What is the most amazing military victory in the history of the world? - Page 2

Ned · October 4, 2002, 18:41

Alesia. Caesar, outnumber 6-1, and attacked from two sides at once, won! I cannot think of a greater victory.

molly bloom · October 4, 2002, 19:04

I like Towton:

http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/archs...t97/towton.htm

and Carrhae

http://ancienthistory.about.com/libr...ianmiragec.htm

The capitulation of Singapore in WWII springs to mind as well.

Ethelred · October 4, 2002, 19:06

Quote:

I cannot think of a greater victory.

How about this one, with Caesar. He took all of Egypt with two legions.

Capt Dizle · October 4, 2002, 19:06

Uh, I think when Connan stormed Rip Torn's fortress.

Saint Marcus · October 4, 2002, 19:07

Romans kick ass

Mihai · October 4, 2002, 19:53

Cannae of course.
There was no tehnological gap (as it was in some mesure at Agincourt), no good defensive position to hold on (Termopyle, Alesia, Masada). Just briliant tactics of Hannibal won that battle so decisive (90,000 legionars dead).

Saint Marcus · October 4, 2002, 20:04

I know a better one

De Gulden Sporen Slag

Saint Marcus · October 4, 2002, 20:06

or Slag der Gulden Sporen

it was back in 1302. A group of Flemish country folk defeated a well organised army for the first time in medieval history.

Chemical Ollie · October 4, 2002, 20:33

Seen the movie or read the book Blackhawk Down, anyone?

Not that I like the American's recent foreign politics much, but a kill percentage of 10-1 for grunts stuck on the ground is impressive. And the Sammies deserved it (IMO). I have met Swedish UN soldiers who where there and they agree.

But if you want 1000-1 victories how about the ground campaign of the Gulf War 1991?

Saint Marcus · October 4, 2002, 20:34

that was hardly impressive. it was the world's biggest gangbang

MosesPresley · October 4, 2002, 21:10

American carpet bombings in the last few wars have yielded a 600-1 kill ratio, but I digress.

Napoleon at Austerlitz anyone?

Dr Strangelove · October 4, 2002, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Ethelred

They won and the Brits lost almost every single man. Yet at Roarks Drift with about the same ratio of attackers to defenders the Brits won.

They pretty much didn't have time for tactics of any kind. They were overrun before they could do much. The whole thing was a botch but the Brits still had the same guns there as at Roarks Drift and Zulus had the same weapons.

At Islandwanha the British troops were each issued only 10 rounds each and had not brought up their "machine guns". At Roark's drift the rear echilon troops were sitting on an ammo dump, and had plenty of time to set up their machine guns.

Ethelred · October 5, 2002, 00:06

There weren't any machine guns at Roarks Drift. Not even a gatling gun which is what the Brits had at and wasted at Isandlawana.

I was wrong on the number of men at Roark's Drift. It was 145 or there abouts. The Zulu had about 4500 Impi. The Brits did have a quite a bit of ammunition. 20,000 rounds at the start. They had 900 at the end. But no machine guns of any kind.

Great site on Roark's Drift. Including coverage of myths like the Zulu's using rifles capture at Isandhlwana. They had them before that. Not very good ones apparently.

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/battle/...ce_account.htm

As for a shortage of ammunition at Isandlwana that appears to be at least partly myth. One unit did run out and had to retreat but men were firing heavily till killed all over the battlefield.

http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/Secrets.html

http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/myths.htm

That is a very good site on the Zulu war.

David Floyd · October 5, 2002, 00:15

Say what you like about the quality of Iraqi troops, but the Coalition victory vs. Iraq was fairly spectacular.

Let's see...Midway, of course, Israel in the 6 Day War...those are just a few that haven't been mentioned yet.

Ned · October 5, 2002, 02:44

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Say what you like about the quality of Iraqi troops, but the Coalition victory vs. Iraq was fairly spectacular.

Let's see...Midway, of course, Israel in the 6 Day War...those are just a few that haven't been mentioned yet.

It was. But it was a forgone conclusion given the Coalition's air supremacy.

The greater glory goes to commanders who prevail against an equal general that has vetern troops and there is a level playing field in terms of technology. How many times has this occured in history? Very few. Caesar beat Pompey, thereby cementing his reputation in my book. Scipio beat Hannibal. Grant beat Lee. Wellington beat Napoleon.

I am sure there must be some similar victories by equaly matched opponents in Chinese and Japanese history.

Even Sharon's victory in the Sanai in '73 is worthy of mention. Until he arrived and took command, the Israeli's were losing.

Zkribbler · October 5, 2002, 03:33

It isn't so much the fact that the UN won against Iraq in Desert Storm as much as it is the fact they took out the world's 4th largest army (battle hardened) while losing only 100 killed.

Thanks to David Floyd for reminding us of Midway and the 6-Day War. Both are excellent nominations.

For consideration, I'd like to add Nelson's victories at Tafalgar and the Battle of the Nile, Wellington's many victories--especially in India, the WWII German victory over the French & British when they flanked the Maginot Line, and Washington's surprise attack on Trenton in which rebel forces had zero casualties.

But my vote goes to the Battle of Marathon. The grossly outnumbered Athenians destroyed the invading Persian Army and lost, IIRC, a mere 86 men. No advanced weapons, no great position, no clever tactics, just your standard frontal assault followed by some determined hack and slash.

Buck Birdseed · October 5, 2002, 06:06

"Battle Hardened" my ass. "Consisting almost entirely of unwilling, untrained conscripts" would be a better description. Lovely military victory, wasn't it? Only cost some 200 000 lives (approx. twice as many as Saddam had killed up to that point) plus another million from the sanctions. Carpet Bombing cities anyone?

Anyway, we're always taught that it's Narva in swedish schools. But then it's probably some sort of 19th-century social romantic bollocks that's stuck.

Traianvs · October 5, 2002, 06:28

de gulden sporenslag was indeed a remarkable voctory, although many belgians (flemish to be more precise) exaggerate this... once again, the french lost due to bad tactics, while the flemish had good leadership... the french knights just stormed ahead, not even knowing what terrain they are facing and what kind of troops they have to kill... it was a nice win, but in 1304 the French finished it, not by winning a battle, but by luck.. they lost once again, but the Flemish assuming they had lost (but in fact they had won), fled from the battlefield... and that was the end of the short military superiority of Flanders

No it was more remarkable because it started a period where armies consisting primarily of knights wasn't invincible anymore (before that, no army consisting of foot soldiers had beaten a knight army)

I'd say Cannae was pretty impressive, i don't think they had lost 90k troops, which would be nearly 23 legions (if that would have happened half the roman army from that time was killed in 1 battle!), and their opponents weren't light troops or so.. except for the numidian cavalry that didn't serve as shock troops but for skirmishes and quick raids, attacks in the flank and the back etc...

Hannibal primarily won because the roman cavalry on the right wing was defeated by the superior carthaginian cav (roman cavalry never was that good, they relied primarily on allies and Gauls)

Alesia was nice, but if you look at his fortifications...storming Caesar was comitting suicide...

Urban Ranger · October 5, 2002, 07:02

Depends on what you meant by "amazing." Do you mean that victory alone changed the course of history, or are you merely comparing ratios?

MrWhereItsAt · October 5, 2002, 09:20

Hellloooooo!

The Mongols took China, all of northern Asia and Europe as far as Prague (IIRC). If that ain't an amazing military victory over the vast majority of the advanced, civilised nations of the Old World, I don't know what is.

Traianvs · October 5, 2002, 11:12

ya but they employed cowardly hit and run operations.. and much of the land they conquered (except china and eastern europe and maybe some other areas) consisted of smaller weak foes

Urban Ranger · October 5, 2002, 12:38

So what? You can say the same thing with Alexandar or anybody else.

Ned · October 5, 2002, 12:48

Desert Storm taught us again that no army has a chance under conditions the Iraqi army faced. When the opponent has that much airpower, it cannot win.

Lawrence of Arabia · October 5, 2002, 13:30

Battle of Kalastajasaarento. My grandfather fought there. 35 Finns against over 2,000 russians. At the end of the day, 14 finns and over 450 russians lay dead. The russians retreated.

Pavlov · October 5, 2002, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Battle of Kalastajasaarento. My grandfather fought there. 35 Finns against over 2,000 russians. At the end of the day, 14 finns and over 450 russians lay dead. The russians retreated.

You know, if this hadn't been the Finnish winter war I'd say you were lying. But Finns are damn tough.

Lawrence of Arabia · October 5, 2002, 13:58

Yeah, they call it sisou.

MrFun · October 5, 2002, 14:08

I will go with David Floyd's suggestion -- the Six Day War with Israel and her enemies.

Incredible turn-around in an extremely short time.

Traianvs · October 5, 2002, 14:16

Quote:

So what? You can say the same thing with Alexandar or anybody else.

not really, Alexander conquered the middle east, which was inhabited by advanced peoples... the Persians for example were no simple tribe...

David Floyd · October 5, 2002, 14:44

What about the U-Boat under Lt. Prien that infiltrated Scapa Flow and sunk the (IIRC) Royal Oak? Pretty amazing stuff, that.