10 Epic Military Last Stands

[Desi Guy]

again if a million people surround 48 people they might lose 100,000 but will easily over run the 48 people. so i am not doubting GOBIND SINGH's claim not even one bit but it is just a slogan & doesn't hold factual truth.

but yes never the less he might have been out numbered 2:1 but 20,000:1 sorry

Yes the number is debatable but it was a lot perhaps like several thousands certainly not like a million in my opinion ..it is also true that all of them were overrun in 2 days and all of them except 2 sikhs and Guru Gobind singh died.
I can find a link of translated version of zafarnamah for you which is a pretty legit source.it explains the whole story of war. Read it carefully. It was a letter written by Guru sahib to aurangjeb after he escaped from Battle of chamakaur. it mentions the number as daha lakha ( 10 lakh) But I guess it represented a huge force as a figure of speech in several thousands rather than 10 lakh.

is there any legit source for your claim

Australitz is mixing two different event which were 50 years apart. the story of 48 vs 1 millions concerns Guru gobind singh and Aurangjeb in 1704 and other one in which 5000 : 20000 concerns deep singh and abdali's forces in 1757.

http://www.zafarnama.com/Download/zafarnama.pdf
read quote 19 to 41

GURESNEH CHI KAR-E KUNAD CHEHAL NAR
KI DEH LAK BAR AAYAD BAR-O BE-KHABA
translated to "What can forty hungry men do, when suddenly ten-lac strong army
pounces upon them?"

 

[Shardul.....the lion]

Somebody asked about Maratha empire its from wikipedia.

Maratha Empire, at its peak, ruled over much of the Indian Subcontinent (modern-day Republic of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as bordering Nepal and Afghanistan). Apart from capturing various regions, the Marathas maintained a large number of tributaries who were bounded by agreement to pay a certain amount of annual tax, known as "Chauth". Apart from capturing the whole Mughal Empire, the Maratha Empire defeated Sultanate of Mysore under Hyder Ali, Nawab of Oudh, Nawab of Bengal, Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Arcot as well as the Polygar kingdoms of South India. They extracted chauth from Delhi, Oudh, Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, Punjab, Hyderabad, Mysore, Uttar Pradesh and Rajput states.[36][37][38]
In 1758, the Maratha Empire expanded its boundary till Afghanistan. They defeated Afghan forces in what is now Pakistan as well as Kashmir. The Afghans were numbered around 25,000-30,000 and were led by Timur Shah, the son of Ahmad Shah Durrani. In April 1758, the Marathas massacred and looted thousands of Afghan soldiers and captured Lahore, Multan, Peshawar, Attock in the Punjab region and Kashmir.[6][15] The Marathas were requested by Safdarjung, the Nawab of Oudh, in 1752 to help him defeat Afghani Rohilla. The Maratha force left Poona and defeated Afghan Rohilla in 1752, capturing the whole of Rohilkhand (present-day northwestern Uttar Pradesh).[39][40]

 

[zzebie]

when did marathas ever capture Punjab? Marathas were defeated by Ahmed Shah Abdali in 3rd battle of Panipat if I remember correctly

and you forgot the infighting...that was the original cause of Mughal downfall, 5 kings in 1 year

Infighting has been the main problem in the subcontinent. Alongwith that, fighting amongst each other, that allowed external forces like the Moghul invaders get a foothold in the subcontinent. Starting right from the days of Alexander, when King Ambi conspired with Alexander to bring down Raja Porus.

 

[Birbal]

"Dalakh" was not meant literally, but figuratively. The 40 Sikhs were surrounded by 700 Mughal cavalry with their artillery, and probably hundreds more infantry: Second battle of Chamkaur Sahib - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

 

[Birbal]

Infighting has been the main problem in the subcontinent. Alongwith that, fighting amongst each other, that allowed external forces like the Moghul invaders get a foothold in the subcontinent. Starting right from the days of Alexander, when King Ambi conspired with Alexander to bring down Raja Porus.

Infighting within empires was a major problem. The main reason for this was the lack of nationalism. Quite simply, soldiers were loyal to their paycheck and their current king rather than to their race, land, culture etc. Thanks to this, wars generally were much more civilized and less brutal, because total war was not common. On the other hand, kingdoms came and went and outside invaders had an easier time conquering the subcontinent.

Of course, we mustn't forget that the subcontinent as a whole rivaled (and still does) all of Europe in size, population, etc.

 

[SherAli]

Tipu Sultan (rahimullah) and his continuous defeat of the british terrorists

 

[SherAli]

also the greatest naval victory in history


Battle of Preveza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

euros bring their whole continent and get backhanded, the typical story

 

[ice_man]

yes because the first ever known ARMY of a million men was the napoloen's army that he lead in to the czar russia!

so i believe it was 40 odd men vs an army of 700 out of which 2 escaped alive. sounds alot more realistic.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Preveza is not as decisive as battle of lepanto[1571] as lepanto ended the ottoman naval threat which had reached its zenith at preveza.
Most decisive naval battles include salamis[greeks vs persians]
Trafalgar.[1805 british vs franco-spanish]
Battle of the atlantic[germans vs allies]
Midway 1942.
Tshushima straits 1904[japan vs russia]

 

[SherAli]

Preveza is not as decisive as battle of lepanto[1571] as lepanto ended the ottoman naval threat which had reached its zenith at preveza.
Most decisive naval battles include salamis[greeks vs persians]
Trafalgar.[1805 british vs franco-spanish]
Battle of the atlantic[germans vs allies]
Midway 1942.
Tshushima straits 1904[japan vs russia]

lol battle of lepanto ... hindu rats worshiping their porker gods again ... the Ottomans rebuilt their fleet immediately after that so it was a minor setback ... Cyrpus was taken immediately after that battle and Tunis was recaptured a few years later ... that battle did nothing to change the balance of power ... the Ottomans were still a serious threat until the 1700s

The Battle of Masts was actually an even greater victory than Preveza as the Roman domination of the Mediterranean was finished

 

[SamBahadur]

hindu rats worshiping their porker gods again

I think the reason for mentioning these words is just an Inferiority complex of you people towards Turks and persians

 

[SherAli]

I think the reason for mentioning these words is just an Inferiority complex of you people towards Turks and persians

OK so you want to admit you have an inferiority complex towards Turks and Persians? Lets be honest and admit that you don't only have an inferiority complexity towards them but many other ethnicities and people as well

 

[Riea]

man sherali why are you insulting Hinduism, you should delete that post # 70.
anyway battle of firaz 15,000 vs 150,000 combined forces of byzentine+persians, now thats insane...

 

[SamBahadur]

i think you people forgot Battle of Saragarhi [ 21 sikhs Vs 10000 Afghans & Orakzais] Battle of Saragarhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

lol battle of lepanto ... hindu rats worshiping their porker gods again ... the Ottomans rebuilt their fleet immediately after that so it was a minor setback ... Cyrpus was taken immediately after that battle and Tunis was recaptured a few years later ... that battle did nothing to change the balance of power ... the Ottomans were still a serious threat until the 1700s

The Battle of Masts was actually an even greater victory than Preveza as the Roman domination of the Mediterranean was finished

Typically noobish comment from an amateur with no grasp of the realities of war.
The ottoman navy lost 20000-30000 skilled veteran sailors and marines.The rebuilding of the ships didn't change that.Ulugh ali would never again challenge the european fleet in open battle because he was not confident in the ability of the raw recruits manning his new fleet against don juan's veterans.Most critical were the ottomans loss of highly specialized composite bowmen which were their best embarked forces.
Infact after 1580 the dispirited ottomans left their new built fleet to rot in the waters of the horn.
Also the fact that it was the first major ottoman naval defeat since the fifteenth century.

Lepanto was thus decisive.

Yes masts was a decisive battle.Another decisive victory[land] is manzikert roman empire vs turks.