a major battle of the War of the Great Northern War. The decisive victory of the Russians is said to have ended Sweden's role as a Great Power in Europe. Several thousand prisoners were taken, many of whom were put to work building the new city of St. Petersburg. Tsar of Russia, Peter the Great, modernized his army. King of Sweden, Charles, marched into Russia. When the battle opened, Charles had about 17,000 men and 8000 sieging Poltava, casualties 6,900 killed or wounded 2,800 prisoners, while Peter commanded 42,000–45,000 men and 72 cannons, casualties 1,345 killed, 3,200 wounded.


1746 Battle of Culloden: It was the last battle ever to be fought on British soil, between the forces of the Jacobites (5.000), who supported the claim of Charles Edward Stuart to the throne; and the Royal Army (9.000) which supported the Hanoverian sovereign, King George II. Culloden brought the Jacobite Rising to a close and broke the power of the Highland Scots, and severe civil penalties thereafter (e.g., it became a criminal offence to wear tartan). After their victory, Duke of Cumberland ordered his men to execute all the Jacobite wounded and prisoners, an act by which he was known afterwards as "the Butcher".


1757 Battle of Plassey: This battle is today seen as one of the pivotal battles leading to British Empire in India. The enormous wealth gained from the Bengal treasury after its victory in the battle allowed the British East India Company to significantly strengthen its military might. Robert Clive was appointed Governor of Bengal in 1765 for his efforts. Clive later committed suicide in 1774, after being addicted to opium.
At Plassey 800 British and 2,200 sepoys defeated 50,000 men led by Siraj Ud Daulah, the last independent Nawab of Bengal. The battle opened on a very hot and humid morning, where the Nawab's army came out of its fortified camp and launched a massive cannonade against the British camp. The battle cost the British East India Company just 72 killed and wounded, while the Nawab's army lost 500 men killed and wounded.


1757 Battle of Rossbach: This battle is considered as important from military point of view. This is one of the greatest masterpieces due to element of complete surprise and destroying an enemy army with negligible casualties (only 550 !) The total losses amongst the Allies were 10,000. Frederick the Great was heard to say "I won the battle of Rossbach with most of my infantry having their muskets shouldered." Frederick had defeated an entire Army of two combined European superpowers.
In this battle the Allies had 42,000-54,000 men against 20,000 under Fredrick. Frederick spent the morning watching them from a house-top and realized their intentions. The Allies offered him the battle for which he had manoeuvred in vain, and he took it without hesitation. Leaving a handful of light troops to oppose the Allied advanced post, he broke camp and moved. His swift move meant an attack upon the Allies before they could form up. Most of the allied cavalry in front was smashed to pieces by the charge of Prussian cavalry led by Seydlitz. Meanwhile the Allies tried in vain to form a line of battle. A few volleys of the iron-disciplined Prussian infantry sufficed to create disorder, and then von Seydlitz's cavalry charged. The Allied infantry thereupon broke and fled.


1757 Battle of Leuthen: It was a decisive victory for Frederick the Great that ensured his control over Silesia. This is important battle from military point of view as Frederick used Oblique Order. This is a tactic where an attacking army refocuses its forces to attack enemy flank. The commander would intentionally weaken one portion of the line to concentrate their troops elsewhere. They would then create an angled or oblique formation, refuse the weakened flank and attack the strongest flank of the enemy with a concentration of force. First recorded use of the tactic similar to oblique order was at the Battle of Leuctra, when the Thebans defeated the Spartans. This tactics required disciplined and well trained troops able to execute complex maneuvers.


1781 Battle of Yorktown: It was a victory by a combined American and French force led by Washington and Lafayette, and the French Comte de Rochambeau over the British army. A formal surrender ceremony took place on the morning following the battle. Cornwallis refused to attend out of pure embarrassment, claiming illness. According to legend, the British forces marched to the fife tune of "The World Turned Upside Down," though no real evidence of this exists. British Prime Minister Lord North resigned after receiving news of the surrender at Yorktown. His successors decided that it was no longer in Britain's best interest to continue the war, and negotiations were undertaken. The British signed the Treaty of Paris, recognizing the United States and promising to remove all her troops from the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IMPERATOR_5

1683, Siege and Battle of Vienna: This battle had the most far-reaching consequences as it was the turning point in the 300-year struggle between the forces of the European kingdoms, and the Ottoman Empire. Approx. 70,000 German and Polish troops under King Jan Sobieski (nickanmed by the Turks The Lion of the North) defeated 130,000 Turks under Kara Mustapha Pasha. Instead of focusing on the battle with the relief army, the Turks also tried to force their way into the city, carrying their crescent flag. Four cavalry groups totalling 20,000 men, one of them Austrian-German, and the other three Polish, charged down the hills. The attack was led by the Polish king in front of a spearhead of 2000 heavily armed Polish Winged Knights.
Up till then that was the greatest cavalry charge in the history of Europe. It was not exceeded until the times of Napoleon. In honor of King Jan, the Austrians had erected a church atop a hill of Kahlenberg, north of Vienna. Also, the train route from Vienna to Warsaw is named in Sobieski's honor. Pope Innocentius XI regarded the defence of Vienna as his major achievement and the relief on his monument in St. Peter's was dedicated to this event, with the Catholic soldiers portrayed as ancient Romans.

---

Yes yes yes, definately definately definately. Agree 100%.


Also, I must add that Lepanto was in no way decisive. The European Powers' inabilty , and unwillingness to follow through with the battle and strike at the Ottomans (all except Venice) negated the outcome of the battle. Within a year, the Ottoman navy was completely rebuilt, and even better than ever

Well, first of all imperator_5 great idea and also great choice of battles, you got it right :thumbsup2 to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IMPERATOR_5

1533, Battle of Cuzco: Capital of the Inca empire taken by the Spanish. For Pizarro, this represented his ultimate goal - the occupation of the capital city. The importance of the Spaniards' horses was apparent to the defending Indians. The Indians "thought more of killing one of these animals [horses] that persecuted them so than they did of killing 10 men..." The Indians had only clubs and maces to fight against the mounted Spaniards with their armor, lances and swords, and the mountainous Andes did not provide enough suitable wood for pikes and arrows. The Spanish tactics of charging straight into the enemy time after time was remarkably brave and devastatingly effect.

---

About the conquest of Peru, I think that the battle(if whe can call it that) at Cajamarca where the Spanish met for the first time Atahualpa and took him prisoner was the most decisive.The inca's army was about 100.000 men I think and the Spanish were about 200 or 300 guys.I read the dairy that one of the Spaniards wrote.The night before the meeting, the inca's camp was so big that the spaniards were frightened (some even cried of dispair).Pizarro's tactic was simple, if they wanted to get out alive they had to make an ambush and strike directly in the center.The incas had never seen horses and guns they would get scared and that is the moment to strike at Atahualpa.But even if the plan was clever and that the incas were going to get scared, their numbers were so great that is was almost impossible to succeed.
So why deed it succeed? Because the incas came with no arms.
Why did they come with no arms? Well Atahualpa was not stupid and not a martyr.The diseases brought from Europe had killed the Inca and the legitimate heir.So that a civille broke between Atahualpa and his brother.Atahualpa prevailed.But he was only Inca for a few time and he had enemies, his power was contested, he had to do something.Then little time after that came the Spaniards.They were considered by almost every inca as gods who made thunder and had horses.The Inca was also considered as a god (son of the sun).Atahualpa knew they weren't gods.His army was very big and he new the spaniards were only a few.If he Atahualpa(a god) makes run away the other gods(the spaniards) afraid from him without even arms, that would be a big sign.He was the strongest and would that way settle his authority.Atahualpa played poker, and he lost.The Spaniards didn't run away, they fought and the inca's army couldn't defend themselves, afraid and surprised.The spaniards attacked the chair of Atahualpa and killed the bearers and everytime a bearer felt another soldier came to hold it cause Atahualpa couldn't fall.After that without Atahualpa and without army Cuzco was there to take.

Terrific work IMPERATOR_5!

I have no time for narratives right now, but, off the top of my head, I would proclaim the defeat of the Spanish Armada (1588), Sekigahara (1600), Naseby (1645), Quebec (1759), and Saratoga (1777) as decisive battles, in terms of influential aftermath. Just how decisive a clash was, however, is always a matter for discussion.

Thanks Spartan JKM :original:

I would add the terrible battle of Batoh as well. In 1652 the elite of the Polish army was sent to intercept Cossack-Tatar force marchig to Moldavia.

So he marched without scouts, with ignorant confidence which not only was stupid, but also lowered the morale of the army. As a politician who should never be a field commander Marcin Kalinowski was well known as a drunkard and incopetent leader who was humilated at Korsun 4 years earlier. The fact he was still the commander resulted from political intrigues of the king Jan Kazimierz who thought that by placing wrong people in command of the Crown Army he would increase his own influence in the army.

The campaign was possibly the worst in history of Polish army and finally the 10 000 strong army was defeated after its discipline reached lowest levels especially after all those veterans seen what is happening with the campaign, supplies and generally with everything the commander did. Tatars and Cossacks killed the POWs (in revenge for the carnage at Beresteczko in 1651). Since those 10 000 were the elite core of the Polish army the defeat had devastating consequences.
The veteran troopers served for many years before, fought in numerous campaigns and were known to be excellent soldiers and officers (this included brother of Jan Sobieski - Marek) and the Crown army needed several years to recover from the defeat.
Some even claim it never did e.g. the number of Husaria ( Winged Hussars) dropped to lowest levels.
The defeat undermined trust to the king ( no wonder), made defeating Cossacks even less likely to happen and encouraged the Russians and Swedes to attack the Commonwealth which because of several factors - with this defeat as one of the most serious ones - resulted in huge destruction and to some degree helped the Russians to win the war which lasted to 1667 ( they lost all later battles and infact lost the army, but weakened Polish-Lithuanian state couldn't strike a decisive blow).
The treaty of 1667 thought to be temporary one by the Polish side proved to have lasting consequences - the fruitless wars with the Ottoman Empire drained resources of the Commonwealth so that the planned counterstrike against Russia was never initiated, it also allowed Prussia to survive its embrionic state and later the Commonwealth couldn't get rid of it alone.

It is interesting that battle of such a big impact is so dull and was the direct result of the misakes made by one man - the commander of the army. There is even difficult to describe it...



BTW IMPERATOR_5
actually quoted that webside adding little if anything at all... That is a very informative side in general.

Regards Cegorach :thumbsup2

I think I may have that book that you got those from,maybe not the explanations though.

What book would that be?

I would like to make some comments concerning the battle of poltava. First of all the swedish military high command made a huge mistake when they had defeated the russian army led by Peter the Great at Narva.
They decided to march south into poland instead of pursuing Peter and ending the russian threat once and for all. the reason why they marched into poland was that Charles XII wanted to dispose of the polish king August who was also count of Sachsen at this time. August could claim direct descendance from Sigismund I who was the legitimate king of sweden until the duke Charles defeated him at the battle of Brunkeberg. August had therefore legitimate claims on the swedish throne, and the reason for Charles XII:s campaign was to make him give up these claims.

However when he decided to wage war in Poland Charles gave the russians the time they required to raise a new army which they did, and it was this army that later defeated Charles at the battle of Poltava.
Had Charles decided to march into Russia instead of Poland the outcome of The Great Northern War might very well have been different.

charles made the strategicily right decision to attack the poles but when he went into russia General winter took care of his men

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandora

August could claim direct descendance from Sigismund I who was the legitimate king of sweden until the duke Charles defeated him at the battle of Brunkeberg.

---

you mean the battle of Stångebro (1598) not Brunkeberg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Yes yes yes, definately definately definately. Agree 100%.


Also, I must add that Lepanto was in no way decisive. The European Powers' inabilty , and unwillingness to follow through with the battle and strike at the Ottomans (all except Venice) negated the outcome of the battle. Within a year, the Ottoman navy was completely rebuilt, and even better than ever

---

Still it broke the Ottoman's hegemonial claims on the Mediterran and gave European powers along the coast the self confidence to contest it. The main point is like with the defeat of the Armada not that the Ottoman's lost their naval capabilities (like the Spaniards they didn't) but that they failed to destroy the naval powers that challenged them so that they remained in the game to keep challenging them in the future (just like England who would then replace Spain)

It was deceisive in that it was not the deceisive victory that would have made the Ottoman naval power in the Mediterran the sole force of the area, let alone the morale and propaganda boost the Europeans got from it.

True, the Battle of Lepanto did not break Ottoman power, but rather ended the fear of the Turks which had been generating in Christian Europe for the previous century (ies?). The Ottoman Empire could now be considered a weakening power, one which could now be beaten. I would go out on a limb to claim that the moral aspect won for Christain Europe at this battle over the Ottomans exceeds the degree of the political climate it established in the Mediterranean. However, I don't think the political potential of the Spanish/Venetian victory ever fostered to the level it could have. Didn't the Holy league begin bickering from within? But I am certain the likes of Bulgaroctonus and Mangolore exceed the degree of my knowledge of this period :yes:

One great significance derived from the Lepanto was that it was the last great naval clash which saw oar-driven galleys; ships with rowers and swordsmen gave way to ships with sails and cannons, which saw action here, though I think in the minority in terms of numbers. Just 17 years later, the Spanish Armada was thwarted in a great naval battle which saw the utilization of sails and cannons, used from both side almost entirely. Battles at sea could now be decided at a distance.

A naval battle which probabaly had a more direct influence upon the massive, far-reaching conflict between the Europen Christendom and Dar Islam, was the Battle of Diu, fought off western India in 1509. Here, the Portuguese established Europe's foothold in the Far East, gaining the Indies trade. The Dutch, English, and French would follow, jostling in and establishing their separate sections of sovereignty. When the 16th century began, Islam seemed poised to dominate much of the world. This prospect seemingly sank irrevocably off the port of Diu in 1509; mastery of the Indian Ocean was lost to them for good. Looking back, this was an immense factor in determining the nature of the historical link between the Far East and Europe following Francisco de Almeida's naval victory over the Muslims. However, the Ottomans did capture Rhodes some 13 years later, but not Malta in the 1560s (?)

Thanks, Spartan JKM :)

i would add battle of denain in 1712 (spanish succesion war) . french marshall villars defeated by using marlborough tactics the prince of savoy eugene in the north of france. this battle was decisive because this victory led to the the utrecht talks who change radically the political configuration of europe

Imperator_5: Yes Indeed i do there have been so many battles in the history of Sweden that it is hard to keep track of them all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandora

Imperator_5: Yes Indeed i do there have been so many battles in the history of Sweden that it is hard to keep track of them all

---

yeah I know, it happens

I am a history noob, so the only descisive battle that I know of this peroid was the spanish armada, well when it sunk, if it never sunk, then the Americans, as in the USA, would probably be speaking Spanish instead of English, the USA would be an overhwlmingly Cathloic country.

More info about the Spanish armada -

The Spanish Armada or "Great/Grand Armada" (Old Spanish: Grande y Felicísima Armada, "large and most fortunate fleet"; but called by the English, with ironic intention, la Armada Invencible, "the Invincible Fleet") refers to the Spanish-controlled fleet which sailed against England in 1588, with the intention of escorting an invading army across the southern North Sea, near the Strait of Dover. It was the largest fleet up until its time [citation needed] and was sent by the Catholic King Philip II of Spain in a failed attempt to bring an end to a conflict with England. It was the largest campaign of the undeclared Anglo–Spanish War.

The Spanish fleet, which consisted of about 130 warships and converted merchant ships, was not crushingly defeated by the English Navy, but in the Battle of Gravelines, in the North Sea off the coast at the border between France and the Spanish Netherlands, was scattered by an English fire-ship attack followed up with the use of artillery. This meant that the Armada had failed in its intent to rendezvous with the land-based component of its invasion plan and was forced to flee back to Spain by circumnavigating Great Britain and Ireland, perhaps with the intention of re-grouping. Very severe weather on a lee-shore off the western coasts of Britain and Ireland then turned a tactical defeat into a strategic one.

The battle is greatly misunderstood, as many myths have surrounded it. From wikipedia.

Informative thread, so moved and indexed in the Musaeum :yes:

I want to add two more decisive wars ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Preveza_(1538)

A peace treaty was signed between Venice and the Ottoman Empire in October 1540, under which the Turks took control of the Venetian possessions in the Morea and in Dalmatia and of the formerly Venetian islands in the Aegean, Ionian and eastern Adriatic Seas. Venice also had to pay a war indemnification of 300,000 ducats of gold to the Ottoman Empire.
With the victory at Preveza and the subsequent victory in the Battle of Djerba in 1560, the Ottoman Empire successfully repulsed the efforts of Venice and Spain, the two principal Mediterranean powers, to stop the Turkish drive to control the Mediterranean. This only changed with the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.

and here the most interesting victory over an army not to lose any men on warfield :laughter: , it is totally self disaster ..

The Battle of Karánsebes (Romanian: Caransebeş,Turkish: Şebeş Savaşı) was an early episode in the Austro-Turkish War of 1787-1791. Different portions of an Austrian army, which was scouting for forces of the Ottoman Empire, fired on each other by mistake, in a self-inflicted disaster. The battle took place on the evening of 17 September 1788. Ottomans were victorious and captured the city.
The army of Austria, approximately 100,000 strong, was setting up camp around the town of Karánsebes (now Caransebeş, in modern Romania). The army's vanguard, a contingent of hussars, crossed the Timiş River nearby to scout for the presence of the Ottoman Turks. There was no sign of the Ottoman army, but the hussars did run into a group of Gypsies, who offered to sell schnapps to the war-weary soldiers. The cavalrymen bought the schnapps and started to drink.
Soon afterwards, some infantry crossed the river. When they saw the party going on, the infantry demanded alcohol for themselves. The hussars refused to give them any of the schnapps, and while still drunk, they set up makeshift fortifications around the barrels. A heated argument ensued, and one soldier fired a shot.
Immediately, the hussars and infantry engaged in combat with one another. During the conflict, some infantry began shouting "Turcii! Turcii!" (Romanian for "The Turks! The Turks!"). The hussars fled the scene, thinking that the Ottoman army’s attack was imminent. Most of the infantry also ran away; the army comprised Italians from Lombardy, Slavs from the Balkans, and Austrians, plus other minorities, many of whom could not understand each other. While it is not clear which one of these groups did so, they gave the false warning without telling the others, who promptly fled. The situation was made worse when officers, in an attempt to restore order, shouted "Halt! Halt!" which was misheard by soldiers with no knowledge of German as "Allah! Allah!".
As the cavalry ran through the camps, a corps commander reasoned that it was a cavalry charge by the Ottoman army, and ordered artillery fire. Meanwhile, the entire camp awoke to the sound of battle and, rather than waiting to see what the situation was, everyone fled. The troops fired at every shadow, thinking the Ottomans were everywhere; in reality they were shooting fellow Austrian soldiers. The incident escalated to the point where the whole army retreated from the imaginary enemy, and Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II was pushed off his horse into a small creek.
Two days later, the Ottoman army arrived. They discovered 10,000 dead and wounded soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartan JKM

A naval battle which probabaly had a more direct influence upon the massive, far-reaching conflict between the Europen Christendom and Dar Islam, was the Battle of Diu, fought off western India in 1509. Here, the Portuguese established Europe's foothold in the Far East, gaining the Indies trade. The Dutch, English, and French would follow, jostling in and establishing their seperate sections of sovereignty. When the 15th century began, Islam seemed poised to dominate much of the world. This prospect seemingly sank irrevocably off the port of Diu in 1509; mastery of the Indian Ocean was lost to them for good. Looking back, this was an immense factor in determining the nature of the historical link between the Far East and Europe following Francisco de Almeida's naval victory over

---

Rep +
You are absolutely correct.

The battle:
Source: Connections:Key themes in world History, Glenn Ames:

"Emir Husain Husain Mushrif al-Kurdi´s fleet (1) reached the Indian coast in late 1507 and joined with the forces of Malik Ayaz, the governor of the port of Diu for the sultan of Gujarat, who provided 60 ships for the Muslim armada. In March 1508, the D. Lourenço de Almeida engaged this powerful fleet with the force of 12 ships and 600 men. In a three day battle, the superiority of the Portuguese ship-born artillary was confirmed.
But he overhelming numbers of Emir Husain and Malik Ayaz and tactical mistakes by D. Lourenço, resulted in the defeat of the Portuguese.
During the final stages of the battle, the younger Almeida, after having his thigh broken by a ball, had himself tied to the mast of his flagship to continue lead his troops. There, he was struck by another ball, wich ended his life. In this engagement, Portuguese losses were 140 killed and 124 wounded; the Muslim losses were perhaps 400. News of Emir Husain´s victory in this battle touched off three days of celebration in Cairo. Yet this celebrations were premature.

The death of his beloved son only hardened Almeida´s antipathy toward Islam. Afonso de Albuquerque reach Cochin in late 1508 with secret orders from the king naming him governor of Portuguese India. Yet, Almeida refused to hand over power until he had exacted revenge against Emir Hussain and Malik Ayaz.
The viceroy sailed north in December 1508 with 18 ships and 1,200 men. On the February 1509, the fleet reached Diu. There, Emir Husain´s fleet of 12 Egyptian ships supported by another 100 Muslim ships waited at anchor.
On 3 Frebruary, in one of the seminal battles of the 16th century, the Portuguese viceroy advanced into the harbor and engaged the Muslim fleet. In this battle, Almeida´s triumph was complete. Emir Husain was wounded and his fleet badly mauled. Most of the Muslim ships were plundered and then set aflame; the colours of both the sultan of Egypt and Emir Husain were captured and sent to Lisbon.
Muslim naval power in the Indian ocean was destroyed"


(1) Inspired by Venice. In fact, let´s hear Bailey Diffie and George Winius, in "The Foundations of the Portuguese Empire":

"The Venetians...in 1502..they began to think again about the condition of their Eastern trade. By this time, they must also have scarcely been able to tolerate the irony of their attempt to enlist King´s Manuel help against the Turks. For all the while this king was busy wrecking their Levantine trade at its source, he feigned his cordiality by knighting Ambassador Pietro Pasqualigo and making the Signoria godfather to his baby son. This was apparently more than the Venetians could bear.
In the spring of 1502, the Signoria recalled Pasqualigo and broke diplomatic relations with Portugal. The Venetians appointed a comission of 15 notables in december 1502, whose job it was to consider what might be done oust Manuel´s ship from the Indian Ocean, or at least prevent them from doing further damage. At the behest of this group, the Signoria lost no time in hurrying off a new ambassador to Egypt. He proposed "rapid and secret remedies" -if news leaked out to the Christian world,no one could maintain that Venice necessarely supported the downfall of a fellow Catholic power at the hands of the infidel.
The Sultan took the only course open to him and prepared an armada to do battle with the Portuguese interlopers. His realms lacked timber, for one thing, and this had to be obtained from the Black-Sea in 25 rented vessels.
Moreover, even before he received his raw materials, the wheather and the Crusaders combined to favour Portugal. While sailing in the vicinity of Rodhes, the Egyptian convoy encoutered unexpectedly a fleet of the Hospitaliers of St. John, commanded coincidentally by a Portuguese, who laid the convoy with a will and sank or captured elven vessels. Later, the weakened remnant fleet ran in a fierce storm and lost another four ships. Only two-fifths of the original lumber ever reached Alexandria.
The original order might have built thirty or more large galleys; as it was the commander, Amir Hussain, left port in February 1507 to join his allies in India with a only a dozen large vessels and about 1,500 combatants.

Whether the Venetians took part in these preparations remains unknown. It is far more certain that the Venetians wished the Sultan well and were at first elated and then more deeply pessimistic than ever when they heard the results."

Battle of Alcacer Quibir, it's aftermath was.. catastrophic, and paved the way for Spanish superiority in relation to Portugal for the incoming centuries.