Indeed. If you look at the battles the Japanese fought leading up to Midway, you’ll see a boatload of luck going the Japanese’s way. Certainly they sometimes made their own luck, but there were a lot of points where their string of victories could have been stopped cold by the turn of an unfriendly card. Had that taken place you would not have been talking about Midway at all.
Huh?
Broken code or no by this point the Japanese carriers had already been attacked several times. Despite that finding things in the middle of the Pacific is not easy. Had the dive bombers attacked 20 minutes earlier it is hard to see why the Japanese would have been any worse off. Indeed, not only did the Japanese lose three carriers they lost their prime, experienced front line carrier pilots who were sitting in their planes when bombs dropped among them. I do not see how any other time could have been worse for those carriers than when the Americans actually did pounce on them.
Au contraire, Whack-a-mole. Yes, the battle was fought after the treaty had been signed, but the huge American victory forced the British to actually honor the terms of the treaty. Had the British taken New Orleans, that would’ve insisted on the creation of an Indian state in the midwest, and we would’ve been powerless to stop them.
I nominate Chancellorsville, where Robert E. Lee twice divided his much smaller army in the face of a superior enemy, and won a brilliant one-sided battle against Joseph Hooker’s Union forces in May 1863.
I’d be very wary of accepting those numbers. The total population of Roman Britain probably never topped 1.5 million at the high end and was likely well below that on average. Boudicca’s rebellion mostly just involved tribes from the admittedly most densely populated southeast, but nonetheless it is unlikely all of her adherents together number a quarter million, let alone could could raise an army that large.
As for lopsided victories, I’ll just repost from an old thread on a similar topic, since I like the example:
Romanus III Argyrus came to the Byzantine throne in 1028 when it was near the height of its military power in the wake of the reign of the great soldier-emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonus. An old man already ( over 60 ), he fancied himself a great general, when he was actually a rather inept one. In 1030, responding to raids against his incompetent governor in Antioch by the emir of Aleppo ( a petty ruler of Bedouin origin recently established in northern Syria ), he set out with a powerful imperial army to punish the transgressors and begin a campaign of conquest in the east. Comparatively speaking it was rather like if the U.S. invaded Venezuela or perhaps Guatemala.
The emir, Nasr I, well aware that in any real battle he’d get crushed like a grape, posted a force of calvary on a ridge and lured Romanus and his impressive army into a narrow defile. As the Byzantines fully entered the cramped quarters, a second small force of Bedouin suddenly appeared across the Byzantine rear and, not engaging, charged back and forth across the rear making a big commotion. This had the desired effect - the Byzantine troops, thinking they were trapped and about to be beset on two sides, panicked and routed en masse without ever engaging anyone at all.
It was [says the historian] a sight which surpassed all expectation or belief. Here was an army which had conquered the world, an army so equipped and deployed as to be invincible by any number of barabarians, but which was now unable to even look the enemy in the face. The very life-guards of the emperor wheeled about and galloped off without drawing reign. And the unfortunate monarch, who had hoped to shake the earth, as nearly as possible fell into the enemey’s hands.
Psellus, as quoted in Romilly Jenkins’ Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries, A.D. 610-1071 ( 1969, First Vintage Books ).
The humiliation and blow to his prestige was such that he never led another campaign again. Meanwhile the Mirdasid dynasty in Aleppo went on to survive for another half century ( long enough to see another, far more devastating victory of a outmatched army over the Byzantines - Manzikert in 1071 ).
- Tamerlane
My wariness is indicated by the question mark, I’ve seen anywhere from under 100,000 to over 400,000. (It was the perfect place for a footnote, if only I could learn how they work here.) Dio Cassius put it at 230,000, Tacitus at quite a bit less if I recall correctly, Tacitus’ source being a good one. But I’m not completely opposed to Dio Cassius’ number: Bodi’s actual troops were likely only a small portion of the whole, and the rest probably composed of peasants armed with sticks and sudden bravery in the wake of B’s successes. Less an army and more a lynch mob makes it possible, and their defeat altogether more understandable. There is no way the Britons could have lost if they’d had anything resembling control over their troops on that field, thus I’d speculate that they weren’t troops much at all.
For strict accuracy though, I’d agree that a quarter million is a bit suspect. But dead bodies being easier to count than live ones, the 80,000 to 400 ratio still stands. I don’t know of a classical source that disputes the butcher’s bill.
Even though I was a kid, I remember the days prior to the Six Days War in June 67 very well. There was sense that Israeli might be doomed, or at least in for a brutal fight for its life.
There was truly a sense of wonder and amazement at the outcome – the defeat of three Arab armies (including ejecting the Syrians from the well fortified Golan Heights), and elements of others.
Close study of the war (especially Michael Oren’s book) shows how this happened, but at the time, it seemed astonishing.
A second vote for Isandlwana. I likedthis book although some people think it’s a bit dated.
Actually I’m suspicious of classical sources generally. I must have some trust issues :D.
However even accepting those numbers, the accounts make clear that a lot of the dead were women and children. Sounds more like a generalized post-insurraction slaughter, really, rather than actual battlefield casualty list.
Not to say that the Romans didn’t acquit themselves well, mind you. Disciplined troops in tight quarters can have quite an advantage. I just suspect a fair bit of embellishment.
- Tamerlane
Moderator’s Note: Edited thread title.
I just wanted to mention that the Zulu had the same guns as the British at Rorke’s Drift… the Zulu, having defeated the British as Isandhlwana, looted the battlefield, and were thus facing the British at Rorke’s Drift armed with spears, shields, muskets, and Martini-Henry rifles.
The whole thing is much better explained in the book “The Washing Of The Spears” (as someone else said), and, of course, that classic Epic Zulu, which, whilst not 100% accurate, is pretty close!
Battles that, at the time, would be considered as having a “Surprising” outcome would be Little Bighorn- the very idea that Indians could beat the 7th Cavalry was just unthinkable (And, as the Battlefield Detectives found out, the Indians had guns- lots of guns- and Custer’s men were cut down as they tried to flee the battle when the skirmish lines broke.)
Isandhlwana has already been mentioned (unlike Little Bighorn, there were European survivors, however), and I’m sure the Nazis were very surprised when they didn’t manage to capture Moscow (even more so when the Red Army descended on Berlin a few years later…), and by all accounts the ANZACs who landed at Gallipoli had envisioned a sort of casual stroll towards Istanbul with some light shooting and maybe a spot of Raki drinking and Doner Kebab eating on the way, instead of the painful, bloody, protracted ass-kicking and general shitfight the whole Gallipoli Campaign turned into.
The Turks won, by the way, but that fact is often conveniently overlooked by many people these days, who like to pretend that the ANZACs went home because they’d left the kettle on or suddenly remembered that they hadn’t returned that library book yet…
I think you can count out things such as the Gallipolli campaign as was far more than a battle, more of a war in itself, otherwise on that basis, the US loss of Vietnam would come quite high up the list, there could not have been anyone in the US military or pretty much elsewhere that suspected that it could end up the way it did, even if years later with hindsight analysis showed that there were plenty of clues and markers.
Gee, you could almost forget that it was those poor women and children who chased the legion for days before the Romans made out their wills and turned around to face certain death. 
The families were on the field because they were cheering on their men, wanted to loot the Roman fallen as soon as they could, and probably torture the captured and wounded. There were remarkably few survivors in previous Roman encounters with those “women and children.”
Mule skinners and scavengers count if they’re on the field during the engagement. Especially if they’ve been burning cities and massacring people. 
(I do need to make a correction though, I earlier claimed that the Romans had no prospect of relief. In reacquianting myself with the history, I (re)learned that the 2nd Augusta was also on the island. The commander refused to come to the aid of the 14th (he fell on his sword for it), but I suppose there was always the remote chance of relief if the 14th had been willing to continue retreat.)
Really? It had been my understanding that the impis that went after Roarke’s Drift were the ones who arrived too late to take part in Isandhlwana or were not considered sufficiently trained to have been included. (The lack of “sufficient” training does not minimize the success of the British at Roarke’s–they were still vastly outnumbered and there were plenty of veterans attacking them.) I am surprised that any Martini-Henry’s were available to the Zulu at Roarke’s.
About Midway: suppose the Japanese hadn’t bothered with their not-particularly-useful diversion strike in the Aleutians? Suppose those forces had been added to the Midway strike force?
Well, sure - that represented a fine days outing back then :p.
Nah. In assessing the magnitude of a victory, I’d be inclined to just stick with the actual combatants.
Pretty much - they had been with the main impi that engaged at Isandhlwana, but had straggled on the march and when they arrived they had been deliberately been held back by the commanders trying to restore some order, while the rest of the army surged ahead and engaged. With events moving so quickly, they ended up being held too long to catch up and were eventually sent wide to cut one of the retreat routes. They had harried some of the fugitives of Isandhlwana, but didn’t engage in the main battle. So they may have captured a few rifles, but likely not many.
If we’re going for nasty surprises for European psyches, Adowa was more predictable ( on sober assessment ), but probably an even bigger shock than Isandhlwana, simply because of the size of the Italian army routed.
- Tamerlane
The only Japanese carriers sent to the Aleutians were the 45 plane Junyo and the 37 plane Ryujo. (Generously) assuming 1/5 were fighters (a fact I am purely guessing) that would have added about 65 planes to the Japanese bomber force. That would be significant. However, those were escort carriers that could not keep up with fleet maneuvers, so it is unlikely that they could have been used effectively in any event. To be at Midway, they would have had to have been sent out several days ahead of the fleet to arrive on time, exposing them to submarine attack and possibly destroying the surprise element that the Japanese did not know they had already lost.
There is a new book about Midway titled Shattered Sword that is very highly recommended by Aviation History Magazine. It guaranties almost everything you know about Midway is misleading I.E. Yamamoto was incompetent from the beginning. A very in depth look at the Japanese Navy and the flaws in their command structure. It seem to be a very interesting new look at the battle.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574889230/qid=1145125107/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-3968031-4099207?v=glance&s=books
Nitpick on Midway: Several posts have referred to “Dive 8” (presumably the combined Bombing Eight and Scouting Eight from the Hornet). Actually, this squadron turned the wrong way during the search and eventually landed on Midway without engaging the IJN on the first day.
From most accounts, the dive-bombing attack which gutted the Midway Strike Force went as follows:[ul]
[li]Bombing Six and most of Scouting Six (Enterprise) attacked the Kaga;[/li][li]The remainder of Scouting Six (perhaps as few as three planes) attacked the Akagi;[/li][li]Bombing Three (Yorktown) attacked the Soryu (Scouting Three had been out on search that morning, and was not available).[/li][/ul]
Some other factors, generally in the “pure dumb luck” category:[ul]
[li]The Pearl Harbor Navy Yard was able to make the Yorktown—badly damaged at Coral Sea—battle-ready (if not exactly shipshape)in 48 hours.[/li][li]The Japanese submarine picket line which was supposed to catch the US carriers leaving Pearl was late on station.[/li][li]The Japanese cruiser floatplane which was assigned to the sector where the US ships were hiding had engine trouble.[/li][li]Wade McCluskey (Bombing/Scouting Six) followed his hunch to take the same course as a Japanese destroyer he spotted. It had been left to depth-charge a US submarine, and its course led directly to the Japanese carriers.[/li][li]The Enterprise and Yorktown strikes, despite having been launched at different times and approaching from different directions, arrived at almost exactly the same time.[/li][/ul]
ODF, in Full Smartass Mode
I don’t think Midway was the most lopsided navel battle of WWII. The most lopsided battle was The battle off Samar
Samuel Morrison is one of the pre-eminent Naval Historians, particularly of the WW II era.
From the above link
So a few destroyers and some escort carriers take on the biggest battleship ever built along with heavy cruisers, light crusiers, and destroyers, and run the IJN off.