What is the most numerically surpsing victory in military history?

[Agathon]

Bull****.

Arrows from Welsh longbows were able to penetrate the heaviest armour of the time. Bolts from crossbows were iffy.

I've seen it tested in numerous experiments. It doesn't work. At the distance the French were at it is very unlikely that the bodkin arrow could penetrate plate armour.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Agathon

Agincourt

Not really. That was due to French incompetence. Henry chose his ground well. The battlefield was a kind of muddy bottleneck with the English at the narrow end. There's considerable evidence that most French casualties were caused by the resulting crush.

The story that the English archers wrought havoc on the French is just a story. I've seen various demonstrations that show that it was almost impossible for such arrows to penetrate the armour of the time.

Marathon has to be a good candidate.

The side that wins is the one that makes the fewest mistakes.

How do you decide which mistakes are "valid" and which ones aren't?

[Boris Godunov]

Well, speaking of the Greco-Persian conflict, how about the Battle of Salamis? A vastly superior Persian fleet gets cut to pieces by the Greeks thanks to the stupidity of the Persian admirals and the strategy of Themostacles.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Actually, by that time the Spanish were sending Pizarro reinforcements.

It would have been suicide to kill Atawualpa otherwise, since there would be nothing stopping the Incans from trying to slaughter the Spaniards.

They installed Atahualpa's brother, who was quite compliant...

Letting Atahualpa go would have signed the death warrant for Pizarro and his men, and would have screwed the pooch for the next attempt (if you're shown to fail once then it gives the natives ideas)

Killing him and putting a puppet on the throne was the only way to get out alive other than a mad dash for the sea.

[TheBirdMan]

How about Hannibal and the battle at Cannae, where a roman army about double in size was trapped(?) and lost?

[Agathon]

The Battle of Agincourt is the most spectacular victory for the longbow. Ten thousand of the French army were killed, whereas the much smaller English force survived with very minimal casualties, most historians agreeing on less than a couple of hundred. More recent scholarship has cast a haze of uncertainty on the exact effect of the longbow at Agincourt however. John Keegan believes that the loss of life was due to the arrow fire disrupting the charges, turning them into disordered jumbles of men and horses that were then destroyed when they met the solid English line of infantry. However it was the longbow none-the-less that won the battle.

http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/university/longbow.html

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon

Bull****.

Arrows from Welsh longbows were able to penetrate the heaviest armour of the time. Bolts from crossbows were iffy.

I've seen it tested in numerous experiments. It doesn't work. At the distance the French were at it is very unlikely that the bodkin arrow could penetrate plate armour.

I call bull**** again. Those arrows could go upwards of a quarter mile. Plate armour wasn't a quarter inch thick, you know. It could be cleaved in two by a swordstroke.

And do you mind explaining to me how the 75% archer forces kept winning under different generalships over the course of 50 years?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon

The Battle of Agincourt is the most spectacular victory for the longbow. Ten thousand of the French army were killed, whereas the much smaller English force survived with very minimal casualties, most historians agreeing on less than a couple of hundred. More recent scholarship has cast a haze of uncertainty on the exact effect of the longbow at Agincourt however. John Keegan believes that the loss of life was due to the arrow fire disrupting the charges, turning them into disordered jumbles of men and horses that were then destroyed when they met the solid English line of infantry. However it was the longbow none-the-less that won the battle.

http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/university/longbow.html

And how did the longbow disrupt the charges if it was boucing harmlessly off the armour?

[Agathon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Worth reading.

I have seen various experiments using longbows against armour. In only one did the arrow manage to penetrate and that was from a very close range.

[Agathon]

And how did the longbow disrupt the charges if it was boucing harmlessly off the armour?

By killing horses and sowing confusion is the most likely explanation.

The Agincourt battlefield is a funnel shape. The French attacked and were caught in a crush. They were also heavily armoured which made it difficult for them to maneuver in the mud. They were smashed to pieces by the lightly armoured English archers who used hammers and such to clonk them with.

You do physics. Think what it is like to try to remove a smooth armoured boot from the mud, compared to a cloth boot.

[Agathon]

The traditional story of Agincourt makes the French look too stupid. They knew very well the abilities of the longbow and had Henry at their mercy. They attacked because they thought they had him.

Turns out that the ground and the environment made their defeat inevitable.

[KrazyHorse]

I didn't say that the longbow inflicted most of the casualties, by the way. I would have been very surprised if it did.

It was a skirmishing weapon, but to claim that it was ineffective against armour makes no sense. Otherwise its value as a skirmishing weapon would be nil...

The terrain of course played a part. by protecting his flanks with forests and choosing terrain unsuitable for quick advance Henry took advantage of his superiority in ranged weapons and played the role of defender to the hilt.

But the longbow decided the day. Without it wreaking havoc in French lines the advance would certainly have been less hurried and more orderly and superior numbers would probably have carried the day.

[Agathon]

Much the same thing happened at Flodden. The English gunners goaded the Scots into a vicious hand to hand fight in muddy conditions where the Scottish pikemen were at a distinct disadvantage to the English billmen.

If you ever go to the battlefield you will see as soon as you get there what happened.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon
By killing horses and sowing confusion is the most likely explanation.

The French abandoned their horses after the first try. Not only were the arrows absolutely destroying them, but they were unable to move in the mud (the greatest advantage of cavalry is in the speed and momentum of advance). Now explain to me how arrows bouncing harmlessly off your troops sows confusion. Skirmishing weapons do not rattle troops unless they're dropping some of them (enough to make the rest really nervous).

The Agincourt battlefield is a funnel shape. The French attacked and were caught in a crush. They were also heavily armoured which made it difficult for them to maneuver in the mud. They were smashed to pieces by the lightly armoured English archers who used hammers and such to clonk them with.

There were other battles in which the terrain did not so obviously favour the smaller, lighter force. All ended with English victory

You do physics. Think what it is like to try to remove a smooth armoured boot from the mud, compared to a cloth boot.

Doing physics is what tells me that a razor sharp arrow travelling two or three hundred miles an hour is going to punch holes in whatever possible armour somebody can carry on their back. There's a reason armour disappeared you know...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon
They knew very well the abilities of the longbow

Knowing what ability a weapon has and seeing the proper way to fight with or against it are two very different things. Otherwise WWI would have gone very differently.