Young Writers Society

Again, I forewarn: Spoilers for 300, which might I add, I haven't seen. Grrr.

Hey guys. The story to 300 gave me inspiration for a story, but what I need is a reference to some battle of any time period in which there is a small group with odds against them, taking on a larger army. But, as opposed to 300, I need a battle where the smaller group wins.

Thanks!

This is an excerpt from a book of mine called "Essential Militaria" under the section "Impossible Odds". I've only listed the battles and the numbers, you can find details of them on Wikipedia or whatever. I'd recommend Rorke's Drift for it's similarity to 300 - 150 redcoats beating back 4,000 Zulus. Anyway, here's the list for you:

Battle of Jingxing Pass (204 BC) 10,000 beat 200,000
Battle of Shayuan (537 AD) 10,000 beat 200,000
Battle of Guadelte (711 AD) 12,300 beat 90,000
Siege of De-An (1206-7 AD) 6,000 beat 100,000
Battle of Auberoche (1345 AD) 1,200 beat 7,000
Battle of Kauthal (1367) 40,000 beat 540,000
Battle of Agincourt (1415) 5,900 beat 20,000
Battle of Assaye (1803) 7,000 men beat 75,000
Rorke's Drift (1879) 139 beat 4,000

You might not like Rorke's Drift because the 139 British soldiers had rifles while the Zulus fought them with inferior weapons (they did have some guns, but only old flintlocks), but simply the fact they were able to defend a wide compound against thousands of warriors charing in is incredible. The film "Zulu" is brilliant and you should watch it if you want to write a story about it. 11 Victoria Crosses were awarded for the battle, which tells a story on its own.

Worthy of a great story.

There is also The Defeat of Boudica in 43AD where 10,000 Roman Legionaries defeated 230,000 Britons...

It's an Idea.

~ Shadowsun

Or...when a group of like thirty Spaniards defeated both the Aztec and Inca empires.

If you're into American history, I'm pretty certaint there are a few Civil/Revolutionary War battles in which one side was severely outnumbered. I had one on the tip of my tongue a moment ago, but I forgot it- if you'd like, I'll try to find it for you.

Gah, I can't remember what the battle was called, or even exactly when it took place, but I think it was Athens vs. someone, and pretty much, the smaller army tricked the larger one into a bottleneck and then proceded to kick ass, two or three men at a time. (I know, real helpful, but thingy...)

The Battle of Cannae - Hannibal versus the Romans. I think it was about 50, 000 on 90,000. I vaguely remember that Hannibal used some tactic which allowed him to surround the romans and he totally annihilated them.

The odds weren't stacked against them but it was a really convincing victory, I think around 70,000 romans were killed, while 10,000 of Hannibals forces were lost.

Any battle eh? Question then. When you say "battle" are you referring to two different sides clashing or any conflict where death and destruction happens on an ACTUAL battlefield?

I ask because I know of "battles of conflict" where there were extreme fights but the underdogs lost, not won. There is one that comes to mind already and is one event I've done exstensive research on, and I do know every in and out of this particular event, so I can assist with questions.

This event, as most should know, is none other than the Boston Massacre. It WAS a battle as the Colonists did fight against their British brethren but the battle was never on any battlefield.

The "Massacre" is too worthy of tackling, and would also make an outstanding piece if approached correctly.

*

If that doesn't interest you, the Battle of King's Mountain should also meet your criteria. In the American Revolution, this was the ONLY battle fought between Americans. No British troops were involved. It was the militia versus Ferguson's Tories, which he lost.

Holy Effing Awesome. Guys, thank you all so much. I must say this is an amazing first impression of finding help on this forum.

And yes, for clarification, I am looking for the bloody battles.

No offense, but all battles (fighting) were all bloody.

Another battle I thought off is is the Battle of Cowpens. Take heed though, as I'll be the very first to set misconceptions straight about the Banastre Tarleton. I favor the British side quite a bit in this era, so I'll be the first to screw in the lightbulb and toss the dud. There is a lot of propaganda surrounding Tarleton, especially his role in the Battle of Waxhaws where he received the nickname, "Bloody Ban" Tarleton.

But Cowpens is so awesome any American or a fan of warfare will enjoy this battle. Daniel Morgan, using militia, beat back, tricking the mighty British Army, and most importantly using Tarleton's bayonet charge against him. His boldness blinded him, and farmers beat the strongest army at the time. How could you not love a battle such as that?!