Largest army

Redbeard

Banned
What is one place?

Anyway, before railway and trucks there were severe limitations on how many men and horses you could feed on a given area (Martin van Creefeld has written a good book on logistics over the times) - in Napoleonic times the individual Armycorps (10-20.000 men) so had to march separately but should unite briefly in case of battle. With depots laid out previously or very rich country you of course could count on staying together for longer but that would also severely limit your operational mobility. On a pre industrial battlefield each side rarely exceeded 150.000 men and some tens of thousands horses and in larger battles like Leipzig the whole thing was about uniting the individual armies of 70-150.000 men just in time for battle, not too early and not too late. Before Napoleonic times field armies rarely exceeded more than 50.000 men and often much smaller.

When Napoleon sent 500.000 men into Russia in 1812 they were spread over a very large area but really was beyond what the contemporary logistic and operational system could handle.

In some ancient sources you can some times see refrences of much bigger armies, but I would be VERY careful to believe them.

The German force gathered for Barbarossa was more than 3 million men, and that is probbaly the record for one coherrent operation, but they spread over 1000+ km front so you really couldn't call it "one place".

The Red Army in late WWII probably had more than 3 million men in Europe but they were spread over many individual operations. The attack on Berlin in 1945 however involved some 2,5 million Soviet soldiers, that might a good bid on biggest army in one place.

If we have to be strict however "Largest army in history in one place" I guess we would have to measure in denisty: how many soldiers pr square meter? In that case it could be an Austrian Battaljon Mass during the Napoleonic wars. Here companies moving in column (one, two or three company front) pressed the ranks very closely together and the outwardly placed men pointing their bajonets out of the formation. It was very effective vs. cavalry and was quick to form but also quite vulnerable to artillery fire. It would however be a good bid for most soldiers pr. square meter/feet. :cool:
 

Redbeard

Banned
In that case, perhaps the Allied army at Leipzig?
The allied handling of the Leipzig campaign anyway deserves much more credit than it is usually given. It simply was the perfect way to handle Napoleon, where he earlier had owned the initiative he here buzzed around like a fly in a bottle as the allied armies he chased retreated while other allied armies beat up his sub-commanders. And then when the "Monster" had been wounded by several blows the allied armies closed for the kill in a three day battle - something like Mammouth hinting in ancient times.

What is most remembered is often Blücher's fight at Möckern, and it sure was heroic, but it really was just a subsidiary battlefield to hold away French troops from the main battlefield in the south against the allied main army (just like Lindenau and Connewitz). I have studied the battle and the campaign quite meticolously, and still find new interesting details, but it really was decided when Napoleon decided to "take a rest" on day two, instead of either breaking out or making an overall attack before all the approaching allied armies had arrived (Benningsen, Bernadotte and Colloredo's I. Austrian Armycorps).

Schwarzenberg is often blamed for not closing the trap firmly but it really was the Zar who forbad any Russian troops west of the Pleisse (he wanted Leipzig taken quickly) and this made the original plan of placing a major force between Saale and Elster (from where it could have blocked) way too risky. The main element of Schwarzenberg and Radetzky's plan, that of bringing four armies into concentric movement on Napoleon could not be destroyed however, not even by the allied Monarchs disturbing at HQ, and IMHO owe a lot of credit to Schwarzenberg and Radetzky (his chief of staff).
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
The Soviet Army in WW2 was pretty fucking big.

As far as an army at one place at one point in time, in medieval times, the Ottomans at Constantinople and the Byzantines at Yarmouk had really huge armies.

Before that, some sources hold the Gauls at Alesia to have had 300K men total, which I think most say is an exaggeration, but the number was big, no doubt.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I checked, and it's close, but the battle of Mohi, while it had plenty of people on the battlefield, was less one-sided than the siege. So, biggest army goes to the Ottomans, I'd say.
But what do you count at Constantinople? The biggest number I've seen references on is 300.000 and as I understand less than 100.000 were involved in the siege itself. Anyway I would be very careful to believe any claims that can't be documented. The longer back the bigger the armies appear to be and a lot of people would have an interest in exagerating.
 
The Soviet Army in WW2 was pretty fucking big.

As far as an army at one place at one point in time, in medieval times, the Ottomans at Constantinople and the Byzantines at Yarmouk had really huge armies.

Before that, some sources hold the Gauls at Alesia to have had 300K men total, which I think most say is an exaggeration, but the number was big, no doubt.
I would completely discout the Siege of Constantinople entirely.Most of the later battles of the Napoleonic Wars definitely had more than 300k in one battlefield.
 
He asked for medieval battles.
Even then,I don't think the Siege of Constantinople fits the bill either.The Ottomans definitely didn't have 300k on their side.Most sources cites somewhere along 70,000-150,000.I'd say that one of the battles from the Roman Civil Wars probably fits the bill.The battles around the period of the Tetrarchy were absolutely massive.Each side sometimes have something like over 100k.
 
Last edited:
@ darthfanta is correct, the Ottomans did not have anything nearly as large as 300,000. Per Niccolo Barbaro, a Venetian physician who was present at the siege, as well as Byzantine statesmen George Sphrantzes, the Ottomans numbered some 160,000. We know that the Byzantines and their allies numbered a few thousands, meaning the Siege of Constantinople could not even have involved 200,000 people.
 
Top