"Largest Ancients battle? Say Alexander to 500AD" Topic

Considering a new project, So what would be the largest ancients battle between Alexander and 500AD.

If you go by the numbers claimed for the Persian armies that Alexander fought those would be the largest. Otherwise the 132,000 infantry, 11,000 cavalry and 175 elephants at the battle of Raphia would be the largest recorded battle for the western civilizations. I am not familiar with any of the Chinese or other Asian battles of the period.

Arausio, 200,000 + Germans versus 80,000 Romans. It only springs to mind because I am reading "First Man in Rome" right now.

after reading the Wiki, on Arausio, Pharalus and Raphia. my vote is Raphia.

Romans claimed that Paralus was where the most Romans fought – 60,000 + 10,000 allies.

leads me to belivie that 80,000 are Romans and allies and that 200000 is the total for the tribes so males in fighting age around 50,000.

Food for though at Raphia probality 1% of the total of the worlds (under Successor rule) adult male population was at that battle.

Doubtful that numbers in ancient accounts are reliable.

It is always good to go back and read your Delbruck every few years to remind yourself of how much BS about numbers there are in ancient histories. Delbruck is the base line- the most harsh critic so he is always a good place to start. I actually did this just last week.

Especially troubling are Alexander the Great's campaigns or Roman exaggerations of tribal enemy sizes.

Alexander the great's history relies on the reader to believe the fallacies of Herodotus first as a basis to believe the fiction of the official Persian or any opponent's numbers line.

That being said, if Darius III's army at Gaugamela was indeed only twice the size of Alexander's given army size of 47-48000, then that would yield a battle with roughly 150k participants, a huge battle by ancient history standards.

Note that Alexander arranged for 2000 carts to supply his army on its march east to meet Darius.. if Darius had to supply a million man army? He would only need about 40,000 carts. Engels proved that that the food would get eaten by the carts before it ever reached the army.

The worst documented battle ever, is also one of the most decisive. Ipsus is the battle that settled the future of the western world but we have shoddy and spotty sources. Most guess about 132000 foot and 25000 horse, and hundreds of elephants, if you add up all sides, That would put it high on the level of battles that (even though poorly documented) might have been the largest battle in classical history. Ipsus is the Leipzig of the ancient world.

As for the sizes of barbarian so called hordes, I find most of that to be deliberate attempts by the Romans to control the narrative. A Roman historian would describe Geronimo's band of about a hundred warriors and kinfolk, as a marauding scourge raping pillaging and burning a vast swath as tens of thousands of horses filled up the landscape from horizon to horizon… when in reality there were about 6000 US army troops trying to round up thirty seven warriors and their savvy chief.

Ancient historians are good and consistent at one thing, exaggerating the sizes of tribal enemy armies vs. civilized slave owning states. Exaggerating the threat is always the goal of those who wish to impose order. It just doesn't look as good if Alexander defeated an equal sized army at Gaugamela, and yet there is not much reason why that could not be the case. This does not diminish the tactical brilliance of overcoming an army that had decided on a total cavalry swarming gambit… it actually makes his accomplishments more amazing if he overcame competent enemies that were more equal in numbers.

Raphia and Ipsus are great choices. Another to consider, at its modified reduced manpower totals of around 150,000 men is Lugdunum, February 19, 197 A.D.

Original histories suggest 300,000+ Romans engaged in a two-day battle, evenly matched sides. Revised histories acknowledge around 150,000 Romans engaged between the two sides.

If everything hinged on exact numbers,you could pretty much call any battle into doubt. How do we really know there were that many Zulus at Rorkes Drift?

JJartist: "Note that Alexander arranged for 2000 carts to supply his army on its march east to meet Darius.. if Darius had to supply a million man army? He would only need about 40,000 carts. Engels proved that that the food would get eaten by the carts before it ever reached the army."

I also doubt those troop figures for Darius' army. But there is also something off with the calculation of his supply train.

Didn't the Persians send riders ahead of the army so that the Satraps would provide most of the food and water along the way, while the army was still marching within the borders of the Persian empire? That was part of the home court advantage in that "pony express" empire.

I would imagine that's why the invader, Alexander, had to bring in his own supplies. He wasn't going to rely on what "hospitality" may or may not be found along the way.

Dan

Largest Battle? Probably in China where few of us have expertise.

David F Brown

Ecnomus, with about 700 ships, and 300,000 participants. Not well kown, but quite likely the largest naval battle ever, including Leyte, and a serious contender for the largest battle pre-500AD.

Father Grigori hit it out the park, that is the largest battle until Lepzig.

well done Sir!

Didn't Crevald make the point that it was likely that Macedonian agents suborned Persian officials to supply food to Alexanders army (rather than face destruction) which then allows their rapid advances through supposedly enemy territory?

I too find Delbruck's writing on numbers in ancient battles informative. Interestingly, he argues for the probability that the Persian armies fighting Alexander were likely smaller in size than Alexander's. His argument is built principally around how the Persian society was organized.

I've always been a bit sceptical that Cannae was as big a battle in numbers as described. I cannot see how Hannibal could have kept 40,000 -50,000 men supplied in southern Italy nor can I see how the Romans could have had the logistical structure to bring 8 double legions into one place.