What is the most numerically surpsing victory in military history?

[Chemical Ollie]

We didn't lose in Poltava, because the General who signed the surrender was a traitor!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Agathon

Given the English gave the French two other good thumpings like that (at Crecy and one other battle), I disbelieve you.

See the material on iron vs steel armour.

Was medeival steel the equal of modern steel? IIRC the French army had been thrown together hastily. Perhaps the quality of their armor was not up to snuff. Bad things can happen to poorly made steel. Take the Titanic for example, or the Russian fleet at Tushima.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Serb

And what is your defenition for defeat then?
AFAIK it is recognized by most of the people that country lost the war if as the result of that war it lost something. When Soviets entered Afghanistan there was a friendly socialist government. Soviets tested their new weapons for a decade there, gained a valuable experience and when they left there was still a friendly socialist government. So how the hell it could be a defeat?

I agree that it is possible to reason that the russian/soviet military was never defeated in afghanistan but you must realise that by such reasoning the US was never defeated in vietnam. Both countries left the conflict without having lost any battles and with the government they were supporting still in power.

Most observers see things differently however.

[Serb]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Cuz it was a border skirmish. What were you guys fighting over, an island in the Amur River?

Yes, the island Damansky. Still it was a butt-kicking (despite I slightly exaggerated Chinese casualties, they'ev lost over 800 KIA, not ten thousand) considering there was whole Chinese division vs. a small garrison.

[Chemical Ollie]

Leaving the battle without reaching your objectives is a defeat

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Leaving the battle without reaching your objectives is a defeat

Usually this is applied not only to battles but to entire wars. Which is why both the soviet/afghanistan and US/vietnam wars are usually regarded as defeats for the soviets and the US respectively.

[Dr Strangelove]

Plassy looks like an amazing victory on the surface, but you have to take into account that most of France's native allies refused to fight after the battle had begun. For some time both Hindu and Muslim leaders had been increasingly concerned over the intrusion into the subcontinent of Christian missionaries backed by European armies. The night berfore Plassey the British commander met with the leader's of Frances allies and offered them a bold deal: the British East India Company would prohibit the operation of Christian missionaries in areas of India under their control in exchange for the neutrality of the native Indian forces. His gamble worked. As the French moved forward with a fraction of their Indian allies the French commander noted to his dismay that the majority of the forces he had thought to be under his command simply stood their ground out of the fighting.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

That was an incident, not a war.

Considereing amount of forces involved from both sides, it was a full-scale military operation by all possible standards.
And it was a butt-kicking goddamnit.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Russia STARTED that war. If you weren't ready, you were idiots!

Russians are crazy, not idiots. There is a difference.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Lol! Sig material

Feel free to use it. It's a gift.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Usually this is applied not only to battles but to entire wars. Which is why both the soviet/afghanistan and US/vietnam wars are usually regarded as defeats for the soviets and the US respectively.

That's exactly my point

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Serb
And I asked to name me a single neighbour we didn't beat.
Cold war doesn't count, because it's not a real war.

Actually, you asked someone else that. I was just pointing out Russia's suckiness in general.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Serb


Russians are crazy, not idiots. There is a difference.

Whatever. Perhaps in Russian language? Like inuits have hundreds of words for "snow", Russians have hundreds of words for "idiot"? After all, one of your greatest book bears that name.

[Serb]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The same way the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam. We eventually decided to leave because we got tired of fighting and very soon after our puppet government collapsed.

I can't say that Soviets tired of fighting, just new dude came to Kremlin and decided that's time to be freinds with the west (or was scared to death by SDI, since he didn't have balls). There were not such anti-war demonstrations as in US, besides Soviets never really care a thing about public opinion anyway.

Either we lost Vietnam or you didn't lose Afganistan. You can't have both.

I guess both were stalemates. Is it Ok?

[Chemical Ollie]

DP