Print Page | Close Window

The Most One-sided Battle in History

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5378
Printed Date: 01-Dec-2021 at 04:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Most One-sided Battle in History
Posted By: Komnenos
Subject: The Most One-sided Battle in History
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 03:22
A bit of a spin-off from "Today in history"

Is it Omdurman?

At the Battle of Omdurmanin 1898, British troops, led by Lord Kitchener, defeat the Sudanese and re-occupy the Sudanese capital , Khartoum. It was a desive victory for the colonial power in the war against the forces of the Madhi Mohammed Ahmed, a religious leader in the Sudan, who had declared a Jihad against the Ottoman-British occupiers. The forces of the Madhi, Sudanese tribesman armed with guns and more traditional weapons like spears and swords, were no match for the British machine guns and artillery. On the British side, out of a force of approximately 8000, 48 were killed and 382 wounded, while the Sudanese casualties were somewhat higher, out a force of 50.000, 10.000 were killed and 15.000 were wounded.

Which makes it a ratio of 1 to 200 casualties.

Any other contenders for the title?


-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">



Replies:
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 06:28
Before even read your post i was thinking of the same extact battle!!

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: the Bulgarian
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 06:35

Hmm, let me see.

In WW2 there was fortres in Belgium that was suposed to be impregnable. It had a strong heavy artilery defence, but it was defenceles against an air assult - something the Germans didn't fail to notice. Nobody expected an attack fro the air, after all. The Germans managed to capture it with just 15 casualties, where as the Belguese lost much more men. I don't rememder exact numbers and which fortres it was, but I'm sure professor Komnenos would gladly enlighten us.



Posted By: yan.
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 11:33

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Eben-Emael - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Eben-Emael

 

I think there were some very one-sided battles in WWI - all those mass infantry charges into machine gun fire. Can't remember any dates or places, though.



Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 14:06
Battle of Yarmuk when 20,000 arab soldiers inflicted heavy losses on Byzantine army of 40,000 men near Yarmuk river.

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 14:11
Battle of Strling Bridge,William Wallace with his 15,000 men defeated English army of 50,000 men in great decisive battle. 

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Conan the destroyer
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 14:15

Battle against nanzhao, Gao Pian uses an army of 30,000 crossbowmen to defeat a Nanzhou army several times the size of his. Taking very few losses.



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 14:21
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

Battle of Yarmuk when 20,000 arab soldiers inflicted heavy losses on Byzantine army of 40,000 men near Yarmuk river.


...which was largely due to 10,000+ men switching sides. The heavy losses were close to nearly the whole remaining Byzantine army though.



Anyway, there are certainly loads of examples of these world-wide, but the only I can think of now is Narva, where Karl XII's 9,700 strong army lost 600 men killing or capturing virtually every single man of the opposing 35,000 strong Russian army, and at Wallhof where Gustav Adolf with 1,000 infantry and about as many cavalrymen defeated a 7,000 strong Polish army. The Poles lost 1,500-2,000 men dead and wounded, the Swedes zero dead and a dozen or two wounded.




Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 14:44
Battle of Agincourt between England and France in hundred years war, 5,000-9,000 English defeated 12,000-30,000 French the casualties 100 English and 5,000 French with 1,000 prisoners.

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 14:52
 Battle of Adrianople between Romans under empror Valens and Germanic tribes(visigoths and ostrogoths),20,000 Germans defeated 30,000 Romans,Romans casualties 20,000 men.

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Ahmed The Fighter
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 15:03
  Battle of the little big horn 1750 native Americans defeated 780 Americans with guns,Casualties 42 Indians, 262 Americans.

-------------
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 15:08

Mons Graupius NE Scotland.

Roman kills: 10,000 Pict Kills: 360

Roman Army 20k

Pict Army 30k



-------------


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 16:22

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

 Battle of Adrianople between Romans under empror Valens and Germanic tribes(visigoths and ostrogoths),20,000 Germans defeated 30,000 Romans,Romans casualties 20,000 men.

 The Romans were winning this battle, the massacre occurred when the Gothic cavalry returned, until then it had been looking like a Roman victory, so it cant be considered totally one-sided.

 As for Yarmuk I have to disagree there aswell, have to remember the Byzantine army was pretty shattered after the recent Persian wars the desertions certainly didnt help either.



-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 16:55

A few come to mind...

Agincourt 10-15,000 French dead including the post-battle prisoner massacre to a couple of hundred English.

1st day of the Somme, how many Germans died?

Pearl Harbour, 2,898 Amercans vs 64 Japanese.

Trafalgar 14,000 French and Spanish killed vs 449 British.

The Bismark incident probably provided two of the most one sided battle Hood and Prince of Wales vs Bismark and a few days later Bismark vs Rodney and King George V. Also Duke of York vs Scharnhorst. All were practical no casualties on the victor, so infinity to 1.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 17:04
 A brief look on wikipedia says 465,000 to 600,000 german casualties with over 600,000 allied casualties, so certainly not one sided.

-------------
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.


Posted By: dirtnap
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 17:06
There was this one battle that stands out in my mind, hmm lets see, oh yeah I think it was called The battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) during the Persian wars.

The numbers are too convincing.

A few thousand Greeks against what 500,000 Persians

The Greeks lost something maybe 1000 while the Persians lost 30,000. Talk about one sided.





Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 17:06
Originally posted by Paul

 

Pearl Harbour, 2,898 Amercans vs 64 Japanese.

 

Pearl harbor was not really a battle though...,



-------------
http://theforgotten.org/intro.html


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 17:21
I'd have to include the battle of Leyte Gulf which resulted in the virtual destruction in the Japanese surface fleet as well as its naval air force.  This was likely the last great hurrah in naval warfare.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 17:31

The Bismark incident probably provided two of the most one sided battle Hood and Prince of Wales vs Bismark and a few days later Bismark vs Rodney and King George V. Also Duke of York vs Scharnhorst. All were practical no casualties on the victor, so infinity to 1.

heh, I read that as Bismarck vs Rodney King



-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 18:52

Battle of Kirholm 1605. Poles had 3000 soldiers, Swedish army including mercenaries had about 9000-12000.  Poles lost about 100 men, Swedes lost about 6000-8000.



Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 21:23
Hydaspes as an exception, all of Alexander the Great's battles were pretty much massacres.

-------------


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 22:50
Im totally suprised no one has mentioned the most obvious battle for one sided casualties: Manila bay in 1898.  I dont know Spanish casualties though they were at least in the hundreds and perhaps thousands, American casualties was one fat guy who died of heat exhaustion.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 22:56
Originally posted by Tobodai

Im totally suprised no one has mentioned the most obvious battle for one sided casualties: Manila bay in 1898.  I dont know Spanish casualties though they were at least in the hundreds and perhaps thousands, American casualties was one fat guy who died of heat exhaustion.

Sir, you have kicked me in the groin.

The Battle of Kiev had 100,000 German KIA & WIA, compared to 300,000 Russian KIA & WIA, as well as 665,000 POWs.




-------------


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2005 at 23:45
I have?

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2005 at 20:42
Yes. You have presented a fact about my country's history, when I, a person of the Philippines should have been the one to do it.

Sir, you have besmirched my honor. Prepare you defenses, I shall come for you soon...

Back on topic, though it is much smaller in scale, the 'Battle' of Wounded Knee was pretty one sided.




-------------


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2005 at 21:47

 

i would say Battle of Karbala

30 000 against 72

all 72 were killed among them the Grandson of the Prophet Mohammed pbuh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala

 

 



-------------


Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2005 at 22:04
Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

Battle of Yarmuk when 20,000 arab soldiers inflicted heavy losses on Byzantine army of 40,000 men near Yarmuk river.


khaleed al waleed defeating the persians outnumbered like 5 or 6 to 1


-------------


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2005 at 08:05
Battle of Watling Street is a pretty one sided battle. Britons had an estimated 300,000 while the Romans had only 15,000. Romans lose around a thousand while Britons lose 80,000.

-------------



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2005 at 08:58

Combatantschemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

Modoc

United States

Commanders>>

Captain Jack
Shaknasty Jim
Scarfaced Charley

Lt. Col. Frank Wheaton
Maj. John Green
Capt. Reuben Bernard

Strength>>

53 warriors

400 soldiers

Casualties>>

0

37



-------------


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2005 at 13:00

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa

Battle of Watling Street is a pretty one sided battle. Britons had an estimated 300,000 while the Romans had only 15,000. Romans lose around a thousand while Britons lose 80,000.

The ancient British always amaze me, their capacity to field an army twice the size of the entire population of the area, women, children aged and infirmed included.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2005 at 21:23
Warsaw Uprising.

-------------


Posted By: Lannes
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2005 at 22:25

The Battle of Amphipolis (422 BC) is worth mentioning.  600 Athenian casualties compared to Sparta's 7 or 8.



-------------
τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;


Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 02:37


San Jacinto

-------------


Posted By: Vamun Tianshu
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 03:34
San Jacinto indeed,Can't believe the Texans won...

-------------

In Honor


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 15:17

Isn't that what they call a massacre not a battle?

1637 Attack on the Pequot Fort

500 Indians + 100 English killed 600 - 800 Pequots



-------------


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 18:27
San Jacinto was a massacre. The Texans surprised the Mexicans while they were napping so it is no suprise that they won the battle.

-------------



Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 11:17

Cajamarca, 1532

Incas: 8000 vs Spanish 168

Inca casualties: 7000 vs Spanish casualties: 0

Let's see you beat that!



-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 13:58
Originally posted by Decebal

Cajamarca, 1532


Incas: 8000 vs Spanish 168


Inca casualties: 7000 vsSpanish casualties: 0


Let's see you beat that!



That's a pretty good batting average.
Beats Omdurman hands down.

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 16:20
Now in all fairness, some historians have claimed that the casualty figures advanced by the Spanish in regards to Cajamarca have been exagerated. But the fact remains that the Spanish won a great victory against a much  larger Inca army without losing a man.

-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 19:00
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa

San Jacinto was a massacre. The Texans surprised the Mexicans while
they were napping so it is no suprise that they won the battle.


Santa Anna's fault.
He did not order to post centinels.
some 700 mexican were killed in matters of minutes, while the texicans suffered only 2 cassualties

-------------


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 19:10
Yeah, no surprise there that the Texans won.

-------------



Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 01:01

no matter how one sided or if there was suprise if its between two largely armed groups its a battle, the only massacres are by armies against civilians.  I had a whole debate which I eventually won with this with a friend of mine wh oinsisted Pearl Harbor was not a battle...oh yes it was, and so are many other such one sided ones.

But I still think in casualties terms Manlila bay is the most one sided one, I mena cmon, one to at least a few hundrerd into the thousands...



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 16:46
Originally posted by Tobodai

But I still think in casualties terms Manlila bay is the most one sided one, I mena cmon, one to at least a few hundrerd into the thousands...

What about Cajamarca?



-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2005 at 02:27
True, good point, I cant beleive I forgot that one since I just freaking studied the Inka Empire last year!

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2005 at 17:35
The most, I don't think so but one-sided yes.

In the morning of April 8, 1941 the Hellenic flag, which beyond any reasoning was still hoisted, was de-hoisted. At the same time the German General shook the hand of the fort Commander and stated:

"On behalf of the German Nation, I congratulate the heroic defenders of this fort, who shadowed the glory of Leonidas and Themistocles. Please pass these words to the officers and soldiers of the fort. Last night the Berlin and London radio stations chanted hymns for you."

Then, the fort Commander proudly answered:
"General, we did nothing but our duty as defenders of the motherland".

During the "battle of the forts" (MAXH TWN OXYRWN) 6-11 April 1941 the casualties on the Hellinic side were a mere 7 dead and 23 wounded while the German casualties reached 555 dead 2134 wounded and 170 missing in action (these numbers do not include officers)


-------------
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.


Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2005 at 17:43
Such respect for a 'subhuman', non-Aryan people from this Nazi.

Just how did the Nazis view the Greeks?


-------------


Posted By: yan.
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 13:35

They were just helping out Mussolini, you know...

I don't think the place for Greeks in the nazi's racial hierarchy was so low. They had a thing for the Romans, after all.



Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 15:59

Another notable one-sided battle. The unnamed battle pitching the Romans versus the army of Britons commanded by Boudica in 60AD:

Romans: 2 legions (~10000 soldiers) vs Britons 230,000 soldiers

Casualties:

Romans: 400 vs Britons 80,000

Goes to show what organization and good training can do. It was also a very important battle: had the Britons won, the Romans would have been kicked out of Britain and world history might have never been the same. I still feel bad for the Britons though



-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: honeybee
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 17:13

Here is one that beats all. Nurhachi's eastern campaign, in which 4 men(a few dozen followed behind, but they didn't participate, they probably did affect the outcome though by their mere presense to scare the opponents) defeated a tribe of 800. No one on Nurhachi's side was killed. While at least 50 of the enemy was.

If we use a twist, there is one that comes off top. No one can beat it.

0 Liao troops defeated 100,000 Song. How? The Liao commander wrote a letter to a 100,000 Song invading force. He said that the Liao had several times the soldier and would just surround the Song. The Song commander was shocked, they retreated in haste and dropped a load of weapon in the retreat. Hundreds of the Song troops probably died from marching all that distance, and the hasty retreat when Liao simply used its pen.



Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 17:19
Originally posted by Decebal

Another notable one-sided battle. The unnamed battle pitching the Romans versus the army of Britons commanded by Boudica in 60AD:

Romans: 2 legions (~10000 soldiers) vs Britons 230,000 soldiers

Casualties:

Romans: 400 vs Britons 80,000

Goes to show what organization and good training can do. It was also a very important battle: had the Britons won, the Romans would have been kicked out of Britain and world history might have never been the same. I still feel bad for the Britons though

The population of the whole of southern Britiain was only a million people. The poplution of the eastern part where the rebellion occured 200,000. that's 80,000 men of fighting age. Only some of the eastern tribes did participate in the revolt. If we estimate 50% of males of fighting age from the participating tribes fought we get a figure of 30,000. then we would have to subtract the casualties from the earlier battles. On my archaeology course the lecturer from the Museum of London reckoned their were only 10,000 Britions, less than there wetre Romans.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 21:48

Battle of Thermopylae or Battle of Myeongnyang:

Battle of Myeongnyang: 12 Chosun ships vs. 333 Japanese ships, Imjin War

Battle of Thermopylae: Someone already mentioned this I think, 300 Spartans dead to about 30,000 to 40,000 Persians. (Actually counting the remaining Greek army the death toll may have been 4,000 Greeks)



-------------


Posted By: ok ge
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 02:40

 Jadeed Boghaz, West of Madine, 1812 AD

a punch of bediouns who call themselves unitarians defeated & chased the Turkish Army sent by Mehmet Ali Pasha after instructed by constantinpole in 1812 AD, from Medina to Yunbu sea port, a whole day trip and killed 4000 of them with only 600 castualty (book of John Sabini, Armies in the Sand,Page 92 if you are interested, battle of Jadeed Boghaz)



-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 08:28
Originally posted by Decebal

Another notable one-sided battle. The unnamed battle pitching the Romans versus the army of Britons commanded by Boudica in 60AD:

Romans: 2 legions (~10000 soldiers) vs Britons 230,000 soldiers

Casualties:

Romans: 400 vs Britons 80,000

Goes to show what organization and good training can do. It was also a very important battle: had the Britons won, the Romans would have been kicked out of Britain and world history might have never been the same. I still feel bad for the Britons though


That was the Battle of Walting Street. I have heard a sensible estimate of 30,000 Britons at the battle from Decisive Battles. As said, there may have been only 10,000 at the battle, making it not that great a victory for the Romans.


-------------



Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 14:17
I got this info from a documentary called "Battlefield Britain" and took it at face value. I believe that these are the figures recorded by Roman historians, so I can see how some exaggeration is possible.

-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: rangerstew
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 15:54

Maybe not as one sided as the ones mentioned previously, but it is more recent:

The Battle of Bakara Market, Mogadishu, Somalia.

 

Nineteen American KIA's/500-1000 Somali's killed(no one knows the exact amount).



Posted By: Bonaparte
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 15:55
Originally posted by Decebal

Cajamarca, 1532

Incas: 8000 vs Spanish 168

Inca casualties: 7000 vs Spanish casualties: 0

Let's see you beat that!

Im with this being the most onesided battle. To add to it there was only one injury recorded on the Spanish side, and that was Pizzaro himself.



-------------
"The theory is not the practice of war."

"It is not for an event to govern politics, but for politics to govern events."

-Napoleon Bonaparte


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 15:57
I heard of One Thousand killed in that battle, pretty one-sided. Again, shows what good training can do compared to civilians given drugs and AK-47s.

-------------



Posted By: Phallanx
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2005 at 16:35
Originally posted by Belisarius

Such respect for a 'subhuman', non-Aryan people from this Nazi.

Just how did the Nazis view the Greeks?

Unfortunately Hitler actually idealized the anient Hellines and Sparta, he actually compared the battle of Thermopyles and the treason of Ephialtes to the Nazi defeat in France and the stance the politicians held towards his so-called 'cause'. If I remember correctly he also presented his own version of the inscription on the monument mentioned by Herodotus:

"Go, tell the Spartans, thou who passeth by,
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie. "

Using it to describe the German's courage and valour in the battle field...




-------------
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.


Posted By: King_Cyrus
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 16:26

 

Dirtmap there is no way the Persians had 500,000 men.  That just goes to show that alot of the Greek historians like to over exagerate things to make the Greeks seam invincible.

Ok this one Battle has to be near the top of the list.  Battle of Carrhae, 9000 Parthian horse archers with 1000 fully armored lancers (Cataphracti) making a total of 10,000 on the Parthian side. 

Roman side included 7 legions of heavy infantry (28,000 men) plus 4,000 cavalry and 4,000 additional light infantry.  Making the Roman side a total of at least 36,000 men.

Battle took place in modern day Northern Iraq.  At the end of the Battle 20,000 Romans were killed 10,000 captured.

Parthians didnt even suffer 100 casualties.  Making the ration 1 Parthian killed for every 200 Romans.  At least 1/200



Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 16:31

Carrhae also has one of the most novel and ironic deaths as well.

The Roman commander Crassus (richest man in Rome) was captured by the Parthians and executed by having molten gold poured down his throat. A horrible way to go, but then again he deserved it for crucifying 1000's of Spartacus' followers.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2005 at 02:43

I think the ratios(man numbers)is just one dimension of fight.

For exmple:what about chance of 10 000 swordsman against 5 heavy machinegunners ?

 



Posted By: I/eye
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2005 at 08:24

land: any battle of Manchurians vs Choson conscripts (early 1600's)

water: any battle of Choson Admiral Yi vs Japanese (late 1500's)



-------------
[URL=http://imageshack.us]


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2005 at 04:12

One more, the British invasions of Tibet, 1888 and 1904.

Cataphracts vs machine guns.

I'll leave you to work out the results.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Texas
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2005 at 23:38

Battle of Sabine Pass

Battle Of San Jacinto

2nd Battle of Adobe Walls

 



-------------


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 15:26
polish cavalry vs german tanks.


Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 18:40

I've heard that the actual number of casualties among the mahdist ansar at Omdurman later has been estimated at ca 20 000 dead, 22 000 wounded and 5 000 POW's. Even two weeks after the battle, wounded warriors still died of their wounds

But the most one-sided battle I know of is the battle of Blood river/Bloet river/ncome in 1838, where a zulu army suffered more than 3 000 dead against only 2 wounded boers. An unbelievable ratio of 0-3000+ dead 

Originally posted by Komnenos

A bit of a spin-off from "Today in history"

Is it Omdurman?

At the Battle of Omdurmanin 1898, British troops, led by Lord Kitchener, defeat the Sudanese and re-occupy the Sudanese capital , Khartoum. It was a desive victory for the colonial power in the war against the forces of the Madhi Mohammed Ahmed, a religious leader in the Sudan, who had declared a Jihad against the Ottoman-British occupiers. The forces of the Madhi, Sudanese tribesman armed with guns and more traditional weapons like spears and swords, were no match for the British machine guns and artillery. On the British side, out of a force of approximately 8000, 48 were killed and 382 wounded, while the Sudanese casualties were somewhat higher, out a force of 50.000, 10.000 were killed and 15.000 were wounded.

Which makes it a ratio of 1 to 200 casualties.

Any other contenders for the title?



Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 01:40
Originally posted by BigL

polish cavalry vs german tanks.

Oh, I'd say it had some effect, "When the Germans attacked, Poland was subjected to the first use of the Blitzkrieg. It was over in six weeks. Even so, the Poles did inflict damage on the German army. Almost 90,000 German soldiers were killed or wounded, far more than in the eight-week war in France the following spring; a huge number of armoured vehicles and other equipment was destroyed; and the German Air Force lost more than 400 aircraft, a rate of loss that was never again exceeded, except for a few weeks during the battle of Britain"


Posted By: El Cid
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2005 at 15:03

In the battle of Cannae, a force of 40000 men guided by Hannibal defeated the roman army of 70000 men.

Hannibal lost 5700 men, Varro and Paulus lost 60000 men, reaching that way the title for Cannae of "Mother of all the battles".



-------------
The spanish are coming!




Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 00:56
Polish-Swedish battle at Kircholm, around 11 thousand Swedes, against 5 thousand Poles. The conclusion of the battle was a Polish victory with casualties reaching about 100 dead or wounded, while the Swedes lost about 9 thousand men.


Posted By: human
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 04:51

Navy battle of Salamis (salamina)

If i remember well 3000 Persian ships against 500 Greek ships. Persians lost all their ships and it was the begging of the end of the Persian invasion in Greece. I dont remember the numbers in the battle of Platees which was the end of Persian invasion.

 



-------------
You Got to Lose to Know How to Win...


Posted By: prithviraj
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 02:32

Over indulgence of the royalty in hedonistic pleasures coupled with an unrealistic assessment of the enemy's designs led to the loss of India's sovereignty to the Muslim invaders. This is what happened when the handsome king, Prithviraj Chouhan, the last Hindu ruler of Delhi, remained besotted with his new bride and beloved Sanyogita, the princess of Kannauj. Before his marriage, Prithviraj, was able to defeate the aggressor Sultan Mahmud Ghori and his slave general Qutub'uddin Aibak. But after getting married to Sanyogita; Prithviraj lost all propriety of the duties of a ruler and gave all his attention to his 'Queen of Hearts'. While their extended honeymoon was on, the wily Ghori was planning his invasion of India to avenge his past defeats. Prithviraj ignored repeated warnings from his courtiers that Ghori's attack was imminent. When Prithviraj, woke up from his infatuation it was too late. His very large but ill-prepared army had to face defeat at the hands of Ghoris small but well-prepared army in the battlefield of Tarain and he himself was captured and killed by the enemy. And Delhi came under Muslim rule that was to last the next 700 years. The freedom of the country was also imperilled after the fall of Prithviraja III at the hands of Muhammad Ghori after the second battle of Terain (1192 A.D.). The Pauranika points to the political blunder of the Chahamana ruler who was succumbed in [Sic] sensuous slumber in the company of his newly acquired wife Samyogita [or Samyukta]. Prithviraj was enjoying with the company of his newly acquired wife sanyogita when the enemy was pounding at the gates of delhi. The history says that while going to the battlefield, Prithviraj was girdled by his beautiful and charming empress Sanyukta. Prithviraj was killed by Ghori because he sowed the seed of chauhan dynasty in sanyukta before proceeding to his last battle. He had passed the night before the great battle in the amorous company of his wife sanyukta. Due to this act he could not conquer death. It is said that, when Prithviraj fell from his zenith, he had split his white blood before going to the battle. In the evening preceding the battle, Prithviraj is reported to have allowed himself to be thrown into the well of carnal pleasure. When he enjoyed the poisonous wine of his ladys eyes, all his bravery and heroism vanished in no time. These are the evil consequences of wasting seminal energy.
Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Ghori Muhammed in first battle by the numerical superiority of his army. But then he eloped with Sanyogita and married her. This handsome king lost himself in his wife's beauty and love. Prithviraj never left his harem and was always having sex with his lovely wife. When Prithvi heard that Ghori was again raiding his country to rape and secure Prithvi's sexy wife, Prithviraj got alarmed and raised the strength of his army tremendously. Prithviraj's forces had 5,00,000 horses, 50,000 elephants and 50,00,000 warriors. Though the Hindus had great numerical strength than muslims they were all massacred by Ghori in second battle. Prithvi was cruelly killed by ghori and Sanyogita killed herself as she was cruelly raped by Ghori. More than 35,00,000 rajput soldiers were killed in the battlefield itself. The same thing happened again to Padmini like that of Samyogita when Alauddin killed her husband Ratan singh. Muslim Sultans killed handsome Rajput Kings mainly to secure their beautiful wives. The muslim invaders cruelly killed hindu rajput men and raped their beautiful wives. The Chauhans were very much larger in number than the gurids. But they were physically weaker than gurids. They were mostly vegetarians. They were not hard working people. They lived in wealthy lands. So they were stout and goodlooking. They liked peace and love. But the gurids were hard workers and came from dry lands to acquire wealth and women. They were tall, lean and ugly. They were war- loving people. The moto of rajputs was to eat, drink, sleep, love and enjoy with their women by having sex with them. They were soft people. The Chauhan men and women were always in love and lust with each other because their men were handsome and their women were most beautiful. The chauhans were haughty and proud for no reason. The moto of gurids was to kill rajput men and rape their women. They were rough people. The ghurids were mostly black coloured people and the Rajputs were golden coloured people. When the gurids captured the chauhan kingdom they were amazed by the beauty of golden coloured rajput women. The chauhan women were so sexy with larger breast and buttocks. The ghurids had never seen such sexy, beautiful, colourful and lovable women. They were very much infatuated towards their beauty. So they killed the rajput men mercilessly and entered into a mass act of rape and rapine to satisfy their own lust. The rajput women hated the ugly and cruel ghurids. So when they were raped by gurids, they committed sucide.

So Muhammed Ghori's army was the most one sided army that killed the biggest army ever in the world of king Prithviraj Chauhan. 



Posted By: prithviraj
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 02:35
Prithviraj Chauhan was the flamboyant ruler of Delhi, who despite routing the Afghans in 1191, is largely remembered as the most romantic and handsome king in Indian history. He fell in love with the daughter of his most bitter rival, Jaichandra, and carried her off despite the opposition. A year later, Muhammad Ghur returned and in the battle that ensued, Prithviraj lost his life and the battle. Ghur raped Prithvirajs beautiful wife Samyukta and she killed herself. Ghur's lieutenant, Qutb-uddin Aibak later ruled India and founded India's first Muslim ruling dynasty. He ruled over India for fourteen years, consolidating his power by annexing the territories of Delhi and eventually defeating Jaichandra. His son-in-law constructed the famous Qutb Minar, a mosque and minaret, in his memory.
The Ghaznivads had little influence in India by the late 12th century when an ambitious sultan from Ghor, another man of Turkish descent in Afghanistan, showed expansionist intentions. Muhammad in his earlier attempts had a great setback when he tried to imitate the crossing of Thar Desert and assault on Gujarat by Muhammad of Ghazni. However, this time the defenders of Somnath stopped his debauch and Muhammad met with a defeat. After easily overpowering the Sindh region, he turned his attention now to eastern Panjab and Rajastan. Muhammad had already taken Lahore in 1186 and now was impinging on Chauhans territory. He met with an able and worthy opponent in the Rajput dynasty of Chauhan. Their hero, Prithviraj was the legendary king who had eloped with the daughter of king of Kanauj while coming off age. This story is even today alive in the folklore of Panjab and Rajastan. The confrontation of 1191 almost resulted in Muhammad losing his life, if not for a Khalji warrior who bravely fought off the Hindus and rescued his leader. Prithvirajs vassal, Govinda-raja by name, inflicted a deep gash on the arm of Muhammad though he lost his front teeth while taking a blow from the sword of the Muslim. When Muhammad retreated Prithviraj did not give chase and basked in his victory. This was a tactical error that would come back to haunt him later. Prithvirajs marriage with Samyukta, the princess of Kanauj took place after this first battle of Tarain. Prithviraj had an endless honeymoon with his charming new bride and forgot his duties as a king. Muhammad, however, was not to be discouraged by a single defeat. Middle of next year in 1192, Muhammad was back with a small force of 1,000 horses attacking the Rajputs again. But Prithviraj had a massive army that was very much larger than that of Ghurid army. Prithvirajs force consists of 10,00,000 horses, 50,000 elephants and uncountable number of warriors. Muhammad arranged a fake truce and while the Rajputs were celebrating, thinking that they had won again, the Ghorid sultan double crossed the Hindus and massacred them in a surprise attack. This second battle at Tarain lasted all day, wearing out the Rajput soldiers, when waves after waves of well-trained horsemen attacked the weary Rajputs. Eventually the mighty army of Prithviraj succumbed to the superior tactics of the Arabian horsemen. Govinda-raja was slain and his body could be recognized only because of its missing teeth.
Prithviraj was taken prisoner and then executed by Ghor. Beastly Ghor cruelly raped Prithvirajs beautiful wife, Queen Samyukta. She killed herself unable to bear the disgrace made to her by ugly Ghur. Ghur also killed the infant child of this newly married couple. Most of the Rajput women jumped into their own funeral pyres as the Ghurids raped them and the brave soldiers fought on till they were killed in the battlefield. Such was the honour of Rajputs. Ghurids massacred millions of rajput men, raped their women and their children were made slaves. Thousands of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam. Thus Ghor completely destroyed Chauhan Empire.
Within a matter of three years most of the Ganga belt had capitulated to Muslim forces. There hardly was any resistance to their advance. By the thirteenth century the conquest of the North India was almost complete with the Muslims in control as far east as Bengal and Assam. The Muslim faithful unleashed a rule of terror with relentless massacre of Hindus, unimpeded. Blood ran in the holy River Ganga and many Indians were forcibly converted to Muslim faith with the threat of death or unfair taxes. The Battle of Tarain was a turning point in Indian history. A land that had been protected by Hindu Kush Mountains on its northwest frontier now was a thoroughfare for invaders and marauders. The whole of North India was under Muslim rule for the next six hundred and fifty years until the British usurped them. The permeation of Hindu society by Islam had begun at full throttle.
Like his predecessor Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad of Ghor was not interested in occupying and ruling the land of India. Ostensibly Muhammads goal was to expand territory and submission of Hindus to Islam but he too strayed from his ideology when he tasted the opulence that was India. The main focus was to plunder and pillage and transfer as much wealth as possible to his motherland Ghor in Afghanistan. The seemingly insatiable Muhammad bequeathed the control of the land he had gained to be ruled by his subordinates, the first of whom was his slave who had fought beside him. His name was Qutb-ud-din Aibak, the founder of the so-called Slave Dynasty that ruled North India for the next eighty-four years.
Prithvi Raj Chauhan was the last Hindu Ruler of Delhi. He ruled at Sambhar, Ajmer and Delhi. In 1182, Prithviraj defeated the Chandel king Raja Parmal and captured Mahoba. In 1191 he was the head of a confederacy of Hindu kings in combatting the invasion of Huhammad Ghori. He repelled the Muhamaddans at Tarain about 2 miles north of Delhi. His next exploit was the abduction of the daughter of Jaichand, the Gaharwar (or Rathore) Raja of Kannauj in 1191 after his first battle with Ghor. The king of Kanauj had claimed the title of universal sovereign and determined to celebrate the Ashwa-Medha or horse sacrifice, at which all the offices should be performed by vassal kings. This was the last Asvamedha performed by a Hindu king. Pritvi Raj of Delhi and Samarsi of Mewar alone declined to attend as subordinate, and Jaichand therefore made a wooden image of him and set it up at the gate in the part of the doorkeeper. But when his daughter after the tournament took the garland of flowers to bestow it on the chief whom she chose for her husband, she passed by all the assembled nobles and threw the garland on the neck of the golden image. At this moment Prithvi Raj dashed in with a few companions, and catching her up, escaped with her from her fathers court. Mer. E. Balfour: In this successfull rape he lost the flower of his followers and his subsequent humiliating defeat by the Muhamaddans has been primarily attributed to this. Jaichand, though bereaved of his daughter sent her jahez or trousseau after her. But in the following year Prithviraj was completely defeated and killed at Thaneswar by Muhammad Ghor, and soon afterwards Delhi and Ajmer fell to the Muhamadans. Prithvirajs new wife Samyukta was captured and raped by Ghor. Ghor also killed the infant son of Prithviraj. The Chauhan kingdom was broken up, but scattered parts of it remained, and about 1307 Asirgarh in Nimar, which continued to be held by the Chauhans, was taken by Ala-ud-din Khilji and the whole garrison put to the sword except one boy. This boy, Raisi Chauhan, escaped to Rajputana, and according to the bardic chronicle his descendants formed the Hara branch of the Chauhans and conquered from the Minas the tract known as Haravati, from which they perhaps took their name. Jaichand closed his career by lapsing into the Ganga at Ferozabad, the ancient Chandwar as Ghor worstly defeated him.


Posted By: prithviraj
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 02:35
DEFEATE OF PRITHVIRAJ CHOUHAN
In the turbulent times of the 12th century, when Islam was bent on taking over India, and Mohammad of Ghur (from Afghanistan) marched beyond the Punjab, Prithviraj III of Ajmer advanced to oppose the Muslim invaders with a large army. It included one hundred and fifty Rajput princes and their forces, including Rawal Mathan Singh of Mewar. Islam had been seeking the conversion of the world at the point of the sword. . Ghori decided to extend the boundary of his kingdom and also gain wealth, through conquests. To realize his ambition, he made his first incursion into India in 1175. After subduing the Ismaili Muslim heretics of Multan, he made an unsuccessful advance into Gujarat in 1178.
Nevertheless he became successful in seizing Peshawar and building a fort at Sialkot in 1181. With the help of the ruler of Jammu, Jaidev he put an end to the rule of Ghaznavids in Punjab and captured Lahore in 1186 A.D. With this the way was opened for him to push his conquests further into India. But he now had to face the formidable Rajputs led by the enigmatic Prithviraj Chauhan, ruler of Delhi and Ajmer.
For the defense of the country's north-west frontiers and what may be called the "Gateway" of India, the Chauhan ruler had strongly fortified the bordering towns of his kingdom. Muhammad Ghori first attacked Bhatinda and laid siege to the city in 1189. Historical evidences show that Prithviraj Chauhan was not prepared for this attack made in a sudden and deceitful manner. Hence the army defending the city was defeated and it laid down its arms after the defeat.
Muhammad Ghori left a garrison under the command of Ziauddin to defend the fort, and he himself prepared to back when the Chauhan ruler arrived at the head of a huge army to recapture the fort. So Ghori had to stay his departure in order to face Prithviraj. The rival armies met at Tarain, near Thaneshwar. In face of the persistent Rajput attacks, the battle was won as the Muslim army broke ranks and fled leaving their general Mahmud Ghori as a prisoner in Pritiviraj's hands.
Mahmud Ghori was brought in chains to Pithoragarh - Prithviraj's capital and he begged his victor for mercy and release. Prithviraj's ministers advised against pardoning the aggressor. But the chivalrous and valiant Prithviraj thought otherwise and respectfully released the vanquished Ghori.
Scenes of devastation, plunder and massacre commenced, which lasted through ages during which nearly all that was sacred in religion or celebrated in art was destroyed by these ruthless and barbarous invaders. The noble Rajput, with a spirit of constancy and enduring courage, seized every opportunity to turn upon his oppressor. But all was of no avail; fresh supplies were pouring in, and dynasty succeeded dynasty. Prithviraj after this battle eloped with Samyukta, the princess of Kanouj and married her. This handsome king lost himself in his wifes beauty and love. The newly married couple preferred to live in some romantic isolation. They continued their honeymoon endlessly unaware of the forthcoming danger.
On his return to Ghazni, Ghori made hectic preparations to avenge the defeat. He proceeded towards India with a large force numbering 120000 mounted men. When he reached Lahore, he sent his envoy to Prithviraj to demand his submission, but the Chauhan ruler refused to comply. Prithviraj saw through Ghori's stratagem. So he issued a fervent appeal to his fellow Rajput chiefs to come to his aid against the Muslim invader. About 150 Rajput chiefs, both big and small, responded favourably. Except the ruler of Kannauj Raja Jaichand whose daughter had eloped with Prithviraj and married him. Prithviraj prepared a very large army to crush Ghori this time. Prithviraj proceeded with it to meet Muhammad Ghori in Tarain where a year before he had inflicted a crushing defeats on his adversary. Ghori divided his troops into five parts. While he deployed four parts to attack the Rajputs on all four sides, the fifth part was kept as reserve. As the sun declined, Ghori led a final charge with his reserve army. The final charge came as a last straw for the brave Rajputs. Khande Rao, the able general of Prithviraj, was killed. The enthusiasm of Prithviraj also dampened against these reverses. He abandoned his elephant and rode out of the battlefield in order to prepare his defenses for another round of attack. But he was pursued and killed by the Ghori in a village near Sambhal U.P.
In some popular legends woven around the bravery of Prithviraj, it is said that Ghori did not killed Prithviraj but blinded him. Subsequently, Prithviraj discharged a Shabdbhedi (an arrow which travels in a path created by sound waves) arrow, on being challenged by Ghori to do so. The arrow hit Ghori and subsequently he was killed. Yet there is no historical evidence to substantiate it. It was a false story told by the rajputs as they could not digest this humiliating death of their hero Prithviraj at the hands of Mohammed Ghori who was a fanatic, cruel and ugly Muslim. Ghori captured Prithvirajs wife Queen Samyukta just before Jauhar and cruelly raped her. Unable to bear this disgrace she soon committed suicide. Ghori even mercilessly killed the infant child of this newly married couple. Ghori and his barbarians raped millions of chauhan women and killed all chauhan men. Lakhs of chauhan women committed suicide. Chauhan children were converted to islam and they were made as slaves. Ghori soon captured other kingdom of north India with ease as their sole hero Prithviraj was already killed by him.
The seriousness of this defeat for India cannot be exaggerated. The victory of Mohammad of Ghur was decisive, and laid the foundation of the Sultanate of Delhi and, for Hinduism, the period was critical.
After this defeat, the role of the kings of Mewar became clear: They accepted this responsibility of defence in preference to the life of relative security of a slave. And so began centuries of war with the Muslims, lasting until the Mughal dynasty began to fall apart after the death of Emperor Aurangzeb (1707).


Posted By: AlbinoAlien
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 11:45
I'd say definatly the battle of Teutoberg forest. bout' 15,000 roman soldiers died? (three legions total). no one knows how many germans died....but i'd guess that if an army of germanic tribes were able to destroy all of the Varus comand, including Varus himself then about 100-200 germans dead.

-------------
people are the emotions of other people


(im not albino..or pale!)

.....or an alien..


Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 12:40
Still I haven't seen anyone come up with another example of a 0-3000 casualty rate as at Blood River


Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 16:06

Originally posted by Sarmata

Polish-Swedish battle at Kircholm, around 11 thousand Swedes, against 5 thousand Poles. The conclusion of the battle was a Polish victory with casualties reaching about 100 dead or wounded, while the Swedes lost about 9 thousand men.

I've heard 100 dead and 200 wounded poles. Nevertheless, Kirkholm is by far the worst and most embaressing defeat in swedish history, and also one of the greatest defeats/victories in history



Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 20:26

Originally posted by Ahmed The Fighter

Battle of Agincourt between England and France in hundred years war, 5,000-9,000 English defeated 12,000-30,000 French the casualties 100 English and 5,000 French with 1,000 prisoners.

 

 That battle is a propaganda, most of the french army were actually a band of peasants militia following. Infact the french knights  got stuck in the mud.

 

 The most one sided battle in history is the battle of patay, when french knights caught the longbows in the  open. 2000 english killed for less than 5 french casualties.  1 for 400.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 20:32
Originally posted by Paul

A few come to mind...

Agincourt 10-15,000 French dead including the post-battle prisoner massacre to a couple of hundred English.

.

 

 That is a lie,  at Agincourt the most exxagerrated claim put about 4000 french casualty for 500 english casualty. I don't believe the army engaging the english were much larger.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 20:40
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by Decebal

Another notable one-sided battle. The unnamed battle pitching the Romans versus the army of Britons commanded by Boudica in 60AD:

Romans: 2 legions (~10000 soldiers) vs Britons 230,000 soldiers

Casualties:

Romans: 400 vs Britons 80,000

Goes to show what organization and good training can do. It was also a very important battle: had the Britons won, the Romans would have been kicked out of Britain and world history might have never been the same. I still feel bad for the Britons though

The population of the whole of southern Britiain was only a million people. The poplution of the eastern part where the rebellion occured 200,000. that's 80,000 men of fighting age. Only some of the eastern tribes did participate in the revolt. If we estimate 50% of males of fighting age from the participating tribes fought we get a figure of 30,000. then we would have to subtract the casualties from the earlier battles. On my archaeology course the lecturer from the Museum of London reckoned their were only 10,000 Britions, less than there wetre Romans.

 

 Yea you English are master of propaganda and lies always inflating the opponent army size and reducing your casualties. Actually these figures could be accurate, in those days every available men would be deployed on the battlefield as warriors, especially in a primitive briton society. And definitely it is not known for sure whether the britons were actually 1 million or more. Your 10,000 claim should be discredited as nationalit propaganda.



-------------


Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2005 at 06:47

Quetzalqoatl, will you please refer to your sources? Extraordinary claims calls for extraordinary evidences...

According to most history books, the english army numbered ca 9000 (of whom more than 7000 were common archers), the french numbered about 20 000, of which ca 10 000 took part in the actual battle (most were professional soldiers, not peasant levies), suffering ca 6000-9000 casualties (dead and wounded)

The claim of 80 000 briton tribesmen would be considered a wild exaggeration by most academic scholars. Even if the ancient tribes of Britain could get that number of able-bodied men, it would be impossible to keep them together as a single fighting unit as you consider the primitive logistics of the time, and the rudimentary command structure.



Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 02:09
There was also the battle of Kluszyn (Klushino) 5,000-6,000 Poles against a Russian army of 35,000 including some German-Scottish mercenaries. Polish victory...though i dont know the casualty rate, does anyone? Im guessing the Poles didn't lose too much since they took Moscow shortly after that battle.


Posted By: Sarmata
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 02:20
...forgot to add also, Battle of Beresteczko, one of the biggest battles in 17th century Europe, Poles, 57,000, against a Cossack-Tatar force of about 125,000. It lasted for about 2 days. Polish Victory.


Posted By: JeremyScott
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 03:29

What about Ira Drang in 1965? 395 men against 4000. 1st Battalion/7th Regiment sustained around 50 dead to the cost of around 2000 VC and NVA.



-------------
God Bless Texas
Remember The Alamo


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 04:21
Originally posted by Mangudai

Quetzalqoatl, will you please refer to your sources? Extraordinary claims calls for extraordinary evidences...

 

what extraordinary claim you referring to. battle of patay? here you. Notice I said less than 5, less that 5 could be 1 casualty. Meaning 1 for 2000. perhaps the most one sided in the history of warfare. I don't believe that blood river claim of 0 for 3000. Someone will always die in battle.

 

http://www.xenophongroup.com/montjoie/patay.htm - http://www.xenophongroup.com/montjoie/patay.htm

 

 



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 04:32

 

 It's not a battle but a war. 3 million chinese vs 50,000 frenchmen. Still the war was one-sided in favour of France. there was even a case where 25,000 chinese trying to defeat 500 french soldiers unsuccessful for months, until french reinforcement arrived and scattered the chinese. 2000 french casualties was mostly from diseases.

 

Military History of France
Military History of China
Conflict Sino-French War
Date 1881-1885
Place South-east China & Northern Vietnam
Result French sovereignty over Tongking and Annam is assured
Combatants
France China
Strength
50,000 Soldiers 3 Million Soldiers
Casualties
2,100 Killed
or Wounded
10,000 Killed
or Wounded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Franco-Chinese_War - http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Franco-Chinese_War http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Franco-Chinese_War -



-------------


Posted By: Janissary
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2005 at 17:44

Lipani,

Battle between Babur and Indian king-14000-100000



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2005 at 08:04
The decisive battle of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, Tsushima Strait, readily comes to mind. The Russian Baltic Fleet was utterly annhilated, while the Japanese suffered the loss of three torpedo boats. 4800 Russians died and nearly 6000 were wounded, for Japanese casualties of 117 dead and 600 wounded.


Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 01:58
what a discussion ? count all this poor victims of doubtable interesst of
unconscionable tyrants, of mad generals and other despots. but count all this brave men and women that defeated their homes and famlilies against this babarian done of all those  who attacked them in the name of god or other cruel ideas.
         &nbs p;  



         &nbs p;                                     


-------------

http://imageshack.us">


Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 02:50
Originally posted by ulrich von hutten


this brave men and women that defeated their homes and famlilies against this babarian done of all those  who attacked them in the name of god or other cruel ideas.
           



                  &nbs p;         &nbs p;         &nbs p;  

sorry , of course i meant defended not defeat .
every battle is one-sided , cause none one of the fighters can only loose.
his freedom,peace and the opportunity to make his own dicision.


-------------

http://imageshack.us">


Posted By: Sudaka
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 05:12

I like to contribute whit a point thats is not been taking in consideration. Casualties in warfare information are passed for low level officers to medium ranking officers then to generals and then to goverment and the to media. After several years history books are made. In evry case the numbers get biggers. The usual reason is very common. No battle are like video games. U just cant see most of what u want to know, u rely on the information of ur subaltern officers. If im a regimental officer who wants to reach higher places and pay ,and i suffer a defeat i shure will lower my casualties and said that were confronted by an entire divition.  If im a general and i suffer a masive defeat i will declare only a part of the losses in order to kepp my job, specyally if my head is in danger. If i win a similar  case happend, I ll beat a huge savage horde, i may give any number i like whe the other side cant reach to the commom peole of my country. When we reach to historians the numbers are really far from the reality and then politics gets in the middle. I may tooks a lot of Sources to do some text, the one i choose depends in the political or  cultural intrest that i serv.



-------------
Not yet mein friend, not yet


Posted By: Sudaka
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 05:39

There are many cases to analize. If u see the battle of britain in wwii u will see that the losses and victories given by both size difered incredibly. Seens to be talking about differents battles.

Another example very intresting was a battle along the center group of armys in the german retried, i cannot remenber now which it was it (Fuller "WWII tactical and historical hystory"). But one official russian hystory declare that 200.000 germans dyed in that medium battle. If we keep in mind that according to english wwi stadistics in  battle, losses are 1 dead by 2 injured by 1lost in actions. Thats 1x2x1 if we have this in mind we may said that germans suffer 800.000 lost or wounded. But in a battle u dont stay till u lost all ur man. We may said that they lost a 40 % of their force. So the german army fighting should be at least 3 millions man. But in mother warfare there are at leats one non fighting man by evry one fighting. Son  thats makes 6 millions germans soldiers involved in that battle. The entire german army in russia, norway france, italy and north afrika never passed 5 millions. Well that show my point. I must apologyse my poor enghlish



-------------
Not yet mein friend, not yet


Posted By: Sudaka
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2005 at 05:44

I remenber a quote of a UN soldier from korean war. A journalist ask him to describe the attack of the hordes of chinese  army. He answer "How many hordes are in one plattoon?



-------------
Not yet mein friend, not yet


Posted By: Manuver
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2006 at 22:28
Us invasion of iraq durring "major Hostilities". Iraqi armor was crushed, and i have not heard of one air-to-air battle...

-------------
Ice cream has no bones


Posted By: Isbul
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2006 at 07:11

Battle of Doiran 17,18,19 Sept. 1918.47000 english man and 11000 greeks death in the end.Bulgaria-500 deaths



-------------


Posted By: Terry
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2014 at 07:30
The Battle of Blood River (Afrikaans: sl*g van Bloedrivier; Zulu: iMpi yaseNcome) is the name given for the battle fought between 470 Voortrekkers led by Andries Pretorius, and an estimated 15,000–21,000 Zulu attackers on the bank of the Ncome River on 16 December 1838, in what is today KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Casualties amounted to three thousand of king Dingane's soldiers dead, including two Zulu princes competing with prince Mpande for the Zulu throne. Three Trekker commando members were lightly wounded, including Pretorius himself.

Casualty rate = 3000/0. Witch is an impossible sum to make!  That in itself is something to behold.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2014 at 11:56
Originally posted by Terry

The Battle of Blood River (Afrikaans: sl*g van Bloedrivier; Zulu: iMpi yaseNcome) is the name given for the battle fought between 470 Voortrekkers led by Andries Pretorius, and an estimated 15,000–21,000 Zulu attackers on the bank of the Ncome River on 16 December 1838, in what is today KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Casualties amounted to three thousand of king Dingane's soldiers dead, including two Zulu princes competing with prince Mpande for the Zulu throne. Three Trekker commando members were lightly wounded, including Pretorius himself.

Casualty rate = 3000/0. Witch is an impossible sum to make!  That in itself is something to behold.
 
 
Wasn't there a movie made about this?  I may be wrong, but I think Robert Redford may have been one of the major actors.
 
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2014 at 12:07
Originally posted by the Bulgarian

Hmm, let me see.

In WW2 there was fortres in Belgium that was suposed to be impregnable. It had a strong heavy artilery defence, but it was defenceles against an air assult - something the Germans didn't fail to notice. Nobody expected an attack fro the air, after all. The Germans managed to capture it with just 15 casualties, where as the Belguese lost much more men. I don't rememder exact numbers and which fortres it was, but I'm sure professor Komnenos would gladly enlighten us.



Germans "noticed" because the Belgians hired them to build Eban Emael.  Talk about stupid...they hired their enemies to build the fortress to defend against them.

Eban Emael had six anti-aircraft MG's, but they were clustered at the south end of the fortress.  The Belgians correctly calculated that no one could actually land on top of the fortress...until the Germans came up with a trick to drastically slow the landing distance by wrapping barbed wire around the landing skids.

Of course, the Germans also attacked without declaring war, and required major reinforcements as well as Stukas when the Belgians got one gun turret back into action. and the Belgians, once warned, chewed up the German at the nearby bridge until they ran out of ammo.  There is also the little known fact that the German assault commander never even got into the battle, or even into Belgium, although he got a medal anyway.  His glider had problems and was forced to land far away from the fortress.

However, before we take the Belgians to task for putting their faith into a fortress, we will have to take a good look at the fortresses Hitler then proceeded to build at vast expense, none of which did any better, despite Hitler and the Germans knowing better from their own experiences with Eban Emael and the Maginot Line.

Meanwhile...

Custer.  The ultimate one-sided battle.


-------------
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2014 at 12:15
Originally posted by strategos

Originally posted by Paul

 

Pearl Harbour, 2,898 Amercans vs 64 Japanese.

 

Pearl harbor was not really a battle though...,




Yes, it was.


-------------
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Posted By: AnchoritSybarit
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2017 at 17:31
The "poor" little red men were armed with repeating rifles; the big bad cavalry because of post war austerity were using single shot muskets.

-------------
What I have I hold.


Posted By: AnchoritSybarit
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2017 at 17:33
Couldn't have been too decisive.  Within a year or so the English were back in charge of Scotland and "Braveheart" was hung, drawn and quartered.

-------------
What I have I hold.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com