ITT: Post some of the most epic battles in history

ITT: Post some of the most epic battles in history
gonna start out with an obvious one

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994–95))
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saragarhi
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Achelous_(917)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk#Battle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berestechko
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orsha
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Didgori
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kiev_(1240)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vítkov_Hill
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Stalingrad and Leningrad were pretty sick to pick recent examples. Another recent one was this(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994–95)) battle in Grozny where some Chechens managed to more or less completely destroy a few russian armored brigades.

21 Sikhs under the British Empire vs nearly 10,000 Afghans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saragarhi

The French, who had, from Rocroi in 1643 clear up to 1704, been the world's Super Power. They had enjoyed an uninterrupted record of military success for the last sixty years of the 17th century and couldn't even believe that Marlborough and Eugene, lining up opposite them the morning of August 13th, were actually intending on attacking them.

The French and their allies, the Bavarians, had superior numbers, a superior defensive position, and a far more professional army of veterans. Moreover, they had contempt for the English troops and their hodge-podge of German allies.,their opponents weren't "real soldiers."

Tallard, from his elevated position on the ridge, witnessed all of this in horror. Even though Zurlauben's supporting squadrons (Broglie's brigade) came to the rescue and threw back the now-disorganized English, the unthinkable had happened: Louis XIV's Immortals had been beaten--and beaten badly--by a handful of nobodies. This one incident was probably more than any other is what decided the Battle of Blenheim, and consequently the entire War of the Spanish Succession, and the balance of power in Europe for a century.

Battle of Kursk.

Wrap it up guys you won't get any better then that.

Battle of Achelous 917AD

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Achelous_(917)

>60 000 Byzantiboos
>60 000 Cuckgarians

The romans lost like 90% of their army. If 120 000 people duking out on a field near the sea isn't epic, I don't know what is.

Tiny, overrated battle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald

Battle of Yarmouk 636

A battle about 20,000 Muslims, against 150,000 Romans.

The Muslims won absolutely unbelievable. The Romans lost about 45% of their strength. The Muslims lost about a few thousand.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk#Battle

If the Bulgars wiped out the Byzantine army why didn't they conquer Constantinople?

Because that was only half of the Byzantine army. In the 10th century it numbered 120 000 regulars with 30 000 more mercenaries. Besides the Bulgarians did try to siege Constantinople but their Emperor died of a supposed heart attack during the siege. Anyway yes the battle user posted was quite epic even though the Byzantines lost

I think the battle of Banja Luka was pretty neat

"The muslims were unbelievable"
More like:
"The """""Romans""""" were retarded"

tfw we'll probably never see large numbers of tanks go against each other like Kursk ever again.

tfw we'll probably never see battles on the scale of Kursk ever again, period.

>I read history as I read sport news.

Battle of Mohacs

Pretty much the last time when the fate of a relevant country was decided in a single battle.

It's actually amazing how probably subconsciously most of people on this board downgrade victories of people they dont like. Take the battle of Gaugamela, and the said battle of Yarmouk for example. Alexander wins while being vastly outnubered, due to his great skill at comanding, everybody here flocks to suck his dick, Ibn Walid wins while being vastly outnubered due to his great skill at comanding, everybody starts to talk shit like he wasnt great romans were retarded. It's quite fascinating honestly. Reminds me to not take anything anons here say seriously

Any battle involving Balkan nations and Ottomans fit into this criteria. All of them are "big" blows against Ottomans where Ottoman losses are "heavy" but somehow Ottomans end up winning the control over these countries because their leaders were "fools and had internal conflicts and there were tactical mistakes and this and that"

Iran Iraq war.

Future wars over Syria.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berestechko

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orsha

Hello ahmed

>tfw no Fulda Gap zerg rush

The battle of Shanghai

>crack Chinese German trained troops duking it out with the Japs
>nearly succeed in driving the Japs back into the sea, but they fail to break through the heavily defended dockyard
>it eventually turns into savage urban warfare that drains the Chinese of their best trained and equipped men
>all of this in front of a sprawling international community whose only direct contact with the battle is the sound of artillery fire and the occasional stray Chinese bomb

Oh, and the Chinese did all this while being pounded to shit by Japanese aircraft and (naval) artillery.

I think it's because had the Romans won that battle we probably wouldn't be dealing with a worldwide cancer today.

Love me a Sikh.

Based Marlborough.

No it wasn't. It solidified Henry V and England's victory in the third stage of the English Civil War. Had Henry not died earlier, France would still be ruled by the king of England.

Hello /pol/

Numbers are massively inflated.

>Any battle involving Balkan nations and Ottomans fit into this criteria. All of them are "big" blows against Ottomans where Ottoman losses are "heavy" but somehow Ottomans end up winning the control over these countries because their leaders were "fools and had internal conflicts and there were tactical mistakes and this and that"
That is generally what happens when you have a massive manpower pool that dwarfs that of your opponents.

>massive manpower pool
>Empire stretching across 3 continents
>Sparsely populated
>Most densely populated regions are not the regions who'd have people who are willing to fight against christians
>Only Anatolia is close enough and has enough muslim population
>Somehow there's a massive manpower pool

I seriously don't understand "Ottomans were many, we were valorous" logic of Western version of history.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Didgori

>Most densely populated regions are not the regions who'd have people who are willing to fight against christians
>Only Anatolia is close enough and has enough muslim population
They literally fielded European christians though.

>BUT MUH BORDURS
Not really an issue when you have a strong central authority that takes active steps to gather forces and then move them to where they are needed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis

Imagine how different history could have been, had this turned out different.

>They literally fielded European christians though.
Janissaries weren't a big portion of the army until late Ottoman Empire. They always chose a local opposing leader but it is an exaggeration to claim that they fielded European christians as a major fighting force and relied on them.

>Not really an issue when you have a strong central authority that takes active steps to gather forces and then move them to where they are needed.
I do not understand. So do you think sultan brought soldiers from Egypt and Northern Africa for conquests in Europe? Not really, Ottoman army that marches into Europe is usually small number of Janissaries and large number of sipahis from Anatolia and Turkmens that are resettled in Europe. Ottomans did not have a standing army till early modern times except for Janissaries.

Moreover Ottoman Middle East, Egypt and North Africa enjoyed relative independence for most of the time until the reforms. Government didn't really do much in these regions and they didn't do much in return.

>Janissaries weren't a big portion of the army until late Ottoman Empire
That's great. Again, they literally had European regulars. The Serbian despot alone was forced to provide 1500 armored cavalry for the siege of Constantinople.

You're also ignoring the azaps.

I'm not debating whether they had European soldiers, I'm just saying they were only forces of the local lords they supported and not consistently with the Ottoman army for any purpose.

How am I ignoring Azaps? Aren't they just people they gather as a form of conscription during wartime who are mainly muslims? Are you claiming provinces other than Anatolia sent Azaps for wars in Europe in great numbers?

I still don't see how the Ottoman Empire had a massive manpower advantage.

Because bulgar arrows can't melt theodosian walls

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kiev_(1240)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus'


Pretty much any of the early Mongol Empire vs European armies.

So you call ahmed anyone who happens to view objectivly anything that even slightly envolves islam ?
Back to /pol/ you go faggot

>poorly disguised sandnigger can't even write English
>g-go b-back to /pol/, shitlord

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vítkov_Hill

Battle of Vítkov.

HRE Humiliated by some 150 peasants with farmer weapons.

Also badass Jan Žižka

t. Mahmud

Almost all the christian kingdoms of the peninsula united against the moors in an all or nothing battle, after that the only muslim kingdom left in the peninsula was Grenada, as a castilian vassal.

...