What do you think is the worst military defeat in history?

For me, this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street

Wow that's pretty bad.

China giving up the same month ww2 was won by the allies was pretty bad as well.....

Wow that's pretty bad.

China giving up the same month ww2 was won by the allies was pretty bad as well.....

yoshi-lnex

So you read the wiki article. I know the Romans were more advanced and all but man, 80,000 dead? I know they were barbarians but they should of at least expected to take casualties when you just charge in the center.

The one in 300!Mumbles527

The Spartans didn't actually win the battle, its just that they killed so many Persians and held them off so long.

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"]The one in 300!NicktehImperial

The Spartans didn't actually win the battle, its just that they killed so many Persians and held them off so long.

It was embarassing for them!  They worked so hard, and they still got defeated...how sad!  All that hoopla for nothing!  Worst one in history!   

The Invasion of Canada by 'Merica...coming in 2008.videogamer456

No that wouldn't happen, America and Canada are close allies, and even if we did invade we wouldn't lose, we'd take more casualties in the up front fighting than Iraq but there would be no insurgentsies unless we treated Canadians that bad.

In Iraq we only took 150 dead in the main fighting with their army, now all the casualties are from suicide bombers, not real soldiers.

Plus I know what your thinking, but George Bush isn't evil or anything, he's just unintelligent.

For me, this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street

 

NicktehImperial

This shows us how advanced and well trained the Romans were back in the day. Outnumbered by thousands they only lost 400 men compared to Boudica's 80,000. In a way this reminds me of 300, 300 Spartans versus hundreds of thousands Persians. I would've least excpected more Romans to be killed due to Boudica's numbers but oh well, history is history.

That was 20:1, battle of thermopylea, if onyl 250,000 persians was 50:1, and if 1 mil many think it was then its 200:1, and if the 2mill they said in the movie then its 400:1, thats some goos odds.SaintLeonidas

The Spartans did a superb job holding off the Persians and slaughtering as many of them as possible, but the Spartans eventually all got killed and didn't actually win the battle.

It was one of the most important battles in history, unlike Watling street, which was only impotant to the Romans 2000 years ago, although they did actually win the battle, but at Thermopolae, the Spartans could of held them off if the Persians never found a route to flank them, who knows how man more Persians could have died...

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]That was 20:1, battle of thermopylea, if onyl 250,000 persians was 50:1, and if 1 mil many think it was then its 200:1, and if the 2mill they said in the movie then its 400:1, thats some goos odds.NicktehImperial

The Spartans did a superb job holding off the Persians and slaughtering as many of them as possible, but the Spartans eventually all got killed and didn't actually win the battle.

It was one of the most important battles in history, unlike Watling street, which was only impotant to the Romans 2000 years ago, although they did actually win the battle, but at Thermopolae, the Spartans could of held them off if the Persians never found a route to flank them, who knows how man more Persians could have died...

if there was 10,000 spartans or men at thermopylea im positive they would of killed over 80,000, held the pass much long and maybe even won. If they could hold of so many in the front with only 5,000, then if they split in two, they could of held the flank, and beaten back the immortals, and held the pass long enough for reinforcements from sparta, or the persians might of retreated relizing they were losing so many.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"]The one in 300!Mumbles527

The Spartans didn't actually win the battle, its just that they killed so many Persians and held them off so long.

It was embarassing for them!  They worked so hard, and they still got defeated...how sad!  All that hoopla for nothing!  Worst one in history!   

  Well its odvious why the Persians suffered so bad against the Greeks..  They had inferior troops compared to Greek soldiers, in every way possible.  Persians were forced into a small narrow where their formation the phalanx was the strongest..  The persians were incrediably POORLY equiped...  "The Immortals" the elite soldiers of Persian empire for shields they had freaking whicker baskets, ment to stop arrows.. Now compare to this to the brass and bronze armor that the majority of greek warriors were given....

  Persia due for this reason never conquered Greece, and was finally conquered by Alexander the Great..

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

For me, this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street

 

Robot_Vampire

This shows us how advanced and well trained the Romans were back in the day. Outnumbered by thousands they only lost 400 men compared to Boudica's 80,000. In a way this reminds me of 300, 300 Spartans versus hundreds of thousands Persians. I would've least excpected more Romans to be killed due to Boudica's numbers but oh well, history is history.

The Romans had hot baths, we don't even have dependable showers nowadays! I can't rmember the last time I had a hot shower.

Now to make things worse, Boudicas forces actually destroyed a Roman town and killed woman and children, but they couldn't fight off a force that was 20 times smaller. But the Romans slaghtered all the woman and children of Boudica's foces, they actually put all the woman and children in wagons right next to the battle!

Rome's defeat by Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae. After earlier defeats at the hand of Hannibal, Rome mustered the largest force it had known, pulling members from all walks of life to stop and eliminate Hannibal's advance onto Rome.

Hannibal managed to envelop the much larger Roman army and butchered most of them. About 70,000 dead, including a significant number of its tribunes and senators.

After this battle, the Romans were afraid of engaging Hannibal one on one and instead chose to harass his army, an act which embaressed the Romans greatly. Eventually, Scipio Africanus opted to launch an expeditionary force to Africa to attack Carthaginian forces on their territory in an effort to have the Carthaginian Senate recall Hannibal back home and away from Rome.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]That was 20:1, battle of thermopylea, if onyl 250,000 persians was 50:1, and if 1 mil many think it was then its 200:1, and if the 2mill they said in the movie then its 400:1, thats some goos odds.SaintLeonidas

The Spartans did a superb job holding off the Persians and slaughtering as many of them as possible, but the Spartans eventually all got killed and didn't actually win the battle.

It was one of the most important battles in history, unlike Watling street, which was only impotant to the Romans 2000 years ago, although they did actually win the battle, but at Thermopolae, the Spartans could of held them off if the Persians never found a route to flank them, who knows how man more Persians could have died...

if there was 10,000 spartans or men at thermopylea im positive they would of killed over 80,000, held the pass much long and maybe even won. If they could hold of so many in the front with only 5,000, then if they split in two, they could of held the flank, and beaten back the immortals, and held the pass long enough for reinforcements from sparta, or the persians might of retreated relizing they were losing so many.

At Thermoplae, their were 300 Spartans but also 10000 other Greek soldiers, but when they realized they were gonna get flanked, all the soldiers retreated back to Greece except for the 300 Spartans and 1000 Athenians.

So the all the Greek soldiers held perfct phalanx formations until the last stand, in which the 300 killed many more Persians before they died themselves.

Rome's defeat by Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae. After earlier defeats at the hand of Hannibal, Rome mustered the largest force it had known, pulling members from all walks of life to stop and eliminate Hannibal's advance onto Rome.

Hannibal managed to envelop the much larger Roman army and butchered most of them. About 70,000 dead, including a significant number of its tribunes and senators.

After this battle, the Romans were afraid of engaging Hannibal one on one and instead chose to harass his army, an act which embaressed the Romans greatly. Eventually, Scipio Africanus opted to launch an expeditionary force to Africa to attack Carthaginian forces on their territory in an effort to have the Carthaginian Senate recall Hannibal back home and away from Rome.

Atrus

That was a terrible defeat, but not the worst in history, most battles the Romans won, but when they did lose it was usually quite embarrasing, but whenever they fought armys 20 times their size, they won.

The Romans were generally better than the Carthaginians, its just that Hannibal was one of the greatest generals of all time, and at first Carthage had a bigger navy.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]That was 20:1, battle of thermopylea, if onyl 250,000 persians was 50:1, and if 1 mil many think it was then its 200:1, and if the 2mill they said in the movie then its 400:1, thats some goos odds.NicktehImperial

The Spartans did a superb job holding off the Persians and slaughtering as many of them as possible, but the Spartans eventually all got killed and didn't actually win the battle.

It was one of the most important battles in history, unlike Watling street, which was only impotant to the Romans 2000 years ago, although they did actually win the battle, but at Thermopolae, the Spartans could of held them off if the Persians never found a route to flank them, who knows how man more Persians could have died...

if there was 10,000 spartans or men at thermopylea im positive they would of killed over 80,000, held the pass much long and maybe even won. If they could hold of so many in the front with only 5,000, then if they split in two, they could of held the flank, and beaten back the immortals, and held the pass long enough for reinforcements from sparta, or the persians might of retreated relizing they were losing so many.

At Thermoplae, their were 300 Spartans but also 10000 other Greek soldiers, but when they realized they were gonna get flanked, all the soldiers retreated back to Greece except for the 300 Spartans and 1000 Athenians.

So the all the Greek soldiers held perfct phalanx formations until the last stand, in which the 300 killed many more Persians before they died themselves.

at thermopylea it was 7000 total, 300 spartans, 700 thespians and 6,000 greek allies, and it was the 700 thespians that stayed.with 3,000 more (especially if they were spartans) and if they decide to splitl and fight the flank, they could of lasted alot longer.

[QUOTE="Atrus"]

Rome's defeat by Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae. After earlier defeats at the hand of Hannibal, Rome mustered the largest force it had known, pulling members from all walks of life to stop and eliminate Hannibal's advance onto Rome.

Hannibal managed to envelop the much larger Roman army and butchered most of them. About 70,000 dead, including a significant number of its tribunes and senators.

After this battle, the Romans were afraid of engaging Hannibal one on one and instead chose to harass his army, an act which embaressed the Romans greatly. Eventually, Scipio Africanus opted to launch an expeditionary force to Africa to attack Carthaginian forces on their territory in an effort to have the Carthaginian Senate recall Hannibal back home and away from Rome.

NicktehImperial

That was a terrible defeat, but not the worst in history, most battles the Romans won, but when they did lose it was usually quite embarrasing, but whenever they fought armys 20 times their size, they won.

The Romans were generally better than the Carthaginians, its just that Hannibal was one of the greatest generals of all time, and at first Carthage had a bigger navy.

Interestingly enough, I share the same personality as General Hannibal according to the Meiyers Briggs test. 

Actually, the contingent that stayed behind to fight alongside the Spartans weren't Athenians. The 700 were a group of volunteer soldiers from Thespia, made honorary Spartans at the battle. The next largest contingent were the Thebans and the next largest were the Helots. 

If the Bay of the Pigs counts...quiglythegreat

Yeah that was pretty bad, but only a couple thousand died compared to the 80000 of Watling street, and they were just Cuban outcast given guns, not real soldiers.

None the less that was a terrible defeat. Probably the worst (Not bloodiest.) in American history. Oh or Fredericksburg, unlike the Bay of pigs there were 10000 real American soldiers who died, not ragtag Cuban mercanaries.

Interestingly enough, I share the same personality as General Hannibal according to the Meiyers Briggs test.

LostProphetFLCL

I'm both an ENTJ and INTJ respectively in the two times I've taken it. aka. Field Marshall or Mastermind. They never had historical comparisons though, not that I'd question how accurate that would be given that these people don't have any evidence to provide regarding their personalities.

the war of 1812, starting a fight with a much smaller country getting wooped and having your white house burnt to the ground. pretty pethetic.

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

Interestingly enough, I share the same personality as General Hannibal according to the Meiyers Briggs test.

Atrus

I'm both an ENTJ and INTJ respectively in the two times I've taken it. aka. Field Marshall or Mastermind. They never had historical comparisons though, not that I'd question how accurate that would be given that these people don't have any evidence to provide regarding their personalities.

Well I am INTJ which would mean that you also share the personality.

If you want the full list, go here . 

I think they made the list through analyzing the peoples accomplishments and maybe looked at texts describing what the people were like. 

the war of 1812, starting a fight with a much smaller country getting wooped and having your white house burnt to the ground. pretty pethetic.

 

 

rossnicholls

Wait we held off the British, are you talking bad about the brits or USA?

The war between the British and some other country that surrendered in 20 minsBourbons3

What country was that? Antarctica?

The Battle of Cannae with Rome Losing to Carthage was far more crushing. 

Edit:  My mistake, it took less lives, but the battle too place on the italian peninsula and they fought an actual equipped army. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

If we consider on going battles, Stalingrad takes the cake.  More than 1.5 million died.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]The war between the British and some other country that surrendered in 20 minsNicktehImperial

What country was that? Antarctica?

Probably France.

the war of 1812, starting a fight with a much smaller country getting wooped and having your white house burnt to the ground. pretty pethetic.

 

 

rossnicholls

agreed, you know they don't teach about that right?

The one in 300!Mumbles527

the Battle of Thermoplyae was a very well fought war for the Spartans

they were able to fight nearly 500,000 persian soldiers

with only 300 spartans

although they lost

they did good job

[QUOTE="rossnicholls"]

the war of 1812, starting a fight with a much smaller country getting wooped and having your white house burnt to the ground. pretty pethetic.

 

 

NicktehImperial

Wait we held off the British, are you talking bad about the brits or USA?

i wouldnt say you held the british/canadians off seeing how we walked into and ransack any place in america that was worth the trouble and the huge force america sent was held off by a much smaller candian force. the reason it ended is that the brits had worthy countrys to fight. 

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]The war between the British and some other country that surrendered in 20 minssonicare

What country was that? Antarctica?

Probably France.

why exactly France ?

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"][QUOTE="rossnicholls"]

the war of 1812, starting a fight with a much smaller country getting wooped and having your white house burnt to the ground. pretty pethetic.

 

 

rossnicholls

Wait we held off the British, are you talking bad about the brits or USA?

i wouldnt say you held the british/canadians off seeing how we walked into and ransack any place in america that was worth the trouble and the huge force america sent was held off by a much smaller candian force. the reason it ended is that the brits had worthy countrys to fight. 

So you don't like America? We did hold you guys off, Baltimore harbor? Although its not like we actually crushed you or destroyed England itself. In the Revolutionary war and 1812 we beat the British, thats it. Oh well, and I don't see how it was the worst military defeat in history by any means. I'm not being a patriotic redneck or anything but don't act like Britain beat the US or anything, and don't call us unworthy were a big superpower now.

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]The war between the British and some other country that surrendered in 20 minssonicare

What country was that? Antarctica?

Probably France.

Considering the 100 years war between England and France I think thats incorrect.

Napoleons expidition into Russia was a horrible defeat.KrayzieJ

And Hitler did the same thing, he didn't study history very well.

Well, I'm going to go with The Battle off Samar.  The entire battle worthy remnants of the Japanese Navy were successfully repelled by a US Anti-Submarine group.  The entire US force added together didn't even equal the displacement of the Yamato.   Good ole USS Samual B Roberts, the Destroyer Escort that fought like a Battleship.

The war between the British and some other country that surrendered in 20 minsBourbons3

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"]The one in 300!Mumbles527

The Spartans didn't actually win the battle, its just that they killed so many Persians and held them off so long.

It was embarassing for them! They worked so hard, and they still got defeated...how sad! All that hoopla for nothing! Worst one in history!

Yeah, but not too long after 10,000 Spartans with 28,000 Greeks grouped up and attacked. The Persians fled :P