Greatest military battle(number of soldiers)

[edyzmedieval]

Which was the largest battle in history?! :embarassed: (I should've known this)

[cegorach]

Very hard to say, because after mid XIXth century armies didn't meet in relatively small territory anymore.
But for the period 1400 - 1800 the biggest one would be at Beresteczko in Ukraine. Between 100 000 - 150 000 Poles and 200 000 - 300 000 Cossack rebeles and their Tatar allies.
I am pretty sure about the numbers :book:

[Samurai Waki]

Battle of the Bulge, or some battle on the Eastern Front in WW2, where millions saw action.

[caesar44]

Very hard to say, because after mid XIXth century armies didn't meet in relatively small territory anymore.
But for the period 1400 - 1800 the biggest one would be at Beresteczko in Ukraine. Between 100 000 - 150 000 Poles and 200 000 - 300 000 Cossack rebeles and their Tatar allies.
I am pretty sure about the numbers :book:

When , and who won ? are you saying that the Cossacks who were Christians Slavs were allied with the Muslims Tatars against the Christian and Slav Poles ? amazing , please some more details

[The Stranger]

WWI had the biggest siege, i thought it was Verdun

[The Stranger]

@Wazikashi

does that count as a battle, it was a whole offensive, right.

[Redleg]

Verdun is a strong possiblitly since it lasted about 3 years and involved over 10,000,000 soldiers of both sides.

Stalingrad also would be one of the largest - several million soldiers were involved.

However as a single large one to three day battle I would have to say Kursk. But that was primarily a Tank Battle, Still by the casuality figures - it was a significantly large battle

[Taurus]

I don't know exactly but the battles of Ancient China had vasts amounts of soldiers particpating in every battle. I think that one of those battles would be a strong contender.

[King Henry V]

One of the battles in WW2 would have to be the biggest battle in post-Industrial Revolution history.
However, in pre-Industrial Revolution European history, my vote would go to the Battle of Leipzig or the Battle of the Nations in 1813. It comprised 190,000 French troops and almost 400,000 Swedish, Prussian, Austrian and Russian soldiers, together with 2200 pieces of artillery.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It depends how one defines "battle."

Some people view the struggle for Verdun or the Somme Offensive as a battle, others as a campaign. I tend to view it as the latter.

Ancient World:

Probably one of the great battles of the 3 Kingdoms era in China. Some of these battles are estimated to have involved more than 500,000 participants -- dwarfing the 300,000 at Gaugamela.

Gunpowder Era:

Probably Leipzeig as noted above, though the sieges of Constantinople and Vienna would have been larger if the "higher end" estimates of the Great Turkish armies are accurate.

World War One:

Day one of the Somme Offensive -- 1 day earning 60k Brits their own poppy covered "corner of some foreign field."

World War Two:

Kursk. The Stalingrad campaing and Siege of Leningrad were larger efforts, but only Kursk has a distinct "battle" format.

Wars Since:

With force multipliers and modern technology, the absolute numbers on the battlefield have dropped considerably -- a different sort of measure is needed.

SF

[Afonso I of Portugal]

I think your'e right and there was several huge battles in diferent regions of the planet. For example, one of the greatest battles of the medieval world was the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa - 16 July 1212.

It was the decisive battle of the Spanish/Portuguese reconquista. The sources refer about 80000 christians against about 100000 muslims.

The battle was the result of a crusade against the Muslim infidel in Spain organized by Alfonso VIII of Castile and Pope Innocent III (1198-1216). French, Provençal, and Italian knights and soldiers eventually arrived at Toledo to join up with crusaders brought by the kings of Aragón, Portugal and Navarre, as well as the army assembled by Alfonso VIII of Castile.

As a consequence of the Christian victory at Las Navas de Tolosa, the power of the Almohads, the Berber regime that had dominated Muslim Spain (Al-Andalus) from the mid-twelfth century, was shattered, enabling the Christians to take over almost all of southern Spain in the ensuing forty years.

[xemitg]

Pelennor Fields?

Are we talking about a battle that happened in one day or a drawn out siege like Verdun?

[PanzerJaeger]

Kursk.

[King Henry V]

World War One:

Day one of the Somme Offensive -- 1 day earning 60k Brits their own poppy covered "corner of some foreign field."



SF
The figure was around 20,000 casualties.

[Randarkmaan]

In sheer number of Soldiers wouldn't it be the battle of Berlin? 2,5 million soviets versus 1 million german defenders, though very few of the german defenders were soldiers however. The russians also had a crapload of tanks, artillery and other mean things to kill germans with.

[Meneldil]

#1 : Verdun. Almost every french and german soldier in service on the western front at this date fought at Verdun. Basically, almost 9.5 millions of people.

#2 : Stalingrad.

I can't see any other battle with as much men involved, though I'm not to sure about Leningrad.

I don't see why these 2 aren't considered as battles. People fought 24h/24 here.

[Steppe Merc]

Keep in mind the truism when it comes to Ancient and Medieval battles: All contemparary historians exagerated numbers. They all lie.

[The Stranger]

so they never reached into the millions anyway.

Meneldil@
Redleg and me mentioned Verdun

[Steppe Merc]

I would doubt they even reached much over 10,000 often.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The figure was around 20,000 casualties.

Allowed my rheotric to carry me away a bit. While there were 60,000 Brit/Commonwealth casualties on that first day, ONLY about 21,000 were killed.

Seamus

[Meneldil]

Meneldil@
Redleg and me mentioned Verdun


What I meant is that I hardly see a bigger battle than Verdun, and I hardly see why people are arguing over the fact it's a battle or not. Strictly speaking, it was a battle, and stricly speaking, there was much more people involved than during Kursk, Berlin, Lepnigz battle and so on (as long as the word battle has the same meaning in English and in French, of course).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What I meant is that I hardly see a bigger battle than Verdun, and I hardly see why people are arguing over the fact it's a battle or not. Strictly speaking, it was a battle, and stricly speaking, there was much more people involved than during Kursk, Berlin, Lepnigz battle and so on (as long as the word battle has the same meaning in English and in French, of course).

By my definition, Verdun was a whole host of battles comprising the pivotal campaign of the First World War. France won the war by not losing that campaign. It is no more a discrete "battle" for having been fought in a geographically confined area than was the Korean conflict of 1950-54.

Seamus

[The Stranger]

What I meant is that I hardly see a bigger battle than Verdun, and I hardly see why people are arguing over the fact it's a battle or not. Strictly speaking, it was a battle, and stricly speaking, there was much more people involved than during Kursk, Berlin, Lepnigz battle and so on (as long as the word battle has the same meaning in English and in French, of course).

hmmmmmmmm, not everyone might know that...instead of claiming share some facts. you already did that but you might give a clearer view. and who said it wasnt a battle...???? ~:confused:

[The Stranger]

SF france prolly would have lost that when alot of german troops werent pulled out the attack in the middle of the offensive.....that weakened the german position and gave the french the opportunity to regain everything the germans took 4 months to fight for (credit goes to petain, the sacred road and the hardy defenders of verdun. i've been there and their forts are very well constructed and placed. if you are there you should visit it....just like Bitche but thats another war and story)