Help support TMP

"Senseless Carnage (Round 1)" Topic

6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Return to the Senseless Carnage (Round 1) Poll

Areas of Interest


84 hits since 11 Feb 2019
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo x42brown Supporting Member of TMP11 Feb 2019 3:45 a.m. PST

All of the above


Musketballs11 Feb 2019 5:48 a.m. PST

Not a very extensive list to choose from…some others that spring to mind:

New Orleans (1815) and Bayonne (1814) – both fought after the war was over.

Bannockburn (1314) – Stirling castle had been formally relieved already…Edward didn't have to fight, he chose to.

Dunbar (1650) – Cromwell was about to leave anyway.

The entire of the Hussite Wars.

The entire of any religious war, really.

Captain Snell's armistice day charge in 'Charley's War'…Stannis Baratheon's attempt on Winterfell…

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP11 Feb 2019 6:29 a.m. PST

I think that senseless bloodbath may be a little harsh for some of them – at Kursk, Gettysburg and in the Battle of the Bulge the attackers all thought they had a reasonable chance of success

Personal logo Mserafin Supporting Member of TMP11 Feb 2019 12:09 p.m. PST

I think Verdun belongs in this category.

Personal logo The Virtual Armchair General Sponsoring Member of TMP11 Feb 2019 2:51 p.m. PST

Actually I want to split the hair of what's "senseless" and "terrible failure."

Gallipoli--a "terrible failure"--was not "senseless" before it began. Given what they knew, the Brits were confident of success, but they clearly didn't know enough.

Same for Gettysburg--If you were Bobby Lee that morning, did you really think failure was the highest likely outcome?

On the other hand, I don't see the justification the same Brits felt prior to the Somme. That even after Verdun they believed their bombardment would leave the enemy either as paste or gibbering lunatics was based on no evidence that their success was guaranteed. If virtually 60,000 casualties in a day isn't "senseless slaughter," I can't imagine what is.

Agincourt probably qualifies for "SS" but only because the French Knighthood never seemed to approach battle with any other plan than "Banzai!" (or the contemporary socio-economic equivalent of Middle Ages French). The Brits had no choice in the matter but to fight--but they knew how to fight that enemy.

Similarly, Stalingrad, Kursk, and Ardennes Offensive were all idiotic ideas from the first, and none had any real chance of success. All coming from the Fuehrer's "Black Hole" of a heart/brain, they couldn't have been anything but
"senseless slaughter."

In short, where there really seemed to be a reasonable chance of success, the "SS" was an after-the-fact appreciation of the outcome. But where there was no real chance of success, but they did it anyway, then an "SS" rating is spot on.


Personal logo John the Greater Supporting Member of TMP12 Feb 2019 3:01 p.m. PST

I agree with the General here. A disaster is not the same as a senseless bloodletting.

Franklin is a perfect SS. No one in their right mind would have ordered that attack and keep it going for as long as Hood did. There are many authors who believed he ordered the attack to punish his army for what he perceived as failures during the campaign.

That pretty much defined senseless.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.