You read the title. So... what.
For me it's probably Gaugamela. It was a great victory for Macedon.
Thermopylae comes pretty close. It was a very close and the spartans were way outnumbered. They were only slightly defeated... because of treachery.
Printable View
You read the title. So... what.
For me it's probably Gaugamela. It was a great victory for Macedon.
Thermopylae comes pretty close. It was a very close and the spartans were way outnumbered. They were only slightly defeated... because of treachery.
I would say Thermopylae for the BCE period, it was a great Spartan victory and yet they were all killed. A great battle to analyze and argue over who won.
To be honest, I don't know. Thermopylae and Guagamela would be near the top.
Carrhae is good also. Stupid Romans.
Being English its compulsary to say Agincourt, but in the ancient world some fascinating battles that haven't been mentioned are Cannae, Leuctra and the Athenian seige of Syracuse during the Peloponnesian war.
Siege of Malta.
Does that count as a battle?
Anyway read a book about it a while back ,talk about intense.
Agincourt, followed by Poitiers and then Crecy.
Actually Agincourt, has my vote too. Whenever an army wins when its outnumbered by over 3 to 1, I think its pretty cool.
Aspern-Essling or Wagram
Great battles that really tested Napoleon's skills after being the dominant figure in Europe, and Archduke Karl did a great job in those battles as well. I salute you, Austria! ~;)
The following three battles have earned my interest in the last few months:
The Battle of Carrhae (53 BC). Iranian Parthians crush the Romans.
The Battle of Kadisiya (or Qadisiyya, in AD 624) Where the Persians are defeated by the Islamic Arabs.
The Battle of Ain Jalut (in AD 1260). The Mamluks rout the Mongols.
Qubec in 1759 was a pretty astounding victory, with the English climbing up the cliifs and reform on the plains of Abraham before the French even woke up! Must've been quite a surprise to see an enemy army ready to attack as soon as you woke up. But of course, since I am the victor of Agincourt I must say that it was the greatest victory of all time.
My five favourite battles would be:
Battle of Bannockburn - 1314 (1st Scottish War of Independance)
Battle of leipzig - 1813 (Napoleonic Wars)
Battle of the Alma - 1854 (Crimean War)
Battle of Inverlochy - 1645 (English Civil War, Civil War in Scotland)
Battle of Agincourt - 1415 (Hundred Years War)
Hah...there are so many to pick from, as one of my teachers used to say; "a brick wall of choices".
The various battles of the Normans rank high, especially Civitate (1053 AD), where they decimated the Papal forces despite their disadvantage in numbers. Of course, Hastings is also one of the Norman greats, though a far more close-run affair than the slaughter in Italy. In my opinion the Anglo-Saxons won a moral victory, them having already repulsed the invading Norwegians at Stamford Bridge and still being capable of troubling the Normans. All in all a wonderfully bloody year, 1066. ~D
Fascinating also are the battles in which primitive, barbarian tribes overcome a greater, civilized foe. The Teutoborg Forest (9 AD) and Adrianople (378 AD) comes to mind.
Kalka river......Jebe and Subedei in their finest hour
.......Orda
The Kursk in terms of pure tank numbers
Well, beeing Portuguese i will consider some battles of the "Reconquista" of the Iberic Peninsula (Portugal and Spain) from the muslims:
711 - Battle Of Guadalete (Muslims defeat Visigothic Kingdom and founded the Emirate Of Cordova)
718 - Battle Of Covadonga (Kingdom of Asturias defeat the Emirate Of Cordova)
1086 - Battle Of Sagrajas or Zalaca (Almoravid Empire defeat Castile and Leon)
1108 - Battle Of Uclés (Almoravid Empire defeat Castile and Leon)
1120 - Battle Of Cutunda (Aragon defeat Almoravid Empire)
1139 - Battle Of Ourique (Portugal defeat Almoravid Empire)
1195 - Battle Of Alarcos (Almohad Empire defeat Castile and Leon)
1212 - Battle Of Las Navas de Tolosa (Christian Coalition Of Castile, Portugal, Navarre and Aragon defeat Almohad Empire and begining their colapse)
Why Aïn Jalut? It was a battle of a huge Mamluk army vs the Mongol vanguard... or was that rear guard? Anyways, the Mongols were hugely outnumbered, fielding a token force vs. probably all the forces of the Mamluk sultanate. It was a victory against nothing. It meant nothing. Except the defeat of a rear guard lagging behind some 300 kilometers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Personally some of my favorite battles are:
~Wiz
- Yarmuq, 636, where Khalid ibn Whalid overpowers the Roman forces. Even if Khalid only won by the switching of sides of the Ghassanids, still an important and interesting battle.
- Ankara, 1402, where Timur-i-Lenk faces off against Beyazid Yıldırım. Timur could have lost it all there, stategically isolated as he was. And at the beginning of the battle it seemed he would, but then he pulled it off to win. Truly shows off Timur's tactical skill. Perhaps not so much as Kunduzcha against Toqtamish of the Golden Horde, but Ankara's importance makes it better than Kunduzcha to me.
- Shahrazoor, 238, where the kingdom of Hathra, ruled by an Arab dynasty, located in Assyria, defeated the army of the Sassanid shahanshah Shapur (what an alliteration!). An amazing feat seeing as Ardashir and his son were excellent generals who defeated a web of enemies spun around them by the Arsacids, emerging soundly victorious.
- Legnica and Mohí, 1241, two battles which show not only Mongol tactical finesse and prowess, but also Subedei's amazing strategical insight (and tactical, if you're looking at Mohí only).
- Nineveh, 627, where Heraklios defeated the Sassanid army, ending the Sassanid invasion of Asian Rome. The best part of the battle is actually before it -- the maid-o-maid (single combat; does the term still survive in modern Persian?) between the Persian commander Razatis and the East Roman basileios Heraklios!
- And finally Toulouse, 821. Eudes d'Aquitaine leads my ancestors to stop the Islamic invasion of Europe. With an inferior force he crushed the armies of the unendingly expansive world power that the Caliphate was at the time. Got to have a bit of familial pride. ~;)
i like 'em all! :bow:
even though i've never read a particularly detailed or dramatic telling of it, i've always liked megiddo (thutmose III defeating rebellious kadesh, 15 may, 1479 b.c. iirc).
Probably out of place on a discussion board linked to land fighting, but my favourites include the famous Napoleonic naval battles: Cape St Vincent, the Nile and Trafalgar. I have immense admiration for the leadership and fighting qualities of Nelson (and his poetic ability to die at the right time).
Talking about naval battles, I highly prefer the Raid on the Medway... ~;)
~Wiz
agincourt !
6,000 english "soldiers" against 20,000 french aristocrats , longbows against heavy cavalry - what a battle !!
one nobel french surviver wrote in his diary that the sky turn black when the english arrows came down
Just to annoy my English Friends, battles during the 100 years war (answer to Crécy, Poitier and Azincourt):
Montargis 1427
French Commanders: Dunnis and La Hire
English commander: Warwick
Casualties:
French: Unknown, English: 1500 killed, 500 prisoners
Formigny 1450:
French Commander: Clermont and Richmont
English commander: Kyrielle
Casualties: French 200, English 3774,
1st use of Artillery: The answer to the long bows….
Castillon 1453:
French commanders: Jean Burreau and Jean de Blois Penthievre
English Commander: John Talbot
Casualties: French 100, English: 4000 (mostly captured wounded. The French didn’t slaughter them and were kept prisoners).
The Last battle of the 100 Years War
THE FRENCH WON THE WAR.
Yeah, yeah, so you won a few piddling skirmishes after my death........England won the war, but lost the peace.
It was an important battle in many ways. Primarily because it gave rise to future Sultan Baibars and secured the Mameluke Sultanate another two-and-a-half centuries of rule. Also, had Egypt too fallen to the Mongols, it could quite possibly have meant the death-blow to Islam, furthermore it would have provided the Mongols with the opportunity to march across Northern Africa. And I gather that a Mongol invasion of Spain could have had severe consequences for Christian Europe. Merely speculation, I know, but interesting nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Maid-o-Maid is in Middle Persian. In Fârsi it is Mard-o-Mard.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Your first points are valid, and something I hadn't thought of before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
But do remember that by the time Aïn Jalut took place, Hulagu had already withdrawn his main forces from Syria. What Baibars faced was nothing but a token force left behind by Hulagu, perhaps in the hope that the Mamluks would be too scared of the Mongols' reputation to do anything against them. 120000 men versus only 25000, of which only 15000 were Mongols.
Hulagu had no immediate plans anymore to take on the Mamluks -- he was surrounded and very far from any support, and that with a very slow-moving Mongolian army. He, like Subedei and Batu before him, but this time out of strategical reasons rather than purely formal ones, decided to withdraw to what he had previously conquered to consolidate his ulu.
Interesting. Just goes to show you how much of the old language is preserved in modern Fârsi. I hear that's because Firdausi's Shahnama has such an immense influence on Fârsi?Quote:
Maid-o-Maid is in Middle Persian. In Fârsi it is Mard-o-Mard.
~Wiz
Id say Kurska and Thermopylae
and... gha!, need help, there was this Huge battles between the Mongols and the Poles during the mongol invasion of europe. It was more or less a devastating defeat for the poles since the mongols used their hit and run over and over without hardly loosing any men.
Legnica. ~;)
It wasn't that large -- 30000 Poles facing off against 20000 Mongols.
~Wiz
One of my favourites is the Battle of Rovine (Mircea The Old, Voievode of Wallachia against the Turks).....The Romanians seriously outnumbered at outmatched....It was like less than 20.000 Romanians against more than 60.000-70.000 turkish Sipahis and Jannisaries....Great battle....
Also, from ancient times, Thermopylae, Salamina....
Medieval times I would select Constantinople, Agincourt, Tannenberg , Marienburg
Modern times: Kursk, El Alamein , Malta , Midway........
The Shahnameh is very important to Fârsi. Alas, I lack the necessary insight into western literature to make a suitable comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I know that this is off-topic, and for that I apologize. ~:)
Malta, Turks tried to take Malta but left for no reson at all right? Or am i wrong?
somebody actually ROUTED a mongol army in the 1200s?? damn impressive :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
i'd like to learn more about this battle
the numbers, who had a larger army etc.
My favoured battles;
Manzikert 1071 AD Byzantines defeated by the Seljuk Turks through their own stupidity or treachery
Carrhae 53 BC Parthians eliminate Roman army with almost no losses using horse archers and armoured cavalry. The armoured cavalry forced the Romans to concentrate their men for the expected charge and the horse archers massacred the bunched up Romans. If the infantry dispersed the heavy cavalry charged.
Cannae 216 BC classic envelope and eliminate battle.
First Crusade and the siege of Antioch in particular. They shouldn't have won but somehow they did.
The two armies were about even though the Mamluks were professional Turkish cavalry and understood the Mongol style of warfare. For the Mongols only about 15,000 of the 25,000 they had were actual mongols.Quote:
Originally Posted by PittBull260
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:c...=en&lr=lang_en
i like the battle of lake trasimeno. where HANnibal barca defeated 25,000 romans. in 217bc
Not true. The Mamluks massively outnumbered the Mongols. It was nothing but a short skirmish between 120000 Mamluks and only 15000 Mongols with 10000 allies (Georgians, Armenians). What chance do you give a second- or even third-rate general such as Khetburga against a good commander such as Sultan Quduz and Baibars, with a much, much larger army?Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
The Mamluks were expecting Hulagu's full fury, not this... token force. A battle massively overrated in history.
~Wiz
I hear conflicting figures. Can you present a source? ~:)
The Battle of Waterloo, for a few simple reasons :
1. We won
2. It was a defeat for the French and Napoleon
3. It meant the end of France's Empire
4. So much of British tradition is around it
5. The Scots were in it (on the winning side)
Hello Wiz,Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I chose Kalka but Mohi and Legnica were also uppermost as they exemplify the strategical genious of Subedei. There has always been conflicting reports about army sizes and Legnica is one of these. 'Historia Tatarorum', has accounts written on the travels of Carpini and Benedict 1245 - 1247 and details taken directly from Mongols who had participated in the battle only a few years earlier. One section states that Batu divided his army on the Hungarian border and sent "10,000 warriors under his brother Orda against Poland". That amounts to only a single Tumen and not the two that are usually mentioned. If we assume that this Tumen was complete at this point, we must still consider Mongol losses as they campaigned through Poland. It has been suggested that the Mongol army at Legnica was more probably about 8,000. Modern theories have estimated Henry's army to be a similar size.
Whether this is true or not we will never know but we do have the overall campaign strategy and this foray into Poland was an utterly tremendous distraction from the main event.
Quote:
But do remember that by the time Aïn Jalut took place, Hulagu had already withdrawn his main forces from Syria. What Baibars faced was nothing but a token force left behind by Hulagu, perhaps in the hope that the Mamluks would be too scared of the Mongols' reputation to do anything against them. 120000 men versus only 25000, of which only 15000 were Mongols.
Two very different accounts of the same battle. It depends where you glean your source from and even then we cannot be sure of actual facts.Quote:
The two armies were about even though the Mamluks were professional Turkish cavalry and understood the Mongol style of warfare.
The facts that we do know about Ain Jalut are that Hulegu had indeed withdrawn his extended forces to security in light of recent developments within the ruling house of the Mongols. He had the Golden Horde threatening in the West, Qaidu threatened his rear and civil war between Qubilai and Ariq boke in the East. Due to the allegiance between Berke and the Mamluks, some Princes of the White Horde present in Hulegus army, had been executed which only added to his problems.
Kit Buqa was left behind with a nominal force, very few of his men were Mongols, the majority were recent Armenian and Georgian conscripts and he was forced to put down a rebellion in Damascus which allowed Kutuz time to negotiate safe passage through Christian territory. This again was due to the treachery of the Christian forces who could not make up their minds who to trust. During this time the Mamluk numbers were reinforced by Golden Horde warriors and various Moslem fugitives from the recent rebellion. It is fair to say that Kit Buqa was completely outnumbered.
The battle was not fought in the traditional Mongol fashion, possibly because he knew these tactics would not work. Perhaps he was hoping that Mongol terror would be enough. Whatever the case, Kit Buqa charged the Mamluk vanguard and broke it and the Mongols continued to give chase down the valley into the Mamluk main force. It has been suggested this was a feigned retreat and the Mongols fell for their own trick but I doubt this as Kit Buqa was a very experienced Commander. The Mongol front line continued and crushed the Mamluk vanguard, the rest swung right and bore down on the Mamluk left flank which crumbled. Kutuz desperately regained his flank with men from his right and eventually the Mamluk position either side of the Mongols was achieved. A last massed charge won the day for the Mamluk army.
Even though this was only a minor achievment militarily, it had lasting effect on the area. However the political turmoil of the Mongol Royal House also played a large part in the lack of return of Mongol Tumens to both Syria and Europe
.......Orda
Necro-post but what the heck:
Battle of Tours, 732 - I think we all know the story being this one...
Battle of Hastings, 1066 - Same as above.
Battle of Hattin/Horns of hattin, 1187 - The Crusaders got rather owned, so to speak.
Battle of Lena, 1208 - Probably completely unknown to all non-Swedes, but it was a pretty decisive battle in (pre)Swedish history. A large (the number is uncertain, medieval soruces claim 12 000 but 2000 is a more likely figure) Danish force invaded [what would soon become] Sweden and were beaten. How this was done is not known though.
Battle of Lake Peipus, 1242 - Another famous battle. Crusaders getting owned again.
Battle of Halidon Hill, 1333 - Pretty complete English victory against the Scots. One of the first major victories of the longbow.
Batle of Crécy, 1346 - Simply deserves to be mentioned. Somewhat upsized though, and it seems to be the general impression that this was the first use of the longbow in medieval warfare...
Battle of Verneuil, 1424 - Often forgotten in favour for Agincourt and Crécy. "The second Agincourt".
Battle of Towton, 1461 - Bloodiest battle on English soil. Perfect setting in time and place for a battle as well.
Battle of Nördlingen, 1634 - The first major Swedish defeat in The 30 Year's War. A turnpoint for the war.
Battle of Narva, 1700 - A pretty complete Swedish victory against the Russians. One of my favourite battle when it comes to manouvering and strategies, second only to the
Battle of Holowczyn, 1708 - A "decent" Swedish victory against far superior numbers.
Battle of Poltava, 1709 - Total and utter Swedish defeat. 'Nuff said.
Battle of the Somme, 1916 - Another famous battle, I think you already know most about it.
Battle of the Bulge, 1944-1945 - How can you not be interested in this battle after seing Band of Brothers?
One of my alltime favourites has always been the Battle of the Catalonian Fields. Almost a rigor mortis of the WRE-military and on the other side Attila who -if omens and stories are to be believed- went into battle just to kill aetius, knowing he'd lose.
Narva, Durazzo and Ilipa for me.
Wellingtons seiges, Badajoz, gawalhir, -not much in tactics but simply the ability of the british common soldier
Waterloo
forgot who the commanders were but battle of Bussaco
Seige of Vienna
Battle of Stalingrad
Milavian Bridge
Adrianople
Gettysburg
Battle of Delphi
Saratoga/Freeman's Farm
Battle of the Frontiers
Aboukir Bay
Camperdown
First Ploesti Raid
Belleau Wood
Clontarf
Easter Rising
Chancellorsville
...numerous others
Adding three:
Battle of Courtrai, 1302 - Flemish victory against France.
Battle of Bannockburn, 1314 - Scottish victory against the English.
Battle of Morgarten, 1315 - Swiss victory against the Duke of Austria.
Three battles that put an end to the age of chivalry.
Arnhem for me
*looks at personnal Arnhem library* :bounce:
Vartanian Fields. It was a defeat on our side, but the Persians got the message we wouldn't be Zoarastrians and we would stay Christian. Also lead by a Patron Saint of Armenia: St. Vartan Being Armenian, I must say this, it is like English and Agincourt.
Bannockburn, love the use of the stakes.
Siege of Samarkand: Psy-Ops at its greatest.
Midway: U.S. makes the Empire pay for every last one of its mistakes. Brilliant.
Gettysburg
Verdun
Battle of Midway
Battle of the Bulge
Stalingrad
There are so many.Im bit biased but if i would have to pick one i would pick Battle of Suomussalmi.Here is a link to the engagement:
http://www.winterwar.com/Battles/Suomussalmi.htm
I would chose three from Polish history
all are running battles, each more incredible than another one
so
Ochmatow 1644 - large battle against Tatars - about 15-20 000 soldiers on each side. Wintertime and incredible coordination of the Polish force - 3 armies without almost any contact with each other managed to play the battle according to detailed plan and met in the same place DURING a battle without delays even though we coming from completely different directions and had from 100 to 450 kilometers to move.
Without radio, mobile phones or wireless internet :2thumbsup:
Szklow 1654 - one of the hardest cavalry battles I could find.
Lithuanian army of 3000-4200 against over 20 000 strong Russian force.
Battle fought during an eclipse lasted to 9 p.m. and resulted in full retreat of the Russian force.
Finally the most incredible feat of Jan Sobieski - the one known from the relief of Vienna - Sobieski's campaign against the Tatars in 1672 - with less than 2500 grizzled veterans Sobieski defeated over 20 000 strong Tatar forces in a series of over 10 battles in time of roughly two weeks of constant struggle.
Imagine - cavalry and dragoon force moves during autumn flooding rivers and streams, divides and reunites again and fights, fights, fights !
You need top quality force to achive something virtually unheard of for ordinary european army defeat fleet-footed nomads using their own tactics.
The campaign amongst others gave Sobieski the nickname 'Lion of Poland' - the name was often enough to scare of the Tatar and Ottoman forces during the ufortuanate string of Polish-Ottoman clashes.:book:
River Trebia. Pure Genius! :2thumbsup:
I thought that the numbers were fairly even? :huh: According to The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
I don't understand why this battle gets so much mention and the seige of Constantinople in 717 is ignored...Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Pah! All these Roman/Carthaginian battles are overrated:juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Interesting battles there, cegorah, never heard of them before. Speaking of Polish battles, Fraustadt 1706 is a favourite of mine.
Turning my attention to some local history I say Battle of Brunkeberg, fought right outside Stockholm on October 10 1471. The Sture party with it's army of mostly armed-peasants (although experienced, well-equiped and hardened ones) charged and defeated a Danish army that had a good defensive position on the ridge Brunkeberg. The numbers of the two armies are uncertain, although it's likely that the Sture party's army was the larger of the two. One figure suggested is 10 000 for the Sture party, and 5 000 for King Christian I of Denmark. This is only a guess though, and it's likely that the numbers were less impressive. Pretty far from the huge battles of the Hundred Years War and other 15th century conflicts.
When the Danes retreated towards the island of Käpplingen, the bridge leading to it was destroyed by Swedish troops. Many drowned and even more were taken prisoners. Again, the exact figure of casualties is unknown.
All about education I guess. I was taught already from the first time I had medieval history in school (at the age of 8 or something) that the Great Charles Martel defeated the Muslims there and saved Europe. Eastern European history is often left out unfortuneately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Agreed that Tours is over-estimated though.
Blame Edward Gibbon... ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
Ancient: I love Greeks and I love Thermopylae, and Troy (though was it fictional or not, both wyas I love the story of that battle/war What would it clasify as)
Somewhere in between: Any European battle fought on the mainland west of Poland, though The battles for Jerusalem are amongst my favourite
Contemporary: the 6 Day war, I mean one tiny nation against 6 massive countries, That has to have greater odds than 3:1 (not taking a dig at anyone, just looking at it objectivley, the odds were stacked against Israel and they still won in 6 days)
Zama and Chalons (Campi Catalaunici).
Both battles were fought against seemingly invincible "barbarian" leaders who almost brought Rome to its knees. The battles were only won through incredibly innovative, talented, and "heroic" generals (maybe that's an overstatement). Both were examples that Rome could pull through and win even in the most dire situations. (Though Atilla was definently not defeated at Chalons, if he had won then the Empire probably would have been completely destroyed)
This thread makes me think about how I really don't much about history compared to most here:wall:
I'll take a shot at it though:
Waterloo- One of the most celebrated and decisive battles in history.
Gettysburg- Same reason
Battle of Berlin
Bannockburn
Whichever battle was the most decisive in the English Civil War...Naseby wasn't it?
Merry Christmas, all.
Both Sieges of Constantinople
We all know what happened to the Byzantine Empire once Constantinople fell in 1204, which makes the earlier sieges of Constantinople by the Arabs even more impressive. We have a raging powerhouse empire attempting to cripple and annihilate an empire which was in the stages of desperate survival but clearly declining in resources and territory by capturing the glorious capital of Constantinople.
MASSIVELY UNDERRATED and sickening when I hear the Battle of Tours being touted as the battle that saved Europe...:wall:
A popular yet very mysterious one: the battle of Badon Hill, circa 500 AD.
I just quote the description we made of it for Arthurian: TW. It describes also a theory of what *might* have happened.
Quote:
"After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might in this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Mount Badon, when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foe."
St. Gildas the Wise, De Excidio Britanniae, VIth century.
"The twelfth was a most severe contest, when Arthur penetrated to the hill of Badon. In this engagement, nine hundred and forty fell by his hand alone, no one but the Lord affording him assistance. In all these engagements the Britons were successful."
Historia Brittonum, IXth century.
"The battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the cross of the Christ for three days and three nights on his shield, and the Britons were victors."
Annales Cambriae, Xth century.
We know from Gildas that Badon Hill was a victory for the Britons, around 500 AD, that will bring a period of peace up to the time he was writing, in the middle of the VIth century. Gildas don't name the commanders at Badon, but later texts do name Arthur. This is the main argument in favor of Arthur's historicity and importance in history, as a warlord strong enough to led the Britons to victory. There are tons of theoris about his identification, as a Northern warrior king or a Southern Aristocrat. One fact must stay: if Arthur existed, he was the commander at Badon. We portray him as a prince from the royal line of Dumnonia, cousin to Gereint, the Dumnonian king but his sovereign as the Amherawddyr: the Emperor, commanding the military forces of Britain against common foes - thought this is a theory much debated.
Arthur first major victories would have been at Dubglas, near Lincoln. Here he fought the Angles of Eomer and Icel, and eventually recovered Lincoln for a while, breaking their power. Another major english power remained in the south-east, the coalition of Kent and Sussex under Aesc and Aelle. Even for those who didn't believe in Arthur, it's likely that it was their power that was broken at Badon. Badon's date in the Annales Cambriae is given as 516 AD (or 518 AD), but most historians argues in favor of a derivation on this date, on the basis that Gildas said that we was writing 44 years after this battle, when Maelgwn Gwynedd was still alive so before 550 AD. So a date around 500 AD is much more likely, and the date of 496 AD have been advanced by some.
Onto Badon's location, there are several major sites like Little Solsbury Hill overlooking Bath, or Liddington Castle. British linguists insist on the fact that Badon must be a germanic name, but the word is known in Irish as meaning "round-place", and it is very unlikely that a Brythonic monk, writing in an period where the Britons were still dominating their island, would have named the location of a Brythonic victory over the English, deep in British territory, by an Old English name... We chose Liddington castle as its position is highly strategic - taking for basis Rosemary Sutcliff in her "Sword at Sunset" novel. Liddington hillfort was refortified in the Vth century, it overlooks two major roman roads and the Ridgeway, and the terrain around is very suitable for cavalry. An English army aiming for the rich Somerset area and the cities of Gloucester, Bath and Cirencester would have been very likely to pass near Liddington.
Now unto our Badon Hill scenario. Some years ago, Arthur had crushed the Angles at Dubglas, leaving them unable to help the other germanic tribes. Aelle of the young kingdom of the South Saxons have been set accordingly to the tradition the first bretwalda, a near title of the Brythonic Amherawddyr. He is allied with Aesc, the son of Hengest, founder of the Jutish kingdom of Kent. The english gathered and march along the Ridgeway, aiming to attack the rich british territories between Dumnonia and Gwent. Such a major invasion must have been well-planned, so the near Brythonic kingdoms unite their forces under Arthur's banner. Contigents of Dumnonia , Gwent and their sub-kingdoms would have been present, eventually under the command of Gereint, the Dumnonian king, and Caradoc Vreichvras ("Strong-Arm"), prince of Caer Glew. Irish texts (not yet published) also mentions a contigent of 300 Mumainha warriors sent to help the Britons at Badon. Arthur's cavalry is stationned in the fort of Badon - Liddington - and its sister fort at the other side of the valley, while the other british troops stand in the valley, awaiting the English. Those would essentially involve Athelings and their warbands, as hundredmen and other levies were needed to hold their lands, and non-professional warriors are unlikely to have accepted to leave their families to die that deep in foreign territory. Jutish forces may have also counted some Frankish elements, and some cavalry. They however needed lot of logistic, and had to live in hostile land some they were probably weakened.
Nennius's account of what was probably once a battle-listing poem said that Arthur killed 940 men in one charge. It is possible that his cavalry sallied out of the forts and take the English by the back when they were expected to do a frontal assault. In the end, the invading army was annilhated, and both Aesc and Aelle probably killed. Survivors had little chance to escape that far of their home. This left the Anglo-Saxons in a very weak position. Arthur eventually took back part of the South Saxons territory, there is evidence supported by both archeology and historic texts of English seaking refuge on the continent. There is no Bretwalda recorded for around 70 years. A period of relative peace ensued, without major germanic advance before the second part of the VIth century. Nor Kent, nor Sussex will be able to do any major blow to the British anymore, and ironically, this left the room for other germanic kingdoms to be founded and to defeat the Britons several decades later: Mercia, Bernicia, and Wessex.
We must quote Pr. John Morris "The Age of Arthur" to conclude about Badon and its aftermaths. It's a old book, and Morris have been criticised a lot by his use of sources, but it is still a major piece of work.
"Badon was the 'final victory of the fatherland'. It ended a war whose issue had already been decided. The British had beaten back the barbarians. They stood alone in Europe, the only remaining corner of the western Roman world where a native power whithstood the all-Conquering Germans. Yet the price of victory was the loss of almost everything the victors had taken arms to defend. Ambrosius and Arthur had fought to restore the roman civilisation into which they had been born. But in most of Britain, the society of their fathers was ruined beyond repair. What it emerged was a new world, startling not only because it differed from the past, but because it differed from the rest of Europe."
Battle of Sedan
Battle of Königgrätz
Battle of Mars-La-Tour
Siege of Metz
Battle of Tolvajärvi
Battle of Suomussalmi
Battle of Capporeto
On the subject of Tours: the myth is just annoying. Charles Martel did not defeat the great Muslim horde that would've conquered half of Europe on its own ala Genghis Khan, he defeated a single army from an empire that stretches farther than Alexander's own and even then had to fight the Saracens for decades before his son finally expelled them from southern France. Tours' significance is more with Martel's status himself and the Frankish domination of the region, which pretty much only strengthens the rising Carolingian Empire and secure its southwestern flank from any other dangerous invasions.
I mean, sure, it's important, but for Martel and the Franks. Not a world-shattering super battle that decided the fate of the world between Christ and Mohammed it's often portrayed as. Besides, Gibbons is annoying. Like Tours, he's important, even a landmark, but his attitudes and biases have become so mainstream "popular history" it's bothering me bad. How many high school kids have been taught that Christianity brought down Rome? :dizzy2:
Now, on the topic: I can't choose. Period. I must admit though that for sheer (vain?)glorious symbolic defeat nothing beats Waterloo. It's big, it's dramatic, it's the First French Empire's final downfall and effectively reverses what the Revolution had done for several decades. Of course, many doubt even if Bonaparte won a devastating, no-survivors victory (ala Chalons/Catalonian fields, where the Western Roman Empire's entire military was effectively gone) at Waterloo, he'd manage to restore his former Empire.
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