"History's greatest Last Stand?" Topic

For Custer only if they made a mistake with a web search for Bighorn… ;)

Do modern juniors google on such tho'? My 10 year old is oblivious to all the controversy over Bosworth Battlefield or even what happened there & we only live a few miles away!

I'll give another vote for Camerone. That one has always inspired me.

What about the cadets at Chapultepec Castle? It wasn't the biggest last stand, but when the last man alive wraps himself in the flag and throws himself from the parapet just as the enemy breaks in, that's gotta earn some points for drama.

And a thought about the Alamo: If Fannin and his 300 men had arrived, the Alamo could have been held. The men inside the fort were counting on that, and by the time they found out they weren't coming, it was too late. Goliad is not far away from San Antonio, and it was reasonable to expect their arrival.

Really? Still have been held against the heavy artillery that would have arrived within days?

Aloysius the Gaul:

Parzival by that definitino [sic] every soldier who ever died made a "l;ast [sic] stand" – which is ridiculous.

I didn't describe such a situation, but it isn't at all uncommon for one man's effort to be regarded as a "last stand." (Seen any Westerns?) For literary precedent, I offer this: link
(One can quibble that there were three men, not just one, and the hero survived his "last stand", but the sentiment is the same.)

But referring back to my post, I did not say "a soldier." I said "a unit," which I take to mean a unified body of command. A single soldier is not a unit, unless he (or she) is the sole member of a command (a very rare thing indeed). So your comment is not valid, as it is not actually based upon what I wrote.

And while you may hold the opinion that rear guards aren't last stands, your opinion does not fit the commonly understood meaning of the term, and therefore cannot be offered as a valid restriction. The meaning of "last stand" is, as with all terms in language, determined by how the term is generally used and understood in literature and common speech. No such restriction as you suggest exists in common usage. Furthermore, Thermopylae and other rear guard actions have indeed been called "last stands" in multiple literary and historical accounts. Obviously, the term "last stand" is indeed understood to include rear guard actions, so your objection does not hold against the weight of common (and even informed) usage. Your argument is again, not valid.
(I'll point to Wikipedia. While I wouldn't argue for Wikipedia as a final authoritative source for anything, I think it certainly qualifies as reflecting the "common usage" of a term: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_stand
Ironically, the links at the bottom of the article refer to the action at Dunkirk as both a "last stand" and a "rear guard," which rather hoists your argument on its own petard.)

"Really? Still have been held against the heavy artillery that would have arrived within days?"

Well, we're talking about what went into the defenders decision to defend it, rather than the validity of doing so. They did not know about the artillery. The Mexican army of that day was not an artillery-heavy force. Their guns and ammunition were poor, and artillery officers were the least skilled of all the branches. History had shown that they had a preference for assaulting fortified positions rather than reducing them, and this was borne out by Santa Anna's decision to order the assault instead of waiting for the guns. If Fannin's men had been there, they would have been able to repel an assault. That's why the Texian decision to hold the Alamo in the first place made sense at the time.

But despite that, I ultimately think the defenders were doomed from the start. They just didn't know it until it was too late. The fort was makeshift and the only real reason to hold it was because they considered the location important. Presidio La Bahia, about 90 miles East, was a real fort with stone walls, although the wall in some places is almost low enough for a man to hoist himself over. Still, a fort like that could withstand shelling better than the Alamo and the garrison would have been less spread out. I also don't think they could have afforded an artillery duel. Their guns, especially that 18 pounder, were powder hogs, and they would have run out of ammunition in a short time. I don't know how the Mexicans were fixed for powder, but they probably had more to burn.

GPO Dublin 1916

Yes- been there

"GPO Dublin 1916"

If we're including actions by terrorists, how about the defence of the Taj Mahal Hotel in Bombay by the Pakistani Islamic Terrorists?

Actually GPO fighters surrendered tho' many faired no better than Fannin

"If we're including actions by terrorists…."

I defer comment.
"Gentlemen you can't fight in here, this is the War room!" :)

I have a sign in my game room;

WAR ROOM
<no fighting>

HMS Cornwall's last stand against the Iranian Navy.
Fight them to the last I-pod and headscarf.

Achilles Last Stand;)

Funny.

olicana 26 Oct 2009 4:43 a.m. PST
''Thermopoly – because:

1. the choice of position was inspired – generalship.
2. the Spartans knew they were sacrificing themselves (for other Greeks – that they dispised!) early on and still stayed in position for the 'cause'.
3. the Spartans were, without doubt, the best troops in the world at that time, possibly the best troops the world had ever seen.
4. it is one of the few last stands (I can't think of another) that made world what it is. It preserved western civilisation. Without it the world would be very different.
5. because of 4 above, it is the most famous last stand in WORLD history as opposed to last stands better known by fellow countrymen (Rorkes Drift UK, The Alamo US, etc.)''

I'd go for Custer's last stand. Because it's the complete opposite of the above!

Jerusalem vs. Titus, 70 AD/CE

Interesting point on terrorists…

Custer's Last Stand (eg) becomes a heroic epic which enters into popular culture, but we (rightly, in my opinion) look at the gunmen who held out in Bombay against overwhelming odds as the scum of the earth?

Jerusalem was hardly a last stand, since the Zealots eventually just asked Titus if they could leave. He said no, obviously, but they weren't committed to defending it to the death. Lots surrendered

Anyone mention the Foreign Legion at Camorone in Mexico?

''Captain Danjou made a stand at the Hacienda Camarón, an inn protected by a 3-metre-high-wall. His plan was to occupy Mexican forces to prevent attacks against the nearby convoy. While his legionnaires prepared to defend the inn, the Mexican commander, Colonel Milan, demanded that Danjou and soldiers surrender, noting the Mexican Army's numeric superiority. Danjou replied: "We have munitions. We will not surrender." He then swore to fight to the death, an oath which was seconded by the men.

At noon, Captain Danjou was shot in the chest and died; his soldiers continued fighting despite overwhelming odds under the command of an inspired Lt. Vilain, who held for four hours before falling during an assault. With ammunition exhausted, the last of Danjou's soldiers, numbering only five under the command of Lt. Maudet, desperately mounted a bayonet charge. Two men died outright, while the rest continued the assault. The tiny group was surrounded and literally beaten to the earth. Colonel Milan, commander of the Mexicans, managed to prevent his men from ripping the surviving legionnaires to pieces. When the last two survivors were asked to surrender, they insisted that Mexican soldiers allow them safe passage home, to keep their arms, and to escort the body of Captain Danjou. To that, the Mexican commander commented, "What can I refuse to such men? No, these are not men, they are devils," and, out of respect, agreed to these terms.

"Camerone Day" is an important day of celebration for the Legionnaires, when the wooden prosthetic hand of Capitaine Danjou is brought out on display.''

Harlech Castle. The last to hold out for Owen Glendower/Owain Glyndwr, 1409; the last to hold out for the House of Lancaster, 1468, after an intermittent seven-year siege; the last to hold out for King Charles I, 1647. Known as "The Castle of Lost Causes".

Jerusalem vs Titus – also incorporating the PFJ vs the JPF vs etc etc…

'Anyone mention the Foreign Legion at Camorone in Mexico?'

You are the 14th so far :)

I cant remember the name of the action but the Zulus also wiped out a company of the 88th. That would have been a last stand.

Intombe! and it was the 80th, not the 88th. Colour Sgt Booth won the vc for leading the survivors away (about 40) in a fighting retreat, most were massacred in their laager though. One soldier and two wagon drivers survived on the battle sight.

Paul Y
'''Anyone mention the Foreign Legion at Camorone in Mexico?'
You are the 14th so far :)''

You won't catch me scrolling back, Paul :-) Oh no: you've got me doing it now……it's like going back in time and fiding it wasn't rosier:

Jovian1
''Not Thermopylae – it was interesting, but rarely told from the Persian point of view and it has been romanticized too much''

Eh? Don't get you. Since when does post-battle romantification invalidate a last stand?

Parzival since you mention wiki you presumaby read that it says that "last stand" is a "loose" term…ie it has no precise meaning.

I am perfectly entitled to make my own, tighter definition, say why I prefer it, and then give examples within it and why other examples do not meet it.

I have no idea what your point is about Dunkirk or how that hoists me by my own petard.

Tough for you if you don't like that I guess…but there it is :)

But even by your definiton Carthage in the 3rd Punic War still overshadows every example given in this thread – 2 1/2 years under seige, no allies, no retreat, no chance of victory, and 250,000 dead….puts Massada right into the shade.

I am perfectly entitled to make my own, tighter definition, say why I prefer it, and then give examples within it and why other examples do not meet it.

Yes, and the rest of the world is perfectly entitled to ignore you, and will, as history and common usage have established that a "last stand" covers more situations than your limitations. The fact that it is indeed a "loose term" means that an attempt to narrowly define it as you desire is not valid. It's analogous to saying "freedom" only means "not being a slave." We do not get to come in after the fact of centuries of usage and redefine a term to a more narrow definition simply because that's how we feel about it, even if we construct all sorts of reasonable-seeming arguments to support our position. If a term is understood to mean a broad range of possibilities, then it means a broad range of possibilities, period. No matter what rationales you put forth, the fact remains that Thermopylae has been considered a "last stand" for as long as the term has existed, if not arguably longer in concept (as I have no idea if ancient Greek has an equivalent term, though there's no doubt the Greeks at least viewed the event in a manner similar to our concept of the "last stand." ) Neither you nor anyone else gets to come along after the fact and say, "No, it isn't, because I don't think that qualifies, etc., etc.." (Well, you can say it, but you can't expect anyone else to give the argument any credence.) The definition has been established loosely ahead of your attempt to narrow it. The horses are gone, there's no point in trying to close the barn door.

As for the bit about Dunkirk— My bad; I got your post mixed up with another one; I thought you had brought up Dunkirk. Oops. Nevertheless, as to my point, the quote on the Wiki link specifically describes Dunkirk as a rearguard and a "magnificent last stand," which directly links the two terms as not being exclusive of one another. Again, I'm not offering this as authoritative; however, it goes again to common usage and the fact that any reader recognizes exactly what the author implies by the term. We don't consider a "last stand" to mean the last act of a culture, etc. before being destroyed. We consider it to be a "final" battle (whether in reality or in commitment) of a fighting group, regardless of the fate of the culture or society as a whole.

As for me, it's not a matter of liking or disliking your argument. I really don't care what opinion you happen to hold, one way or the other. It makes no difference to me. I'm just pointing out that your definition is not valid for the discussion. Basically, your argument "begs the question." In short, you are trying to redefine the term in a narrow way in order to reject the position of others, assuming that everyone must agree with your premise. Except the term itself doesn't adhere to your premise at all, which renders your argument not valid. In a debate, one has to argue within the premise of the debate; one doesn't get to change it (okay, excepting maybe politicians ).

As for Carthage, etc., I was not addressing whether it or any other last stand was more worthy of the the appellation "Greatest Last Stand." You are certainly free to put it forth as such, just as anyone can put forth Camerone, Thermopylae, Dunkirk, Butch and Sundance, or whatever. I was merely trying to point out that those others cannot be excluded from the list by an attempt to narrow the definition of "last stand." I think it's more productive to argue with whether or not they qualify as "great."

On Carthage itself, I acknowledge the impressive scope of the event. However, I agree with an earlier post that suggested the impact of a last stand on history and the development of civilization is an important factor in establishing its "greatness." I would argue that the while the defeat and destruction of Carthage had great implications for history and the development of Rome, the impact of the "last stand" itself was of little significance. By the time it occurred, the outcome was certain; the Carthaginian culture was doomed. The last stand did not preserve it, nor did it inspire others. They fought, they died, and no one who was left cared. It may have been tragic, but I'm not certain that tragedy in and of itself qualifies a last stand as "great." So I acknowledge the scope of it, but for impact on history of the stand itself, between the two, I do have to give the nod towards Thermopylae.

Harlech Castle – great one.

And didn't the bravery of the defenders inspire the song 'Men of Harlech'?

Rather than the Jerusalem one mentioned above, how about Masada?