Most Heroic Last Stand Ever

[LWD]

...
That's not to denegrate the abilitis of the Plains Indians, they were very good light cavalry, but the best in the world in the C19th? Highly unlikely. There are many other credible contenders.....

Given the quote I would think it restricted to the latter half of the 19th century perhaps the 20 or so years preceding the quote. Given that and that it was a period where cav in general and light cav in particular were becoming less useful in warfare perhaps it has some merit. Who are the other contenders?

[Inselaffe]

Given the quote I would think it restricted to the latter half of the 19th century perhaps the 20 or so years preceding the quote. Given that and that it was a period where cav in general and light cav in particular were becoming less useful in warfare perhaps it has some merit. Who are the other

I would suggest the Cossacks, still an important element of the Russian Imperial Army in the later C19th and indeed on into the WWI period. Like the Plains Indians, a product of an equestrian culture with a strong military ethos and a tradition of toughness, however, they were almost certainly better organised and equipped as a result of long contact with more developed armies.

Or the French Colonial Spahi raised in North Africa, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spahi ,good light cavalry with a reputation for horsemanship and toughness. Also known to be hard to control and sometimes mutinous, as was often the case with units of this type!

Cheers.

[finnguy]

1. Battle of Berlin 1945
2. Alamo 1836
3. Battle of Camaron 1863
4. Pasir Panjang 1942
5. Siege of Bastonge 1944

[Polynikes]

Major Marcus Reno's opinion:
"The Indians are the best light cavalry in the world. I have seen pretty nearly all of them, and I do not except even the Cossacks."
http://www.astonisher.com/archives/muse ... _horn.html

General Anson Mills' opinion:
"These Indians were most hideous, every one being painted in most hideous colors and designs, stark naked, except their moccasins, breech clouts and head gear, the latter consisting of feathers and horns, some of the horses being also painted, and the Indians proved then and there that they were the best cavalry soldiers on earth. In charging up towards us they exposed little of their person, hanging on with one arm around the neck and one leg over the horse firing and lancing from undernearth the horses' necks, so that there was no part of the Indian at which to aim."
http://www.astonisher.com/archives/muse ... st_cavalry

Steve, I'm not sure Reno's opinion has that much credibility, leaving aside the rumors and drunkeness, he hardly had extensive military experience.

Not sure what experience Anson had but in both cases they seem to confuse horsemanship with light cavalry excellence.

The plains indians were not soldiers so it's hard to classify them by orthodox terms, certainly they rode on horeback and certainly they were expert riders but you would say this of dozens of Asiatic and Arab tribes over the centuries.

Since the indian could not or would not form cohesive military organisations, they were incapable of performing cavalry tasks since to do so would require at least the basic understanding of military organisation.

They were poorly armed (generally), un-trained, un-supplied (the large indian gatherings had to disperse after a short while due to food supply exhaustion), un-organised...
They were hamstrung with a complete basic inability to grasp the concept of warfare as fought by the European and couple that with a set of superstituions that kept them in camp at night.

Sure they knew their own land intimately and moved across it far more freely than any soldier but when it came to battle, a soldier followed orders and, if he didn't fancy it, the indian went home.

They were easy to beat and had Custer waited and attacked in concert with other US army units, he would never have been beaten - he was beaten no by superior cavalry skill but overwhleming numbers.

[john50]

by AAA on 15 Mar 2005, 20:37

Ah, weren't the brits at Gandamak hopelessly surrounded, with no choice not to fight, with no hope to surrender or receive mercy on capture?

nope, the afghans offered a surrender, and recieved the reply "not bloody likely", the british didn't have to, but were prepared to fight to the death. in the end only 2 british survived.

[doogal]

How can one last stand be greater than another> by what measure do you compare the merits of a camerone and a rourkes drift a bastogne or any other action. How many single soldiers fought with no hope of rescue survival or victory in the face of insurmountable odds?????????????????
Why should defensive or offensive actions make a difference orwho was right or wrong?
each of the instances brought up in this thread have been acted out ten fold over the thousands of recorded and unrecorded years when battle has taken place.
There is no greatest last stand they are all great and different and relevant on equal terms.


Doogal

[TISO]

How can one last stand be greater than another> by what measure do you compare the merits of a camerone and a rourkes drift a bastogne or any other action. How many single soldiers fought with no hope of rescue survival or victory in the face of insurmountable odds?????????????????
Why should defensive or offensive actions make a difference orwho was right or wrong?
each of the instances brought up in this thread have been acted out ten fold over the thousands of recorded and unrecorded years when battle has taken place.
There is no greatest last stand they are all great and different and relevant on equal terms.


Doogal

I'll second that.

[doogal]

THANK YOU TISO.

I believe that in General we have a tendency to rate or measure the unmeasurable in an attempt to draw from it those emotive concepts which sum up the human in combat.
Each action referred to in this thread are amazing moments in time into which our imaginationm roams, once drawn to the history of warfare we disect each moment re-visiting its grim or beautifull ending.
I thank the stars for the enjoyment we find from this and enjoy honouring all those who have fought lived and died by making sure that i am factually correct.
Thanyou for this websire it aids the imaginitve and structural drawing of our History.


Doogal

[Polynikes]

How can one last stand be greater than another> by what measure do you compare the merits of a camerone and a rourkes drift a bastogne or any other action. How many single soldiers fought with no hope of rescue survival or victory in the face of insurmountable odds?????????????????
Why should defensive or offensive actions make a difference orwho was right or wrong?
each of the instances brought up in this thread have been acted out ten fold over the thousands of recorded and unrecorded years when battle has taken place.
There is no greatest last stand they are all great and different and relevant on equal terms.


Doogal

Some are greater than others because the defenders prevail against the odds - like Rorke's Drift and Kohima.

There is more to succesful defensive actions than just the courage of the ordinary soldiers.

[teg]

I think that one of the most heroci last stands in history was the defence of Kozelsk in 1238. Several hundreds Russian militiamen for 49 days defended its wooden walls against 50 000 Mongols. Mongol sources called Kozelsk "Evil city"!