Humanities desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 21[edit]

American soldiers and American society's regard for them[edit]

For quite some time, from watching and reading American media, I've noticed that America has an especially high regard for their soldiers (which is of course, a good thing). However, I've noticed a number of practices that they do that I don't seem to see either in my native country of the Philippines nor in other countries. For example, if something good or bad is done to a war veteran outside of battle (for example, a case where an Iraqi war veteran was asked to leave a restaurant made the newspapers, while another instance involving a waitress and a war veteran led to the waitress being interviewed on Ellen DeGeneres' show), American media will cover it. Another thing I noticed involves deceased soldiers: when a soldier dies, when their remains are flown back to their home, police will come, the plane's passengers will be informed that the flight is carrying a fallen soldier, and the plane will be given a water cannon salute. There are even cases when fallen soldiers get funerals in large sports stadiums.

I'm asking this because I noticed that such practices seem to be non-existent, or at least rarely or never covered upon in other countries' media. For example, I sometimes watch BBC World News and I have never seen them report on war veterans to the extent that American media (particularly Fox News) does. While, for example, British media sometimes reports on fallen soldiers, never once did I see a British soldier get a funeral in a sports stadium, nor are their deeds outside of battle covered in their media.

Now my question: how come American society seems to have a very high regard for soldiers compared to other countries? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, treating veterans with respect is often just something people in the US say, but don't actually do. The Veterans Administration is now in yet another scandal for covering up that they kept veterans on waiting lists so long that they died before they got to see a doctor. Many veterans become homeless. After an unpopular war, like Vietnam, they are treated even worse. Also see the Bonus Army for when World War 1 veterans were treated badly. It may sell papers to wave the American flag and trot out some veterans, but that doesn't mean much in the end. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narutoa5latinhovel has made at least a dozen unsuppurted claims it's none of our business to prove or disprove. Should he sincerely be interested in the issue he might look at Roman military and Spartan military, then get back if he has any serious questions. (There will be other helpful articles I expect our Commonwealth brethren to be more familiar with than I). μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newswriters obviously like a feel-good story, and they can be hard to come by where returning soldiers are concerned. Many of us in America are totally in awe of someone willing to take a bullet for us. Unfortunately, too many others do not share that respect of veterans. The VA scandal likewise makes for a good news story, albeit a "feel-bad" story. Every war has had this problem. Bill Mauldin became famous for his in-the-trenches cartoons about regular GIs during WWII. But after the war, as his cartoons began to expose the shabby way many returning veterans were treated, he angered the establishment. Too much reality, too close to home. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this panel from July of 1946:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it comes down to the fact that the Philippines (for example) has conscription, while the US does not, so they need some other way to persuade folk that joining the armed forces is a good, even heroic, thing to do.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of clarification though: the Philippines no longer has conscription; enlistment in the Philippine Army is now optional. It used to be mandatory, but that was more than a decade or two ago and now joining the military is no longer compulsory. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has reliable sources for that, they might want to update our conscription article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two things from my experience in the UK stand out:

Firstly, that we have nothing like the resources to bring all our war dead home. Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries the length and breadth of the world are filled with them. If you travel through northern France, you will pass huge fields of gravestones commemorating British soldiers who fell there in two world wars; and many were never found, so a huge memorial at Thiepval and smaller ones at places like Vis-en-Artois bear the names of many thousands whose resting place is unknown. The next four years will see renewed emphasis on these soldiers and their struggle, as we mark the anniversary of WW1. There has already been some criticism that the current government is attempting to spin this activity into a patriotic exercise, rather than the solemn commemoration of so much slaughter that many feel appropriate.

Secondly, in recent conflicts we have moved to flying our war dead home, and for a long time the motorcades carrying the dead from the airfield passed through the village of Wootton Bassett, which in honour of the respect shown to these corteges by the local people was renamed Royal Wootton Bassett. Footage of these events was regularly screened on the BBC News channel; I was working in a government press office at the time, and on every TV in the office, of which there were many, we would often see the repeated image of many hearses rolling through this small village.

Separately, it occurs to me that it would be a mistake to attach additional moral value to someone just because they are a veteran; Lynndie England is a veteran. To me, America's military culture appears unduly uncritical, and it worries me that our education minister, Michael Gove, is determined to introduce what's described as a 'military ethos' into our state-run schools. Many here would (I believe - I have no citation for this) prefer a system which cared better for veterans, but also worked to emphasise the value of peace. In both countries, and elsewhere, the nation's need to recruit soldiers leads it to offer incentives to those who volunteer, and to depict itself and its military action in an unrealistically rosy light. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a rather unpleasant imputation of Mr Grove's motives. I went to a school where 50% of the pupils passing though it had been killed in the Great War - including Rudyard Kipling's son - and during my time there (in the 1970s, I hasten to add), Remembrance Sunday was observed religiously and with considerable respect. It is worth noting, incidentally, that in his ten years in power, Tony Blair involved himself in an astonishing total of 5 wars; it also being noticeable how his children avoided joining the armed forces, unlike Princes William and Harry. 86.181.158.204 (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My perception as a Canadian is that the U.S. attitude towards veterans has evolved quite a bit over the past 40 years. After the Vietnam War, and the antiwar movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was almost a stigma associated with being a veteran. There was quite a backlash against the Vietnam vets, anyway, and they were not celebrated the way WW1 and 2 veterans were. Then the conservative and patriotic 1980s came along, Bruce Springsteen released Born in the USA, and the veterans were suddenly embraced by Americans. That remains the current attitude towards veterans, patriotic and largely respectful. Although you see much less public celebration of veterans elsewhere, I wouldn't say veterans aren't acknowledged. Ontario Highway 401 was officially renamed "Highway of Heroes" along one stretch where the remains of fallen soldiers are transported home. Remembrance Day is Canada's day for honouring veterans, and it remains popular, with a good turnout to Ottawa events every year. I think the level of respect for veterans is probably similar in Britain.... sometimes I look at the Daily Mail (guilty pleasure) and there will be an article expressing outrage at an elderly veteran getting robbed or something... I don't know about the level of concern for veterans in any other countries. In the U.S., I think there may be some lingering guilt over the rejection of the Vietnam veterans in the aftermath of that war, but that's just my opinion. OttawaAC (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifixions with nails & rope[edit]

Have there ever been cases of people being crucified with both nails and rope? --66.190.99.112 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ringer Edwards, a modern-day crucifixion victim, was initially crucified by tying his arms to the cross with "fencing wire" (presumably barbed wire or some similar), and when he tried to escape, they drove the wire through his palms, as nails, to keep him attached to his cross. --Jayron32 12:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the people who do devotional crucifixions in the Philippines use ropes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught that in Roman crucifixion, nails were seen as the "nicer" way of killing, as blood loss made for faster deaths than using only rope. Crucifixion#Nail_placement hints that if you don't place the nails "right", you'd need rope to support the body. So perhaps some Roman crucifixion sometimes used both. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC) (Sorry, no better refs at present, I'll come back later if I find any good ones. I also took the liberty of bolding "both" in your post, because I think it will help clear things up. ) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear powers joining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty[edit]

If, by some chance, Israel, India or Pakistan decided to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, would they either:

1) Be obliged to give up their nuclear weapons?

2) Given that they "legally" acquired them (i.e. whilst non-members of the treaty), be allowed to join the ranks of "recognized" nuclear weapons states, (alongside, China, Russia, the U.S., the U.K., etc) with their rights and responsibilities measured accordingly?

3) Or is this hypothetical question one which would need to be negotiated, if one or more of these countries decided to sign up to the treaty? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The treaty only recognizes five countries as nuclear-weapon states: U.S., Russia, France, U.K., and China. If India, Israel, or Pakistan were to become signatories and ratify the treaty, they would have to either get rid of their nuclear weapons, or negotiate to be recognized as additional nuclear-weapon states. This is all very hypothetical, but my guess is that this would be very difficult to accomplish, since the goal of the treaty is non-proliferation. If they were to argue that they had a right to retain nuclear weapons acquired prior to signing a treaty, would the non-nuclear states that are already signatories to the treaty not have a right to press for the disarmament of future signatories to the treaty, in the interests of reducing proliferation? According to the treaty, the current nuclear-weapon states are ostensibly working towards the ultimate elimination of their own nuclear weapons. OttawaAC (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if we need to deflect an asteroid? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would require more than a military nuclear-armed missile. That situation would require something like a nuclear missile attached to a space shuttle that could launch the missile from space. I don't think that would be covered by the treaty, since it's a non military application, but I could be mistaken. The treaty doesn't affect peaceful applications of nuclear technology. OttawaAC (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Program targets / victims - "guilty" versus "innocent"[edit]

I know this question almost certainly cannot be precisely answered, but I'm interested to know if any military historians have tried making some kind of estimate on the matter.

Of the 81,740 suspected NLF (viet cong) operatives killed or captured under the Phoenix Program, how many are estimated (by historians or other experts) to have been "guilty" (i.e. voluntarily involved in viet cong political, military, or propaganda activities), and how many are likely to have been "innocent" (i.e. either un-involved on involuntarily involved with the viet cong)? (For the purpose of this question, I consider anyone voluntarily involved in the viet cong guerrilla campaign in any capacity to be a legitimate target, even if they never touched a gun).

Of course, to a large degree, we will probably never know the truth. But as I said above, I'm interested if any military historians or intelligence experts have attempted to give estimates to this question, given what we now know of the Vietnam war? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The (formerly North) Vietnam government probably knows best which of the people killed were or were not Viet Cong. However, I wouldn't have expected them to tell the truth, at the time. Perhaps they would be willing to tell the truth now, however, or let some news agency look through their records, since presumably anyone who would have been embarrassed by the information is dead or at least retired by now.

BTW, isn't "Phoenix" a terrible name for the program, as the mythical phoenix would rise from the dead to fight again ? StuRat (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patron saints[edit]

There are patron saints for all sorts of things. Many of these are listed here: Patron saints of ailments, illness, and dangers and here: Patron saints of occupations and activities. Many of these saints are patron saints for some rather "odd", obscure, or unexpected causes. As examples, there are patron saints for: poisonous reptiles, pirate attacks, hemorrhoids, sick horses, obsessive compulsive disorder, computer technicians, radiologists, etc. Now, the process to be named a saint is a very rigorous process (canonization) overseen by the Catholic Church. So, my question is: how exactly does a saint come to be known as the patron saint of a certain cause? I doubt that these are "official" (i.e., that the Catholic Church through the Pope specifically names the patron saint for a cause). But, I have no idea. Does anyone know how this "process" (if it even is a process) works? Or how exactly does a saint become a patron for a specific cause? I particularly question the causes that are prevalent today (for example, obsessive compulsive disorder, computer technicians, radiologists, etc.) that did not really even exist during that saint’s life time. Are these patron saints "official" or are they just informally adopted? I would imagine the latter. However, many "official" Catholic items (e.g., calendars, statues, medals, figurines, etc.) often list these patronages. Any thoughts? Thanks. PS: I am referring to saints recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, and not necessarily any other religions. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official channel for these things. See here for the official Catholic church position on this. The relevant passage says "Recently, the popes have named patron saints but patrons can be chosen by other individuals or groups as well." That is, while the pope can name a saint to be the Patron Saint of something, there is nothing preventing an organization from choosing something as it's own patron saint. --Jayron32 18:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OK, that makes sense to some extent. But, for example, there is no organization of "people who suffer from hemorrhoids" or "people who were victims of a pirate attack" or such. So, how do these rather strange, odd, and obscure causes come to get a patron saint? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there may be, for example, an association of doctors who treat hemorrhoids, and they may have adopted some resolution naming some saint as the patron saint of that particular condition. --Jayron32 18:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that most of the saints listed in articles like Patron saints of ailments, illness, and dangers are entirely unverified by references, and most of those that have references are referenced only to http://saints.sqpn.com/ which does not look like a reliable source in any way. --Jayron32 18:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patronages are sometimes declared by the Pope. For example, the Immaculate Conception has been named the patron (I'm not clear how this works, since a concept can't intercede before God) of several countries. Patronages of the Immaculate Conception. 129.79.34.79 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on patron saints is a bit murky on this subject, but a lot of them seem to arise from the people. A distinguishing feature of "pagan" ("folk" or "peasant") religions is the notion of spirits being associated with various aspects of the world and of the human experience. That's called "polytheism". The Catholic church doesn't call it that, of course, but it's part of the ancient, folk-driven blending of true Christian philosophy with various non-biblical and pagan traditions. The more modern Christian sects of course don't do this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on the Catholic Church being polytheistic. Now, I already know that's what people from outside the church who want to be critical of it will say, and it's been said for hundreds of years, but that doesn't make it so. Lots of unfair criticism have been leveled by people who don't like an organization. The Catholic Church itself certainly makes no claims in that regard. --Jayron32 21:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they don't. Christianity is officially monotheistic (taking the Trinity to be merely three aspects of the one and only God). But whether they call it polytheism or not, as a practical matter it is polytheism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, you don't get to make that call. --Jayron32 09:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It passes the duck test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your flavour of Christianity is trinitarian, then congratulations! You have three gods. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our church downplayed the Trinity, but either way, it's supposed to be three aspects of the one and only God. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a saying...something about ducks...how does that go? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't apply to the Trinity, which is considered to be three aspects of one God. The saints are not aspects of God, they're just guys who lived on earth and were voted into the Catholic Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murky waters again maybe but the folk-driven blending originates from animism rather than from polytheism. --Askedonty (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends greatly on whether you mean Roman Catholicism or you mean the syncretic religions that incorporate some elements of Roman Catholicism, such as the Santería religion developed in creole Caribbean culture. --Jayron32 12:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friend 129.79.34.79: The claimed apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes were notable because "the Lady" finally identified herself to Bernadette with the words: "I am the Immaculate Conception" (see Lourdes apparitions#The 16th appearance (25 March)), yet Bernadette had never heard that expression before, had no idea what it meant, and this leant weight to the view that she was not making it up. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs:: Is there a difference between asking fellow church members still living (in Christ, if not in body) to pray for you and worshiping facets of nature and embodied philosophical concepts? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see. But I was raised going to a relatively modern Protestant church, where one prays to God directly, and the so-called saints are irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would me praying for you count as you worshiping me, or are those who died in Christ not alive in heaven? BTW, I'm Baptist. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing praying "to" and praying "for". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you're confusing "asking a fellow Christian to pray on your behalf" with "giving undue praise to someone as if they were Lord of at least some part of the universe." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no practical difference between praying to St. Ignatius and praying to Ganesha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What then is the practical difference in asking someone to pray for you and worshiping them? Bearing in mind it's a common historical belief in Christianity that those who have died in Christ are only physically dead but otherwise living in heaven. The intercession of saints is about asking fellow Christians to pray for you -- not pretending they have actual control over any part of existence. To say that the reverence of saints is the same worship as given to God is to completely misrepresent the doctrines of the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran churches. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The more recently-created denominations regard sainthood as irrelevant. You pray to God directly. Friends can pray on your behalf if they want, but there's no indication that God is keeping some sort of scorecard of who and how many are praying for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

us senate[edit]

Why two senators per state in the United States Senate, not one, three, or something else? Was it the idea that two officeholders (like Roman consuls) were the ideal number? Is this answered in Madison's journal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or somewhere else in a primary source? 129.79.34.79 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Connecticut Compromise? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find this of interest, which I found by googling the general subject. In short, two seemed to be the optimal number. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about the Connecticut Compromise, but that's related to having a state-apportioned senate in the first place, unlike the number of senators per state mentioned on the "this" link, which is helpful. 129.79.34.79 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be hinted at there is that they wanted to hear more than one opinion from each state, not just the majority view. Presumably, if there was only one Senator, he would solely represent the majority.

The reasons of "absence and sickness" could also have been addressed with alternate Senators, who would vote if the primary was absent. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The forum page linked to a Senate website, and I have expanded history of the United States Senate with that website. 129.79.34.79 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struck by a numeric coincidence. Under the Articles of Confederation, "No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members...." The minimum, obviously, matches the new Senate; the maximum happens to match the combined size of the two new houses (before the first census). —Tamfang (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if there were an odd number of senators, how often would the VP get to break a tie in the Senate? μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Only when an odd number of them didn't show up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but in the case of "important" votes they even wheel you out on a wicker walker with an IV and an ear horn to vote. 21:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Battles where a small number of troops have defeated a much larger force?[edit]

We all know the story, maybe/probably exaggerated in centuries of re-telling, of how 300 Spartans faced 1,000,000 Persians (or 800,000 - or whatever) on the battlefield and almost emerged victorious.

But can you think of any examples of where a small force took on a much larger enemy - and won? The Battle of Rourke's Drift is the only one I can think of at the moment. I'm not really thinking about individual acts, where one or two guys killed loads of the enemy single-handed. I know that this has happened quite a few times. --80.189.204.211 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Gideon#Biblical narrative.—Wavelength (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking solely for examples of a single decisive engagement or would sieges in which the smaller forces held out against the larger -- for example, the Siege of Masada -- be of interest? This distinction represents a massive difference in the number of incidents that will meet your criteria. Snow talk 21:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masada was not a victory, from the POV of the smaller Jewish force, unless you consider suicide to be a victory. StuRat (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, very good point Stu -- I wrote that in a rush and it came to mind as one of the more historically notable examples of a siege of a small force by a relatively massive one, but my brain failed to make that rather crucial distinction that they did not hold out indefinitely. Let's just pretend I said the siege of Rhodes, or some other actual exemplar, shall we? :) Snow talk 23:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our List of military disasters may be of help. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Hungary, the defense of Eger by István Dobó is legendary. The problem is that, in such cases, numbers tend to be absurdly inflated. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Cajamarca is an interesting one that often gets overlooked in discussions like this one. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire. The Spanish had disease, horses, armor, and guns on their side. StuRat (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good distinction -- the history of European colonialism is filled with examples of battles where very small numbers of better-equipped soldiers bested much larger, but ultimately disadvantaged, forces. The Battle of Rorke's Drift comes to mind. Snow talk 23:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Montgisard, where the crusaders were outnumbered about 20 to 1, although they still had a lot of soldiers themselves I guess. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Agincourt is stark not just for the difference in numbers (the French advantage may have been as high as 6-1 or as low as 4-3 depending on who one believes) but in the results. The smaller English force destroyed the French one and suffered almost no casualties itself (the English had scarcely 100 dead, the French had dead numbering in the several thousands). The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest featured a large numeric (and likely technological) advantage for the Romans; the Germans defeated them pretty soundly. If we look to a greater campaign rather than a single battle, the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire was accomplished with a force of about 1000 or so Spaniards against hundreds of thousands of Aztecs. --Jayron32 23:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Battle of Crécy and the Battle of Poitiers from the 100 years war. Dja1979 (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The story of the Spanish Armada might fit your criteria. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman defeat of Boudica's rebellion in Britain in 60AD (Wikipedia calls it the Battle of Watling Street), in which 10,000 Romans, a legion and a bit plus auxiliaries, defeated a much larger force, almost a quarter of a million according to one source, sustaining only 400 casualties. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How small is "small"? The Great Siege of Malta comes to mind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Casemate du Pont Saint Louis, an outwork of Ouvrage Cap Martin, was a small fortification dominating the Mediterranean coast road at the border between France and Italy. During the Italian invasion of France in 1940, the garrison of nine French Chasseurs Alpins defended the position for ten days and forced several Italian divisions to take a difficult detour over higher ground to avoid them. They only gave up when the Italians were able to prove that an armistice had been agreed between France and Italy. Alansplodge (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Battle of the Imjin River in 1951, in which the British 29th Infantry Brigade (including a Belgian battalion) of about 4,000 men, held off three Chinese armies of about 270,000 men for three days. Although the survivors of the 1st Btn, The Gloucestershire Regiment, were captured and the rest of the brigade were forced to retreat, the action prevented a Chinese breakthrough allowing the UN to regroup and check the Chinese advance. Alansplodge (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Alesia - Julius Caesar's 50K men defeated, simultaneously, an army of c.100K and another that was about 250K. All numbers approximate, but it was definitely a big whopping by a hugely outnumbered force. --Dweller (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers reported by Caesar or other Roman sources when describing their victories have to be viewed with extreme skepticism. Roman commanders had an obvious interest in exaggerating the number of foes that they were able to defeat. Marco polo (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"All numbers approximate, but it was definitely a big whopping by a hugely outnumbered force." was a fairly decent summary of the historiography, I think. --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about Genghis Khan against the Chinese Emperor who said "Our Empire is like the sea; yours is but a handful of sand...How can we fear from you?" Though he did get a lot of help from defectors. Dmcq (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]