Celticguy

The title doesn't say anything about the biggest SINGLE battle, nor does it specifically mention the most participants necessarily.

Secondly the word battle in the modern context can mean more than what was considered a battle centuries ago, as armies in the modern world are much larger, so you do have phrases as the battle for north africa, battle for france, or pacific battle etc.

Finally, "operation barbarossa" is listed among the most bloody BATTLES of all time. So yes, it can auctually be classified as a battle.

hindsight

Its a matter of perspective ; if we are talking sheer size of an army (men) ; without doubt the unifying wars in China.

But for significance of the battle and numbers killed IMO it would have to be Stalingrad ;

Nazi Germany -- Romania, Italy, Hungary
740,000 killed or wounded,
110,000 captured

Soviet Union
750,000 killed, wounded or captured,
40,000+ civilian dead

Thats almost half of the total numbers killed in WW2!

'If' Ghenghis pushed onward and faward into Europe proper, we may well be talking of proportions on par with those in China IMO. But alas that never happened!

opoesiemen

In my opinion operation Barbarossa should be the craziest battle ever in the history.

The End

Most of the craziest battles in History were made unique by cunning generals. Here is a list of such battles found on Cracked.com. (Link)

Optiow

That was a horrible battle. It shows just how old fashioned the generals on WW1 were...

Sargon of Akkad

And yet you seem to think that the Gauls could manage to field 350,000 men without any problems? Don't you think the cohesive, centrally-run Persian Empire would have had a better handle on logistics than the disparate Gallic tribes - you know, those guys who didn't even have writing?

We've discussed this before: Caesars numbers are not reliable, because they were given by Caesar himself, and Caesar had a massive political reason for overinflating them. I'm not saying Alexander's numbers weren't overinflated (of course they were) but Caesars definitely were as well.

Also: The Fertile Crescent is not a desert. In addition to Egypt, I imagine the Persians could provision a very large number of men indeed.

Now, to the OP:

I suspect one of the largest of ancient times was the Battle of Arausio. 200,000 Germans vs 120,000 Romans. Pretty epic stuff.

Celticguy

In fact there was over 50 million killed in WW2. However over half were on the russian front during the course of the entire war.

Jebusrocks

Why da hell are ppl talking about WWII in the Ancient History forum??

DIVUS IVLIVS

Notice that you question the accuracy of the numbers of Gauls and then go strait on to go with number of 200,000 Germans at Arausio?

The Gauls, Ventians, Begians, Germanics, etc went about the process of swinging armies in a very different manner to the Persians. They could be described as veritable locust swarms of men that moved about stripping the land as they went. The advantage of this was the it gave them the ability to move very, very large numbers around. The disadvantage was that it meant that these huge armies/hordes could not stay in one location for extended period of time, and this Caesar used to his advantage in particular at the battle of the Arrar river.

In any case when talking of the Vercingetorix rebellion I would happily stand by the Gauls having a far better grasp of logistics than the Persians. These guys, who did indeed have writing, learned their trade in logistics from the Romans, who were the masters of it.

We have indeed been over this, and whatever your opinion I stand by my original assertion that Caesar's numbers are far more likely to be accurate than those provided by numerous other Ancient Sources.

Well, funny to include Egypt when we are talking about the battle of Gaugamela, by which point Egypt was hopelessly lost to the Persians. Gaugamela too is pretty much on the extreme edge of the Fertile Crescent, and in country that both then and now very much qualiffies as a desert.

Logistics effectively boils down to the ease of getting the supplies together, the ability to assemble the number of men in a certain amount of time, the distances required, and so on. Add in all these things and I personally regard an army of 300,000 Gauls as a definite possibility (war-like people in a relatively small area, extremely fertile land where forage will not be a major hassle, etc) whereas an army of more than 100,000 Persians being maintained for long strikes me out.

Sargon of Akkad

Do I have to prefix everything I say with "common concensus dictates"? I haven't seen any big arguments over the numbers at Arausio, do you have anything to suggest that the numbers are over/under inflated?

Yes. I agree. Just not veritable swarms to the unlikely tune of 350,000 men being fed without central government or organisation.

I understand your arguments and just don't agree with them. France would have been mostly forested at this point in time anyway, so its not like it was a garden of Eden. I think you don't really appreciate how many 350,000 men is. I assume this figure is not including camp followers as well.

Don't you think its funny that the Romans suffered big defeats at the hands of the Gauls and Germans, and their numbers didn't amount to anywhere near the amount you are suggesting, and when Caesar comes home triumphant he claims to have fought almost twice as many barbarians as anyone else at one time and comes back with his army intact, as the victor?


If the Gauls have writing, where is it? I'd like to see some. And when I say "writing", I don't mean a stamp on an amphora that may or may not have been put there by a Celt, as it was found in Brittany, I want to see what we dig up from the ruins of Babylon - hundreds and hundreds of inventory lists, great works of literature or letters from one political entity to another.

While I'm sure the Gauls weren't fools when it came to logistics, I can't see why you'd think the Persians would be so poor at it. Surely the biggest empire on Earth would know something about managing men and food in vast quantities, at least a little more than a bunch of ununified tribes, don't you think? What you are suggesting just does not make sense.

Well, as I said, Caesar had a massive political motive - his balls were to the wall and he had to pull something out of his ass, fast. I can't imagine he didn't inflate the numbers - any sensible man would have done.

I'm sure Caesar did indeed know the numbers that actually were ranged against him, but I would place money on the fact he didn't report them back accurately. If there was any way of proving it, of course.

So what? Most of the Persian possessions were not just desert. They controlled a lot of fertile land and had supplies in vast quantities - the Persians had all the god-damned money, for crying out loud! When Alexander took Persepolis, he took more money than Macedon had ever seen.

Does anyone else see the mis-steps in logic here? The most powerful political entity on Earth is incapable of mustering even half the men of a disparate bunch of tribesmen?

The Persian Empire had fertile land in spades, that had ancient and well-made agricultural systems. They had all the food they needed.