Which factors enabled relatively small forces to achieve such dramatic results against all odds? It is tempting to construct a theory that links together a number of features common to the examples given here, but such a theory would be artificial and misleading. History indicates that the contingent is more important than apparent continuities, principles and laws. That said, while acknowledging the uniqueness of each of the circumstances presented in this book, it is possible to identify a number of themes and common features.
The obvious point is, perhaps, that the physical courage of the participants was crucial and outweighed other factors. In war, the physical commitment and bravery of those engaged in the fighting is so often more important than the weapons they carry or the training they receive – although these elements might instil a sense of confidence at times. In all the preceding examples, the courageous character of the small formations involved was crucial to the outcome. From Lieutenant Decatur leading a raiding party aboard the USS Philadelphia in 1803 to Force Zwicka fighting to the last tank on the Golan Heights in 1973, or the nameless French infantrymen who stuck by their emperor Napoleon in 1814, to the handfuls of ‘Other Ranks’ who held at bay the swarms of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in 2009, the quality of individual bravery was critical.
Another factor we might identify in many of these examples is the placing of honour before everything else, including the risk of death or injury. At Camerone in 1863 and at Bois des Buttes in 1918, small numbers of troops were isolated, cut off and denied any hope of relief. Instead of surrendering, they chose to fight on, regardless of casualties, staying true to their professional duty. In both cases, they sought to buy time for comrades elsewhere, but even when this was achieved they chose to die with honour, rather than besmirch the name of their regiment. Individuals could have chosen to lie low and survive, and no one would have known – except themselves. As one veteran of war put it: ‘I would have noticed.’
Certain military skills, such as the ability to manoeuvre coherently, the capacity to bring in a significant weight of fire or the endurance to move across the battlefield or campaign theatre at great speed, appear in other examples. Napoleon’s campaign of 1814 was arguably one in which he and his army exercised these skills at their best. Despite overwhelming numbers of enemy forces advancing into France from several directions, Napoleon struck again and again, inspiring and winning devotion from his exhausted men at a time when defeat was imminent. The Six Days’ Campaign was the epitome of the skilful fighting retreat against the odds. The ability to conduct the elaborate manoeuvres of war when exhausted was demonstrated by the UN forces surrounded at Chosin Reservoir in 1950. There, the American and British Marines, whose supplies had failed and who were subjected to a series of relentless assaults, were forced to rely on basic infantry battle drills (and the close coordination of armour or air power when available) to help extract themselves.
Another common feature of success against the odds was discipline. The ability to maintain cohesion and self-control – the characteristics of military discipline – have often enabled forces to suffer heavy casualties but continue to function effectively and confront a much stronger or more numerous enemy. At Kohima in 1944, British and Indian soldiers stood their ground against the determined assaults of the Imperial Japanese Army. Both sides possessed the firm discipline needed for success, but it was the Allied forces who, contrary to expectations, grimly endured the casualties, gruelling conditions and terror of repeated attacks to eventually succeed. Regiments and subunits held together because of the invisible bond between the men and the system of discipline that emphasized the synchronization of the individual within the whole organization. Survivors of the battle remarked that, even when death seemed certain, they knew they could not let their comrades down. Discipline helped them overcome the instinct for self-preservation. A similar effect of discipline combined with efficient organization enabled Major General Roberts to force march his army from Kabul to Kandahar over inhospitable terrain without any logistical support, and virtually without loss. Roberts’ force was able to ward off the threat of Afghan attacks en route because his men, despite the heat and fatigue, maintained cohesion and discipline. They were then able to fight a significant battle straight off the line of march and relieve a beleaguered garrison.
In every example in this book, the troops displayed determination and perseverance. At Valley Forge in the American War of Independence, the core of the Continental army, despite a catalogue of defeats, endured irregular supplies, freezing conditions and unfamiliar and tedious training. When they emerged the following spring, their example inspired others to rejoin the revolutionary cause such that, within a few years, the Americans could field a regular army and secure victory at Yorktown.
At Bataan and at Stalingrad, many of the troops who withstood the fighting were there without choice. Cut off, the soldiers were in no position to withdraw, but what is surely remarkable is that they chose not to surrender, but to fight on. Indeed, wherever possible they took the fight to the enemy. In both examples, the level of respect between the belligerents was very low, and surrender to their enemies was thought to be practically pointless. As a result, many soldiers chose to fight on rather than face execution or death through neglect and brutality in a prison camp.
In certain cases, inspiring and effective leadership was important to the success of a smaller or weaker force. At Antietam in 1862, the weight of fire that swept the open ground before Burnside’s Bridge made any forward movement impossible. Union troops had been pinned down and many of their officers killed or wounded. The courageous leadership of the colour party of the 51st Pennsylvania Regiment, who acted on their own initiative, was the spur to an advance that carried the bridge and the heights beyond, and, crucially, began to turn the tide of the entire battle. In South America, Simón Bolívar exhibited a very different sort of courage: the kind that endures and absorbs years of setbacks, inadequate resources and overwhelming odds. His final campaign to liberate Venezuela, which involved leading a tiny military expedition across some of the most challenging terrain in the world, earned him legendary status.
Effective leadership also characterized the guerrilla resistance of De Wet in the South African War – although critics suggest he merely prolonged the war without doing much damage to the British forces who opposed him. In fact, De Wet’s contribution was to inspire the Afrikaners to keep their cause alive with a patriotic zeal bordering on religious devotion. He was able to delay the British victory, increase the costs they had to bear, and constantly evade their attempts to snare him. His ability to escape earned the respect of (and even amused) his enemies.
The concept of a cause for which men were fighting was evident in a number of other examples. National liberation was the stated aim of the Greeks in the war for independence, though it is quite clear that many Greeks felt more strongly about the religious difference with the Turks, than about possessing a strong sense of national unity. Indeed, this was borne out in the episode of civil war that broke out while the war for independence was still in progress. Despite this, the cause was appealing to many intellectuals in Western Europe, and the popularization of the liberation struggle pushed governments towards armed intervention.
The sense of resistance with a last-ditch effort has also inspired small numbers of men and women to achieve success against all odds. Piłsudski’s subordinate commanders on the eve of the Battle of Warsaw in 1920 were not convinced that the plan of their general would work, but they threw themselves into the execution of the operation because their defeat seemed imminent. The Finns in 1940 also knew that the odds against them were tremendous, but by combining a do or die attitude with skills that were appropriate to the climate and terrain (namely light infantry manoeuvres on skis and defence in depth) they fought the Soviet army to a virtual standstill. The surviving tank crews on the Golan in 1973 also utilized their skills and fought in the belief this was a last-ditch defence of their country. Despite suffering heavy casualties they were able to continue fighting.
Being in a defensive stance clearly increased the advantages for a number of the small groups described in this book, though a fixed position does not automatically mean that success is assured, of course. Defensive positions could be bypassed, neutralized with fire or simply encircled and deprived of supplies. But when their adversaries need to force a passage through a defensive zone, and the defenders possess the means and the will to contest the battlefield, then smaller or apparently weaker forces can make effective use of the terrain, climate or protection of natural and man-made features. The hacienda at Camerone, the trenches of Bois des Buttes, the Mannerheim Line in Finland, the Bataan Peninsula, the factories and streets of Stalingrad, the ridge at Kohima, the Toktong Pass near the Chosin Reservoir, the bunkers along the Golan Heights, and the patrol bases of Afghanistan all provided just enough protection to enable their defenders to hold on against superior forces just long enough to achieve their aims.
It was the certainty of victory, being on the offensive and the conviction that they would prevail, which inspired the British and Indian forces on the ridge at Delhi in 1857. It was the daring of Lieutenants Decatur and O’Bannon, seeking revenge against pirates and the loss of the Philadelphia, that gave the American navy and marines the edge in their raids of 1804–5. The Union troops at Burnside’s Bridge wanted to get forward, and their momentum carried them on to their objectives, while General Roberts’ soldiers never doubted the ability of their commander to drive on, avenge their comrades at Maiwand and achieve victory over the Afghans. That confidence in their status and offensive capability was still the theme for the special forces teams in Iraq in 2003.
These examples show that in both defence and attack, the characteristics of the forces involved can affect the outcome of any engagement. Weapon types, the right manoeuvres and appropriate logistics are all important, but they are inconsequential without the qualities of leadership, determination and physical courage. It is these that have formed the basis of this book, and each of them, perhaps, can inspire us in our own endeavours.