Most humiliating military defeat in history.

Mar 2016
1,106
Australia
#23
Yeah, that makes sense. Interestingly enough, had Henry V lived, he might have been able to sufficiently follow up on his victory at Agincourt to conquer all of France. Of course, he died young and then Joan of Arc showed up and things began to go downhill for England in France.
He did sufficiently follow up his victory at Agincourt, by conquering Normandy in 1417-9, and then taking Paris and being declared the lawful regent and heir to Charles VI. For all intents and purposes he had won the Hundred Years War. It was just a cruel twist of fate that he died young and could not establish his dynasty's rule over France (which he certainly would have been able to do, considering his high level of competence both militarily and politically). Joan of Arc is irrelevant to the English defeat on a large-scale. Without a capable monarch to hold together their lands in France, the English would inevitably lose their support among the French nobility that initially accepted Henry V's regime. This was an era where the influence of a single man - i.e. the monarch - counted for a lot politically. It was solely because of the French civil war that Henry V was able to achieve what he did, and when that was over, and after he'd died, there was nothing stopping the French from retaking their lost lands. Joan was a useful figure head to inspire the army and lift morale in a time of crisis, but she wasn't responsible for retaking lost lands or defeating the English in the field. That credit should be to the French commanders that actually de facto led the armies and planned the campaigns.
 
Likes: Druid
Mar 2018
728
UK
#25
He did sufficiently follow up his victory at Agincourt, by conquering Normandy in 1417-9, and then taking Paris and being declared the lawful regent and heir to Charles VI. For all intents and purposes he had won the Hundred Years War. It was just a cruel twist of fate that he died young and could not establish his dynasty's rule over France (which he certainly would have been able to do, considering his high level of competence both militarily and politically). Joan of Arc is irrelevant to the English defeat on a large-scale. Without a capable monarch to hold together their lands in France, the English would inevitably lose their support among the French nobility that initially accepted Henry V's regime. This was an era where the influence of a single man - i.e. the monarch - counted for a lot politically. It was solely because of the French civil war that Henry V was able to achieve what he did, and when that was over, and after he'd died, there was nothing stopping the French from retaking their lost lands. Joan was a useful figure head to inspire the army and lift morale in a time of crisis, but she wasn't responsible for retaking lost lands or defeating the English in the field. That credit should be to the French commanders that actually de facto led the armies and planned the campaigns.

I think it's misleading to say that Henry V did will in the hundred years war because of a French civil war. The hundred years war *was* a French civil war to begin with, with the culturally French English kings (who swore fealty to the King of France and had a claim to it) being one of the participants.
 
Likes: Druid
Feb 2019
603
Serbia
#26
The battle of the Wabash in the Northwest Indian War, 1791. Also known as St. Clair's Defeat. A confederacy of Great Lakes and Ohio Country Indians utterly whipped and practically destroyed most of the United States Army. The worst whipping the United States took from Indians and probably from anyone.
I would say that the contenders for the ''worst whooping ever'' are also Queenston Heights, Kasserine Pass,Chancellorsville and maybe Bladensburg.

Another humiliating defeat was obviously the Fall of France and the several frigate defeats of the British navy in 1812, the latter not for its strategic significance but because the defeats were an embarrassment at home.

Trafalgar is also a contender for its psychological impact and for Villeneuve personally. It boosted British morale significantly and shocked France and Spain.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,104
#27
Far worse. Over 600 American soldiers killed, about 260 were killed with Custer. And at the Wabash there were probably more soldiers than Indians if you count the militia, many of whom hightailed it, leaving the regulars to stand, fight and die.
Do you have any source for the militia running? There was an order to retreat eventually, which basically meant to run. Many of the casualties were during and after the retreat. The soldiers had to make there way 100+ miles to US controlled territory. There were 97% casualty rates, killed or wounded. I don't think any prisoners were taken. So it seems unlikely that many ran before ordered to.
 
Jan 2018
321
Sturgeon Lake Mn.
#29
Do you have any source for the militia running? There was an order to retreat eventually, which basically meant to run. Many of the casualties were during and after the retreat. The soldiers had to make there way 100+ miles to US controlled territory. There were 97% casualty rates, killed or wounded. I don't think any prisoners were taken. So it seems unlikely that many ran before ordered to.
I'm going from memory. I've read several books on the Northwest Indian War, the best being President Washington's Indian War by Wiley Sword. But I now live fulltime in a motorcoach, travelling the country and I've no access to my books, some of which are in storage but most were sold. I'm a Kindle user now.
 

Similar History Discussions