What was the most one-sided, staggering military defeat of all time?

They didn't pursue an offensive incursion into Iraq

as far as "military defeats" go Iraq was soundly beaten

The reason they didn't pursue an offensive incursion is because they mistaken Iraq's army was "soundly beaten" and thought Saddam was gonna collapse soon since he'd lost two thirds of the country.

The Republican Guard didn't lose more than 10% of its tank force. The rest of the army was pretty much militia conscripts which straight up surrendered

Austerlitz.

No, you don't have to look at the political outcomes, you triple nigger lipped asshole.

Thank you for the surrounding politics but, again, the objective was won easily

you may go argue for Muslims in the Crusade thread now

>army surrenders
>"lol we didnt lose tho"
right

>leader of one country loses power
>other leader stays in power

Lol wut Muslims pretty much won all the crusades except for the first one, considering they maintained of Jerusalem practically permanently after the Battle of Hattin, and the crusaders goals to seize Jerusalem never succeeded after that

This one's good for a laugh.

>the british military can only boast of their victories against stick wielding tribals

>(You)

>the English strategically placed that mud there! M-muh longbows!

yeah, stick wielding tribals.

OP was asking for one sided blow-outs.

They had rifles, machine guns, and artillery.

But they were niggers.

So is your wife's son's father.

that one Spanish-French(?) battle where the king removed his armor and charged into the enemy to die, and then the opposing force proceeded to rout the adversary 10 times its own size

behold
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muret

>Montfort divided his army into three squadrons, and then led them across the Garonne to meet the Aragonese forces. Peter's ally and brother-in-law, Count Raymond, advised a defensive posture in order to weaken the advancing enemy with bowshot and javelins. Peter rejected this suggestion as unknightly and dishonorable. King Peter rode to the front line, forsaking his royal armour for the plain armour of a common soldier. His army was disorderly and confused. When Montfort's first squadron charged the field, the Aragonese cavalry was crushed and Peter himself was unhorsed. He cried out, "I am the king!" but was killed regardless. With the realization that their king had been killed, the Aragonese forces broke in panic and fled, pursued by Montfort's Crusaders.

casualties were surely overestimated though

Christ almighty.

There's no way that isn't exaggerated.

France 1940. Germany knocked a major enemy out of the game in only six weeks

I personally like this one.

The article doesn't mention it, but during the invasion Hungary successfully routed a force of 10,000 Mongols and cut them down to a man.

Only a few dozen, yes, dozen Mongols made it back to the homeland once the invasion was deemed a failure. Most of them starving, and with no horses left. They actually attacked nearby ally villages and stole their foodstuffs they were that desperate.

And then, it happened a second time two fucking years later when they invaded Poland.

POLAND
O
L
A
N
D

Fuck, I forgot the image.

Any thoughts on Cannae?

>routed a force of 10,000 Mongols and cut them down to the man

>Only a few dozen, yes, dozen Mongols made it back to the homeland once the invasion was deemed a failure

Where'd you get these numbers?

>POLAND
To be fair, they were a legitimate power.

They were a series of half a dozen sparse duchies.

Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.

I actually place some stock in this because it's got a pretty pro-Mongol bias in a lot of areas. Admitting to two crushing defeats in succession is something Weatherford could have easily omitted.

This was more of a French failure than an English victory, but you have to admit, Agincourt was an astounding battle.