Most humiliating military defeat in your countries history

I wouldn't be surprised if Alcibiades already mentioned it.

The Battle of Stephaniana. The first - or second? - battle between us and the Turks.

Our cavalry was chasing after the Turks who ran away to the top of the hill. Since the hill was such that they couldn't use horses, they decided to leave the horses and go after the Turks on foot. When they reached the top, the Turks went down, took the horses, our boys followed them, were butchered, and the Turks left for home singing.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg"]Benny Hill Theme - YouTube[/ame]

Cavanboy said:

It was a success in getting his army destroyed.

Click to expand...

I see what you did there

For me it was Bladensburg in the War of 1812. When US forces were forced to retreat due to the Chinese intervention in the Korean war is also a pretty bad defeat.

The US outnumbered the British at Bladensburg and just after the first British line pushed through the American forces scattered in a big retreat, more like race back to Washington. Had the US troops managed to keep calm and regroup, they would've easily had a chance to stop or at least slow down the British invasion.

america's most embarrassing defeat CUSTER'S LAST STAND

For my country i think the battle of Curuypaiti 10.000 brazilian soldiers 10.000 argentines and 18 warships of the brazlian imperial navy atacked 5.000 paraguayns entrenched in Curuypaiti, Paraguayans lost 49 dead,Brazil nearly 2.000

Seems those from the UK. do not tend to mention the major defeat they suffered in 1741 after trying for 67 days to capture the City of Cartagena in present day Colombia. It was called the Battle of Cartagena de Indias. The Spanish were greatly outnumbered by the British. The British naval fleet was one of the largest ever seen. Soldiers included British American colonial force. A relative of General Washington was part of the British American colonial forces.

Should mention that they were so sure they would win that coims were ordered made in advance of the coming British victory. After this great defeat the British skillfuly swept the whole thing under the rug.

The commander of the Spanish forces was the famous basque Blas de Lezo. There is a statue of him in current day Cartagena.


Another major battle lost by the British was the Battle of San Juan in 1797 on the Spanish held island of Puerto Rico. The British expected it to be easy picking like Trinidad. The invasion involved a large British naval fleet against an outnumbered Spanish military force. Seems the Spanish expected a major attack in the neighboring island of Spanish Hispaniola and so had moved most of there regular Spanish troops from Puerto Rico to that island.

When it came to attacking PR, the British were overwhelmed in the end by local town militias and ordinary civilians from all over the island which had come to defend the Capital city. Many were just armed with machetes and other farm tools. In the end, the British after two weeks hurriedly retreated. The cannons they left behind were melted down and a statue of Juan Ponce de Leon was made. That statue can still be seen today.

And lets not forget Napoleons troops that were defeated by the Haitian people when Napoleion launched the Leclerc expedition in 1801. In two years his troops were defeated. Before that in 1798, the British, Spanish and Haitian had been allied against the French on that island. But when the French gave freedom to the Haitian people they started fighting the British. At that point, the British had the French close to defeat on that island. In the end the British got out since they could not cope with the Haitian quagmire. They were losing many troops to attacks and tropical diseases and it was costing plenty.

Epix said:

Seems those from the UK. do not tend to mention the major defeat they suffered in 1741 after trying for 67 days to capture the City of Cartagena in present day Colombia. It was called the Battle of Cartagena de Indias. The Spanish were greatly outnumbered by the British. The British naval fleet was one of the largest ever seen. Soldiers included British American colonial force. A relative of General Washington was part of the British American colonial forces.

Should mention that they were so sure they would win that coims were ordered made in advance of the coming British victory. After this great defeat the British skillfuly swept the whole thing under the rug.

The commander of the Spanish forces was the famous basque Blas de Lezo. There is a statue of him in current day Cartagena.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the war of Jenkins ear. Not the most notable of British wars.

I think a great deal of the deaths on either side can be attributed to disease and malnutrition, including the later death of the Spanish leader, whom died of plague later that year.

I think it should be pointed out, that the leader of the British expedition, Lord Cathcart, died en route to the islands, so the expedition had no overall leader in the end, and also, the Naval leader, Vernon, was against an attack on the island because of the prospect of disease, which was ignored anyhow. The leader of the American colonists also died early through disease.

The Spanish were better organised in the end, at the sharper points of the engagements, and less confused.

Another major battle lost by the British was the Battle of San Juan in 1797 on the Spanish held island of Puerto Rico. The British expected it to be easy picking like Trinidad. The invasion involved a large British naval fleet against an outnumbered Spanish military force. Seems the Spanish expected a major attack in the neighboring island of Spanish Hispaniola and so had moved most of there regular Spanish troops from Puerto Rico to that island.

When it came to attacking PR, the British were overwhelmed in the end by local town militias and ordinary civilians from all over the island which had come to defend the Capital city. Many were just armed with machetes and other farm tools. In the end, the British after two weeks hurriedly retreated. The cannons they left behind were melted down and a statue of Juan Ponce de Leon was made. That statue can still be seen today.

Click to expand...

There were also places like Buenos Aires, where the British were defeated in urban combat, bu the Argentine natives, despite having experienced troops fighting over there. The conditions of the battle and the rabitity in defence were not expected by the British.

I think we also need to take into account, that battling for Carribean Islands was not ana easy business, and due to disease, carried extremely major risks to operate in. Lets not also forget the Nelsons failure in the battle of Tenerife, where he had very bold and aggressive plans to capture the island, but was undone by a bit of bad luck and expert fire by the Spanish (who were led by an exceptionally talented general, and were very chivalrous with the British, from what is known). Nelson lost his arm in this battle.

What must be stated though, is that although their was difficulties and defeats in some of these Carribean Islands, there was also alot of success , as Britain mastered amphibious warfare. During the back end of the war of seven years war, when Spain declared war on Britain, their poesessions in the Carribean and some closer to home were deimated by the British combined operations, and swept aside.

And lets not forget Napoleons troops that were defeated by the Haitian people when Napoleion launched the Leclerc expedition in 1801. In two years his troops were defeated. Before that in 1798, the British, Spanish and Haitian had been allied against the French on that island. But when the French gave freedom to the Haitian people they started fighting the British. At that point, the British had the French close to defeat on that island. In the end the British got out since they could not cope with the Haitian quagmire. They were losing many troops to attacks and tropical diseases and it was costing plenty.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Yellow fever was the victor of those battles.

Some notable Canadian defeats are:

The Battle of Hong Kong (1941) - A significant number of Canadian troops fought in this battle and there is some argument about how well they performed. Many of the Canadian soldiers did not have much field experience before arriving in Hong Kong.

Dieppe (1942) - Recently held anniversary events, show that this battle still looms large in the Canadian historical conscience. For Canadians the failures of Dieppe raid are always mentioned along side the successes of D Day.

The Battle of the Thames (War of 1812) - Resulting in the death of Chief Tecumseh and a serious weakening of the alliance between British (Canadian) Forces and the Native American coalition.

The Battle of York (War of 1812) - Not strategically important the burning and looting of York (Toronto) is still embarrassing (though some Canadians would argue it was an improvement.)

Battle of the Plains of Abraham (1759 - Seven Years War) - The French troops and the Canadian population of Quebec City after being under siege for 3 months managed to lose sight of the British invaders long enough to be totally outmaneuvered.

Lesser defeat - Battle of Montgomery's Tavern (1837) A rebellion in Upper Canada that was put down quicker than any revolutionary insurrection anywhere.

I'm somewhat surprised that no Americans mentioned Pearl Harbor. While the real losses were (and still are to some extent) exaggerated, the effect on naval and public morale was huge.

First Bull Run comes to mind.

cymru12 said:

america's most embarrassing defeat CUSTER'S LAST STAND

Click to expand...

Or one of America's last and most impressive victories. Depending on how one wishes to define 'American'

I just stumbled upon this article:

The 5 Most Embarrassing Failures in the History of War | Cracked.com

I am not certain how historically accurate all that is but nevertheless it's quite the laugh.

Petyo said:

I just stumbled upon this article:

The 5 Most Embarrassing Failures in the History of War | Cracked.com

I am not certain how historically accurate all that is but nevertheless it's quite the laugh.

Click to expand...

The Spain --> Guam e-mail cracked me up pretty good, lol

Philippines for America,hands down worst defeat

Petyo said:

I just stumbled upon this article:

The 5 Most Embarrassing Failures in the History of War | Cracked.com

I am not certain how historically accurate all that is but nevertheless it's quite the laugh.

Click to expand...

Loved the Guam story...you couldn't make that one up!

I'm pretty sure there's been a few worse embarrassing defeats than these though.

For the French; Dien Bien Phu looks hard to beat.

Poly said:

Loved the Guam story...you couldn't make that one up!

I'm pretty sure there's been a few worse embarrassing defeats than these though.

For the French; Dien Bien Phu looks hard to beat.

Click to expand...

I would argue that the military defeat of 1940 by the Germans surely tops this, and should be considered the greatest catastrophe in French history. My French professor told us that in France they even have a single phrase to describe it : "La Débâcle".

For American history I'm gonna have to go with one of the losses to the CSA in the early part of the US Civil War, or the loss of the Philippines in 1942.

Lynch said:

I would argue that the military defeat of 1940 by the Germans surely tops this, and should be considered the greatest catastrophe in French history. My French professor told us that in France they even have a single phrase to describe it : "La Débâcle"...

Click to expand...

Yes but at Dien Bien Phu, the French actually invited the attack upon themselves.

Nothing embarrassing about May 1940 really - the Germans were the best army in the world at the time and had a revolutionary new warfare doctrine.

Poly said:

...................Nothing embarrassing about May 1940 really - the Germans were the best army in the world at the time and had a revolutionary new warfare doctrine.

Click to expand...

Spoken with true 20:20 hindsight -- its also debateable, how many horses were in the German army 1940? or 45 for that matter?

Supposedly the best army in the world in 1940 was the French, best tanks planes, generals etc and the Germans won in weeks and did something that 20 years before millions of deaths had failed to do. Thats a surprise.

Add to that --with 20:20 hindsight--- we can see that German tanks were no better than the French and there were less of them, planes-- may be not the French better but they weren't bad they were just all handled better.

1940 is pretty bad.

At the French village of La Herliere the villagers complained as the French army retreated leaving them to be occupied.

At the edge of the village Private Lungley of the 5th Buffs dug in with his Bren, he held it until the German infantry called on him to surrender-- he had fought bravely but now they were bringing up tanks-- he told them where they could stick their tanks.

The tanks arrived and started shelling and eventually Lungley's Bren was silenced.

His body was left in his slit trench, each night flowers were placed above it.

when it came to bury him so many French villagers arrived the crowd frightened the Germans that they stopped it. They buried him with military honours.

Poly said:

Yes but at Dien Bien Phu, the French actually invited the attack upon themselves.

Nothing embarrassing about May 1940 really - the Germans were the best army in the world at the time and had a revolutionary new warfare doctrine.

Click to expand...

The Germans had the best tactical doctrine in 1940. We know that because of hindsight, of course.

In 1940, however, the best army in Europe was believed to be the French, and that expectation shaped how the Battle of France was planned. The German General Staff, OKW, originally proposed a repeat of the Schlieffen Plan with minor modifications to secure France's Channel ports and deny the British easy entry into France. However, the plan's expectation was that the French would defeat or at least stop the attack somewhere near the Somme river. From there, the Germans intended to dig in and hold what they'd gained and let the French bleed themselves to retake their own soil... Essentially repeating what they did in WWI.

This, however, frustrated Hitler who found it lacking in agression and couldn't approve of a plan that's expected outcome was stalemate. Thus why he approved Mainstien's proposed move through the Ardennes, intended to trap the best of France's formations and playing to France's likely expectations of a repeat of the Schlieffen Plan. If successful, France would be crippled and the second attack would come against a greatly weakened France.

The attack was daring and took great risk, which Hitler approved because its upside was total victory over France. And despite misgivings about the lengthy flank that Germany's armor would present, Hitler approved it because of its upside. And the fears were legitamate. Had France listened more to De Gaulle in the 30s and adopted a more tank first army with mostly SOMUA S 35s and some Char B1s as the heavy hitting force and coordinated between the Army and Air Force, the French Army might have managed to defeat the German attack.

And it isn't impossible that the French might have pulled this off. Gamelin did catch on to how potentially vulnerable the German armored flanks were and did present plans to try and counterattack them. It is at this point where the fact that France listened more to Petain and built a large number of infantry support tanks and relatively few of the better SOMUA S 35s and Char B1s and had no coordination with the French Air Force paid the price. Gamelin was fired and replaced Weygand. Weygand eventually put forth a plan similar to Gamelin's, but only after wasting critical time and allowing the Germans to consolidate their gains. The Allied counter attacks that were made did little to change the course of the battle.

And as a result of poor French tactics, left the French defeated, and Mainstein's plan essentially went almost exactly as planned.

Kevinmeath said:

Spoken with true 20:20 hindsight -- its also debateable, how many horses were in the German army 1940? or 45 for that matter...

Click to expand...

Not relevant, the Germans understood before anyone else the importance of concentrating mechanized and armored units/formations.

...supposedly the best army in the world in 1940 was the French, best tanks planes, generals etc and the Germans won in weeks and did something that 20 years before millions of deaths had failed to do...

Click to expand...

Clearly they weren't and I'm not sure whether France had the best tank but I am sure they didn't have the best generals.

...we can see that German tanks were no better than the French and there were less of them...they were just all handled better...

Click to expand...

Well German tanks mostly had 3 man turrets giving an advantage but you're right, the revolution was the way they were handled.

The blitzkrieg doctrine was a modern update of the stormtrooper tactics that came close to winning victory in March 1918.

...1940 is pretty bad...

Click to expand...

It was a stunning victory but to be fair to France, no army in the world could have stopped it.
The USSR survived because it was so much bigger.

Had those French troops been replaced man-for-man by any other army, they still would have lost.

Poly said:

Clearly they weren't and I'm not sure whether France had the best tank but I am sure they didn't have the best generals.

Well German tanks mostly had 3 man turrets giving an advantage but you're right, the revolution was the way they were handled.

The blitzkrieg doctrine was a modern update of the stormtrooper tactics that came close to winning victory in March 1918.

Click to expand...

Overall the best German tank of 1940 was the Panzer III A-F. It had armor of 70 mm at its thickest (not particularly well sloped), a 3.7 cm KwK 36 Gun, had a max road speed of 25 mph (40 Km/h). Germany made 611 of them by the time of the Battle of France (I do not have sources for how many Panzer IIIs were actually deployed though).

The best French "cavalry tank" (intended to fight armor) was the SOMUA S 35. It's armor was only 47 mm at its thickest (but included sloped a little), a 47 mm SA 35 main gun, and had a top road speed of 25.3 mph (40.7 Km/h). Only 430 were produced by 1940, and the tank was due for replacement by S 40 in that year.

The SOMUA was lighter and less heavily armored, but it was faster, its armor was sloped and its gun could easily handle the German tanks of 1940. Over all, these two would be about equal, though actions of the Battle of France saw French SOMUAs at Hannut "defeat" German Panzers as they moved through Belgium with relatively minimal losses. The problem for France in the engagement is that Hannut was NORTH of where the main German thrust was, and while the Germans suffered a tactical defeat there, it accomplished the overall German strategy.

The best French infantry tank (intended to fight enemy infantry) was the Char B1. Depending on specific variants, the B1s armor was between 40 and 60 mm at its thickest. It's primary armament was a 47 mm SA 34 gun, and its secondary armament included more then just machine guns. It's secondary armament included on hull mounted 75 mm ABS SA 35 howitzer. It's max road speed however, was only 17 mph (28 Km/h). Only 405 of various models were produced.

The Char B1 was heavier, slower, and required a well trained crew to use, which France had in short supply in 1940. However, the Germans found to their horror that the Char B1 was almost invulnerable to any anti-tank weapon the Germans had at the time. The only weapon they could use was the 88 Flak battery (which would be used for the first time against tanks against British Matildas, which are even more heavily armored then the Char B1, at Arras). German tank crews and infantrymen feared running into the Char B1 during the battle. Thankfully for the Germans, French air cover was so poor that most of these tanks proved to be easy targets for ground attack aircraft.

And in addition, the vast bulk of France's tanks were infantry support tanks that were of much lighter armor and armament then the SOMUA or the Char B1. This combined with poor handling of them tactically was France's doom.

Gamelin and Weygand were both inferior, but they still recognized the vulnerability of the flank the Germans had in Operation Fell Geb. The problem for France was that they spent the 20s and 30s listening to Petain, who "on paper" was believed to be a better general and ignored De Gaulle who would only become a 1 star General as the Battle of France began to wind down.

The stormtrooper tactics of WWI were all infantry. Blitzkrieg was developed in a combination of forces with the tank and air power taking presidence... although some of the striking at weak points and cutting off headquarters from the front and isolating units was probably integrated into Blitzkrieg tactics...

Though, Guderian was not the only man to have the idea. The British general who commanded British tanks at Cambrai in WWI advocated the tactical use of armor in the UK and Charles De Gaulle advocated using armor in a professional and organized manner in France during the 30s (and there have been some sources that would indicate that Guderian borrowed ideas from BOTH of them). The key difference was that Hilter listened and gave Guderian the funds. The British didn't really have the money and the French refused to listen.