Unbelievable battles

[1889]

I know The French Foreign Legion is famous for fighting against such incredible odds that victory or defeat are practically after thoughts. Even so the History Channel has just mentioned an action so unbelievable that I need to verify that it actually happened.

It supposedly occurred in 1882 when 300 Legionaries escorting a surveying team near the Morocco/Algeria border met 8,000 Arab cavalry. After 7 hours of fighting in a blinding sandstorm the Arabs retreat, having suffered 2,000 casualties. Legionnaire losses where 42 killed and 31 wounded. Typically the commander survived despite 9 gunshot wounds and 7 sword cuts. Cool story, but is it true?

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

I know The French Foreign Legion is famous for fighting against such incredible odds that victory or defeat are practically after thoughts. Even so the History Channel has just mentioned an action so unbelievable that I need to verify that it actually happened.

It supposedly occurred in 1882 when 300 Legionaries escorting a surveying team near the Morocco/Algeria border met 8,000 Arab cavalry. After 7 hours of fighting in a blinding sandstorm the Arabs retreat, having suffered 2,000 casualties. Legionnaire losses where 42 killed and 31 wounded. Typically the commander survived despite 9 gunshot wounds and 7 sword cuts. Cool story, but is it true?

Do you have a link...

And even so, are the 9 gunshot wounds actually in the flesh (past the body armor) and are the sword cuts deep or simply scratches.

 

[1889]

No link, it was mentioned in a TV show about the Sahara. I'm sure the wounds were various levels of superficial but Blackbeard and Rasputin reportedly took similar damage before expiring. I am however highly dubious that an Arab leader at that time was able to muster 8,000 men or that such a force could be resisted by so few. If such an encounter actually took place I would chock these figures up to wild exaggeration on the part of the survivors.

I would also expect such a battle to be almost as famous as Cameron, but I can't find any mention of it.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

No link, it was mentioned in a TV show about the Sahara. I'm sure the wounds were various levels of superficial but Blackbeard and Rasputin reportedly took similar damage before expiring. I am however highly dubious that an Arab leader at that time was able to muster 8,000 men or that such a force could be resisted by so few. If such an encounter actually took place I would chock these figures up to wild exaggeration on the part of the survivors.

I heard that about Blackbeard as well, pretty tough stuff there.

As for the 300 legionaries taking on 8000 Arab Cavalry, well its not that unbelievable. The French Legions would surely be more armored, equiped with better weaponry and most likely more trained.

It wouldn't suprise we if they had indeed held out with such success.

 

[carmen510]

Here's one I did for my Greek Website.

Alexander the Great: Siege of Tyre...

Ingenious plans (Search on Wikipedia, too lazy...)

He got only about 300 men killed, and enslaved about 2,900?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Battle of Guagamela. The Greeks face an Army estimated to be three times their size (though contemporary accounts put the Persian army's strength at 1,000,000), and only lose four thousand men, while wiping the floor with the Persians.


The Battle of Leyete Gulf, the last time a fleet sucessfully crossed the T. The Americans unquestionably defeated the Japanese.

 

[Steph]

I heard that about Blackbeard as well, pretty tough stuff there.

As for the 300 legionaries taking on 8000 Arab Cavalry, well its not that unbelievable. The French Legions would surely be more armored, equiped with better weaponry and most likely more trained.

It wouldn't suprise we if they had indeed held out with such success.

Did you read the OP? It says 1882. What kind of body armor do you expect by that date?

It was the Battle of Chott Tigri, against Bou Amama

I have some reference: battle of El Moungar, 1903, where 113 legionnaires and 20 spahis where attacked by 1000 berber cavalry, hold them from 9:30 am to 17:30 pm, with 38 dead and 49 wounded, before reinforcement arrived to force the Berber away.

You have also the battle of Taghit, in 1903, where 4000 zayanes fanatics under Mouley Mostepha, besiege during 4 days a military post hold by 300 legionnaires and other troops.
The French had 9 dead, 21 wounded, the zayanes 400 dead before they flee.

 

[privatehudson]

The late 19th century abounds with such examples, typically speaking as long as a european army was in a decent defensive position with the ability t concentrate its fire and an abundance of ammunition it was all but impossible to overwhelm. On the other hand if the "native" army could catch the Europeans on the march, or isolate each section of the army one by one it would almost always sweep over them. British experiences in the Zulu war especially show plenty of examples of this.

 

[Verbose]

The late 19th century abounds with such examples, typically speaking as long as a european army was in a decent defensive position with the ability t concentrate its fire and an abundance of ammunition it was all but impossible to overwhelm. On the other hand if the "native" army could catch the Europeans on the march, or isolate each section of the army one by one it would almost always sweep over them. British experiences in the Zulu war especially show plenty of examples of this.

A common pattern of colonial warfare was in fact to send out a well equiped armed column with lots of fire-power, machineguns for preference (the Brits really cottoned on to their Swedish Nordenfelt machineguns prior to the advent of the Maxim), and then wait for the natives to turn up. It usually worked.

As for entrenched positions, it's been claimed that what the British did at Roarke's Drift during the Zulu war was commonplace along the North West Frontier in India. It was politics that ensured it got such massive attention following upon Isandlwhana as it did.

 

[privatehudson]

A common pattern of colonial warfare was in fact to send out a well equiped armed column with lots of fire-power, machineguns for preference (the Brits really cottoned on to their Swedish Nordenfelt machineguns prior to the advent of the Maxim), and then wait for the natives to turn up. It usually worked.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to contradict my point, so let me repeat and expand on it a little. I was saying that if the native force managed to catch the Europeans by suprise on the march, before the europeans could either establish a defensive position or defensive formation they would usually overwhelm them. Isandlwana is the prime example of this, the British units were scattered across a wide area, far from their ammunition supply and unable to effectively support eachother. The extensive firepower the Europeans enjoyed was much more effective when they were able to concentrate it in order that each unit could support the others. Defensive positions or formations (such as Squares like at Ulundi which employed Gatling guns and artillery firing cannister) also helped in that the lines of supply for essentials like ammunition were also short, thus preventing a slackening of fire due to shortages.

I wasn't saying that the Europeans just sat in their forts and waited for the enemy to kill themselves against the walls, just that they would often use the advantages of natural terrain or a good defensive formation to maximise their firepower.

As for entrenched positions, it's been claimed that what the British did at Roarke's Drift during the Zulu war was commonplace along the North West Frontier in India. It was politics that ensured it got such massive attention following upon Isandlwhana as it did.

To be frank there are enough comparisons to look at in the same war too.

 

[Verbose]

I'm not sure how this is supposed to contradict my point.

It wasn't. It doesn't.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Isandlwhana

That's what it's called. I wanted to use this example but forgot the name.

 

[Adler17]

Another example is here Tanga, where 800 Germans were able to hold against 8000 British and Indain soldiers. Or the 3 sieges of Kolberg. Or a fight of a dozen British soldiers in the 1960s against some islamists (I do not remember the place). Courage and outstanding leadership can win battles against all odds.

Adler

 

[Verbose]

Another example is here Tanga, where 800 Germans were able to hold against 8000 British and Indain soldiers. Or the 3 sieges of Kolberg. Or a fight of a dozen British soldiers in the 1960s against some islamists (I do not remember the place). Courage and outstanding leadership can win battles against all odds.

Adler

Well, you can't really do without a certain resolve, but in the instance of colonial warfare the more deciding factors would seem to be cover and fire-power.

 

[privatehudson]

In normal colonial battles yes, you could easily argue that the native armies showed just as much if not more courage in the traditional natives vs european engagements. Battles like Tanga and most of the Boer war battles were another matter entirely and belong more to the WW1 era than the colonial period (indeed Tanga was in WW1).

In any colonial battle though it still required competent leadership to ensure victory, something all too often lacking in the period.

 

[1889]

Thanks for the answer Steph.

Considering the quality of force used by the British, Tanga sounds very much like a colonial battle, but with an amphibous assault and a march through 3 miles of unknown jungle to boot, they were lucky to get back to their ships!

@ Adler: About the dozen Brits in the '60's, could that have been in Malay?

 

[privatehudson]

I think he's referring to a battle at Mirbat in Dhofar between 9 SAS men (later reinforced) and around 250 Adoo guerillas. The SAS men had access to a 25 pndr gun, 2 machine guns, a mortar and small arms. I believe however that nearby was also a small detachment of local gendarmerie. The 9 men held out for a few hours though before the enemy withdrew.

 

[privatehudson]

Thanks for the answer Steph.

Considering the quality of force used by the British, Tanga sounds very much like a colonial battle, but with an amphibous assault and a march through 3 miles of unknown jungle to boot, they were lucky to get back to their ships!

I don't think that quality of troops is the only point here. Given that the two opposing sides were european lead and trained and used relatively modern equipment I would say it fell outside of the normal colonial fare, just as the Boer conflicts did for the most part.

 

[carmen510]

Maybe the Spanish Armada vs. the British fleet in 1588.

90 British ships vs. 130 Spanish ships.

No British ship lost, 65+ Spanish ships lost.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Maybe the Spanish Armada vs. the British fleet in 1588.

90 British ships vs. 130 Spanish ships.

No British ship lost, 65+ Spanish ships lost.

I thought the Spanish Armada was lost in a storm...