Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 178

Thread: History's Greatest Military Defeats

  1. #76
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Kansas Bear View Post
    "1914, December 29. Battle of Sarikamish. The Turkish advance toward Kars was halted and rebuffed with severe losses by Russian General Vorontsov. The struggle here continued as the year ended." -- "The Encyclopedia of Military History 4th Edition", by Dupuy, p 1036.

    "1915, January 1-3 Battle of Sarikamish(continued) Russian General Vorontsov, with about 100K men, lay in the vicinity of Kars to oppose Enver's advance. The Turk's dream of a wide envelopment of the Russians was spoiled by a Russian counterattack, which smashed his(Enver's) army. The Turks lost 30,000 dead, while thousands more froze to death in retreat." -- "The Encyclopedia of Military History 4th Edition", by Dupuy, p1047.

    of course there was some little battles but the major Turkish force send there was frozen at all. because of the wrong equipment/clothing etc.

    what i am tried to say the majority of the Turkish losses are because of the cold weather. and our historians says it was 70 000 men lost, not 30 000...??

    i am not trying to underestimate Russians, maybe if there was no cold Russian could gain a victory, maybe not..

    "The number of Turkish losses is unknown, estimates range from 175,000 dead out of an army of 190,000 to a low of 60,000 dead out of an army of 90,000 (Turkish sources). It is very likely that the majority of Turkish soldiers died because of inadequate winter clothing and field shelters during the attack and retreat. In any event, this was an extraordinarily costly defeat for the Turks; in losses this was the worst single defeat they suffered in the entire war. The Russian casualties were estimated at 35,000 (Turkish sources)."

    from wikipedia.
    Last edited by Big K; 09 May 07, at 17:15.
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  2. #77
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,503
    Gallipoli again because of this;


    Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets where they lie side by side here in this country of ours… You the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. Having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

    Mustafa Kemal ATATURK.

    that's another argument about the greatness of the defeat in Gallipoli(Gelibolu in Turkish)
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  3. #78
    WAB Resident Historian Senior Contributor Kansas Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jul 06
    Location
    Talisker distillery
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Big K View Post
    of course there was some little battles but the major Turkish force send there was frozen at all. because of the wrong equipment/clothing etc.

    what i am tried to say the majority of the Turkish losses are because of the cold weather. and our historians says it was 70 000 men lost, not 30 000...??

    i am not trying to underestimate Russians, maybe if there was no cold Russian could gain a victory, maybe not..

    "The number of Turkish losses is unknown, estimates range from 175,000 dead out of an army of 190,000 to a low of 60,000 dead out of an army of 90,000 (Turkish sources). It is very likely that the majority of Turkish soldiers died because of inadequate winter clothing and field shelters during the attack and retreat. In any event, this was an extraordinarily costly defeat for the Turks; in losses this was the worst single defeat they suffered in the entire war. The Russian casualties were estimated at 35,000 (Turkish sources)."

    from wikipedia.
    From your wikipedia source.....


    Sources
    Tucker, Spencer. The Great War: 1914-18 (1998) ISBN 0-253-21171-9
    Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace, pp. 120-121. Avon Books.
    Compton's Home Library: Battles of the World CD-ROM
    T.N. Dupuy's Encyclopedia of Military History (many editions)
    ISBN 0-89839-296-9, Caucasian Battlefields: A History Of The Wars On The Turco-Caucasian Border 1828-1921

    I don't see ANY turkish sources listed.

  4. #79
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Kansas Bear View Post
    From your wikipedia source.....

    I don't see ANY turkish sources listed.
    Battle of Sarıkamış - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    no it was the English-one,

    and about the sources, my statements are worser than yours why do we need sources?

    OK thanks for your sources but whats the point of proving it?

    oh by the way:heres the SOURCES OF MY WIKIPEDIA:

    Sources

    * Tucker, Spencer. The Great War: 1914-18 (1998) ISBN 0-253-21171-9
    * Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace, pp. 120-121. Avon Books.
    * Compton's Home Library: Battles of the World CD-ROM
    * T.N. Dupuy's Encyclopedia of Military History (many editions)
    * ISBN 0-89839-296-9, Caucasian Battlefields: A History Of The Wars On The Turco-Caucasian Border 1828-1921
    * [1]

    but the thing is, why i am sensing a little harsh from you?
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  5. #80
    WAB Resident Historian Senior Contributor Kansas Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jul 06
    Location
    Talisker distillery
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Big K View Post
    Battle of SarıkamıŸ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    no it was the English-one,

    and about the sources, my statements are worser than yours why do we need sources?
    You don't have any sources. Only what wikipedia has provided. After singling out my post that was 4 MONTHS OLD all you can produce is some weak a$$ wikipedia reference and ZERO sources on your part? Why single out my post when you had NO proof to refute it? "Why am I sensing harsh from you?"

    OK thanks for your sources but whats the point of proving it?
    Documented facts and where to find them and who wrote it.

    oh by the way:heres the SOURCES OF MY WIKIPEDIA:

    Sources

    * Tucker, Spencer. The Great War: 1914-18 (1998) ISBN 0-253-21171-9
    * Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace, pp. 120-121. Avon Books.
    * Compton's Home Library: Battles of the World CD-ROM
    * T.N. Dupuy's Encyclopedia of Military History (many editions)
    * ISBN 0-89839-296-9, Caucasian Battlefields: A History Of The Wars On The Turco-Caucasian Border 1828-1921
    * [1]
    Which are exactly what I already posted for the wikipedia site you copy and pasted.

    but the thing is, why i am sensing a little harsh from you?
    Posting documented evidence is being harsh? That's amusing.

    Why I am sensing BS from you?
    Last edited by Kansas Bear; 10 May 07, at 08:01.

  6. #81
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Kansas Bear View Post
    You don't have any sources. Only what wikipedia has provided. After singling out my post that was 4 MONTHS OLD all you can produce is some weak a$$ wikipedia reference and ZERO sources on your part? Why single out my post when you had NO proof to refute it? "Why am I sensing harsh from you?"



    Documented facts and where to find them and who wrote it.



    Which are exactly what I already posted for the wikipedia site you copy and pasted.



    Posting documented evidence is being harsh? That's amusing.

    Why I am sensing BS from you?
    first whats a BS?

    then we are saying almost the same thing, i dont say that Turks didnt lost their soldiers during combats, just the majority of them lost because of cold...

    and we are talking on the same sources? whats the difference between us?

    i tried to say battle of sarikamis is more like a military expedition than a military operation. Turks was lost already most of their soldiers without any fight took place.

    and

    Russians were well organised and planned and even these lost soldiers were there maybe they can be successful....

    i dont want to argue with you because of these slight differences,

    by the way i only looked at wikipedia cause it was easier and faster and non Turkish, now i ll find some other sources to show.
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  7. #82
    WAB Resident Historian Senior Contributor Kansas Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jul 06
    Location
    Talisker distillery
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Big K View Post
    oh by the way:heres the SOURCES OF MY WIKIPEDIA:

    Sources
    * Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace, pp. 120-121. Avon Books.
    Thank you. You've proven my point!


    "The remnants of what had once been an army straggled back into eastern Turkey in Jan 1915. Of the perhaps 100,000 men who took part in the attack, 86 percent were lost. A German officer attached to the Ottoman General Staff described what happened to the Third Army by saying that it had "suffered a disaster which for rapidity and completeness is without parallel in military history."" -- "A Peace to End All Peace", p 121, by David Fromkin.

    Which is the topic of this thread.

  8. #83
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Kansas Bear View Post
    Thank you. You've proven my point!


    "The remnants of what had once been an army straggled back into eastern Turkey in Jan 1915. Of the perhaps 100,000 men who took part in the attack, 86 percent were lost. A German officer attached to the Ottoman General Staff described what happened to the Third Army by saying that it had "suffered a disaster which for rapidity and completeness is without parallel in military history."" -- "A Peace to End All Peace", p 121, by David Fromkin.

    Which is the topic of this thread.
    yes i ve already read it.

    i totally agree with the author, my point was majority of this losses were not in the combat sequence... but this is not changing the disaster...

    and my family lived this...
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  9. #84
    Banned deadkenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 05
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Big K View Post
    yes i ve already read it.

    i totally agree with the author, my point was majority of this losses were not in the combat sequence... but this is not changing the disaster...

    and my family lived this...
    BigK, I guess the 'problem' that Kansas, and many others, have with your comments (and those of many of the other Turkish contributors) is that you seem to always play up Turkish successes and down play Turkish defeats in an extremely biased and unapologetic manner. Regarding the Battle of Sarikamish, it sounds like the Turks took heavy losses (30,000?) in the actual fighting, and then even heavier losses from the cold in the ensuing retreat. But your initial comments appeared to dismiss the fighting and simply characterized the losses as due to the cold. Well, 30,000 is a hefty loss, which is not diminished by the fact that losses to the cold were even greater. Further it seems that the losses from the cold were even greater due to the precipitate retreat, which itself was a result of the fighting. The fact that many losses were due to the weather does not make this any less of a crushing Turkish defeat than it does make Napoleon's invasion of Russia less of a crushing defeat of the French.

    Regarding your comments on Gallipoli, it seems that you are reading the word 'greatest' in a different way from which it was intended. Although the Turks clearly defeated the Allies, in the sense that the Allies were stopped and thereby failed in their mission - it was hardly a 'crushing' defeat. The forces involved were relatively small and losses were not significant compared to the losses sustained in the major offensives on the western front in France.

    As has already been mentioned, the Allies did not support the Greeks in the post WWI fighting for possession of western Anatolia. No doubt the Turks were largely victorious, and did mitigate many of the harsh terms the Allies attempted to 'impose' on Turkey. However, it is not accurate to portray this as a 'military' defeat of the Allies by the Turks. It was a military victory over the Greeks, and possibly a 'political' victory over the Allies, as the Allies were unwilling to fight to impose terms on the Turks that were largely to the benefit of the Greeks. If the Turks had attempted to regain Syria or Iraq for themselves, it would have been a very different story.

    I can appreciate that you, and other Turks, wish to bring a 'Turkish' perspective to this forum. However, if you want to have any credibility, why don't you stop trying to belittle legimate Turkish defeats and raise your own valid points about Turkish victories. E.g. why no mention of the early victories of the Ottoman empire? What about the capture of Constantinople in 1453?

  10. #85
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by deadkenny View Post
    BigK, I guess the 'problem' that Kansas, and many others, have with your comments (and those of many of the other Turkish contributors) is that you seem to always play up Turkish successes and down play Turkish defeats in an extremely biased and unapologetic manner. Regarding the Battle of Sarikamish, it sounds like the Turks took heavy losses (30,000?) in the actual fighting, and then even heavier losses from the cold in the ensuing retreat. But your initial comments appeared to dismiss the fighting and simply characterized the losses as due to the cold. Well, 30,000 is a hefty loss, which is not diminished by the fact that losses to the cold were even greater. Further it seems that the losses from the cold were even greater due to the precipitate retreat, which itself was a result of the fighting. The fact that many losses were due to the weather does not make this any less of a crushing Turkish defeat than it does make Napoleon's invasion of Russia less of a crushing defeat of the French.
    yes, i didnt deny a fact, having a loss of 30 000 means "heavy losses" i didnt deny it any moment. if you remember Kansas and i mentioned about the same sources

    in Turkey we call it "Sarikamis Faciasi" means "Disaster of Sarikamis" not the defeat

    i ve tried to attract the attention to the Turkish Point of wiew. we think that we even have chance to fight properly, thats why i sad this was not a defeat, a disaster...

    about down playing/up playing, i've never did it in this forum, please check all of my posts. i've especially paid attention for not to make it.

    even in Gallipoli issue i've tried to attract attentions to the friendship. not to our victory.
    Last edited by Big K; 14 May 07, at 09:11.
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  11. #86
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by deadkenny View Post

    Regarding your comments on Gallipoli, it seems that you are reading the word 'greatest' in a different way from which it was intended. Although the Turks clearly defeated the Allies, in the sense that the Allies were stopped and thereby failed in their mission - it was hardly a 'crushing' defeat. The forces involved were relatively small and losses were not significant compared to the losses sustained in the major offensives on the western front in France.
    in that battle we fought against the Allied NAVY and ground forces at the same time, only this makes it "great"

    during the landing there was some squads stopping a whole brigade etc.

    Allied planning was also a "great" blunder

    i tried to look from an other angle. wasnt it nice?

    i tried to be different, instead of saying we gained victory yes it was a defeat for Allies etc. we dont need to underline these.

    i sad this is "great" because a friendship was born from this.

    from my point of wiew, war is not a GREAT thing neither a victory or a defeat, it simply shows our insolvency, weaknesses etc.

    if a battle caused a friendship it can be the most "great" thing about a battle.

    isnt it a good point?

    http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/his...tml#post372746

    Quote Originally Posted by deadkenny View Post
    As has already been mentioned, the Allies did not support the Greeks in the post WWI fighting for possession of western Anatolia. No doubt the Turks were largely victorious, and did mitigate many of the harsh terms the Allies attempted to 'impose' on Turkey. However, it is not accurate to portray this as a 'military' defeat of the Allies by the Turks. It was a military victory over the Greeks, and possibly a 'political' victory over the Allies, as the Allies were unwilling to fight to impose terms on the Turks that were largely to the benefit of the Greeks. If the Turks had attempted to regain Syria or Iraq for themselves, it would have been a very different story.
    well, i've never wrote about this. but i think this is a good time to mention,

    of course there was no British soldier phsically, but all the equipment of Greek army was supported by Brits. wasnt it?

    Quote Originally Posted by deadkenny View Post
    I can appreciate that you, and other Turks, wish to bring a 'Turkish' perspective to this forum. However, if you want to have any credibility, why don't you stop trying to belittle legimate Turkish defeats and raise your own valid points about Turkish victories. E.g. why no mention of the early victories of the Ottoman empire? What about the capture of Constantinople in 1453?
    two things:

    1- i've never tried to belittle legitimate defeat, if you read carefully you can see that i' ve already sad maybe the Russians can easily defeat us even our soldiers werent lost because of cold, thats not the point, my point was: the majority of losses were because of cold, they didnt fight, without fight i think this was not a "military defeat" like "Battle of Kursk" for exemple. dont you agree with me?

    2- i did not mentioned about Ottoman victories(and a lot of defeats) because i dont want to seen chauvenistic, i just say the truths and let the others appreciate it. most uf westerners are thinking about us like "ferocious warriors, a nation of war etc." iwanted to show a different side of Turkish people.

    regards,

    Big K
    Last edited by Big K; 14 May 07, at 10:01.
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  12. #87
    Contributor snc128's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Nov 06
    Posts
    657
    1-conquest of Istanbul in 1453
    2-Mohach war 29 august 1526.(only 2 hours)
    3-the war of ayn-ı calut in 1260(1st and biggest defeat of mongolians)
    4-the war of gaugamela(arbela) BC 331
    5-Trafalgal war
    6-the war of Talas in 751
    kenan2action speaks louder than words

  13. #88
    Banned deadkenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 05
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Big K View Post
    i sad this is "great" because a friendship was born from this.

    from my point of wiew, war is not a GREAT thing neither a victory or a defeat, it simply shows our insolvency, weaknesses etc.

    if a battle caused a friendship it can be the most "great" thing about a battle.

    isnt it a good point?
    As I said, you're simply reading the meaning of 'great' in a different way than what I believe was intended. Otherwise I'm not really disagreeing with what you've said about Gallipoli. Part of the reason it was such a 'half-@ssed' effort on the part of the Allies was that they didn't have much respect for the Turks or their fighting abilities before the landing. I believe that the Allies that fought there at least did end up respecting the fighting ability of the Turks by the end of it though.


    Quote Originally Posted by Big K View Post
    well, i've never wrote about this. but i think this is a good time to mention,

    of course there was no British soldier phsically, but all the equipment of Greek army was supported by Brits. wasnt it?
    Well I suppose, but the Greeks fought on the side of the Allies during WWI, so it's not too surprizing that they would have Allied (British) equipment. But that doesn't make it a military defeat of Britain anymore than the IDF defeating Egypt and Syria was a defeat of the Soviet Union because the Arabs were using Soviet equipment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Big K View Post
    two things:

    1- i've never tried to belittle legitimate defeat, if you read carefully you can see that i' ve already sad maybe the Russians can easily defeat us even our soldiers werent lost because of cold, thats not the point, my point was: the majority of losses were because of cold, they didnt fight, without fight i think this was not a "military defeat" like "Battle of Kursk" for exemple. dont you agree with me?
    No, I don't agree with you. The Turks were 'defeated' in fighting, suffering heavy losses (30,000) due to the fighting. Then they were forced to retreat, due to the fighting. During the retreat they suffered even heavier losses due to the cold weather. That is very much a military defeat in my book. Obviously troops will find shelter from the cold, even lacking proper equipment, if they aren't moving. If forced to retreat, then they are forced to move and be exposed to the elements. So the retreat plus the cold is what killed many, not just the cold itself. The Germans in '41 and the French in 1812 suffered from the cold during the Russian winter - but they were still 'great' military defeats.

  14. #89
    FreeGeneral Senior Contributor Big K's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Dec 06
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey, Turkey
    Posts
    2,503
    Quote Originally Posted by deadkenny View Post
    I believe that the Allies that fought there at least did end up respecting the fighting ability of the Turks by the end of it though.
    you still miss the point my friend. i believe it is waste of time to argue each other.

    consider yourself right, i dont want to discuss these anymore thanks a lot.
    Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

  15. #90
    New Member juanjux's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jul 07
    Location
    Madrid
    Posts
    16
    Battle of Cartagena de Indias

    This battle probably is unknow to most of you for the reasons you'll see below. if the Spanish Lezo's (one eye, one hand, one leg, truly a man of his time!) troops would have lost to the British biggest fleet in history until Normandy, now probably most south america would be speaking english. It was a very hard strike to UK aspirations, who never tought to lose; they even made coins celebrating the victory before knowing they had lost.

    Battle of Cartagena de Indias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And as the wikipedia says:

    When news of the embarrassing outcome of the battle reached London some weeks later, the British government removed these medals and prohibited the bad news from being spoken about. This censorship was so systematic and successful that the Battle of Cartagena is hardly mentioned in British history books, and even today the only reliable sources of this event are Spanish and Colombian texts.
    So here is a much better description of the battle, but in spanish:

    Sitio de Cartagena de Indias - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

    Take a look also to Lezo bio, a not very known hero with a very interesting life:

    Blas de Lezo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Last edited by juanjux; 07 Jul 07, at 17:14.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Military Uses for Space
    By Ironduke in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03 Oct 07,, 05:14
  2. Russian Military Doctrine
    By rickusn in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 216
    Last Post: 12 Feb 07,, 22:28
  3. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20 Nov 06,, 15:28
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05 Nov 06,, 14:42
  5. China's Changing Military Ideology
    By Frank Zhou in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03 May 06,, 23:58

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •