Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Most Devastating Battlefield Defeat
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by WarFanatic (U2676733) on Wednesday, 7th December 2005
The opposite of the other post, what do you think is the worst defeat suffered by an army? Im thinking the Somme with regards to the British. Especially considering the amount of losses: "The BEF suffered 58,000 casualties (a third of them killed), therefore making it the worse day in the history of the British Army."
-
Message 2
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Wednesday, 7th December 2005
The Scots at Collodden. French at Deinbeinphou (sp). English at Yorktown. Americans at Pearl Harbor and in the Phillippeans. In both cases they had more troops, ships than the enemy. British at Signapore and Indo-China. In all the afore mentioned battles the Japaneese were outnumbered and yet they won easily.
-
Message 3
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 7th December 2005
Yorktown was a picnic. Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne and his promise to bring our colonial cousins to heel has to be somewhere among the winners. I remember at school the stories of how he led his force south from Canada and bravely captured Fort Ticonderoga(?), pushed through hundreds of miles of wild, boggy, heavily forested, largely unknown country laying down a log road for the wagons as they went. Sweeping all before him our Colonial cousins turned tail and fled rather than face such a mighty invincible force. All the while his men suffered starvation, thirst, incredible hardship but they managed to keep 'Gentleman John's' Mess Jackets clean ready for dinner in New York as they slowly but surely closed in on the weak and indisciplined colonial army.
Eventually, at a place who's name I can't remember, the two sides finally came face to face. With banners flying, Fife and drums accompanying our brave boys as they advanced in perfect lines towards the rabble army, and as Johnny lay in his tent a few miles behind the lines 'a little under the weather', his army was getting their backsides tanned, to the point of hopeless defeat. He returned to Britain in disgrace blaming everyone but himself. He became an MP and I think he actually supported American Independence and actively campaigned on behalf of America.
I can't remember all the precise details, but it's a great story and there's no shortage of information if you want to follow it up. -
Message 4
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Tannenberg / Masurian Lakes.
Austerlitz
Cannae
Gaugamela
Isandhlwana
Fall of Singapore -
Message 5
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
For sheer number of casualties, Cannae.
For virtual annihilation of one participating force, Isandlwhana and Little Big Horn. Oh, and Cannae again.
For the consequences, Yorktown, Hastings, Gaugamela, Waterloo. -
Message 6
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Although the figures given for Roman losses at Cannae vary considerably (don't they always) I remember reading that Hannibal "killed more men in a single afternoon than any commander in history". Certainly Cannae was a devastating defeat on the battlefield for Roman arms, but not, ultimately, the Roman 'state'. Perhaps Scipio's taking of Cartagena was far more devastating, not in numbers of men lost perhaps, but in terms of turning the war, most certainly. But then as it wasn't technically on the battlefield...forget I mentioned it!
Hastings was not a major battle in terms of combatants involved, but its effects certainly were. -
Message 7
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Hi,
Not so much for the loss on the field, which was significant, but also for the repurcussians throughout the Roman political world I would nominate Crassus' humiliation by the Parthians. He thought that all he had to do was turn up to win, and thus gain the military distinction which marked Caesar and Pompey out from him. A composite lounge-room politician he had no concept really of military matters, as had already been illustrated by his underwhelming handling of the Spartacus slave revolt.
For sheer hubris in the face of the enemy, Crassus taking on the Parthians wins hands down IMO
Elistan -
Message 8
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Bannockburn and Towton. The latter is the bloodiest battle fought in Britain I believe.
-
Message 9
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Stalingrad. Most battles have victors and the defeated but it was a massive loss of experienced troops from the German order of battle, showed that the German military machine could be defeated and generally turned the course of the war in the east and caused by Hitler as by Zhukov. Thereafter, Germany's chance of winning WW2 was effectively over.
-
Message 10
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
For the consequences, Yorktown, Hastings, Gaugamela, Waterloo.Μύ
hmmm not so sure about Hastings - important in English history but on a world scale probably not. The Armada seems more important to me as it confirmed that England would rise to world power under a Protestant rather than Catholic ruler.
I'd also question Waterloo - Napoleon lost his empire in 1813, I dont think he would have been able to make a comeback even if he'd managed to win at Waterloo. I'd say Trafalgar was more important as it confirmed British control of the seas for the rest of the war and led Nap to follow the Continental system - which eventually led to his Russian disaster of 1812.
If we're talking about consequences how about Adrianople 378 AD - another Cannae and beginning of the end for Roman military domination of Europe. And I can't help mentioning another late Roman (Byzantine?) defeat, the disastrous attempt in 468 AD to invade N Africa and bring down the Vandal kingdom there. The Vandals used fire ships to destroy a huge Roman fleet, and this failure meant that Rome was permanently cut off from her main food supply (See Peter Heather's account in his new book on the fall of Rome). By the way a certain King Gaiseric was involved in this one! -
Message 11
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Worst defeat?
For ancient times...
I'd go for Varus and his legions, getting annihilated by Arminius and his group of tribesmen in the Teutoberger Wald. A huge army, along with all their followers, wiped off the map in a precision set ambush. Utter slaughter!
In modern times, I'd go for the armoured sweep through Kuwait and Iraq in Desert Storm/Op Granby 1991 (Manstein and Guderian's blitzkrieg strategy's finest and most effective hour!). Probably the only time the British army has gone to war and lost more men to its allies than to the enemy. The Iraqi army met the main force of the army NATO had trained to fight WW3 against the Red Army, and got utterly trashed. They were the 5th largest army in the world in January 1991, and after 5 days of fighting, they were the 18th largest (I think, can't remember exact ranking!). A combination of inferior equipment, zero air support and over-confident commanders (who daren't say no to Saddam) caused them to be literally smashed to little pieces, and the only armed forces Iraq had left at the end were the ones who we hadn't got to before the ceasefire, or they would have been destroyed too.
Cheers
DL -
Message 12
Posted by WarFanatic (U2676733) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
What about the Canadian Dieppe Raid of 1942? It was most certainly a battlefield disaster, especially considering that most of the participants were slaughtered. Most certainly the hardware used must have contributed to it. Note im referring the boats they were used, they were not equipped for seaborne landings as it had no front flap. Something adapted to the successful DDay landings. Considering that the Dieppe Raid was part of the DDay preliminary planning, the lessons learned from the Canadian encounter with the German Machine Guns was certainly beneficial to future planning, so essentially it wasn't a complete failure. Although on a miltary point of view the objectives weren't fufilled so therefore it was failure. But it is down to individual interpretation but I would place this conflict in the top ten, not just for the battlefield conflict, but for the lessons learnt and applied to future sea assualts: DDay. To an extent it could be said that it added to the Allied Victory of the War as the lessons learned were used in DDay landings which allowed the Allied forces to open a second front desired so much by Stalin and Roosevelt.
-
Message 13
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Dieppe was not on a large enough scale to match most of those already postulated here.
One I had forgotten, though -
WHAT ABOUT SEDAN? -
Message 14
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
WarFanatic,
Good points, you forgot to mention the magnificent Churchill Mk III in the list of equipment. I believe that the Germans when they examined the tank after the Dieppe Raid came to the conclusion that the British had sent obsolete equipment on the raid whilst keeping the modern tanks secret.
Anyway Maiwand and the Kabul Retreat together with Picketts Charge (3rd Day Gettysburg) would be my choices.
Cheers AA. -
Message 15
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
It would need to be the longest battle of the First World War. A battle devised not with no other aim than to kill. German Chief of General Staff, von Falkenhayns attempt to bleed the French army to death at The battle of Verdun. This was a monster from the very planning stage to the bitter end when it petered out after a 300 day slaughterfest.
This was a living hell for the soldiers on both sides, as the armies marched into a giant mincing machine.
Because of the relatively static nature of this battle the dead piled up on top of the dead, the whole horrible scence must have seen like some sort of living hell from Dantes nightmares.
At the end of all the fighting and killing
All that was really achieved here was the British unleashing the ill prepared, ill advised campaign on the Somme, to take the pressure of their French allies. A further killing frezy. With blackest day of the British army coming on 1 July, 1916, when 60,000 Ally troops fell. -
Message 16
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Some very decive battles.
Chalons 451 AΓ«tius stpped Attila the hun.
Poiters 732 Karl Martell end the muslim invasion of France,whitout this battle and with a muslim s Europa would the world history be very different.
Battle of Tannenberg 1410,ending for nearly 400 years the german expansion east,breaking the Teutonic order.
battle of Orleans 1429,beginning of the end for England in the 100 year war.
Battle of Poltava 1709,ending Sweden as a great power and made Russia come forward.
Battle of France 1940,Blietzkrieg at its best
Israel versus Egypt,Jordania,Syria 1967.
One of the best coordinated attacks with air,ground and sea units.
Hasse -
Message 17
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Would Hiroshimo count as a battlefield?
-
Message 18
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Friday, 9th December 2005
re-message 10
"Hastings - important in English history but on a world scale probably not."
No comment necessary really. Of course we'll never know how much influence Anglo-Saxon England would have had on Europe/the World if Harold had defeated William at Hastings; quite clearly the England that emerged after 1066 did have a considerable impact. -
Message 19
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 9th December 2005
quite clearly the England that emerged after 1066 did have a considerable impact.
Μύ
...and would have done so anyway whichever dynasty had won the Battle? -
Message 20
Posted by WarFanatic (U2676733) on Monday, 12th December 2005
Slimdaddy, no Hiroshimo can't be really counted as a battlefield as there wasnt actually a battle. It was just the Atom bomb being dropped. Although the significance of it, as well as Nagasaki, did ultimately bring the American-Japanese War to its conclusion.
-
Message 21
Posted by LittleHill (U3038272) on Sunday, 29th January 2006
I think austrilitz , as Napoleon commanded his own troops as well as the Russians and Austrians.
It happened on a special day for Napoleon as it was his second anneversary of Emporer. -
Message 22
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Sunday, 29th January 2006
I think that the most devastating defeat was not a defeat. It was Santa Anna's victory at the Alamo. The defenders were wiped out. But their sacrifice in the battle ultimately won the war of Texas Independance by firing up Sam Houston's rag tag army which defeated the larger Mexican Force at the Battle of San Jacinto during which Santa Anna was captured. It was Santa Anna's victory at The Alamo that caused his devastating defeat at San Jacinto in 1836
-
Message 23
Posted by Big Lad (U1949096) on Sunday, 29th January 2006
Presumably Isandlwana becasue the film portrays the English pillock making a right mess of things, with his pompous conceit. -
Message 24
Posted by Big Lad (U1949096) on Sunday, 29th January 2006
I would have said Kursk, but is that numbers of tanks not people ?!! -
Message 25
Posted by Big Lad (U1949096) on Sunday, 29th January 2006
Presumably Isandlwana because the English writer didn't read the criteria - total annihilation as opposed to numbers, (900 or so).
All the Battles mentioned are Western however. There were massive Mongol battles (perhaps with Europeans), and Chinese, Indian and Asian confrontations?? -
Message 26
Posted by LittleHill (U3038272) on Monday, 30th January 2006
No Actually El-alamain is in Egypt, and when the British attacked turkey in gallopili, spelling, they were beaten nearly 3 quarters.
-
Message 27
Posted by Pu-239 (U2576192) on Saturday, 11th February 2006
How about Budapest?
Of the 102,000 german and hungerian defenders in the city when the soviets reached the outskirts on 24 Nov only 624 were reported by Army Group South as having reached their lines following the attempted breakout of 11 Feb 1945. -
Message 28
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Saturday, 11th February 2006
The Scots at Collodden. French at Deinbeinphou (sp). English at Yorktown. Americans at Pearl Harbor and in the Phillippeans. In both cases they had more troops, ships than the enemy. British at Signapore and Indo-China. In all the afore mentioned battles the Japaneese were outnumbered and yet they won easily.Μύ
There were more Scots on the winning side than the losing at Culloden. The Jacobite rising was a civil war, not a Scottish-English war. Often forgotten by Scots and English alike, for different reasons !
Regards,
X -
Message 29
Posted by Serebin (U3234497) on Tuesday, 14th February 2006
What about Operation Bagration? The destruction of Army Group Centre by the Red Army and said to be an even more catastrophic defeat for the Germans than Stalingrad.
-
Message 30
Posted by Martin Raynes (U1656364) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
The English army took a severe beating at Bannockburn. Casualty figures in medieval battles are always difficult to calculate accurately but I think Bannockburn must be up there as one of England's greatest defeats. After Bannockburn (1314) England were militarily unable to intervene effectively in Scotland for nearly 20 years.
-
Message 31
Posted by Martin Raynes (U1656364) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
The Ancient Britons were more or less anihillated by Seutonius Paulinus. There is talk of 80,000 dead in Tacitus.
-
Message 32
Posted by Martin Raynes (U1656364) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Another severe defeat for English forces was the Battle of Castillon in 1453
-
Message 33
Posted by DanDan- (U3231700) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Heylo.
The naval battle at Midway was significant and devastating for the Japanese. They lost 4 carriers to America's 1. As well as the loss of a cruiser to a loss of an American destroyer. This aside though, before this the Japanese had enjoyed a good 5 month stint as kings of the Pacific and hoped to further that when drawing the American's into their "trap" at Midway.
Unfortunately, this didn't work and they ended up losing 4 carriers which were not easily replaced. Although the Yank's lost 1 (plus 1 a week earlier at Battle of Coral Sea (Bay?), they could bung em out and repair them at a much quicker rate.
If they'd lost this battle the much of the Western Coast of America would have been undefended for quite some time. Not invasions imminent or anything but if the Japs could have got the US to negotiate something this would have been a terrible blow to the Allied war effort World wide.
But alas, the American's pulled it out of the bag and managed to win.
And the cost of those carriers!!! Not easily replaced! -
Message 34
Posted by CakeMix (U3231764) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Bannackburn hardly figures when Knights can't break through schiltrons.
Robert the Bruce was on favourable ground and the English Infantry trying to cross the river were simply pushed back by the long spear-like weapons.
This is a good site for battles and casualty figures of other engagements:
-
Message 35
Posted by craigd1973 (U2853338) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
What about the Prussians defeat by Napoleon and Davout at the double battle of Jena and Auerstadt in October 1806.
The Prussians amazingly thought they could take on Napoleon single handed and were utterly routed in a single day at both battles with Davout in particular performing heroics at Auerstadt. The defeated Prussian armies were then pursued by Murat, in one of the greatest sustained cavalry pursuits in history, along with Davout and the Prussian army was completely destroyed. Prussia was then forced to sign a humiliating treaty in which she lost all her territory.
They did gain their revenge right enough in the campaigns of 1813 to 1815 culminating at Waterloo! -
Message 36
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
The defeat of the Romans at the Teutonger Wald with the perminant destruction of three legions (30,000 including auxillia) was pretty desicive even if it did not involve so many dead. Rome gave uip trying to conquer Germany with a shorter border on the Elba instead of the Rhine. If the Teutonger Wlad had not hapened then it is questionable whther some Germanic tribes would have ever invaded Southern Britain as they would have formed part of the Roman Empire themselves.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.