What is the most amazing military victory in history? - Page 4

Ted Striker · January 2, 2003, 21:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
When I went to school at UCSB our women's volleyball team was the national champions. I used to love going to watch their games; all those tall athletic girls, all those tight skimpy outfits, all that jumping, giggling and bouncing.

I noticed you have a thing for the taller women. Is that because of your UCSB influence? Or are you tall?

I'm 6'3" so tall girls always love it when they date me cause they say, "oh now I can wear heels!" Hey, it's all good to me.

Oerdin · January 2, 2003, 21:23

I'm only 6'1" so I don't quite have your advantages but still I love chicks who are 5'9 through 5'11" because they can where heels and I'm still a smiggen taller then them.

Ted Striker · January 2, 2003, 21:54

High heels -- best invention in the history of the world.

Ben Kenobi · January 3, 2003, 05:45

[Threadjack]

It depends on your height:

6'3''

for high heels
5'6''

: for high heels

High heels are uncomfortable and hurt a woman's feet. It would be no loss at all for me if they disappeared completely from the face of the earth.

[/Threadjack]

Add one more vote for Agincourt.

"The Ming force were consisted of veterans against Japan's Hideyoshi and equipped with modern firearms."

Lord Merciless, I'm not sure what you mean here. Was the battle between two different factions in China, or between the Chinese and the Japanese? Hideyoshi died in the 1500's allowing Tokugawa to take control of Japan. In any case, I'm eager to hear more about some of the forgotten corners of history.

Eli · January 3, 2003, 06:07

never mind. misunderstood.

Ted Striker · January 3, 2003, 06:25

Quote:

High heels are uncomfortable and hurt a woman's feet. It would be no loss at all for me if they disappeared completely from the face of the earth.

Ya, they are certainly uncomfortable when overused.

But, they are nice to see during special occasions or for going out to dinner when she won't be doing much walking.

Ben Kenobi · January 3, 2003, 07:36

I've seen many women I know try to dance still wearing their high heels!

Take off your shoes and dance! It's way more comfortable and you will enjoy yourself more. This is something I will never understand.

With every woman I've taken out to dance I insist that they take off their heels. I have yet to receive a complaint. Could this be something they feel men want, or pressure they put on themselves?

Ted Striker · January 3, 2003, 08:02

Well, as a guy I know I prefer them to wear the heels.

Honestly I think alot of women like the heels, I have known girls who just obsess over shoes.

Ben Kenobi · January 3, 2003, 08:16

I had one g/f for awhile- we got along on many different levels but her shoe thing set us apart. I'm sort of a country hick, I grew up on a farm, while she is from the city. I could care less about getting my shoes dirty, while she could not bear to muss her shoes.

Shoes? I have three pairs- one to walk in, one to go to nice places in and one to run in. That's about all I need. Is this unusual?

Giovanni Wine · January 3, 2003, 08:16

Even if probably it is not the most amazing victory, I will put a battle that was won by Italy during the Russian campaign in 1942, where the Italian Savoia Cavalry, made up of 600 men, attacked the Russian which had about 2,000 men with mortar and artillery support.
One squadron attacked head on, while the other came behind the enemy lines on horseback and possessing only sabers. They completely catch the Soviets by surprise and overrun the Russian position. This last calvary attack of World War II resulted in the destruction of 2 Soviet battalions, another battalion forced to withdraw and the netting of 500 POW's, 4 large artillery pieces, 10 Mortars, and 50 machine guns.

Saluti

Richelieu · January 3, 2003, 08:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Buffalo Bills beating Houston Oilers in 92 Playoffs.

Richelieu · January 3, 2003, 08:35

Hannibal's victory at Cannae: tactical genius.

Arrian · January 3, 2003, 11:50

I think the Roman defeat of Boudicca (sp?) trumps Rourke's Rift. The Brittish, though hugely outnumbered, had a much more potent technological advantage vs. the Zulu than the Romans did versus Boudicca's forces.

Then again, the trouble with Roman (and before them, Greek) accounts of battles is that Roman historians had a tendency to exaggerate *just a bit*

-Arrian

Solly · January 3, 2003, 11:57

Bangor 0 - Aberystwyth 1

Re-match tomorrow at Park Avenue. Best two supported teams in the league meet to vie for third place and an Intertoto cup spot...

Arrian · January 3, 2003, 12:04

Solly · January 3, 2003, 12:12

Ned · January 4, 2003, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
It took place in 60AD, at Mancetter. The Roman commander was Suetonius, heading the 14th Legion and other auxiliaries. Tacitus lists the British dead at 80,000, the Roman dead at 400.

I was reading on the web an article written by a French army officer who was investigating the true location of Alesia. What I noted was that he was very proud of the Gallic stand against Caesar. He then said that fate had determined that the Gauls would become Roman citizens - and he said this with pride as well.

Now, to the extent that Britain still has Celtic descendants of Roman citizens, do they still have pride in Boudicca's revolt? Do they have pride (or resentment) in becoming Roman citizens? And how does the Angle-Saxon part of Britain feel about the Celts/Romans history of the Island?

HAND · January 5, 2003, 22:42

Rorke's Drift-

Just watch the film Zulu!

-1879

-150 British troops vs 4000 Zulu warriors!

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/

Without a doubt the most amazing military victory in history!

Bugs ****ing Bunny · January 6, 2003, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

I was reading on the web an article written by a French army officer who was investigating the true location of Alesia. What I noted was that he was very proud of the Gallic stand against Caesar. He then said that fate had determined that the Gauls would become Roman citizens - and he said this with pride as well.

Now, to the extent that Britain still has Celtic descendants of Roman citizens, do they still have pride in Boudicca's revolt? Do they have pride (or resentment) in becoming Roman citizens? And how does the Angle-Saxon part of Britain feel about the Celts/Romans history of the Island?

Boudicca was romanticised as "Boadicea" in Victorian times and there's a typically Pre-Raphaelite/Romantic Classical statue of her in London, suggesting she rode into battle wearing a dreamy expression and a wafty scrap of silk that left her knockers falling out. That's slightly at odds with the account of her being a 6 foot+ flaming redhead who was built like a brick shithouse and armed to the teeth.

She isn't venerated much now. It's hard to feel patriotic stirrings for someone so obviously unhinged who massacred hundreds of thousands of Celtic Britons. She was more of a Pol Pot than a William Wallace.

The whole military history of Roman times evokes little emotion in England, which is far more prominently a Saxon/Viking country. There is far more prominence given to Alfred the Great. Then again, there's more pride in the Celtic Arthur than in the Saxon Athelstan- I think that's down to all that romantic storytelling glossing over the fact that the people Arthur was fighting were the English.

The fact of past Roman citizenship means little to most English people- the Roman legacy amounts to little more than a few interesting ruins and straight roads. Equally great, and more permanent achievements were made by the Saxons and Vikings. In fact, the only time I've heard any serious issue made of the Roman legacy was by Mebyon Kernow (the Cornish Nationalists) who place pride in the fact that Cornwall never came under Roman control.

What did the Celts do for us? A rich literary tradition, but little else.

TCO · January 6, 2003, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Kontiki
I dunno how anyone could nominate the Gulf War. Yes, it was totally lopsided, but that was rather predictable. Coalition forces had total air supremacy, which was also used to pound the living crap out of the Iraqi command and communications networks, not to mention softening up ground forces. When the land battle came, Iraq couldn't deploy a single aircraft or helicopter. On top of that, the technological edge for the coalition was nearly unparallelled. The fact that the Iraqis nominally outnumbered the other side is meaningless as soon as you consider the quality of those troops and their equipment.

To be a truly amazing military victory, I'd think it would have to be a situation where the victorious side was not any more technologically advanced than the other (or even less advanced, ideally) and had numerous other odds stacked against them.

Much higher casualties were expected. The rate of advance was much faster than predicted. The strategy was daring and worked much better than expected. If it had devolved into trench warfare (as many predicted) I'm sure you'd be here telling us that result was expewcted as well.

TCO · January 6, 2003, 17:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

Boudicca was romanticised as "Boadicea" in Victorian times and there's a typically Pre-Raphaelite/Romantic Classical statue of her in London, suggesting she rode into battle wearing a dreamy expression and a wafty scrap of silk that left her knockers falling out. That's slightly at odds with the account of her being a 6 foot+ flaming redhead who was built like a brick shithouse and armed to the teeth.

There is a common theme here.

Ned · January 6, 2003, 19:26

Lazarus, Yes, your point about the English romatisizing King Arthur is interesting, since he appears to have been a British Roman, perhaps even a former legion commander, fighting the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

Kontiki · January 6, 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Much higher casualties were expected. The rate of advance was much faster than predicted. The strategy was daring and worked much better than expected. If it had devolved into trench warfare (as many predicted) I'm sure you'd be here telling us that result was expewcted as well.

Who exactly predicted trench warfare? For that matter, did anyone with any real understanding of the military situation predict a loss for the coalition? Do you think the US would have even enterained the possiblity of getting into the conflict if they didn't know they had overwhelming superiority? Granted, things were even easier than they thought, but I'd hardly say it was one of the most amazing military victories of all time, given that every rational prediction was for a serious ass kicking. I mean, let's say there were 5000 or even 10,000 coalition casualties. There still wasn't any real doubt of victory.

My point is simply that there were many instances in the past where it looked like the victorious side should have lost. The Gulf War is not one of these.