The problem here is the lack of a 'tight' definition of a 'battle'.  In previous eras, this was more clear cut.  Armies would line up, fight it out and one of them would retreat / rout all in the same day.  Perhaps there was the occasional exception where both side would stick around for a second day of 'slugging it out' if the first day wasn't sufficiently 'decisive'.  However, come the 'modern era', and now there might be continuous 'fighting' on a sector or front for days, weeks, even months.

If we consider the 'Battle of Stalingrad', when do you consider that to have begun, and ended?  Should one consider only the fighting for Stalingrad itself, from the time that the 6th Army reached the outskirts and started to fight its way into the city to the point where the surrounded remnants finally surrendered?  Should we only consider those forces actually fighting for the city itself?  Or should we include the entire 'sector' of the front, from start of Operation Blue through the Soviet counterattacks up to von Manstein's 'backhand blow' at Kharkov?  Should we include all of the forces, including those on the 'flanks' north and south of Stalingrad?  

How does one consider the so called 'Battle of the Atlantic', which lasted for the entire duration of the war?  The problem is that, with the modern era, the scope of 'battle' has tended to expand to the point that the distinction becomes blurred with what would have been considered an entire 'campaign' in earlier times.  No one has such difficulty with the distinction (for instance) between Napoleon's 1813 Campaign in Germany, vs. specific 'battles' such as Dresden, or Leipzig (the latter being the biggest, spanning 3 days).


Edited by deadkenny - 06-Feb-2008 at 13:47

The largest battle involving American troops was the Battle of the Bulge, or Ardennes offensive, which involved over 1 million GIs and over 35 divisions, from Dec. 16th 1944 to Jan 16th 1945. Roughly 16,000 GIs were killed during this period. 

Originally posted by Sun Tzu I want to know what the largest battle ever in history was in terms of the sizes of both armies, the casualties sustained and the size of the area in which the battle took place.

I thought I remember hearing that in one battle 60,000 British died like in a couple of hours.

That's a myth though. The Victorians could also invent fictions of 300 proportions. The Roman numbers for the battle make the army larger than the population for the whole region. So unless some serious cloning had been done by the locals in the weeks prior to the battle.

Personally I doubt there were half that actually at the battle?

Edited by Paul - 07-Feb-2008 at 14:56

I'm a Korean-American who grew up in Korea so I know very well about the Salsu Battle. It is a source of great Korean nationalistic pride, just like Yi Soon-Shin admiral who did a lot to repel the Japanese invasion in the 1590's with the armored Turtle Ship (Geo-buk-seon). But as far as the Salsu Battle in which supposedly 300,000+ Chinese soldiers were killed, I found that hard to believe even as a kid. But it does seem like an accepted fact, even by Chinese scholars and historians. It was really about the Goguryeo (northern Korean nation at the time) general Eulji Mundeok luring the huge Sui (Chinese) army into a major trap and completely catching them off guard - one of the biggest battle routs in history for sure.

Originally posted by Temujin 300,000 soldiers for the Sui Army isn't really hard to believe in my opinion.

And why would that be?

DESPITE WHAT I AM READING HERE MY FRIEND I THINK IT IS A VERY EASY ANSWER.(ALTHOUGH IT HAS MORE THAN ONE)

Originally posted by SPARTAN KROUT WRONG. THE LARGEST NAVAL BATTLE IN HISTORY WAS JUTLAND. WW1 GERMAN NAVY VS.BRITISH NAVY.