This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I am of immense curiosity as to why the Falklands conflict is listed under "Major Operations." Not to take anything away from those who fought in it or anything but it sticks out like a sore thumb with all of the other listees. I mean, I thought the entries with around 10,000 were cutting it pretty low but it's literally got an entry with "1,000, without prisoners" under it. I'm not going to just callously edit it out but I would like some explanation.
Sorting makes the lists more useful, but more marginally more difficult to add new data. It's not difficult once you understand that sorting numerically isn't possible because of BC in some of the years and commas in the casualty figures. All we are doing here is converting those numbers into an alphabetic format that the table can sort.
It looks more complex than it really is, trust me ;) Prometheusg 12:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is now semi-protected in order to stop the back and forth of reverting material.
The problem is that the material in the article was not verifiable. For months there has been a template calling for sources without much effect. I decided to delete all material that can't be verified in order to rebuilt the article on a solid basis. In doing so, I also reworded parts that weren't encyclopedic language. The material about battles, that was formerly in the article, can be reinserted if you provide a source. Big problem is that many sources provide different numbers. For this reason I also suggest to split the casualty numbers between primary sources and scientific secondary sources, because their estimates can greatly vary, especially so for classical battles.
I won't edit this article under the current semi-protection until a consensus is achieved. Wandalstouring ( talk) 08:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I see absolutely no reason for conclusion about verifiability of material based on the absence of direct references. If you click on
Battle of Wuhan or
Warsaw Uprising, that were present in the article before July 15, you find a number of casualties and a proper references to valid sources. The situation is similar for most other items.
I don't understand why the article citing another reliable Wikipedia article is considered not verifiable. I think, by removing these items you just destroy a work of previous editors for absolutely formal reason.
Situation is ridiculous: the
Battle of Berlin and the
Battle of Moscow articles provide a number of casualties along with reliable sources. Both of them have a reference to the present article where they were listed among the bloodiest battles in history. However, they are absent it this article now.
I think the person who removed these and other items has to go to appropriate pages and insert the references from there as soon as possible, otherwise, he/she simply must revert his editing back.
--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This article seems very similar to the list of battles and other violent events by death toll, although this includes all casualties, not just deaths. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Stalingrad links to this page but theres no mention of it in the article at all. 208.114.169.126 ( talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Almost all the battles listed pre 1800 have casualties that a little more than wild guesses. Listing them here gives a spurious impression of accuracy. That two of the battles are sourced to Herodotus tells us more about him than the battles he describes. Dejvid ( talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
While I trust modern historians better than the ancient sources, they are of there nature informed guesses. Hence different historians will plump for different figures. Given there is no real way of deciding which is the best guess short of original research then it is impossible to properly rank such battles. Of course, it is not the case that on new years day 1800, records suddenly became trustworthy. However, it is a clear cut off point and excludes most of the battles where the number of dead is unreliable. Dejvid ( talk) 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just protected this article for twenty-four hours. This is to enable editors to familiarise themselves with Wikpedia policy regarding reliable sources. In a nutshell, this says that all material likely to be challenged in an article must be directly referenced to a reliable source. For these purposes, Wikipedia articles are not themselves reliable sources and each new article touching on a subject must be referenced a fresh.
I hope that all disputes can be worked out here. If not, and if edit-warring continues, I will re-protect the article and/or block editors ignoring policy.
Thanks for your time, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I call upon whom ever placed this page in protection to extend its protection at least another 24 hours. Certain vandals whom of witch shall not be named here , have destroyed months possibly even years worth of work based on false pretences. They acted in intrest of themselves , not wikipedia. The people of wikipedia do not deserve such treatment.Sincerly-- Dt23 ( talk) 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to merge it with List of battles and other violent events by death toll because the topic largely overlaps or to make more differenciated lists specific for say, battles, air raids, terrorist attacks, etc. Naturally all entries need sources like in this article. Wandalstouring ( talk) 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has the same problems as most other articles where someone wants to make a PC statement about the evils of man.
This thing is almost 100% western. WHERE IS THE REST OF THE WORLD? Don't they count? Don't they have history and historians? At the very least the Chinese had BIG battles, and in 4,000 years LOTS of them. Somehow, I think the rest of the world deserves to be included any article purporting to be "comprehensive". 24.10.110.171 ( talk) 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it usually the originator's responsibilities to fix the problem? Not the person who finds the mistake. In this case blatantly ignoring the history of 90% of the human race? Aaaronsmith ( talk) 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Then it seems the least we can do in the interests of honesty is include a sentence warning the reader of the inherent bias. Feel free since you want to keep the article and I believe it is a disaster that should go. Aaaronsmith ( talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Reading the table I find three ways to note which years a battle took place:
I suggest we note the years on all rows in the same way; and I vote for the 1st alterative since it's the hardest to misinterpret. / Tense ( talk) 19:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm preparing to add many more entries to the list, but before I do so I was considering what the appropriate minimum would be. Many famous battles, such as Battle of Midway, only had a few thousand casualties, and are therefore somewhat out of place in a list of bloodiest battles. For that matter, some American Revolutionary War battles had great strategic significance, but had under 1,000 casualties, like Battle of Cowpens. I've used 10,000 casualties as a cutoff in the past, does anyone else agree with this? – Joe N utter 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This article says that 200,000+ casualties happened, but the actual article for the battle itself says it was only about ~30,000... whats up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.190.154 ( talk) 09:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I sorted the list in the "Sieges and urban combat" section, descending by the Casualties column. The fifth item in the list is Battle of Algiers, with a casualty count of 313,000. The ninth item in the list is Warsaw Uprising, with a casualty count of 200,000+ killed. In between are three items all with the same name, Siege of Jerusalem, and with casualty counts of less than 200,000. Capedia ( talk) 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Falklands War must be taken out of this article. The figures here are grossly exagerated, since 14.000 is proably the number of troops movilized, while the death toll is about 1000 tops.
On the other hand, wars that were really bloody like Triple Alliance War, Pacific War and Chaco War are not even mentioned. Only in triple alliance war, all males from paraguay were slaughtered!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.164.8 ( talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There is quite a few incorrect/dubious entries in the major operation section that i think should be looked at/readdressed
For example:
I would add the Battle of Malplaquet to the list of dubious casualty figures. This list claims 95,000 casualties at Malplaquet, but according to the article on the battle there were only 32,000. 95,000 casualties would mean that 60% of the participants in the battle became casualties, which strikes me as unlikely. Groundsquirrel13 ( talk) 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to source the removal of the Battle of Algiers from this list. We have two articles about the so called "battle": Battle of Algiers (1957) and Algerian War- the Battle of Algiers was a urban guerrilla campaign by some 1400 Algerians against the French authorities in a city that at the time had around 300,000+ inhabitants- it compromised executions, bombings by the guerrillas and arrest campaigns by the French authorities - it is laughable and ridiculous to claim that all and every Algerian victim of the Algerian War) supposedly died/ was wounded in the battle of Algiers, when in fact city life went on as normal. The fame of the battle (if it should be called a battle at all) comes from the movie The Battle of Algiers (film). There are far more important battles and this one is neither a battle nor are the casualty figures in any way correct! -- noclador ( talk) 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The heaviest attacks ran from February to August 1945, but began as early as 1942. For the horrific February 1945 assault alone, 97,000 Japanese, mostly civilians, were killed and 125,000 were wounded with more than a million, almost incredibly, left homeless... I am quite surprised this is not on this list. Charvex ( talk) 23:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Something is very wrong with number of casualties stated for the Nivelle Offensive; far too low. At the absolute minimum, it should be the sum of the casualties of the Second Battle of the Aisne (Chemin des Dames) and the Battle of Arras (1917); 438,000 dead by the Wikipedia article counts alone. Did the source (354,000 killed) list Allied losses and not German losses, or something? Maybe a better source is needed. Charvex ( talk) 23:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is this not on the siege list?? This is an embarrassment. There were horiffic losses here for both the Germans and Soviets. I am not sure on the exact number, but it would easily make the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.170.95 ( talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Which section would this be under?
~250,000 dead or wounded. ~450,000 Soviets captured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.170.95 ( talk) 06:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
A question regarding the numbers -- sorting in absolute numbers has it's charm, but isn't there a difference between a battle with 100k causalities when it took place when the world population was about 1 billion compared to a time, when it was 4? What would happen if the absolute number was given as percentage or one-tenth of a percent of the estimated number of people (in the world? on that country? of the involved nations?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.190.254 ( talk) 10:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Only problem is that it's pretty hard to find a mostly accurate world population throughout the ages. Population curves work, but they are not as nearly as accurate, as say, an official estimate based off of states population at the time '''[[User:Charlesthe50th|<span style="color:#a70c10;">Charlesthe50th,</span>]]''' [[User_talk:Charlesthe50th|<span style="color:#422187;">supporting monarchy to the ends of the earth.</span>]] ( talk) 23:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Changping is not a single battle, but a military campaign that consisted of many battles. Now it can be restored if someone can find numbers for the casualties of a single battle. Overall, a campaign lasting two years can't be considered as a continuous battle. Intranetusa ( talk) 02:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that the "battle" had been added again I wrote a note as to make it clear that it was actually a campaign of three years. -- Danmaz74 ( talk) 07:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that The Battle of Changping should be removed. Considering that the chinese census in 2 AD set the population in China (now much larger then during the warring states period) to 57,000,000 a losses such as 700,000 would amount to perhaps 5 % of the entire population of China. Furthermore it seems strange that the next (chronologically) major operation is the Six Days Campaign 1847 AD. -- 326Sirian ( talk) 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The Changping battle figure should be removed. Those figures are impossible, and people without the ancient history background to see those figures as impossible will get a false impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcjung10 ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Four and a half million seems much to high considering the population of Leningrad at the time was 3 million. The source quoted doesn't add up to more than 2 million either : http://books.google.com/books?id=fGPBOAatMycC&pg=PA221&dq=The+Siege+of+Leningrad+1941%E2%80%9344:+900+Days+of+Terror,+Zenith+Press&ei=duAJTOfbJqiGzQSp88WWAw&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansgarjohn ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The casualties of the "Battle of Sedan" (1870) are supposed to be "200,900 including those captured and later killed". This is certainly wrong. The wikipedia-article on the battle indicates about 6000 casualties and abut 20000 wounded. Virtually the whole French army was taken prisoner. Of course, almost all of them survived. Please correct this figure. -- 84.177.150.89 ( talk) 21:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'ne noticed several battles found here earlier has been deleted - example: Battle of Qaddasiyyah (over 30 000 casualties) - and somehow the deleted battles seems to coincide with various Muslim wars and conquests. Why?
I'm curious why the Battle of Hattin is not listed in the set piece battle list. The Wiki page for the Battle of Hattin says that 17,000+ were killed. There are other conflicts with death tolls as low as 13,500. If no one has found a reliable source for that figure, I would be more than happy to find one. Hattin was a hugely significant battle. It sealed the fate of Crusader held Jerusalem and helped launch the Third Crusade. Its also the most famous single set piece of the Crusader era. I vote that it should be included.-- Factchk ( talk) 17:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
By default, shouldn't we sort both tables in order of descending casualties? That is what we advertise in the article title after all. I'm willing to put the effort in if people agree (though help would not be rejected!). – CWenger ( ^ • @) 23:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I came to this page to see if there had ever been a more costly battle than that of The Battle of The Somme. I saw that there was a battle listed, Searchlight, that had twice as many deaths - 3,000,000. Fully aware that in the west where I live the history of 'eastern' nations is taugh very sparingly I read the Wikipedia article on Operation Searchlight, amazed I had not heard of such an event. However upon reading the article is appears that the 3,000,000 were not killed in battle but were civilian casualties of genocide, hardly the same thing at all. So I've decided to remove it. If you disagree please read the Operation Searchlight page and state your reasons below :-) Cls14 ( talk) 22:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the sack of Béziers France in 1209, during the Albigensien Crusade, would qualify for this list. The Papal Delagate overseeing the action reported 20, 000 dead. 99.184.78.202 ( talk) 05:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Should the Third Battle of Nanking (1864) not be included in the Classic Formations section? The wiki page claims at least 200,000 casualties, just on the rebel side. I haven't added it as I assumed there must be a reason such a large battle was omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.90.72 ( talk) 11:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Your wish is answered now TaipingRebellion1850 ( talk) 01:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
the first section says it's sortable, but it's not. how to fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.41.219.159 ( talk) 07:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the sorting tech works with things like "approximately" and other non-numbers thrown in so I can't edit it myself, but: In the urban fighting section, when you sort by casualties, the Battle of Kiev shows up as the battle with the least casualties despite showing over 700,000. Bye now. 98.180.47.149 ( talk) 00:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess this is one of the deadliest series of battles which is missed in this table.-- Seyyed( t- c) 05:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm missing this battle: (I'm new to Wikipedia as a user, sorry for any inconvenience) https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Brunete
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of battles by casualties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I was looking for the original "Largest Battles" article which listed them by number of combatants, but it seems to have disappeared from the web. Viciouspiggy ( talk) 16:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Figures will often be a guess and this is obvious when rounded numbers are given. The second table puts the figures in two columns for high and low estimate. (I would have put it as low then high to show the range.) First table could do the same. I would put refs and notes in seperate columns. Littering the data with caveats breaks sorting as noted in at least two prior notes and is poor "lane discipline" (Database Normalisation) David Crayford ☎ 00:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There are far too many inconsistencies in this article to correct. Most of the misinformation is provided by Grants work. For example Grant incorrectly claims their to be over 20,000 deaths in the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC). However the battle is estimated to be roughly 5,000 as mentioned in it's Wiki page. Multiple entries using him as a reference are off by a considerable margin. Furthermore this page is being used to further original research. Vajra Raja ( talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Most of the misinformation has been written about the Hellenic world, particularly there are more rows pertaining to Macedon than necessary. As significant as these conflicts were, many aren't needed in the context of article. Vajra Raja ( talk) 07:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
What about add the biggest naval battles? Каракорум ( talk) 09:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This article should include not only the casualties, but also the death toll of the battles. I came here to find out the deadliest battles and the information is not here nor in List of battles and other violent events by death toll. Aavalente92 ( talk) 02:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The Hundred Regiments Offensive from 1940 is listed as part of the Second Sino-Japanese War rather than World War II. But the earlier Battle of Wuhna in 1938 is listed as part of World War II rather than the Second Sino-Japanese War. There doesn't seem to be a consistent rule of categorization. 208.59.185.238 ( talk) 21:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
This really appears to be a questionable classification - very little of the fighting at Gettysburg occurred in the town proper. I don't think I've ever seen this classified as urban warfare before. It's already elsewhere on the list, so if there's no objection I plan on removing Gettysburg from the urban combat listing. Hog Farm Talk 15:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Should the Siege of Mariupol be included in this list? The lowest estimate is around 8254 deaths (6000 Russian soldiers, 906 Ukranian soldiers and 1348 civilians) and the highest estimates as high as 127,853 casualties (6000 Russian soldiers, 4200 Ukranian soldiers, 3903 captured Ukranian soldiers, 87000 identified civilians and 26750 unidentified civilians). EloyEspinosa0 ( talk) 16:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose to reorganise the article with the following sub-categories:
- Raids and Bombings - Naval Battles - Battles and Sieges (pre-1914) - Battles and Sieges (post-1914) - Military campaigns Maxime12346 ( talk) 15:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
If you sort the first table (that of sieges and urban combat) by casualties increasing, there are two obvious problems. The Siege of Batogne inflicted 2,100 casualties, less than half of the 5,000 the preceding paragraph claimed all these battles inflicted; and the low estimate for the Siege of Liege is 25,300, which is more than the high estimate of 6,000. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Should Siege of Suiyang (An Lushan Rebellion) be added? There were reportedly 130,000+ casualties. There's also a Wikipedia page ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Suiyang). 45.64.242.222 ( talk) 06:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
just wondering why the battle of the Somme or Verdun is not there under the deadliest battles by casualties list. MrGamerBoy ( talk) 17:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
I am of immense curiosity as to why the Falklands conflict is listed under "Major Operations." Not to take anything away from those who fought in it or anything but it sticks out like a sore thumb with all of the other listees. I mean, I thought the entries with around 10,000 were cutting it pretty low but it's literally got an entry with "1,000, without prisoners" under it. I'm not going to just callously edit it out but I would like some explanation.
Sorting makes the lists more useful, but more marginally more difficult to add new data. It's not difficult once you understand that sorting numerically isn't possible because of BC in some of the years and commas in the casualty figures. All we are doing here is converting those numbers into an alphabetic format that the table can sort.
It looks more complex than it really is, trust me ;) Prometheusg 12:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is now semi-protected in order to stop the back and forth of reverting material.
The problem is that the material in the article was not verifiable. For months there has been a template calling for sources without much effect. I decided to delete all material that can't be verified in order to rebuilt the article on a solid basis. In doing so, I also reworded parts that weren't encyclopedic language. The material about battles, that was formerly in the article, can be reinserted if you provide a source. Big problem is that many sources provide different numbers. For this reason I also suggest to split the casualty numbers between primary sources and scientific secondary sources, because their estimates can greatly vary, especially so for classical battles.
I won't edit this article under the current semi-protection until a consensus is achieved. Wandalstouring ( talk) 08:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I see absolutely no reason for conclusion about verifiability of material based on the absence of direct references. If you click on
Battle of Wuhan or
Warsaw Uprising, that were present in the article before July 15, you find a number of casualties and a proper references to valid sources. The situation is similar for most other items.
I don't understand why the article citing another reliable Wikipedia article is considered not verifiable. I think, by removing these items you just destroy a work of previous editors for absolutely formal reason.
Situation is ridiculous: the
Battle of Berlin and the
Battle of Moscow articles provide a number of casualties along with reliable sources. Both of them have a reference to the present article where they were listed among the bloodiest battles in history. However, they are absent it this article now.
I think the person who removed these and other items has to go to appropriate pages and insert the references from there as soon as possible, otherwise, he/she simply must revert his editing back.
--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This article seems very similar to the list of battles and other violent events by death toll, although this includes all casualties, not just deaths. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Stalingrad links to this page but theres no mention of it in the article at all. 208.114.169.126 ( talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Almost all the battles listed pre 1800 have casualties that a little more than wild guesses. Listing them here gives a spurious impression of accuracy. That two of the battles are sourced to Herodotus tells us more about him than the battles he describes. Dejvid ( talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
While I trust modern historians better than the ancient sources, they are of there nature informed guesses. Hence different historians will plump for different figures. Given there is no real way of deciding which is the best guess short of original research then it is impossible to properly rank such battles. Of course, it is not the case that on new years day 1800, records suddenly became trustworthy. However, it is a clear cut off point and excludes most of the battles where the number of dead is unreliable. Dejvid ( talk) 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just protected this article for twenty-four hours. This is to enable editors to familiarise themselves with Wikpedia policy regarding reliable sources. In a nutshell, this says that all material likely to be challenged in an article must be directly referenced to a reliable source. For these purposes, Wikipedia articles are not themselves reliable sources and each new article touching on a subject must be referenced a fresh.
I hope that all disputes can be worked out here. If not, and if edit-warring continues, I will re-protect the article and/or block editors ignoring policy.
Thanks for your time, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I call upon whom ever placed this page in protection to extend its protection at least another 24 hours. Certain vandals whom of witch shall not be named here , have destroyed months possibly even years worth of work based on false pretences. They acted in intrest of themselves , not wikipedia. The people of wikipedia do not deserve such treatment.Sincerly-- Dt23 ( talk) 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to merge it with List of battles and other violent events by death toll because the topic largely overlaps or to make more differenciated lists specific for say, battles, air raids, terrorist attacks, etc. Naturally all entries need sources like in this article. Wandalstouring ( talk) 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has the same problems as most other articles where someone wants to make a PC statement about the evils of man.
This thing is almost 100% western. WHERE IS THE REST OF THE WORLD? Don't they count? Don't they have history and historians? At the very least the Chinese had BIG battles, and in 4,000 years LOTS of them. Somehow, I think the rest of the world deserves to be included any article purporting to be "comprehensive". 24.10.110.171 ( talk) 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it usually the originator's responsibilities to fix the problem? Not the person who finds the mistake. In this case blatantly ignoring the history of 90% of the human race? Aaaronsmith ( talk) 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Then it seems the least we can do in the interests of honesty is include a sentence warning the reader of the inherent bias. Feel free since you want to keep the article and I believe it is a disaster that should go. Aaaronsmith ( talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Reading the table I find three ways to note which years a battle took place:
I suggest we note the years on all rows in the same way; and I vote for the 1st alterative since it's the hardest to misinterpret. / Tense ( talk) 19:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm preparing to add many more entries to the list, but before I do so I was considering what the appropriate minimum would be. Many famous battles, such as Battle of Midway, only had a few thousand casualties, and are therefore somewhat out of place in a list of bloodiest battles. For that matter, some American Revolutionary War battles had great strategic significance, but had under 1,000 casualties, like Battle of Cowpens. I've used 10,000 casualties as a cutoff in the past, does anyone else agree with this? – Joe N utter 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This article says that 200,000+ casualties happened, but the actual article for the battle itself says it was only about ~30,000... whats up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.190.154 ( talk) 09:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I sorted the list in the "Sieges and urban combat" section, descending by the Casualties column. The fifth item in the list is Battle of Algiers, with a casualty count of 313,000. The ninth item in the list is Warsaw Uprising, with a casualty count of 200,000+ killed. In between are three items all with the same name, Siege of Jerusalem, and with casualty counts of less than 200,000. Capedia ( talk) 02:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Falklands War must be taken out of this article. The figures here are grossly exagerated, since 14.000 is proably the number of troops movilized, while the death toll is about 1000 tops.
On the other hand, wars that were really bloody like Triple Alliance War, Pacific War and Chaco War are not even mentioned. Only in triple alliance war, all males from paraguay were slaughtered!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.164.8 ( talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There is quite a few incorrect/dubious entries in the major operation section that i think should be looked at/readdressed
For example:
I would add the Battle of Malplaquet to the list of dubious casualty figures. This list claims 95,000 casualties at Malplaquet, but according to the article on the battle there were only 32,000. 95,000 casualties would mean that 60% of the participants in the battle became casualties, which strikes me as unlikely. Groundsquirrel13 ( talk) 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to source the removal of the Battle of Algiers from this list. We have two articles about the so called "battle": Battle of Algiers (1957) and Algerian War- the Battle of Algiers was a urban guerrilla campaign by some 1400 Algerians against the French authorities in a city that at the time had around 300,000+ inhabitants- it compromised executions, bombings by the guerrillas and arrest campaigns by the French authorities - it is laughable and ridiculous to claim that all and every Algerian victim of the Algerian War) supposedly died/ was wounded in the battle of Algiers, when in fact city life went on as normal. The fame of the battle (if it should be called a battle at all) comes from the movie The Battle of Algiers (film). There are far more important battles and this one is neither a battle nor are the casualty figures in any way correct! -- noclador ( talk) 23:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The heaviest attacks ran from February to August 1945, but began as early as 1942. For the horrific February 1945 assault alone, 97,000 Japanese, mostly civilians, were killed and 125,000 were wounded with more than a million, almost incredibly, left homeless... I am quite surprised this is not on this list. Charvex ( talk) 23:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Something is very wrong with number of casualties stated for the Nivelle Offensive; far too low. At the absolute minimum, it should be the sum of the casualties of the Second Battle of the Aisne (Chemin des Dames) and the Battle of Arras (1917); 438,000 dead by the Wikipedia article counts alone. Did the source (354,000 killed) list Allied losses and not German losses, or something? Maybe a better source is needed. Charvex ( talk) 23:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is this not on the siege list?? This is an embarrassment. There were horiffic losses here for both the Germans and Soviets. I am not sure on the exact number, but it would easily make the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.170.95 ( talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Which section would this be under?
~250,000 dead or wounded. ~450,000 Soviets captured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.170.95 ( talk) 06:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
A question regarding the numbers -- sorting in absolute numbers has it's charm, but isn't there a difference between a battle with 100k causalities when it took place when the world population was about 1 billion compared to a time, when it was 4? What would happen if the absolute number was given as percentage or one-tenth of a percent of the estimated number of people (in the world? on that country? of the involved nations?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.2.190.254 ( talk) 10:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Only problem is that it's pretty hard to find a mostly accurate world population throughout the ages. Population curves work, but they are not as nearly as accurate, as say, an official estimate based off of states population at the time '''[[User:Charlesthe50th|<span style="color:#a70c10;">Charlesthe50th,</span>]]''' [[User_talk:Charlesthe50th|<span style="color:#422187;">supporting monarchy to the ends of the earth.</span>]] ( talk) 23:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Changping is not a single battle, but a military campaign that consisted of many battles. Now it can be restored if someone can find numbers for the casualties of a single battle. Overall, a campaign lasting two years can't be considered as a continuous battle. Intranetusa ( talk) 02:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Seeing that the "battle" had been added again I wrote a note as to make it clear that it was actually a campaign of three years. -- Danmaz74 ( talk) 07:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that The Battle of Changping should be removed. Considering that the chinese census in 2 AD set the population in China (now much larger then during the warring states period) to 57,000,000 a losses such as 700,000 would amount to perhaps 5 % of the entire population of China. Furthermore it seems strange that the next (chronologically) major operation is the Six Days Campaign 1847 AD. -- 326Sirian ( talk) 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The Changping battle figure should be removed. Those figures are impossible, and people without the ancient history background to see those figures as impossible will get a false impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcjung10 ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Four and a half million seems much to high considering the population of Leningrad at the time was 3 million. The source quoted doesn't add up to more than 2 million either : http://books.google.com/books?id=fGPBOAatMycC&pg=PA221&dq=The+Siege+of+Leningrad+1941%E2%80%9344:+900+Days+of+Terror,+Zenith+Press&ei=duAJTOfbJqiGzQSp88WWAw&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansgarjohn ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The casualties of the "Battle of Sedan" (1870) are supposed to be "200,900 including those captured and later killed". This is certainly wrong. The wikipedia-article on the battle indicates about 6000 casualties and abut 20000 wounded. Virtually the whole French army was taken prisoner. Of course, almost all of them survived. Please correct this figure. -- 84.177.150.89 ( talk) 21:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'ne noticed several battles found here earlier has been deleted - example: Battle of Qaddasiyyah (over 30 000 casualties) - and somehow the deleted battles seems to coincide with various Muslim wars and conquests. Why?
I'm curious why the Battle of Hattin is not listed in the set piece battle list. The Wiki page for the Battle of Hattin says that 17,000+ were killed. There are other conflicts with death tolls as low as 13,500. If no one has found a reliable source for that figure, I would be more than happy to find one. Hattin was a hugely significant battle. It sealed the fate of Crusader held Jerusalem and helped launch the Third Crusade. Its also the most famous single set piece of the Crusader era. I vote that it should be included.-- Factchk ( talk) 17:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
By default, shouldn't we sort both tables in order of descending casualties? That is what we advertise in the article title after all. I'm willing to put the effort in if people agree (though help would not be rejected!). – CWenger ( ^ • @) 23:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I came to this page to see if there had ever been a more costly battle than that of The Battle of The Somme. I saw that there was a battle listed, Searchlight, that had twice as many deaths - 3,000,000. Fully aware that in the west where I live the history of 'eastern' nations is taugh very sparingly I read the Wikipedia article on Operation Searchlight, amazed I had not heard of such an event. However upon reading the article is appears that the 3,000,000 were not killed in battle but were civilian casualties of genocide, hardly the same thing at all. So I've decided to remove it. If you disagree please read the Operation Searchlight page and state your reasons below :-) Cls14 ( talk) 22:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the sack of Béziers France in 1209, during the Albigensien Crusade, would qualify for this list. The Papal Delagate overseeing the action reported 20, 000 dead. 99.184.78.202 ( talk) 05:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Should the Third Battle of Nanking (1864) not be included in the Classic Formations section? The wiki page claims at least 200,000 casualties, just on the rebel side. I haven't added it as I assumed there must be a reason such a large battle was omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.90.72 ( talk) 11:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Your wish is answered now TaipingRebellion1850 ( talk) 01:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
the first section says it's sortable, but it's not. how to fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.41.219.159 ( talk) 07:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the sorting tech works with things like "approximately" and other non-numbers thrown in so I can't edit it myself, but: In the urban fighting section, when you sort by casualties, the Battle of Kiev shows up as the battle with the least casualties despite showing over 700,000. Bye now. 98.180.47.149 ( talk) 00:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess this is one of the deadliest series of battles which is missed in this table.-- Seyyed( t- c) 05:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm missing this battle: (I'm new to Wikipedia as a user, sorry for any inconvenience) https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Brunete
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of battles by casualties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I was looking for the original "Largest Battles" article which listed them by number of combatants, but it seems to have disappeared from the web. Viciouspiggy ( talk) 16:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Figures will often be a guess and this is obvious when rounded numbers are given. The second table puts the figures in two columns for high and low estimate. (I would have put it as low then high to show the range.) First table could do the same. I would put refs and notes in seperate columns. Littering the data with caveats breaks sorting as noted in at least two prior notes and is poor "lane discipline" (Database Normalisation) David Crayford ☎ 00:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There are far too many inconsistencies in this article to correct. Most of the misinformation is provided by Grants work. For example Grant incorrectly claims their to be over 20,000 deaths in the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC). However the battle is estimated to be roughly 5,000 as mentioned in it's Wiki page. Multiple entries using him as a reference are off by a considerable margin. Furthermore this page is being used to further original research. Vajra Raja ( talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Most of the misinformation has been written about the Hellenic world, particularly there are more rows pertaining to Macedon than necessary. As significant as these conflicts were, many aren't needed in the context of article. Vajra Raja ( talk) 07:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
What about add the biggest naval battles? Каракорум ( talk) 09:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This article should include not only the casualties, but also the death toll of the battles. I came here to find out the deadliest battles and the information is not here nor in List of battles and other violent events by death toll. Aavalente92 ( talk) 02:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The Hundred Regiments Offensive from 1940 is listed as part of the Second Sino-Japanese War rather than World War II. But the earlier Battle of Wuhna in 1938 is listed as part of World War II rather than the Second Sino-Japanese War. There doesn't seem to be a consistent rule of categorization. 208.59.185.238 ( talk) 21:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
This really appears to be a questionable classification - very little of the fighting at Gettysburg occurred in the town proper. I don't think I've ever seen this classified as urban warfare before. It's already elsewhere on the list, so if there's no objection I plan on removing Gettysburg from the urban combat listing. Hog Farm Talk 15:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Should the Siege of Mariupol be included in this list? The lowest estimate is around 8254 deaths (6000 Russian soldiers, 906 Ukranian soldiers and 1348 civilians) and the highest estimates as high as 127,853 casualties (6000 Russian soldiers, 4200 Ukranian soldiers, 3903 captured Ukranian soldiers, 87000 identified civilians and 26750 unidentified civilians). EloyEspinosa0 ( talk) 16:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose to reorganise the article with the following sub-categories:
- Raids and Bombings - Naval Battles - Battles and Sieges (pre-1914) - Battles and Sieges (post-1914) - Military campaigns Maxime12346 ( talk) 15:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
If you sort the first table (that of sieges and urban combat) by casualties increasing, there are two obvious problems. The Siege of Batogne inflicted 2,100 casualties, less than half of the 5,000 the preceding paragraph claimed all these battles inflicted; and the low estimate for the Siege of Liege is 25,300, which is more than the high estimate of 6,000. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Should Siege of Suiyang (An Lushan Rebellion) be added? There were reportedly 130,000+ casualties. There's also a Wikipedia page ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Suiyang). 45.64.242.222 ( talk) 06:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
just wondering why the battle of the Somme or Verdun is not there under the deadliest battles by casualties list. MrGamerBoy ( talk) 17:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)