Yo /his/ what are some battles in history which are just like whoa dude, like major upsets where one side should of clearly won but ultimately lost? Im fascinated when you see old ways of fighting just completely outdone by the advancement of technology those times you just see the most horrific casualties and battles and losses for both sides. And how they change tactics to make it more fair at all levels. Pic related.
Is Gettysburg really related to what you seek? A numerically superior Union force held good ground and the main assault of the Confederates was not particularly well organized. Does not sound like an upset to me, or a scenario where the losing side should have clearly won.
>>419390
WW2 Germany
>>419390
Cannae is a pretty classic example. They should have been able to arm that mass of legionaries with canoe paddles and bludgeoned the Carthaginians into submission, but nope. Out strategy'd.
And the casualties were something special, too. Like that many people weren't killed that quickly in battle again until like WW1.
All the more astounding that those hook-nosed bastards came back and won in the end, the absolute madmen.
>>419436
I disagree what you saw in Gettysburg was a well trained force effectively repel a larger and more aggressive force. What i find interesting is that early in the war the Union was getting there ass kicked.Reason was they where losing was because they where on the attack originally. Imagine you are some line trooper marching into the fucking meat grinder. What you saw was modern technology completely surpassing 17th century tactics and one proving vastly superior to the other. Reason being was the Smokeless powered and mini ball allowed defending troops to get off 3 or 4 more volleys then the advancing troops.
>>419450
>Gettysburg was a well trained force effectively repel a larger and more aggressive force
??? the Union fielded some 15 or 20k troops more at Gettysburg...
But regardless, it held good defensive ground and repelled an assault - hardly an example of "one side should have clearly won"...
>>419463
Eh the way the Union was cycling through generals at the time made it a turning point. The Union found something and someone that worked. But at the same time it was the high tide of the confederacy and that is saying something.
With the right amount of context, I don't think
> battles in history which are just like whoa dude, like major upsets where one side should of clearly won but ultimately lost
Can even exist.
I can't think of any examples that can't be logically clarified with more context.
>>419447
Only the discipline of the Celtic infantry gave that victory to the genius Hannibal.
>>419487
Thats the point though how come we as a species see what is and wasn't outdated and sent Hundreds of thousands to die? Its kinda fucked if you think about it.
Your best bets are probably Mongol and Ottoman invasions of Europe, the Great Northern War, the Franco-Prussian war, and the Italo-Ethiopian war.
>>419390
battle of carrhae
>>419390
Really any battle which one side destroys the others numbers win or loss.
Muret
We can stop the thread here, literally nothing else will compare
>>419527
Finland vs Russia.
>>419463
Yes, terrain dictates the battle.
Failure to take Little Round Top and Culp's Hill eventually doomed the Confederate effort.
>>419390
The 1990-91 Gulf War
>>419619
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
Emu war
>>419390
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cochin_(1504)
European carrack is best carrack
>>419499
>the Franco-Prussian war
How?
>>420398
I wouldn't say it was a case of "one side should have clearly won" but I can see where he is coming from, funnily enough, French infantry was doing tactically very, very well against their German counterparts - but ultimately it was the operational failures (and Prussian artillery) that decided the day.
>>420405
The French never really stood a chance
The German army was bigger and technologically more advanced
I'd say the war was lost the moment Napoleon III was fooled into declaring war on a country more powerful than hiS because he vastly underestimated it.
>>420415
>technologically more advanced
in artillery, yes
in small arms, no
