Worst Military Loss in History
- Thread starter lwm3398
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If by worst, you mean most embarrasing, then I can give you an answer.
Bear in mind, I cannot remember the exact dates and figures, but I can get them roughly right.
It was roundabout the era when England was at war with Scotland. Muskets and cannons were unheard of and swords and halberds were the weapons of choice. A Scottish army was facing an English. The English numbered around two hundred soldiers and were positioned at the top of a hill. The Scottish were at the bottom and were ten times that. So, they charged up the hill towards the English, who ran away. When the Scots reached the top... they were faced with the English army, twice the size of the Scottish one! The Scottish army was massacred.
Fifty years later, the same situation cropped up, with five hundred Scots and a hundred Englishmen, the Scottish army remembered their past defeat and ran away. Into a bog. More than half of them drowned there. The funny bit? There was no reinforcements behind the hill, the small English army was just that.
Bear in mind, I cannot remember the exact dates and figures, but I can get them roughly right.
It was roundabout the era when England was at war with Scotland. Muskets and cannons were unheard of and swords and halberds were the weapons of choice. A Scottish army was facing an English. The English numbered around two hundred soldiers and were positioned at the top of a hill. The Scottish were at the bottom and were ten times that. So, they charged up the hill towards the English, who ran away. When the Scots reached the top... they were faced with the English army, twice the size of the Scottish one! The Scottish army was massacred.
Fifty years later, the same situation cropped up, with five hundred Scots and a hundred Englishmen, the Scottish army remembered their past defeat and ran away. Into a bog. More than half of them drowned there. The funny bit? There was no reinforcements behind the hill, the small English army was just that.
Battle of Cannae. Hannibal vs. Roman Military.
87,000 Roman troops vs. 45,000 Carthaginian troops.
The loss was so bad for the Romans that it caused several Roman city-states to defect from Rome.
As Will Durant wrote, "It was a supreme example of generalship, never bettered in history? and it set the lines of military tactics for 2,000 years"
military historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge once wrote:
"Few battles of ancient times are more marked by ability? than the battle of Cannae. The position was such as to place every advantage on Hannibal's side. The manner in which the far from perfect Hispanic and Gallic foot was advanced in a wedge in échelon? was first held there and then withdrawn step by step, until it had the reached the converse position? is a simple masterpiece of battle tactics. The advance at the proper moment of the African infantry, and its wheel right and left upon the flanks of the disordered and crowded Roman legionaries, is far beyond praise. The whole battle, from the Carthaginian standpoint, is a consummate piece of art, having no superior, few equal, examples in the history of war".
87,000 Roman troops vs. 45,000 Carthaginian troops.
The loss was so bad for the Romans that it caused several Roman city-states to defect from Rome.
As Will Durant wrote, "It was a supreme example of generalship, never bettered in history? and it set the lines of military tactics for 2,000 years"
military historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge once wrote:
"Few battles of ancient times are more marked by ability? than the battle of Cannae. The position was such as to place every advantage on Hannibal's side. The manner in which the far from perfect Hispanic and Gallic foot was advanced in a wedge in échelon? was first held there and then withdrawn step by step, until it had the reached the converse position? is a simple masterpiece of battle tactics. The advance at the proper moment of the African infantry, and its wheel right and left upon the flanks of the disordered and crowded Roman legionaries, is far beyond praise. The whole battle, from the Carthaginian standpoint, is a consummate piece of art, having no superior, few equal, examples in the history of war".
Stalingrad was a military loss on both sides (counting meerly in numbers), but it was not due to the superiority of Russian weaponry or tactics, it was because of the harsh weather conditions which the Germans couldn?t cope with.Furburt said:
I'd say it was the battle of waterloo or any war the French ever engadged in
Gosh, I loved that book.hittite said:
Doesn't change the fact that they still lost.poncho14 said:What about Napoleon, and didn't they help America against the Brits to help them win their independance, just sayin'Mercanary57 said:
And yes, they helped us.
Along with the Spanish.
And a few others.
Britain kind of had it out for them back then.
The 1st Afghnistan War, Particularly the Retreat from Kabul, also known as the Massacre of Elphistone's Army
~16,500 killed or captured, 1 escaped.
1 man made it back, on a wounded donkey, which he had to force to move forward by slowly stabbing it in the leg with his sword
1 guy. A surgeon. Everyone else died. An entire army, ladies and gentlemen, lost in Afghanistan in the 19th century
~16,500 killed or captured, 1 escaped.
1 man made it back, on a wounded donkey, which he had to force to move forward by slowly stabbing it in the leg with his sword
1 guy. A surgeon. Everyone else died. An entire army, ladies and gentlemen, lost in Afghanistan in the 19th century
No one has ever defeated the irish?Furburt said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland
awkward
(i no speel gud)
Don't be silly, 600 deaths pales in comparison to Stalingrad.WINDOWCLEAN2 said:
Do you know why it was for both sides? Because Germany besieged Stalingrad when it was still adequately warm, and it ended up stretching into the winter which the Germans had not prepared for, which means the Germans were on a roll before it got a bit nippy and then it became role reversal. That's what historians call a pyrrhic victory.cl20 said:
they don't count.Furburt said:
The French won, but the Algerians were given a vote for independence later. so yes, in a way, Algeria won, but in the military conflict, France won.
The Portuguese colonial war was lost by Portugal because part of the Portuguese army staged a coup at Lisbon in protest of the war. That doesn't count as a military victory for Africa.
You made a good point though, I hadn't thought of those wars. Kudos to you.
Finland was bad for the USSR but the Eastern front of WWII was even worse.
Ouch. 20 million lives lost, but maybe if Stalin hadn't made a deal with Hitler to carve up Poland then maybe the Second World War would never have started in the first place...
Napoleon Bonaparte was born in 1769... he would only have been 7 years old at the time America declared independence and only 14 by the time the American Revolution was won.
Though Napoleon did have many victories in battle, overall the Napoleonic wars were a defeat for France.
Ouch. 20 million lives lost, but maybe if Stalin hadn't made a deal with Hitler to carve up Poland then maybe the Second World War would never have started in the first place...
Oh, history fail.poncho14 said:What about Napoleon, and didn't they help America against the Brits to help them win their independance, just sayin'Mercanary57 said:
Napoleon Bonaparte was born in 1769... he would only have been 7 years old at the time America declared independence and only 14 by the time the American Revolution was won.
Though Napoleon did have many victories in battle, overall the Napoleonic wars were a defeat for France.
Yes, but it WAS a rather epic loss. besides, it's opinions remember.Actsub said:
And did Iron Maiden write a song about the Battle of Stalingrad? didn't think so.
Sorry I just worded it badly, by they I ment France not Napoleon FranceTreblaine said:Finland was bad for the USSR but the Eastern front of WWII was even worse.
Ouch. 20 million lives lost, but maybe if Stalin hadn't made a deal with Hitler to carve up Poland then maybe the Second World War would never have started in the first place...
Oh, history fail.poncho14 said:What about Napoleon, and didn't they help America against the Brits to help them win their independance, just sayin'Mercanary57 said:
Napoleon Bonaparte was born in 1769... he would only have been 7 years old at the time America declared independence and only 14 by the time the American Revolution was won.
Though Napoleon did have many victories in battle, overall the Napoleonic wars were a defeat for France.
