NationStates Jolt Archive

There are victories and defeats in war. But occasionally, the underdog who was given no chance of winning derives a victory. It may be decisive, or even en passant.

My pick is the battle of Adowa (March 1, 1896). Italy tried to extend it's influence in Abyssinia. They failed. This defeat forced Italy to give up on Abyssinia, and recognize their independence.

Discuss.

I believe that the biggest military upset in history belongs to the Spartan timarchy, at Thermopylae. What should have been an easy victory for the Persians became a slaughter which killed the momentum of their vast army, saved the Greek city states, and allowed the western world to develop. No big deal. :D

I was tempted, momentarily, to say Zama. But to say that Scipio was the true underdog in that battle would be to judge purely on Hannibals reputation.

Being a Civil War buff I choose Chattanooga. The Union army pulled off what was not supposed to be possible. A general advance upon entrenchments positioned on the highground that breached and overran the lines. Sweet. Certain rebel engineers were probably a might embarassed by their choice of trench placement.

I have to say Israel somehow managing to survive their war of independence because as soon as they declared independence 5 arab armies came in and tried to destroy them and failed. I realize this is not a battle but how can one little country of then maybe 100,000 total population including children and those unfit to fight beat 5 armies of well trained and well equipped soldiers.

I have to say Israel somehow managing to survive their war of independence because as soon as they declared independence 5 arab armies came in and tried to destroy them and failed. I realize this is not a battle but how can one little country of then maybe 100,000 total population including children and those unfit to fight beat 5 armies of well trained and well equipped soldiers.

Excellent points!

Operation Silver Bayonet, a.k.a. the Battle of the Ia Drang.

Operation Silver Bayonet, a.k.a. the Battle of the Ia Drang.


I'm not aware of it... what happened?

I'm not aware of it... what happened?

Me neither. Please retort Roach!

Ever seen the movie We Were Soldiers?

Ever seen the movie We Were Soldiers?

Nope... well, yes. But my total memory of it is zip. so I might as well not have at all.

EDIT: post 3,333! That means nothing in particular!

Ever seen the movie We Were Soldiers?
Was it the one about the first woman in some division of the military?

No, that's G.I. Jane. Then the answer is nope, probably not. :D

Oh right, Ia Drang was that battle in 65, where I think a company of the 7th cav went up against an NVA div or something like that.

I also say Tenochtitlan. Sure it was sort of a war, not one quick little battle, but it was a brilliant defeat. Cortes with his small force decimated the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan. Thereby securing it in Spanish hands.

Ever seen the movie We Were Soldiers?

Have you read the book, We Were Soldiers Once and Young? Much, much better than the movie. The movie cut off half of the battle completely. Really ticked me off at the end when they flew out on choppers and it was all over. I lurched up from my torpid state and shrieked obsentities at the tv.

The battle of Thermopylae by far. It was 300 Spartan soldiers versus hundreds of thousands of Persians. The Persians still won, but only because a traitorous greek told them a way to get around the Spartans and outflank them. Even then, the Spartans took out thousands of Persians soldiers and fought to the last man.

I have to go with the British Fleet over the Spanish Armada.

Six-Day War 1967

Israel will fall Allah Ekber long live ISLAM and Muslims

Israel go to Hell and stay there

Israel will fall Allah Ekber long live ISLAM and Muslims

Israel go to Hell and stay there

Tell me this is a joke. So much for the Koran stating that the Jews are our brothers as are Christains.

Indiana Jones vs. The Nazi's. In "The Las Crusade" There's a line like "Germany Has Declared War on the Jones boys."

I would have to say the Battle of Roukes Drift myself.

Another big Upset:

America over the British in the Revolutionary War.

Tell me this is a joke. So much for the Koran stating that the Jews are our brothers as are Christains.

Because obviously this person is the representative of the entire Islamic faith.... :rolleyes:

Another big Upset:

America over the British in the Revolutionary War.

Not really. The British were completely uncommited in that war, thousands of miles away, and considered the Americas to be utterly insignificant. They were blockaded by the French and Spanish, and the French provided arms, training, and equipment to the rebels. It'd be surprising if the Americans LOST.

Because obviously this person is the representative of the entire Islamic faith.... :rolleyes:

Well.....

look at the middle east and tell me! :D

Not really. The British were completely uncommited in that war, thousands of miles away, and considered the Americas to be utterly insignificant. They were blockaded by the French and Spanish, and the French provided arms, training, and equipment to the rebels. It'd be surprising if the Americans LOST.

Doesn't matter!

It was still a big upset considering that no nation ever broke away from its parent nation till that point.

Its still an upset in my book.

Well, I say David over Goliath has to be up there, but I expect lots of you don't believe it really happened. The destruction of Sennacherib is similar.

Doesn't matter!

It was still a big upset considering that no nation ever broke away from its parent nation till that point.

Its still an upset in my book.

Corcyra broke off from Corinth and took opposing sides in the Pelopponesian war. Parthia broke off from Seleucia and picked at its remains. Carthage broke off from Phoenecia. Ptolemaic Egypt broke off from Macedon. Seleucia broke off from Macedon. the Kingdom of Pontus broke off from Macedon.

That's a few examples I thought of straight away. And it's only an upset if the unexpected happens. An upset would be if the British WON. :D

If the United States had actually put people in place who had a f*ing clue, the War of 1812 could have been one of those upsets. As it was, the Americans withstanding the world's superpower at the time (Great Britain) and ending up with a status quo antebellum treaty galvanised a sectionalistic country into one unified whole and seemed to start the country on its way to becoming a world power.

The factors that keep the War of 1812 from being one of the world's great upsets are: 1) the U.S. army was an embarrassment because the U.S. relied too heavily on poorly-trained milita to defend the country against the highly professional Redcoats; 2) the U.S. in general was ill-equipped to fight a war in general and when tensions started developing, they didn't do what any country should do, and that's build up its military; 3) the U.S. Navy, as impressive as its single ship victories were against the British (not to mention its two fresh water squadron actions) simply was not large enough to be a major factor in the war. American sailors and captains (and their ships) earned a reputation for excellence by dealing the British more single-ship losses in one two-plus year war than they had in their long history leading up to the war. However, an entire Navy of 16-22 seagoing vessels is not nearly enough to stand up to a Royal Navy of anywhere from 600 ships to 1,000.

You really can't put the Russo-Finnish War on here because the Soviets eventually won the war by sheer numbers, even though the Finns prolonged matters quite a bit.

Chi Bi? Three Kingdoms period in China.

60,000 Wu soldiers versus a boasted 1 million man force (likely upwards of 500,000 in reality). Wu crushed the opposing force using a massive fireship attack on the Chang Jiang river. Hundreds of thousands died, and Wei did not attack Wu again for decades.

That's a pretty big upset I'd say.

Six-Day War 1967

Israel will fall Allah Ekber long live ISLAM and Muslims

Israel go to Hell and stay there

You should attack them again, I need something fun to watch on tv.

Chi Bi? Three Kingdoms period in China.

60,000 Wu soldiers versus a boasted 1 million man force (likely upwards of 500,000 in reality). Wu crushed the opposing force using a massive fireship attack on the Chang Jiang river. Hundreds of thousands died, and Wei did not attack Wu again for decades.

That's a pretty big upset I'd say.

Definitely. I really should read more into ancient chinese diplomacy and warfare. Ancient china seems to be one of the most fluid diplomatic scenes ever. Allies countering allies, shows of force, vast domineering nations being outwitted by smaller, wily foes.... most likely exaggerated somewhat by general Tao Hanzhang (probably mis-spelled), but the way he was describing it in his commentary was captivating.

Definitely. I really should read more into ancient chinese diplomacy and warfare. Ancient china seems to be one of the most fluid diplomatic scenes ever. Allies countering allies, shows of force, vast domineering nations being outwitted by smaller, wily foes.... most likely exaggerated somewhat by general Tao Hanzhang (probably mis-spelled), but the way he was describing it in his commentary was captivating.

Yeah, its been exagerrated, misunderstood, misrepresented, etc. A constant problem for scholars, I assure you ;)

Its like looking to Virgil for info on Roman warfare, he admitted that he was a deserter! The source material is usually propaganda from court transcripts, and logistical data from garrisons.

If you don't mind some romantization, read The Three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong. Its easily the best historical narrative I've ever read (and I'm farily well read). They call it "7 parts fact and 3 parts fiction" in China, the names, places, battles, all happened, but sometimes the characters involved have been tweaked for this reason and that.

The Three Kingdoms is a good place to start because it gives you a basis, a lense, to see China's political landscape through. From there, you can understand the system of government that was considered "ideal" for centuries, get a feel for the shifting alliances and constant planning involved.

That and its a really gripping read. Get the Moss Roberts translation for best effect.

Where are the loss ratios?

FTR, Finnish:Russian casuality ratio is 1:7. Also, this was a full-scale war, so it's not really a single trick that did this.

Where are the loss ratios?

FTR, Finnish:Russian casuality ratio is 1:7. Also, this was a full-scale war, so it's not really a single trick that did this.

actually yea there was.

Its called bad commanders on the Soviet Side.

Yeah, its been exagerrated, misunderstood, misrepresented, etc. A constant problem for scholars, I assure you ;)

Its like looking to Virgil for info on Roman warfare, he admitted that he was a deserter! The source material is usually propaganda from court transcripts, and logistical data from garrisons.

If you don't mind some romantization, read The Three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong. Its easily the best historical narrative I've ever read (and I'm farily well read). They call it "7 parts fact and 3 parts fiction" in China, the names, places, battles, all happened, but sometimes the characters involved have been tweaked for this reason and that.

The Three Kingdoms is a good place to start because it gives you a basis, a lense, to see China's political landscape through. From there, you can understand the system of government that was considered "ideal" for centuries, get a feel for the shifting alliances and constant planning involved.

That and its a really gripping read. Get the Moss Roberts translation for best effect.


*puts Three Kingdoms on the book list*

I've got no real qualms with Romanticisation. The Greeks and Romans were just as big fans of it as the Chinese. Polybius was, after all, in the service of the Scipios when he was writing his histories, and you'll see that the Scipios do no wrong. The Greeks, as you no doubt know, looked upon history as the province of entertainment, so lavish exaggeration was commonplace. Even in Caesars "conquest of Gaul", whenever someone is negotiating, they're always crying and begging on their knees to Caesar. Either the Gauls were more prone to blubbering than they let on, or Caesar was embellishing. No prizes for guessing which.

Cesaer is fun to read. Ever notice how whenever someone in his army is losing ground, he shows up and makes it all better? I remember even in the earliest chapters, the winter battles go horribly for the Roman garrisons until he shows up and just proceeds to drive them all back without effort.

There are victories and defeats in war. But occasionally, the underdog who was given no chance of winning derives a victory. It may be decisive, or even en passant.

My pick is the battle of Adowa (March 1, 1896). Italy tried to extend it's influence in Abyssinia. They failed. This defeat forced Italy to give up on Abyssinia, and recognize their independence.

Discuss.
The Russo-Finnish War, without doubt. The Finns were out-manned, out-gunned, and definite underdogs. They kicked Russion butt! :)

The Russo-Finnish War, without doubt. The Finns were out-manned, out-gunned, and definite underdogs. They kicked Russion butt! :)

but still lost so how is it an upset.

The Russo-Finnish War, without doubt. The Finns were out-manned, out-gunned, and definite underdogs. They kicked Russion butt! :)

Yup, as were those tribal warriors in Abyssinia.

but still lost so how is it an upset.


250,000 dead commies to 25,000 dead Finns.

250,000 dead commies to 25,000 dead Finns.

But still lost. Its only an upset if the Finns won and they didn't!

Cesaer is fun to read. Ever notice how whenever someone in his army is losing ground, he shows up and makes it all better? I remember even in the earliest chapters, the winter battles go horribly for the Roman garrisons until he shows up and just proceeds to drive them all back without effort.

yeah, there's a quote about him in the intro. I'm gonna fetch the book.
...well, that took too long by half...

"Caesars greatest gift -according to one military historian- apart from the invaluable ability to get the best out his men, was his swiftness to react and extricate himself from the consequence of his own errors"

But then... you don't become famous as a victor for leaving in EVERY little detail about your campaign, do you?

but still lost so how is it an upset.
Well, Stalin expected to conquer the whole country by the end of 1939. After 65 years we are still waiting for that marching band of theirs in Helsinki. I'm guessing you consider ceding about 10% of Finland's territory, and 20% of the industrial capacity a total loss? Fair enough.

yeah, there's a quote about him in the intro. I'm gonna fetch the book.
...well, that took too long by half...

"Caesars greatest gift -according to one military historian- apart from the invaluable ability to get the best out his men, was his swiftness to react and extricate himself from the consequence of his own errors"

But then... you don't become famous as a victor for leaving in EVERY little detail about your campaign, do you?

Hmm...7 parts fact...3 parts suitable embellishment and careful omission?

Oh an Corneliu? I agree completely. Its not really an upset if you lost. It may be impressive as all hell, worthy of songs and praise...but if you lose, you didn't win, and thus its not an upset.

Israel's War for Independence, 1947-48

but still lost so how is it an upset.
No, they didn't. As with Vietnam, the war was won on the battlefield, only to be lost by politicians and diplomats.

You might have added a few more:

Isandhlwana - the vaunted British army suffers defeat at the hands of 'uncivilized' Zulu.
Rorke's Drift - a tiny British garrison fights off an entire Zulu Corps.
The Retreat from Kabul - the Brits do Afghanistan - and get slaughtered on the way back ("When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.")

Plassey was won more by treachery than by force of arms. If the traitorous wing commanders had supported Suraj ud Daula they'd have wiped the floor with Clive. Then again, Clive would probably not have stood if he knew he'd be wiped out.

Cathenia

Battle of Agincourt 1415, Henry V with 900 men at arms and almost 5000 archers defeats some 20-30,000 heavily armed (and over confident) Frenchmen and begins the legend of the English longbow.

Battle of Agincourt 1415, Henry V with 900 men at arms and almost 5000 archers defeats some 20-30,000 heavily armed (and over confident) Frenchmen and begins the legend of the English longbow.
Agincourt was a fluke of weather. The French knights attacked into muddy ground and were relatively easy pickings for the English.

Agincourt was a fluke of weather. The French knights attacked into muddy ground and were relatively easy pickings for the English.

Nobody made the French fight on that day. it was a poor grasp of the art of war. if you do not think you can win the battle, don't fight it. The French are entirely to blame for their loss.

The French losing is not a surprise. They hardly ever won a war. :D

The French losing is not a surprise. They hardly ever won a war. :D

Go jump off a bridge. A really high one preferably.

Anyways, I say Fall Gelb. Looking back on it, maybe not so surprising, but the world was shocked back then.

Go jump off a bridge. A really high one preferably.

Anyways, I say Fall Gelb. Looking back on it, maybe not so surprising, but the world was shocked back then.

Remind me, please? It's RIGHT on the tip of my tongue...

Crecy, Agincourt, et al were not military upsets, simply because they always followed the same formula.

The English Archer army repeatedly proved its worth against considerably larger armies, from Crecy in 1346, all the way until Flodden Field in 1513, before firearms rendered the Longbow obsolete.

It was never an upset, simply because the English army, while quite small, was simply better than any other in western Europe at that time. No other country (or at least, particularly the French) dared to put power (the Longbow) in the hands of its plebs.

Agincourt was a fluke of weather. The French knights attacked into muddy ground and were relatively easy pickings for the English.It wasn't so much the weather as the location, with heavy woods on each side the French couldn't manuever and flank the badly outnumbered English. The mud did slow them down and make the archers very effective though. The french choose their position freely and foolishly dismissed the threat that the English longbowman presented. What ever the reason it was a definite upset.

Russo-Finnish War, 1939. Yeah, the Finns lost eventually, but they pasted the Soviets in the beginning, enough so that they kept their independence.

Also, interestingly enough, due to the Russo-Finnish War, the Allies won World War II. If it hadn't been for the pasting the Finns gave the Soviets, the Soviets wouldn't have prepped better for winter fighting/rewritten their combined arms tactics/actually gotten proper equipment to winter troops, which was vital for turning back the Germans during Barbarossa.

:sniper:

Go jump off a bridge. A really high one preferably.

Your French aren't you? I have French blood in me myself so :p

Go jump off a bridge. A really high one preferably.

Anyways, I say Fall Gelb. Looking back on it, maybe not so surprising, but the world was shocked back then.

You know, if you trace all the way from Gaul to present day, they had a pretty fucking abysmal history of military performance. Frankly, they deserve their reputation every bloody bit.

Has to be Blenheim 1704, the building blocks for the success of the Spanish succession and thus the foundation of the British Empire....until we threw it all away by battering those pesky Germans and their co-horts...

Nobody made the French fight on that day. it was a poor grasp of the art of war. if you do not think you can win the battle, don't fight it. The French are entirely to blame for their loss.
Um ... yes. I thought I indicated that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :(

You know, if you trace all the way from Gaul to present day, they had a pretty fucking abysmal history of military performance. Frankly, they deserve their reputation every bloody bit.
Yeah! Bloody Frogs! :D

Yeah! Bloody Frogs! :D

literally! :D

Your French aren't you? I have French blood in me myself so :p

Yes, im french. And I have to put up with that bullcrap every day, living in america.

Russo-Finnish War, 1939. Yeah, the Finns lost eventually, but they pasted the Soviets in the beginning, enough so that they kept their independence.

Also, interestingly enough, due to the Russo-Finnish War, the Allies won World War II. If it hadn't been for the pasting the Finns gave the Soviets, the Soviets wouldn't have prepped better for winter fighting/rewritten their combined arms tactics/actually gotten proper equipment to winter troops, which was vital for turning back the Germans during Barbarossa.
Agreed! Good analysis! :)

Yes, im french. And I have to put up with that bullcrap every day, living in america.

Meh! If the French actually won something they wouldn't have the reputation and all the anti-French Military Jokes.

Six-Day War 1967

Israel will fall Allah Ekber long live ISLAM and Muslims

Israel go to Hell and stay there

Judging by your poor spelling and grammar, I'm guessing you're both an idiot and joking.

Yes, im french. And I have to put up with that bullcrap every day, living in america.
I'm sorry you have to put up with that. I hope you realize my comment about "bloddy frogs" was made in jest. :(

Go to Google and check this out... Type in "French military victories" and hit the "lucky" button. A page designed to look like it's from Google asks,
"Did you mean: French military defeats."

Then click on French military defeats. Hilarious. (With apologies to our French friends!)

Anglophile Cathenia

Yes, im french. And I have to put up with that bullcrap every day, living in america.

Well... let's look at the record. The Germans (twice) did the same thing the Romans did at Alesia. French armies lost in N.America in the 1750's/60s, and while France did assist the Yanks in their little secession, it wasn't until after the Rebel Americans had secured a conventional field-victory against the might of the British army.

In 1914, the French army let the Germans have a big chunk of their country using the same exact route used in the 1870's.

In 1939, the French relied on a series of border-fortresses (Shades of Alesia here), which, again, the Germans simply drove around. Less than forty days later, France was utterly conquered.

Going back in time, the French were ground-zero for the Hundered Year's War (a conflict won mainly on the neglect of the English.)

In the Thirty-Years' war, France didn't lose significant territory to someone else. This is hardly a massive victory.

Going back up-time, the French handed Angola to disorganized rebels after defeating cells of said rebels. They then proceeded to lose Indochina in spite of massive aid in the form of munitions, technical assistance, and money from the U.S.
Said aid radicalized the Vietminh, turning a former U.S. Ally against the West-at French instigation.

(okay, what else...)

1994, Bosnia, French troops surrender their vehicle, weapons, and body-armour to Bosnian Serb terrorists at a roadblock, rather than killing the goddamned bandits, or at least fighting them.

France is probably a fine trading partner, but as a Military Ally, they're less than adequate-they draw their allies into no-win situations, then abandon them when things get difficult in the field, often claiming a 'moral high ground' where none exist.

OK so we have established that France is not a good military country how about some props for a great military country in Israel who have the best military or at least intellegence service in the world today.

OK so we have established that France is not a good military country how about some props for a great military country in Israel who have the best military or at least intellegence service in the world today.

I'd go Intel before being the best. Best at Urban warfare yea I'll agree with that but they are armed with American made hardware so yea, they are also top notch there too :D

OK so we have established that France is not a good military country how about some props for a great military country in Israel who have the best military or at least intellegence service in the world today.
If Israel isn't the absolute top-dog, it's in the top three, at least, in terms of troop quality, that's without question. The fact that they're surrounded by countries that want to annihilate them, and somewhat isolated diplomatically by a West that panders to those same enemies (Harsh look at most of Europe), and they have a constant low-level conflict going inside their miniscule borders may have something to do with that quality. They aren't labouring under the delusion that appeasing the psychotic bastards is going to save them, which many of the "Intelligentsia" in the western countries seem to believe (gives the finger to the "Peace at Any Price" crowd.)

I'd go Intel before being the best. Best at Urban warfare yea I'll agree with that but they are armed with American made hardware so yea, they are also top notch there too :D

Don't forget they make a lot of their own guns too. Israel gave us some of the better anti-personnel weaponry out there.

Don't forget they make a lot of their own guns too. Israel gave us some of the better anti-personnel weaponry out there.

Now that's true. :D

I have to say Israel somehow managing to survive their war of independence because as soon as they declared independence 5 arab armies came in and tried to destroy them and failed. I realize this is not a battle but how can one little country of then maybe 100,000 total population including children and those unfit to fight beat 5 armies of well trained and well equipped soldiers.

Bullshit mate, it was a third rate kicking the crap out of fifth rate armies.
Seriuosly, the Arab armies that have attacked Isreal were pathetic, it why Hamas and thier affliates rely on bombs and guerilla tactics in the Gaza.

David of the Israelites vs. Goliath of Gath (Philistine), 11th century, BC.

The fortress of Eben-Emaël

The Arab armies of the 1960's and 1970's were poorly trained by the Soviet Union, and pathetically led.

The Arab Legion of 1948, which was in Jordan, was highly trained by the British, and had experience in WW2.

The Egyptians are better nowadays, being trained and armed largely by the US.

I'm surprised a couple of noteworthy US upsets were not included here, especially since a particular war was mentioned without its primary upset victory being mentioned. At New Orleans, the US force was outnumbered by an estimated 3:1.

Then there was the breakout from the Chosin Reservoir, in which UN forcess were outnumbered roughly 6:1, encircled, and poorly positioned in the low ground. The mostly American force inflicted horrendous casualties on the Chinese on their way out.

David over Goliath

hehe

I'm surprised a couple of noteworthy US upsets were not included here, especially since a particular war was mentioned without its primary upset victory being mentioned. At New Orleans, the US force was outnumbered by an estimated 3:1.

Considering that the fight took place AFTER the War of 1812 was officially over and so they had to push it back to include it because it was a victory. Besides that, the British had shoddy leadership at the fight. In all 1812 was a tie and nothing more than that. Anyway, you can make a case that the treaty of Ghent was nothing more than a cease-fire.

Then there was the breakout from the Chosin Reservoir, in which UN forcess were outnumbered roughly 6:1, encircled, and poorly positioned in the low ground. The mostly American force inflicted horrendous casualties on the Chinese on their way out.

Korean War :D

The entire American Revolution. There's about 15 reasons why America shouldn't be independant right now.

Okay, really:

Battle of Blood River

Maybe a hundred Boer farmers in mid-19th-century South Africa (Natal region) slaughtered about 5,000 attacking Zulus. The Boers lost no one and, in fact, the worst injury received was a cut hand.

Of course leading up to this one-sided affair of ~5,000 Zulu dead and 0 Boers dead, King Dingane of the Zulu had ordered the massacre of about 100 visiting unarmed Boers and the subsequent raid of nearby Boer wagons/homes and murder of scores more.

The entire American Revolution. There's about 15 reasons why America shouldn't be independant right now.

I've already mentioned this Pyrostan. :D

Your right. We shouldn't have won. We did win it however and a good thing too in my opinion :D

David over Goliath

hehe

Hey, when was the last time you had to deal with a marauding Philistine? :D

Its gotta be when Mousolinni invaded Greece during WWII. 30,000 Greeks against 250,000 well armed Italians. They were pushed back into Albania practicaly into the sea. But Hitler's panzers cut off the Greeks and proceeded to occupy Greece. Germany still need 12 Battalions to occupy Greece.
:mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5:

Hey, when was the last time you had to deal with a marauding Philistine? :D

not to mention one who was about 3 feet taller than you and could probably pick you up and throw you 20 feet ... hehe

I also say Tenochtitlan. Sure it was sort of a war, not one quick little battle, but it was a brilliant defeat. Cortes with his small force decimated the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan. Thereby securing it in Spanish hands.


Yes, the fact that the 600 or so Spaniards were supported by more than 200 000 local soldiers of course makes it a victory of the few against the many.

there were also some great showings of toughness by 16th- and 17th-century Portuguese fort-defenders in the East Indies/Java area ... surviving under months of siege (at a time) by the Dutch. They were known to drink their own urine.

Considering that the fight took place AFTER the War of 1812 was officially over and so they had to push it back to include it because it was a victory. Besides that, the British had shoddy leadership at the fight. In all 1812 was a tie and nothing more than that. Anyway, you can make a case that the treaty of Ghent was nothing more than a cease-fire.

The Battle of New Orleans may have been after the war, but you cannot say it was inconsequential. Suppose the British win, and sail all the way to St. Louis before word reaches them that the war is over. What do you think are the odds that the Brits honor the treaty and return those lands to the US? The consensus of British and American scholars interviewed during a History Channel special: not bloody likely.

The battle of Thermopylae by far. It was 300 Spartan soldiers versus hundreds of thousands of Persians. The Persians still won, but only because a traitorous greek told them a way to get around the Spartans and outflank them. Even then, the Spartans took out thousands of Persians soldiers and fought to the last man.

No. Not true. The army holding thermopylae was made up of 300 Spartans, with Leonidas, 400 Thebans, and more than 5000 other Greek hoplites. They were better trained than the persian conscripts, and in a great poistion. However, after 2 days, Persian scouts secured another route, around the pass, which the Greeks had failed to find. They sent 10 000 of their elite 'Immortals' to secure it.
Finding themselves trapped, Leonidas sent home the 5000 extra hoplites. The Spartans were all killed the next day, the Thebans surrendered, and in 2 weeks the Persians had captured and burned Athens. Thermopylae was in no way a decisive battle. The decisive battle of the persian wars was Salamis, a naval battle.

Ayasse (SP) Wellington in only his 3rd or 4th ever battle had 5,000 redcoats, he attacked over a unmapped ford which he didn't know existed (Testing the ford himself) advanced on the enermys 20,000 infaantry and over 150 guns, beat them, then turned, took on 80,000 cavalry and then took a fortified village containing around 10,000 enermy troops. did I mention these troops where all as well trained as his?

It should have been impossable-he ahd almost no cavalry or cannon and we attacking. The enermy cavalry should have murdered his line, forcing it into square and then the enermys infantry should have outgunned him and there cannon destroyed him. But they didn't thanks to his generalship.

Also, the statement that the Brits had shoddy leadership doesn't necessarily ring true. The battle plan was a good one. But for its time, it was overly complicated, because the only way to coordinate units spread over a large area was to stick to a time schedule. The commander had no ability to change the schedule once the plan was initiated, because there wasn't a way to communicate in real time.

One wing of the British Army marched off without their scaling ladders, and had to return to camp and retrieve them. The cannoneers headed for the opposite bank of the Mississippi to provide enfilading fire (a brilliant idea) were swept too far downstream by the current and severely delayed.

-snip-.
Just miss out the Napolianic wars won't you?

I agree with ayasse. Wellington (a.k.a Arthur Wellsely) was outnumbered outgunned, and the enemy were in a strong position.

Personally i think i would have to choose the Trojan war. After fending off soo many Greeks for soo long, they lost because they took in a big mysterious wooden horse that appeared on their shorelines!! Why the fuck would you bring it inside your city?! I know i wouldnt! What a blunder! Plus Napoleon AND Hitler invading the Soviet Union (just Russia in Napoleons time). Surely Hitler shouldda learnt that Russia is intraversable with a big army during winter.....Twat!

Just miss out the Napolianic wars won't you?

You can't ignore that! French armies advanced to Moscow and back, across a hostile Europe. Clearly, the French do know how to fight.

Also, the statement that the Brits had shoddy leadership doesn't necessarily ring true. The battle plan was a good one. But for its time, it was overly complicated, because the only way to coordinate units spread over a large area was to stick to a time schedule. The commander had no ability to change the schedule once the plan was initiated, because there wasn't a way to communicate in real time.

Dude! Read up on the battle plan again. You never expose your flank to the enemy. That is precisely what the British did. They're attack plan was shoddy. ANyone with a grasp of military strategy could tell you that.

I agree with ayasse. Wellington (a.k.a Arthur Wellsely) was outnumbered outgunned, and the enemy were in a strong position.
:D someone agrees with me!

I agree with ayasse. Wellington (a.k.a Arthur Wellsely) was outnumbered outgunned, and the enemy were in a strong position.
I'm of the opinion that the Coalition only defeated the French because of the French's war wearyness. They had gone though 7 wars, with little time between each. Napoleon was quite impatiant, and didn't know when to use diplomacy. So his troops were worn out.

other: the battle of isandhlwana (sp?). the british soldiers assumed they were vastly superior in every respect to all the people they conquered, who they regarded as savages. then the zulus destroy the british.

on a different note, the french bashers here (who mainly seem to be american) have to remembr the sacrifices the french made and the suffering they went through in the two world wars (which america did not). it angers me to hear people disgracing french military efforts when they are as much a part of the team that defeated fascism as the rest of us.

on a different note, the french bashers here (who mainly seem to be american) have to remembr the sacrifices the french made and the suffering they went through in the two world wars (which america did not). it angers me to hear people disgracing french military efforts when they are as much a part of the team that defeated fascism as the rest of us.

Might be because the UK seems to value the US more. That, and France had Vichy.

Dude! Read up on the battle plan again. You never expose your flank to the enemy. That is precisely what the British did. They're attack plan was shoddy. ANyone with a grasp of military strategy could tell you that.
Explain yourself. The only case of Brits exposing their flank that I am aware of involved a last-minute adjustment by Packenham that saw one regiment of Scottish highlanders wiped out. It was hardly the decisive maneuver. And that maneuver was not in the attack plan.

Might be because the UK seems to value the US more. That, and France had Vichy.

i cant disagree with the first point, although im on frances side.

yes, but dont think that we (the UK) wouldnt have had collaborators if germany had managed to conquer us.

Battle of Agincourt 1415, Henry V with 900 men at arms and almost 5000 archers defeats some 20-30,000 heavily armed (and over confident) Frenchmen and begins the legend of the English longbow.

... pointing to the formula England used to beat the crap out of the French:

French rush in with Cavalry, English sit back and kill them with archers.

You can't ignore that! French armies advanced to Moscow and back, across a hostile Europe. Clearly, the French do know how to fight.

France's few years of military brilliance, under a Corsican commander.

I also say Tenochtitlan...... Cortes with his small force decimated the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan. Thereby securing it in Spanish hands.

I'd argue the bigger upset was the Aztecs winning the first battles of that war. It wasn't until Cortes came back with reinforcments and more weapons ( and the Aztec nation was weakened with illness) that Cortes won.
After all, I would expect guns to win over spears and arrows.

Dien Bien Phu (my favorite)
The Battle of the Nile (second favorite)

Let's face it, the French know how to go in with an advantage, and then fritter it away.

After all, I would expect guns to win over spears and arrows.

Remember that those guns only fired once a minute or so. Also they were terribly inaccurate. You could stand 40 feet from a wall and miss it completely.

France's few years of military brilliance, under a Corsican commander.
It's another example of how France can take a perfectly great situation, and fritter it away into complete defeat.

Just miss out the Napolianic wars won't you?
Formula for the Napoleonic conflicts:

Corsican takes over the country in a military coup.
Corsican then spends the next twenty years or so attacking the neighbours. Napoleon decides to invade Russia after conquering the disorganized mini-states next-door.
Napoleon loses the bulk of his army on the Russian Steppes.

he then spends some time on an island in the Med, under British Guard.

The little-corporal escapes confinement, tries to restart his wars.

Loses.

France hasn't won a war against a technological peer on their own since, and in the 20th Century, managed to lose two wars against what amounts to rag-assed rebels in places that had been under the french thumb for quite some time.

NONE of this eliminates my original point-the French aren't very good allies. They're the sort that start fights then can't finish them without someone else to help. In WWI, the British saved 'em, and in WWII it took both the Brits and the Americans-and the french made the same mistakes.

Two world wars, the Suez crisis, the Algerian crisis, Indochina, Mexico, time and again, the French got themselves into trouble, loved being helped, and then told the allies that help them to piss up a rope, going over to make nice with the same people who were beating them up and scorning the people who, at their request, sent aid, or shed blood, on their behalf.

The U.S. could have had a very profitable relationship with Vietnam under Uncle-Ho if we hadn't tried to prop up france from 1946 (Postwar) in their Colonial Possessions (most of whom, in the Pacific, were run by collaboratorationist Vichy officials who never faced a war-crimes trial, but who assisted the Japs in committing war-crimes against Asian Indigenous Peoples in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Siam.)
Point being, the French have earned the scorn they get. They are unfaithful allies and arrogant in ways that make Americans look positively humble (Hey, we're at least ashamed of the one time we acted french and abandoned an ally in Vietnam.)

Remember that those guns only fired once a minute or so. Also they were terribly inaccurate. You could stand 40 feet from a wall and miss it completely.
Even when the guns were more accurate, rate of fire still presented an issue. Americans had some difficulties during the wars against the Indian nations for the same reason.

However... it's worth noting that Cortez's men wore breatsplates and helms, which are quite effective defenses against spears and arrows. The only metal the US soldiers wore were belt buckles and decorations.

Hm, all this about the English archers against the French knights... I had understood that even the English/Welsh longbow with its bodkin arrows was generally highly unreliable against French armour... that often continental steel was simply of a better quality than the weapons thrown at it, and that although not all of the French thousands at Agincourt would have been fully armoured knights, the archers were generally unable to stop them by conventional means. I'm of the belief that most of the killing was done hand to hand when the French became bogged down in the mud and the fabric-shoed English danced about in it and bashed their heads in with hammers and what not.

Still a terrific upset, but I'm don't know that it was down to the English being well equipped with bows so much as the French being too well equipped for the primitive conditions of the fight. Like trying to drive an F1 car up a dirt track.


And as to the various Zulu wars and the miracle Boer victory from within circled wagons... hey, even the glorified film Zulu comments on the reality of British victories. "It's a miracle!" "If it's a miracle, colour sergeant, it's a short-chamber Boxer-Henry point four-five caliber miracle."

We can't really call late Victorian Boer and British victories against barely bronze age people upsets without also crediting the French for building a massive intercontinental empire against the same sort of foe, can we?

How about when the Inca actually defeated the Spanish in one battle about which I can remember precious little? The Aztecs seem to be so much more popular than the Inca... I never quite got why.

And the Korean War upsets don't impress me much, either. Oh noes! Some 'volunteers' with bolt action rifles and infantry mortars! How ever will we wipe them out?

In WWI, the British saved 'em, and in WWII it took both the Brits and the Americans-and the french made the same mistakes.


I agree with your whole post except this one: In WW1, the Brits saved them in 1914/1915. The Russians saved them in 1916, and the Americans saved them in 1917/1918. ;) Had the Three Emperors League survived, WW1 would not have been a Allied victory.

(1916: Brusilov offensive, Russia just staying in the war kept 70 divisions tied up and away from the Western Front...)

The battle of Thermopylae by far. It was 300 Spartan soldiers versus hundreds of thousands of Persians. The Persians still won, but only because a traitorous greek told them a way to get around the Spartans and outflank them. Even then, the Spartans took out thousands of Persians soldiers and fought to the last man.

There were 300 Spartans, yes, but didn't the other Greek Cities contribute about 5, 700 or 6, 700 other soldiers too. I thought the 300 Hopilites were just Sparta's contribution.

If they did, they didn't get there on time.

Bullshit mate, it was a third rate kicking the crap out of fifth rate armies.
Seriuosly, the Arab armies that have attacked Isreal were pathetic, it why Hamas and thier affliates rely on bombs and guerilla tactics in the Gaza.

I'm talking the war of 1948 not the 6 day war or the current situation in Israel so can you please get your facts strait before attacking me.

They may not have been the best armies i'll give you that point but they were good armies who were obviously better equipped then a country who had come into existence a day or two before the war

If they did, they didn't get there on time.

The battle of Thermypolae had 300 Spartans, and a bunch or other Greeks who were outnumbered by the Persians 50:1 but the Greeks had better armor and were better trained so that it was about a 30 persians to one greek killed. The greeks held out for 3 days until some greek traitor showed the persians a way to get around and everybody in the greek army fled except for the 300 spartans who all died so everybody else could live.

Gotta go with Thermypolae, or perhaps the battle of Cannae when Hannibal managed to encircle a numerically superior force in an open field.

Remember that those guns only fired once a minute or so. Also they were terribly inaccurate. You could stand 40 feet from a wall and miss it completely.

Shoot, reload, maybe miss, shoot agian, go get cannon
Throw spear, bounce off armor. Throw...oh, shoot. I just threw that spear.

And the Korean War upsets don't impress me much, either. Oh noes! Some 'volunteers' with bolt action rifles and infantry mortars! How ever will we wipe them out?
I'd like to see you trapped in a bowl by a force outnumbering you 6:1 in frostbite conditions and see how you deal with it.

There are victories and defeats in war. But occasionally, the underdog who was given no chance of winning derives a victory. It may be decisive, or even en passant.

My pick is the battle of Adowa (March 1, 1896). Italy tried to extend it's influence in Abyssinia. They failed. This defeat forced Italy to give up on Abyssinia, and recognize their independence.

Discuss.

I'd say as a single engagement, the award isn't listed: Rorke's Drift on 23 Januray 1879.

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/

I have to say Israel somehow managing to survive their war of independence because as soon as they declared independence 5 arab armies came in and tried to destroy them and failed. I realize this is not a battle but how can one little country of then maybe 100,000 total population including children and those unfit to fight beat 5 armies of well trained and well equipped soldiers.

Bah Zionist propoganda always makes the Jews out to have been facing super advanced overwhelming forces. The Arab nations were still basically European colonies or protectorates at the time lacking any real military power as all knowing Wikipedia points out:

"In fact, the Arab forces were inferior to the IDF. By mid-May 1948 the IDF was fielding 65,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949. Of the Arab aircraft, only less than a dozen fighters and three to four bombers saw action, the rest were unserviceable. With only a dozen or so airplanes the IDF achieved air superiority by the fall of 1948. And the IDF had superiority in firepower and knowledgeable personnel, many of whom had seen action in WWII. Source: "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001", Benny Morris (2001), pp. 217-18."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

The greatest defeat ever still has to be Vietnam's three decade long ass kicking binge, Pwning first france, then USA, then Camobida, then China. Vietnam is simply flat out invincible.

The greatest defeat ever still has to be Vietnam's three decade long ass kicking binge, Pwning first france, then USA, then Camobida, then China. Vietnam is simply flat out invincible.
Name one Vietnamese victory over American forces.

Name one Vietnamese victory over American forces.

There is none.

Name one Vietnamese victory over American forces.
Twas a war of attrition.

Twas a war of attrition.

Name one Vietnamese victory

Name one Vietnamese victory
The Tet offensive was a victory in that it killed America's confidence and the will to fight..

Being a Civil War buff I choose Chattanooga. The Union army pulled off what was not supposed to be possible. A general advance upon entrenchments positioned on the highground that breached and overran the lines. Sweet. Certain rebel engineers were probably a might embarassed by their choice of trench placement.
dont you know about Gettysburg (sp?). the south had the civil war WON. without question. Pickets charge was completely retarded. none of Lee's officers agreed with him. he did it anyway so alot of his army got slaughtered. and scientists used foresnics to prove that they could have won the battle, thereby winning the war, had they destroyed a farmers fence in the middle of the battlefield. there was a history channel documentary on it. anyway, Lee single handedly lost the Civil War at Gettysburg.

Six-Day War 1967

Israel will fall Allah Ekber long live ISLAM and Muslims

Israel go to Hell and stay there
ekber? you mean Allahuakbar?

The Tet offensive was a victory in that it killed America's confidence and the will to fight..

A victory for the United States actually. Only the Press tried to turn it into defeat. Care to try again?

You should attack them again, I need something fun to watch on tv.
just drive quickly towards a road block and see what happens.

The Tet offensive was a victory in that it killed America's confidence and the will to fight..
Undermining confidence and will to fight is not a military objective. Tet achieved no military objectives. It was an unmitigated disaster for the NVA.

And anyway, you're not entirely correct. The Americans had been seeking the NVA and VC in the tunnel network in the Iron Triangle, and had been increasingly frustrated with their ability to locate and engage the enemy. When Tet broke out, the Americans had an identifiable enemy and location, and troop morale was significantly improved as a result.

A victory for the United States actually. Only the Press tried to turn it into defeat. Care to try again?
Ha ha thats why all the GIs started fragging their officers then?

Ha ha thats why all the GIs started fragging their officers then?

Proof please?

Ha ha thats why all the GIs started fragging their officers then?
GIs were fragging their officers long before Tet. The two are unrelated.

GIs were fragging their officers long before Tet. The two are unrelated.
OK sooo America won the war then or what?

It doesn't matter that the Vietnamese didn't win any pitched battles - a battle doesn't make a war. After all, in most of the large battles in the American Revolution the Loyalists slaughtered the Rebels. What matters is that the Vietnamese, like the Americans in revolution, used clever guerilla tactics and eventually forced out a far superior force.

My favourite military upset would be Nelson's fleet versus the French at the nile - probably a bigger victory than Trafalgar, though less important. But then, I also love Flodden, Agincourt and Crecy.

OK sooo America won the war then or what?

Yes and no

The U.S. could have had a very profitable relationship with Vietnam under Uncle-Ho if we hadn't tried to prop up france from 1946 (Postwar) in their Colonial Possessions

AHEM...the US and the USSR spent most of the directly post-war years undermining British and French Colonialism, so that they could dominate the New World order between them. They both funded and influenced colonial states to overthrow the Imperial powers, partially to get rid of what was essentially a complication to the new Cold War situation (the fact that the Colonial powers were still reasonably powerful) and to increase their influence over the globe

Leuctra wasn't an upset. It was unexpected but the Thebans could always have won that battle.

Tenochtitlan? The Aztecs never got a chance to fight because they were all dead with disease?

Crecy? Perhaps, but Agincourt was far more of an upset and significant.

Marathon? Again same with Crecy only with Thermopylae instead of Agincourt. At Marathon the Greeks were outnumbered by tens of thousands. At Thermopylae it was more like hundreds OF thousands.

Six Day War? True the Israelis were outnumbered but they had superior weaponry donated a la USA.

How about the Battle of Baden Hill?

Isn't that the one where the Britons denied the Saxons under Hengest?

(not sure if an upset took place... just more of a question for anyone who's studied it)

It doesn't matter that the Vietnamese didn't win any pitched battles - a battle doesn't make a war. After all, in most of the large battles in the American Revolution the Loyalists slaughtered the Rebels. What matters is that the Vietnamese, like the Americans in revolution, used clever guerilla tactics and eventually forced out a far superior force.

Uhhh... no. In most of the Revolution battles the British claimed victory due to captured ground, but paid the devil's price for it. US casualties were usually lower despite being outnumbered. Slaughtered? I think not. I can't think of any major battle in which the Americans were routed other than Camden.

Vietnam just came down to the issue that the Vietnamese were willing to pay any price for victory, and the US wasn't terribly committed from the start, believing that their inept and corrupt South Vietnamese allies should be committed to their own defense. I hardly see how this set of circumstances warrants calling the Vietnamese "invincible," particularly when they can't be said to have won a single battle against US forces.

I'm a little surprised no one mentioned this yet. The 1st Gulf War. No one expected that to have the outcome it had in the begining. Everyone thought the vaunted Republican guard would get in a good mauling. Iraq was fielding a battle hardened army with the latest in Russian arms, and plenty of artillery that they knew how to use well.

I'm a little surprised no one mentioned this yet. The 1st Gulf War. No one expected that to have the outcome it had in the begining. Everyone thought the vaunted Republican guard would get in a good mauling. Iraq was fielding a battle hardened army with the latest in Russian arms, and plenty of artillery that they knew how to use well.

Heavy air attack. Lightening ground attack. They never had a prayer. Not even close to being called an upset.

I'm a little surprised no one mentioned this yet. The 1st Gulf War. No one expected that to have the outcome it had in the begining. Everyone thought the vaunted Republican guard would get in a good mauling. Iraq was fielding a battle hardened army with the latest in Russian arms, and plenty of artillery that they knew how to use well.
There was no reason to believe that the coalition forces would enjoy the overwhelming success they did. However, that does not make the victory an upset. Coalition victory was as guaranteed as any outcome can be in war, and all that remained to be decided was how long the Iraqis could resist and how great a price they could extract.

Besides... the Iraqis had the latest in Russian arms, as you said. Which put them about 20 years behind the free world. But it wasn't the latest... most of their tanks were of a model that had been obsoleted by the Soviet army. The Iraqis had about 500 T-72 tanks that were out-ranged by about 1000 meters by M1A1s, which enjoyed an additional advantage from depleted uranium rounds. The rest of the Iraqi tank force was made up of T-62 and T-54 models which were developed by the Soviets in the 60's.

Let's not forget the coalition forces also enjoyed unchallenged air supremacy during the war.

The Vietnamese won through a combination of an inept South Vietnam, lack of home-front support in America, and stupid political rules regarding airstrikes which were lifted too late to change the war. Nixon's Operation Linebacker and Linebacker 2 dominated the North Vietnamese and forced them to make peace. Of course, we took that and ran, leaving South Vietnam to get crushed.

Bah Zionist propoganda always makes the Jews out to have been facing super advanced overwhelming forces. The Arab nations were still basically European colonies or protectorates at the time lacking any real military power as all knowing Wikipedia points out:

"In fact, the Arab forces were inferior to the IDF. By mid-May 1948 the IDF was fielding 65,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949. Of the Arab aircraft, only less than a dozen fighters and three to four bombers saw action, the rest were unserviceable. With only a dozen or so airplanes the IDF achieved air superiority by the fall of 1948. And the IDF had superiority in firepower and knowledgeable personnel, many of whom had seen action in WWII. Source: "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001", Benny Morris (2001), pp. 217-18."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War


Strait from your own source at Wikipedia.com...
IDF Arabs
Tanks 1 w/o gun- 40
Armored cars (w/ cannon) 2- 200
Armored cars (w/o cannon) 120- 300
Artillery 5 -140
AA and AT guns 24- 220
Warplanes 0- 74
Scout planes 28- 57
Navy (armed ships) 3 -12

Dashes seperate Israeli strength from the Arab strength I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions

(Source: Yeuda Wallach, "Not on a silver plate")

Alot of people seemed to be posting thermoplyae. While it was a great victory and etc. it has been signifigantly over looked that while there was the 300 spartans bla bla bla they were backed by 10-15,000 thebians (I think of hand) that were with them and fought to the death. We just like the idea of the 300 Spartan warriors fighting off the entire Persian army so we over look their allies. My apologies if someone has already said something to the idea of this or if i am totally off and just ranting.

Okay, really:

Battle of Blood River

Maybe a hundred Boer farmers in mid-19th-century South Africa (Natal region) slaughtered about 5,000 attacking Zulus. The Boers lost no one and, in fact, the worst injury received was a cut hand.

Of course leading up to this one-sided affair of ~5,000 Zulu dead and 0 Boers dead, King Dingane of the Zulu had ordered the massacre of about 100 visiting unarmed Boers and the subsequent raid of nearby Boer wagons/homes and murder of scores more.

My goodness how did I miss that! Yeah that's a good example too.

Cathenia

Ayasse (SP) Wellington in only his 3rd or 4th ever battle had 5,000 redcoats, he attacked over a unmapped ford which he didn't know existed (Testing the ford himself) advanced on the enermys 20,000 infaantry and over 150 guns, beat them, then turned, took on 80,000 cavalry and then took a fortified village containing around 10,000 enermy troops. did I mention these troops where all as well trained as his?

It should have been impossable-he ahd almost no cavalry or cannon and we attacking. The enermy cavalry should have murdered his line, forcing it into square and then the enermys infantry should have outgunned him and there cannon destroyed him. But they didn't thanks to his generalship.

It's Assaye and Sir Arthur Wellesley (ex Wesley) but yeah that was a pretty incredible victory, won rather by hard fighting and good strategy rather than by guile (Plassey).

Packenham at New Orleans - Packenham served mainly on staff though he was an adequate division commander - certainly not an independent commander though! What he did to the 93rd Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders would be criminal had he not been KIA as well.

Another case of too little too late. An early and aggressive attack with the RN guns in support would have carried the city. Like the British decision not to land troops at the first bombardment of the Dardanelles Feb 1915.

My goodness how could I have forgot - GALLIPOLI!!! (well technically not an upset but it's another great 'what if') and the first day at least was a DEFINITE upset.

Cathenia

Alot of people seemed to be posting thermoplyae. While it was a great victory and etc. it has been signifigantly over looked that while there was the 300 spartans bla bla bla they were backed by 10-15,000 thebians (I think of hand) that were with them and fought to the death. We just like the idea of the 300 Spartan warriors fighting off the entire Persian army so we over look their allies. My apologies if someone has already said something to the idea of this or if i am totally off and just ranting.

Didn't they retreat before the battle begun?

And how can people call termoplyae an "upset". The Spartans fought well, but they still lost...

1: At the time of his death in 1227, Genghis Khan's empire extended from Hungary across Asia to Korea, and from Siberia to Tibet.

In 98 percent of their battles the Mongols were outnumbered. Pick one.

2: In the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (AD 9), an alliance of Germanic tribes led by Arminius (also known in German as Hermann), the son of Segimerus of the Cherusci, ambushed and wiped out a Roman army of three entire Legions. The battle established the Rhine as the boundary between Romans and Germanic tribes in Germania inferior. The Romans never got any further north.

3: Battle of Britain

Gotta go with Thermypolae, or perhaps the battle of Cannae when Hannibal managed to encircle a numerically superior force in an open field.

I don't believe I forgot Cannae....

The open field is a misnomer. Actually for the scale of the battle fought, the field was too narrow. I'll go over the battle of Cannae quickly because I hate it when people name a battle and then I have no idea why it's an upset.

The two Roman Consuls, that is, the people in charge of the senate for a year, assembled the entirety of the Roman armies in Italy minus the two legions in Spain. The total amounts to 8 legions, or 55,000 heavy infantry (of the Hastati, Principes and Triarii), 15,000 Velites (or light skirmishers armed with javelins), and 6,000 cavalry.

Hannibal Barca, the Carthaginian general, had 10,000 cavalry, and roughly 40,000 infantry, including his skirmishers, which are believed to total 8,000. That leaves 32,000 close order troops collected from Libya, Punic Africa, and Gaul, a very varied and ordinarily not closely knit group in the least.

Given the narrow nature of the battlefield of Cannae, the legions formed up far closer than is normal for them. This could also be due to their battleplan, which was to smash the enemy centre, and deal with the flanks as two seperates before the Carthaginian cavalry can return and deal a decisive blow. Hannibals men formed up with the Gauls taking the centre, and African and Libyan troops at the flanks. Both sides placed their cavalry on the extreme flanks of their army. As the Romans advanced on the Carthaginian position, the two cavalry forces engaged. The Romans planned for their cavalry wings, or Alae, to lose the battle, merely because they had not got the numbers nor the expertise to defeat Carthaginian (and their numerous Numidian allied cavalry). The Roman infantry line advanced, and the usual skirmishing took place. Skirmishing only caused a minor amount of casualties, and usually filled the time before each side had the nerve to finish the attack by closing ranks. Eventually the Romans met the Gallic centre with the intention to break it. Hannibal Barca and Mago, his lieutenant, accompanied the infantry to lend it courage. Contrary to what most people tend to believe, the Gauls were not easily broken once the fighting had bogged down, losing their win to fight. Rather, as the Romans began to push harder and harder, reinforcing lines of the Principes and Triarii being fed in fresh to keep the momentum up, the Gauls fell back slowly, pace by pace, the intent, to draw the Romans deeper and deeper into the Carthaginian formation. See, the Carthaginians deployed in a formation best described as a hollow triangle. The romans put all the pressure on the tip, and the Gauls fell back. However, they put no weight on either of the sides, which simply stood there. The result was, the Roman centre slowly got itself flanked because the centre would not break as they anticipated. The Romans found their infantry centre surrounded by all sides, as the African flanks (which had been specially deepened, and had supposedly "turned calmly to face the Roman side" descended upon them, according to Hannibals plan. The two Roman consuls, who had joined with the Alae, were routed. Hasbrudal, who was in charge of the heavy cavalry, set one side of the cavalry to flee, slowly moved behind the other roman cavalry flank. As soon as Varro, the consul who had, until this time merely been annoyed by the Numidians skirmishing, who would not stand and fight, realised that the Numidians were deliberately distracting him so that Hasbrudal could surround him, the entire Alae fled. Carthage now had cavalry domination.

Back in the infantry fight, the Romans had condensed to a mass of men, pushing still against the Gauls whilst the Africans compressed them, encircling more and more as the Romans pushed the Gauls. At the rear, the encirclement was complete as the cavalry completed charge after charge against them. The romans, now trapped within Carthaginian men, were systematically slaughtered, the few who managed to escape having successfully smashed through the centre to begin running. Stories tell of captains of the maniples taking the roles of generals, commanding their men in their last stand, rallying, giving them courage, and bravely facing the foe to the last. Whilst this might seem to some to be made up stories of bravado in the face of death, it is highly likely that this was the case. Seeing escape and victory vanish, the Roman warrior culture would stand for no less than at least meeting death bravely.

Livy, in the aftermath of the battle, gives these figures:

45,500 Roman and allied infantry dead.
2,700 cavalry dead.
3,000 foot captured
1,500 horse captured
17,000 surrendered in the Cannae military camp, who were not in the battle of Cannae

Hannibals figures are as follows.
4,000 Gauls dead
1,500 Spaniards and libyans dead
200 cavalry dead

To put this in perspective, the British casualties in the first day of the Somme, were 60,000, however, 35,888 were wounded, and 8,000 of these were confirmed dead. The rest, some 17,000, were listed as missing, with 10,000 to be later filled as dead. and the Somme itself occupied a 16 mile wide front. Cannae took pnly a few miles, the Romans packed into the centre of a Carthaginian formation. The number of dead at Cannae puts the first day of the Somme in the shade, and it was accomplished with swords, spears and fists, not machineguns.

I'd say the Russo-Finnish war, but I am a bit biased.

Formula for the Napoleonic conflicts:

Corsican takes over the country in a military coup.
Corsican then spends the next twenty years or so attacking the neighbours. Napoleon decides to invade Russia after conquering the disorganized mini-states next-door.
Napoleon loses the bulk of his army on the Russian Steppes.

he then spends some time on an island in the Med, under British Guard.

The little-corporal escapes confinement, tries to restart his wars.

Loses.

France hasn't won a war against a technological peer on their own since, and in the 20th Century, managed to lose two wars against what amounts to rag-assed rebels in places that had been under the french thumb for quite some time.

NONE of this eliminates my original point-the French aren't very good allies. They're the sort that start fights then can't finish them without someone else to help. In WWI, the British saved 'em, and in WWII it took both the Brits and the Americans-and the french made the same mistakes.

Two world wars, the Suez crisis, the Algerian crisis, Indochina, Mexico, time and again, the French got themselves into trouble, loved being helped, and then told the allies that help them to piss up a rope, going over to make nice with the same people who were beating them up and scorning the people who, at their request, sent aid, or shed blood, on their behalf.

The U.S. could have had a very profitable relationship with Vietnam under Uncle-Ho if we hadn't tried to prop up france from 1946 (Postwar) in their Colonial Possessions (most of whom, in the Pacific, were run by collaboratorationist Vichy officials who never faced a war-crimes trial, but who assisted the Japs in committing war-crimes against Asian Indigenous Peoples in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Siam.)
Point being, the French have earned the scorn they get. They are unfaithful allies and arrogant in ways that make Americans look positively humble (Hey, we're at least ashamed of the one time we acted french and abandoned an ally in Vietnam.)
He rose through the ranks of the french army and defeated at diffrent time just about every nation in europe, except for the british who he lost against because there line tactics where more effective than the French collum, and because he met Wellington, who icnidentaly had been trained in the arts of war in France.

He rose through the ranks of the french army and defeated at diffrent time just about every nation in europe, except for the british who he lost against because there line tactics where more effective than the French collum, and because he met Wellington, who icnidentaly had been trained in the arts of war in France.

The Prussians helped out quite a bit. Without them, the Brits would have lost that battle.

I would i think make a slight defence here to the french - particularly in the 2nd world war, that to phara phrase churchill, they knew they would be defeated but they still turned to fight - and lost

Had they won no dout we would have added that to the list of impressive military victories, a very impressive one at that.

As to my own choice? i'll go for the russio finish war as an example of a very long running battle of ambush and feint against soild troop masses it was as sustained example of brilliance.

I would i think make a slight defence here to the french - particularly in the 2nd world war, that to phara phrase churchill, they knew they would be defeated but they still turned to fight - and lost

Had they won no dout we would have added that to the list of impressive military victories, a very impressive one at that.

As to my own choice? i'll go for the russio finish war as an example of a very long running battle of ambush and feint against soild troop masses it was as sustained example of brilliance.

What does the word Mageno mean in english?

Welcome! :p

American rvolutionary war

Naploeon's invasion of Russia.

The Russians destroyed Napoleon's huge invasion army by simply retreating and leaving no supplies or provisions for Napoleon's army. When Napoleon's army left Russia, the Russians peppered Napoleon's army even more.

Although I voted the six day war, I also think that Agincourt should have gotten a mention. That was surely one of the greatest victories ever, even though it was against the French, which takes away from it a bit.

That was nothing short of impressive Jordaxia. :D

That was nothing short of impressive Jordaxia. :D

I thank you. The Punic Wars, and especially the battles and the strategy, are my fascination. If only that was a viable reason to allow me to take the course at university. meh, I'd be too good for the rest of them :D

Although I voted the six day war, I also think that Agincourt should have gotten a mention. That was surely one of the greatest victories ever, even though it was against the French, which takes away from it a bit.

The six day war was really not an upset Israel might have been outnumbered but it had a better army then the arabs and had air supremacy throughout because we managed to KNOCK OUT 90% OF THE EGYPTIAN AIR FORCE ON THE GROUND! (I thought that needed some emphasis some unbelievable intellegence involved in that you can read about it somewhere i forget the book name its Mossad something or other anyway) then they kicked the Egypt out of the Sinai like 56' again and then they took over everything that they wanted because of their superior intellengence. An unbelievable victory the most one sided war I can think of but certainly not an upset in any way.

The real Israeli upset is their war of independence (look at my 1st posting all the way back on page 1 to see why)

I wouldn't call the Six Day War "the most one sided war" ever. Surely a surprise to everyone invovled (particularly the Arabs) but not really a upset. By that time any conflict between the IDF and a real Arab army was more akin to clubbing seals than a real war.

For history's most one sided conflict however, you need only look at Zanzibar. The Sultan, angry at a British warship that came to close to shore without alerting him (they wanted to watch a cricket match), declared war on the British Empire. 43 minutes later the Zanzibar navy (a single steamer) and the royal palace were destroyed, forcing their capitulation to the British.

I wouldn't call the Six Day War "the most one sided war" ever. Surely a surprise to everyone invovled (particularly the Arabs) but not really a upset. By that time any conflict between the IDF and a real Arab army was more akin to clubbing seals than a real war.

For history's most one sided conflict however, you need only look at Zanzibar. The Sultan, angry at a British warship that came to close to shore without alerting him (they wanted to watch a cricket match), declared war on the British Empire. 43 minutes later the Zanzibar navy (a single steamer) and the royal palace were destroyed, forcing their capitulation to the British.

Never read about that conflict in Zanzibar but my point really was that the Six-Day War was not an upset more than that it was the most one sided war of all time (I don't know enough about military history in terms of obscure wars to get the most one sided war ever)

I wouldn't call the Six Day War "the most one sided war" ever. Surely a surprise to everyone invovled (particularly the Arabs) but not really a upset. By that time any conflict between the IDF and a real Arab army was more akin to clubbing seals than a real war.

For history's most one sided conflict however, you need only look at Zanzibar. The Sultan, angry at a British warship that came to close to shore without alerting him (they wanted to watch a cricket match), declared war on the British Empire. 43 minutes later the Zanzibar navy (a single steamer) and the royal palace were destroyed, forcing their capitulation to the British.

Heh... I'd never heard of that before. Another example of a hideously one-sided war, again involving the British, happened in Africa. A local King had captured some visiting British people, and was demanding ransom, I believe. (it is a long time since I heard about this.) Shortly afterwards, a British army marched upon his fortress and killed everyone in it, even going so far as to push artillery pieces up and down the corridors like portable murdering holes.
Naturally, the hostages were rescued :D

I distinctly recall some source saying that the British suffered no losses whatsoever in that assault, but it seems highly doubtful, so I would ignore that.

Milchama, I'm well aware of Israel's history, being every bit as Israeli as you :)

Also, nice choice of name. (Milchama=War for those non-Hebrew speakers)

There are victories and defeats in war. But occasionally, the underdog who was given no chance of winning derives a victory. It may be decisive, or even en passant.

My pick is the battle of Adowa (March 1, 1896). Italy tried to extend it's influence in Abyssinia. They failed. This defeat forced Italy to give up on Abyssinia, and recognize their independence.

Discuss.
Not only that but the rest of Europe thought they were shit hot and wanted to sign Peace treaties and such.

It doesn't really count because the underdog lost, but in the late 1800s 65 men of the french foreign legion held off a force of 2000 mexicans for an entire day. When they ran out of ammo, the remaining 5 legionaires made a bayonet charge. 2 were captured. 800 mexicans were killed.

hmm 12 pages to read. :(

Ive got a ilking to say Stirling Bridge or Six-Day War or Minqar Quaim

Looking at the responses, this looks like a Zionist back-patting contest. While I do agree that the Six-Day War was a swift, textbook quality success, it simply doesn't compare to other of the listed upsets in terms of material disparity. Israel had access to contemporary weapons, vehicles and even an offensive airforce, with French- and American-built fighters. It had, effectively, air superiority. In this case, it's pretty dubious to claim that the Arabs were cutting-edge in comparison to their opposition.

The English Archer army repeatedly proved its worth against considerably larger armies, from Crecy in 1346, all the way until Flodden Field in 1513, before firearms rendered the Longbow obsolete.

Obsolete is a matter of opinion. It simply took less training to use a musket and they could be mass produced.

Longbows were still more accurate, had a longer range and could fire more rounds (flights) per minute than any weapon up until the advent of the breech loading cartridge rifle.

Granted the Baker rifle and some hunting pieces were as accurate, and the rifle had a longer range, but its rate of fire was not to its advantage (2 rounds a minute at best). The musket was easy to load but useless at anything over 100yards. Even then it was hit and miss.

It simply took less training to use a musket

There's an understatement if I ever saw one. There's an English saying, "If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather".
Longbowmen, as a result, were always specialists. Early handguns were revolutionary because they offered a significant amount of stopping power for troops that needed only months to learn how to fire them well. This meant that these mass-produced weapons could be handed to virtually any type of infantry.

Looking at the responses, this looks like a Zionist back-patting contest. While I do agree that the Six-Day War was a swift, textbook quality success, it simply doesn't compare to other of the listed upsets in terms of material disparity. Israel had access to contemporary weapons, vehicles and even an offensive airforce, with French- and American-built fighters. It had, effectively, air superiority. In this case, it's pretty dubious to claim that the Arabs were cutting-edge in comparison to their opposition.

True, but it didn't hurt that the Arab airforces were caught on the ground, either. There is still something to be said for vigilance and good training.

Poland in September 1939.

Not only had we quite long (compare our country's power at the time to France's and how they stood) fought against Germany which had 2800km of borders with us (and we didn't have any Maginot-like line...) and attacked us by surprise, trying to perform Blitzkrieg, but ALSO on September 17 the Soviet Union pushed a dagger in our back and attacked us from the other side.

Poland in September 1939.

Not only had we quite long (compare our country's power at the time to France's and how they stood) fought against Germany which had 2800km of borders with us (and we didn't have any Maginot-like line...) and attacked us by surprise, trying to perform Blitzkrieg, but ALSO on September 17 the Soviet Union pushed a dagger in our back and attacked us from the other side.

Heroic, yes, but biggest in history?

hmm 12 pages to read. :(

I'll summarise it. Cannae and Thermopylae are the biggest upsets in history, though I really should retract Thermopylae for my self-contradiction. I pointed out to someone that it's no an upset if they still lost... and the Spartans still lost. I suppose there is a definite shade of gray, but meh.

Cannae for the win. One of the bloodiest battles ever fought, and it nearly ended the Roman Republic.

(and, as you can probably guess, this is just my opinion. I should have been clearer, mind.)

The Prussians helped out quite a bit. Without them, the Brits would have lost that battle.


Well, we had them on the retreat because of Bluchers approach from the East. As to whether the Allies (there were Belgians and Dutch fighting too) we would have lost the battle, I seriously doubt it. By the time Blucher arrived in position to take on the French who were in reserve behind Napoleons position, the French were down to the Imperial Guard (old men and veterans, not the feared force they had been). Once they came up the hill, they were broken (like the previous coloumns). Napoleon never had the advantage in that battle once his cavalry failed to break the allied squares. The Brits had only lost one of the 3 farms that they held and the squares of infantry had stood all day.

If the Prussians hadn't been in the vicinity then it would have been a different matter, but the Prussians didn't fight on the field of Waterloo, at least not til the very very end, so its no where near certain the Allies would have lost.

Poland in September 1939.

Not only had we quite long (compare our country's power at the time to France's and how they stood) fought against Germany which had 2800km of borders with us (and we didn't have any Maginot-like line...) and attacked us by surprise, trying to perform Blitzkrieg, but ALSO on September 17 the Soviet Union pushed a dagger in our back and attacked us from the other side.

That's not an upset, that's just upsetting.