View Full Version : The greates battle achivments of all times
What I refer to is not important victories like Montgomerys victory at Al-Alamein, althogh it was a important victory, it wasn't a great achivment that he won...
What I mean is more of victorys like Nelsons at trafalgar.
There are alott of battles to choose from.
But since I am a swede I guess I'll take the Swedish King Karl XII victory over Peter the great of russia at Narva. The swedish troops managed to take the town from Peter the Great who had about 7 to 10 times as many troops as Karl XII. The numbers are quite staggering but you gott to remeber that alott of the russian army was untrained rabble while Sweden had a custum since the days of Gustavus Adolphus of always having only trained men in the army. This ofcourse evened out the big gap in numbers a bit...
But still, through exeptional leadership and tactics by Karl XII he managed to take a fortified town defended by about 7-10 times as many troops from one of the greatest russian kings of all times. That at least I think is quite an achivment
I'm not implying that this is the greatest battle achivment of all time...
I just thought it might be intresting for you britts and americans who probably haven't heard that much about this battle to learn some about it...
BTW I apollogise for al my misspellings...
cheers!!
candidgamera
08-03-2001, 23:19
Mark F:
Din Engelska ar mycket battre an masta av nin(?) Svenska (ursikta med min Svenska):
(forgive also the lack of Swedish font use http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif ).
Interesting about, Karl XII = Charles XII. Didn't he also go on to get beat at Poltava?
One of the things I've found informing is the Scandanavian history lesson taught by Europa Universalis - driven by its Swedish makers.
As for other pivotal battle achievements would have to say Midway: loss of 300+ irreplaceable pilots and 4 carriers.
Yes that is true he did got beat later at Poltava, although it was close, it almost went the otherway. But even if they would have won at poltava they would have lost in the end, since the russian empire was much larger and wealthier than the swedish and money almost always prevails in the end... But he did make a good attempt...
Kudos to your swedish! Im impressed! Are your parent swedes??
Anssi Hakkinen
08-04-2001, 01:14
This isn't Japanese history exactly, but as an extension to the top ten generals threads, why not. *shrug*
Since good ole Carolus probably got at least one of my ancestors killed in the Royal Savolax Infantry Regiment, maybe I'm entitled to a comment even though my Swedish sucks. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
And it's here: Charles wasn't particularly bright. It may be that he was good at organizing and motivating an army, but Mr. Hand of Fate was WAY over-confident to be a good king of a major European power.
The attack on Narva occurred against the unanimous advice of ALL his generals and advisors, in a fierce snowstorm where not command and control was possible. It would have been completely possible for his entire army to be annihilated, but by pure chance, the snowstorm blew into the enemies' faces instead, preventing them from firing until the Swedes (and Finns, mind) were already upon them. To top that off, the bridge over the river Narva chose to break on that very day, cutting half the Russian army off from the other half and destroying any chances for a rally. That battle wasn't about generalship, it was about pure luck.
Poltava could have gone either way too, but much in the same way as Narva - Charles took an insane risk by charging AGAIN, and that time it failed. Then he went to have a vacation in Turkey while the Russians took over half the kingdom and rest of Sweden's neighbours allied against the other half... Not like this.
The irony of this is that despite Sweden's small size, it *could* actually have beat Russia, as it had done before under Gustaphus Adolphus (Gustaf II Adolf). After Narva, Peter the Great's army was in shambles and his throne shakier than ever before: if Charles had marched on Moscow, he might well have forced the Russians to sue for peace. But no, he went to Poland to waste troops! Mercy. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
***
Oh yeah, Midway. That was a pivotal battle to be sure, but I don't think it was anyone's achievement per se - again bad luck on the part of the Japanese, and good luck on the part of the Americans, who managed to kill those four carriers despite seriously fumbling many of their attack plans. This has been discussed before, and I know there will be those who disagree, but there you have it...
And to make my own choice, I think I'm kind of obliged to mention the battle of Suomussalmi. Take two fully motorized Soviet divisions with armored support. Take a rag-tag Finnish force with negligible equipment (no AT guns, air support or artillery) maybe a few regiments strong. Put both in a large forest. Mix. Who comes back out again? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of Paramount Pictures or its affiliates.
Anssi: I agree that the Finish performance in the Russian-Finish was outstanding. But in my opinion the Finish victory wasn't because any extraordinary generalship.
The Finish army was very brave, well trained and with a command that was professional and efficient but not extraordinary. The Soviet command by comparison was pathetically useless in every area: Strategy, tactic, planning, execution, you name it.
The Finish victory would be better explained because the inner characteristics of the Finish army and soldier linked to general characteristics of the finish population and society: Bravery, ability to autonomous thinking and actions, initiative, excellent skills as explorers and trackers, great movility in the snow, good adaptation to the cold.
All that was a heavy contrast with the Soviet army in that time which was poorly equiped, trained, motivated and commanded.
The Finish victory can't be explained in terms of a superior leadership. Yep, the Finish Command was very good and Mannhermein knew what he was doing, but that is not enough to explain the victory.
The finish victory can be understood better if we remember that that war was fought on one side for an army of free citizens and on the other side by the slaves of Stalin.
Free men vs. Slaves. Who would come out? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Assi I fully agree that it might not fitt in japaneese history, i won mind at all if you move it..
And I guess I can agree that the taking of Narva involved alott of luck... But I think it was still a quite remarkable feat...
And the fact that he took a holliday to Bender (in Turkey) i cant fully agree on. It was more of an exile...
Moi moi, by the way... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
And by the way. I can admitt I may not be totally objective, we swedes can be over-proud of dear old Carolus. So sometimes we need our dear neighbours to help us face reality...
But we kick your butts in hockey though http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
ShaiHulud
08-04-2001, 03:32
Had a Finnish general committed his force to a stand-up battle I'm sure his name would now be in the list of incompetent generals. Knowing what NOT to do is as important as any other factor, in battle.
------------------
O stranger, Go tell the Spartans that we lie here, obedient to their will.....
Tachikaze
08-04-2001, 07:35
Chief Joseph (Inmuttooyahlatlat) vs the American Army
The Zulus vs the British Army at Isandhlwana
The British Army vs the Zulus at Rorke's Drift
[This message has been edited by Tachikaze (edited 08-04-2001).]
Tachikaze,
I know very little of the zulu brittish war.
I would be real interested in knowing what happaned at those battles and would really appreaciate if you would describe them.
Zen Blade
08-04-2001, 09:46
I actually don't have a problem with anything related to history being posted here in this forum.
I think talking and discussing any world history is valuable and has a home in the History forum....
although, it would be nice for someone to make the Japanese connection... for example...
The Swedes....[something... something...] By the way, Sweeden is west of Russia, which is west of Japan, and thus there wasn't much contact between those two countries, but... [back to the sweedish part]
-Zen Blade
------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG
Clan Tenki Council-Unity, Retired
SHS Core Member
candidgamera
08-04-2001, 10:00
Zen:
How's this for STW Japan:
Sekigahara: finished Sengoku Jidai.
Okehazama: Oda Nobunaga gets a proper start on his way.
Other:
Took MarkF's meaning, maybe misunderstood, to Battles that achieved decisive results, why mentioned Midway.
Achievement battle would have to include Grant's Vicksburg campaign, Lee's Chancellorsville, Napoleon's Austerlitz - all involved very skillful use of manoeuver.
For WWII:
Manstein,Eastern Front just after/during Stalingrad to retaking Kharkov in Operation Star - helped save the whole southern front in the East, prevented an entire army from getting cut off in the Caucusas.
Toranaga sama
08-04-2001, 12:07
The Sengoku Jidai was not necessarily ended at Sekigahara.... Nobuhide didn't commit seppuku until 1618 or something after the Summer War of Osaka.
It is after this war and the burning of Osaka Jo that finished the period.
Not that you're wrong, but the fighting continued for 15 years beyond, that's all.
Tachikaze
08-04-2001, 14:35
MarkF,
I chose the two Zulu War events because they demonstrated brilliance under terrible odds on the part of the Zulus and British, and they compliment each other perfectly.
Simply put, the Zulus entered the war with a technological deficit, the British with a lack of numbers and knowledge of the land. In the two battles mentioned, the victors overcame their disadvantages, and exploited their opponent's weaknesses.
At Isandhlwana, the Zulus used their encircling maneuver, perfected over the years against other Africans in their region. This was known as the "horns and chest" of the buffalo. They also used confusion and exploited the British weakness of needing a constant supply of ammunition. It was the greatest victory of a non-industrial nation over a colonial power.
Not only did the battle demonstrate good leadership, it showed the power of high discipline, training, and bravery.
Shortly after that battle, a small group of British soldiers and engineers were surrounded by members of the same Zulu army at a station called Rorke's Drift. Over the next two days, the British, greatly outnumbered 4500 to 140, fought off the repeated attacks of their foes.
Again, the leadership, bravery, training, and especially discipline, were the keys to the British victory ("survival" would be a better word).
I would say that one of the greatest battle achievements (of the 20th Century, anyway) and to take the topic literally, would have to be the charge of the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba in 1917 (WWI). The Aussies and Kiwis have a very well-deserved reputation as some of the finest soldiers of the 20th Century -(many Germans who faced them in WWII considered them the best fighting men the allies had) Beersheba still stands as a remarkable achievement - and deserves to be better known outside Australia. The charge was the climax of a fascinating campaign far removed from the trenches and mud of France.
If anyone is interested, this page describes the course of the battle... http://www.lighthorse.org.au/histbatt/beersheba.htm
A 1988('87?)Australian film, 'The Lighthorsemen', features the famous charge. While not the best war movie ever made, the charge itself is very well done, and is, IMO, one of the best 'cavalry' sequences ever filmed.
[This message has been edited by FwSeal (edited 08-04-2001).]
candidgamera
08-05-2001, 12:47
Toranaga Sama:
I stand corrected, was forgetting the Osaka siege and all.
Tachihaze:
Have found it quite striking the reversal of outcomes between Isandhlwana, and Rorke's considering they both happened in such a short space of time.
FwSeal:
Heartily agree on the cavalry charge scene in
"Lighthorsemen", enjoyed the film. To understand the whole operation had pretty exceptional leadership in Allenby.
Favorite quote from that one was: "You'd wanna be bloody thirsty to get water from Beersheba" or something like that, said just before the charge after they'd not had water in days.
Tachikaze
08-05-2001, 14:24
Ironically, on the part of the British, the larger, better prepared army was defeated. The smaller army, 1/3 of which had been hospitalized, were victorious.
Additionally, the Zulus at Rorke's Drift had captured British rifles (granted, they weren't very familiar with how to use them), the Isandhlwana Zulu impi did not.
That was a pretty good line, candid http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
While I say it's not the best war movie ever made, it's not a bad movie either - and worth seeing. I ended up seeing it about 24 hours after watching 'Gallipoli' for the first time, so the somewhat lighter nature of 'Horsemen' was probably over-accentuated in my mind.
For a Japanese decisive achievement, I would probably go with Okehazama - although it was not unique in the sengoku period (Kawagoe and Okitanawate were also battles were a heavily outnumbered but motivated force managed to slay the opposing daimyo and set his troops to rout).
Kwambatake Sanjuro
08-21-2001, 22:08
Well I would say that Wellington (Wellesley), achieve a great victory at Assaye, 14 000 men, most of them are sepoys and if I remember corectly 750 Scots agains 100 000 Indian's troop, 25 000 good infantry, very good artillery and a force of 75 000 poor...very poor cavalry.
It change the course of the war in India, after that victory, many tribes left the alliance again the British
------------------
In War there is no greater honnor... other than victory
Takeda Shingen
08-22-2001, 01:37
My choice would be Togo's victory over the Russians at Tsushima in 1905.
Michael
Minamoto Yoritomo
08-22-2001, 04:35
The absolute best victory of all time must have been Minamoto Yoshitsune's victory at Ichi-no-tani. Well, at least it was a very spectacular one.
Asturian Knight
08-22-2001, 05:10
Even thou It was not a victory I'd like to mention the battle at Thermopylae, 480 BC; where 300 spartans held a mountain pass for three days against 20000(or something like that) persians.
------------------
Strength and Honor!!
Tachikaze
08-22-2001, 06:24
I considered Thermopylae for this thread, but I'm not sure what is fact and what is Herodotus's embellishment. He is known for exaggeration. Since we get our history of the Greek/Persian wars from the Greeks, the Persians get bad press.
There is little doubt, however, that the Greek allies were outnumbered and that the Persians were stalled at the pass for three days.
Minagawa Daimon
08-22-2001, 11:22
"behold stranger, here lies the noble sons of sparta, loyal to her even unto death"...
Catiline
08-26-2001, 18:40
Battle of Britain
------------------
Oderint dum metuant
Hmm wasn't the battle of britain won more by german mistakes than by british achievments???
Devil_Hanzo
08-27-2001, 07:50
About the battle of Isandhlwana; I'm not going to say it wasn't a great achievement, but IIRC the Zulus were 25,000 against 1,500 British. What won the battle was probably that the Zulus kept running towards the Brits even as their brothers in arms were being slaughtered and then when they got in close they really couldn't loose... Superior numbers, basically. Now, I'm not an expert on Zulu history or anything, and I do think the Zulu warriors displayed great courage, but from what little I know about the battle, I'm not so sure it was really a great achievement by the leadership that won the battle...
About the Spartans; is there any certain historical evidence, or relatively reliable texts, that can tell us whether or not they were actually such great warriors, or if they've been "hyped"? What did other Greeks write about them, for example?
Minamoto Yoritomo
08-28-2001, 01:38
Aye, the Battle of Britain was lost because Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to stop bombing the airfields and to start bombing London. He had almost completely destroyed the RAF, but he had to satisfy his personal vendetta.
Tachikaze
08-28-2001, 05:18
Isandhlwana was an achievement because the British had fought other armies in their spreading cancer of an empire with great success, dispite huge odds against them. Rorke's Drift, itself, was a good example. The Zulus were the first army outside of North America and Europe to defeat the British in a major battle. It took great discipline, courage, and training.
Tenchimuyo
08-28-2001, 06:16
The D-Day landing.
------------------
A great warrior rarely reveal his true skills....
Really the D-day landing isn't a great battle achievment. The americans sort of had the numbers and the air superiority it was sort of expected that they would win...
Oda Matsu
08-30-2001, 21:25
Sir Robert Clives's conquest of India. THe destruction of the Aztec Empire by Cortez, with what amounted to a core army of about 500 men and a handful of horses. The Mongol conquest of Asia is up there too, even more impressive due to it being the result not neccesarily of one man, but rather the working system of organization he devised.
JonPowell
08-31-2001, 05:00
Your all wrong it would have to be the Russians when they beat Napolean.They used there brains instead of braun and killed more than half of his troops without even lifting a finger.If you could use diplomacy like that in STW then it would probably be an all new game.
------------------
JOn Powell
As a significant battle achievement, I would add the siege of Vienna, Austria, in the 17th century (don't know exact year) by the Turks and with the assistance of French engineers. The siege was broken by the Poles. The key to success was the fact, that the Poles decided to climb over the Leopoldberg-Mountainrange just north west of Vienna. This included moving heavy artillery in difficult terrain. The Turks expected the Polish attack in the planes of the Donau river. The Poles therefore gained an advantageous position and the element of surprise.
The outcome of the conflict was also significant to Europe, as at that time Vienna was considered the last point of resistance all the way to Paris. The fall of Vienna could have brought large parts of Western Europe under Muslim rule.
Red Peasant
09-07-2001, 06:35
Quote Originally posted by MarkF:
Hmm wasn't the battle of britain won more by german mistakes than by british achievments???[/QUOTE]
Bit rich coming from unprincipled neutrals! Anyway, surely the loser in any battle loses because he makes mistakes; he makes stategic and tactical errors.
------------------
"In a consumer society there are, inevitably, two kinds of slave: the prisoner of addiction and the prisoner of envy."
Red Peasant
09-07-2001, 07:01
Quote Originally posted by Devil_Hanzo:
About the Spartans; is there any certain historical evidence, or relatively reliable texts, that can tell us whether or not they were actually such great warriors, or if they've been "hyped"? What did other Greeks write about them, for example?[/QUOTE]
A favourite, and famous, anecdote about the Spartans concerns their famous king, Agesilaus, when he was assembling an army of the Peloponnesian League of which Sparta was the hegemonic leader. The Spartiates were heavily outnumbered by the troops of the other states and these allies weren't keen on participating in the forthcoming war/battles, so they questioned why they should be dictated to by so few Spartans. Agesilaus thought about it for a minute and then told all those were potters to sit down, they did. He then proceeded to list all the trades of a Greek citizen and asked them to be seated in turn, and when he had exhausted all possibilites, except 'warrior', only the Spartiates remained standing. Nuff said!
Sparta itself was an unwalled city and the country of Lacedaemon was *never* invaded until after their decisive defeat by Thebes at Leuctra in 371BC. Even then, the combined might of the Boeotians and many other states couldn't take the city itself, even though it had no walls and the Spartiates were severely reduced in numbers and virtually without friends and allies. They must have been quite good I think!
------------------
"In a consumer society there are, inevitably, two kinds of slave: the prisoner of addiction and the prisoner of envy."
Really red peasant. What has my countries neutrality to do with it? Because we were neutral I don't have a right to make a comment??? Thats not one of your greatest comments man.....
Well ofcourse battles are won by mistakes. But in the battle of britain it really didn't have anything to do with great efforts by the british, it was mostly the germans who made great tactical mistakes.
Red Peasant
09-08-2001, 07:33
Quote Originally posted by MarkF:
Really red peasant. What has my countries neutrality to do with it? Because we were neutral I don't have a right to make a comment??? Thats not one of your greatest comments man.....
Well ofcourse battles are won by mistakes. But in the battle of britain it really didn't have anything to do with great efforts by the british, it was mostly the germans who made great tactical mistakes.[/QUOTE]
Sorry mate, just noticed a slag-off Britain tone to a lot of your 'comments', so I thought it needed a little bit of 'redress'. We are a favourite hate figure around the globe and an easy target......nice to know us and the yanks are not the only touchy nationals http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif SVEN IS THE MAN!!!!! MY SSON!!!
------------------
"In a consumer society there are, inevitably, two kinds of slave: the prisoner of addiction and the prisoner of envy."
Red Peasant
09-08-2001, 07:53
We Brits made "no efforts" in the Battle of Britain!!??
Ok, if YOU say so. I wish I could show you the blood of the Brits (and others), military and civilian, who laid down their lives for a better world, free from Nazism. Not many of your countrymen participated I notice....lots of Poles though! Give us a break! We didn't save the world, I'm not that daft, but treat us (and our accomplishments) at your peril!
It's great to argue with words, even passionately, than with bullets, isn't it? Thank You!
------------------
"In a consumer society there are, inevitably, two kinds of slave: the prisoner of addiction and the prisoner of envy."
I don't mean to say the britts didn't make any efforts. Its just that I don't think it falls under a great battle achievment by the british.
Red Peasant
09-09-2001, 00:31
Sorry MarkF, I re-read my posts and thought they were possibly out of line. But, I still think it was a great achievement by us Brits, we stood alone, we survived, and we eventually won, with a little bit of help from some reluctant allies, and the world is a better place for it....believe it or not! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif It's one of our greatest ever achievements.
Cheers mate,
------------------
"In a consumer society there are, inevitably, two kinds of slave: the prisoner of addiction and the prisoner of envy."
Ok, our opinions differ. But the world would be much more boring if everyone had the same opinion. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.