27-11-2004 23:38									#1
	What is the most numerically surpsing victory in military history? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I am adding an addendum to victory that the "winning" side must survive so Thermopalie does not count if you consider the fight Spartan fury VS the Persians because no Sparts lived......


I am having trouble deciding what it would be.

	27-11-2004 23:40									#2
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Pizarro vs. Incans... 108 vs. 80,000 thats 1:741

	27-11-2004 23:50									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer Pizarro vs. Incans... 108 vs. 80,000 thats 1:741

But that wasn't so surprising, given the Spaniard's vast advantage of technology and their cultural advantage of deceit. The Incans were rather naive, to say the least.

I'm more impressed by such victories where the opponents are more or less at technological and cultural equality.

Alexander's victory at Gaugamela certainly ranks high on the list. 47,000 Macedonians crushing an army of 110,000+ Persians, all through Alexander's ingenious tactics (with a healthy dose of Darius' overconfidence).

	28-11-2004 00:04									#4
	Tired of ads?

If technologically comparable adversaries are required, Charles XII's victory over the Russians at Narva is fairly cool - the Swedish army was outnumbered 4-1. Then, the Russians weren't expecting to be attacked.

	28-11-2004 00:12									#5
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: But that wasn't so surprising, given the Spaniard's vast advantage of technology and their cultural advantage of deceit. The Incans were rather naive, to say the least. I'm more impressed by such victories where the opponents are more or less at technological and cultural equality.

I would agree, except that the Southern American cases are really more of a surprise. You know what 80k people could do to 108, no matter if the 108 had horses and firearms. The reason they won, though, was the naivity of their enemy, of course.

	28-11-2004 00:13									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist If technologically comparable adversaries are required, Charles XII's victory over the Russians at Narva is fairly cool - the Swedish army was outnumbered 4-1. Then, the Russians weren't expecting to be attacked.

Bah
The best army of Europe made banch of untrained peasants who took arms for the first time in their lives, flee.

Really surprising.

Sweden lost this war when Peter the Great created modern (and the best army in the world for that time I should add) army.

	28-11-2004 00:16									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

108 Spaniards DID NOT conquer the Inca Empire, for gods sake. What those guys did do was kidnap the victorious brother- but that was by no means the end of the story.

And it was not naivete on the part of the Inca, it was hubris- after all, what could a bunch of funny looking foreighnres do to the Great Inca?

	28-11-2004 00:17									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

the battle of Alesia where Caesar beat a Celt army 5 times larger than his, and captured thier millitary leader Vercingetorix

	28-11-2004 00:31									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov vast advantage of technology and their cultural advantage of deceit. The Incans were rather naive, to say the least.

I honestly don't know a lot about Incan history, but how do you create and maintain an empire in any culture by being so naive. I might understand it at first but fairly quickly wouldn't they start to think things were a bit suspicious? IIRC didn't they europeans usually ally themselves with other native tribes that had hatreds towards the Incans or was that the Aztecs in Mexico. Im just curious.

	28-11-2004 00:33									#10
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Agincourt

	28-11-2004 00:38									#11
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber I honestly don't know a lot about Incan history, but how do you create and maintain an empire in any culture by being so naive. I might understand it at first but fairly quickly wouldn't they start to think things were a bit suspicious? IIRC didn't they europeans usually ally themselves with other native tribes that had hatreds towards the Incans or was that the Aztecs in Mexico. Im just curious.

The naivite came from trusting the Spaniards. When Atawualpa met Pizarro, his 80K were meant as a display of loyalty to him (as the Spaniards were aware that a civil war had just occured). The 80K were unarmed, so they weren't really meant as a display of military force.

Atawualpa attended under the assumption that he would be treated like a god-kind by the Spaniards. He had no inkling of their true intent. So when Pizarro seized him, the Incans didn't know what to do--they weren't going to risk the life of their god-king, now hostage, by attacking the Spanish. When the Spanish displayed their awesome firepower, the likes of which the Incans had never seen, it terrified them and sent them into a panicked flight.

So as GePap said, there wasn't really a battle. The Spaniards lured in Atawualpa, seized him hostage, and then dispersed the crowd with their guns.

Beyond that, Pizarro extorted the Incans for gold and silver for the return of their emperor. The Incans gave him everything he demanded, but Pizarro just had Atawualpa strangled anyway.

	28-11-2004 00:41									#12
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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.

	28-11-2004 00:41									#13
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Would you turn a king loose when you're sitting with 108 men in his country?

I'd have strangled the sob too.

	28-11-2004 00:44									#14
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Would you turn a king loose when you're sitting with 108 men in his country? I'd have strangled the sob too.

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.

	28-11-2004 00:44									#15
	Got spare money?

quote: I've seen various demonstrations that show that it was almost impossible for such arrows to penetrate the armour of the time.

Bullshit.

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

Agincourt wasn't a battle by itself, after all. The same tactic was used on at least 4 other occasions with similar results.

	28-11-2004 00:45									#16
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Bullshit. 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.

	28-11-2004 00:46									#17
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: 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?

	28-11-2004 00:47									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	28-11-2004 00:47									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	28-11-2004 00:49									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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

	28-11-2004 00:50									#21
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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

	28-11-2004 00:51									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Bullshit. 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 bullshit 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?

	28-11-2004 00:53									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: 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?

	28-11-2004 00:53									#24
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	28-11-2004 00:56									#25
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

	28-11-2004 00:59									#26
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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.

	28-11-2004 00:59									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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.

	28-11-2004 01:02									#28
	Suffering from ads?

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.

	28-11-2004 01:07									#29
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 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).

quote: 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

quote: 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...

	28-11-2004 01:09									#30
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 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.