The Biggest Battle Ever Fought - Ancient World

[Edmonton]

In his final wish Gengis asked his warriors to genocide Xia-Tanguts ,which they did killing 98-99% of males.This guy was total horror ,but he used terror to force some nations to submit without fighting.Man can only feel sorry for Chinese.

[Osceola]

Yes.. Genghis the eternal barbarian. The same barbarian who along with his ingenius generals, masterminded the conquest of pretty much half the world. The man who instead of killing the warrior who almost decapitated him with a wound to the neck, instead rewarded him for his feat and made him an officer. The same barbarian who on the other hand pioneered the revolutionary idea of religious tolerance, which the rest of the world seems to have conveniently ignored. This same barbarian who realised the real treasures of his empire were the artisans and thinkers, and whom he forced to work together and come together. This same barbarian who completely banned the rather barbaric use of torture, hundreds of years before the Geneva Convention. This same barbarian who finally bridged the gap between civilisations. Who forced men of all faiths and cultures to work and live together under one banner.

Yes, a "total horror" indeed.

[Edmonton]

What about executions of citizens in captured cities?And I didn't call him a barbarian.Chinese still was rather progressive culture if you wanted to study hard you could achieve high posts.

[jaklei]

Harsh times demands harsh measures my friend

[Bokks]

What about executions of citizens in captured cities?And I didn't call him a barbarian.

That was me!
I meant it out of the deepest respect. (I'm called a barbarian too)
Genghis truly did change the world. For better or worse.
He definatly was the worst enemy to have had, but all things decided, I would have much rather been a Mongolian at the beginning of the 13th century than anything else, the Khan was a great and fair ruler.

[badapple]

In more modern history most people think of the battle of Stalingrad but in the summer of 1941 the German army surrounded and destroyed more than 600,000 soviet troops near Kiev. I believe this to be the largest in history.

[Odovacar]

Yes.. Genghis the eternal barbarian. The same barbarian who on the other hand pioneered the revolutionary idea of religious tolerance, which the rest of the world seems to have conveniently ignored.

He wasn't tolerant. Being tolerant means you have a belief of something. Most nomad people didnt care monoteistic religions..they thought that doesnt matter how you respect god and on which name you call him. Ghenghis khan simply had no God for which he could kill people.

This same barbarian who realised the real treasures of his empire were the artisans and thinkers, and whom he forced to work together and come together.
Yes, a "total horror" indeed.

Yes, they were gathered together in Karakorum first then in Saraj. Theíy lived on water and bread, living in houses, which were digged in soil.
Some of the made their fortune though, and got much gold and good office. But to no avail if they already lost their home and their loved ones.
Later Saraj, capital of Golden Horse was destroyed by Timur Lenk, and all its inhabitanst mutilitated and killed. This was a common destiny in the mongol empire.
While Ghenghis was a superior organiser and general, he was really a barbarian. He destroyed the cities because he only saw them as obstacles to nomads.
Ghenghis was nowhere near in culture to an ujgur or khazar or khitaj khan.

In my opinion if someone else manages to unite all those tribes Ghenghis united the world could be different.

[rez]

yes.. Genghis the eternal barbarian. The same barbarian who on the other hand pioneered the revolutionary idea of religious tolerance, which the rest of the world seems to have conveniently ignored.

He was hardly the first to realise a happy population was a stable population. the Persians had used religous tolerance to placate their subjects thousands of years before this horsemaster's rule.

This same barbarian who finally bridged the gap between civilisations. Who forced men of all faiths and cultures to work and live together under one banner.

Again the Persians managed this over 1500 years previous to Ghengis's achievments.

However this is not to say that his achievements are any the less for not being the first. Only that they are not the first.

As for the largest battles of the ancient world, i would nominate Platea as the climax of the Greco - Persian wars and Gaugamela for the generally huge numbers involved.

[rasputin753]

also read that the battle at the themophylae (don´t know it in english) had about 170.000 persians and .. no not only 300 spartians, but 7000 greeks. though it´s true only about a 1000 stayed and the spartans were most important.

it said here before the battle at the catalaun fields wasn´t the biggest, with about 60000 combatants at both sides. it even wasn´t the most important in that era since Aetius let Attila get away. and the huns were able to strike again in the next year. who knows what would have happened if attila hasn´t died in the night of his marriage. but as you see how fast the hunnic empire was falling apart they were no real threat on the long run. to unstable. i think the contemporary historians just made such a big thing out of the whole story since it was such a relief that the incredibly feared huns weren´t able to proceed their campaign of horror, and of course they didn´t know and probably didn´t care about in the moment when their life was in danger, how unstable the framework of the hunnic empire actually was.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

The Battle of Ecnomus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Ecnomus)
256 BC
First Punic War between Carthage and Rome

A sea battle fought in 256 BC off the coast of Sicily, near the city of Licata. The Romans brought 330 galleys, each manned by 300 crewmembers and 120 marines; a grand total of 140,000 men. The Carthaginians fielded 350 galleys with similar orders of battle, totalling 150,000 men. If the numbers are to be believed, almost 300,000 men took part in the battle.

The fighting ended in a Roman victory, thanks largely to the corvus, which allowed Roman marines easier access to boarding Carthaginian ships. The Romans lost 24 ships sunk, while the Carthaginians lost 94 ships, 30 more were sunk, and 64 were taken by Roman forces.

[Donkeycow]

Alright, so out of Battles from the ancient world that are properly documented (as in not partial fiction) the largest battle is probably the battle of Philippi. The battle was part of the Roman civil wars. On one side you have Octavian Caesar and Marcus Antonius, while on the other is Cassius and Brutus. Each side had around 200,000 men, with the Triumvirs being just over 200,000 and the Republicans having just under.

The Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, probably only had about 100,000 men fighting all things considered.

Also, Ancient China has very few pieces of factual evidence due to the fact that the accurate taking of History was not a popular practice. Experts have concluded that ancient China at the height of the Han dynasty contains a much smaller population then ancient Rome at it's height.

EDIT:
oh wow.. from 2007.... my friend just trolled me hard haha... uhm... sorry bringing this back up... huh.

[Sphere]

Alright, so out of Battles from the ancient world that are properly documented (as in not partial fiction) the largest battle is probably the battle of Philippi. The battle was part of the Roman civil wars. On one side you have Octavian Caesar and Marcus Antonius, while on the other is Cassius and Brutus. Each side had around 200,000 men, with the Triumvirs being just over 200,000 and the Republicans having just under.

Yes, the numbers can be considered fairly accurate and we know the legions involved and their relative make up, though there is some ambiguity in the number of men in the auxillia legions. Also these would be the number of actual soldiers involved not camp followers. Camp followers often cause the infaltion of numbers in historical accounts.

[conon394]

Its worth remembering both sides at Philippi had some naval forces as well -> more military age manpower, even if not at the battle.

Experts have concluded that ancient China at the height of the Han dynasty contains a much smaller population then ancient Rome at it's height.

Always tricky - ancient population estimates. It is perhaps rather more that on balance many historians now do not easily accept a high number for the Han (based on assumptions built around their census numbers) and that concurrently a high count for Imperial Italy combined with more recent archeology points a more populous Roman Empire than that the CW understood for maybe the last couple decades.

But I doubt outside of the most polemical historians (on either side) anyone would say anything is 'concluded'.

[white-wolf]

Yes.. Genghis the eternal barbarian. The same barbarian who along with his ingenius generals, masterminded the conquest of pretty much half the world. The man who instead of killing the warrior who almost decapitated him with a wound to the neck, instead rewarded him for his feat and made him an officer. The same barbarian who on the other hand pioneered the revolutionary idea of religious tolerance, which the rest of the world seems to have conveniently ignored. This same barbarian who realised the real treasures of his empire were the artisans and thinkers, and whom he forced to work together and come together. This same barbarian who completely banned the rather barbaric use of torture, hundreds of years before the Geneva Convention. This same barbarian who finally bridged the gap between civilisations. Who forced men of all faiths and cultures to work and live together under one banner.

Yes, a "total horror" indeed.

I highly object the bold part of your post. It was common character of nomad societies that they have religious tolerance. Chengis was not first ruler of nomads, nor the last one, who renowned for religious tolerance.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

also read that the battle at the themophylae (don´t know it in english) had about 170.000 persians and .. no not only 300 spartians, but 7000 greeks. though it´s true only about a 1000 stayed and the spartans were most important.

it said here before the battle at the catalaun fields wasn´t the biggest, with about 60000 combatants at both sides. it even wasn´t the most important in that era since Aetius let Attila get away. and the huns were able to strike again in the next year. who knows what would have happened if attila hasn´t died in the night of his marriage. but as you see how fast the hunnic empire was falling apart they were no real threat on the long run. to unstable. i think the contemporary historians just made such a big thing out of the whole story since it was such a relief that the incredibly feared huns weren´t able to proceed their campaign of horror, and of course they didn´t know and probably didn´t care about in the moment when their life was in danger, how unstable the framework of the hunnic empire actually was.

Wasn't the persian army more like 100 thousand? For example, Philippi is easily bigger than that. Actually, that may have well been the largest land battle ever fought, with possible figures as high as 233 thousand versus 187 thousand. Imagine that many legionaires!

That and Mylae were the first ones that came to my mind.

[Astaroth]

Wasn't the persian army more like 100 thousand? For example, Philippi is easily bigger than that. Actually, that may have well been the largest land battle ever fought, with possible figures as high as 233 thousand versus 187 thousand. Imagine that many legionaires!

That and Mylae were the first ones that came to my mind.

Well, let's compare it to the Battle of Kursk for example... 600-800,000 Germans against about 1.4-1.9 million Soviets.

But yes, it was most likely the biggest battle of Antiquity.

[athanaric]

I highly object the bold part of your post. It was common character of nomad societies that they have religious tolerance. Chengis was not first ruler of nomads, nor the last one, who renowned for religious tolerance.

I agree with you, but I'm afraid it's rather pointless to adress Osceola, since he died over a year ago.

[white-wolf]

I agree with you, but I'm afraid it's rather pointless to adress Osceola, since he died over a year ago.

Ahh my shame. It is sad to learn that.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Well, let's compare it to the Battle of Kursk for example... 600-800,000 Germans against about 1.4-1.9 million Soviets.

But yes, it was most likely the biggest battle of Antiquity.

We're not talking about modern day battles - or else WWII would take all the top positions.

Plus - the russian numbers could have been as high as 2.5 million.

[Astaroth]

Yeah, but you said that the battle of Philippi "may have well been the largest land battle ever fought" so I assumed you meant, well, ever.