Printable View
Just as Cannae may be unique in ancient open-field battles (smaller army enveloping and destroying the larger army), Alesia appears unique in annals of sieges: a "donut" of field fortifications, simultaneously besieging the town of Alesia within while fending off the immense Gaullic assault from without. Has anyone heard of anything similar anywhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by bettkicker19
Yes, it's the circumvallatio used by Romans in many other cases as well, for example against Sarmizegetusa, Massada and other cities/forts I can't recall ATM. Really evil siege method, as it blocks entrance and exit of the besieged, even during the night, and completely cuts off any supplies from reaching the garrison.
Not in particular order
National history:
Sisak 1593- 5 000 Croatian and German soldiers vs 12 000 Turks
Sziget (in Hungary)1566- Nikola Zrinski and 2500 slodiers vs 60 000 Turks under Suleyman II
Internatioanl history:
Cannae-216 BC-due to his excellent tactics great Hannibal's victory
Niniva 627- Heraclius I vs Persians (both sides around 50 000 men)
seas of Constaninopole 674-678- Byzantine vs Arabic navy- first use of Greek fire
Horns of Hattin-1187-AFAIK biggest battle against crusaders (except maybe siege of Antioch and Doryleaum)
Kircholm-1605- Polish defeated numerically superior Swedes
Breitenfeld 1631- first great victory of Gustav II Adolf in 30years war
Stalingrad 1942-1943-very bloody battle with many street fights
My favorites have to be Agincourt, Operation Barbarossa, and Battle of Britain
Lots of choices, of course...
As a Yank, I've always been partial to Freeman's Farm/Saratoga.
For sheer impact on the course of human history:
Gaugamela -- Alex was a bit over-rated IMO, but this one battle begat who knows how many efforts at emulation and spurred the efforts of would-be great captains for at least the next 500 years. Caesar had as much or more impact, but not just with one battle.
Frontiers/Tannenberg/Marne -- The failure of the Schlieffen plan and resultant stalemate probably had more influence (directly and indirectly) on the modern world than anything else. I've re-read Tuchman at least 4 times, and when I get to the end-note about St. Cyr I still tear up. What a staggering lot of impact from one 6-week stretch of fighting.
Yes, I'll forgive you if you don't think of it as a battle but as a campaign.
Cannae just explains itself
According to wiki, "Battle of Red Cliffs". Three Kingdoms period in China, and the whole fleet of Cao Cao got burned in one brilliant move, destroying his fleet and killing most men on it.
Thermopylae again is self-explanatory.
The siege of Acre in 1189-91 probably comes close; it was besieged (but probably not circumvallated) by the crusaders and local Franks, who were then subjected to encirclement by the Muslims under Saladin. Cue lots of desperate scraps and sallies and stuff, before the arrival of the Third Crusade saw the fall of the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezer57
Cannae. Brilliant!
Alesia. Julius Caesar is one of my favourite generals and in Alesia he showed his best.
The battle of Ninevia(627). The byzantine emperor Heraclius defeated the Persians. That battle led to a byzantine victory in a long and difficult war with Persia (actually the last one)
The three seiges of Constantinople (674-678; 717-718; 1453).The first two are an excellent example for the power of the Byzantine empire. Actually I'm happy that in the second the Bulgarian khan Tervel helped to the Byzantines and attacked the Arabs in the rear... many muslim wives became a widows.:laugh4: (very, very evil ). Well... the last one - that was the end of a great empire :skull: .
Hatin. Good job Sallah-ad-Din!
Las Navas del Tolossa.1212.The great victory of the Christians against the Almohads. A battle with a great impact of the history.
The battle of Kosovo. 1389. This showed the will of the Christian to keep their freedom. Very dramatic- it ends with the death of the two main rivals-
sultan Murad I and prince Lazar. Rather expensive Ottoman victory.
Haleb. In 1516 the Ottoman sultan Selim I crushed in a single battle the Mamelukes and conquered Egypt. The Ottoman empire doubled its size and the Ottoman ruler became a chaliph of the Sunits.
The English victory over the Spanish Armada. My favourite naval battle.
... ( others)
Some connected with Bulgarian history( or why I'm proud to be Bulgarian ~;) ):
811. The Byzantines were defeated in Balkan mountain by Bulgarian khan Krum. Emperor Nicephorus I lost his head and the heir to the throne was hurt badly ( he died some months after that). I can't remember many cases of killed emperors in a battle.
917. Bulgarian tsar Simeon defeated all the Byzantine forces in the European part of the empire.
986. Samuil defeated Basil II. (We all know how good general Basil II was.)
1205 Bulgarian tsar Kaloyan defeated the Crusades of 4th Crusade in the battle of Odrin.Another high ranked loss of the enemy- emp.Baldwin I was captured and killed soon after. He crushed the power of the Latin empire in Constantinople.
1230 The battle of Klokotnitza. Tzar Ivan Asen II defeated the Epiric army,which was twice the Bulgarians and included many elite soldiers. The power of Epir was crushed and its emperor captured (!) and blinded.
:oops: Maybe that was tooooo large post on the topic :dizzy2:
Cannae was 216 BC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Templar
Zama was 202 BC.
Thanks, I've just corrected it
From 20th century warfare battles of Suomussalmi and Tali-Ihantala.The latter being the biggest single battle in Nordic history:
Battle of Suomussalmi was fought between 11000 Finish soldiers(mostly light infantry versus 50000 Soviets supported by large amount of Tanks It was Brilliant Operation that started from Delay action by Finish and ended up in Annihilation of the Soviet attacking forces by serious of well coordinated counter attacks.Casulties were 950 killed or wounded Fins and 22500 killed or wounded Soviets.The Soviet Divisions also practically lost all their equipment.The tactics Finish employed got the name "Motti".Which means pile of firewood in English.Here is a Operational map of the Battle:
https://img473.imageshack.us/img473/...ussalmi5mk.jpg
Here is a good Wiki link of the battle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi
Battle of Tali Ihantala was the culmination point of Soviet Grand summer offensive 1944 that started the same day as the landing in Normandy.In the battle Finnish forces stopped the Assault of Soviets and after it they didnt attack anymore in Karelian Isthmus in the rest of the War.Finish had 50000 troops against 150000 Soviet troops.The Artillery superiority was 20:1 to Soviets,Finns had 105 planes and 81 allied German aircrafts so together with Germans 186 planes against 1000 Soviet planes.The result of the battle was 8500 killed or wounded Finish and 20000 Soviets and about 600 Soviet tanks destroyed.Here is more info from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala
Naseby.
Agincourt was interesting battle, I suppose. English Longbowmen with dysentry; shit and shoot, shit and shoot, shit and shoot. I love it. I agree that it wasn't acctually an English victory though.. more of a French self-inflicted defeat. Mud, eh? :oops:
So very many to choose from... Let's see:
Myriocephalum, Kalka, First Panipat, Tsushima, Operation August Storm, the Six Days' War, and the Yom Kippur War. This is just a small selection, I cannot possibly be forced to choose from (or even name) all the battles that interest me.
My favorite is the battle of Midway. A vastley out numbered and out experianced Ameican force defeated a superior Japanise fleet. The battle was a prime example of how important secure comunications are to stratigic battle plans. It also shows how often small details can have massive repercussions. If a single recon plane from the cruiser Tone had not been delayed taking off by an hour, or if the same plane had not developed radio problems an been unable to radio in it's sighting of the US taskforce. This allowed the US both strategic and tactical suprise.
Idistiaviso
The first roman battle a read about in a primary source. The sheer size of the well balanced roman army still impreses.
Askalon
A single Ala of highly trained roman cavarly defeats a force of several thousand rebells. (According to Josephus they suffered about 10.000 casualties, but that's surely exagerated) It excellently shows that a huge bunch of armed people is not an army.
16th century - Napoleonic seawarfare
Juetland
I was always akind of battle- and sailingship fan.
Salomons campain
extensive amphibous and aerial warfare in a island war setting plus Corsiars, what else does it need?
six day war
simply brilliant plan and execution
Many of the grand encirclements of the beginning of Barbarossa. These battles are often not given much attention as the soviets have been written off as easy enemies at that time, but really the tactics and accomplishments of the German military during that time were amazing. The soviets were already numerically superior before the war even started, yet the Germans crushed them.
Also, Kursk of course is one of my favorites. A vicious clash of armor and men.
Any battle's Manstein was a part of are very interesting, especially his retaking of Kursk and actions after Stalingrad. If Hitler had given him more control, he may have turned the whole thing around...
Not very amazing id say, Finns had allready shown the quality of Soviet forces at that time in a much more impressive way then the Germans would do.Quote:
but really the tactics and accomplishments of the German military during that time were amazing. The soviets were already numerically superior before the war even started, yet the Germans crushed them.
That German veterans having had so much training in treacherous cowardly assaults on Poland, Norway, Benelux, France and the Balkans were able to make another treacherous assault and overcome unprepared Soviet troops who at first were not even allowed to return fire is not surprising.
He also retook Kharkov 1943, I didnt hear much about his retaking of Kursk, no way he would have turned the thing around though, that was beyond Germanys and Mansteins power as history clearly showed.Quote:
especially his retaking of Kursk and actions after Stalingrad. If Hitler had given him more control, he may have turned the whole thing around...
Kalle
You must admit, Kalle, that the Blitzkrieg strategy was only seen in its full glory in Operation Barbarossa. The way the disorganized and ill-led Soviet forces were encircled and mopped up was quite amazing to see from a strategical point of view.
The advance of the Germans was so enormously fast that their armored spearheads were sometimes so far ahead of the supportive infantry that any flanking attack would have destroyed the isolated tanks; but the Soviets were wholly incapable and completely overrun. No, you cannot only attribute the German advance to surprise on the Russian side -- especially if you consider the casualty ratio between German and Soviet soldiers. German soldiers had better training, equipment, experience, discipline and leadership, which is what kept them in the game on the Eastern Front for so long.
Not really. The battles of '41 and 42' were much larger and was on terrain where numerical superiority in men, tanks, and planes - especially in a defensive role - gave the soviets big advantages. Not to take anything away from the Finns though.. that was an amazing fight they put up.Quote:
Not very amazing id say, Finns had allready shown the quality of Soviet forces at that time in a much more impressive way then the Germans would do.
Treacherous? Cowardly? Nah.. Hitler was certainly both of those things, but not the German military. Dont forget, even from the beginning France alone had a larger military than Germany, not to mention the contributions of Britain.Quote:
That German veterans having had so much training in treacherous cowardly assaults on Poland, Norway, Benelux, France and the Balkans were able to make another treacherous assault and overcome unprepared Soviet troops who at first were not even allowed to return fire is not surprising.
My mistake. Kursk was certainly not retaken. The war could certainly have been won, even after Stalingrad had Hitler given the military more leeway.Quote:
He also retook Kharkov 1943, I didnt hear much about his retaking of Kursk, no way he would have turned the thing around though, that was beyond Germanys and Mansteins power as history clearly showed.
I don't find it so amazing after what the Germans had accomplished elsewhere. Yes, Barbarossa was on a bigger scale but the fall of France (and Poland, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Yugoslavia, Greece & Crete) was also pretty spectacular.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
To me the amazing thing about the invasion of Russia was the way the Soviets bounced back. I think its true that they lost the majority of their soldiers and equipment in the first year, as well as vast amounts of territory. No great strategy, I guess, but a real triumph of will.
I think Simon Appleton is on after something here.Maybe not Russians but Soviet Union,bulk of their soldiers were not Russians.Like Sun Tzu sayed:The best General is not the one that wons most battles but the one that wins the War.The Russian determination to defend their Rodina,Motherland was almost unbeliavable when they had nowhere to retreat,Like the Russian resistance of Moscow,Leningrad and Stalingrad Showed.
After all the Soviets took the heaviest toll on fighting against Germans and nobody can deny that.On present day,its only guessing how many men,women and children Soviets lost in the war against Germany and her allies.:bow:
Napoleon's battles in Russia, Eylau and Borodino first come to mind.:2thumbsup:
The turning points of the second world war, stallingrad and el-alamein.
Hannibals campaign against the romans (choose one battle, I don`t care which)
i'm a sucker for the battles where a general understands his enemies and turns the offenisive potential of his opponent to his disadvantage kinda like akido.
pharsalus, as already posted, where caesar uses his right flank as bait and lays a nasty counterattack for the expected cavalry flanking.
caesar's first campaign in spain during the civil war where he outmaneuvers an opposing force which had the terrain advantage, and through constant moving and flanking surrounds and forces his enemy to surrender with very few casualties to either side. freaking brilliant.
austerlitz, where napoleon gives up the heights to his enemy, and baits them to attack his weak right flank, while he counters up the heights.
battle of france 1940, manstein uses the offensive punch of the allies to separate them from their logistics and trap them on the coast.
cannae, hannibal uses the 'push through the center' philosophy of the romans to get them trapped and surrounded.
battle of the carts, outnumbered genhis khan creates a static battle line instead of the normal battle of mobility between 2 steppe armies.
alexander's battle in the steppe where his slower moving troops are used as bait and surrounded by steppe horsemen, while with a dust screen, he hits them with his mobile troops. a sendetary army defeating a steppe army through mobility and surprise!
Recently I have rediscovered several little known battles from XVIIth century
and one of them simply stunned me:
Battle at Szkłów in 1654 between 2 500 -3000 Lithuanians and no less than ( checked) 18000 - 20 000 Russians - it was like Thermopylae with Lithuanians charging up to 10 times during the battle they managed to inflict terrible losses ( 6000 - 7000) winning the battle against 8-10 times larger forces. In addition it wasn't the crappy forces the Russians were usually sending ahead, but pretty decent fighting force with many western-type Reiter cavalry, so the victory is even more suprising !
Regards Cegorach :book:
There were some excellent battles in Japan, the names of which I will not slaughter but I will say I have always been fascinated by the differences between east and west military strategies.
pashcendale (mainly because im learning about it)
assaye
crecy
(no particular order)