Apologies if this has been discussed before. Does the idea of 'turning points' over emphasise certain moments, while making everything else seem stagnant simply because whatever is happening doesn't have relevance to historians now? To give two examples; Joan of Arc's victories are seen to be a 'turning point', but does that over-simplify the complexities of the Treaty of Troyes, of minority rule, etc. etc.? Are the developments in the years preceding and after her death often looked at less closely? A more important example (to me): does the idea and even search for a 'turning point' that enabled industrialisation etc. in Western Europe obscure the study of events that don't seem to have led to empires? Or the study of societies that didn't colonise half the world? Does the search for 'turning points' (and the assumptions inherent in the trajectory studied) create assumptions that it is difficult for historians to overcome? I'd be really interested in anybody's thoughts. I originally posted this unthinkingly on April 1st and was advised to repost, so here goes!
I totally agree with your premise. THe first such thing that comes to mind is Edward Creacey's 15 Decisive Battles of History; which is a nice read but really the premise is so flawed. If you think about it logically, presuming that one battle can turn around a whole nation or a whole history. Then wouldnt it follow that one encounter in that battle could turn it around? And so on, so that even one soldier vs one soldier could turn around the battle.
So if Gettysburg was the decisive battle of the american civil war, then the battle for Little Roiund top maybe the decisive encouinter of that battle. And EM Law's Alabama brigade becomes the decisive unit, and some guy fighting the flag bearer in that enounter becomes the decisive fight...
SO one guy kills the flag bearer or whatever and....the whole United States turns out differently.
I dont think its quite that simple. Its more like a million butterflys flapping at once and that guy is just one of them.