Helfaeng

So it is only seen as a battle when "Mighty Rome" is put through hell and loses, but it is loss with honor? The Romans were not to be fooled with and these guys owned them.

DIVUS IVLIVS

Oh Teutoberg Forest was a humiliation - I agree with you there 100%. And it was one of the most historically signifigant humiliations of all time.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't really win in the thread - we are looking for "big crazy battles".

As you yourself say, it was more of a slaughter than a battle. In terms of how "big" it was, there were three legions involved - some 15,000 men, and a certain number of Germans - not very "big" numbers wise at least by comparison to some of the true monsters out there. It might get there for being "crazy", but really, the concept of of Roman legions getting caught in bad terrain and suffering a drumming was not rather new - it happened in the Gallic Wars, it happened to Crassus at Carrhae, and so on. The signifigance was in the fact that it badly showed the weaknesses of Augustus's new military system.

Wobomagonda

Why are we talking about the Romans when the largest battles in human history happened during the 20th century?

DIVUS IVLIVS

Because this is in the "Ancient History" section.

Perhaps it should be moved. Otherwise, talking about Modern History might be off topic.

Helfaeng

Oh, I see. srry still new to this kinda thing. (forums)

DIVUS IVLIVS

No problem Welcome to the Forum BTW.

Colin Arthen

What do you think of the BORODINO battle? Just asking.

Cedar Brown

From memory, not much more than 250,000 men on the field including units that were not commited such as the Imperial Guard and Russian militia. 30,000 "French" casualties and up to 40,000 Russian. A very large battle with an immense human cost but not the biggest or craziest.

Pretty interesting regarding the increasing use of artillery though. It's said that you could not hear a thing as at every possible moment there was a cannon being fired somewhere on the field. More artillery than had been amassed before. Over a thousand guns. Artillery was more important than ever before and was becoming possibly the most decisive element on the field.

shiko

I wonder why Cannae is not mentioned? It was sure a great battle and a masterpiece of Hannibal. Roman army had double numeric superiority in infantry numbers and Hannibal had far more cavalry. IMHO this is one of the most significant battles of all time.
This was a original tactic chosen by Hannibal to surround and eliminate numerically superior force. Romans had 80 000 of highly trained infantry only. After the battle only about 15 000 managed to flee. Teutoburg forest in my opinion cannot be even considered a battle by comparison. It was pure ambush over some incapable Roman senator over just 2 Roman legions, while Cannae was a real deal and the battle that had the most influence upon futher generations of military. Stalingrad is actually employed similar strategy to Cannae and a lot of other battles. Cannae is probably the most studies battle in the world history. I guess it might count.
Regarding numbers, in most cases all numbers are inflated. Including Persians, Chinese and Gauls.
Gauls probably did concentrated very large army when fighting Caesar under Alesia. Because many tribes were involved and % of warriors among them was higher than among civilized nations the numbers could be close to what Caesar mentioned. Darious ability to assemble big army for Gaugamella was far fetched since he had lost most of his territory by then.
Chinese numbers are the most suspect since we have few reliable sources.
San Guo ( Three Kingdom) book hardly can be considered a reliable source. Outside of Sima Qian I see no other particularly interested in history scholar among Chinese , unlike Mediteranian world which was obsessed with history.
Chinese military capabilities never earned my respect because historical data doe snot support it. Too many failures against neighborous and especially northern barbarians. Inability to conquer Korea and Vietnam despite huge numerical superiority.

Belisarius

Given the original question can be interpreted many ways, I agree. Moved to War and Military History. Enjoy.