What Do You Think Was Most Stupid And Pointless Battle (not war) Ever?
- Thread starter MrPresident
- Start date
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
Hitler's counter offensive against D-day was pretty useless. Did he real think he could win?
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
I'm not sure of the name of it (but Xen would probably know), but Roman legions were sent to attack the heart of the Parthian homeland, needless to say they annhiliated and their leader had molten gold poured down his throat.
Here's a little more info about it, he was a member of the First Triumvirate, and I found out the "molten gold" guys name, Marcus Licinius Crassus. I want to say the Battle of Carrhae, but I'm not sure.
Here's a little more info about it, he was a member of the First Triumvirate, and I found out the "molten gold" guys name, Marcus Licinius Crassus. I want to say the Battle of Carrhae, but I'm not sure.
Olorin0222
Maia
Most battles on the Western Front of World War I were very pointless...Verdun, Somme, but not the two Marne battles. At least something was decided then.
sydhe
King of Kongs
Tank_Guy#3 said:
Yes it was.
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
I could also say perhaps the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. I grant you communication was infinitely slowly than today, but it was still fought after the war, and with terrible results for the English.
I also think the Battle of Stalingrad was rather pointless. Hitler should gone straight for the head of the Soviets, Moscow. And the results speak for themselves.
I also think the Battle of Stalingrad was rather pointless. Hitler should gone straight for the head of the Soviets, Moscow. And the results speak for themselves.
Hotpoint
Rome Treaty Legions
Tank_Guy#3 said:
As a point of trivia there were still several more engagements to be fought after that battle before news of the Peace Treaty finally arrived, so it wasn't unique in that regard. Contrary to popular belief New Orleans wasn't therefore actually the scene of the last combat of the War, but if I recall correctly it was the last US victory.
The very last battle of the War of 1812 was over a month later as it happens. Fort Bowyer (Mobile Alabama) was taken by a thousand British Troops on February 11th 1815.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Well be fair you can't expect Americans to remember the times when they lost 
sydhe
King of Kongs
Besides. The Battle of New Orleans is a great song.
Hotpoint
Rome Treaty Legions
sydhe said:
I kinda prefer "The White House Burned (The War of 1812)"... athough for some reason my American Girlfriend isn't such a fan
In 1812 Madison was mad
he was the President, you know
He thought he tell the British where they ought to go
He thought he'd invade Canada
He thought that he was tough
Instead we went to Washington
and burned down all his stuff
And the Whitehouse burned burned burned
and we're the ones that did it
It burned burned burned
while the President ran and cried
It burned burned burned
and things were very historical
And the Americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies
wa wa waaaa
In the war of 1812
You can download the song here (very funny although I think Canadians, and my fellow Brits, will likely appreciate it a lot more than those from the USA
).http://www.ampcast.com/music/22488/artist.php
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Gelion said:Oups.... my bad then
...
P.S. Someone revived a thread that was dead for 4 years?!! No wonder I didn't know the guy
I heard stories about him, but that was about it.
I was going to respond to the first post, but I saw the date and decided it was a bit pointless (I'll just say that, since Britain didn't recognize Napoleon's right to sell Louisiana, they would probably have kept it even if a treaty had been agreed to (note: it hadn't been ratified yet) ).
As for pointless battles, the charge of the light brigade in the crimean war seems to be a good candidate. They almost got wiped out charging the wrong position.
sydhe
King of Kongs
Some battles that were stupid on one side: Hattin. Let's abandon our safe position and go out on a dry plain without a supply of water where the enemy controls all the water sources. (Kingdom of Heaven didn't exaggerate Guy de Lusignan's stupidity by much. A lot of the history of the last years of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was trying to keep him off the throne. Unfortunately-unlike in the movie-Sibylla worked successfully to put him on it.)
Tannenberg during World War I, on the Russian side.
The first British invasion of Mesopotamia during World War I, culminating with their overextension and capture by the Turks at the Seige of Kut. Just as bad, in its way, as Gallipoli. The British seriously underestimated the Turks during the first two years of World War I.
Tannenberg during World War I, on the Russian side.
The first British invasion of Mesopotamia during World War I, culminating with their overextension and capture by the Turks at the Seige of Kut. Just as bad, in its way, as Gallipoli. The British seriously underestimated the Turks during the first two years of World War I.
Verbose
Deity
The way I figure this, for preference a truly pointless battle has to be fought for no or stupid reasons, produce no real outcome and have both protagonists performing atrociously. "Subaltern battles" I think the term is; fought by junior commanders, usually in an inept but bloody fashion.
The battle of Isandhlwana might qualify though.
A British army needlessly exposed and massacred by "natives" (well, possible the most disciplined and toughest soldiers in Africa), who took stupendous casualties themselves.
And this battle was fought in contravention of the Zulu king's orders, as he knew full well what European firepower might do to his army. But since they managed to pull off a (costly) victory this one time, from then on the Zulus went for a repeat performance and got slaughtered every time.
And this in a war where Britiain decided they had to preemptively invade as they didn't feel they could trust the effectiveness of the Zulu social reforms that would remove the risk of them going to war in the near future.
So lot of people died over what was still just a potential problem that might very well never have materialised.
The battle of Isandhlwana might qualify though.
A British army needlessly exposed and massacred by "natives" (well, possible the most disciplined and toughest soldiers in Africa), who took stupendous casualties themselves.
And this battle was fought in contravention of the Zulu king's orders, as he knew full well what European firepower might do to his army. But since they managed to pull off a (costly) victory this one time, from then on the Zulus went for a repeat performance and got slaughtered every time.
And this in a war where Britiain decided they had to preemptively invade as they didn't feel they could trust the effectiveness of the Zulu social reforms that would remove the risk of them going to war in the near future.
So lot of people died over what was still just a potential problem that might very well never have materialised.
jonatas
tropicalista
Dom Sebastiao's crusade into Morocco and subsequent annihilation at Alcacer-Quibir, the Battle of the Three Kings, was a strange and legendary episode in the history of Portugal, to say the least. Sebastiao was a bizarre character.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
AL_DA_GREAT said:
Actually several things worked against it:
But rommels concept of immediate counterattack was the best chance of success. But he clash with Sepp and Rumduef (?) Who wanted a massed single amoured thrust much later.
If all seven panzer diviison had been in the right place and under rommels able command things may have gone differently.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Than again, I don't think that Rommel was right that they could only be stopped at the sea. The Pacific campaign showed the effectiveness of letting an enemy bleed while trying to advance. The allied advance did take significant casualties after they secured the beachead (the terrain created a perfect defensive position for Germany, since hedgerows obstructed advancement and could be a great place to hide German machine guns). I have to wonder if they would have been more or less successful with a completely different strategy.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
A Panzer attack on the bridgeheads, when no or at least not many anti tank weapons were landed, the whole allied operation would have been in severe danger.
However another candidate is the British raid on Ostende and Zeebrügge 1918. Although the British wanted to block the ports, they were in no way successful. Also the raid on Zeebrügge was not successful. Later they told everyone it was a success and even claimed the Germans were rewriting the logs to say it was not a success. But they did not answer, how the German ships in port could be used later and also retreat to Germany.
Adler
However another candidate is the British raid on Ostende and Zeebrügge 1918. Although the British wanted to block the ports, they were in no way successful. Also the raid on Zeebrügge was not successful. Later they told everyone it was a success and even claimed the Germans were rewriting the logs to say it was not a success. But they did not answer, how the German ships in port could be used later and also retreat to Germany.
Adler
Verbose
Deity
The biggest German headache seems to have been the total Allied air superiority. I have been getting the impression that alone pretty much ensured the German formations would always "bleed" more than the Allied.Louis XXIV said:
as for Normandy:
let's not forget that the German defences, especially the big guns, were not able to fire at troops once they had landed and progressed a few hundred yards inland - Brest, e.g., was impossible to defend in the long run because the enemy did not arrive within the narrow 80° arch of the biggest guns. DUH!
Aside from that, if Rommel had had his way, I am sure it would have been possible to kick the invasion back into the sea. Air superiority? Who needs it if he can fire machine guns at people in boats? Remember the first combat scene from SPR!
let's not forget that the German defences, especially the big guns, were not able to fire at troops once they had landed and progressed a few hundred yards inland - Brest, e.g., was impossible to defend in the long run because the enemy did not arrive within the narrow 80° arch of the biggest guns. DUH!
Aside from that, if Rommel had had his way, I am sure it would have been possible to kick the invasion back into the sea. Air superiority? Who needs it if he can fire machine guns at people in boats? Remember the first combat scene from SPR!
Similar threads
