There are many examples of such desperately heroic rearguard actions, but which do you consider the most poignant or important? My choices would be;-
HASTINGS - The MALFOSSE, an obscurely documented 'last stand' during the latter stages of the battle of Hastings(whilst all of Harold's housecarls fought to the death), whereby a formidable force/shieldwall of Saxons(fresh but too-late reinforcements?) held up and temporarily but bloodily repulsed the Norman onslaught to the north of the main battlefield as dusk fell. This would have been played down by the Norman writers, of course.
NASEBY - during the last stage of this major English civil war battle, the famously tough royalist 'Bluecoat' pikemen refused to surrender when all was lost, heroically repulsing wave after fierce wave of Parliamentarian attacks by cavalry, infantry & musket-fire upon their dense, bristling square, until they finally broke under the strain, and they were slaughtered.
One last thought, is it true that at Waterloo, as Napoleon made good his escape, his 'old guard' stubbornly refused surrender to the allies, and were blasted apart by cannon?
For a personal example I'd cite Richard III at Bosworth where supposedly he fought bravely and heroically to the death in the midst of his enemies until he was overcome and slain. Allegedly, in a reverse of the Shakespearean legend he actually turned down the offer of a horse to flee and save his life. Given the subsequent dirt heaped upon him by later Tudor historians, the fact that his bravery to the last is not disputed is presumably an endorsement of the truth; whatever else he was accused of, not even the slanderous Tudors could deny a bravery no doubt witnessed by many still living. Incidentally this also surely nails the lie about the hunchback - it is inconceivable that a hunchback could have fought in such a fashion (and at other battles), plus we know that the most famous portrait of Richard has been very badly altered to add a higher right shoulder.
One last thought, is it true that at Waterloo, as Napoleon made good his escape, his 'old guard' stubbornly refused surrender to the allies, and were blasted apart by cannon?
That's how it appeared in the film but no. Three batallions of the Old Guard and one of the Middle Guard did form squares and covered the retreat/rout of the rest of the French army until nightfall when the survivors quietly melted away.
Notable last stands in my mind would be the defence of Thermopylae by the Spartans in 480 BC and the 6-8 SOE men who fought off several assaults by the Gestapo and SS following the assasination of Heydrich in 1942.
The Guard's last stand is subject to two mythologies - first, the story owes more to Victor Hugo (who also invented the sunken road) as the bloek, who was suppsoed to have said "The Guard dies, it does not surrender" actually surrendered quite quickly; secondly, it is hooked up with the suppsoed Guard infantry at square at Marengo, which didn't happen either - they were caught in line by cavalry and most surrendered very quickly.
Originally posted by Fil2: Notable last stands in my mind would be the defence of Thermopylae by the Spartans in 480 BC
And don't forget that some Athenian Greeks also fought to the death alongside the Spartans.
Another famous (almost) last stand would be by the Legion Etrangere at Camaron in 1863. Whilst 3 of them did survive it was only because the Mexican commander allowed them to live - they had not surrendered deciding instead to bayonet charge when they had run out of ammo.
Originally posted by Bretwalda: For a personal example I'd cite Richard III at Bosworth where supposedly he fought bravely and heroically to the death in the midst of his enemies until he was overcome and slain. Allegedly, in a reverse of the Shakespearean legend he actually turned down the offer of a horse to flee and save his life. Given the subsequent dirt heaped upon him by later Tudor historians, the fact that his bravery to the last is not disputed is presumably an endorsement of the truth; whatever else he was accused of, not even the slanderous Tudors could deny a bravery no doubt witnessed by many still living. Incidentally this also surely nails the lie about the hunchback - it is inconceivable that a hunchback could have fought in such a fashion (and at other battles), plus we know that the most famous portrait of Richard has been very badly altered to add a higher right shoulder.
Richards fanatical fan club never ceases to amaze me,the Stanley vilification is a real brahma which make me laugh at modern mans viewpoint.
Richards fanatical fan club never ceases to amaze me,the Stanley vilification is a real brahma which make me laugh at modern mans viewpoint.
Wow! I seem to have touched a raw nerve here. I admit to being a Ricardian, but I am not one who sees him as some kind of plaster saint. No medieval king of England could possibly have been as saintly as some of his supporters would have it. I think he was determined, self-interested man who saw his usurpation (for such it was) as his best means of self-preservation. However, in this particular thread I am not talking about his vices or virtues, whether he is "guilty" of infanticide or whatever, merely citing one acknowledged example of a personal last stand, that even his later detractors could not deny. Others have posted some fine examples, arguably better than mine, but I stand by what I wrote.
Incidentally I am sure that you are aware that there is a school of thought that the Stanleys' intervention was to aid Richard, not to attack him, but that due to timing, confusion, whatever, it has come down to us that it was a betrayal. Clearly the Stanleys were well connected to Tudor, but Henry VII hardly showered them with riches, and eventually of course executed Sir William which might just hint at some lingering uncertainty about what their exact intentions were on the field of battle.
On the wider subject of Richard III it is my personal belief that the facts we know do not justify the later calumny heaped upon him. He was clearly guilty of some horrendous acts such as the executions of Hastings, Rivers, Vaughn etc and he may have been responsible for the deaths of his nephews (not that we even know for certain when and where they died). But in this he was no worse than his contemporaries, and if one needs an insight into arbitrary rule then his sucessors are the tyrants par excellence of English history. I will not deny the Tudors' competence as monarchs but their usurpation of the Plantagenet throne is one of my personal nadirs in the history of England. I accept however that others will take a different view, but please respect my own opinions.
I do agree though with your inference that some modern Ricardians actually do their argument more harm than good by insisting that he was some kind of epitome of kingship and by having absolutley no balance in their biased opinions. The facts are very much open to intrepretation and I concede that he may be the villain tradition would have us believe, evne if I persist in a persoanl view that this is not entirely a correct protrati of the man.
Actually in thinking about Last Stands I think it should be qualified somewhat. In my opinion there are really 3 types.
The first category I would define as those wherein a military aim is being achieved. Thermopylae, the Alamo and Cameron would fall into this category since those who died did so with the explicit and understood aim of sacrificing themselves for the greater good of their military cause.
The second category is one in which no military aim was ever apparent. The example given of Naseby would fall into this. In both cases those who died did so merely for esprit de corps or pride. They were not going to win anything and therefore their sacrifice was a futile gesture.
The final category is merely a military defeat. Custer's Last Stand would fit here. Irrespective of whether the defeat was caused by negligence, bad intelligence, bad luck or any other factor. The important factor here is that those who died had no real choice since their adversary did not give them the chance or opportunity to surrender. Effectively their Last Stand was forced upon them rather than a chosen act.
Obviously of these I'd argue that only the first category is truly worthy of note since it is the only one in which there is both predetermined choice and an achieveable military goal.
The stand of the Warwickshire Regiment at Isandlwana in the Zulu Wars; or rather, several last stans as the battalion was scattered and its constituent parts all died heroically fighting to the end.
Had a look at that link it would have been 45 Med Regt - They were not redesignated a Fd Regt until they moved to Hohne in Jan 1978 and gained 10 Bty. They were the first Regt I seved with and were still a Med Regt when I was posted to their Wksp in 1977 in Paderborn prior to the move.
The Regt at that time included 170 (Imjin) Bty (who had been 170 Ind Mortar Bty). They wore on their No 2 dress uniform a Presidential citation (as did 1 GLOSTERS) for their part in said battle and every year we had to go on parade so the Yanks could read out the citation.
45 was placed in Suspended Animation (disbanded) (IIRC) in the late 80s. Not a bad regiment to serve with - not as bad as some other RA units (BS baffles brains IYSWIM ). They mostly recruited from Yorkshire (Bradford, Sheffield, etc.) and were a good bunch of lads. Done my first NI tour with them too - though I was attached as Sect Comd to 52 (Niagara) Bty.
Sedgemoor 1685 - for what it's worth. Long after Lord Grey and his cavalry had fled from the gallinf fire of the royal troops and long after Monmouth himself had fled the battlefield, Wade and his regiments held off repeated attacks with pike and musket until finally succumbing to the combined assaults of the royal: cavalry, infantry and artillery.
Just a point, Monmouth who fled to leave his troops to their fate was fighting the forces of James II. James II in 1690 after losing his throne to William of Orange left his jacobite forces to their doom after the battle of the boyne!
Calais, 1940. It had no effect on the overall campaign, but the German commander, Guderian, described it as "heroic, and worthy of the highest praise".
Surely the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad is the most obvious case of the 'last stand' scenario. In their case they had it real bad: the winter, a fanatical enemy, a bad cause to fight for and a stupid commander-in-chief.
Originally posted by Holdtheline: Sedgemoor 1685 - for what it's worth. Long after Lord Grey and his cavalry had fled from the gallinf fire of the royal troops and long after Monmouth himself had fled the battlefield, Wade and his regiments held off repeated attacks with pike and musket until finally succumbing to the combined assaults of the royal: cavalry, infantry and artillery.
Just a point, Monmouth who fled to leave his troops to their fate was fighting the forces of James II. James II in 1690 after losing his throne to William of Orange left his jacobite forces to their doom after the battle of the boyne!
And like the Italian-Polish "Scotsman"- "Bonnie" prince Charlie after the ill-fated 1746 disaster at Culloden?
Hiding out in the hills in flea-infested caves etc, he fled to France then on to Italy, where he died an embitted drunk
). They mostly recruited from Yorkshire (Bradford, Sheffield, etc.) and were a good bunch of lads. Done my first NI tour with them too - though I was attached as Sect Comd to 52 (Niagara) Bty. 
