I didn’t make this clear, but this is a quote is from the linked website.
Sorry for any confusion.
The thing was, capturing or looting rifles was not the only way for the Zulu to acquire guns- there were plenty of people who were only too prepared to sell or trade them with the Zulu.
British military rifles (in the 19th and very early 20th centuries) were often put out in two versions: the Military version, and a “Trade Pattern”.
Trade Pattern guns were designed for sale to private individuals, and do not (usually) have the standard military markings on them. There were rather a lot of these in South Africa at the time, and more than a few people were making a reasonable amount of cash selling guns and ammunition to the Zulu.
True, not all the rifles were Martini-Henrys… the Westley-Richards and the Snider-Enfield were also floating around in quantity as well.
In short, there were more guns in the hands of the Zulu at both Isandhlwana and Rorke’s Drift than many people suppose, but not enough for it to have made any read difference at the end of the day- especially since, at Rorke’s Drift, the Zulu ammunition supply was limited, whilst the British had vast quantities of ammunition available.
Interesting sidenote: The Zulu captured the British Field Guns at Isandhlwana, but never worked out how to use them, and they were eventually recovered some time later, still in working order.
Yeah…that was a pretty amazing part of the overall battle of Leyte Gulf. The Japanese commanders seemed to lack an aggressive instinct the Americans possessed. On a few notable occasions thry backed off or played it safe when pressing the attack would have been better. (E.g. Pearl Harbor should have been attacked more rather than leaving when they did, the battles around the Solomans could have gone better with a more aggressive naval strategy). Maybe it was the Japanese notion of waiting for a “decisive” battle that would turn everything for them as opposed to American willingness ot hammer away battle after battle that was the difference in approcahes. Not really sure myself.
Still, by the time of Leyte Gulf I was under the impression that it was the Japanese navy’s last big gasp at a major engagement. They were in a bad state at that point such that just providing fuel for such an adventure was a stretch. Given that I would have thought the Japanese commanders would have been extremely aggressive. There really would be no second chance at it. I would have thought that if they were ever going to go for broke trying to bull through Leyte Gulf would have been it.
I know…hindsight is 20/20…
If ever there was a navel battle that proved that it is not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog that matters, this battle was it.
I’d say this battle’s outcome surprised and shocked the Germans. It was a huge clash of armored units-I think I read that over 6000 tanks were involved. The germans had planned it as a battle of anihillation : the Russian forces were to be split apart and crushed in pincers actions. The only problem: the Russians had spies in the German Embassy in Japan,and had the whole German plan of battle.
The Germans experienced huge losses, and had to retreat. Kursk (for them was the beginning of the end-they never retook any lost territory after this, and they lost the best of thier armored divisions.
I’d vote for Rorke’s Drift, as other posters have mentioned above.
Coming in second on my list would be the defense of Hougoumont at Waterloo. That is, if a battle within a battle counts. Hougoumont is a small walled chateau on the edge of the battlefield. About five thousand British guardsmen held Hougoumont against fifteen thousand elite French troops. The French attacked Hougomont in eight fierce onslaughts, but the British held fast. It was a remarkable feat.
Without any desire to downplay the resolution, bravery, or other sterling qualities of the British, there, it should be noted that at that time, it was generally felt that a ratio of 4:1 was needed for a force to overcome a a well-fortified position in an open charge. Depending on how soundly the walls of the chateau were constructed, the honors might go to the French for attacking with only a 3:1 advantage.
Cite?
The 4:1 force superiority comment is attributed to Napoleon in reference to attacking fortified cities.
- Tamerlane
I believe you are correct. However, the movie Zulu does show them looting the corpses of the 24th and later dialogue implies that the rifles are then used to shoot at the defenders. Perhaps that’s the source of the confusion.
Battle of Điện Biên Phủ - First (French) IndoChina War
The French baited Vietminh forces into attacking them at their chosen battle field by setting up a base in a valley surrounded by mountains - two thumbs up for the tactical move there guys - and let the Vietminh forces attack them - the French were evidently expecting a crushing victory once they had drawn the Vietminh out of the jungles. They underestimated the Vietminh’s resources and resolve - they not only possessed heavy artillery but had the man power and support for the cause to manually haul the weapons up the sides of the small mountains on logs. There is a famous stroy where an artillery piece somehow came loose and proceeded to slip down a slope towards a cliff. A Vietminh militant dived infront of the weapon and stopped it from falling, at the cost of his own life.
The French forces suffered heavy loses and were forced to pull out of the region.
Attributed by whom?
In what sense were the French troops attacking the Hougoumont elite? The British troops defending it were elite - elements of the Coldstream Guards and the 2nd Foot Guards, if memory serves. But the French troops attacking it were just regular troops. The Imperial Guard never got close to the place, being held in reserve, then used against the Prussians advancing on the opposite flank, and finally making their famous and ill-fated charge on the British centre.
I don’t think anyone doubts that the defense of the chateau was gallant, etc., but I don’t see how it was a particularly surprising outcome.
Napoleon estimated that the attacker of a fortified city must outnumber the defender by four to one.
Cited to William Seymour, Great Sieges of History in this online article:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTDimarco.htm
- Tamerlane
For most Surprising result(*) I would nominate the Battle that Never was - the overnight military action that resulted in the Evacuation of Boston in March 1776.
SURPISE
Washington invested and fortified the Dorchester Heights with premade battlework fortifications in a single night and eventually with some of the 60 tons of heavy artillery dragged 300 miles on sleds from Fort Ticonderoga over snow and rivers. Guns that not many believed possible to be moved in large enough numbers to have any effect in this theater
RESULT
The effect, Howe basically agreeing not to burn Boston if allowed to retreat in peace with thousands of troops (~8,000 British regulars) and +1,000 loyalists was an electric result on both sides of the Atlantic and, in the halls of civilized power in Europe, astounding.
(*) Not sure this trumps some of the good ones in this thread but I think it deserves to be in the discussion esp. if the Q is “Most unforeseen Military result”
I’d have to go with the Crusader victory in the Second Siege of Antioch. Admittedly it helps when you have the Holy Lance leading you into battle.
Midway certainly represented the turn of the tide in the Pacific in WWII, but the battle did not really change the outcome. Japan could not win the war, given even a mediocre level of Allied competence. Midway’s decisive outcome allowed the Allies to claim the initiative and perhaps made the war shorter by a year. Japan’s loss of those carriers, and perhaps just as importantly, the loss of a huge cadre of carrier-capable pilots, was an unredeemable disaster. But it would have happened eventually in any case when the Allies forced the Japanese onto the defensive.
But the outcome was still a huge shock.
(Emphasis mine.)
A common opinion, but not quite accurate.
Pakenham knew of the treaty negotiations going on at Ghent but was under orders to proceed as planned. Had the British won at New Orleans, they would have immediately repudiated the treaty and continued the war. As is, the treaty would not have taken effect until ratification by both sides and the treaty proclaimed. The British never would have ratified the treaty had they won on the fields of Chalmette.
Fascinating. Certainly puts battles like New Orleans and the Alamo into perspective. Perhaps the ones with credit for bucking the odds were the attackers.
The Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was certainly a big surprise to all involved, and not at all what had been predicted. The English were jubilant. The Spanish? Not so much.