Talk:Last stand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

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)


Bold textShould 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:
  • talk:operation tonga: Coup de Main
  • Talk:Software engineering 1: Another view is that "Software engineer" is a military term
  • talk:stall: not a military term
  • talk:battle of swiecin: 'Tabor'... is c) military term, refering to wagons connected by chains
  • talk:total war: not exclusively a military term
  • Talk:glossary of WWII german military terms: völkisch: I don't think... is really a military term

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • support disambig. Chris 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Red Wing

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)