Talk:Last stand

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Military history: Technology

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Archives

Archive 1

List

I have deleted the list list put into the article by this edit. Wikipedia no original research policy (the NOR) and also the long long debates over List of massacres. As there is no clear definition of what constitutes a last stand, making up a list of what we editors consider to be last stands is a breach of the no original research -- PBS (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     jesus you deleted a lot of work someone made! you should be ashamed. Manchester.bw (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material

With my last edit I misspelt the battle of Towton in my comment in the edit history.[1]

Since I rewrote the article there have been a number of additions made to the article that are unsorced for example the battle examples Battle of Saragarhi and the Battle of Roncesvalles. It is an expert judgement if these were last stands and as we are not experts the battles should be supported by a source that states that they were last stands.

user:Djmaschek this edit added a lot of material that is not sourced. You have made various claims but have not backed them up with expert sources. For example "Unit loyalty ... can also lead soldiers to defend beyond the point where they can hono[u]rably surrender" and then give an example of Battle of Camarón but the battle of Camarón was not a last stand, so you have put forward an expert opinion with no source and added an example that is not a last stand. This sort of observation can be made for most of the rest of the text you have added, but I do not think there is a need to detail it here, so if you have sources for the additions please add them and we should delete all the text that is not supported with sources (WP:PROVIT) -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my edit was removed and I'm OK with that. I'll be more careful in future. Djmaschek (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Szigetvar

[[:File:Johann Peter Krafft 005.jpg|thumb|right|250px|For more than a month at Szigetvár in late 1566, Captain Nikola Zrinski and the 2,500 Christian soldiers under his command held out against Turkish forces numbering up to 100,000.^{[ES 1]}]]

^ Shelton, Edward (1867). The book of battles: or, Daring deeds by land and sea. London: Houlston and Wright. pp. 82–83.

I have removed the recently introduced picture because the source does not state that it was a last stand and for us to interpret it as one is WP:OR. If a source can be found that says it was a last stand then I think it would be an appropriate to include it. -- PBS (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Iwo Jima

Adrian R. Lewis, The American Culture of War. The History of U.S. Military Force from World War II to Operation Iraqi Freedom, New York 2007, p. 59

Is given as a source for the Battle of Iwo Jima being a last stand. GoldDragon Please quote the sentence from Lewis where he states it was a last stand.

GoldDragon you have included it in a section called "Tactical significance". Other than a source may describe the battle as a last stand, how does the paragraph explain a different aspect of a last stand not covered by the other paragraphs? --PBS (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Stand Requirements

Requirements (according to Wilytilt (talk) on the First Archive):

1) The defenders are unable or unwilling to leave their position, and are cut off during the battle from any friendly forces.

2) The attackers have much greater strength than the defenders. This is usually numerical and tactical, as in surrounding the defenders. It can also involve technology and supply.

3a) The defenders lose all held ground while fighting "to the last man". A large majority of defenders are casualties (>~66%). No more than ~50% surrender. These are only my estimates from having read about many last stands; they are not definitive and I'm willing to hear alternate ones.

OR

3b) The defenders win the battle, holding and completely stopping the attack.' They cannot simply make a tactical retreat out of the battle.

4) At least one legitimate secondary source states an opinion that the battle was a "last stand". This should be obvious, so that we avoid adding battles based on only our opinion.

I think this should be included in the article, and would be useful in establishing a list of last stands. None of the four points brought up are original research; they are implied by the definition of last stand. 069952497a (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SYN. This has been discussed to death over the words "massacre" and "slaughter" and "butchery". If you make up a list of incidents that some someone somewhere has called a last stand then what you have is a "list of events called last stand". This does not make it a complete list or a useful list. Wikipedia is not a random collection of fact. It makes no more sense to build such a list than it does to take something like black boots and make a list of all the regiments in the world that have worn or do wear black boots. -- PBS (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Ataturk at Gallipolli - Possibly an example of a successful last stand?

When British forces attacked Gallipolli in WW1, Kemal Ataturk led the defence, reportedly saying "I don't order you to fight, I order you to die. In the time it takes us to die, other troops and commanders can come and take our places." That sounds like he thought it was a last stand. But I don't know the details well enough.

Should that be included in the last stands that actually went the defender's way?

The current examples are Agincourt and Rorke's Drift. winterstein (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benkei

In the end, Benkei and Yoshitsune were encircled in the castle of Koromogawa no tate. As Yoshitsune retired to the inner keep of the castle to commit honorable ritual suicide (seppuku) on his own, Benkei stood guard on the bridge in front of the main gate to protect Yoshitsune. It is said that the soldiers were afraid to cross the bridge to confront him, and that all who did met a swift death at the hands of the gigantic man, who killed in excess of 300 trained soldiers.[citation needed]

Realizing that close combat would mean suicide, the warriors following Minamoto no Yoritomo decided to shoot and kill Benkei with arrows instead. Long after the battle should have been over, the soldiers noticed that the arrow-riddled, wound-covered Benkei was still standing. When the soldiers dared to cross the bridge and take a closer look, the heroic warrior fell to the ground, having died standing upright.[7][failed verification] This is known as the "Standing Death of Benkei" (弁慶の立往生, Benkei no Tachi Ōjō). Benkei died at the age of 34. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.46.179.137 (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Shelton, Edward (1867). The book of battles: or, Daring deeds by land and sea. London: Houlston and Wright. pp. 82–83.

[ES 1]