What was the most one-sided battle in history?

S

Six

Active member
What was the most one-sided battle in history. Sizes of armies, casualties, whatever...
 
Some other contenders:

The actual invasion of Iraq by Coalition forces during the 1991 Gulf War (qualifies as a single battle) - February 1991. I think you all know about this one!

The Battle of Kiev - August 1941. Probably the greatest disaster suffered by any army in history. 5 entire Soviet Armies encircled and destroyed by the finest modern army in history, the Wehrmacht.

http://www.houseofice.com/history/kiev.shtml

The Battle of Liegnitz - April 9 1241. Europe's finest Knights cut down by the Mongols under the leadership of one of the most brilliant generals in history, Subotai the Valiant.

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/MongolEurope.CP.html
 
Barbarossa as a whole was one of the greatest routes ever in history. I'd have to admit that Kiev is a great contender, with the following understanding: "The following battlefield route was brought to you by the stupidest military decision in the history of the modern world."

Good thing Hitler was such an idiot.
 
That site talking about the battle of Thermopylae was great. I would say that takes the one in my book for greatest odds.
 
The final battle of New Orleans.

"Finally, on January 8, the day commemorated today as the victory day in the Battle of New Orleans, two British generals, including Major General Pakenham, were killed in battle, with a third severely wounded. Soldiers described battlefield action as confused and haphazard in the dark hours of that foggy morning. Britain suffered over 2,000 casualties in that decisive battle, whereas Jackson lost only 71 men. The British forces withdrew through Lake Borgne and into the Gulf, firing on Fort St. Philip for over a week before sailing out to sea for good."

http://lsm.crt.state.la.us/cabildo/cab6.htm
 
godofthunder9010 said:
Barbarossa as a whole was one of the greatest routes ever in history. I'd have to admit that Kiev is a great contender, with the following understanding: "The following battlefield route was brought to you by the stupidest military decision in the history of the modern world."

Good thing Hitler was such an idiot.
Click to expand...

You know, some people think Hitler actually made the right decision here. There's a school of thought that says that Armeegruppen Mitte may have been outflanked on their right hand side had they not dealt with the Soviet Armies in the Ukrainian sector first.

I'm not convinced myself I have to add.
 
Gunny claimed that only 13 Americans died in the battle of New Orleans on Mail call but I find that hard to believe.
 
Big_Z said:
The final battle of New Orleans.

"Finally, on January 8, the day commemorated today as the victory day in the Battle of New Orleans, two British generals, including Major General Pakenham, were killed in battle, with a third severely wounded. Soldiers described battlefield action as confused and haphazard in the dark hours of that foggy morning. Britain suffered over 2,000 casualties in that decisive battle, whereas Jackson lost only 71 men. The British forces withdrew through Lake Borgne and into the Gulf, firing on Fort St. Philip for over a week before sailing out to sea for good."

http://lsm.crt.state.la.us/cabildo/cab6.htm
Click to expand...

Decisive?The war was actually over and had been for about a month.

How about Agincourt?French suffered approx 10 to 20,000 killed,the English 500.All that after starting with 40,000 men to the English 5,000.
 
27 Aug 1896, the shortest ever war, it lasted from 9.00 am to 9.45am. A british fleet delivered an ultimatum to the sultan of zanzibar to evacuate and surrender his palace, it took 45 minutes of bombardment to convince him to do so. (taken from the guinness book of records)
 
Oh cmon the most one sided battle ever if nobody can remember the battle they could at least refer to the film......


Still confused....

What about Zulu eh???
Rourkes drift Wednesday 22- Thursday 23 January, 1879, when some 150 soldiers defended a supply station against some 4000 Zulus, aided by the Martini-Henry rifle 'with some guts behind it'

The largest number of Victoria Crosses awarded to a regiment for one action!

The VC Winners

Lt. John Rouse
Merriott Chard
Lt. Gonville
Bromhead
Cpl. William
Wilson Allen
Cpl. Ferdnand
Christian Schiess
Pte. Frederick Hitch

Pte. Henry
(Harry) Hook
Pte. Robert Jones
Pte. William Jones
John Williams
Fielding
James Henry
Reynolds
James Langley
Dalton

Jay :m16shoot: :biggun:
 
Rourke's Drift is indeed a good contender but for sheer scale and amount of casualties and prisoners on one side you can't look past the Battle of Kiev. :D
 
Opium War
Britain vs. China (1839-1842)

Britain 10,000 troops
China 150,000 troops

Result: Hong Kong ceded to British Empire, $ 5 million in silver + 5 ports.
 
Doppleganger said:
You know, some people think Hitler actually made the right decision here. There's a school of thought that says that Armeegruppen Mitte may have been outflanked on their right hand side had they not dealt with the Soviet Armies in the Ukrainian sector first.

I'm not convinced myself I have to add.
Click to expand...
Me either. Moscow was the logistical heart of the Russian military machine. Resupply for Leningrad and Kiev would have been poor at best had it been taken and held. Army Group Center was not likely to be outflanked. They were advancing too quickly, so their greatest danger was outrunning their supply lines. If the German Armed Forces had been left to creatively adapt to whatever changes came, I don't think this would have been a major issue either.
 
The battle of Blood River.

Boers (South African settlers) vs the Zulu.

After a Zulu incursion into Boer territory which killed many settlers, the Boers went to go after the Zulu. About 400 Boers picked a good defensible spot by the Ncome River and circled their wagons into a lager. A massive Zulu horde came and attacked and a pitched battle was fought.

The result: Around 10,000 Zulu wariors lay dead. As for the Boer casualties, one man got a cut on his hand.

--------

But I gotta agree with Kiev and Barbarossa for sheer scale.
 
Yes I might be wrong, but in the book I read they never mentioned the casualties, they just mentioned the 10,000 and that they were totaly massacred. Not to mention I read this story about 5 years ago, so my memory is a bit cloudy. It was a really great book about the history of South Africa by a really famous author I forgot who.
 
I have two battles that I wish to mention one of which is American, although I am British.

The first one is the Alamo; 185 VOLUNTEERS fought for thirteen days against a proffessional army of 4,000 men, eventually climaxing in a Battle in which all of the brave volunters lost their lives.

The second one is Assaye; where Major-General Arthur Wellesley with 4,520 British and Indian soldiers attacked an army of 47,000 Maratha tribesmen and regular soldiers and Wellesley won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top