I admit that while I know a lot about European and Ancient history, my knowledge of the US history is sadly lacking except for some outstanding events. I should dig up that old YA novel about Tecumseh I read as kid and look how the battle is presented there.

What I find fascinating is that Wayne obviously knew Caesar's works and made use of them.

He died that morning on the banks of the Wabash. Years later, Chief Little Turtle returned General Butler's Order of the Cincinnati to his widow, and told her that, regardless of what she'd heard, that General Butler's heart had not been eaten.

His sword, stained with his own blood, had been carried from the field. That sword eventually passed to his nephew, Edward George Washington Butler, who went on to sign the Articles of Secession for Louisiana at the outbreak of the Civil War.

As one can see, the results, while not a spectacular as under St. Clair, were not what was desired.

History is big. It's amazing how many important things the history classes back in school ignored, or glossed over, or swept under the rug, which I've only learned about many years later.

Now I'm curious: does anyone know of a good general history of that period?

Aside from one spectacularly bad day St. Clair was part of the Early American First String. That was part of what made his defeat so stunning.

Here are some references:

Arthur St. Clair

Early America's Bloodiest Battle

Native American Ways

No, the white invader colonisation problem on the frontier continued.

Eckert specializes in the history of the colonial frontier. Having grown up in close proximity to the only Revolutionary War fort in Ohio (didn't know there was one, did you?), I can attest to his very thorough research.

Be warned though, the books are dense and "chewy"--not quick reads. But they bring to life many of the people and events of the era.

Somehow, I don't think that the aboriginal inhabitants of the region thought in those terms.

For some reason, I'm reminded of Gore Vidal.

James, wasn't that other general's name Harmar rather than Hamar? Seems I recall a Fort Harmar near Marietta.

James Alexander Thom's novel Panther in the Sky is a good read about Tecumseh. He's a novelist, not a historian, but he seems to do pretty thorough research for his books.

Just so I can win this one when it comes up in Trivia Pursuit, is this the worst single battle, or the most lives lost in a single day, is it based on percentage lost of the total army or absolute numbers, or what?

Didn't something like 2,500 American troops die on D-Day?

So, "worst defeat" == Biggest loss as a percent of the total size of army in a single battle.

Got it. And china is in eastern europe. Check.

OK. I think I'm all squared away.

Give it a few years, and Europe will be in Western China.

Fragano #15
For the trivia, I can come up with another really bad defeat: the Roman general Varus lost his entire army (3 legions and several auxiliary cohorts) in the battle of the Teutoburg Forest against the German tribes under Arminius in 9 AD - 15.000-18.000 men, depending on whether the legions were full strength or not. Varus and most of his staff fell upon their swords when they realised everything was lost. It was the most spectacular defeat the Roman army ever suffered.

And the reason we speak German today, not French. *grin*

Though compared to the entire strength of the Roman army at the time, the loss was less severe than in case of Wabash.

In the great scheme of things, I think the Indians had the right on their side in the continuing mess in Ohio. Not that Hair-Buyer Hamilton, sitting up in Detroit and playing a great game of "Let's you and him fight," was helping anything much.

Think of this as the US Army's Isandlwana.

After the Fallen Timber, hostilities ceased for a while with the Treaty of Greenville, signed by everyone except Tecumseh.

As for worst US defeat under arms: St. Clair lost 90% of the troops under his command (KIA), all of his artillery and logistics, and left the field in a headlong rout.

About 73,000 US troops participated in D-Day. For an equivalent defeat they would have had to have suffered 65,700 KIA, and left the beach by swimming back to England.

Hannibal got kicked out in the end, the Cimbri and Teutones were annihilated, and the Parthians conquered albeit for a limited time, but Germany never became a Roman province. ;)

One could argue that Shapur taking the emperor Valerian captive was an important event, but the empire didn't care much who was emperor at that time, so the impact was less stunning than Varus' defeat.

Worst victory?

The number of dead is given with about 20.000, plus 10K captured, which would leave another 10K Cassius Longinus got out of the mess and into the province Syria.

I'll get back to you one of these days. :)

Ah. True. Though, it ain't "victory" till it's over. So far, we've had several years of "victories" in Iraq, and I'll be damned if that means squat in the end. We could win every battle and still lose the war.

But really, I was just thinking that given the death tolls we've had in various wars that maybe somewhere we had a defeat worse than 1,100 killed. The D-Day numbers just told me that it was at least concievable that a WW2 battle could lose more than a thousand American lives.

Philipines, WW2, maybe? Though I don't know any specific numbers there. Bataan death march killed 14,000 total, though I don't know how many were American. And it wasn't a battle. 6,000 killed taking Iwo Jima, but that was over a month long battle, so I'm not sure how that measures. Per day? Per battle? Or for the whole island?

The first two weeks of the October offensive on the Argonne, France, 1918, maybe? Those attacks eventually succeeded as the German army crumbled under the weight of the entire Allied offensive, but they were very costly, and were they considered alone might well be thought a failure.

One single battle, that of the Somme 1916, saw about 165,000 Germans dead; the number of the allied losses must have been in the same range (though no US soldiers in that one).

(And I finally remembered to use comma, not a full stop in the numbers :)

I've got Moonwulf, rather than Juanita, on the in-brain radio, but otherwise yes. And I'd queue up (or, more meaningfully, pre-order) the Keller album if/when it materializes. On the other hand, Roper spent the year occupied with a) a blown knee and the surgeries and recoveries appurtenant thereto, and b) a brand-new daughter. He's a little pre-occupied :)

If the militia be distinguished from the standing army then IIRC Korea produced the worst defeats and greatest single action casualties in the history of the US Army - often redlegs fighting as infantry and such - ask Dr. Pournelle.

Frex: http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/1950/11-23to12-31-50.html

December 1

The 2nd ID's 23rd Regimental Combat Team, which is the 23rd Infantry Regiment and the 15th Field Artillery, acts as the rear guard for the division's withdrawal.
......
The Chinese virtually wipe out the 9th and 38th Infantry Regiments on the retreat route. The 23rd RCT then withdraws to the east to escape the slaughter.
........
By the time the remnants of the 2nd ID reach the British lines, nearly a third of its strength is gone, about 4,940 soldiers.
........
Task Force Faith, part of the Seventh Division and named for its commander, Lt. Col. Don Faith, begins to fight its way from the east bank of the Chosin Reservoir to Hegari at the south end of the reservoir to join up with the 1st Marine Division.
.........
.....Only 385 of the original 3,200-man task force [Faith] make it to U.N. lines. Faith was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor....

Stories abound

Rob @ #25: How about "costliest victory?"

All: Regarding WWI losses, I've seen several articles that suggested the number of casualties in WWI battles and operations were nearly always inflated by troop losses because of disease, usually influenza. The staggering losses suffered during certain actions of the Korean "conflict" were doubtless caused by enemy action, not microscopic flora and fauna.

Now that a few Conservatalk Radio demagogues have undertaken the revision of the Viet Nam war, I've been amazed to hear of some of "our" impressive victories. While it was all happening, I used to snort at the occasional news report of a victory by our troops and allies, since it was so obvious that there was only one outcome to be expected.

obs SF author's comments to Rolling Hot (Baen) : For those of you who weren't around at the time, the Viet Cong made a massive win-the-war attack on US and South Vietnamese forces during the truce declared for the Lunar New Year holiday, Tet. Politically, it won them the war: Tet proved that President Johnson and the US generals had been lying when they claimed the VC was nearly finished as a fighting force. Such public support for the war as had previously existed vanished abruptly.

Militarily what happened is that the guerrillas came out in large numbers where US firepower slaughtered them. The Blackhorse was tasked to recover the huge Bien Hoa airbase, and that's just what happened. One platoon sergeant showed me his snapshots of VC bodies in windrows on the concrete runways where cal fifties and canister rounds from tank main guns had laid them.

It takes a heap of bodies to make windrows.

Greg: re the "worst"

The effect of the battle was to make the entire armed force of the US, effectively, hors de combat The whole army was combat ineffective for some while until the losses could be made good.

There are any number of ways to define, "worst" but had England, for example, known of it, and wanted to send Redcoats south from Canada, there would have been damn-all to stop them.

At no other time in the national history have we actually been so vulnerable, in terms of forces available.

And thanks, all, for the pointers to learning parts of history I'd never read about.

Greg: re the "worst"

The effect of the battle was to make the entire armed force of the US, effectively, hors de combat The whole army was combat ineffective for some while until the losses could be made good.

There are any number of ways to define, "worst" but had England, for example, known of it, and wanted to send Redcoats south from Canada, there would have been damn-all to stop them.

At no other time in the national history have we actually been so vulnerable, in terms of forces available.

I don't think anyone has yet mentioned King Pyrrhus of Epirus†, whose linguistic legacy is probably relevant to this discussion.

† I first typed in Epiduris. Quite a different area, that.

But if you do find them, please let me know. It will mean that I'll have to backpedal fast.

My main Roman history book (M .Cary and H.H. Scullard, A History of Rome, which attempts to cover all of Roman history, and so is not guaranteed to get all the details right) says that the Romans had "not less than 35,000 men ... consist[ing] almost wholly of legionary infantry." It also says that "a bare 10,000, breaking away in detachments, regained the Roman frontier." Which implies the loss of about 25,000 men, though there's no attempt to break that down into dead versus captured.

The Roman commander, Crassus, was killed during the battle or immediately afterwards. The victorious Parthian commander, Surenas (who had won with something like 10,000 men, mostly mounted archers), was subsequently executed by the Parthian king, who was worried that Surenas might now have ambitions to displace him.

Thanks for the fascinating account; it's something I'd never heard of.

Is there, by the by, an "official" name for the battle?

http://www.fort-ticonderoga.org/history/timeline1700.htm

2. D-Day was certainly a victory, not a defeat. By comparison, the number killed at D-Day for the American Army was the *average* number of Soviets killed per day from 1941-45.

However, if all you're looking at is "the most men lost from those engaged in the battle", I'd put both the surrender at Corregidor in 1942, and the surrender of two regiments of the 106th Infantry Division at the start of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. All of the men (except for MacArthur's little party) at Corregidor were lost (killed or captured), while only isolated parts of the two 106th's regiments got away in 1944.

I wonder whether that means English men or English people. Wikipedia (whence spike quotes, I think) uses the word "Englishmen", which is ambiguous.

Another way to look at St. Clair's abandonment of Ticonderoga is that he preserved his army, which was insufficient to hold Ticonderoga anyway. Even if Burgoyne hadn't been able to surprise everyone by hauling artillery up Mount Defiance, it's extremely likely he would've taken Ticonderoga and St. Clair's army in relatively short order.

As it is, St. Clair was able to fight a delaying action in the woods and the remnants of his force eventually joined in the victory at Saratoga.

In White's list, the nine bloodiest battles of the twentieth century were from the German–Soviet war of 1941–1945, then at number ten is the Somme, 1916. The bloodiest battle of the twentieth century in which U.S. soldiers took part is #22 in the list: Okinawa, 1945.

White has a good summary of US deaths in war. Some measure of the relative savagery of theatres of war is that his figure of about 1.3 million U.S. soldiers dead in all wars since 1775 is less than the number of Soviet soldiers and civilians killed in the siege of Leningrad, 1941–1944, just one of the many bloody battles on the eastern front.

``...the greatest victory ever won by Indians over English-speaking opponents. On 4 November 1791, in a cold inclement dawn, one thousand warriors under Blue Jacket, Little Turtle, and Buckongahelas intercepted the United States Army under Arthur St. Clair, as it came to attack their towns. Although inferior in strength, the Indians overran the American camp on the Wabash and inflicted almost a thousand casualties, putting the survivors into a panic-stricken flight.'' —John Sugden, Tecumseh: A Life, Owl Books, 1997.

Regarding famous defeats, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Battle of Adrianople of 9 August AD 378 in which Emperor Valens lost his entire army of 40,000 men and his own life.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/adrianople.html

Valens lost to a bunch of barbarians, whom he himself had first let into the empire, and then let be mistreated until they revolted. Some historians seem to consider this the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire.

In other defeats, if I'm not mistaken, the Battle of Gettysburg was the largest battle in terms of numbers of participants ever fought in the Americas, the one with the highest number of casualties during its war, and of course a famous defeat for the CSA that is usually considered the turning point after which the south lost the war.

As far as being at our most vulnerable, that was rather a persistent woe in the post-Revolution period. in fact, if I recall correctly, we pretty much lost every battle in the 1812 War. The Brits basically demonstrated that they could defeat us, then withdrew because the process of governing us no longer held much appeal. They simply wanted to dispel any notion that canada could be ours.

As for more recent history, people who served in Nam continue to assert that we actually did win every battle, if viewed on standard terms like most casualties. But we lost the war anyways, which isn't uncommon when the native population - even in the south - is hostile to the foreign forces.

There really were three different mindsets at work with three different incentives for the battle. The natives wanted native rule and liberation from foreign occupation. The US was playing dominoes, fighting Communist expansionism. The South Vietnamese government was composed of capital interests, trying to retain control of their assets and power that communism threatened. But much of the population of the south had interests more closely aligned with the former than the latter two.

Bit of a side note, it's my understanding (and wikipedia's) that most modern people who are part of indian tribes prefer the term "American Indians" to "Native Americans". Thus American Indian Movement. "Native Americans" was apparently invented in the 60s by external anthropologists. To my mind it's less clear as well.

The U.S. had significant victories at Queenston Heights, Lundy's Lane, Lake Erie, Lake Champlain, and New Orleans, plus a number of minor successes like Sacket's Harbor, Baltimore, single-ship actions in the Atlantic, and commerce raiding around the world.

The most significant victory for the U.S. in the War of 1812 was the destruction of Tecumseh's confederation and the killing of Tecumseh himself at the Battle of the Thames in October 1813.

Tecumseh was among the victors over St Clair in 1791, and after the war ended in 1794 he continued to organize resistance against U.S. settlement of the northwest frontier, threatening to kill U.S. citizens who tried to settle on the lands acquired by William Henry Harrison in the Treaty of Fort Wayne, 1809.

With Tecumseh dead and the confederation dead and dispersed, there was no-one to prevent the U.S. settlement of Indiana and its accession as a state in 1816.

The most significant victory for the U.S. in the War of 1812 was the destruction of Tecumseh's confederation and the killing of Tecumseh himself at the Battle of the Thames in October 1813.

Tecumseh was among the victors over St Clair in 1791, and after the war ended in 1794 he continued to organize resistance against U.S. settlement of the northwest frontier, threatening to kill U.S. citizens who tried to settle on the lands acquired by William Henry Harrison in the Treaty of Fort Wayne, 1809.

With Tecumseh dead and the confederation dead and dispersed, there was no-one to prevent the U.S. settlement of Indiana and its accession as a state in 1816.

And no doubt being mindful of Mark Twain's comment that he wouldn't want to join a club that would be willing to have him.

Certainly, Ti controls the lake - unless somebody brings a whole damn army down from Quebec, dragging a few 12-pounders with them - and then hoists the big guns 700 feet UP Mount Defiance. No one had had that much artillery - or thought they could get it up the heights - in the previous sieges during the previous war. (I wonder if there had been a significant technical improvemnt in artillery in the intervening years?)

But once Burgoyne's troops dragged big guns into position shooting down into the fort, St. Clair was completely pw4ned.

Yes, he narrowly escaped court-martial for abandoning the position - most of his men got out to fight another day - but St. Clair had been placed in literally an indefensible position, and he was acquitted.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm

I was wondering if someone would mention Towton. When asked, most English people would assume the greatest single loss of English lives in a battle occurred at the Somme, but Towton has that dubious honour. And yet, I doubt if the vast majority of the populace has even heard of it.

While the Civil War battles were definitely bloody, none of them resulted in a loss of nearly all the men that fought. Antietam probably comes the closest; Lee's army was nearly destroyed after that battle but he still had roughly 50% of his force left.

If we're just talking about the total # of American casualties, then certainly several of the CW battles qualify, such as Gettysburg, Shiloh, Antietam and Chickamauga, and several others.

About 100,000 British soldiers died at the Somme. So I'm guessing you're restricting the comparison to the first day of the battle (1 July 1916) when about 20,000 British soldiers died.

I don't remember which of the two expeditions it was, but one of them had their own cannon captured and used against them.

Another point is that Little Turtle had information from his spies about Mad Anthony: he called him "the general who never sleeps" and refused to send his forces against General Wayne.

Possibly a sly reference to 'restricted' clubs and his Jewishness.

gdr @63: About 100,000 British soldiers died at the Somme. So I'm guessing you're restricting the comparison to the first day of the battle (1 July 1916) when about 20,000 British soldiers died.

Yes. I should've been clearer. Biggest loss in a single day.

I don't remember which of the two expeditions it was, but one of them had their own cannon captured and used against them.

That was St. Clair's expedition. As Martha Keller put it:

Licked, defeated and put to rout -
But he wouldn't be shook nor shaken,
Wouldn't hark to an Indian scout,
Wouldn't be putting of pickets out
Till all of his guns was taken

From my read of the situation, St. Clair was as stupid on the banks of the Wabash as General Custer on the Greasy Grass...

Read Ronald Spector's The Year After Tet

The VC were flat on their back, but not defeated-- quiescent in the rural areas. But the evidence is they were still out there, and rebuilding from their losses. Only the US policy of wholesale bombing of rural areas, to drive the peasants into refugee camps, proved to be an effective counterinsurgency tactic.

The North Vietnamese Army kept on pushing: the 12 months after Tet were the bloodiest 12 months for the US in the entire war. US ground forces were effectively stalemated.

Since victory usually goes to those who hold the field of battle, the NVA won after Tet. Tet was an operational disaster, but a strategic victory.

OK, the march from Ferrybridge to Towton, roughly 14km, wouldn't have needed the baggage train. And a medieval army didn't have the space-consuming components of later armies--a battery of artillery takes up a huge amount of roadspace. But did England have the rosources to field 80,000 men at Towton, after the battles of the previous year: Wakefield, Northampton, St. Albans, Mortimer's Cross... The trouble is, the numbers in those previous battles are very uncertain.

St. Clair was a close political ally of Washington, but note that Washington did not entrust St. Clair with an active combat command for the remainer of the Revolutionary War after Ticonderoga . . .

I'll fix the post.

The total German casualties on D-Day are not known, but are estimated as being between 4000 and 9000 men.

--http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm

"Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing."

Counted, I assume, over the whole "Battle of Normandy", including heavy bombing of towns where civilians attempted to shelter. Antony Beevor's just-published D-Day: The Battle for Normandy has a lot of up-to-date research.

St. Clair's Defeat