A little history trivia . . .

[Drake Tungsten]

Actually, First Borodino was bigger than Austerlitz, though, wasn't it?

I don't remember. It certainly could be, as could Waterloo. I'd have to check.

Anyway, Antietam was closer to Austerlitz than I thought. The Union had 90,000 men while the Rebs had around 40,000 effective troops out of the 70,000 they started the Maryland invasion with.

At Austerlitz, Napoleon had 75,000 men and the Allies had 90,000. Not that much bigger that Antietam...

[Drake Tungsten]

A quick Google search shows that Borodino was indeed bigger than Austerlitz; 133,000 French versus 120,000 Russians.

[Drake Tungsten]

Waterloo was smaller than both Austerlitz and Antietam; 74,000 French and 58,000 Allied.

[Az]

Uhmm, Rome is in the eastern hemisphere.

I know that. I just find it amazing that the biggest battle the western hemisphere had is topped by a battle of the ancient times from the western one.

Yours are such peaceful contintents.

[David Floyd]

Waterloo was smaller than both Austerlitz and Antietam; 74,000 French and 58,000 Allied.

Ummm, the Allied (British, Dutch, German, etc., but not counting Prussian) numbered 107,000, while the French had 120,000. So Waterloo was only a bit smaller than Borodino, and certainly bigger than Austerlitz. Waterloo would be the biggest if you included the Prussian Army, which was barely engaged.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ummm, the Allied (British, Dutch, German, etc., but not counting Prussian) numbered 107,000, while the French had 120,000. So Waterloo was only a bit smaller than Borodino, and certainly bigger than Austerlitz. Waterloo would be the biggest if you included the Prussian Army, which was barely engaged.

Well, if you count Ligny it wouldn't be a one-day battle now would it?

The numbers I gave were the troops numbers for the actual battle of Waterloo. Both sides started the campaign with more, but this had been reduced by the time of the final battle.

[GePap]

The largest single day battle is probably the Battle of Sadowa, or Konniggratz, the last and decisive battle oif the seven-Weeks Austro-Prussian war. Both sides had in the vecinity of 200,000 men engaged.

[David Floyd]

Well, if you count Ligny it wouldn't be a one-day battle now would it?

I'm not counting Ligny - that battle didn't even involve the British.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yours are such peaceful contintents.

Uh, one of our continents had a war over a soccer game.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not counting Ligny - that battle didn't even involve the British.

No ****. I was bringing up a battle that sapped French strength from pre-campaign levels. Quatre-Bras would've been a better example, as it cut down on Allied strength as well, but I didn't think of it at the time.

At any rate, Waterloo was smaller than Antietam or Austerlitz.

[GePap]

damn it folks, the answer was given: Sadowa 1866, between the Austrian army and the Prussians and their Saxon allies. Unless someone can find another 1 day ingagement in which close to 400,000 men were involved.

[Drake Tungsten]

damn it folks, the answer was given: Sadowa 1866, between the Austrian army and the Prussians and their Saxon allies. Unless someone can find another 1 day ingagement in which close to 400,000 men were involved.

I noticed. The Waterloo stuff is just pure curiosity on my part.

[Adam Smith]

I did a poll on the world's most important battle a few months back. IIRC the Poly consensus was evenly divided between the Chinese defeat of the Huns and the first seige of Constantinople by the Muslims.

[GePap]

Why the first siege? What about that battle which constantine caimed lead him to his Christian conversion?

But anyway: new question: longest battle ever?

I honestly have no clue. Probably some ancient siege. those could go on for ever.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by GePap
Why the first siege?

Because it bought Europe a couple of hundred years.