What is the most amazing military victory in the history of the world?

[Ned]

Alesia. Caesar, outnumber 6-1, and attacked from two sides at once, won! I cannot think of a greater victory.

[molly bloom]

I like Towton:

http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/archsci/depart/report97/towton.htm

and Carrhae

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/prm/blpersianmiragec.htm

The capitulation of Singapore in WWII springs to mind as well.

[Ethelred]

I cannot think of a greater victory.

How about this one, with Caesar. He took all of Egypt with two legions.

[Capt Dizle]

Uh, I think when Connan stormed Rip Torn's fortress.

[Saint Marcus]

Romans kick ass

[Mihai]

Cannae of course.
There was no tehnological gap (as it was in some mesure at Agincourt), no good defensive position to hold on (Termopyle, Alesia, Masada). Just briliant tactics of Hannibal won that battle so decisive (90,000 legionars dead).

[Saint Marcus]

I know a better one


De Gulden Sporen Slag

[Saint Marcus]

or Slag der Gulden Sporen

it was back in 1302. A group of Flemish country folk defeated a well organised army for the first time in medieval history.

[Chemical Ollie]

Seen the movie or read the book Blackhawk Down, anyone?

Not that I like the American's recent foreign politics much, but a kill percentage of 10-1 for grunts stuck on the ground is impressive. And the Sammies deserved it (IMO). I have met Swedish UN soldiers who where there and they agree.


But if you want 1000-1 victories how about the ground campaign of the Gulf War 1991?

[Saint Marcus]

that was hardly impressive. it was the world's biggest gangbang

[MosesPresley]

American carpet bombings in the last few wars have yielded a 600-1 kill ratio, but I digress.

Napoleon at Austerlitz anyone?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ethelred


They won and the Brits lost almost every single man. Yet at Roarks Drift with about the same ratio of attackers to defenders the Brits won.



They pretty much didn't have time for tactics of any kind. They were overrun before they could do much. The whole thing was a botch but the Brits still had the same guns there as at Roarks Drift and Zulus had the same weapons.

At Islandwanha the British troops were each issued only 10 rounds each and had not brought up their "machine guns". At Roark's drift the rear echilon troops were sitting on an ammo dump, and had plenty of time to set up their machine guns.

[Ethelred]

There weren't any machine guns at Roarks Drift. Not even a gatling gun which is what the Brits had at and wasted at Isandlawana.

I was wrong on the number of men at Roark's Drift. It was 145 or there abouts. The Zulu had about 4500 Impi. The Brits did have a quite a bit of ammunition. 20,000 rounds at the start. They had 900 at the end. But no machine guns of any kind.

Great site on Roark's Drift. Including coverage of myths like the Zulu's using rifles capture at Isandhlwana. They had them before that. Not very good ones apparently.

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/battle/full_defence_account.htm

As for a shortage of ammunition at Isandlwana that appears to be at least partly myth. One unit did run out and had to retreat but men were firing heavily till killed all over the battlefield.

http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/Secrets.html

http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/myths.htm

That is a very good site on the Zulu war.

[David Floyd]

Say what you like about the quality of Iraqi troops, but the Coalition victory vs. Iraq was fairly spectacular.

Let's see...Midway, of course, Israel in the 6 Day War...those are just a few that haven't been mentioned yet.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Say what you like about the quality of Iraqi troops, but the Coalition victory vs. Iraq was fairly spectacular.

Let's see...Midway, of course, Israel in the 6 Day War...those are just a few that haven't been mentioned yet.

It was. But it was a forgone conclusion given the Coalition's air supremacy.

The greater glory goes to commanders who prevail against an equal general that has vetern troops and there is a level playing field in terms of technology. How many times has this occured in history? Very few. Caesar beat Pompey, thereby cementing his reputation in my book. Scipio beat Hannibal. Grant beat Lee. Wellington beat Napoleon.

I am sure there must be some similar victories by equaly matched opponents in Chinese and Japanese history.

Even Sharon's victory in the Sanai in '73 is worthy of mention. Until he arrived and took command, the Israeli's were losing.