I was thinking about the thread about the biggest mass killing of all time. It was wrong, but it sorta leads into this thread. What was the biggest battle, where a massive, powerful army was crushed by a few guys and gals? I remember the battle of the Persians the Greek city states, but that was long term and Thermapolaye probably pales in comparison. So what was/were the battles where the titanic power fell?

vercellae or aquae sextiate--20-30,000 romans killed 165,000 germans in two battles in 102-101 b.c.

Thats why you never attack a fortified Legionary on a mountain.

well, for the Roman armies, the answer is simple- The battle of Watling street, the last battle of the Iceni rebellion, was where two legions (10,000 men) took on over 100,000 (some estimates range as high as a quater of a million), and won.

for the Greeks, there is an even more absured battle ofg granicus, where according to the historian Aristobulus, who accompaneyed Alexander on his campaign, reported that the total loss of greek forces was 34 men, 9 of whom were foot soldires.

persion losses were 20,000 infantry, and 2,500 cavalry.

I think those numbers speak for themselves ;)

34- 22,500...

Deleted.
doh, I should have read all the posts.

Originally posted by gael
Deleted.
doh, I should have read all the posts.

whatever do you mean?
Those losses to Alexander must have really really hurt. Are there any other extremeties across history?

Calgacus of the Picts (Caledonians) was slain along with 10,000 of his men at the battle of Mons Graupius (84AD)

The Romans killed were 1000, although another source says 340.

does anyone know the stats of Alesia? I just know a 300,000 Gaul army lost, but I think it was because Vercingetorix surrendered right?

Originally posted by willemvanoranje
does anyone know the stats of Alesia? I just know a 300,000 Gaul army lost, but I think it was because Vercingetorix surrendered right?

vercingetorix had 80,000 men inside and a relief army of 250,000 trying to free him--but 40,000 legionaries ( with julius ceasar ) held them off and vercingetorix gave up

In terms of sheer ratios of dead I guess battles like Rorkes Drift (100 odd Brits against 4000 Zulus, up to 1000 zulus died to what a dozen Brits?) and similar can match if not outweigh some of those mentioned, but not in terms of volume of dead. Some of the battles fought by Pizarro and Cortez could come close if you just take Spanish numbers as well I suppose.

Originally posted by privatehudson
In terms of sheer ratios of dead I guess battles like Rorkes Drift (100 odd Brits against 4000 Zulus, up to 1000 zulus died to what a dozen Brits?) and similar can match if not outweigh some of those mentioned, but not in terms of volume of dead. Some of the battles fought by Pizarro and Cortez could come close if you just take Spanish numbers as well I suppose.

Speaking of Imperial adventures, there was also a battle between the Sudanese, where the British lost a few dozen, compared to 11,000. Give that one to tech superiority.

One of the final Indian battles where 50,000 Indians faced 3,000 British. The British lost 26 and the Indians lost about 500.

Battle of Adrianople, A.D. August 9, 378.
casualties= roman 40.000, Goths unknown

Composition of the Roman troops

Valens' army was composed of veterans and men accustomed to war. Il was comprised of seven large infantry unites (legions and imperial auxiliaries) of 700 to 1000 men each. The cavalry was comprised of shield-archers and Scholae of the imperial guard. However, these did not represent the strong point of the army and they would flee on the arrival of the Gothic cavalry. There were also squadrons of Arab cavalry, but they were more suited to skirmishes than to pitched battle.


The course of battle

On the morning of August 9, Valens decamped from Adrianople, where he left the imperial treasury and administration under the guard of the legions. The reconnaissance of the preceding days informed him of the location of the Gothic camp. Valens arrived there after marching for seven hours over difficult terrain.

At around 2 pm, the Roman troops arrived in disorder, facing the Gothic camp that had been set up on the top of a hill. The Goths, except for their cavalry, took position in front of their chariots, which formed a circle to protect their families. Fritigern's objective was to delay the Romans, in order to give enough time for the Gothic cavalry to return. The fields were then burnt to delay the Romans, and negotiations began for an exchange of hostages. The negotiations exasperated the Roman soldiers who seemed to hold the stronger position, but they gained precious time for Fritigern.

The Romans began the battle without having received the order to do so, believing they would have an easy victory. The imperial Scholae of shield-archers under the command of the Iberian prince Bacurius attacked, but lacking support they were easily pushed back. Then the Roman left-wing reached the circle of chariots, but it was too late. At that moment, the Gothic cavalry arrived to support the infantry. The cavalry surrounded the Roman troops, who were already in disarray after the failure of the first assault. The Romans retreated to the base of the hill where they unable to manoeuvre, encumbered by their heavy armour and long shields. The casualties, exhaustion, and psychological pressure led to a rout of the Roman army. The cavalry continued their attack, and the massacre continued until nightfall.

The death of Valens and the consequences

In the rout, the emperor himself was abandoned by his guards. Some tried to retrieve him but the majority of the cavalry deserted. He died anonymously on the field.

According to the historian Ammianus Marcellinus a third of the Roman army succeeded in retreating, but the losses were uncountable. Many officers, among them the general Sebastian, were killed in the worst Roman defeat since the Battle of Cannae. The battle was a devastating blow for the late empire. In effect, the core of the eastern empire was destroyed, valuable administrators were killed, and all of the arms factories on the Danube were destroyed following the battle. The lack of reserves for the army led to a recruitment crisis, which accentuated the strategic and moral impact of the defeat.

Originally posted by ss3goku


Speaking of Imperial adventures, there was also a battle between the Sudanese, where the British lost a few dozen, compared to 11,000. Give that one to tech superiority.

Omdurman. British losses 19. Mahdist forces - over 10,000 dead found on the battlefield. The Maxim machine gun had arrived!

The attack by Washington against the Hessians in Trenton, 800 Hessian casualties, 0 American combat casualties, although 1 guy froze to death croosing the river.

How much truth is there to the battle at Agincourt?
Henry V - 400 men, beat 10,000 French.

Pirate those are the losses. Agincourt was 6,000 English vs 25,000 French. Plus, the English were hungry, tired, and sick with dysentry. Crecy was huge losses. The French left two kings, 1542 knights and lords, and untold numbers of infantry on the field

And don't forget Potiers were we captured the king of France :D

Or Crecy. The French left 2 kings and 1542 knights and lords at Crecy, not counting the infantry.

Originally posted by MattII
Pirate those are the losses. Agincourt was 6,000 English vs 25,000 French. Plus, the English were hungry, tired, and sick with dysentry. Crecy was huge losses. The French left two kings, 1542 knights and lords, and untold numbers of infantry on the field

That's what happens when I get my history from Shakespeare plays.

I once singlehandedly took on an army of 7,000 Samurai, using nothing but the jaw of a donkey. I won of course.