The 6 Most Insane Underdog Stories in the History of Battle
As much as we'd like to believe what Braveheart and Return of the Jedi have told us, real-world battles are rarely won by the ragtag team of underdogs. Tanks beat horses, guns beat spears.
Yet, as we've found again and again here at Cracked, often history turns out to be more awesome than fiction.

The Swiss are truly a slippery breed. With their endless supply of clocks, pocketknives and chocolates, they have managed to outlast just about every dictator/emperor/Hitler in history. What gives? What makes them too good for our friendship?

The rest of us non-Swiss have a long memory when it comes to Switzerland's neutrality.
In 1315, Duke Leopold I of Austria decided to put Europe's mutual hatred of the Swiss to good use by invading the country with a force of anywhere between 3,000 and 5,000 soldiers and cavalry. According to contemporary chronicler Johannes Vitoduranus, "The men of this army came together with one purpose, to utterly subdue and humiliate those peasants who were surrounded with mountains as with walls."

Because being a peasant wasn't humiliating enough.
Leopold's Austrian army was well-suited for battle, riding in with heavy mail and plate armor that could withstand all but the most piercing attacks. Along with heavily armored horses, the combined weight of these knights was expected to be enough to crush any pain in the ass innocent bystanders who got in their way ... which, of course, was exactly what they planned to do with them.
Their opponents were the Swiss.
The only thing the Swiss had going for them was the halberd, which was a bit of a mix between an ax, a spear and a meat hook that handled like all three weapons in one. You know ...

Like one of these.
But Austria was soon to learn exactly why nobody ever seems to want to fuck with the Swiss. On Nov. 15, 1315, Leopold's Uruk-hai army was greeted by a roadblock on a narrow point between Lake Aegeri and Morgarten, buttressed with a steep slope on one side and a swamp on the other. Before anyone figured out this might possibly be a trap, 1,500 Swiss confederates stationed in the cliffs above started hurling enough rocks, logs and Swiss army knives that the Austrians thought they were being assaulted by goddamned ewoks.

"Yub, yub!"
The Battle of Morgarten was not so much a battle as it was an absolute massacre. Whoever wasn't conked on the head with a boulder was forced off the road and into the swamp by Swiss footmen. For all the advances in armor plating during the Middle Ages, Leopold's army was undone by logs and rocks.

Also, by George Lucas running out of ideas.

In October 1776, just after the Revolutionary War broke out, a British flotilla of 25 warships sailed down the Hudson River with enough firepower and powdered wigs to blow New England all the way back to Regular England. Our Founding Fathers watched in terror, since their own navy was, at this point, still in tree form.

Yeah? Come over here and say that.
Fortunately, the U.S. was blessed to have a headstrong general named Benedict Arnold, who, as we've pointed out before, was basically history's answer to Rambo. Yeah, he turned on his country, but only because he thought they were being pussies. When Arnold saw the Brits coming, he decided he would beat the Brits back if it meant strapping together a bunch of logs and paddling out there himself.

Benedict Arnold: George Washington's George Washington.
The British forces consisted of 25 armed ships, 700 sailors and almost 2,000 redcoats, Indians and Hessian mercenaries, all equipped with the best training the British Empire could provide. Arnold, on the other hand, was a general, not an admiral, and he walked into this battle with about as many warships and hours logged in naval combat as you have.
Benedict Arnold did exactly what the A-Team would do: build an ad hoc navy in the lake out of whatever fishing boats and drift wood he could find. If it could float, and could remain floating with a cannon strapped to it, it became part of the first American navy.

Despite the fact that Arnold gave the boats badass names like Royal Savage, they weren't fooling anyone at the Battle of Valcour Island. He lost almost every one of his vessels. However, the general had an ace up his sleeve: being the sly bastard that made him notorious.
Arnold slipped past the British gunboats one night following the initial bloodbath, and forced the British fleet on a wild goose-chase along the Hudson River Valley. When the Brits eventually caught up with him and started sinking his ships, they were surprised to see Arnold didn't appear to give a shit. They were probably even more surprised when he burned the last few himself with their flags still flying, dusted off his hands and declared victory.
Arnold had completely outfoxed the enemy; his bullshit navy had successfully stalled them long enough that it was now too late in the year for them to continue their invasion. They were forced to retreat back to Canada, blaming each other the whole way.

By the admission of Baron Riedesel, commander of the Hessian mercenaries in the battle, the American Revolution should have ended with their invasion of the Hudson River that year. Even historians acknowledge that the U.S. would have been utterly screwed by the invasion had it not been for Benedict Arnold's insane gambit.

You've actually seen this battle, halfway through Braveheart. But contrary to whatever you think Mel Gibson taught you, William Wallace was not five-foot-nine, the Scots did not fight in kilts and the Battle of Stirling Bridge was actually fought on a bridge.

Mel had the bridge cut from the scene, claiming it was too "Jew-y."
The Battle of Stirling Bridge was fought on Sept. 11, 1297, we're guessing to the full knowledge of King Edward's equivalent to Dick Cheney. England expected Scotland to be such a pushover that they only bothered to outnumber them five to one -- 8,000 to 10,000 soldiers against 2,000 Scottish infantry, and 1,000 to 2,000 cavalry units against 300 Scotsmen on horses.
Please note that we said "Scotsmen on horses" as opposed to actual cavalry, since Scotland didn't have the expensive, quilted armor that made heavy cavalry the Sherman tanks of their time. All the worse for the Scots, they were up against English longbows, literally the most feared weapon in the world until the arrival of the goddamn repeating rifle 600 years later. All the Scots really had going into this battle was the that fact they were Scotsmen.

And that was enough.
Oh, and William Wallace, who by the way is described in the chronicle Scotichronicon as "a tall man with the body of a giant." Wallace knew there was no way his men could face the English cavalry on even terms, but his solution was as crazy as it was brilliant: They stood in a square formation, the best for minimizing the impact of the feared longbows, and forced the English into a choke point -- the narrow Stirling Bridge.
The bridge was only wide enough for two mounted units to cross at one time, so the Scots effectively forced the English into the tactic that bad guys always use against Batman -- line up and attack one or two at a time.

Nearly half the English army was butchered, including the English treasurer to Scotland, Hugh de Cressingham. He got off easily via decapitation in Braveheart, but in reality was supposedly flayed, and "in token of hatred," they "made thongs of his skin."
Yes, you read that correctly: He was made into thongs.

Some people don't play.








We should totally fight like this today! That's be awesome. Swords, shields, badass helmets! Vikings f*ck yeah!
Replysecondly:holy shit! is that the Icelandic flag on a shield???
Replythe whole battle with vikings and native Americans: well like normally everything Cracked is telling us really happened i think the vikings were more '''you know what?fuck this! we didn't come here for a war!let the keep their own damm lands!'' not all vikings were bloodthirsty maniacs and the whole thing started because of a dispute of whether to give them weapons or not because the vikings didn't think it was such idea. so my point is i think the vikings could have won if they wanted too.then again i may be rationalizing because im an icelander.
ReplyNot all vikings was armed and armoured head to toe either. They were also outnumbered.
The Swiss badassary consists of many battles like the one on the list.
ReplyThose aristocrats just don't get it and keep poking on the peasants and get their ass poked.
I love the picture from Medieval 2: Total War. Classic.
ReplyDid I just read that the Native Americans beat the Vikings with their blueballs? That's badass.
ReplyEverything I know from history i learned from cracked.
Replythanks to the human genome project, I found out I'm a direct descendant of Erik the Red
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesYou too? I was so proud of my badass genes, until I found out he got his ass whooped with primitive weaponry...
...actually, naw, that's a cool story. I'm still proud of my badass genes.
No you're not. You guys are internet pussies.
How did you get Erik the Red's DNA to compare it to?
No love for the Battle of Assaye? The one Wellington claimed to be his best? 9,500 British Infantry Soldiers with 17 cannon vs a well trained Indo-European army of 50-70,000 men and 100+ cannons, and the British only took 428 dead. The enemy took over 6,000 dead.
Replycracked seems to hate us brits due to our baddass uniforms and probably there inability to grow a truly war worthy moustache. long live the queen
I am disappointed that the wars at sea were completely ignored by the author. There are several remarkable instances of incredible underdog victories that makes these examples above pale in comparison.
ReplyAdmiral Yi sun-sin, the Battle off Samar and Salamis were all worthy examples not even considered, apparently.
Fail
Dont forget Chilean sea captain Carlos Condell who with his small wooden ship defeated a superior Peruvian iron battleship class, then took over this ship and sunk the rest of the Peruvian navy during the war of the Pacific between Chile and the Peru-Bolivia Confederation.
Viva Chile Mierda!
lol
ReplyYou know you are a badass mother f****r when a Viking decides not to bother you anymore out of fear.
Dude, do some battles from the Bible.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesJudges is full of underdog battles. Kings has a few as well.
Sorry, this is stuff that actually happened.
I think what Mr Bankston was trying to diplomatically say was, these are battle that we have multiple Historical Sources for. The Battles of the Bible tend to only have the Bible to back them up.
And the Bible didn't usually include much detail on tactics and strategy. But the Maccabean revolt (from the Apochrapha) would totally fit here.
Sigh,I hate atheists that talk like bankston does, makes us all look bad.
americans just can't seem to handle British and French not losing a war, america has no history yet feels they still are the best.
Reply Hide All See All 10 RepliesNo argument for the British, but I'm pretty sure the French have lost almost every war they've ever been in, Joan of Arc excepted.
*cough* Revolutionary War *cough*
The French record in war is actually quite good.
They lost to the Vietnamese, they have lost to Africans, they have lost to Germany. Man they have lost to so many people after Napolian, that it must be hard to be French.
Try taking a good hard look at the American Revolutionary War - and, out of curiosity, how, exactly, is over 400 years 'having no history'?
The hilarious thing is, the Revolutionary War was won largely with French assistance.
You're also forgetting pretty much every battle at which Wellington wasn't present. The Spanish army won a couple of battles, then fell apart. Napoleon made Europe his b***h for over a decade.
The joke is, the yanks lost to the Vietnamese too.
Um...you might've missed that in the stories with the Brits and French losing, the title of the article effectively acknowledges that they had SEVERE advantages over their opponents. So it's not like the article is going "lololol Europe sux."
Kindly pull your head out of your ass before your make your next comment, so you can actually read the article. Kthx.
ArrantKnave, I would like to point out that, from a military perspective, Americans were winning against the Vietnamese. We lost because of hippies. We may not have much history, but nearly two and half centruries is long time for no major loss on the military front.
Rorke's Drift maybe, seeing as where that last picture for Battle of Isandlwana actually depicts.
Replyummmm battle of Thermopaylae by any chance?
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesIn way were the Spartans underdogs. They had way more than 300 hundred guys, but they weren't Spartans.
They had that as a last stand article in the links. And they lost the battle, this article is about people wining the battle. If it would be about anyone from that battle then it would be about the Athenan navy destroying the Persian navy.
In their defence though, the Spartans lost the battle only to win the war.
I don't know, I think the U.S. could Imperial Britain a run for the title of 'most hated military force'.
Reply Hide All See All 6 RepliesAaaaand cue comments from butthurt Americans who honestly think everyone hates them because they are so damned wonderful.
People don't hate us. Some do, but I can think of a dozen who are thankful. Like the Libyans. Or the people under Saddam. Canada and Britain like us a lot.
Well, Americans did not gun down civilians by the thousands. I do not recall America taking over so much land from other people to earn the phrase "the sun never sets on the British empire". Nor do I recall using our vast navy to kick the living s**t out of people to make them do what we want.
Peregrine may be right, but that would be now. We Brits were doing it for WAY longer.
No... you guys... just... nuke them.
Wait wait, for the better of the world, I was going to add!
No, a lot of people in Iraq still hate you. This is because the US military, as immensely powerful as it is, tends to have problems with collateral damage. In Britain, we like you. Most of the time. And the Libyans tend to thank the people who did the actual bombing. Like Britain and France (admittedly US supplies were invaluable).
@thethinker: The Indian Wars. And you don't use it to kick the s**t out of people because by the time yours was large enough, people had moved on from empires and weren't inclined to fight a big navy (WW1 and 2 excepted, and many Japanese commanders thought quite rightly that pissing off a country as industrially powerful as America was a bad idea),
We might, but we didn't do it for the length of time Britain did. So...yeah.
I think John Oliver from Daily Show would raise a good point here. The only reason Imperial Britain might lose in the running you mention, Peregrine, is because the VAST majority of the s**t Imperial Britain pulled occurred before the rise of the information age. If Britain took over a country, the rest of the world didn't learn about it within 15 minutes of it happening. Meanwhile, if the US does something dumb, it's been tweeted to the other side of the world in less time than it took me to write this response.
Myeongyang should've been here. 13 Korean ships against 333 Japanese ones. 120 Japanese ships are destroyed with thousands of casualties while the Koreans don't lose a single ship and suffer minimal casualties.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesYeah, but to be fair, the Koreans had the Turtle Ship.
@spencerdoken They lost all the Turtle Ships in the previous battle cuz of that idiot Won Gyun. Pure Yi Sun-sin genius at Myeongyang.
I expected to see a reference to Admiral Yi Sun-sin in this article as well when I saw the title. The author screwed up badly and seems only concerned with land battles and armies. Salamis was also a massive upset and underdog victory.
I think #2 can be shortened from "Do not attack Russia in winter" to simply "Do not attack Russia". Seriously, I think history has proven that one. And even though I'm British, I still cheer every time I read about the Zulus kicking the crap out of the Empire. Sadly it didn't last, but it gave the Redcoats something to think about.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesWell the Mongols conquered Russia, though to be fair it wasn't Russia yet just a bunch of principalities.
The way Russian invasions turned out is absurdly overstarted. Of four major invasions, one ended in total annexation. France invaded the German territories an ungodly number of times and never achieved full annexation.
The Motherland defends her children, because they generally lose in a straight fight. Russian history may be a fine underdog story (because their forces were nearly always hopeless) but it really wouldn't have taken much to change all that.
That goes back to the way many Russian's in power thought of their own people. We have several hundred million, so what you killed a few hundred thousand? we still got millions left. They generally did not train their soldiers, treated them like crap and then forgot to provide crucial supplies and back up in most situations.
A battle which isn't very well-known but with astonishing odds was the Battle of Muret in 1213 during the Albigensian Crusade. On the one side, Peter II, king of Aragon, at that time one of the most powerful rulers in western Europe, fresh from delivering a beatdown to the much-feared Moors the previous year, and golden boy of Rome having made over his entire kingdom as a Papal vassal, leading a force of somewhere between twenty and thirty thousand troops. On the other, a motley band of crusaders led by Simon de Montfort, numbering about 1500. The result: total and devastating defeat for the Catalans. Peter II was killed and the entire army routed. Aragon was knocked out of the war in a single stroke and never seriously protested what was being done to their Cathar vassals again.
ReplyHow is the Battle off Samar not on this list? Perhaps the biggest naval upset in history! A Japanese task force of cruisers and battleships (including Yamato, the biggest battleship ever built) comes across three American destroyers, four destroyer escorts, and six light carriers armed for ground attack, not naval engagement. End result? Three Japanese cruisers sunk and three more damaged, although the Americans lost two carriers, two destroyers, and one destroyer escort, with all the other ships damaged as well. Still, the Japanese had to turn around and leave the area, sparing the American landings in the Philippines.
Reply^^THIS.
Salamis and Admiral Yi sun-sin were also ignored.
For sheer scale...it's almost impossible to argue with the Battle off Samar.