This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think this is a really good idea for an article/list. I've also started the Most lethal American battles article, and I encourage others to create similar ones. If anyone can help make a better table, please do so. The parameters I would like to set can be defined as "intense combat in a geographically narrow space." This is still a little subjective, but it clearly includes battles and seiges, and can include some offenses. Note that this is for fatalities, not simply casualties. Captain Jackson 17:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone can maybe explain, why the suggestion about the Battle of Badma (120,000 casualties) has been removed?
According to the newspapers, the war caused around 100.000 casualties, but figures are less accurate about the Battle of Badme on Februar, the 23th 1999. People think about 10.000 killed, but no one had released official data. In doubt, I think we've better to not add this battle.
Now the page "the bloodiest battle in human history" is redirected to that list and the six first battles (up to Sit River) are now linked to it. -- Julien 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As we have now one Uprising and some Offensives in our list, should we rename the title and be larger by including military operations on several days or be more strict by considering only battles on only one day ? Julien 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of having in this list battles with undr 10,000 dead? Should Most lethal battles in world history not have a minimum like, say 50,000? Ikokki 10:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
How about then the 6,600 of the battle of Marathon? I don't think they really merit inclusion, since none of the sides lost more 15%, but under your criteria they should. Ikokki 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Sources need to be listed for each statistic with a breakout of killed, wounded and POW/MIA. The present format is unacceptable.-- Woogie10w 14:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Please review the guidelines Wikipedia:Reliable sources-- Woogie10w 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have questions about the accuracy of this list. I know for a fact that casualties at the battle of Gettysburg, for instance, were much higher than 12,000, but I don't see Gettysburg on here. WikiManGreen 07:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Should these be included? We have things in this list that are entire operations that in themselves have many battles. These operations and offensives are huge compared to regular battles featured in the list. Just wondering whether these should be counted as battles themselves for the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bunker fox ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Does the Mongol massacre of Nishapur count as a battle, or is it more close to genocide? 1,7 Million people were butchered there. So were (estimations run up to) 60 million people during the entire Mongol-Chinese campaign. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SybrenR ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
If so, I suggest adding the following Tokyo firebombing: 100,000; Hiroshima: 90-140,000; Nagasaki: 70-130,000; Dresden firebombing: 25-35,000. It adds some perspective to both the battles and the bombings, don't you think?
Lethal bombings could make an interesting separate list, if we can come up with enough examples to make it substantial (which I doubt). However, this article isn't the proper place to mention them. Stebbins 03:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
this list is meaningless as it currently stands, with deaths and casualty figures intermixed. Benwing 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Benwing. The figures should be ranked by the number of deaths. If a battle is also notable for large numbers of non-fatal casualties, separate figures for deaths and casualties ought to be listed. Also, as the list stands now, the casualty figures aren't even completely sorted, making this list even less meaningful.
Hopefully no one will try to put the Iraq War on here, since it isn't really a single battle. Stebbins 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. Casualties (killed, wounded, and missing) does not necessarily mean lethal. I believe that a rough rule of thumb for pre-20th century battles is a ratio of 1 killed : 4 wounded. Somebody who knows something about this ought to do something. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.33.158.121 (
talk) 22:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This mess can be solved if we simply split the list into two tables: 1) Single-day battles and 2) Sieges, operations and prolonged battles...
As it stands, the top of the list are only operations - some lasted for months - with a real, bloody, pitched single-day battle being down on the list (Platea first such? - 13th). It's unreasonable to have a list where a 4-year siege of Leningrad is compared against a one-day slaughter at Cannae... The two cannot be compared.
As an alternative, a different ordering would be ok: adding a column "Deaths by single day" where we would caluculate the number of dead / length of battle. This would yield a totally different list - but would accurately display the "biggest slaughters".
Any thoughts? The Spanish Inquisitor 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that someone has added a battle using the Bible as the source of casualty figures. Should we consider the Bible to be a legitimate source for information of this kind? I remember hearing somewhere (I'll try to find a source) that population/casualty numbers in the Old Testament are exaggerated. What do y'all think? Stebbins 15:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be kept. Seeing as other sources that modern sources claim have been exagerrated: eg. Battle of Plataea. So keep. Kyriakos 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it should definitely be kept. Herodotus most definitely exaggerated his numbers, as well as having a divine presence in his work. The Bible shouldn't be excluded for these reasons if Herodotus is accepted despite similar characteristics. DaBears34 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont know, the Bible is a book from a time where the losers never got to voice their say so the real losses are probobly much more on their sides and much less on their enemy's side. I mean most religons are really single-minded in their start and exclude the rights and the voices of those who don't belive what they belive. Xeroith 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the Bible is an extremely reliable source. Everything else hasn't been proved wrong, then why this? April 22, 2007
I agree. I think that the Bible is reliable. That being said there are other battles recorded in the Bible that should be considered. For example the battle at Gibeah between the Israelites and the Benjamites referenced in Judges 20 . This shows high casualties on both sides of the conflict - 22,000 Israelites on one day and 25,100 Benjamites on the next day of battle. I would doubt that the numbers are exaggerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.203.177.177 ( talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I add the rank of the battles to the table. Please tell me what you think. Thanks. Kyriakos 10:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Some guy on internet compiled a comprehensive collection of different estimates for casualties in the battles of 20th century with references provided. Should we add the references here? Propagate these references to all articles mentioned? In particular there is a long argument (with many revert wars) in the Battle of Stalingrad about the actual estimate of the casualties. Will the list of the estimates (with sources) resolve such arguments? ( Igny 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
IIRC, the Battle of Gettysburg lasted around three days, rather than being a "single-day battle". I'm wondering how many of the other battles listed in that section were longer than one day as well. Might the section be better titled "Short-term battles"? or something similar?-- Raguleader 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Splitting the list has vastly improved the article, nice work! Modest Genius talk 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This siege supposedly resulted in 170,000 deaths, but they were brought on by supernatural events. One scholar has suggested that an outbreak of cholera was the culprit. Not sure if that qualifies for this list or not. CaliforniaKid 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Another to add: The Battle of Tarawa CaliforniaKid 08:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone should create "Least lethal battles in world history". That could be interesting.
— Burningmace ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Couldn't find the battle of Leipzig on the list, surely it must have had greater casualties then the one's at the bottom?
Battle of Leipzig is on the list, just under major operations, because it wasn't a classical battle like Waterloo, but more like a prolongued operation over several days. The Spanish Inquisitor 18:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've expanded the battles list at the top quite heavily, I hope you guys find the additions useful. However, I think it would be a good idea if we limit the lists to the top 100. That will stop the lists beomcing pointlessly long. Once a battle is found in the top 100, the 100th place battle is removed and so on. No-one wants to know what the 909th most lethal battle in history was.
As far as casualties vs fatalities go, thelist isnt really long enough for that to factor. Including both pieces of information allows the reader to get a good general view of the conflict, without needing to go into the specific effect of each one. How can you tell if a battle with 10,000 dead was more horrific than one with 8,000 dead and 2,000 wounded?
I think this list is pretty good, but I don't like the ranking system because inserting a new battle into the list means re-numbering all the battles that come after it. Instead I think the list should be sortable. You could sort by name of the battle, name of the conflict, number of casualties, or date of the battle.
I've made an example in my sandbox to give an idea of what I mean:
Sortable Battle List Example.
You click the little box next to each column heading to sort ascending or descending.
I put a comment in the page to show how entering values would work, so click "edit this page" to see how it works.
Let me know what you think...
Prometheusg 00:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of reasons I like my way more. (yes, I'm biased) ;)
1) Ranking the battles with a number is inherantly flawed. Some of the numbers represent casualties, some are deaths, some are wildly innacurate. So to say one is ranked higher than another when theres no way to accurately do this is wrong.
2) Making them sortable allows us to examine the list in historical context (by year), or by conflict. For instance, sorting by year, we see that the Napoleanic Wars were by far the bloodiest in the 19th century. Sorting by conflict, we can group the various Mongol invasions together and examine them.
I think it makes the list far more useful... Prometheusg 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I changed all the lists to sortable tables. Hope it's okay. Prometheusg 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Since the list is of the most lethal battles, the battles refering to "killed or wounded" or "casualties" are troublesome. Everyone please do not change existing battles on the list to a higher number then those of purely killed!
Secondly, since the killed-to-wounded ratio is often about 1:10, those battles are too high up (some wouldn't even be on the list). Perhaps the best solution, lacking better sources just for killed, would be to delete those enteries or place them under a seperate section? The Spanish Inquisitor 11:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
ed listed instead should be changed to have the number of deaths. And there should be a separate article that lists number of casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunk00 ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 March 2007
The Battle of the Sit River was added to the list long ago by 62.210.20.81. I'm trying to replace some of the "casualties" numbers with "killed" numbers, but I can't find much information on this battle. The internet can tell me that the Rus force was completely destroyed, but it cannot give me any numbers. Can anyone find a source that verifies the casualty figure on the list? I am having the same problem with the Battle of Kulikovo. Stebbins 06:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
After implementing the sortable table, I noticed there are several battles listed multiple times in the Classical formation battles with conflicting casualty figures.
They are:
Also, the Battle of Alesia is listed in both the Classical formation battles and Sieges and urban combat lists with wildly different figures.
Would someone be so kind as to figure out which ones are the correct ones and add back in a few of the dropped battles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prometheusg ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Ancient sources for army sizes, casualty rates, etc. are notoriously inconsistent and odten logistically impossible. Hans Delbrück went over this almost 100 years ago, Oman came to similar conclusions, and many primary sources don't provide strength or casualty estimates. Jacob Haller 10:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, sometimes civilians are included and it is stated that way, other times it is not stated but included, i.e. "battle for Manilla" being 120,000 casualties, but it is not mentioned that at least 100,000 of these are Phillipino civilains. Also, I think some battles here are just mentioned b/c of their notoriety not neccesarilly body count, while other battles are left out because of their obscurity. I think the Eastern front is under represented here, 3/4 of all WWII battles were on the Eastern front, this is prime time for the German military. More Eastern front battles need to be added. They were as bloody as inhumanly possibe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.101.77 ( talk • contribs)
The casualty figure for the Battle of Salsu that Korea history ( talk · contribs) insists on inserting is not supported by either Korean or Chinese sources -- as both the Book of Sui (the key Chinese source) and the Samguk Sagi (the key Korean source) both indicate that the 300,000 figure was for the entire campaign, not that battle. As if I revert again, it would at least arguably be 3RR, I am requesting that someone else does so. -- Nlu ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Quantum cyborg is correct (and thanks for bringing it up). The Zizhi Tongjian passage was in fact a synthesis of multiple Book of Sui passages. The relevant passages from the Book of Sui include vol. 60, from Yu Zhongwen's biography: [1]
I'd translate that passage as:
This is where my reference as to the 100,000 men came from. And Yuwen Shu's biography (same link, vol. 61):
I would translate it as:
The Zizhi Tongjian passage threaded the two biographies together, effectively, along with supplemental descriptions from Emperor Yang's biography and Lai Hu'er's biogrpahy as well. The Samguk Sagi, vol. 20 [2] had a largely consistent account, and matched the Zizhi Tongjian in the relevant portions. -- Nlu ( talk) 04:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the Battle of Plataea article, you can see that there is no consensus on the casualty figure for the Battle of Plataea. Herodotus's figure is 257,159, while Diodorus's figure is 110,000+. The number listed in this article currently is based on the higher figure, but I think it should be adjusted to reflect the uncertainty? quantum cyborg 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The Most lethal battles in world history entry lists battle of Arausio as having "only" 80.000 casualties. This figure is way too low. The battle had indeed 80.000 combattant casualties on the Roman side but these figures are merely the infantry casualties and do not include the Roman cavalry casualties nor the Roman non-combattant casualties of this battle, which would add an other 32.000 KIA to the total sum. Also, these figures are purely the Roman losses... as no figures are known regarding the German's losses, the total sum in realty might be even 150.000 or higher. It would be highly unlikely that two Roman armies would lose 112.000 men without a single enemy casualty. I therefore will move it up the list and list it as 112.000+ casualties. --- fdewaele, 16 april 2007, 10:55.
Why arent they here 71.181.137.163 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A few are; bear in mind that this counts battle deaths only. It may even be limited to battle deaths on or near the date of the battle--the majority of Civil War casualties were from disease, and many--perhaps most--of the rest were from post-battle secondary infections. Stonewall Jackson, for instance, was wounded when he was shot, and if it had happened in battle, would have been a 'wounded' casualty, even though he died later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.22.77 ( talk) 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What do think about including the current second Gulf War in this list? And if yes, under which category (Siege or Operation?) (Julien 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC))
The page list this as having resulting in 500,000 casualties which seems far too high, especially since it's a similar figure to to what I'd imagine the population of the whole of Palestine at the time to be. I would remove it, but I have nothing to go on but my scepticism.
I'd've thought so too, but Judea (I don't think the Romans had renamed it 'Palestine' yet, so Judea is the correct term) was quite well developed. Given the post-rebellion crash in slave prices across the Empire, a population of half a million is not unreasonable. I'd agree that we might want to check the source, but from what I remember from the last course I took on Rome, this is in agreement with contemporary analysis of the ancient sources. 69.242.22.77 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Best wishes miguel
Most of the fighting in the Battle of Berlin was not in Berlin so it was primarily a siege or urban combat -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I undid revision 149677052 by 76.234.137.233 ( talk) because it contained bad links ( Battle of Delhi took place in 1803, both War of Independence 1857 and India War of Independence 1857 don't exist) and I can't find any sources of the 120,000+ casualties (and it also broke another entry);
I guess the Siege of Delhi (part of the Indian Rebellion of 1857) can be included, in case there's a source for the number of casualties. — Mar(c). 16:11, 7 August 2007 ( U T C)
This battle is consistantly on or near the top of this list, and unjustifiably so. The number is dubiously sourced, and on the face of it implausible: '300,000 casualties' for an ancient world battle is the sort of number claimed, but inflated, by ancient history sources, such as the claims of Xenophon about Plataea (He claims at least 290,000 documentable infantry casualties, as opposed to the millions claimed by Herodotus). Additionally, the article itself notes that the 300,000 number is simply the number that the ancient sources claim were committed to the campaign (similar to the 1.7 million that the Greeks claim the Persians brought to Plataea, to use that example once more), and that only 100,000 (itself probably also a gross exaggeration, given the propensity of ancient sources to overinflate numbers, and given the logistical and population limitations of an ancient army) participated in the battle itself, and that there were survivors. (The article notes where they fled) For all these reasons, I am moving Salsu down to 80,000--assuming the article's claimed 100,000 participants in the battle, and 80% casualty rates consistant with and similar to the most bloody battles of human history, like Cannae, Plataea, Arausio, etc. I suspect strongly that 80,000 is, also, a significant overestimate, but unlike 300,000, it is at least in the correct ballpark. 69.242.22.77 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose this list is made entirely using wikipedia information? The Battle of Yarmouk is one of those battles where it's very hard to determine how many units were actually present, and if there actually was a significant battle at all. I joined the discussion on this battle once, but some guys kept coming with unreliable old muslim sources giving astronomous numbers. Right now the casualties for the battle in this list are 120,000 which is absolutely ridiculous. The books/primary sources this figure comes from are totally unreliable, from my head they gave 120,000 Byzantine casualties versus a few hundred or 4,000 Muslem casualties. I suggest removal of the 120,000 figure from this list. To give credit to this: Osprey Campaign 31 Yarmouk says there would be AT MOST 50,000 (non-Arab) troops available for use against the Muslims, with AT LEAST half of these tied down in garrisoning duties etc. To add to this, Byzantine expeditionary forces never exceeded 20-30,000 troops. All this means there could never have been 120,000 men at the Battle of Yarmouk, let alone that all 120,000 men were slaughtered. Actually I'll remove the battle from the list right now.
Wiki1609 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried editing the list to include Thermopylae, and I royally messed up and the list vanished! I am sorry, I'm not used to editing.-Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.62.185 ( talk) 05:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't the Battle of the Metaurus not listed? it had 30,000+ casualties. Wandalstouring ( talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the Battle of Kursk, from World War IIs Eastern Front, is down in the siege list. However, I generally see it refered to as a battle, and there was a fairly small percentage of urban warfare in it. Someone can tell me if I'm wrong, but I think it should be moved to the list of battles, not the list of Sieges/Urban battles. Borg Sphere ( talk) 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Should be 68,000 dead. References are in the Borodino article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.236.86 ( talk) 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out the difference between Operation Overlord and Operation Neptune. Operation Overlord was the invasion of Northwest Europe. It began with D-Day and continued until the liberation of Paris in August. It includes the Normandy Landings, the Falise(sp?) pocket, and all other actions fought during that time. Therefore, I would propose removing it from the list, and instead adding the several smaller sections that make it up. That would make much more sense and be much more precise. Does anyone else agree? Borg Sphere ( talk) 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I nominate this as the grimmest page of Wikipedia Jcwf ( talk) 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think this is a really good idea for an article/list. I've also started the Most lethal American battles article, and I encourage others to create similar ones. If anyone can help make a better table, please do so. The parameters I would like to set can be defined as "intense combat in a geographically narrow space." This is still a little subjective, but it clearly includes battles and seiges, and can include some offenses. Note that this is for fatalities, not simply casualties. Captain Jackson 17:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone can maybe explain, why the suggestion about the Battle of Badma (120,000 casualties) has been removed?
According to the newspapers, the war caused around 100.000 casualties, but figures are less accurate about the Battle of Badme on Februar, the 23th 1999. People think about 10.000 killed, but no one had released official data. In doubt, I think we've better to not add this battle.
Now the page "the bloodiest battle in human history" is redirected to that list and the six first battles (up to Sit River) are now linked to it. -- Julien 18:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As we have now one Uprising and some Offensives in our list, should we rename the title and be larger by including military operations on several days or be more strict by considering only battles on only one day ? Julien 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of having in this list battles with undr 10,000 dead? Should Most lethal battles in world history not have a minimum like, say 50,000? Ikokki 10:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
How about then the 6,600 of the battle of Marathon? I don't think they really merit inclusion, since none of the sides lost more 15%, but under your criteria they should. Ikokki 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Sources need to be listed for each statistic with a breakout of killed, wounded and POW/MIA. The present format is unacceptable.-- Woogie10w 14:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Please review the guidelines Wikipedia:Reliable sources-- Woogie10w 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have questions about the accuracy of this list. I know for a fact that casualties at the battle of Gettysburg, for instance, were much higher than 12,000, but I don't see Gettysburg on here. WikiManGreen 07:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Should these be included? We have things in this list that are entire operations that in themselves have many battles. These operations and offensives are huge compared to regular battles featured in the list. Just wondering whether these should be counted as battles themselves for the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bunker fox ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Does the Mongol massacre of Nishapur count as a battle, or is it more close to genocide? 1,7 Million people were butchered there. So were (estimations run up to) 60 million people during the entire Mongol-Chinese campaign. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SybrenR ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
If so, I suggest adding the following Tokyo firebombing: 100,000; Hiroshima: 90-140,000; Nagasaki: 70-130,000; Dresden firebombing: 25-35,000. It adds some perspective to both the battles and the bombings, don't you think?
Lethal bombings could make an interesting separate list, if we can come up with enough examples to make it substantial (which I doubt). However, this article isn't the proper place to mention them. Stebbins 03:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
this list is meaningless as it currently stands, with deaths and casualty figures intermixed. Benwing 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Benwing. The figures should be ranked by the number of deaths. If a battle is also notable for large numbers of non-fatal casualties, separate figures for deaths and casualties ought to be listed. Also, as the list stands now, the casualty figures aren't even completely sorted, making this list even less meaningful.
Hopefully no one will try to put the Iraq War on here, since it isn't really a single battle. Stebbins 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. Casualties (killed, wounded, and missing) does not necessarily mean lethal. I believe that a rough rule of thumb for pre-20th century battles is a ratio of 1 killed : 4 wounded. Somebody who knows something about this ought to do something. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.33.158.121 (
talk) 22:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This mess can be solved if we simply split the list into two tables: 1) Single-day battles and 2) Sieges, operations and prolonged battles...
As it stands, the top of the list are only operations - some lasted for months - with a real, bloody, pitched single-day battle being down on the list (Platea first such? - 13th). It's unreasonable to have a list where a 4-year siege of Leningrad is compared against a one-day slaughter at Cannae... The two cannot be compared.
As an alternative, a different ordering would be ok: adding a column "Deaths by single day" where we would caluculate the number of dead / length of battle. This would yield a totally different list - but would accurately display the "biggest slaughters".
Any thoughts? The Spanish Inquisitor 11:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that someone has added a battle using the Bible as the source of casualty figures. Should we consider the Bible to be a legitimate source for information of this kind? I remember hearing somewhere (I'll try to find a source) that population/casualty numbers in the Old Testament are exaggerated. What do y'all think? Stebbins 15:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be kept. Seeing as other sources that modern sources claim have been exagerrated: eg. Battle of Plataea. So keep. Kyriakos 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it should definitely be kept. Herodotus most definitely exaggerated his numbers, as well as having a divine presence in his work. The Bible shouldn't be excluded for these reasons if Herodotus is accepted despite similar characteristics. DaBears34 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont know, the Bible is a book from a time where the losers never got to voice their say so the real losses are probobly much more on their sides and much less on their enemy's side. I mean most religons are really single-minded in their start and exclude the rights and the voices of those who don't belive what they belive. Xeroith 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the Bible is an extremely reliable source. Everything else hasn't been proved wrong, then why this? April 22, 2007
I agree. I think that the Bible is reliable. That being said there are other battles recorded in the Bible that should be considered. For example the battle at Gibeah between the Israelites and the Benjamites referenced in Judges 20 . This shows high casualties on both sides of the conflict - 22,000 Israelites on one day and 25,100 Benjamites on the next day of battle. I would doubt that the numbers are exaggerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.203.177.177 ( talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I add the rank of the battles to the table. Please tell me what you think. Thanks. Kyriakos 10:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Some guy on internet compiled a comprehensive collection of different estimates for casualties in the battles of 20th century with references provided. Should we add the references here? Propagate these references to all articles mentioned? In particular there is a long argument (with many revert wars) in the Battle of Stalingrad about the actual estimate of the casualties. Will the list of the estimates (with sources) resolve such arguments? ( Igny 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
IIRC, the Battle of Gettysburg lasted around three days, rather than being a "single-day battle". I'm wondering how many of the other battles listed in that section were longer than one day as well. Might the section be better titled "Short-term battles"? or something similar?-- Raguleader 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Splitting the list has vastly improved the article, nice work! Modest Genius talk 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This siege supposedly resulted in 170,000 deaths, but they were brought on by supernatural events. One scholar has suggested that an outbreak of cholera was the culprit. Not sure if that qualifies for this list or not. CaliforniaKid 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Another to add: The Battle of Tarawa CaliforniaKid 08:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone should create "Least lethal battles in world history". That could be interesting.
— Burningmace ( talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Couldn't find the battle of Leipzig on the list, surely it must have had greater casualties then the one's at the bottom?
Battle of Leipzig is on the list, just under major operations, because it wasn't a classical battle like Waterloo, but more like a prolongued operation over several days. The Spanish Inquisitor 18:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've expanded the battles list at the top quite heavily, I hope you guys find the additions useful. However, I think it would be a good idea if we limit the lists to the top 100. That will stop the lists beomcing pointlessly long. Once a battle is found in the top 100, the 100th place battle is removed and so on. No-one wants to know what the 909th most lethal battle in history was.
As far as casualties vs fatalities go, thelist isnt really long enough for that to factor. Including both pieces of information allows the reader to get a good general view of the conflict, without needing to go into the specific effect of each one. How can you tell if a battle with 10,000 dead was more horrific than one with 8,000 dead and 2,000 wounded?
I think this list is pretty good, but I don't like the ranking system because inserting a new battle into the list means re-numbering all the battles that come after it. Instead I think the list should be sortable. You could sort by name of the battle, name of the conflict, number of casualties, or date of the battle.
I've made an example in my sandbox to give an idea of what I mean:
Sortable Battle List Example.
You click the little box next to each column heading to sort ascending or descending.
I put a comment in the page to show how entering values would work, so click "edit this page" to see how it works.
Let me know what you think...
Prometheusg 00:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of reasons I like my way more. (yes, I'm biased) ;)
1) Ranking the battles with a number is inherantly flawed. Some of the numbers represent casualties, some are deaths, some are wildly innacurate. So to say one is ranked higher than another when theres no way to accurately do this is wrong.
2) Making them sortable allows us to examine the list in historical context (by year), or by conflict. For instance, sorting by year, we see that the Napoleanic Wars were by far the bloodiest in the 19th century. Sorting by conflict, we can group the various Mongol invasions together and examine them.
I think it makes the list far more useful... Prometheusg 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I changed all the lists to sortable tables. Hope it's okay. Prometheusg 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Since the list is of the most lethal battles, the battles refering to "killed or wounded" or "casualties" are troublesome. Everyone please do not change existing battles on the list to a higher number then those of purely killed!
Secondly, since the killed-to-wounded ratio is often about 1:10, those battles are too high up (some wouldn't even be on the list). Perhaps the best solution, lacking better sources just for killed, would be to delete those enteries or place them under a seperate section? The Spanish Inquisitor 11:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
ed listed instead should be changed to have the number of deaths. And there should be a separate article that lists number of casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunk00 ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 March 2007
The Battle of the Sit River was added to the list long ago by 62.210.20.81. I'm trying to replace some of the "casualties" numbers with "killed" numbers, but I can't find much information on this battle. The internet can tell me that the Rus force was completely destroyed, but it cannot give me any numbers. Can anyone find a source that verifies the casualty figure on the list? I am having the same problem with the Battle of Kulikovo. Stebbins 06:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
After implementing the sortable table, I noticed there are several battles listed multiple times in the Classical formation battles with conflicting casualty figures.
They are:
Also, the Battle of Alesia is listed in both the Classical formation battles and Sieges and urban combat lists with wildly different figures.
Would someone be so kind as to figure out which ones are the correct ones and add back in a few of the dropped battles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prometheusg ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Ancient sources for army sizes, casualty rates, etc. are notoriously inconsistent and odten logistically impossible. Hans Delbrück went over this almost 100 years ago, Oman came to similar conclusions, and many primary sources don't provide strength or casualty estimates. Jacob Haller 10:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, sometimes civilians are included and it is stated that way, other times it is not stated but included, i.e. "battle for Manilla" being 120,000 casualties, but it is not mentioned that at least 100,000 of these are Phillipino civilains. Also, I think some battles here are just mentioned b/c of their notoriety not neccesarilly body count, while other battles are left out because of their obscurity. I think the Eastern front is under represented here, 3/4 of all WWII battles were on the Eastern front, this is prime time for the German military. More Eastern front battles need to be added. They were as bloody as inhumanly possibe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.101.77 ( talk • contribs)
The casualty figure for the Battle of Salsu that Korea history ( talk · contribs) insists on inserting is not supported by either Korean or Chinese sources -- as both the Book of Sui (the key Chinese source) and the Samguk Sagi (the key Korean source) both indicate that the 300,000 figure was for the entire campaign, not that battle. As if I revert again, it would at least arguably be 3RR, I am requesting that someone else does so. -- Nlu ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Quantum cyborg is correct (and thanks for bringing it up). The Zizhi Tongjian passage was in fact a synthesis of multiple Book of Sui passages. The relevant passages from the Book of Sui include vol. 60, from Yu Zhongwen's biography: [1]
I'd translate that passage as:
This is where my reference as to the 100,000 men came from. And Yuwen Shu's biography (same link, vol. 61):
I would translate it as:
The Zizhi Tongjian passage threaded the two biographies together, effectively, along with supplemental descriptions from Emperor Yang's biography and Lai Hu'er's biogrpahy as well. The Samguk Sagi, vol. 20 [2] had a largely consistent account, and matched the Zizhi Tongjian in the relevant portions. -- Nlu ( talk) 04:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the Battle of Plataea article, you can see that there is no consensus on the casualty figure for the Battle of Plataea. Herodotus's figure is 257,159, while Diodorus's figure is 110,000+. The number listed in this article currently is based on the higher figure, but I think it should be adjusted to reflect the uncertainty? quantum cyborg 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The Most lethal battles in world history entry lists battle of Arausio as having "only" 80.000 casualties. This figure is way too low. The battle had indeed 80.000 combattant casualties on the Roman side but these figures are merely the infantry casualties and do not include the Roman cavalry casualties nor the Roman non-combattant casualties of this battle, which would add an other 32.000 KIA to the total sum. Also, these figures are purely the Roman losses... as no figures are known regarding the German's losses, the total sum in realty might be even 150.000 or higher. It would be highly unlikely that two Roman armies would lose 112.000 men without a single enemy casualty. I therefore will move it up the list and list it as 112.000+ casualties. --- fdewaele, 16 april 2007, 10:55.
Why arent they here 71.181.137.163 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A few are; bear in mind that this counts battle deaths only. It may even be limited to battle deaths on or near the date of the battle--the majority of Civil War casualties were from disease, and many--perhaps most--of the rest were from post-battle secondary infections. Stonewall Jackson, for instance, was wounded when he was shot, and if it had happened in battle, would have been a 'wounded' casualty, even though he died later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.22.77 ( talk) 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What do think about including the current second Gulf War in this list? And if yes, under which category (Siege or Operation?) (Julien 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC))
The page list this as having resulting in 500,000 casualties which seems far too high, especially since it's a similar figure to to what I'd imagine the population of the whole of Palestine at the time to be. I would remove it, but I have nothing to go on but my scepticism.
I'd've thought so too, but Judea (I don't think the Romans had renamed it 'Palestine' yet, so Judea is the correct term) was quite well developed. Given the post-rebellion crash in slave prices across the Empire, a population of half a million is not unreasonable. I'd agree that we might want to check the source, but from what I remember from the last course I took on Rome, this is in agreement with contemporary analysis of the ancient sources. 69.242.22.77 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Best wishes miguel
Most of the fighting in the Battle of Berlin was not in Berlin so it was primarily a siege or urban combat -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I undid revision 149677052 by 76.234.137.233 ( talk) because it contained bad links ( Battle of Delhi took place in 1803, both War of Independence 1857 and India War of Independence 1857 don't exist) and I can't find any sources of the 120,000+ casualties (and it also broke another entry);
I guess the Siege of Delhi (part of the Indian Rebellion of 1857) can be included, in case there's a source for the number of casualties. — Mar(c). 16:11, 7 August 2007 ( U T C)
This battle is consistantly on or near the top of this list, and unjustifiably so. The number is dubiously sourced, and on the face of it implausible: '300,000 casualties' for an ancient world battle is the sort of number claimed, but inflated, by ancient history sources, such as the claims of Xenophon about Plataea (He claims at least 290,000 documentable infantry casualties, as opposed to the millions claimed by Herodotus). Additionally, the article itself notes that the 300,000 number is simply the number that the ancient sources claim were committed to the campaign (similar to the 1.7 million that the Greeks claim the Persians brought to Plataea, to use that example once more), and that only 100,000 (itself probably also a gross exaggeration, given the propensity of ancient sources to overinflate numbers, and given the logistical and population limitations of an ancient army) participated in the battle itself, and that there were survivors. (The article notes where they fled) For all these reasons, I am moving Salsu down to 80,000--assuming the article's claimed 100,000 participants in the battle, and 80% casualty rates consistant with and similar to the most bloody battles of human history, like Cannae, Plataea, Arausio, etc. I suspect strongly that 80,000 is, also, a significant overestimate, but unlike 300,000, it is at least in the correct ballpark. 69.242.22.77 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose this list is made entirely using wikipedia information? The Battle of Yarmouk is one of those battles where it's very hard to determine how many units were actually present, and if there actually was a significant battle at all. I joined the discussion on this battle once, but some guys kept coming with unreliable old muslim sources giving astronomous numbers. Right now the casualties for the battle in this list are 120,000 which is absolutely ridiculous. The books/primary sources this figure comes from are totally unreliable, from my head they gave 120,000 Byzantine casualties versus a few hundred or 4,000 Muslem casualties. I suggest removal of the 120,000 figure from this list. To give credit to this: Osprey Campaign 31 Yarmouk says there would be AT MOST 50,000 (non-Arab) troops available for use against the Muslims, with AT LEAST half of these tied down in garrisoning duties etc. To add to this, Byzantine expeditionary forces never exceeded 20-30,000 troops. All this means there could never have been 120,000 men at the Battle of Yarmouk, let alone that all 120,000 men were slaughtered. Actually I'll remove the battle from the list right now.
Wiki1609 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried editing the list to include Thermopylae, and I royally messed up and the list vanished! I am sorry, I'm not used to editing.-Shane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.62.185 ( talk) 05:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't the Battle of the Metaurus not listed? it had 30,000+ casualties. Wandalstouring ( talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the Battle of Kursk, from World War IIs Eastern Front, is down in the siege list. However, I generally see it refered to as a battle, and there was a fairly small percentage of urban warfare in it. Someone can tell me if I'm wrong, but I think it should be moved to the list of battles, not the list of Sieges/Urban battles. Borg Sphere ( talk) 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Should be 68,000 dead. References are in the Borodino article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.236.86 ( talk) 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out the difference between Operation Overlord and Operation Neptune. Operation Overlord was the invasion of Northwest Europe. It began with D-Day and continued until the liberation of Paris in August. It includes the Normandy Landings, the Falise(sp?) pocket, and all other actions fought during that time. Therefore, I would propose removing it from the list, and instead adding the several smaller sections that make it up. That would make much more sense and be much more precise. Does anyone else agree? Borg Sphere ( talk) 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I nominate this as the grimmest page of Wikipedia Jcwf ( talk) 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |