Bloodiest Battles

[tflex]

I am interested to know which battles where the largest and bloodiest, starting from the evolution of warfare and ending just before the industrial age.

 

To be more specific, which battles had the greatest number of participants and which battles had the most casualities and why? Also which battles outcome had the most impact on history etc.

 

Can you please provide some data and figures on each specific battle and also if you can expand on the subject.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think it was the Battle of Leipzig.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

In terms of massacre- Cannae (You know, 50,000 died because the Romans broke through the center but 'all' rushed through the gap which allowed Hanninbal's both flanks to encircle the Romans.)

In terms of how fast the dying was and fierce was it- The Battle of Chalons

I believe a historian said 25,000 died on the Roman side within the first few hours.

 

Of course in my opinion.

Edited January 24, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Neos Dionysos]

I would cast my vote to the Battle of Chalons. The battle was described as one of the bloodiest affairs in antiquity and it was said that the bodies of the dead piled so high they formed small hills.

 

Tactically the battle was indesicive though was a Roman, (along with her allies), victory. It has 'stopped' Attila. And had it not been for the massive casulties inflicted, the Romans may have been able to anihilate the Huns as they retreated. The battle is said to have changed the face of European History, the same as Tetouberg Wald did in 9 AD.

[M. Porcius Cato]

What are the casualty figures for Chalons? Also, tflex asked about all battles up to the industrial age, so I still think the battle of Leipzig would be the bloodiest--about 90,000 casualties (as I recall).

[tflex]

What are the casualty figures for Chalons? Also, tflex asked about all battles up to the industrial age, so I still think the battle of Leipzig would be the bloodiest--about 90,000 casualties (as I recall).

 

I think the estimate was 95,000 but could be up to 110,000 according to wikipedia for the Battle of Leipzig.

Edited January 24, 2006 by tflex

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I would cast my vote to the Battle of Chalons. The battle was described as one of the bloodiest affairs in antiquity and it was said that the bodies of the dead piled so high they formed small hills.

 

Tactically the battle was indesicive though was a Roman, (along with her allies), victory. It has 'stopped' Attila. And had it not been for the massive casulties inflicted, the Romans may have been able to anihilate the Huns as they retreated. The battle is said to have changed the face of European History, the same as Tetouberg Wald did in 9 AD.

 

Not really Neos, the casualties wasn't really a main reason though it had part in it. In my opinion and that of other historians, Aetius could have finished off the Huns if he wanted to, but he didn't because of the strategic value. If the Huns are gone, who will Goths, Vandals,Franks, Burgundians, Alamanni, et alia be focused on fighting and so it would only read to the fastening of the fall of Rome. However, Aetius didn't count on the condition of Rome to be so bad that during second Hunnic incursion he wasn't even able to raise an army, it was just that bad.

Here's a good site on the battle of Chalons

The casualties were never exactly given, so we will never know but Jordanes' offers the number of dead was 165,000, excluding the casualties of the Franko-Gepid skirmish previous to the main battle while Hydatius, a historian who lived at the time of Attila's invasion, reports the number of 300,000 dead. The numbers are exagerrated though because the battle really only had about 100,000 participants. So the dead could have been around 50,000 or less if the casualtie was so high on both sides total. Just google battle of Chalons and you'll find lots of information.

Edited January 24, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[tflex]

What's the casualty figure for the Battle of Chalons according to modern historians or archaeologists?

 

I think in terms of impact on history in the western civilization, the Battle of Adrianople has to rank among the highest and if you take the proportion of casualities to the total number of combatants it' has to be way up there.

[Neos Dionysos]

I think in terms of impact on history in the western civilization, the Battle of Adrianople has to rank among the highest and if you take the proportion of casualities to the total number of combatants it' has to be way up there.

 

I would argue that up and down the place... as the battle was very significant for the army, it was not so for 'Western Europe' or 'Western Civilization.'

[Pantagathus]

I'm going to have to give notice to the Battle of Thermopylae for obvious reasons.

[Neos Dionysos]

What's the casualty figure for the Battle of Chalons according to modern historians or archaeologists?

 

Not sure, trying to find that out myself...

 

I think in terms of impact on history in the western civilization, the Battle of Adrianople has to rank among the highest and if you take the proportion of casualities to the total number of combatants it' has to be way up there.

 

The total Goth strength at the battle was only 50,000, and the total Roman at 40,000. (However others have said that the Romans totaled no more than 30,000 and the Goths were actually less in number around 20,000). The difference was, only around half if not less than half the total Gothic strength was there at the start of the battle, when the cavalry arrived, the Roman units had already been commited and so recalling them was impossible and once the cavalry screen fled and routed leaving the infantry to fend for themselves, the Gothic cavalry encircled and enveloped the Roman lines. The result was around 26,000 Romans dead. (15-16000 if you take the 30,000 total Romans figure). Indeed a high proportion, but more Romans were killed at Cannae and Carrhae for example and around the same at Teutoberg Wald. The difference here though, this battle did not change western civilization or europe for that matter. The battle was a tactical failure and is seen as the end of heavy infantry and the dawn of cavalry as the mainstay of armies. I find fault in this, because, even if it had been infantry who encircled and turned the flanks of the Romans, the results would have been the same. The Romans were outflanked and encircled and were thus destroyed, not because of cavalry, (this just made the job easier), but because they were simply outflanked. Another major issue to remember is that the Goths traditionally were infantry fighters, and not horseman, so the question stands where did the cavalry come from? During the revolt, Gothic tribal leaders collected a large assortment of people to thier banner, which included slaves, other barbarians inside the empire, disgruntled miners, deserting Romans, and most important, Hunnic and Alan forces were added as mercenarcy forces with promise of plunder in Roman lands. This was the cavarly force that struck that day, not Gothic in composition but Alan and Huns, the notion that Valens allowed entry and or engaged 'hundreds of thousands' of Goths is absurd. He allowed in one tribe of Goths, numbering no more than 40-50,000 of which there were around 10,000 of fighting age. The 'Goths' grew in size when the revolt started from as I mentioned getting others to join the rebellion and when frontier forces were pulled from the Danube, the previously denied entry Goths entered and joined en masse. The problem of the battle lay in leadership and tactical means. Valens was not a military man, and to add to it he had five Magister Militums there as well which only complicated matters further. If the battle was so diastorous, (outside the obvious military and tactical sense), then Rome would have collasped, surely at least in the East, yet it did not. Adrianople, is a major disaster for Rome yes, but a turning point in history? I don't think so.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm going to have to give notice to the Battle of Thermopylae for obvious reasons.

Not obvious at all. What are the numbers, and how do they compare to all the other candidates?

[tflex]

Rome did not fall right away after the Battle of Adrianople but it didn't take too long after that. I still think the Battle of Adrianople was a major turining point in history because the empire was severly weakened after suffering a humiliating defeat to the barbarians, and thereafter could not ragain it's power permanently. Theodosius temporarily fixed things but it was too late, the eastern empire was already suffering from constant barabrian invasions into roman territory thanks to the Battle of Adrianople.

[Neos Dionysos]

Rome did not fall right away after the Battle of Adrianople but it didn't take too long after that. I still think the Battle of Adrianople was a major turining point in history because the empire was severly weakened after suffering a humiliating defeat to the barbarians, and thereafter could not ragain it's power permanently.

 

The Roman state as a whole was suffering from Barbarian incursions for almost 150 years at this point. That was damaging and the attrition of professional soldiers within the army, (as in NCO's who are the key to any professional army), was very high, this hurt and weakened them. But Rome had also been suffering from civil wars from almost as long, it was not uncommon in the 3rd Century for there to be multiple ursupers at once, surely this played a major part in tearing away manpower and resources of the empire... Also, the Western Army after Adrianople was still strong and vibrant, and, part of it's units had been units from the Eastern Army that were transferred over during the early 370's. Adrianople was diasterious for the Eastern Army, not the Roman Empire, the army would be replenished and be back on it's feet. Rome not being the dominate force, in the world was a notion that was already in decline for almost a century at this point. Perhaps what started this cycle of Rome no longer being 'on top' was her acceptance of the fact she cannot hold all of her land and so has to accept losses. The first major example being Dacia, which was abandoned by Aureilan in the 270's. This was the first, of furture many such events where the Romans were already sub-consciously accpeting they were not the dominate force in the world they had once been.

 

Theodosius temporarily fixed things but it was too late, the eastern empire was already suffering from constant barabrian invasions into roman territory thanks to the Battle of Adrianople.

 

So by this logic then, one would assume the East was lost... and again... it endured another 1000 years.

 

The West had far more barbarian incursions and 'invasions' than the East ever had, the Goths were not an invasion they were an inner rebellion, the Huns were the only major invasion into Eastern lands, the West suffered much more, but were able to hold thier own quite well. The differences happened after 394AD when the battle of the Frigidus River destroyed the Western Roman Army, that's when Rome could no longer protect herself, that was the turning point from a military standpoint. Worst of all, is that the battle is TERRIBLY underrated. It is shown as just some battle between Romans... the East vs West. Yet, the implications were disasterous. The Western Army, which until this point was strong, vibrant and had not suffered any setbacks, suddenly found it itself torn apart. This then forced Rome to rely on only one field army in the West to properly protect the empire, (that being in Italia), while the rest of the west was protected by 'allies' as in the Visigoths and the Franks. Rome had no more troops to spare, the west was were the 'onslaught' came, NOT the east. If it had been the other way around, then the EAST would have fell and the West would have endured, but it did not. The defeat of Adrianople was bad, but was something Rome could bounce back from... it had ALWAYS bounced back from defeats, but another major defeat not even 20 years later and this time to the Western Army, was something they could not recover from so long as the pressure of outside threat, (and from the inside of the empire) continued not giving the army the time it needed to recover properly.

[tflex]

I'm going to have to give notice to the Battle of Thermopylae for obvious reasons.

Not obvious at all. What are the numbers, and how do they compare to all the other candidates?

 

In terms of proportions, the Battle of Thermopylae has to be the highest. I think modern estimates are 7,000 Greeks and 250,000 Persians. Casualties are 300 Spartans, 4,000 Greeks and 30,000 Persians. The casualties figure on the Persian side would have been much higher if it hadn't been for Ephialtes.

When it comes to advantage in numbers there is no comparison to any other battle, the Spartans and Greeks were outnumbered by 97%, and still managed to slaughter 12% of the Persian forces. Please correct me if my figures are wrong.

Edited January 24, 2006 by tflex