Jump to content

Talk:Last stand/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Last stand - success or defeat?

There seems to be some confusion over whether a last stand is any sort of defence against overwhelming odds, or whether it is only those defensive actions that are failures. This reference and this seem to confirm the first - that a last stand is any sort of defence against overwhelming odds. Rorke's Drift and Bastogne definitely belong in the list. --kudz75 07:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know to. Can a last stand be succesfull or must the last standees lose by definition?
It can't very well be the last stand if they live to stand again...
To my mind "last stand" is considered to be the situation, when defending force is ovewhelmed, and obviously is going to be defeated. But they still fight. They fail to survive often. Sometimes (surprizingly) not. But they all prepare to die when beginning the battle. Isn't it "last stand"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.83.165 (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Logically, of course it isn't a last stand, since, as mentioned earlier, they lived to stand again, but in the way the term is generally used today you would be right. I don't think it should be that way, as it doesn't make much sense, but there isn't much I can do about that. Balderdash707 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Most dictionaries I've found says that it is a loose military term when a force holds a defensive position against overwhelming odds, so not unnecessarily do the forces have to be defeated. That's taking the term literal. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Verify or delete 19 January 2004

The item:

19 January 2004: The 4th Regiment defending a point in Baghdad during the Iraq War.

needs to be verified or deleted. When I tried to find out who the '4th Regiment' belonged to, I couldn't find any reference to this event anywhere. If it is a real last stand, please make it clear who the attackers and who the defenders were. Relative numbers might help, too. --Jonathan O'Donnell 08:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Term

If the army is not distroyed it is not a last stand.

As I've said in the earlier discussion, that's being a bit literal. It's a last stand in the sense of last chance to survive.--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Persian numbers at Thermopylae

I've reverted the recent edit which claimed that there were "1,700000" Persian troops at the Battle of Thermopylae. The main article for this battle cites this number as the number of Persian infantry claimed by Herodotus. However, the article also goes on to list several more categories of troops reported by Herodotus, totalling "5,283,220 men,[5] a figure which has been rejected by modern historians.". Other estimates are given there from other historians. -- Jon Wilson 24.162.120.52 16:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually both numbers are exagerated. Don't forget that at that time the Persian Empire had around 14,000,000 inhabitants which makes impossible an army of that size to move along without getting short of supplies. Contemporary historians count the Persian army at a total of 100,000 soldiers, which is still an overwhelming force if it has to face 300 Spartans.--Voilallorca77 20:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese attack on Guam December 10, 1941?

153 US marines against an overwhelming Japanese force.

Agreed~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.127.99 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Iwo Jima ?

Would including the Japanese defense of Iwo Jima in the famous last stands list make me some sort of terrorist? Also, can a last stand be a desperate offensive action or only a defensive one? Seems to me that this list is intrinsicly highly subjective. Could a criminal or secetarian group facing the SWAT be considered in a last stand situation, or is some form of noble/grand cause mandatory?

edit - Thanks everyone for the updates

J-P, 19 dec. 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.53.186.4 (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

The thin red line

i personaly think this should be added since Campbell told his men, "There is no retreat from here, men. You must die where you stand" seems like the definition of a last stand. --RaDeus 07:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Mogadishu

The Battle of Mogadishu wasn't really a last stand. Retreat was a viable option that was used at times. The term last stand refers to the more traditional face to face, line to line, style warfare. Mogadishu was a hit and run modern military battle, with a limited number of soldiers inserted into an area to be extracted once a set series of objectives were completed. It simply wasn't a last stand. Last stand really refers to the idea of a group of people fighting to the last, or preforming some kind of rear guard against odds. A more suitable and recent example of a last stand would be the Battle of Falluja, Where some groups of iraqi militiamen stayed in the city to fight to the last. If that doesn't float your boat there is also the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, where some 57 royal marines and 30 militiamen (the falkland islands defense force FIDF) stood against several thousand argentine troops. 80.176.155.90 10:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

On the whole the Battle of Mogadishu was a hit and run operation, but some soldiers during the battle were cut off and forced to fight through the night. This part constitutes a last stand. 69.140.148.97 13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, there are already many battles that shouldn't be included here. If we continue including battles where "one part of fighting force" was "at one point in the time" pinned down and surrounded, and later on they get away and everything is fine and dandy...well, I think we'll have a huge tsunami of battles and soon one won't be able to find what he needs simply cuz of all that "noise in the signal". Oh, wait, there's a movie about this one? ooh, ok, then its fine to leave it. Z0r04st3r 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Does anyone have sources on the rather numerous seiges and last stands that occured on both sides during this war? The attacks on the Barcelona anarchists or the Siege of Madrid are probably the best examples, but there were others.74.36.192.6 08:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo

I have removed the Battle of Waterloo as I think it is a bit of stretch to call this a last stand. Whilst it was the final battle fought by Napoleon and his Imperial Guard, it does not fulfil the criteria this article sets forth for a last stand. The Old Guard did form two squares by La Belle Alliance as most of the French was in disarray, but they did not fight until the bitter end - making their last stand - they retreated when the battle was clearly lost. The Imperial Guard famously never retreated, so it would be somewhat strange to cite the one battle that they did retreat from as their "last stand". Rje 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does sound like a last stand, the formation of the two last squares did stop the allied army in order to give time to the French army to retreat. When you say they didn't fight, first it's false they did fought, second during their retreat they still prevent the French to attacked. Don't use a common thought, I'm french and i say the Imperial Guard retreated, and that was not the first time in fact. As far as I know, they were in Russia and they retreated, like all the French Army. Imperial Guard last stand deserves to be into this section. 90.9.29.125 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo

Could the defense of the downed helicopter pilots by the Delta Force snipers in Mogadishu be added to this article?

I believe so, the role they played was a separate engagement from the rest of the operation. Furthermore, they perished. The pilot Michael Durant was already a casualty, thus all parties involved in defending the black hawk helicopter were casualties and captured; effectively making it a last stand. Staples11 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Removal

I'd like to suggest that the Battle of Little Big Horn be removed from the list. It is only called Custer's Last Stand as an effort to make Custer seem heroic, but it was nothing of the sort. Custer was not standing for anything, and anyway, based purely on the definition given in the article, it's actually the opposite. Custer and the cavalry were the attackers. They were vastly outnumbered, that is true, but the Indian camp did not attack and did not intend to attack. Custer and the Cavalry were not defending anything or making any sort of stand. They attacked an Indian camp, and were defeated, plain and simple. Movieman894 01:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Also 650 against 950-1200 doesn't seem "vastly outnumbered" as you say, but that isn't the meaning of last stand. Anyway, I agree that this is "an effort to make Custer seem heroic". As Sitting Bull said, victor wasn't decided until the end of the battle and I'd say Custer stayed there cuz he thought he could win it, definitely not cuz he couldn't avoid the ballet. After all, he was the one that was attacking Z0r04st3r 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to see what you all think about my post on battle of Posada, that should also be in this "suggestion for removal" part of discussion. Z0r04st3r 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Custer and his companies made a "last stand"; Reno and Benteen's men did not. The Indians were far in excess of the 950-1200 range, and 1800 is a better figure (though the traditional figures of 3000 and up are way too high--put there to exonerate Custer from the many tactical errors that led to the annihilation of his unit.). Custer had just over 200 men involved in the fight, making the final odds about 9:1. While I think that Custer certainly got what he deserved, as he had planned a general massacre of the entire village, the soldiers' fight was essentially defensive in nature after Reno's repulse in the south and after Custer's column was turned back at the north end of the camp.~~Doktorschley 26 Oct 2007

Battle of Bastogne?

Why isn't the Battle of Bastogne in this? 1 infantry devision against roughly 9 panzer devisions anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiggly (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC).


Shouldn't the battle of Wake Island be included in this article also, less than 1,000 american marines/civilians fighting against 10,000+ Japaneese troops and constant air and sea bombardment. That was a pretty famous last stand actually.~~

I whole heartedly agree with Wake Island. Bastogne is also up for consideration. --ProdigySportsman 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I added Wake Island last night, using figures from the wikipedia article on Wake Island. I will update using Brian Perrett's Last Stand.~~

I would dispute Bastogne, because despite the valor of the light-armed and half-starving 101st Airborne Division, they fought a desperate action that was not, as it turns out, a last stand. They were relieved by Patton's 3rd Army the day after Christmas, 1945.~~

How about the Battle of Iwo Jima, as someone already said? Japanese were overwhelmed (1:5), almost all of them died fighting (only 1% was captured). Z0r04st3r 03:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Added. --ProdigySportsman 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Warsaw Ghetto?

I propose the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.39.106.73 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with this proposal.~~Doktorschley —Preceding comment added by 71.221.127.99 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing too. --87.241.31.34 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Kapyong

While it was technically a rear guard action, several battalions did dig in and held out to fight a numerically superior force, while the rest retreated.

It reached a point that the military command believed that the units were already wiped out, but were surprised when told that they were still fighting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kapyong 134.117.166.69 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Szigetvár

It says that the defenders were Hungarians, while in fact they were mostly Croats led by Croatian ban Nikola Šubić Zrinski. Szigetvár indeed is in Hungary, but the defenders werent Hungarians. As it says in Battle of Szigetvár: "defending forces of the Habsburg Monarchy under the leadership of Croatian ban Nikola Šubić Zrinski...", "The entrenched Croatian forces...", "with the majority of Croats already dead, this was their last stand...", "the last Croat stronghold within Siget...".

Nowhere in this article any Hungarian forces are being mentioned.User:Z0r04st3r|Z0r04st3r]] 04:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, from Talk:Battle of Szigetvár:

"the names of the surviving ones:Franjo Črnko, Gerecij, Stjepan Oršić, Gašpar Alapić" (all of these names are Croatian)

"Killed nobels; Vuk Papratović, Nikola Kobač, Petar Patačić, Lovro Juranić (carried the flag in the last assault) ... Definitely not Hungarians" Z0r04st3r 04:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, if there are no objections within next few weeks, I will change it "Hungarians" to "Croats" Z0r04st3r 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Myeongnyang

I think the Battle of Myeongnyang where Admiral Yi defeated 333 Japanese ships with only 13 can be placed in this article. Does anybody know how to do it? Good friend100 23:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Last stand is a loose military term used to describe a body of troops holding a defensive position in the face of overwhelming odds. The defensive force usually takes very heavy casualties, on occasion is completely destroyed, and is invariably ultimately defeated." I think that battle of Myeongyang can't be placed there. As i see it, it doesn't fulfill any of these conditions (though Koreans were overwhelmed, they are those who initiated the battle, they were victorous and they had almost no losses at all). It's not like every heroic battle should be placed here. Looking forward to see what you think Z0r04st3r 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Agincourt certainly looks like a last stand of the English longbowmen against the French. The French got annihilated while the English had minimal losses, similiar to the Battle of Myeongnyang, so the Battle of Myeongnyang can qualify to be placed on this last. Good friend100 03:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for removal

Agincourt was certainly no last stand. The English made their stand and annihilated the French cavalry. The firepower of the English longbowmen behind their rows of sharpened stakes meant that the English never were in danger of being overrun.~~Doktorschley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorschley (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think that Agincourt should be there, too. Unless the definition that I quoted was wrong. So, why do you think those two battles "certainly look" like last stands? Is every well fought battle last stand? I'll say again, "is invariably ultimately defeated"... Those guys obviously had few more "last stands" cuz they kept on standing, right? I know, u could now bring up few more battles (that dont belong here LOL) as an example of victoruos defender, but that doesn't change the fact that Myeongyang simply doesn't fit in the definition Z0r04st3r 03:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It is simply a suggestion that the Battle of Myeongnyang should be placed in this article because of the other battles that were similiar to it, when I came across this article.
Also, Admiral Yi himself considered the battle to be a last stand with his famous quote by telling his soldiers to fight as if it was their last.
There are a number of other articles that don't comply with your strict definition of a last stand like the Battle of Mogadishu. Good friend100 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that there are similar battles to this one already included and I think they should all be deleted. That "strict definition" is not mine, that's what article says and including that kind of battles...well, they just don't belong there. Maybe some kind of "Outstanding battles", "Outstanding victories" or "Victory against odds", some article like that should be formed and that'd be the right place for them. Z0r04st3r 06:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So then what is your suggestion then? Good friend100 14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To delete those winning last stands, the debate has just started, we'll see what will be the conclusion Z0r04st3r 07:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agincourt was a last stand of sorts, if they hadnt had stood and fought they would most certanly been destroyed before they could reach Calias and get back to England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wootster (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Posada

I really do not understand whose last stand was Battle of Posada? Hungarians were cought in an ambush by Walachians, but that's it. If this is last stand, does that mean that every ambush is last stand? of course, one could say that if Battle of Roncevaux Pass was "last stand", then battle of posada was also. What i'm trying to say is: if we count every well performed ambush as a last stand, then we should have way larger number of "last stands" in this article. If not, if "last stand" is not an ambust but really "last stand", a position that one army just can't leave (because it is overwhelmed, because those troops have to give time for others to pull back, because they have to keep enemy's troops ocupied while their troops are doing something else....stuff like that), if that is the case then this article should be deleted from the list. I'm looking forward to seeing your thoughts about this. Z0r04st3r 04:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


The battle of Roncevaux Pass can't be considered a last stand. The franks were higly trained, experienced and well equipped, and the overwhelming odd was a Basque force who didn't wear any armor carrying daggers and short swords. We can't consider every ambush a last stand, even if the ones who ambush can be defined as the overwhelming odd.--Voilallorca77 20:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Islandawa

Can the Battle of Isandlawana really be considered a last stand, rather than just a standard defeat? I mean after all it was the first encounter the invading British army had with the Zulus, and their defeat was due more to incompetent leadership than a desperate fight for survival which is implied by a last stand. Furthermore, the British went on to win the war, so I think that this can't be considered a last stand, but just an unnecessary defeat - at most it was an embarrasment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.154.56.27 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I believe it should be, as they were severely outnumbered and if the British lost they would have faced complete annihilation so in light of that they fought as if they were already dead; however, history shows us that was enough to discourage the Zulu army.Staples11 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Isandlawana wasnt a last stand for either sides of the the conflict, the Zulus didnt fight as if they were already dead, and the British were very overconfident in therir rifles which ultimatly lead to there defeat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wootster (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this term only be applied to defeats

There are some battles here which are not "invariably defeated" - including one added by myself. Should they be removed as not really being "last stands" or should the definition at the end of the first sentence of "invariably ultimately defeated" be changed? I think the original intention was to highlight battles where those fighting knew or suspected their situation was hopeless but just keep fighting. Personally I go for the first option of staying faithful with the original definition as a surviving last stand really isn't. I think this needs discussion.Provocateur 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are entries in the (IMHO too long) list which do not quite belong there, like Cajamarca, Custer, Xuan_Loc, Mogadischu '93 and Khe Sanh. On the other hand, the Last battle of the battleship Bismarck could be included, as it was the naval equivalent of a last stand.-- Matthead discuß!     O       03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Kransy Bor - which I had added. I certainly go along with adding naval last stand battles such as The Bismark, The Revenge etc. Provocateur 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Would a straw poll help solve the issue? Good friend100 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What is needed is a thorough discussion first - though perhaps a straw poll might get things moving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Provocateur (talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Jagged85's edits

Jagged85, a well known POV pusher from the Battle of Thermopylae made an edit claiming the range of Persian troops at Thermpylae was '50,000-150,000', he has purposefully used the lowest possible estimate ever and in turn ignored consensus on the issue. In response to this I have added the highest estimate for the battle, Herodotus, which states the Persian Army totalled some 4,000,000 men.--NeroDrusus 21:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, another admirer. I guess using modern consensus ranges must be POV-pushing according to you. It's quite obvious your post is a blatant personal attack against me. But you are wrong about several things. Firstly, Herodotus did not give 4 million, he gave 2.6 million for both combatants and non-combatants combined. Secondly, the lowest possible estimates go as low as 15,000 and the highest as high as 700,000 for modern estimates. Thirdly, I stated 50,000-150,000 Persian Empire "combatants" (not the entire Persian army) based on the modern consensus range for the entire Persian army at Thermopylae being 60,000 to 300,000 for both combatants and non-combatants combined. Assuming a 1:1 ratio of combatants to non-combatants would give us up to 150,000 combatants. If you don't agree with this, I'll leave it as the full modern consensus range of 60,000 to 300,000 for both combatants and non-combatants combined. Jagged 85 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So you want to distinguish between 'combatants' and people who may or may not have been logistics based people accompanying the troops? Why not apply this standard to the Greek army as well? Hell, why not take your crusade to the entire Greece and Rome wikiproject? Do you realise how exceedingly difficult applying such a standard would be? In some cases it would be practically impossible. There is no 'modern consensus range' thats just made up rubbish from the Talk page of the Battle of Thermopylae page. I have NEVER repeat NEVER heard any professor of mine or any source I have read when commenting on or referencing the Battle of Thermopylae give a figure of 15,000, hell, thats less that the standardly accepted casualty count for the Persians so it presents a paradox within itself, the range that is most often cited and most often repeated is somewhere between 200,000-300,000. As long as Asians seem fit to push their POV, Westerners like me will be here to hold guard against defamation of our history.--NeroDrusus 02:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
15,000 is truly a laughable figure which according to WP:UNDUE does not even deserve to be mentioned. It contradicts much of mainstream views on ancient military warfare and history in general. Modern specialised sources do not give figures lower than 100,000. Miskin 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There are no primary sources that even remotely suggest the Greeks had any non-combatants at Thermopylae. The Persians were the ones invading so it makes sense why they would bring along a support crew, and this is well-documented. The estimate of 15,000-25,000 was suggested by Hans Delbruck, and this just as unlikely as the highest modern estimates ever made (700,000). I mentioned this to refute your argument that 50,000 is the lowest estimate ever made, as there have been several even lower ones. According to Jill Kelly however, the most accepted modern range of estimates is the range from 60,000 to 300,000 (for both combatants and non-combatants). By the way, are you Greek by any chance? If not, then how can you call Greek history "our history"? Greek history belongs to the Greeks and Persian history belongs to the Iranians. I just think it's silly how some other "Westerners" and "Easterners" are trying to claim them as their own. And please, stop trying to turn this into an East vs West thing. Jagged 85 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Ancient Greek and Roman history belongs to the history of Western civilisation and by extension to history of the world. Persian history "belongs" to Iranians and Asians, and despite how remarkable it may have been, it has had little or no impact to modern culture. That's the only difference between the two. Thermopylae was a decisive point of the western civilisation, which came to be the world's dominant culture. I'm not being eurocentric, that's just how it is perceived. Miskin 13:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The history of Greece and Rome is intertwined with the history of the rest of the Mediterrenean (including Southern Europe, North Africa and West Asia). Cultures are not stuck in a vacuum. There have been exchanges between different cultures since time immemorial. Also, Persian history has more in common with Mediterrenean history than it does with Eastern Asian history. Let's face it, the average Chinese or Indian is not going to stick up for Persia, but it is more common for Americans to stick up for Greece. But this isn't really related to the topic, so I'll just leave it there. Jagged 85 07:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That is indeed the lowest estimate, my point wasn't so much about that though, it was about your naming of it as a 'consensus range', that clearly isn't a consensus range because practically every secondary source refers to 200,000-300,000 - If you want to bring up vastly less than that. I read Thomas Kelly's article by the way, what is interesting is that the entire article only offers a few scant references to any kind of supposed concerted propaganda campaign by the Persians. It simply presupposes this fact based on the assumption that the numbers were exagerrated. Well, yeh, they kind of were, but in all probability they were probably exagerrated by Greeks who saw them crossing the Hellespont, there is no record of the Persians having the mechanical capability in Government to engage in any kind of concerted 'propaganda campaign'. In fact I'm going to ask one of my professors about this. Oh and I am Greek by the way.--NeroDrusus 01:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Thomas Kelly's range is not a consensus view. His article is not even a published source. Mainstream views are 100-300K or 150K-250K, if you prefer, anything less or higher is a fringe view. Miskin 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The primary sources on Thermopylae have to be included since it's the only attested record. All modern estimates are nothing but "guesses", therefore we cannot give a ratio without making original research. Xerxes I stated that the Greeks would be outnumbered "at minimum" by 100:1. I replaced the original thought ratios with sourced material. The article needs a lot of sourcing and POV check, many entries strike as absurd. The opening paragraph states that "a siege is not a last stand", yet more than half of the entries are about sieges and not last stands (which is clearly not the same thing). Miskin 13:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the guidelines, secondary sources should always be preferred to primary sources. That is why secondary estimates should be preferred to primary estimates. As for a secondary range, the range of 100,000-300,000 is not an attributable range. As we discussed in the Thermopylae article, we only know three cited ranges so far: 50k-100k (initial army only), 150k-200k (de Souza), and 60k-300k (Kelly). Since the range of 100k-300k is not attributable to an actual source (and neither was my earlier combatant range for that matter), we should stick to one of those scholarly ranges just mentioned. If you don't agree with Kelly's range, then I don't really mind leaving it at de Souza's range of 150,000-200,000 either, as long as the range itself is attributable to a secondary or tertiary source. Also, I think the ratio column is a bit pointless. Jagged 85 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The modern sources are preferred, however that does not imply that the primary sources should be hidden from public view as many editors have wished in the past. There's nothing wrong in showing the original source when you explicitely state that there's a modern estimate too. Showing the original and hiding the modern would have been wrong. The 50K-100K initial army cannot be linked to Thermopylae. Souza's range is reliable but Kelly's not so much, reason being that no modern sources (of the type "Cambridge guide to Herodotus") cite the views lower than 100K as popular ones. I have searched hard but failed to find a modern source doing so. This is why I changed Kelly's range, because it gives undue weigh to the figures lower than 100K, which are apparently fringe views by today's standards. I would prefer desouza's 150-200 or a more realistic compromise between the two, say 100-250 maybe? But I don't know if the latter is very attributable. Miskin 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I kept deSouza's estimate as suggested (and I agree), and put the modern estimates on top of the box. Jagged, the primary source has really got to have a mention, this is a very common practice in scholarship. All sources will say "Herodotus gives a figure of X but modern estimates range at Y". This is the neutral and standard practice. In order to avoid misunderstandings, I added the word "exaggeration" in the edit-summary. Also there is an attested dialogue of Xerxes I in which he claims that "even by his maximum estimates on the Greek numbers, his army would outnumber them by 100:1". Unless there's a secondary source on the ratio, Xerxes' estimate is the only attributable figure. Replacing it with any personal estimate would fall under original research (already popular in this article but there's no need to enforce it). Miskin 10:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jagged. Miskin 11:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gate and Porus

How does any of those two battles qualify as a "last stand"? I know this article is prone to personal and loose interpretations but let us respect WP:NPOV to a minimum here. The battle of Porus has nothing remotely relevant to a last stand, Porus and Alexander even became friends. The battle at the Persian Gate was a last stand only by Irannica's biased claims, which have no support in western scholarship. See Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate for details. I removed the battle of Porus and updated the Persian Gate in order to make a point. Miskin 10:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

your edits are biased and one-sided. just because Alexander spared Porus' life, doesn't make the battle any less of a last stand, many people were killed defending Indian motherland. also, Encyclopædia Iranica is a project of Columbia University, it's a respectable and reliable source of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dharmender6767 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Please read WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. If there's anything one-sided here is Irannica's account. Although to call something one-sided means that it has a minimal support, whereas Irannica has none. Despite where Irannica stems from, it is frequently criticised by western sources. An example of this would be Irannica's claims on the allegedly peaceful unification between Persians and Medes, something completely rejected by western consensus. Wikipedia gives priority to western sources and we can often see why. The battle of Porus has nothing to do with a last stand, not even in the term's most loose definition. People were killed defending their "X motherland" in the vasy majority of military conflicts, you wouldn't suggest to include everything in that article would you? Please try to understand that wikipedia is not the place for publishing original thought and patriotic sentiment. Miskin 12:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting you because your wholesale reverts of attributed content is identified as POV-pushing. To quote from WP:RS:"Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." Irannica's encycopaedic account on the subject does not even have a mention in other reliable, specialised references. Please don't start a rv-war on this, it will only give you the label of an editor who cares about pushing his point of view. If you still have a problem you should proceed with WP:DR, though I would suggest you to find some better sources instead. Miskin 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


don't threaten me, you ARE biased and only accept information slanted to your desired view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dharmender6767 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Jagged if you agree with what I say can you please restore to the agreed version whenever? If Dhamernder continues his disruptive editing I'm going to have to list this under RfC. Miskin 14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

you insist on keeping Herodotus' accounts which the modern historians view as unreliable, yet you remove a modern acadamic source from Columbia University as 'unreliable'. I never seen so much hypocrisy in my life.

Herodotus is a primary source, there's a huge difference. It was explicitely mentioned that his record was an exaggeration. You have also broken WP:3RR. Please read WP:ATT, WP:RS and WP:NPOV before making further contributions. Miskin 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that sources do not count as biased. POV only applies to the way you, the editor, accounts for the information. Yes, articles can become lopsided one way or another, but Wikipedia cannot be "balanced" unless the evidence provided is balance. If you remove a source because you don't agree with what it says, you are not following Verifiability or NPOV. Columbia University counts as a legitimate source. It falls under verifiability, as it is peer-reviewed.
  • WP:VER "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
  • WP:NPOV "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)".
  • WP:UNDUE "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." and "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."
Please, when you cite rules, quote them. The two quotes there back up what I say and justify including the attributed source above into the article. Columbia University is a legitimate institution and does not represent a minority view. Thank you. SanchiTachi 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you for that. it's apparent that Miskin does not respect opposing points of views —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Sanchi you just answered your own question - "and may not include tiny-minority views at all". Per WP:VER alone much of the information on this battle is the result of original thought. I hate quoting rules, this is bad practice, it should be sufficient to link them - though sometimes it becomes inevitable. If you want to debate on the weigh of Iranica's claim, please do so within context, e.g. join the ongoing discussion in Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate. It may help you understand better how those policies are violated. Miskin 12:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Columbia University is not a tiny minority view. Even the Flat Earth Theory gets written about. You have not provided any contradictory source. Please cease and desist. You must provide sources even in Talk, which you have failed to do. If you keep it up, your edits will be taken as vandalism, because they are not verifiable but yet you want to get rid of verifiable information. You are the only one violating any policies. The source needs to stay, as with all other verifiable information, regardless of your bias. SanchiTachi 15:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss on a serious level then read Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate. There you will find out all the proof you need, along with the answers to all of your questions. Miskin 15:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:NPOV "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)".
All sources must be included, even if they contradict. To do otherwise is to break the most important rule of Wikipedia: verifiability. You have admitted that you are editing out a properly referenced and peer-reviewed source because you think another source contradicts it. Someone could easily use that you get you banned for vandalism. I would strike out your comments before that happens. Use the "s" with carrots around it and the "/s" after the line that you strike out. SanchiTachi 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight states:

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

I hope this covers it for you. Miskin 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The rule you quote would allow Columbia University in, as it is peer reviewed and anything produced by Columbia does not count as a minority view. Please note that and please follow that. Thanks. SanchiTachi 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Iranica is not exactly "produced by Columbia". They describe themselves (quite proudly) as "entirely independent". What is published in it does not fall under the heading of "produced at Columbia". Nor is it necessarily a peer reviewed publication. Their editorial process, as they describe it, does not state that any given article has been subject to proper peer review before inclusion. It is an encyclopaedia, a compendium of knowledge, and should not contain anything original or novel. Of course, encyclopaedias rarely provide the sources of their information, and I imagine most scholarly peer reviewed articles pertaining to ancient Greece/Persia are published in fairly esoteric off-line publications, so it really comes down to whether or not Encyclopaedia Iranica provides reliable non-original material. I'm no expert on the subject, nor am I a scholar, but it is affiliated with the University of Columbia and the editors and consultants appear to have the qualifications needed to produce such a publication, so I'd be inclined to take the position that it qualifies as a reliable source. Joel Blanchette 21:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the entry Battle of the Hydaspes:

the losses allegedly suffered by the Macedonian army deviate strongly from the ones quoted in this battle's own article Battle of the Hydaspes - up to 12,000 vs. 4,000 infantry killed, 280 cavalry killed. Given the bias demonstrated here by certain contributors, and the need for an encyclopedia to be internally consistent, I have corrected those loss figures accordingly. Textor (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Example Deletions

Following the Be Bold Policy of Wikipedia, I decided to delete any example that struck me as immediatly doubtful. JamesFox 01:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also being bold here, but I've reverted your deletions. You can't just delete them without giving any reasons. Jagged 85 05:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've decided to revert the reversion. Really, the reason why they were removed should be obvious; read the definition of 'last stand' given in the article and ask yourself if the removed examples truly match the definition. JamesFox 00:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Defensive only ?

Is there an equivalent term to last stand applying for a desperate offensive/Assault situation? (Battle of Montgisard, Battle of Shiroyama, many fictional-fantastic battles) J-P

I have asked the same question to professors and the military educated. It can be called a Last Stand but it is otherwise known as a forced assault or in other situations a counter-attack. When a fortification is under assault and the defenders counter-attack, it is called Sallying Forth. This is because the only option the supposed defenders have is to attack the attacker in hope of demoralizing them before the (now counter-attacking) defenders are wiped out. This would generally occur when the defenders are actually in inopportune terrain or lack the equipment available to scale a proper defense yet have the equipment, ability or opportune terrain to strike at the attacking opposition.Staples11 22:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Swabian Guard at Civitate

The Swabian Guard at the Battle of Civitate are said to have fought to the last man, being heavily outnumbered by the attacking Norman regiment they faced, against the Normans in 1053.Staples11 22:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

DAB needed

Last_stand goes here Last_Stand goes to a stargate page.

With a preponderance of articles using the term Last Stand in their titles, it seems that the main Last_Stand article should be a dab, and this page moved to Last_Stand_(millitary) or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterhawk (talk • contribs) 01:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Red Wing

Would Operation Red Wing be an acceptable battle to be added to this list? -TabooTikiGod 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this got added. However, I noticed something odd when I first came to this section: the number of Taliban casualties was listed as 2. That didn't sound right at all, so after following the link to the Operation Red Wing page I found that it reported 150-200 Taliban killed, without source. I did a little internet search and found one source which states "an estimated 35" Taliban were killed, and I updated the section. However, just recently, a user changed it to read "an indterminate[sic] number". This isn't very helpful. Without objection, I want to revert this change and add my source. Abeall (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Arica?

Can we add the Battle of Arica to the list? It is the most famous last stand of Peru. Colonel Bolognesi rejected the Chilean offer of surrender and stated he would fulfill his sacred duty "till burning the last cartridge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arica

Jaimeastorga2000 07:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Chosin Reservoir

This action does not need to be included. While cut off, the Americans and Brits did not make a "Last Stand", but instead cut their way through the surrounding Chinese divisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.113.35 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

List below references

I'm not sure how to fix it, but the list seems to be displaying in the wrong area. Anyone else know what to do? Ian Burnet (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Code error table not terminated. MilborneOne (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Division by intervals

I just came by this article and boldly divided the very long table into sections.[1] PrimeHunter 02:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Def. of Last Stand

A "last stand" needs to: A) be an engagement against an enemy vastly superior in quantity or quality B) negatively impact the attacking force C) be a deliberate defense for ideological, moral, or strategic reasons, with a reasonable chance for retreat or surrender prior to the attack D)result in the complete obliteration of defending forces Basically, I disagree with many of the battles listed here as they do not meet one or more of my criteria.

Acts like those of the zealots at the Siege of Masada may be seen as heroic or honourable, but I don't believe they should qualify because they have no impact on the attacking force. Literally, they didn't 'stand' their ground and fight to the last. A "last stand" is also not any battle where the defender is unable to withdraw; under this definition, many battles would be "last stands" on the grounds that the opposing commander outmaneuvered the defenders and cut their supplies and/or escape routes. A commander cannot really be forced to make a "last stand," Only situations where the defenders would have had a high chance of success in withdrawal or surrender but chose to stay should be considered. A defense in which the defenders could have physically retreated(not surrounded or impeded by terrain) but are required to maintain their position for strategic reasons(to delay the enemy)should also qualify as they are choosing to stay based on their honour, loyalty, allegiance, etc. For example, a situation in which the defenders are both unable to retreat or surrender (the encircled Romans at Cannae could do neither, nor could the similarly outmaneuvered Germans at Stalingrad) should not be called a "last stand" as it was not a deliberate choice to enter that defensive position. Also, by definition, while Bastogne was certainly a heroic defense, it should not qualify on the grounds that it did not result in the complete destruction of the defending 101st. Similarly, a "last stand" cannot be brought about by incompetence; Custer's Last Stand was a massive blunder rather than a planned defense. The previous also includes ambushes.

Thanks, 70.21.51.64 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The article starts: "Last stand is a loose military term". If reliable sources have used the term about a situation then I think it's OK that Wikipedia does. I tested one of your examples with Google: Stalingrad. See Google searches on "last stand" Stalingrad and the more specific "last stand at Stalingrad". Seems OK to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that we really don't have established terms for some of these situations. Take the examples of the Romans at Cannae and the Germans at Stalingrad, and contrast them with Rorke's Drift. Retreat was impossible in all three, but, in one case, not only were the defenders killed or forced to surrender, but have an excellent argument for strategic and possibly tactical victory. The Alamo was a tactical defeat but strategic victory.
Even more complex are things such as Wake Island. Had the defenders known how the Japanese would deal with them over time, there might indeed have been a fight to the last defender. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Would like to a battle appropriate to the list of "Last stand" battles

Unfortunately I am unfamiliar with many Wikipedia format editing, and I request that my information be inserted into the list as suited.

Battle name: Battle of Salsu War: Second Goguryeo-Sui War Date: 612

Combatants Goguryeo: 10,000 Sui China: 305,000

Commanders Goguryeo: Eulchi Mundeok Sui China: Yuwen Shu, Yu Zongwen

Casualties Goguryeo: minimal Sui China: 302,000

There is a Wikipedia article on the background to this extraordinary war and battle under "Battle of Salsu". Further information can be found there.

Thank you in advance. Oyo321 (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Salsu doesn't sound like a "last stand" as described in the lead of Last stand. Has it been called a last stand? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The Battle of Stalingrad was a last stand of sorts so should that also de added. The Second Battle of El Alamein was also a last stand because if it hadnt of succseded then the Germans would have driven the Allies out of north africa.

Battle of Cajarmarca, 1532

this doesn't appear to be a last stand at all! according to the article, a few hundred spaniards armed with guns sprung a surprise ambush on a few thousand 'mostly unarmed' incas. not a last stand! if somebody with more knowledge on the subject agrees, please remove from this list. Saccerzd 14:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Military term?

Should the term "loose" in the definition be replaced? ~Dpr

Google and Yahoo! searches for "Military term" returns the following list of military terms in Wikipedia. This list is almost certainly not definitive. It is intended to inform discussion:

Jonathan O'Donnell 20:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Is the term "uselessly" appropriate? --"useless destroyed by the enemy" ~Dpr

Deleted. Jonathan O'Donnell 20:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dubious

Battle of Hill 776 should be removed. It's a notorious Russian propaganda fairy tale, where various Russian commanders said it was six hours - or maybe rather four days, that 31 soldiers died - or maybe rather 84, that they faced up to 1,000 fighters - or maybe rather 2,500, that 200 fighters were killed - or maybe rather over 700, etc. (and many various figures in between). It's just not very serious at all. Oh, and there were actually many more Russian soldiers (like many thousands in the operation). --RamboKadyrov (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Britain proposed addition

Remnants of the RAF (a significant amount was lost in the Blitzkrieg) battle against the entire brunt of the emboldened Luftwaffe.
Agreed the Battle of Britain did not result in huge material losses for the Luftwaffe, it did cause massive damage to its psyche, and massively boosted moral for the RAF. Another hall mark of a last stand was for the leader to announce "never give up", what Churchill did. Finally, it has been often pointed out that the RAF was on the brink of breaking due to exhaustion and damaged equipment, until the Luftwaffe stopped directly attacking RAF facilities.
In a few days I will make a posting if no on disagrees, or it is approved. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Battle of Britain should be called a last stand. If Britain had lost the air battle (lost is not precisely defined here), then the remaining pilots and planes would still be under British control. An attempted land invasion with some RAF participation and unknown result would probably have followed. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Does what could have happened really matter? Churchill put a line in the sand (This was their finest hour and We shall fight on the beaches), the Axis was battle hardened and experienced, most of British ground equipment was abandoned in Dunkirk, it looked very bad for the British, and world opinion also looked very bad (I think FDR said he was prepared to declare war on Germany had they invaded). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightsoffancy (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
See how last stand is described in the article lead. There is a "last" in last stand, so it matters whether it was the last defence in a situation where retreat and continued fighting was not going to happen if the battle was lost for the defenders. The Battle of Britain refers to the air battle and it wasn't lost, but if it had been lost then it wouldn't have been the last defence since Britain would still have controlled their territory and other battles would have followed. You quote Churchill but omit part of "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender". He didn't say "if we lose the air battle then we give up so it is the last defence". Maybe there are sources with another definition of "last stand", but the term doesn't apply for our article which would require a rewrite and lots of other examples if something like the Battle of Britain is to be included. History is full of battles where one side faced hard odds but that doesn't make them last stands. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Following that logic, no battle that did not decide the war should be on the list. Custer's last stand? Who cares about him and his men, the Indians lost, the US Army won. Lars T. (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting me. Custer's last stand was a last stand for Custer and his men. It doesn't have to be a last stand for a whole warring side. It can be the last stand for a smaller body of defenders. But I don't see how the Battle of Britain can be called a last stand for any body of troops, not for RAF, not for Britain, and it still wouldn't have been a last stand if Germany had won. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, you present good logic, but the topic description is not limited to what you say. Last stand is a loose military term used to describe a body of troops holding a defensive position in the face of overwhelming odds. The defensive force usually takes very heavy casualties or is completely destroyed, while also inflicting high casualties on the opponent. matches the BoB quite well. And Hitler offered peace with UK and expressed his desire not to battle those he felt was distant relatives (Saxons, a Germanic tribe who moved to England). It is also important to note that the Battle of Britain could have continued into a ground war, but becuase the Luftwaffe failed to achieve the pre-invasion goals, it ended right there. Again, with most British heavy combat equipment lost in Europe, had Germany gained a foot hold in England, most historians say they would be in serious trouble. --67.141.124.50 (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You are quoting from the first paragraph. Note it says "holding a defensive position". Which position would that be in the Battle of Britain? There were lots of airports and none of them were threatened by ground attacks and capture in the battle. The second paragraph is more detailed. It starts "The situation can arise in one of two ways ...", and then describes circumstances unrelated to the Battle of Britain. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
But if the RAF had lost the BoB, the Luftwaffe would have achieved air-superiority, and the airports (as well as the rest of Britain) would have been left with little defense against German bombers. IOW, the RAF was on the defense. Lars T. (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they were on the defensive but they were not fighting to hold a specific position they could not or would not retreat from, and that's roughly how the article defines a last stand. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(Since this is going long, I reset the indents here.)
Well then, lets go over the second part: The situation can arise in one of two ways. Sometimes, perhaps because of geography or lack of supplies or support, the troops in question cannot retreat from their position without being instantly destroyed by the enemy. At other times, the troops in question are forced to follow orders and cannot consider retreat, even though the moral choice is open to them. In both cases, surrender to the enemy is an option, but either the group as a whole or their commanding officer decides instead to "go down fighting". In some cases the soldiers may consider that surrender may also result in their deaths, and that to fight to their deaths is a better choice in the circumstances. This sometimes comes from strategic or moral considerations, as the defenders conclude that their own sacrifice is essential to the wider success, or at least survival, of their campaign. "Lack of supplies and support" is an excellent example. UK alone did not have enough supplies to continue the battle for long, the imports from USA had not really started, and the UBoats where doing serious disruption to those few imports (there was a serious food shortage in UK too). As I said before (and was eluding to this), the option to surrender, or rather capitulate, was offered, but the British leadership, Churchill, refused, and said in no vague terms they will "go down fighting". And do not forget "as the defenders conclude that their own sacrifice is essential to the wider success, or at least survival, of their campaign." is exactly what the RAF did, and not just the RAF, but over a hundered Poles, some 87 Czechs, and Belgiums, Dutch, French, etc; they fought knowing that they where likely to die in the hopes their sacrifies will free their lands, their campaign.
Perhaps you are trying to find "a line in the sand", but we both know sand does not float in the air. Technology is changing how we interpret events, and going by the current definition for Last Stand, the BoB very strongly (I am not saying absolutely for the same reasons) qualifies for it. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Britain refers to the air battle over Britain and not to the whole British-German war. Like "geography" in the quote, "lack of supplies or support" refers to a possible inability to retreat, for example because they don't have enough supplies to move troops away from the battle, or no support from allied troops to break out of an encirclement. That doesn't apply to BoB. All wars have some troops who risk their lives. RAF was part of a large organized military under British control and their pilots could not have surrendered to Germany even if they wanted to - unless they deliberately flew their planes into enemy territory and landed. They could have deserted or not volunteered in the first place but that's another matter. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You did not mention the large number of non-UK pilots who chose to fight, the could have surrendered, but did not, but yes it small part. I will add more, not enough time to sit down and type. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You described precisely why the BoB should be considered a Last Stand. UK was surrounded by the LW on the east and U-boats to the west. And as you said, it is called the Battle of BRITAIN, not the Battle of the RAF, or Battle for the Sky. Germany captured Norway and kicked the allies out, they occupied Holland and Belgium (and Denmark) in a few weeks, and so shattered France they gave up. It looked really bad for UK. Oh, yes, there was an escape or surrender option, they could have flown to Ireland and be detained, in better conditions then as a POW in Germany. OK, another example: Battle of Midway. An equally important point in WW2, and also one that was 100% an air battle. It is not called The Battle of North America because (as you keep pointing out with UK), Hawaii is NOT the government capitol, and there was a retreat available. It does have the required "Heavy losses for defenders, but much heavier for attacker", and the "We will hold our ground here", but not the other requirements. Midway, and Pearl Harbor, did prove one thing for certain. Air power trumps sea power. We know that today, logically if the LW had established air supremacy over the Channel and Sea Lion went ahead, the RN would have had a very hard time. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Britain was named by Churchill before it began. It turned out there was only an air battle. That is what "Battle of Britain" has since referred to. Without a successful land invasion it is unrealistic that Britain would have surrendered to a German occupation before, during or after the air battle, regardless of who won it. It was Britain who declared war on Germany which was more interested in conquest to the East. Britain might have "surrendered" by withdrawing from the war on favourable terms for Germany but that's it without a German invasion. The air battle was not and could not have been the last stand before a German conquest of Britain. The British would still have stood in Britain so I don't see how it can be a "last stand". Your user name and user page suggest you are interested in aircraft and WW2. I wonder whether your interests are influencing your eager to mention an air battle in this article. I'm also interested in the Battle of Britain and have seen and read considerably about it for somebody from a country not participating in the battle, but I think it would be hard for an air battle to qualify for a "last stand" which generally involves a stand on territory which will have no defense left and be under enemy control with survivors captured if the stand fails. Air battles are different. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be hard for an air battle to qualify for a "last stand" which generally involves a stand on territory which will have no defense left and be under enemy control with survivors captured if the stand fails. THAT is what I am getting at. I am not apply a strict requirement of a Last Stand being on the ground only but more the spirit of what it means, and the BoB does fits the name. Warfare in the 20th and 21th century has changed several times, and to keep seeing a Last Stand in 400 BC terms is, well, denying progress (pardon my poor word usage). The Siege of Malta (World War II) could also be seen as a Last Stand, but it was not a home land for the defender, and the invasion plan was far less certain. "Flightsoffancy" means more then just flying/flight, but my love of flight was one of many reasons I chose that as a name. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a myth being perpetuated by Flightsoffancy here: The Luftwaffe was not fighting the "remnants of the RAF!" Fighter Command, especially, was by no means "the remnants"; the fighters had been battered and bruised, yes, but certainly not to the extent believed by German "Intelligence". British fighter production was well able to keep up with combat losses; the drain on pilots and aircrew did become a cause for concern but it was never likely to break the RAF - there was enough flexibility in the organisation to allow for this. Most important of all; The Luftwaffe was not able to destroy or significantly weaken the Command Structure of Fighter Command; for example, many of the important Sector Airfields were heavily damaged but, again, there was sufficient flexibility in the system to compensate for the damage. The all-important radar equipment was never in danger of being rendered dysfuntional while the Observers Corps positions were completely untouched. In the majority of the battles described in the article the command structure of the forces making a last stand was either destroyed or broken.
One of the factors which seems to be listed in most of the "Last Stand" battles is that a defined number of combatants were engaged; eg 13,000 American and Filipino soldiers against 75,000 Japanese (Battle of Corregidor). There were no more than 13,000 Allied troops available; these troops were not being replaced as they were being killed, wounded or captured. From all I have read the Allied forces had a finite supply of equipment with few reserves from which they were able to draw. Resupply of the men and equipment was extremely limited to non-existent. By contrast both the Luftwaffe and the RAF had reserves of manpower, aircraft and equipment available which were able to be used throughout the ongoing battle; in most cases the reserves were able to compensate for the losses - neither side reached breaking point, although the RAF was, at times, hard pressed.
One final MAJOR problem; it is quite obvious that the Last stand article itself needs a lot of work to bring it up to a reasonable standard; there is a lot of unverified information, the article lacks sources and there are very few cites shown in the text, it is full of original research, the neutrality of some of the entries is disputed, etc, etc. Example, the introductory statement

Last stand is a loose military term used to describe a body of troops holding a defensive position in the face of overwhelming odds."

WHERE did this definition come from? Is there a specific source that can be quoted, or is this just the writer's opinion? What does "Loose Military Term" mean!?

The defensive force usually takes very heavy casualties or is completely destroyed, while also inflicting high casualties on the opponent

Same question, Where did this come from? If this is the definition being used for a Last Stand - which is what the entire article is about - IT NEEDS A SOURCE, preferably from a military historian or an important military figure, for it to be definitive, otherwise it can be taken as being a matter of opinion of one or more Wikipedia editor(s).
I would suggest that a great deal more work be done on getting the basics sorted out before other battles are discussed or added. Until that work is done it might be better to forget about including the B of B. Just my thoughts. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


(reply)Xerxes was not fighting the "remnants" of the Greek army, and even when he defeated the 300, it was not the end of Greek resistants. In fact, the Greek navy was still very strong, and the Greek army eventually did enough damage to force Xerxes to give up Greece. So, your first argument is rendered moot.
Many of the battles offer very wide estimates on number of combatant's, and it would not surprise me if locals and live stock was pressed into a battle in one way or other. So your second argument is very difficult to prove at best.
Your third argument is what I have been saying from the beginning. Under current definition of Last Stand, BoB is very plausible. Refine the definition, BoB may not. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
First point, you still continue with this myth about the "last remnants of the RAF".

Remnants of the RAF (a significant amount was lost in the Blitzkrieg)

Your quote, not mine.

it would not surprise me if locals and live stock was pressed into a battle in one way or other

What has this pure speculation on your part have to do with anything?
Third point; WHERE DOES THE "DEFINITION" OF LAST STAND COME FROM? Until that is established, the whole article is moot - right now the definition of Last Stand is nothing more than a matter of opinion on the part of one or more Wikipedia editor(s). It does not stack up as a definition until there is a source. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
As early on as the 16 May, the French position on the ground and in the air become desperate. They pressed the British to commit more of the RAF fighter groups to the battle. Hugh Dowding, C-in-C of RAF Fighter Command refused, arguing that if France collapsed, the British fighter force would be severely weakened. The RAF force of 1,078 had been reduced to just 475 aircraft. RAF records show just 179 Hawker Hurricanes and 205 Supermarine Spitfires were serviceable on 5 June 1940. from Battle_of_France#Aftermath. I am sorry, but you have not given any valid information to this discussion, and SHOUTING your opinions belittles your attempt to add something constructive, except maybe the entire "Last Stand" article should be deleted.
OH, wait! Maybe you DO have a point! If someone can find a book that states in effect the "Battle of Britain" was a last stand by the UK forces against the Germans, then yes, the BoB will now have a source for "Last Stand"! --Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)



Strength returns for the RAF show 754 Hurricanes and Spitfires on 1 July 1940 (Bungay 2000, p.107) rising to 549 Hurricanes and 276 Spitfires on August 17 (Price 1979, pp.21-22.); this latter figure was in spite of all of the fighting that had taken place in the interim; hardly the remnants.

I am sorry, but you have not given any valid information to this discussion

And what constitutes "valid information" in your opinion? Information you can agree with? You have not properly answered any of the points I have been making and your sarcasm does not invalidate my most important question - where does the definition of "Last Stand" come from? If it is a "loose military term", who has decided this? Little has been done about providing proper source material for many important and contestable contributions to the article in spite of having these
dating from 2007. Note the Unsourced material may be challenged and removed? Should someone choose to contest the defintition of "Last Stand" the entire introduction can be removed from the article - as it is right now most of the article could also be deleted. Or is that invalid information?

OH, wait! Maybe you DO have a point! If someone can find a book that states in effect the "Battle of Britain" was a last stand by the UK forces against the Germans, then yes, the BoB will now have a source for "Last Stand"!

Considering how badly referenced most of this article is it would be a minor miracle that a book would be considered to be a valid source of information. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


I successfully answered both your questions, but you ignored them. Just to be sure: You wanted some proof of "remnants", the RAF losing some 60% of its units in France is substantial, especially since the LW was well over 1000, maybe more then 2000. Then you stated that defined number of combatants is needed.... Well, didn't I just type that? In fact it is more accurate then the example you gave (My reference to civilians is for many battles over history, occasionally they are involved, but rarely acknowledge, and where there exactly 13,000 vs 75,000?).
You also seem to ignore my statments that under the current definition of Last Stand, the BoB is valid, so either clarify key factors about it, or find some book about last stands as a source, or included the BoB, and maybe others. IOW, I actually agree with you on the definition, but instead of what you should be doing, discussing what constitutes a Last Stand, you launch ad homonym attacks. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You have completely missed my points and have not answered them properly; by the time the B of B started the RAF had replenished the supply of front line fighters, the primary defensive force; this force was able to be replenished throughout the duration of the battle. Statistics from the end of Battle of France are immaterial because by the time the Luftwaffe started the convoy attacks there were more fighters available to the defending side.
The figures for the Battle of Corregidor are quoted directly from the article; there is no mention of civilians being involved - in fact there are no references given so any figure could be used. Whether or not civilians might have been involved is pure conjecture on your part; without references, which are supposed to be a primary part of Wikipedia articles, conjecture can be used to prove just about anything.
I will quote from Alfred Price "The Hardest Day":

But the Luftwaffe fighter force did not enjoy a sufficiently great quantative or qualitative adavantage over the defenders to enable it to inflict the desired heavy losses...To sum up: none of the methods of attack open to the Luftwaffe, either singly or collectively, was likely to acheive the subjugation of Fighter Command without the Luftwaffe suffering similarly heavy losses in the process. (Price 1979, pp.180-181)

ergo; the B of B does not fit the current definition of last stand (viz; Last stand is a loose military term used to describe a body of troops holding a defensive position in the face of overwhelming odds...apart from rare exceptions...the defending force is usually annihilated.)
It is not up to me to find a book about last stand; nothing has been done by any of those editing this article to improve the article by providing proper references. Why should it be up to me, who has nothing to do with writing or editing the article, to do something that others have failed to do in over a year? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Let me explain this again, using the Battle of Thermopylae again:

The Luftwaffe and the Germand military was both materially and psychologically superior, just like with Greeks vs Persians. At that moment the world would have bet the Germans would win, just like they would have bet on the Persians. Sure the RAF (Britain) went to overdrive to make new units, but that is immaterial to that moment, because at that start of the Battle of Britain the main thing the Britsh had was resolve. For 3 days the Greeks held back against the Persians, so a last stand is not one days combat, or even a few hours combat. So a Last Stand could last for more then one engagement, or a day. Finally, a last stand ends when a sides either losses, or wins. All this follows the current definition of "last stand" in both battles.

As to Battle of Corregidor, you said the definition needs, One of the factors which seems to be listed in most of the "Last Stand" battles is that a defined number of combatants were engaged; eg 13,000 American and Filipino soldiers against 75,000 Japanese (Battle of Corregidor)., and I replied that 13,000 vs 75,000 seems to be a good estimate, while the BoB is known to a high degree of accuracy. Also I never, ever, said civilians and live stock where used in the Battle of Corregidor. With all the battles listed, they could have been conscripted in some of those battles but never recognized.

As a contributor to Wikipedia, we are expected to find the needed reference, or supporting info, or do not make posts that do not add to the discussion. So far you have made a direct personal attack at me, and rehashed what has been discussed already. Please read posts over twice before posting. I do that regularly. Sincerely. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


Another opinion

This is more complicated than it might seem. Did the British regard it as a last stand? Did the Germans regard it as a last stand? Did the neutral powers regard it as so? As for the First and Second, yes. The British were in the way of an end to the war which would have left the balance of power completely turned over. I think arguing over "last stand" to mean a "stand on territory" is a tad silly. Take Operation Bodenplatte for instance. Manhro and Putz call their book "The Luftwaffe's last hope", i.e their last chance of gaining air superiority. It was their last stand against the Allied Air Forces. So I believe it can be applied to aerial warfare. There is no definition stating it has to be naval or ground forces, effectively excluding the Third dimension. The BoB is unlike any other in that it was a set piece battle that may have decided the outcome of the war. To claim that air battles cannot be a last stand is to imply that air power cannot win wars alone. There are examples of air power bringing a combatant to the negotiating table - so this conclusion does not make sense to me. There is a case for a last stand here. Dapi89 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

and that is exactly what I am getting to. Last Stand does not have to be on terra firma or on water, it will likely happen in the air (if not already), and one day it will happen in outer space. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the war be mentiond ?

I dont know about you guys, but i think that the war in wich the last stand took place should be mentiond in the list. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 02:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a good request. Any one else for? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Example:
Name Date Defending army Attacking army Ratio Details
Battle of Saragarhi
(Tirah Campaign) 		12 September 1897 21 Sikhs 10,000 Afghan and Orakzai troops 1:476 The Battle of Saragarhi was fought between 21 Sikhs of the 4th Battalion (then 36th Sikhs) of the Sikh Regiment of Great British India, defending an army post, against 10,000 Afghans and Orakzai tribesmen.

or

Name Conflict Date Defending army Attacking army Ratio Details
Battle of Saragarhi Tirah Campaign 12 September 1897 21 Sikhs 10,000 Afghan and Orakzai troops 1:476 The Battle of Saragarhi was fought between 21 Sikhs of the 4th Battalion (then 36th Sikhs) of the Sikh Regiment of Great British India, defending an army post, against 10,000 Afghans and Orakzai tribesmen.

This is 2 versions i had in mind. Would favor the second if i had to choose. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I favor the 2ed as well, more visible. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support the first one as it is less cramped. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 11:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Gaia. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Defining "Last Stand"

Clearly the current definition is very open to interpretation. Refernce or not, some way to narrowing what it means must be created.

Last stand is a loose military term used to describe a body of troops holding a defensive position in the face of overwhelming odds. The defensive force usually takes very heavy casualties or is completely destroyed, while also inflicting high casualties on the opponent. Apart from rare exceptions, such as Rorke's Drift, Battle of Longewala, and Battle of Little Big Horn the defending force is usually annihilated.

The situation can arise in one of two ways. Sometimes, perhaps because of geography or lack of supplies or support, the troops in question cannot retreat from their position without being instantly destroyed by the enemy. At other times, the troops in question are forced to follow orders and cannot consider retreat, even though the moral choice is open to them. In both cases, surrender to the enemy is an option, but either the group as a whole or their commanding officer decides instead to "go down fighting". In some cases the soldiers may consider that surrender may also result in their deaths, and that to fight to their deaths is a better choice in the circumstances. This sometimes comes from strategic or moral considerations, as the defenders conclude that their own sacrifice is essential to the wider success, or at least survival, of their campaign.

A siege will often lead to a last stand by the defenders of the besieged city. However, while sieges are generally characterized by a lengthy engagement, last stands are generally brief and decisive.



Some ideas:
Required:

  • Combative number known to reasonable accuracy, and closely matched by both sides in historical records if available
  • Defenders are clearly out numbered, 2 to 1 as a minimum is reasonable
  • Outcome is not factored, could be victory as well as defeat.
  • Can last for long periods of time


Supporting:

  • Leadership publicly announces defense, line in the sand, you shall not pass, etc.

This is only some ideas, not meant to be final list/ideas. Little Bighorn would be included since Custars group was only part of a much larger force. Siege would not be included since little actual combat takes place. combatants just see who starves first. Medina is NOT a siege since the Romans where building a ramp to castle, nor would Tory since Greeks made several attacks during time, nor would the Battle of Britain since invasion plans where being made and forces/material gathered. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Examplefarm

This article carries no citations from reliable sources that describes any of the last stands here. While there is no reason why there should not be some examples given of last stands to help explain the subject, this list encourages original research. If no citations are provided over the next few days I intend to delete the list. --PBS (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Has no one any comment on this? --PBS (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


As on one has commented and not one of the examples had an historian stating that it was a last stand I have removed them all as OR before any of them are put back reliable sources (not web pages etc) should be provided stating that the battle in question in an experts opinion was a last stand see WP:PROVEIT.

Instead of creating an example farm, I suggest that we take a couple of well known, well cited examples of last stands like the battle of the Little Bighorn and include them into the text. That will help illustrate and illuminate the subject without creating a list which tempts OR insertions. --PBS (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The definition used is from a dictionary definition of "last stand" front what I found. I did find one book: "Glorious Defiance: Last Stands Throughout History", did not purchase. As much as Wikipedia does not want to create original content, we may have little choice. As to your idea of a couple of examples, I would suggest more then 2, maybe 6 well known examples, and highlight what makes it a "last stand". Thermoply, Little Big Horn and Alamo are clearly 3, but with LBH, whos last stand was it? It is often seen as Custars Last Stand, but was it not the Indians who where defending?
Oh, I see you already did that, but also removed the entire list as well. Despite the lack of definition, it may be better to have kept the list... --Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If the definition is from a dictionary please cite the dictionary in the article (there is no mention of it in the OED the nearest I could find was "1909 Westm. Gaz. 1 June 12/2 A great last-wicket stand might once in a way occur.").
The list was full of incidents that editors of Wikipedia considered to be last stands, they had not included citations to back up the list. But even if they had how does a list help the reader understand what a last stand is? I think it is better to include examples that illuminate the issue.
On that note why remove the Alamo user:Axeman89? --PBS (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, even though the wording needed to be changed, I'm not sure why I got rid of one of the classic last stands. Axeman89 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the wording but I would agree it could do with polishing, BTW I have recently come across the justification for killing all the men in the town/fort if they did not surrender. Juliet Barker in Agincourt pp. 181,194 states the religious justification behind the action was Deuteronomy 20 10-17 --PBS (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

I am not sure why some IP addresses are adding in the Battle of Berlin to this article. The Battle of Berlin was not a last stand by anyone. The German defenders attempted a breakout on the night of the 1/2 May 1945 and if they failed to do so surrendered to the Soviets. This behaviour is not what is usually considered to be that involved in last stand, and is typical of the end of many sieges. The Third Reich did not end on May 2 1945 the day that Berlin surrendered, and there was still fighting on all fronts. A better example would have been if the Nazis had infact retreated to the Alpine redoubt that the Americans feared they would. In that respect the last stand of the Tamil Tigers might be a better example. --PBS (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Was removing the entire lists necessary?

See abouve #Examplefarm

Hello, I have read the discussions regarding the original research claims and lack of sources, but was removing all the items on the lists really necessary? The article as of now looks very incomplete and stub-like, compared to when it had those thoroughly detailed and extensive lists by eras. Also, as it stands the article makes it seem like there were only a few last stands in history, because it only talks about the "most important ones". Wouldn't the article be better off at least listing some of the other last stands at least to clear this confusion, or even dividing the lists into real and "claimed" last stands? Seriously, without the lists in some form the article looks poor and even not relevant compared to before... (I will put the last version of the list back up as is until someone explains the removal proper) --Kreachure (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained the reason I deleted the list in #Examplefarm. It was full of OR, and the list did help to explain what a last stand was. It does not talk about the most important ones instead it uses examples to help explain different facets of the reasons for last stands.
There are far too many cases in Wikipedia articles of editors building lists which in their own personal opinion should be included in an article without any attempt to justify the inclusion with a couple of reliable sources. If you want to put any of them back please use reliable sources and include the name(s) of the reliable sources claiming that the said event was a last stand.(see WP:PROVEIT) -- PBS (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that there are several items on the list that do have references. So saying that it was "full of OR" is not correct. I also disagree when you say that the sources should call the events "last stands", since, as the article describes, it's a loosely used term; but, the article could clarify what a last stand is via the examples, which would show the 'overwhelming odds' it refers to. (If someone was familiar with [http://www.amazon.com/Glorious-Defiance-Stands-Throughout-History/dp/1557780293 The Glorious Defiance book] it would be easier to know an exact definition of the term and the battles that it could refer to, but alas.) That said, the sources needed to confirm the odds do exist, they're just not cited here, but in each battle's respective article. I do not have the time to browse through every single article referred to in the list to reproduce the sources here, or even to edit the list so as to leave only the sourced items, but I think someone should at least do the latter. Still, I consider it unnecessary to remove the lists as they are, since each item links to its respective article. Kreachure (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Take the second one in the list (the first is one of the examples in the text): Battle of the Persian Gate. There was no source given that it was a last stand. The article itself gives two references, but it is not clear that they support the statement that it was a last stand as the second cited source says "Ariobarazan escaped towards Persepolis to organize his last stand there." Which is why such lists need to have multiple reliable sources to show that a that there is general agreement among reliable sources that event is a last stand, or a massacre or what ever. -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Wizna

One of the episodes of WW2 was Battle of Wizna, polish last stand during septmeber 1939 invasion of Poland. Just over 700 polish infantry defended for three days against more than 40000 strong Guderian panzer army. All but 40 polish soldiers perished. Maybe we should create a list of famous and notable last stands? 77.253.209.12 (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No. See above, such a list is just an example farm and does not help explain what last stands are. -- PBS (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Victorious Defences

As of right now the article gives several examples of the various types of last stands, but gives no examples of succesful last stands. Should not we include a paragraph on succesful last stands and why the outnumbered forces are able to be victorious? Battle of Rorke's Drift and the Battle of Salsu come to mind. Often the defending force will be superior in technology or overall tactics in these situations.XavierGreen (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If they live to fight another day how can it be a last stand? -- PBS (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
By the definition given. Lars T. (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that claim that either Rorke's Drift or the battle of Salsu were last stands? -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a book titled Last Stands, and Rorkes drift consists of an entire chapter of it. I will cite it once i can find the book.XavierGreen (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Would that be Last Stand!: Famous Battles Against the Odds by Bryan Perrett?[2] -- PBS (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes thats it indeed! Some exciting stuff in that book.XavierGreen (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
So does he describe Rorke's Drift as a "last stand" or a "famous battle against the odds" -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
He lists it as early as page 9 in the introduction as a prime example of a last stand driven by espirit de corps.XavierGreen (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────┘
I've modified the paragraph and cited this book and page number please supply the publisher and ISBN for your edition. Also please include the page numbers for the chapter on RD. -- PBS (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Requirements/non-requirements for last stand. Lists of consensus/controversial last stands. (Long post) Dec 17, 2009

This is a long post, as I have much interest in historical last stands and hope to improve this page about them, especially by restoring needed examples of last stands. I was amazed there's so much discussion here, and glad I read it before I put up my list of "last stand" battles only to have it deleted.

So to set a consensus definition - I'm wondering if you would all agree with these requirements and non-requirements for considering a battle a last stand. Please feel free to add to these three lists so we can come up with a consensus and can then classify some battles.

Requirements

1) The defenders are unable or unwilling to leave their position, and are cut off during the battle from any friendly forces.
 2) The attackers have much greater strength than the defenders. This is usually be numerical and tactical, as in surrounding the defenders. It can also involve technology and supply.
3a) The defenders lose all held ground while fighting "to the last man". A large majority of defenders are casualties (>~66%). No more than ~50% surrender. These are only my estimates from having read about many last stands; they are not definitive and I'm willing to hear alternate ones.
OR
3b) The defenders win the battle, holding and completely stopping the attack.' They cannot simply make a tactical retreat out of the battle.
4) At least one legitimate secondary source states an opinion that the battle was a "last stand". This should be obvious, so that we avoid adding battles based on only our opinion.

We can bifurcate the article so that one section contains lost battles and one contains won battles, noting that the definition for "last stand" is generally loose and can be interpreted both ways. This way the reader can choose which one of the definitions he/she wishes to consider.

Supporting factors but insufficient and unnecessary by themselves

1) Declaration or orders for a last stand by defenders.
(Note that last stands are not just based on attempts to hold the line at all costs, which happens much more frequently than true last stands. Last stands involve a much higher degree of inferiority in troops and being cut off from retreat and help. Nor do all claims to fight to the last man actually reflect reality;cf. Jefferson Davis in 1865 or Saddam Hussein in 2003).
2) Offer to surrender from attackers and refusal by defenders.
3) By itself, it is a well-known and significant engagement, rather than one action as part of greater battle or campaign.
4) Defenders inflicting heavy/disproportionate losses on the attacker (I think this only gives weak support but others may disagree)
5) Reference from a source that analyzes more than one last stand rather than a source based solely on one battle

Bryan Perrett's books

Bryan Perrett's three books on last stands provide a number of examples, and I have two of them elsewhere and can reference them in a few weeks. His work should be a better reference than single histories of battles, as his collection contains a standard for choosing last stands and is well-researched.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Famous-Battles-Against/dp/1854091883<br /> http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Odds-Dramatic-Actions/dp/1854094513/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_12<br /> http://www.amazon.com/All-Costs-Stories-Impossible-Victories/dp/1860199038/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3 (victorious "last stands")

Consensus list of last stands. Please suggest/comment

I think we should absolutely give good examples for the casual reader, rather than just not have them at all. Therefore, I will soon add this list of uncontroversial last stands, for both the "defeat" and "victory" types, which I can make separate sections in the main article as I noted above. Every one has a chapter in one of Perrett's books. Please add other battles that you feel do not have much controversy.

Defeats [3a]
1) Battle of the Alamo
2) Battle of Iwo Jima
3) Battle of Okinawa
4) Battle of Isandlwana
5) Battle of Camarón(might be too unknown, but otherwise fits all requirements)

Victories [3b]
1) Battle of Rorke's Drift

Controversial list of last stands. Please suggest/comment

These are controversial examples people have mentioned above, or are chapters in Perrett's books but I think may not fall under strict requirements. Remember that if we lower requirements for inclusion to add our favorite picks, then we may have to include many more battles based on that standard to be fair; this is why I set them fairly high. Still, I'm certainly open to all ideas for inclusion. Please add battles with a quick description of reasons for or against their inclusion:

Defeats [3a]
1) Battle of Wake Island (In Perrett. I think this is very close to good enough, especially if you add execution of POW's to casualties. But still, about 66% of US soldiers surrendered, though many were wounded)
2) Numerous Japanese last stands in Pacific War, such as Guadacanal, Truk, Saipan, etc. (We might be best off just mentioning that the Pacific War was full of Japanese last stands, instead of listing all?)
3) Battle of Little Bighorn (In Perrett. I think this should be included as it fits my version of the requirements; but others may disagree due to the fact that Custer was attacking at first and then willing to try to hold against the Sioux)
4) Battle of Arnhem (In Perrett. I think this is also close, but again there about 75% were captured alive, though many were wounded)
5) Battle of Arica (I don't know enough about this to comment, but it looks close from its page)
6) Battle of the Persian Gate (I also think this is close, but as one of the editors on that page I know this is a very controversial battle so I think we should avoid it for now)
7) Battle of Teutoburg Forest (In Perrett. This fits all the other requirements, but it may be considered part of an ambushed offensive instead of a defensive action)
8) Battle of Naseby and Battle of Stow-on-the-Wold (Currently in article. I plan to remove them as non-last stands, due to the significant number of surrenders and tactical retreats in both cases (i.e. they were not completely surrounded) . Their reference is also rather weak, as part of a 1928 dictionary only.)
9) Battle of Stalingrad and Battle of Berlin (These may be too major as full campaigns, and too high a number did live and surrender in both cases. Still, I'm putting these out there for debate)

Victories [3b]
1) Battle of Bastogne (In Perrett. I think the airborne were not cut-off enough from US airpower/resupply for this to really count though)
2) Battle of Britain (I personally do not think British inferiority in the air was ever dangerously great for a long amount of time; nor were their crucial bases in the north of England ever threatened; nor was their higher production rate of aircraft threatened. Not trying to start debate on this though!)

OK! Looking forward to improving this article! Wilytilt (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Edited this post Wilytilt (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Way edited and expanded againWilytilt (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Please read the Wikipedia no original research policy (the NOR) and also the long long debates over List of massacres. As editors we can not make up a list of criteria such as you have done in the subsection Requirements and make our own list of what we think meets that criteria because it breaches the the NOR. -- PBS (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Belgrade 1914.

Exactly at three o'clock, the enemy is due to be crushed by your fierce charge, destroyed by your grenades and bayonets. The honor of Belgrade, our capital, must not be stained. Soldiers! Heroes! The supreme command has erased our regiment from its records. Our regiment has been sacrificed for the honor of Belgrade and the Fatherland. Therefore, you no longer need worry about your lives: they no longer exist. So, forward to glory! For King and Country! Long live King, Long live Belgrade!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragutin_Gavrilović

--Shaggy (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

More sections

I have moved the template to the talk page because this is an editorial maintenance template which does not provide any information that is useful to a reader of the article.

From the history of the article: 00:23, 16 March 2010 Mono (talk | contribs | block) m (4,824 bytes) (Added {{sections}} tag to article using Friendly) (undo)
See {{sections}}

User:Mono is of the opinion that "This article should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible. Please help by adding section headings in accordance with Wikipedia's style guidelines."

--PBS (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Last_stand/Archive_1&oldid=1136894802"