Printable View
#
The Saltus Teutenburgensis, the battle which can be seen as a turning point in history. The Roman Empire will never romanize the Germanic tribes. The various germanic cultures, people and languages are thus able to play a huge role, until this day....
Cheers
OA
Top 5:
Poitiers (The Black Prince at his best)
Breitenfield (Pretty much the beginning of the end of the Tercio)
Teutoberg Forest (although that was more of a massacre than a battle)
Manzikert (The beginning of the end of the Byzantines)
Lepanto (An epic Christians vs Turks Sea battle, what's not to love?)
If I chose others, they would probably be
Issus(I think that was Alexander's push into Antolia, yes?)
Cannae and Lake Tresamyne(sp?)
Granicus was Alexander's push into Anatolia; Issus again was the push down to the Levant.
ahh that's right, thx.
Cannae!
The Roman pig dogs actually thought all they had to do was walk up an put cuffs on Hanibal. Who was brilliant by the way. What Hanibal did with his thin little line of infantry that he personnaly fought with, and his specialist african troops in reserve. (Shaka? lol.) And the Cavalry, excellent tactics. Everything worked perfectly here. I heard something like 80% of the Romans were taken or killed. Which is pretty impressive since Hanibal was horribly outnumbered.
many, but i really wanna recoginze the Lions victory at Jaffa...
I woulkd also have to add, Lipzieg.
I am surprised, though I shouldn't be, that there was a battle at all. The fact that Lipzieg even occured is a testament to the genius of Napoleone, any lesser commander would have taken far longer, perhaps too long, to raise another army after the crushing march from Russia.
Pure amzement.
The battle of Isandlwana is pretty interesting, because it represents one of the few times when a primitive army managed to actually beat the British. Though it wasn't decisive, and the British were clearly able to beat the Zulus if they did things the right way. But, this battle was never the less an important lesson for the British, that you should never underestimate someone who wants you dead. Because the British split their forces and went looking for the "fuzzy-wuzzies" the force guarding the camp was attacked by 20 000 Zulus, and even though the British had rifles, gatling guns and cannon, they just kept coming and once they reached the British lines it was over. Of the roughly 2000-man strong British detachment, less than 100 survived, the number of dead Zulus was about 3000 with at least as many wounded.
Another battle I find interesting is Nicopolis, but not for exactly the same reasons, here a bunch lot of Burgundian knights spelled the doom of a crusader army by charging the Ottomans, routing some light horsemen and infantry (who regrouped twice to go back to the fight), but then the Ottoman cavalry surrounded and annihilated them and drove the rest to flight, and then turned to deal with the remaining Crusaders, mostly Hungarians and Poles I think it was. The numbers were roughly equal, though historians disagree wether the numbers were 10 000 vs 10 000 or 100 000 versus 100 000(!). One thing I sometimes take note of here is that the Ottomans suffered more casualties during the battle than the Crusaders, yet the Crusaders just fled the battle field and went (home presumably) which stands in contrast to the Ottomans who regrouped after they had been routed and joined the fray again.
A testament to the supeior discipline of Ottoman forces in the period. And the genral indiscipline of their European counterparts. A fact that would obviuosly change, but nonetheless, I think it shows the weakeness of an army led, and made up of fuedalistic strongmen or nobles, whom never had any real unifying force and were more concerned (more often than not) in their own wants and needs.
All the ones with heroic last stands and superhuman feats, at least in the movies.
Thermopolye
Stalingrad
Leningrad
Iwo Jima
The Battle of the Bulge
Custer's Last Stand
Gettysburg
Antietam
You could probably add Rourke's Drift to that list. Started out looking to be the former, then managed to pull off the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBob
Ajax
Idd Rourke's is one my admirations in history. My god, those men must've got some nerves. How many Zulu's died there?
Hundreds out of a force of 4000 I think, the Brits were 139 men...
Rommel's North African campaign in general, brilliant feat there.
Veinna 1689 I think it is
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
All time favorite battle would be the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Bruce Catton once wrote in his book America, "...the accumulation of wealth has always been the goal yet in attaining more than any peoples in history, we haven't had a particular knack for it and our story is a story full of ghost towns, lost men, and dusty little trails that lead to nowhere." The controversy, personalities, and consequences for both sides entitle this chapter in U.S. to be more than a dusty little trail that led to lost men as it forces us to revisit those days and our idea of national identity.
Other's on my list:
Chancellorsville
Austerlitz
Battle of Chaeronea
Battle of Leyte
Rorke's Drift
There are also a score of very intriguing battles following the Jewish Exodus (which was a military campaign itself imo) and their settlement in Palestine.
Leuctra. Epaminondas was a king.
He was a great man, though when he died it became evident that all the greatness of the Thebans rested on him alone, and that they were not able to move without him.
Anyways there is another historical battle which is one of my favourites... The battle of Yarmuk. http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookchapter35page1.htm An impressive victory there for Khalid ibn Al-Waleed, it's also a battle where women played had an important part to play in the outcome of the battle. Also a type of infantry used by the Romans is mentioned there which I've not heard about before; Chained infantry. 10 and 10 men were chained together, this helped them maintain cohesion and was a great counter if faced with a cavalry charge as they could trip the horses. It was hard for them to move fast or flee though, but taking chains seems to have been only used by those who had sworn not to flee the battle and rather die than face defeat.
EDIT: It appears the Persians at the time also did this (with the chains) and that it was more common with them,
Actually, this tactic was an act of desperation on behalf of the Persians, since their once-great realm was crumbling under the pressure of countless claimants to the throne and general anarchy caused by the loss of the long wars against Byzantium.Quote:
EDIT: It appears the Persians at the time also did this (with the chains) and that it was more common with them
I'd also say that the idea is an act of desperation at all times. I mean, come on -- who would fight well chained? Who would fight hard when shackles are the only thing keeping him from fleeing? :inquisitive:
It doesen't seem to have been an act of desperation... The Persians who chained themselves even mocked the Christian Arabs fighting alongside them for not doing likewise. It's to keep them from fleeing yes, but it's also to make them move and act together and as a defense against cavalry, but it did limit your movement. They were chained together 3 and 3, 5 and 5, or 10 and 10 at a time. In the battle when the Persians uses chained infantry, they weren't afraid they might flee or that they might lose, they were certain of victory, but they lost and then they tried to flee, but the chains sort of got in the way :wall: At Yarmuk the Romans also used chained infantry, and they were certain of victory, though not every man chained himself, I think it was only one unit.
That's the first time I've heard that. And you've yet to counter the morale argument. Seriously -- how would you rather fight? In close order because that's how you were trained or because you're chained to the men next to you?
And of course they were afraid to lose. The battle where this happened, al-Qadisiyyah, was the decisive battle -- and they'd already lost a battle against a people that, only a few decades before, they'd defeated as a sort of on-the-side order. I'm not sure if the Persians also used chained formations at Nihawand, but there it would've been even more an act of desperation.
Plus, you forget that Persians relied on their cavalry -- not their infantry. Most of their elite, heavy infantry came from areas that were at the periphery of their empire, and as the Sassanian dynasty dissolved into internecine warfare, so did they lose control over the only regions that had ever provided them with worthwhile infantry. What they were stuck with was of such low quality that, to resist the notoriously spirited Muslim attacks -- and not run from the frighteningly effective barrages of missiles these desert skirmishers were fond of using -- they felt forced to chain them together.
I think, IIRC, that most of the British at the camp were some officers and about a company or two of regulars, while the rest were of native contingent and Natal Mounted Police(I guess the same as the NC). I don't remember reading about any gatling guns, but there were cannons and a rocket battery(which did itself the favor of getting overrun). I might have to look at my source again to see if I got that right. But a good and tough battle none-the-less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
My Favorite Historical Battles:
1) Rorke's Drift
2) Stalingrad
3) Gettysburg
4) The Battle of Britain
5) The Battle of the Bulge
6) The Battle off Samar: Taffy III vs the pride of the IJN, including the Yamamoto! http://www.bosamar.com/
7) Mortain or Operation Luttich
8) The British offensives around Caen, Hill 112 and the countryside between Caen and Falaise
9) Okinawa and Iwo Jima
Quite a bit more than a company or two of regulars. There were a total of six companies of regulars - five from the 1/24th and G Company 2/24th, plus two seven pounders and the rocket battery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
Who actually fought in the battle or overall in the whole force?Quote:
Originally Posted by MilesGregarius
Sorry, forgot to answer that. Actually I'd rather not fight at all :laugh4:Quote:
That's the first time I've heard that. And you've yet to counter the morale argument. Seriously -- how would you rather fight? In close order because that's how you were trained or because you're chained to the men next to you?
But I think I wouldn't like being chained when I fought. Also I was not talking about the battle of al-Qadisiyyah, but the so-called Battle of Chains. One of the first battles the Muslims fought against Persians, and when the Persians still regarded the Arabs with arrogant contempt and as inferiors, rather than contempt motivated by fear later.
Anyhow how about the Romans using chains? Though I think I read that the ones who used chains at Yarmuk did it beacuse of some "oath of death" on their part.
From Britishbattles.com:Quote:
Originally Posted by Decker
British Regiments:
2 guns and 70 men of N Battery, 5th Brigade, Royal Artillery (equipped with 2 seven pounder guns).
5 companies of 1st Battalion, the 24th Foot
1 company of 2nd Battalion, the 24th Foot
Mounted volunteers and Natal Police
2 companies of the Natal Native Infantry
All told, there were about 1700 in the British camp - 900 or so Europeans (Brits, Mounted Police, Natal Volunteers) and 800 or so Africans, some of whom, such as the BaSotho Horse were excellent troops. 1300 of these, and nearly all the Europeans, died.
I've seen an abbreviated Zulu OOB (they had a highly developed regimental system) in a book somewhere , but I can't remember where (Like Lions they Fought?). I think there was in the neighborhood of 12,000 Zulus all told.
ummm i'd say favorite historical battle for me would be Guadalcanal just interesting fight on that like Hill Top Run(or somthing like that)(my grandpa was in it)(when i have time ill look through his war "diary")(and get you guys more facts) <--edit.
Or if this is supposed to be more then 100 years id say little big horn im not to good with medieval history and names of battles so im going for what i know
There are two qualifiers in this for me... heroism and historical significance.
D-Day, Iwo Jima, Gettysburgh, Thermopolae, and Arsuf
The battle (or seven battles) of Kawanakajima and Sekigahara