Talk:List of battles by casualties/Archive 1

Rationale
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?


 * Looks like it was removed by an IP user on 21st of June 2006... no idea why. One potential issue is that there's almost no information about it available on the web to verify the casualty claims, I don't know about print sources. Mark Grant 19:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * I would think one essentially continuous battle in essentially one location should count, even if it lasted a substantial time (e.g. Stalingrad), though I would say there's a case for splitting out single-day figures from the long-term battles. Mark Grant 15:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Casualty sizes
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)


 * I think a certain amount has to be subjective. 10,000 over ten years of attrition today is definitely not suitable, 10,000 in a week in the 18th century, probably not, 10,000 in a day in the 1st century AD, almost certainly should be included. 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I say lets get the list to 50 and be happy with it. The more battles which are found, the more the minimum count is. I just found a battle with 80,000 kills that noone wrote about, it's gonna be more.

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)


 * Can we have some consistency with the figures given in terms of what they represent? The Battle of Gallipoli, according to its own article had 392,418 overall casualties, but 130,764 killed. Both of these considered, is it placed lower with the killed figure, or higher with the overall casualty figure? The ones above it are also inconsistent. Movingpictures100@hotmail.com 11:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We seem to be confusing (for some entries) killed and casualties, which are two very different things. --Ggbroad 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So should we just used killed? Almost all the the figures given are killed, so should we just continue that - or, go through the entire thing, rank it on casualties, but then give the figure for "killed" as well?Movingpictures100@hotmail.com 11:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Offensive and Operation
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).


 * I agree. Things like the Battle of Stalingrad were made up of hundreds of individual contests.  The problem is that "Battle" can often be interchanged with "Campaign" or, in some cases, an entire war. Oberiko 14:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Massacre of Nishapur
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).

Do bombings count as battles?
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?


 * Battle: 1. a hostile encounter or engagement between opposing military forces
 * There was no military engagement. The bombing of Japan was not opposed with any meaningful military resistance. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 02:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We have the Battle of Britain, which although I suspect that Churchill was thinking about a German invasion of the UK when he coined the term, is still regarded as a battle, even though the forces involved were mostly aerial. Do we count the civilian deaths in the London bombings? If we include the BoB and count civilian deaths, then Dresden would have to be included, because the Luftwaffe was still actively defending the Reich. --Pete 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

don't mix casualties and deaths
this list is meaningless as it currently stands, with deaths and casualty figures intermixed. Benwing 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We'll have POV pushers insisting that the Iraq War to be in this list in no time. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 02:53, 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)


 * @ Haizum and Stebbins: WP:BEANS - Che Nuevara  06:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FRANKS --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This list needs a lot of revisions. Just "caught" two civil war battles whose articles state less then 4000 dead - they were listed waaaay high on the list... First order of buissness is to check all battles and show ONLY dead - where available. The Spanish Inquisitor 09:43, 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)

Splitting the list
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 agree that splitting the list would make this article much more useful. However, it's important to remember that the longer incidents often contained brief periods of especially intense fighting.  In cases like these, individual days within larger battles (e.g. the first day of the Somme) might deserve their own place on the "single day" list.  For the same reason, I don't think an "average deaths per day" column would be especially helpful.  Such a column would incorrectly suggest that the severity of the battles remained more or less constant throughout.  Stebbins 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Battles
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)

Rank
I add the rank of the battles to the table. Please tell me what you think. Thanks. Kyriakos 10:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice work. The lack of ranks bothered me the first time I saw this page. I'm sure adding all of those in must have been rather tedious.


 * There was a problem with some of the battles being listed out of order. I've now sorted them based on the minimum casualty estimates, but the large uncertainties in a lot of the figures means the ranking is still pretty vague.  Stebbins 16:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg a single day battle?
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)
 * How about most intense battles?(Igny 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Intense would be missleading - Stalingrad was intense too :) I think the correct title would be pitched battles (as in battles between two armies on a limited area), but the article that calls that up defines it differently, so we need another term. A few more from the lower list would then qualify for that. How about just 'direct battles' or 'pre-industrial era battles' (that's when the formation lost importance and battles were redefined) as I don't think we have any campaign-size battle before the 19th century or so.The Spanish Inquisitor 07:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
Splitting the list has vastly improved the article, nice work! Modest Genius talk 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem
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)


 * Here are some sources for the siege of Betar, placing the number of deaths at roughly 580,000: 1, 2, 3, 4. It is difficult to know the exact number, particularly since rabbinic tradition has a way of exaggerating things.  According to the Talmud, 80,000 myriads of people were slaughtered.  That's 800,000,000 people.  The rabbis also tell us that more than 150,000 children were in the city.  Some very gory images are also given, including this one:


 * "They slew the inhabitants until the horses waded in blood up to their nostrils, and the blood rolled along stones of the size of forty se'ah (71 gallons, the same amount as is needed to make a mikvah kosher....) and flowed into the sea [staining it for] a distance of four miles."


 * Whatever the number, there is no doubt in my mind that this ranked among the most lethal battles in world history. It was a massacre, and the Romans showed no mercy.  CaliforniaKid 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * according to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed during the whole Bar Kochba revolt. The number of casualties of the final siege of Betar must be much lower. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.247.19.218 (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC).


 * According to the Bible, the Assyrians were killed, not by the Jews, but by an angel of God. Unless we have it as Assyrians vs. God, I don't see why it should be listed; and if we do list it as Assyrians vs. God, I don't think it should be listed, any more than we should list the flood of Noah.  Nyttend 15:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the Siege of Betar appears with 500.000+ when is obvius that is the death roll for all the Revolt? Can somebody fix it? 201.222.248.235 (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Go on then...
Someone should create "Least lethal battles in world history". That could be interesting.


 * 1704 - Battle of the Wet Sock
 * 2006 - Seige of the local chippy while drunk, armed with frozen peas.

— 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)

List length
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?


 * What happened to this list? It looks like it is missing all but about 7 entries! Is this vandalism or was there some point to deleting the majority of one of my favorite lists? Random314159 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Make tables sortable?
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)


 * I like it. There's absolutely no reason not to do it this way that I can think of.  I say go for it.  CaliforniaKid 06:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, cool. Let's see what people think.  I'm going to convert the second list (sieges) to a sortable format.  I'm choosing the sieges because that list is the shortest and easiest to deal with.  I'll put the instructions on usage here on the talk page.  I'll also put a comment before the list to direct people to the instructions here.Prometheusg 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I changed all the lists to sortable tables. Hope it's okay. Prometheusg 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Killed or wounded / casulties
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)
 * Where'd you get the idea that the ratio is "often" 10:1? I don't know of a single battle where that's true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.222.244 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
 * That sounds like a good idea. As well, battles where we know the number of deaths but have the number of wound ==

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
 * Maybe separate killed and wounded into different columns. If only wounded figures are known with any accuracy, leave killed blank. Same if only killed figures are known. As for where to put them, I would say the bottom if only wounded figures are known.  Prometheusg 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mongol Battle figures
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)

Salsu

 * I'm not sure that this battle deserves to be recongnised as a battle in the sense that the other battles are being judged by. The article relating to the event states that one army opened a dam up on another army, washing away hundreds of thousands of men. That is not a battle. The only casualties caused by armed conflict were survivors being killed by cavalry in much smaller numbers. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't count as battles then this ancient WMD cannot count either. Thatstheway 10:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Although most of the casualties occurred as a result of a trap during a feigned retreat, it was an occurance during the battle and as part of a battle plan.  The luring of an enemy into a trap is a classic tactic used throughout history.  This one just happened to have among the most spectacular results.  The dropping of atomic weapons of course doesn't count as a battle.  The vast majority of casualties were not combatants.  Also, they were not directly engaged in combat with the planes that dropped the bombs.  The casualties at Salsu thought they were on their way to engaging the enemy.  They had a choice. Prometheusg 10:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundant entries
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:
 * Battle of Kulikovo
 * Battle of Sekigahara
 * Battle of Telamon
 * Battle of Vaslui

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).

Major Problem
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)

CLEAN UP/ CIVILIANS/ EASTERN FRONT
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)

Battle of Salsu
The casualty figure for the Battle of Salsu that 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)
 * I've been following the edit conflict between you two for a couple of days now on this list and the Battle of Salsu talk page. I'm assuming you're correct as he hasn't produced any documentation to support his stance, but could you quote the section on battle figures from one (or both) of those sources?  I don't have a copy handy ;) Prometheusg 14:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do that tonight (I'm in UTC-7) (and actually, he already quoted one source on Talk:Battle of Salsu, although clearly (negligently, if not intentionally) misreading it). I'll, however, quote both sources when I can get access to them.  Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the Zizhi Tongjian (which may have used the Book of Sui as a reference), and I can confirm what Nlu said. The Zizhi Tongjian stated that 305,000 crossed the Liao river at the beginning of the campaign, and only 2,700 returned. There was no exact numbers for the rout at Salsu, but Yu Zhongwen's comment about they having 100,000 men before the battle was mentioned. The battle may still be 1 of the most lethal battles in world history, but there's not enough information to support that. quantum cyborg 21:52, 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:


 * 遼 東之役，仲文率軍指樂浪道. 軍次烏骨城，仲文簡羸馬驢數千，置於軍後. 既而率眾東過，高麗出兵掩襲輜重，仲文迴擊，大破之. 至鴨綠水，高麗將乙支文德詐 降，來入其營. 仲文先奉密旨，若遇高元及文德者，必擒之. 至是，文德來，仲文將執之. 時尚書右丞劉士龍為慰撫使，固止之. 仲文遂捨文德. 尋悔，遣人紿文德 曰：「更有言議，可復來也. 」文德不從，遂濟. 仲文選騎渡水追之，每戰破賊. 文德遺仲文詩曰：「神策究天文，妙算窮地理. 戰勝功既高，知足願云止. 」仲文 答書諭之，文德燒柵而遁. 時宇文述以糧盡欲還，仲文議以精銳追文德，可以有功. 述固止之，仲文怒曰：「將軍仗十萬之眾，不能破小賊，何顏以見帝！且仲文此 行也，固無功矣. 」述因厲聲曰：「何以知無功？」仲文曰：「昔周亞夫之為將也，見天子，軍容不變. 此決在一人，所以功成名遂. 今者人各其心，何以赴敵！」 初，帝以仲文有計畫，令諸軍諮稟節度，故有此言. 由是述等不得已而從之，遂行. 東至薩水，宇文述以兵餒退歸，師遂敗績. 帝以屬吏，諸將皆委罪於仲文. 帝大 怒，釋諸將，獨繫仲文. 仲文憂恚發病，困篤方出之，卒於家，時年六十八. 

I'd translate that passage as:


 * For the Liaodong Campaign, Yu Zhongwen led the army to attack Lelang. When the army got to Wugu, Yu took several thousand horses and donkeys and put them to the rear of his army.  He then headed east.  When Goguryeo soldiers tried to attack his mobile armory, Yu circled around and attacked, greatly defeating them.  When he reached Yalu, the Goguryeo general Eulji Mundeok pretended to surrender and entered his camp.  Yu had previously received a secret edit that if he encountered Gao Yuan [(King Yeong-yang)] or Eulji, to detain them.  When Eulji arrived, Yu was poised to do so.  At that time, the right secretary of the Shangshu Sheng, Liu Wenlong, was the special pacification envoy, and insisted on not detaining Eulji.  Yu therefore allowed Eulji to leave, but soon regretted it.  He sent a messenger to Yulji, stating, "I have other things to talk about; please come back."  Elji refused and crossed the river.  Yu selected cavalry soldiers to trail, and had several successes.  Eulji sent a poem to Yu stating, "Your strategies can even see the heaven; your calculations are based on the geography.   You have prevailed in victory; it is time to be satisfied and end your campaign."  Yu sent back a letter to try to persaude Eulji, but Eulji burned his camp and fled.  At that time, Yuwen Shu wished to terminate the campaign as the food supply ran out.  Yu proposed leading the most elite soldiers to chase down Eulji in order to accomplish victory.  Yuwen urged him not to go on, and Yu angrily stated, "General, you have 100,000 men, but you cannot even defeat this little bandit; what face do you have to see the emperor?  Further, on this campaign, I knew that I would not accomplish anything."  Yuwen asked, "How did you know that you were not going to accomplish anything?"  Yu responded, "When Zhou Yafu was the commander, he did not even have to change his clothing before meeting the emperor.  All of the tactics were decided by one person, and he therefore could prevail.  Now we have several different people making decisions; how can we prevail?"  At first, the emperor had Yu plan the campaign, but nevertheless made him consult the various generals, and therefore he spoke thus.  Yuwen therefore felt compelled to continue the campaign.  When they got to Sa River [(i.e., Salsu)], Yuwen decided to retreat on account of the army's fatigue, and the army was subsequently defeated.  When the emperor arrested the generals, all of the generals blamed the loss on Yu.  The emperor, in anger, released all of the generals but continued to detain Yu.  Yu, in anger and fear, grew ill, and only when he became seriously ill did the emperor release him.  He died at home at the age of 67.

This is where my reference as to the 100,000 men came from. And Yuwen Shu's biography (same link, vol. 61):


 * 及 征高麗，述為扶餘道軍將. 臨發，帝謂述曰：「禮，七十者行役以婦人從，公宜以家累自隨. 古稱婦人不入軍，謂臨戰時耳. 至於營壘之間，無所傷也. 項籍虞姬， 即其故事. 」述與九軍至鴨綠水，糧盡，議欲班師. 諸將多異同，述又不測帝意. 會乙支文德來詣其營，述先與于仲文俱奉密旨，令誘執文德. 既而緩縱，文德逃 歸，語在仲文傳. 述內不自安，遂與諸將渡水追之. 時文德見述軍中多飢色，欲疲述眾，每鬥便北. 述一日之中七戰皆捷，既恃驟勝，又內逼群議，於是遂進，東濟 薩水，去平壤城三十里，因山為營. 文德復遣使偽降，請述曰：「若旋師者，當奉高元朝行在所. 」述見士卒疲敝，不可復戰，又平壤嶮固，卒難致力，遂因其詐而 還. 眾半濟，賊擊後軍，於是大潰不可禁止，九軍敗績，一日一夜，還至鴨綠水，行四百五十里. 初，渡遼九軍三十萬五千人，及還至遼東城，唯二千七百人. 帝大 怒，以述等屬吏. 至東都，除名為民. 

I would translate it as:


 * When it came time for the Goguryeo campaign, Yuwen was the general heading for Fuyu. Before he embarked, the emperor told him, "Based on Confucian ceremonies, there should be women accompanying generals who were over 70.  You, Duke, should have your consort with you.  It was said in ancient times that women should not be in the military, but that refers to the battlefield; it is fine for them to be in camps.  This was the way it was with Xiang Yu and Lady Yu."  Yuwen and nine armies got to Yalu River, and they ran out of food and were discussing retreating.  The generals could not reach a consensus, and Yuwen was not sure what the emperor might want.  At that time, Eulji Mundeok came to visit the camp.  Both Yuwen and Yu received secret edits to detain Eulji, and therefore initially did not release him, but Eulji fled, as it was recorded in Yu's biography.  Yuwen was apprehensive, and therefore crossed the river with the other generals.  At that time, Eulji saw that Yuwen's army was stricken by hunger, and therefore wanted to wear it out.  Each time they battled, Eulji would retreat, and therefore Yuwen had seven victories in one day.  He became arrogant in his victories, and was also urged by the other generals to advance, and therefore did so.  He crossed the Sa River, some 30 li from Pyongyang.  He camped on the hills.  Eulji again sent messengers to pretend to surrender, stating to Yuwen, "If you withdraw, I will escort Gao Yuan to the emperor's location."  Yuwen saw that the soldiers were tired and unable to fight further, and that Pyongyang was securely defended and difficult to capture, and therefore withdrew even though he knew Eulji was lying.  When his soldiers were still crossing the river, the enemy attacked his rear, and therefore the troops went into a panic and could not be stopped.  The armies fled for a day and a night, back to the Yalu, a distance of 450 li.  At first, the nine armies that crossed the Liao River had 300,500 men, but when Yuwen returned to Liaodong, there were only 2,700 men left.  The emperor, in anger, imprisoned Yuwen and the others.  After they returned to the eastern capital [i.e., Luoyang], Yuwen was reduced to commoner rank.

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 had a largely consistent account, and matched the Zizhi Tongjian in the relevant portions. --Nlu (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the campaign should be added to the Major Operations category instead? quantum cyborg 17:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I wouldn't be opposed to it.  --Nlu (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Plataea
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)
 * I don't know about other editors, but my policy when checking the casualty figures is to go with the lowest figure (or if a range is posted, to sort by the lower limit). Stebbins 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, you can't site Ctesius and Herodotus and give a figure roughly 40,000-100,000 lower than they gave. Unless I hear a reasonable objection (or someone deletes the citations), I'm changing it now.  199.89.180.65 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Aurausio
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.

American Civil War Battles
Why arent they here71.181.137.163 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)

The Second Gulf War
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))

Seige of Betar
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)


 * On the wiki page for the siege, there is no number given for the siege. Furthermore the number 500,000 seems extremely unlikely given that in the whole Bar Kokhba revolt "580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed" (from that page). I removed the entry. If anything, this should be listed under "mayor operations", not "sieges". --Xeeron (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme

 * 310,486 killed or wounded not according to the article Battle of the Somme Perhapse Killed or missing -Philip Baird Shearer 01:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning, its a clear error i will check it noe adding source.

Best wishes miguel


 * Since this is a list of most lethal battles of all time, not the most casualties (which inclues wounded) the Battle of the Somme entry should read "Approximately 300,000 killed or missing." I am making this change shortly. Borg Sphere (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin
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)

Siege of Delhi
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. &mdash; Mar(c). 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Salsu
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)

Yarmouk
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'm Sorry
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)

Battle of the Metaurus
Why isn't the Battle of the Metaurus not listed? it had 30,000+ casualties. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly because exact numbers and casualty figures are unknown, per the article. Borg Sphere (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kursk - Battle or Siege?
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)


 * Someone added it to the major operations list, but did not remove it from the siege list. I have done this and therefore think that this is no longer a problem. Borg Sphere (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Borodino
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)

Operation Overlord/Normandy Landings (Operation Neptune and D-Day)
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)

Nomination
I nominate this as the grimmest page of Wikipedia Jcwf (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's some IP editors pet who keep inserting unverified claims. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)