Korvessa | 25 Mar 2016 10:48 a.m. PST |
This comes from a novel I have on Napoleonic Wars written in about 1902. It has historical inaccuracies (dragons with breastplates, Imperial Guard Cuirassiers, etc.), but was a fun read when I was in junior high all those years ago. Anyway, it concludes by stating that Waterloo has become synonymous for defeat (rather than victory) because the vanquished was greater than the victor. That got me thinking. Every battle has a winner and a loser. Outside of pure national interests (i.e. my side won/lost) what is it that makes a specific battle known as a crushing defeat or a glorious victory? When you think of the following battles, is your first thought great victory, or crushing (noble?) defeat? Other examaples? Gaugamela Cannae Hastings Breitenfield Poltava Culloden Gettysburg Little Big Horn Stalingrad |
Winston Smith | 25 Mar 2016 11:01 a.m. PST |
Just a few thoughts. Some battles can be a great victory or a crushing defeat but not have any real affect on the war. Cannae is one example. Ordinarily, the defeated should sue for peace. Vae Victis and all that. But the Romans were a stubborn folk. Hadn't they just had three previous disastrous defeats? But they kept coming back and the great victor ultimately lost the war. The same applies to Little Big Horn. Not being stupid, the Indians skedaddled. And they ultimately lost. |
Tom Molon | 25 Mar 2016 11:01 a.m. PST |
I think perspective determines what you see: for example: Little Big Horn – from US perspective it was a crushing defeat, because prior to it, it was unthinkable (dashing general, national pride in army, national viewpoint that the Native Americans were no match on any field, on any day, for the Army). From the Sioux perspective: glorious victory, because "they said we couldn't do it", completely turned the tables on one of their most publicized generals. To me they seem to be the two sides of the same coin, if the outcome wasn't the usual expectation, the novelty and uniqueness make it glorious for one side and crushing for the other. |
ironicon | 25 Mar 2016 11:06 a.m. PST |
Gaugamela great vic. Cannae crushing defeat Hastings noble defeat Gettysburg both Little Big Horn crushing defeat Stalingrad crushing defeat I didn't comment on the others because I'm not familiar with them enough to comment. |
Jamesonsafari | 25 Mar 2016 11:20 a.m. PST |
I think it depends on which side suffered/benefited more or which side was expecting to win or loose but had the opposite. And which side we are closer too culturally. |
rmaker | 25 Mar 2016 11:25 a.m. PST |
Sorry, Tom, even in 1876 only idiots believed that the Indians couldn't win once in a while. There was too much evidence to the contrary. And it's doubtful that the Indians saw it as a great victory because they realized it wouldn't stop the war. There is no way that Little Big Horn belongs on this list. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 25 Mar 2016 11:35 a.m. PST |
Interesting that after Isandhlwana,Cetshwayo was reported to have exclaimed "An assegai has been plunged into the belly of the Zulu nation!". |
Rhysius Cambrensis | 25 Mar 2016 11:54 a.m. PST |
You were in Junior High in 1902??? |
Pictors Studio | 25 Mar 2016 12:03 p.m. PST |
"Some battles can be a great victory or a crushing defeat but not have any real affect on the war. " I would say that this is true for many battles if not most. Look at the American or English Civil War. Because victory in war isn't really about winning battles most of the time, it is about economics. Sure flukes happen. |
ironicon | 25 Mar 2016 12:36 p.m. PST |
True but Gaugamela, Stalingrad and Hastings were turning points in wars. Gettysburg could also be considered one. |
emckinney | 25 Mar 2016 2:50 p.m. PST |
Hastings was the war. In that sense, it may have been tied for most decisive battle ever. |
gamershs | 25 Mar 2016 2:56 p.m. PST |
Do not look at the battle but what happened because of the battle. After Waterloo support for Napoleon fell apart. Little Big Horn may have been an embarrassment for the US Army but the loss was minor (compared to the size of the US Army at the time and the loses suffered in most battles of the American Civil War). |
Mako11 | 25 Mar 2016 2:59 p.m. PST |
Depends upon your personal frame of reference, I suspect, like at Agincourt. |
Trierarch | 25 Mar 2016 8:59 p.m. PST |
Hastings One bunch of Scandinavian descended rulers ousting another bunch of Scandinavian descended rules Not that significant in the grand scheme |
GarrisonMiniatures | 26 Mar 2016 2:38 a.m. PST |
Hastings was not a one battle war. Firstly, it was a war of succession – the Danes at both Fulford and Stamford Bridge were part of that war. If they hadn't happened, Hastings might have had a different ending as they weakened the Saxons. Likewise, guerilla war continued afterwards – East Anglia and the North both took longer to subdue. |
Vigilant | 26 Mar 2016 6:00 a.m. PST |
Hastings not that significant in the grand scheme of things? Totally changed the nature of politics in England, the Normans, whilst defended from Scandinavians, were much more influenced by their French neighbours and brought that over to England which had more in common with the Scandinavians. The Norman occupation totally destroyed the existing culture and the subjugation of the north was akin to genocide. The Norman links to France resulted inn conflicts that defined Anglo-French relations to the current day. The other significant English battle would be Bosworth. If Richard had won there would be no Tudor, Britain might be a Catholic country, might never have set up colonies in the Americas, a totally different royal family. That would be my definition of a decisive battle, one that changed history, not just ended a war. |
Parzival | 30 Mar 2016 5:29 p.m. PST |
Perhaps it's in the aftermath and compared to the consequences or potential of one side versus the other. For example, Culloden utterly destroyed any Jacobean hopes of reclaiming the throne of England. So, a crushing defeat. But hard to call it a "great victory", as I would suggest that the Hanoverian victory was already pretty much certain— Bonnie Prince Charlie did not have the support he assumed, and was never going to get the throne absent an absolutely overwhelming victory. So, for the Hanoverians, nothing really changed except for an even more secure throne. For the Jacobeans, everything ended. But conversely we have Saratoga (and indeed, later, Yorktown). The victories were unexpected by anyone, and spurred an amazing change that before had been by no means certain to anyone at the time. But what really changed for the loser? Control of the North American colonies eventually, considerable embarrassment, and a change of political parties in power, but other than that? Not much. The British Empire remained the British Empire, the House of Hanover remained on the throne, and the age of British expansion continued on (with a slight dip) everywhere else, and even the military wasn't overly affected negatively in any long-term degree. So the British army wasn't "crushed" (as the Jacobeans were at Culloden), but the Americans had a great victory. Thus, the lasting effect of the outcome is the key. But also, perspective comes into it as well. Look at WW2: Certainly the fates of Italy, Germany and Japan were all "crushing defeats," but then the Allies also had a "great victory." Of course, these are wars, not battles, but still the point remains— sometimes it's not either/or, but both. |
sumerandakkad | 31 Mar 2016 11:48 a.m. PST |
Crecy was a glorious victory by aby standards. El Alamein is counted a great victory. I'm my games, any victory by my Classical Indians is a great victory! |
Great War Ace | 31 Mar 2016 7:23 p.m. PST |
Gaugamela victory Cannae defeat Hastings victory Breitenfield victory Poltava don't know it Culloden defeat Gettysburg victory Little Big Horn defeat Stalingrad victory All crusader battles are victories when the Franks win, defeats otherwise. All HYW battles are victories when the English win, defeats when the French win. War of the Roses battles tend to be victories when the disadvantaged side won, defeats when they lost. ACW battles are defeats when the North lost. Great War and 2WW battles are victories when the Allies win. Gulf War one and two were walkovers, not victories. |
Old Contemptibles | 07 Apr 2016 7:20 p.m. PST |
|