Military victories against the odds

[Domen]

Let's begin with two examples of amazing victorious cavalry charges against the odds:

1) battle of Gembloux, 1578 - some 1,200 Spanish lanza (cavalry lancers) under Alexander Farnese defeat a Dutch army of 20,000 men. Ducth losses are over 6,000 dead, compared to just 12 killed Spanish cavalrymen, as well as some wounded ones (also many killed and wounded horses).

Odds in the battle of Gembloux on 31.01.1578 - 1 versus 16,7 against the victor.

Engraving "Batalla de Gembloux 1578" by Frans Hogenberg:

2) 07.09.1621 - on this day, which was just one day of 38 days long battle of Khotyn (Poland-Lithuania vs the Ottoman Empire) took place a charge in which 600 Polish-Lithuanian hussars defeated and routed some 10,000 Turkish soldiers. Around 1,200 Turkish soldiers were killed as the result of that charge.

Odds in the charge at Khotyn on 07.09.1621 - 1 versus 16,7 against the victor.

Here is how that charge was described by Armenian translator in Polish-Lithuanian service, Auxent:

"(...) The Turks prepared their battle array, (...) 15 000 men once again deployed in the field, and with great power and ferocity started to advance straight towards the [first] gate of the Polish camp, where field hetman [Stanisław Lubomirski] stationed, because there were two gates from the Turkish side there. Near the second gate stood hetman [Jan Karol Chodkiewicz]. Behind the gate of hetman [Chodkiewicz], performing daily guard duty were 3 units [of hussars], which did not expect anything. But noticing, that the infidels were advancing straight towards the gate of field hetman, hetman [Chodkiewicz] immediately rode against them on horseback. Then those 3 units of hussars, noticing the great zeal of hetman [Chodkiewicz], did not allow him to move alone to combat. But before this happened, castellan of Polotsk and Prokop Sieniawski attacked the enemy with their units, as did the hetman's personal unit, which stood there in reserve. Calling for God's help, 300 men [hussars] charged into the fray in such a way, that not a single of their lances remained empty, because with strong hands they fought against the Turks, immediately attacking the enemy flank, rather than striking them frontally. And each of them eliminated 2-3 enemies, because so huge was the Turkish crowd there. Later hussars took their swords and killed as many as they wanted. When the infidels realized the scale of the slaughter, they started to run for their lifes, trampling each other in the process. And our men were chasing them up to the very Turkish camp, beating and killing many in the process. (...) Among the Turks more or less 1200 were killed. (...)"

Source: account of Auxent, Armenian participant of the battle of Khotyn, who worked as Polish-Turkish translator.

According to Auxent, 300 Polish hussars defeated 15 000 Turks. In reality, in that charge participated several units of hussars - in total 600 men - and they defeated (routed) around 10 000 Turks, killing perhaps around 1,200 of them in the process*, as Auxent writes.

*Including also casualties inflicted by escaping Turks who trampled other escaping Turks.

Auxent's account - Polish-language version:

===================================

Any other examples of military victories against incredible odds? Any historical period and region will be appreciated.

 

[Kyriakos]

Not exactly a victory, not even a pyric one, but:

Kynaigeiros against a persian ship (battle of Marathon, 490 BC).

Kynaigeiros was the brother of the tragic poet Aeschylos, one of the three main creators of classical tragedy (along with Sophocles and Euripides).
One of the greatest heroes of the battle of Marathon. When the Persians tried to escape, Kynaigeiros alone held onto the end of one of their ships, so as to prevent it from leaving. He will always be remembered as a hero...

 

[privatehudson]

I suppose you have to define whether you just mean numerical odds, or against the odds of winning, which are not always the same. For example the British and their allies were outnumbered roughly 2:1 at Omdurman, but this was more than compensated for by the superior firepower of the British forces.

Some of the victories won by Lee in the American Civil War would probably count. Then again you do have to remember that he was up against commanders like McCellan, who was so excessively cautious that Lincoln once remarked that the Army of the Potomac was little more than McCellan's personal bodyguard. Or Burnside who was out of his depth at that level and knew it, or Hooker who came up with a solid plan only to loose his nerve whilst putting it into action.

 

[Dachs]

This is why the Catalans can't have nice things.

 

[red_elk]

Battle of Rymnik comes to mind.
http://www.prlib.ru/en-us/history/Pages/Item.aspx?itemid=257

 

[Tee Kay]

Is this just going to be another nationalist masturbation thread?

 

[Dachs]

if that's what you think it is, make it into a circle-jerk...or keep being useless, whatever works out for you

to stay on topic this guy ostensibly beat a 60,000 man army with just his 300-man cavalry agema but obviously those numbers are hilariously unreliable to an almost Polish Chinese degree

 

[Kyriakos]

^

"As Eucratides returned from India, he was killed on the way back by his son, whom he had associated to his rule, and who, without hiding his patricide, as if he didn't kill a father but an enemy, ran with his chariot over the blood of his father, and ordered the corpse to be left without a sepulture" Justin XLI,6

Very useful in literary setting too, as an allusion, thanks

 

[Domen]

I suppose you have to define whether you just mean numerical odds, or against the odds of winning, which are not always the same. For example the British and their allies were outnumbered roughly 2:1 at Omdurman, but this was more than compensated for by the superior firepower of the British forces.

Both versions of superiority can apply here - numerical odds and other odds (technological, etc.). It seems so far that all victories where odds were in the range of 1:15 (Gembloux, Khotyn, Muret mentioned by Dachs) were basically mass routes / massive panic, which is why the 15 to 1 outnumbered ones could win.

In historical reality winning vs odds greater than 1:2 or 1:3 was something very rare (unless one side had huge qualitative / technological / material superiority).

 

[Louis XXIV]

I feel like stating the obvious and going with Cannae.

 

[Traitorfish]

if that's what you think it is, make it into a circle-jerk...or keep being useless, whatever works out for you.

That reads as a "yes".

 

[TheLastOne36]

One that has always stayed in mind was not a battle, but a charge at the Battle of Somosierra by the Polish Cavalry during the Peninsular War.

This is why the Catalans can't have nice things.

I lol'd.

 

[Domen]

Somosierra charge has been studied at Military Academies until at least the end of the 19th century.

It is an example of a relatively high-cost, daring small unit accion, which in fact spared the whole army a lot of casualties.

Cannae mentioned by Louis is also a good example - mainly because the Roman army was also superior in terms of quality.

Battle of Rymnik mentioned by red elk - not only a victory against more numerous enemy, but also one of decisive battles for the course of history. This battle accelerated the end of the Turkish-Russian war, after the end of which Suvorov and his veterans were immediately relocated to a new front - in Poland - to smash the Constitution in 1792 and prevent Polish-Lithuanian reforms, including expansion of regular army to 100,000, which had already begun in 1788.

 

[Væringjar]

800 Turks vs 70,000 Sebians

Battle of Maritsa

 

[Domen]

Battle of Hodów

 

[Kyriakos]

800 Turks vs 70,000 Sebians

Battle of Maritsa

That wiki page seems very illegitimate, considering also this map it has:

^It seems both Thessalonike and Constantinople were ottoman in 1371

 

[Louis XXIV]

Cannae mentioned by Louis is also a good example - mainly because the Roman army was also superior in terms of quality.

Well, I think what the Romans had more was quantity, not quality. Sure, Roman soldiers were probably well-trained and had fought in many campaigns (particularly against the Celts), but the main active Legions had already been killed in earlier battles against Hannibal or had been sent to Spain. Probably quite a few were new recruits.

On the other hand, Hannibal had veteran African and Spanish troops from his years in Barcid Spain combined with lots of Celtic troops. People scoff at the Celts sometimes (and they were seen as his weakest troops, hence the need for the particular formation he had at Cannae), but no one can doubt their fighting prowess. By this point in history, they probably had more victories against the Romans than the Romans had against them. Certainly, Rome's biggest defeat to that point was against the Celts.

 

[Væringjar]

That wiki page seems very illegitimate, considering also this map it has:

^It seems both Thessalonike and Constantinople were ottoman in 1371

A random map doesn't change the fact. There are many sources for that battle and one of them is byzantine greek which shows Turks as just 800 men vs 70,000. also, I have an Ottoman sources for that battle in Ottoman Turkish.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Cellini claimed he killed the Constable of Bourbon at the Sack of Rome with an arquebus "about 5 leagues away." Of course that totally happened because he decided to tell Vasari about it.

 

[History_Buff]

There's also the Battle of Karansebes, where Austrian forces suffered 10,000 casualties and retreated after the attack of 0 Ottoman soldiers.