Waterloo for me as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
Printable View
Waterloo for me as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
I think that Waterloo is one of the most overrated battles ever. It actually speaks more of Napoleon, who refused to admit that he was defeated years ago. Wellington just made him acknowledge this fact...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Well the way I see it is that Napoleon's return to France was not necessarilly inevitable to defeat. I think perhaps had Napoleon crushed Wellington and then Blucher in turn in such a way that made their armies really really hurt, he might've been able to either negotiate a peace with the rest, or, perhaps gain the initiative again and go after/ wait for the other allies.
Although I do understand what you're saying at the same time. Perhaps his most desicive decision was the blunder that was the Russian Campaign and that waterloo was merely reinforcing his ultimate defeat.
More or less, that's what I was trying to say. I think that even if he had won decisive victory at waterloo, it wouldn't change the course of history dramatically. Napoleon's personality wouldn't allow him to to stand still and buy his time. Although undoubtly one of the greatest military leaders of all time, he thought of himself a superhuman, which he wasn't, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derfasciti
An important battle for sure, but I've seen some english historians comparing it to marathon, gaugamela, traffalgar etc... That is why I said it's importance was overrated
Bannockburn, Scots outnumbered more than 4 to 1, peasants against men-at-arms, light cavalry against knights, peasant archers against longbowmen. And to start the battle, an English knight sneakily charged Robert the Bruce with his lance before Robert had all his gear on and while he had his back to him, but Robert turned round and split his head with his axe!
Or, more rather, outnumbered 2:1, well-trained (schiltrons) and highly able clansmen against an army under worst possible command, over-confident and squabling amongst itself. Adding to that, the Scots had superior ground. It was no miracle, it was pretty much stupidity on the English side and logical manouvers that won the day for the Scottish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
Also, the Scottish "light cavalry" were never engaged in battle with the English cavalry/knights as far as I know.
One of my favourites (BC) is the Siege of Jerusalem 70BC.
More modern is the entire German Caucasus campaign. Such a total disaster for them.
Indeed, it was the brilliant command of Robert the Bruce that won the day. He found a good defensible position, and used his troops to their strenghts. Your right about the light cavalry, they were used to chase away the English longbowmen trying to fire on the Scottish flanks. As for the numbers though, it was 5,000 Scottish against 20,000 English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
I'd be careful about saying anything about history like it's the truth. The only truth is that we'll never know exact figures for both armies att Bannockburn, and both the numbers 5000 and 20000 seem just a bit too even to be realistic. Not even the Wiki article on the battle (which could very well be written by some Scottish local patriot) makes the numbers that uneven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
It would have to be the battle of Vincennes!
It has to be one of the greatest bluffs in history. George Rogers Clark lead a small force from near what is today St. Lewis Mo. to Vincennes Ind. Sources put their numbers from 57 to 170. They marched for weeks across flooded ground in winter and laid sedge to Ft. Sackville at Vincennes.
If I remember correctly he arrived near dusk on 23 Feb. 1779 and sent most of his men marching around carrying banners in order that the British think his force larger and sent a few riflemen into houses near the fort to start sniping. There was little way that he could keep up such a ruse for very long as he was not only short on manpower but also ammunition. The second day they put up quite a volume of fire…all small arms as his cannon had not arrived by boat and delayed by the flooding. To cut it short he managed to bluff the British into surrender on 25 Feb and there by capture a huge territory. His entire campaign was mostly bluff and I think he only fought two battles but managed to capture everything from the Great Lakes to the Ohio River. As it turned out he wound up personally financing the campaign and ruining himself financially and physically but it was a brilliant piece of work militarily.
Battle of The Bulge...
Cannae
Kursk was an amazing clash of armor, and has personal significance to me.
Rommel's successes in N. Africa despite such numerical disadvantages and the italian campaign are also very interesting, as are the many huge battles on the russian front that were far more tactical than any of the Western battles of WW2, but get little to no attention.
Chancellorsville (beautiful tactical display)
Thermopylae (what is up with this movie, the 300, that has zombies fighting for the Persians)
Kadesh (could I just have rode in a chariot once?)
all wonderful to read about. But the greatest of all, Tours.
For me it has to be the epic 1405 battle of Stalling Down
Interesting battle but I think I would have to pass on that one though. It breaks one of my rules…remaining alive to tell the story. A rule I have managed not to break so far!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cangrande
As for Kursk, especially the German side, that is a bloodbath and tremendous waste of manpower and equipment that I would not mind missing my self.
I would much prefer that the enemy no a bit less of my intentions and deployment than happened there. It should have been cancelled after the first delay and something else tried instead.
The Alamo
What about San Jacinto?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The Alamo is the epotime of Texas and it was fought in San Antonio so I gotsta rep the hoodQuote:
Originally Posted by Csar
In which sense? The myth or the reality? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
There is no mythQuote:
Originally Posted by Cangrande
Ah! So the John Wayne version then? :D
20,000 Mexicans stormed the fort 1300 made it out alive. Croccket killed 5467 with his bare hands before collapsing after 34 rifle shots at point blank range to the head. So the real versionQuote:
Originally Posted by Cangrande
I was under the impression that 6000 Mexicans stormed the fort, and anywhere from 200-600 died.
But I believe you. ~:cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Lies by the libreal media.
Pmpl :D
probably the battle for Monte Cassino or the battles involving the NZ 2nd Expeditionary Force, like the Battle of Thermopylae (the 1941 version).
But I have always had a thing for the Italian Campaign, most people don't even realise it happened, I am shocked by how many people think that D-Day was the first time Allied troops had made an offensive. It is quite a forgotten campaign.
The Races of Castlebar - we Irish have to exalt what we can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castlebar
Battle of Chibi
Battle of Midway-Great intelligence, a few good breaks, and the victory
Battle of Jutland-My new person favorite, just because.
The Battle of STalingrad- Whole nations clashed in this one, an impressive force, see the movie ,Enemy at the Gates, for a basic not-so-historical view.
Battle of Kokda- Aye, not many may not know of this, but you may, most theorys are "the americans came in, wona great victory, defeating the Japanese for....BLAH!BLAH!BLAH!'Well guess what!? the americans never had ANYTHING TO DO WITH KOKODA! We Australians beat them! the first time the japanese were defeated, it was 1942, middle of one of the steepest mouains in the world (not as big as everest) in an jungle, the japanese were evrywhere. Didnt know where they were, watch the movie, Kokoda, and you will see a advaced and historical view. There was about 1000 un-trained, poorly equiped australian soldiers which defended australia! in the end there was around 300. Dead. A greatest australian victory ever achieved.