What is the best fought battle of all time?

Some explanation required here: I read a lot of military history, but I’m probably nowhere near as educated on this stuff as the serious military buffs. Most military history I read, battles or whole wars involve one or both sides doing extremely dumb things or making critical mistakes. Given how chaotic and unpredictable and fast moving a battle is, this is understandable. The post-WW2 era of conventional warfare seems to be pretty much all battles between a smart belligerent and an utterly stupid and overmatched opponent, or two idiots flailing away at each other(iran-Iraq).

And yet has there ever been a battle where both sides did everything right and were reasonably matched? Or a battle that comes close?

THe only ones that come to mind are maybe some of the WWII desert battles? Or perhaps Waterloo? Gettysburg maybe?

Well, I’m sure folks will be along shortly to tell you all the errors made at Waterloo and Gettysburg (and there were some wowsers). Probably no battle in history has been perfectly executed by both sides (I think it was Clausewitz who said no plan ever survives contact with the enemy–and someone usually wins).

Maybe Hastings (1066AD). Until near the end, when the Saxons were baited by the Normans to leaving their shield wall, it seems to have been conducted as planned by both sides.

Interesting question. Will have to think on it tonight.

I nominate two during World War II: Midway and Leyte Gulf. In both battles there was a clear difference in overall strength between contenders but either side had enough muscle to swing things their way. One can argue that the Japanese lacked enough knowledge of enemy activity at Midway but they basically planned it that way. They wanted to charge into the middle of the Pacific and invite the Americans to come in. They relied on submarine cordons and cruiser-launched float planes to locate the enemy and that tactic failed them. As to the Americans, it was a brilliant job of code-breaking, and they learned how to use carriers to ambush a superior force pretty quick.

Leyte Gulf is a better answer. Both sides knew what the other had in mind (at the least the options open to them.) While the Americans had an overwhelming advantage in numbers, particularly in carrier strength, the Japanese still had seven battleships, and they intended to use them to smash the Seventh fleet. They knew Halsey pretty well, knew he was spoiling for an all-out fight. So the logical move was to decoy him and the Third Fleet away, allowing their own battleships to catch the Seventh. And it nearly worked.

Ah yes, I read a detailed synopsis of Leyte Gulf in James Michener’s Space. Not having known about the battle before I read that novel, I found the planning by the Japense to be fascinating. The problem is that it didn’t just not work, it went disastrously. I guess you can’t call that a mistake, but I was thinking more about battles where both sides fought well and it wasn’t extraordinarily one sided(as Midway and Leyte were). I know Coral Sea was pretty even, but I don’t know about the tactics used or whether the two sides just blundered into each other.

The ongoing battle of me just trying to get through the day.

The Fall of Constantinople, 1453. Obviously, the Ottomans greatly outnumbered the Byzantines, but it was an epic battle fought with intelligence, skill and competence on both sides.

I realise it’s not quite what you’re looking for, but here are some quotes from Sun Tzu in his epic ‘Art of War’:

  • The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

  • Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

  • All warfare is based on deception.

Just going from the title sentence, my first thought was the Battle of Cannae, which has been described as “the perfect defeat of an enemy army”.

However, the rest of the post seems to be looking for a stroke/counterstroke type of battle where each general makes a tactical deployment which is then countered by the opposition until the last successful move wins. I’d offer up the Battle of Zama as a good example of this type of battle. The battle was fought effectively by both generals who each had successful tactics. However, the Roman troops were better prepared and more effective, and ultimately won.

Note that some historians have questioned the effectiveness of elephants as war animals. They have a lot of shock value, but issues with both reliability and durability. So Hannibal’s deployment of the elephants as his initial attack could be argued as a bad tactic. My view is that the attack failed because it was successfully countered by prepared troops, not that it was inherently flawed.

How about Isandlwana? Both sides fought as they were ordered, equiped and trained. One side got annihilated but their kill ratio must have been large.

“Your conclusions were all wrong, Ryan. Halsey acted stupidly.”

Isn’t it generally considered that Halsey fell for a decoy from the Japanese, took his task force in pursuit, and generally missed the battle? Not exactly well-fought on the American side; or do you think there were enough smart decisions from other American commanders to offset Halsey?

And the Japanese, in turn (1) fled in confusion from a desperate, severely outgunned bunch of destroyers and jeep carriers and (2) managed to drive their main force of battleships directly into the cross of a T. Hardly something to write home about.

I’m not sure I can think of the “perfect battle”, but I’d probably nominate Agincourt for the most stupid. The mistakes the French made were numerous, unpredictable in their absurdity, compounded by an apparent obstination to just be Wrong in everything albeit doggedly so. Every time I revisit that battle I find a new nugget of perfect, pure whatzefuckness. It’s almost beautiful.
The most perfect though… Maybe Sekigahara ? Apocalyptic conflict between two relatively close sides number-wise ; some innovative tactics (or at least some breaking of intellectual molds) and in the end the result of the blood bath hinged a lot more on who betrayed whom when than anything.

I immediately thought of the Battle of Britain, which was mainly one in which the British were playing defense. But in some ways, it forever changed the war, exposing the limits of Nazi Germany’s military.

In the ancient world, the battle of Munda, 45BC.

It was the final battle in the Civil War, where Julius Caesar was fighting the Pompeians. Caesar had 8 legions to Pompey’s 13, but Caesar’s army were battle-hardened veterans, while some of the Pompeian legions were inexperienced.

They fought for eight solid hours, with neither side giving way or gaining any advantage.

By the end, Caesar had committed all his reserves, and was fighting on foot with his men in the ranks. According to some accounts, despite all he could do, Caesar’s army was gradually and inexorably starting to crumble. Caesar said later, “I often fought for victory, but at Munda I was fighting for my life.”

He was saved by a lucky event. Some of Caesar’s allied cavalry had come round behind Pompey’s army and were looting their camp. This was a minor irritation and wouldn’t make any difference to the outcome, but Pompey still had some troops in reserve, and his general Labienus pulled them back to deal with this.

Seeing this unit moving towards the rear, both Caesar’s troops and the Pompeians got the mistaken impression that the Pompeian army was starting to retreat. The Pompeians lost heart, Caesar’s troops fought with redoubled enthusiasm, and within a short time the Pompeian legions broke and were totally defeated.

I think we did a great job in handling the Battle of Midway Island. Japan was at the height of its naval powers while we, on the other hand, were still depleted from the debacle at Pearl Harbor. It definitely has to be categorized as an “upset win”, and it was Japan’s first bloody nose.

Despite the many problems, a good argument could be made for the D-Day invasion. From the standpoint of prior planning, sheer scale, end results and historical consequences it has to be up there.

Saragarhi. Mission objectives accomplished.

Cite? Or is the Ryan named Jack, as I suspect?

I’d probably nominate Malplaquet from the closing stages of the War of Spanish Succession. The generalship was uniformly high across the board, certainly the best assemblage of talent that century.

Allied side:

Marlborough, either the 1rst or 2nd best British commander in history by reputation( depending how you rank him vs. Wellington ).

Eugene of Savoy, arguably the best Austrian Habsburg commander in history( though he was French* of course, he had only joined the Habsburg cause after Louis XIV foolishly refused him a commission in the French army ).

French side:

Villars, not as widely known as his contemporaries above, he was an aggressive and highly skilled general very much in Marlborough’s more modern mode. Also a friend of his opposite Eugene, who he defeated at Denain.

Boufflers was perhaps more very good than great unlike the others listed above. Which was itself something of a distinguishing mark as he recognized his own worth, something rather rare in the status-obsessed court of Louis XIV. He was senior to Villars, but voluntarily demoted himself and served as Villars’ second( with considerably skill ).

Marlborough and Eugene with their larger army technically won the battle and achieved there strategic objective, but the cost was ruinous. Villars, who was well aware of Marlborough’s tendencies as a tactician, had deployed his smaller army perfectly to counter them. He very nearly pulled it off, inflicting twice as many casualties as he took and putting his army in a good position to withdraw intact( under Boufflers ).

*Nationalism was still worth rather less then that it is today compared to dynastic and confessional loyalties. During the War of the Spanish succession you at one point had an English general lead a “French”( multi-national, but French commanded ) army to victory over a French general leading an “English” army in Spain.

I’d nominate the valley of tears in the 1973 Yom Kippur war between Israel and Syria.

Israel was vastly outnumbered and still held their ground. An Israel brigade against an entire Syrian division.