Small armies which changed history

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt Chief Joseph and his band.  A little over 800 vs. 2000 plus of the best the US Army could put in the field. He fights them, out maneuvers them and employs tactics that astounded them.  His efforts tho in the end fail.... He, ntl becomes a legend. And forces a re-examination of  BIA affairs....as usual.... later ignored. Sherman calls him the 'Red Napoleon'. The brothers in Idaho and on the Anadarko still chant to his memory.

Edited by Cryptic - 14-Jan-2012 at 16:11

Originally posted by tjadams Originally posted by ConradWeiser I'm not convinced by some of the submissions so far. Here's why: . The Alamo. Sure, small armies displayed tremendous courage here against larger forces, (and in the case of Eger, which almost shouldn't be here, a victory) but neither can claim to have "changed history" very much. There wasn't much consequence to these battles.  This deserves a reply.

Lire:

In case you didn't know, I am a History teacher and have been teaching Texas History for over

12 years and have studied Texas History for at least 30 years. 

I answered the question about 'small armies that made a large impact' on History.

So, I see the Battle of the Alamo as a small part of a larger Texas Army, that was part

of help birthing a new nation. That nation would have issues with Mexico till the day

the US invaded during the Mexican War. The land acquired by the treaty with Mexico, 

leads to more issues over slavery in the US which leads to the US Civil War. So yes,

I see the small army (battle) of the Alamo being the grandfather of larger things to come.

The IDF - Israel Defence Force.  Why have very few people mentioned this? It has altered the course of the latter half of the 20th century and the early 21st. The small Israeli forces have been unstoppable against larger Arabian forces. The six day war is a prime example.

A lot of these numbers are exaggerations and some flat out lies, like the number of Turks against random euro armies ... the Battle of Nicopolis was the whole continent of europe against a rather small Turkish army .... the Battle of Manzikert where nearly the whole Roman military plus Armenians plus Turkish mercenaries plus contingents from the rest of europe ... both battles of Martisa, especially in the second where the Ottomans were outnumbered 7 to 1 ... 

Exactly, so its kinda like they strengthened from their past experiences.

More importantly, I think the IDF deserves even more recognition because it has ultimately defended Israel from annihilation, whilst potentially caused the notorious War on Terror

Simply because the racial fundamentalist Islamists were angry at the USA's support for Israel, and lets not forget Israel only existed at the turn of the bimillenium because of its militarys success in the preceding decades.

Hope I explained that all right

An excellent point.

Hannibal's 26,000 men in Italy changed quite a bit.

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Hannibal's 26,000 men in Italy changed quite a bit.

Yes. Hannibal was a military genius but the great victories in Italy really did not benefit Carthage as Rome was not sacked and the Empire was able to defeat Carthage in the end. In a sense I would agree that much changed as Carthage was removed as a rival to Rome. IMO, a comparison between Hannibal and Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia is apt as the two men were military geniuses but they still ended up on the losing side so their talent and the great fighting qualities of their armies were wasted. 

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Originally posted by Jack Torrance Originally posted by Delenda est Roma Hannibal's 26,000 men in Italy changed quite a bit. Yes. Hannibal was a military genius but the great victories in Italy really did not benefit Carthage as Rome was not sacked and the Empire was able to defeat Carthage in the end. In a sense I would agree that much changed as Carthage was removed as a rival to Rome. IMO, a comparison between Hannibal and Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia is apt as the two men were military geniuses but they still ended up on the losing side so their talent and the great fighting qualities of their armies were wasted.  I can't agree. Lee is very overrated he is good but not genius. He really can't compare to Hannibal. Hannibal changed Romes finances, army, her ruling policies. He changed quite a bit.

I'll grant that Hannibal did change things in Rome and greatly influenced the art of warfare for two millenia. I was going on the impression that you mentioned Hannibal's army because it led to some success and triumph for himself and his army. That's how I interpreted the originator of this thread, anyway.

On the Lee/Hannibal comparison it's really a matter of opinion and I respect yours as I would any others. With this in mind - and without any intent of denigrating Hannibal - I think Lee proved to be a military genius because he was able to read his opponents so well that he not only anticipated their moves and intentions that he was able to use a much smaller army to neutralize a  much bigger army for two years until the arrival of the very aggressive US Grant.

By having such an ability Lee was able to use his natural talent for waging offensive warfare not only defend Richmond effectively but to also threaten Washington DC thus preventing Lincoln from using the much greater resources of the Union from being effectively used elsewere.

That Lee was not without his flaws should not deny him the recognition of his accomplishments that were mostly due to having the ability of earning the love and respect of his army and it's leaders and the fear and respect of his enemy. I think a fine example of what I mean was when during the Battle of the Wilderness the AOP was in trouble and one of Grant's generals came up to him fearing what Lee was going to do next. To his credit Grant became irritated at the generals fear about what Lee was gonna do and growled (that's the image I get) that everyone here thinks that Lee can be at my front, do a somersault and land in his rear at the same time. I'm tired of hearing what Lee is gonna do and I want to hear what we are gonna do. Or something close to this. This event clearly shows that Lee had gotten in his enemys head for a long time and it took another general of genius - that is Grant - to remove the jitters from his generals that Lee had placed. I believe that only a general of genius can accomplish such a thing. That is of getting into the head of his opponents to such a degree that it reduces their effectiveness as much as the addition of many more men and weapons would.