I like to think, as probably many, that wars are extreme disruptors of long term trends, and have the ability to dramatically alter structures in the economy and culture of society. Following this hypothesis, the losing or winning of important battles in these wars are enormous hinges, were the door could swing either way - stagnate, or quicken historical processes. Now, are you guys aware of any theorys that may support this hypothesis?
I don't think you're going to find anyone who will deny your proposition. War changes a society, as do its results. Certain battles change the war, and by syllogism, the society. However, it doesn't amount to much. Many of us are privileged to live in a world where we can point to definitive periods of war. This has not been the case through much of history, nor is it even the case for parts of the world today.
Let's take an example from my studies: Early Intermediate Period (EIP) Peruvian Andes. This is the time from around 200 BC - 600 AD. Before 200 BC, a religious pilgrimage center called Chavin de Huantar exhibited a powerful culture dominance over much of the region. Groups closer to it, like those in the Ancash region where I work, exhibited little local variance and were only centralized around important ceremonial centers. The common Chavin ties kept groups fairly dispersed and at least tolerant of each other. Eventually, though, the Chavin cult declined and local chiefs sought to fill the power void. This led to what we call the EIP, a time of flourishing local cultures and increased interregional warfare. One group I study, the Recuay, exemplified this in what some have termed a "warfare culture." When once people settled by resources and river valleys, the Recuay chiefs organized defensive compounds in hilltops, and at the very edge of cliffs. Sprawling residential "apartments" had narrow back doors and no exterior windows; getting to them required climbing concentric terraces, crossing ditches, and navigating perilous mountain passages.
This is not a culture where "war" would change much. Excluding tornado shelters, I cannot tell you the closest defensive structure to me. I am in the middle of a large urban settlement that is entirely unprepared to defend against any form of attack should our military fail. Recuay settlements were built out of conflict; we might even say that distinct "war" events didn't exist amid the frequent inter-chief conflicts. They built their high walls first and then developed the fields and corrals around them.
But how do we define a "war" then? Distinct military campaigns? Concerted offensive/defensive efforts outside of everyday life? Official declarations of war have only been around so long and are only so relevant. But if we take a more practical definition of war, your theory becomes rather circular:
Of course it's true that something which changes the status quo changes the status quo.