The entire channel is demonetized. You can help support the creation of future content using the following links. Thank you. ► ► ► Sign up at www.audibletrial.com/unknown5 to claim a free audiobook of your choice and a 1 month free trial of Audible, the world's largest selection of digital audiobooks. ► ► ►Get 2 FREE months of Skillshare premium here: skillshare.eqcm.net/dqBjW giving you unlimited access to over 22,000 online classes that can help you improve your professional skill set, start a side business you have been planning, or pursue a passion project. No Commitments. Cancel Anytime. My Book Of The Week: ► ► ► amzn.to/2Z4qFhX Patreon: ► ► ► www.patreon.com/unknown5 My Amazon Link: ► ► ► amzn.to/2WhnXbZ - do your shopping on Amazon and I will receive a commission at no extra cost to you - this greatly supports the production of future content on this channel - Thank you!
Why do most youtubers covering historical battles have such a beef with Ancient Greeks? I mean I can understand them not caring that much since most of them are from countries that are not related directly to ancient Greeks but man for all the videos I see it has to be more than just a mere coincidence they all discredit as much as possible Greek related stuff and ascent the others for example you. When you were speaking for the battle of magnesia you said that the romans had only 300 casualties (which btw that was indeed roman propaganda and it was talking about 349 so you said an even "better" number than the roman propaganda... and since its a video about bloodiest battles and romans according to you had only 300 casualties then it must have been bloody because greeks got owned right? :P) modern sources (1 of which is in the wikipedia article about the battle) state that the roman casualties were at least 5000 and that the greek casualties (along with the captures) were up to 10.000 (of which most were syrian troops) Furthermore the battle of magnesia was not Greeks vs Romans it was Seleucid Dynasty vs Roman Empire, what do I mean by that? Seleucid army was consisted by Greeks led by Antiochus and *Syrians* and Roman army was consisted of *Greeks* led by greek general Eumenes and Roman legions lead by Domitius Ahenobarbus. Antiochus with his greek phalanx units succeeded in breaking the roman legions but the battle was lost because Eumenes (the greek general with his greek troops that fought on the side of rome) Decimated the Syrian forces (which were on the side of the Greeks) and surrounded Antiochus. Oh and the Romans used battle elephants as well (yet despite all that lost 5000 troops) Yet in the battle of Plataea you state that the numbers were greek propaganda and you mentioned that the greek heavy infantry fought against the lighter persian infantry which when just said like that discredits the event even more it seems as if a heavy army was just crushing a bunch of peasants. The persian empire indeed had variations on the gear used in battle that doesn't make them inferior though proof that they became one of the largest empires conquering many other worlds including Greek city states so they must have done something right.. right? For example they trained in multiple disciplines of war since the age of 7 and their gear was different but not inferior to the Greeks. I see that trend discrediting everything related to ancient Greek history by even "lower down" its glorious moments while nothing similar happens when people talk about other civilizations... Greeks are like the "white people" of history where everybody doesn't seem to bother picking on (as in today's USA for example racism against white people isn't considered racism but PC)
Bill when people use the term Light infantry it has more to do with kit, physical weight and tactics of the troops. Light infantry was often flanking/harassing whereas Heavy infantry (which Hoplites were) had heavier armour, thus weighed more, and were much more suited to defensive tactics. So by light he didn't mean peasants (which ironically they more than likely were since many empires drafted the peasantry into the campaigns), he meant it was more of a mismatch of style (to the Persians detriment)
TheKoenr Yes I know what light infantry is its just that the way it was mentioned was misleading. Persians have also heavy infantry (immortals) and cavalry troops so it was not heavy infantry vs light infantry.... it was a full fledged huge army that had everything in its disposal (from peasants to elite soldiers and war elephants all bells and whistles so to say) vs a big (although considerably smaller than the persian) greek army which had also peasants and light infantry but also had cavalry and heavy infantry as well. And the way he mentioned it was misleading as well it seemed to infer that greeks being "heavy geared" was the key for winning the "lighter geared" persians. As in "obviously heavy infantry was going to demolish light geared peasants" while showing a lot of historically inaccurate drawings he found online depicting persians wearing PJs or T-shirts to battle and the greeks being super heavy geared :P And in that way discrediting the Greek victory. Like it was Tanks and air force vs poor arabs with rusty AKs (which btw many times won or at least didn't lose against such armies e.g vietnam, Afghanistan etc which makes it even more humiliating for the countries of the stronger force )
Anyone who says that the World today is more violent that the past is a total ignorant. We are living in the most peaceful time in history and we must be thankful for that.
@@esonstudios1559 chimps have been around for 5 million years earliest fossil of modern man is 200,000 years old therfore warfare existed before humans in there current form were around
@ESON Studios: Actually, you are wrong. On a technicality, if you like. Historic time concerns itself with the part of human history from where we have written sources. Consequently, the time you refer to is PRE-historic and is not contradictory to the OP statement.
Man .. imagining any one of these battles happening is insane . It's so intense how up close and personal they are . Hand to hand combat throughout the entire battle. Those who walk away after the battles over must feel so proud of himself .
The fact that I had had survived sure wold make me feel like one. BUT knowing that you've left your friends and cohorts DIE before your eyes - not sure how I go on...
Hmmm, idk proud maybe but severely traumatized. Honestly, with those staggering numbers of dead on the battlefield. Imagine a whole stadium of people lying butchered and slain in a pool of blood.... don't know how someone could walk out of that untraumatized
@@rickdewaal178 civilization around these times were very much accustomed to death and battle. Really wouldn’t be that much of a horror. Especially when you take religion with it. All they would hope for is retrieving the bodies so they could make the proper offer
Stalingrad was probably the most BRUTAL battle in history: extreme cold, extreme hunger, short of medications, short of food, over 1 million dead, countless more injured. Absolutely the worst combination of terrible conditions imaginable.
Better than Changsha, the city on the other side of Yangtze river, the whole city was burnt down in 1938 because of some foolish mistakes whilst 3 battles would be fought on the ruins of the city.
19,000 commonwealth soldiers killed on the first day .If you were not killed on the somme you were either maimed by artillery , disabled for life, or dismembered. If we are talking about casualties on the first day the number is around 58,000. The somme battlefield was not even that big.
Btw, the absence of most "big battles" that are mentioned below (Stalingrad, Passchendale, Verdun) aren't listed for two reasons: 1. They're well known; 2. They're not battles, they're campaigns consisting of multiple battles.
As we are approaching 11.11.2018, it should be remembered that the first day of the Battle of the Somme was the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army and one of the most infamous days of World War One. I won't quote numbers because it is a "well known" battle, but suffice it to say only 3 square miles of territory were gained. Man's inhumanity to man crystallised in cemeteries of crosses...… and for what?
Brad B It was a siege, it was a battle, it was a siege that was a battle. Two millions casualties are two million casualties and one million deaths are 1,000,000 deaths. The commanders of both sides followed the orders of Stalin and Hitler to not retreat. Oh, the humanity!
Actually, it wasn't. The largest, but less known tank battle happened on June 23, 1941 near Dubno. The overall scale of battle was much smaller than at Kursk, and almost all tanks involved were light ones, but technically it still had more tanks than the battle of Prokhorovka.
@@epicgamer197 Well, let's see. For starters, there was no such thing as Kursk tank battle. What is often referred to as Kursk battle was a series of military operations in the general area of Kursk Bulge that lasted for almost two months and consisted of dozens - if not hundreds - of actual battles. What people usually mean when talking about Kursk tank battle is the battle of Prokhorovka, which is, in fact, one of the largest tank battles in history - with around 1200-1500 tanks involved. However, the battle of Dubno involved approximately 3800 tanks, and as far as i know, that's more then 1500.
The Battle of Alesia deserves honorable mention. While you use the term Casualties as a measure, that usually mean dead and wounded. At Alesia the dead alone range between 80k and 100k, plus another 40k Gaul prisoners who were turned into slaves for the Roman soldiers. Maybe it shouldnt replace one of these, but it's not much past 10
Cannae is very well known, though. One of the most famous battles in history, in fact. The video, however, is about the lesser known of history's bloodiest battles.
@@ALRIGHTYTHEN. Hell no? Battle of Somme is one of the most well known battles in history. If you dont know about it you are just plain stupid. Same with battle of Leipzig, if you have heard about Waterloo you shouldve heard about Leipzig too
Nicely done, my lad. While someone could endlessly quibble about numbers, I admire what you have done as you include aspects of time compression and intensity. It is one thing to lose 700,000 in a six-month siege. It is another thing altogether to lose 70,000 in a single day.
I can't even imagine what seeing a hundred thousand men injured or dead littered on a battlefield. The screams and the smell must be horrendous. It would take days if not weeks to recover people and account the missing.
@@Henry09 mongols used horses as war companions. That being said, its not really sad for a horse to die in battle, more likely considered as honorable.
did you just say days or weeks for the men to recover lol that s**** could take 5 years to heal, amputation cleaning up the area extra and you would not possibly even imagine what it was like and you have no idea of what you are probably even talking about of some of the battles in this vid not including all the other ones that he did not cover like the Somme and Verdun so think twice about what you are going to say bc this is not a saying this is HISTORY.
MLT Artist “You would not possibly even imagine what it was like” to read your comment and “you have no idea what you are talking about” when it comes to your English skills. He said it would take weeks to recover (this means find since you are struggling) all of the dead bodies.
It's quite incredible that such wars were fought for 1000s of years of human history. This is our heritage. Humans have been fighting, killing and dying by the sword since antiquity.
@@thenorthstarsamurai yeah totally agree. Honestly, with those staggering numbers of dead on the battlefield. Imagine a whole stadium of people lying butchered and slain in a pool of blood.... don't know how someone could walk out of that untraumatised.
@@alishams2128 Nobody asked a man when creating an universe, nor will our fate change in the future. If such a peaceful world was possible, I wouldnt wanna live there. If you dont know your history and the blood that has been shed for the freedom of your country, then what's the point in continuing living. What i'm talkin bout is, you must know who you are. And I'm Georgian.
@@alishams2128 patriotism and racism isnt the same, and doesnt have to be. While pacifism is good, humans will never get along the way they want. Yes it would mean a total development in every aspect. But that development is whatwe must fear of.
Combined with Verdon, It basically destroyed any chance Germany to mount any serous offensive campaigns for the rest of the war. But it was near catastrophic for the British too, they lost between 56 to 59 thousand men day alone of a several months long attack. Even today, most casualties in a single day in British military history!!
Yes them battles were very bloody but they are well known about by everyone with a little bit of general knowledge. However, this video says ‘battles you may not have heard of’.
This was more of a prolonged siege of the city and NOT a single battle on the battlefield like everyone thinks. The battle was damn near a half a year long and most of the losses was due to disease and soldiers freezing to death from sitting around not doing anything at all.
I know it’s not a singular battle but the Russian Brusilov Offensive in WW1 is devastating to think about with up to 2.3 million casualties! Especially the Battle of Mausurian lakes and Tannenberg
Ww1 litteraly had all the worst battles in history, you were more likely to die at the battle of the somme than the battle of stalingrad, you had men travelling at walking pace across an open rolling field, about to get mowed down by maxim machine guns, it does bot get worse than that.
I would have included some of the bloodiest battles of WW1 including the Somme (1 million casualties), Verdun (700,000) and the 5 battles at Ypres (1 million+). There were also bigger battles and greater casualties. I tried to follow my grandads steps fighting at Ypres, the Somme and other awful battles. Don't know how he survived but I'm here to prove he did get through it.
Top 10 battles in history:- Apple vs Samsung Nike vs Adidas Xbox vs Playstation Coke vs Pepsi Lamborghini vs Ferrari Cat vs Dog Karens vs Kyle Pewds vs T-Series Change my mind
Let's face it: WWII is in general over-represented as wars go. I'd say, though, the Siege of Leningrad is fairly little known considering how bloody and long it was. Then again, Narva's there: part of the same front, and greater operation. Borodino, though. Gwynne Dyer mentioned somewhere, IIRC, that the battle was as bloody as crashing passanger jets filled with people to the ground every minute for some eight hours. Picture that-- I'm surprised Russia isn't far greater an agricultural powerhouse, 'cause her fields know human blood so well. Maybe 'grape juice' doesn't make the grass grow green, after all.
i find it funny how historians are so incredulous towards ancient numbers of ancient greek and roman sources yet they just accept chinese sources numbers at face value.
It is because unlike ancient greeks and even romans, chinese tended to have very detailed records of pretty much everything. Sometimes an overcomplicated bureaucratic apparatus can be usefull, it seems.
@Mr HushHush the huge numbers make sense because even at 4th century BC, Chinese population that lived above the Yangtze river alone can reach more than 50 million. Thats before Roman Empire reaches its greatest extent
Roman and Greek sources like to inflate the enemy troop numbers to make it seem like they were braver than they already were. Defending against 50,000 men when you have 7,000 sounds scary, but what if you say there were a million instead of 50,000? Then it sounds like your 7,000 men are literal gods of war
In October 331 BC Alexander won with 50.000 men at Gaugamela/Persia against a 4 times larger Persian army under Dareios. Most of the Persians died.... Btw: Alexander never lost a Battle
20 times actually but this does not mean that it was a bloody battle. Alexander attached to the center and made Darious collapse and hence Persian army, just because he estimated that in a battle of wear it would be impossible to win
philippekogler The majority of the Persian army survived the battle. Were it not for their coward king the Persians would have won the battle and possibly the war.
The odds are that the number of men given to us by Plutarch and Arian are exaggerated since they were very bias. this is due to the fact that Rome idolised Alexander the Great and both authors were writing for a Roman ordinance. Also, even though Alexander never lost a battle, he did almost loss his last were he was injured and Bucephalus killed. This lead to a second mutiny at Hindus valley by his army meaning his campaign into India had to stop.
In both 2 battles against persians Alexander just won the battle by forcing Darius for a retreat. And his army of slaves which were not willing to fight, left the battlefield immediately. So most of the persians did not die. And Most of the army was not including persians.
philippekogler actually that is false he did technically lose one battle but the next day he decisevly crushed the enemy force that had ambushed his soldiers in a mountain pass and forces him to retreat the day prior. So technically he did lose one battle but it's all up to consideration.
Well, there were three Georgians generals were involved in these battles mentioned here - King David IV in the Didgori Battle. Stalin in the Kursk Battle, and Peter Bagrationi, who led Russian forces in the Borodino battle and was killed. There is a story that Napoleon said, Russian did not have any generals but Bagrationi.
Common ancestor of mosquitos and humans lived 550 million years ago. One of that ancestors children became humans and the other mosquitos. Don't kill your cousins please.
The horrors of Stalingrad was by far the worst battle fought up to this point of time in history. The battle of the Korsun pocket was another major battle overlooked on this list. 20,000 Germans lost in just a few hours attempting to break out of the Russian encirclement. The cruel, brutal savagery of warfare fought on the Eastern Front is overlooked and forgotten to history.
Charlie Copp it's not forgotten. The entire world owes russia a debt we can never pay back. It's thanks to the russians that we all dont speak german now
bmwoscar91 No denying that the Russians bore the brunt of the German war machine. The Allies provided crucial Intel and supplies to the Russians though on many occasions which is why they won the tide turning battle of Kursk and other engagements that could have affected the outcome on the Eastern Front and the entire war.
7:25 for all my anime/manga fans, If you’ve ever read or watched Kingdom, the Battle of Changping is the historical reference for the Battle of Chouhei in the story. It is actually only seen in a flashback as the events of the story take place after, but it is depicted as a one sided massacre from the Qin against the Zhao, in which certain characters who appears as enemies of the main cast (Mangoku) form a deep hatred for Qin. If you like manga and history, I suggest you give it a read.
You missed the great war in RU-vid comment sections of Indo-Pak cricket matches!! Millions of keyboard warriors died and millions still fighting everyday
What about the Somme/Verdun battle in 1916? Or the battles of Stalingrad, the Bulge or Siege of Leningrad? Just wondering what criteria you are using. Keep up the fine work.
I've heard of a majority of them, but the battles of WWI & WWII were colossal in comparison. It might be "combatants only" as the criteria. For civilian deaths outnumbered military deaths in WWII. Either way, great stuff.
Big does not equal bloody. 80,000 people dying in one day in a battle that took place over a few square miles is so much bloodier than anything in the 20th century. Battles like verdun and the somme and stalingrad had huge numbers of men in the battle, only a fraction were actually killed and it also took months.
+MoMoneyMoBuckets what about the battle of Okinawa that battle caused over 200,000 casualties and it was spot on a tiny speck of land barely even visible on a world map. And that's just the military casualties. America: 75,000 casualties Japan: 110,00 casualties With at least just as many civilian casualties
Chase Peterson But still there are plenty of battles that were worse. Think about it. In ancient times there were no rules, no matter what happened no one was going argue that what they do is wrong or immoral. Life was just not a valued commodity back then, it was a more dangerous world and people lived shorter more violent lives. Because of that that kind of attitude was carried into the battlefield, men would be slaughtered with no remorse because it was simply a more violent world.
Thanks for mentioning a battle of Didgori, one of the most important wars in our long history. Surrounded by huge countries and empires we were about always outnumbered by enemies and there were too few times of peace. But god rewarded us the gift of martial art, dignity and love of freedom. So, we were always fighting. Most difficult times were after 15-th century, when Georgia became surrounded by Muslim countries forcing us to get Islam. But we were too hard nut to crack. We are still independent and Christian. Thanks a lot to my ancestors for that. God bless all freedom-loving peoples!!!
Carlo Gracci It was not. Its source was a history of anymocity between european peoples. It was definitely not a civil war, but one fueled by Nationalism.
Yes, and the weapons used in that battle were also the most primitive. It was not machineguns, but Vaccine-guns which caused the person pulling the trigger to get a self-inflicted wound.
Fun fact: During the battle of Didgori, the king of Georgia David IV ignited bonfires in the forest and the enemy thought there were camps of georgians.
Making fake military camps with camp fires was an extremely common deceptive tactic since the roman times. Not just unique to that Georgian battle. Even George Washington did that during the Revolutionary War. Washington made camp fires outside of New York to convince the British and Hessians he was still there and going to attack them soon, while his army marched down south to York Town to start a seige. Napoleon, Alexander the Great, King Charles of Sweden, the Ottomans, and generals in America's civil war made fake camps with bonfires during wartime. That trick goes back to very ancient times, even before the Jesus era. Not to put down your comment or be disrespectful, but it appears you thought deceiving the enemy with a fake camp was something special or unique to that Georgian battle.
Ryan Rocks out of these only Stalingrad and Verdun is really bloody with more than 1 million casualties each, but the battle of verdun lasted almost a year, stalingrad also like 4 months, so if you take it down to a single day, 70k of borodino is much higher. And if you want to see "d day" on this list i must laugh at you, you must be an american fucker who watched too much saving private ryan rhe biggest ww2 propaganda ever. During the whole ww2 (including eu, pacific and africa) the usa lost only 400k people, thats less than a few of these single battles in this video combined. My country, Hungary lost more than 100k in the battle of Budapest which was called the second stalingrad but nobody knows about it because only the "heroic" america matters.
Márton Erdei Here's were you fucked up pal. First of all in what way did I hint to where I only meant American lives? I was referring to axis and allied sides. The Americans suffered huge casualties during the first few days because they were fresh troops. The Germans lost life to,but definitely not on the same scale. The British were also there. Lastly are you fucking stupid? The battle of the Somme was an extremely bloody battles. On the same scale as Verdun. Do your research instead of being a piece of shit that hates when an American talks about WW2. I've done my research so sorry to disappoint you. Also hungary wasn't shit after the austro-hungarian empire.
Rolf Steiner To be fair those new forces weren't battle hardened troops,and they had to launch an amphibious assault to a highly fortified beach. I think that equals it out.
1121 Battle Of Didgori - Most Underrated Battle Ever. At That Time Kingdom Of Georgia Had Enough Power To Help Crusaders With Liberating Jerusalem From Muslims.
You've got about 6 or 7 things in your sentence that an idiot might do. It's you're (you are), you got there where you want their and you are missing periods and commas. Conclusion - you seem to be the real fucking idiot around here.
Perhaps not mentioned because it is almost too well known, The Battle of the Somme with 1.1 to 1.2 million casualties was certainly one of the highest casualty battles in history demonstrating the power of modern weapons and the end to outdated open field advance tactics. Some say it was the first truly modern battle.
I don’t think people understand that this channel focuses mainly on LESSER KNOWN battles and events so you’re probably not gonna see Gettysburg, Stalingrad or any other well known/documented battles
Francisco Thundergun but if you see a list on deadliest battles: A FACT BASED LIST then these battles, which do have some of the highest death counts, should be included
Col it- Not true. I am British, I stayed there and a distant ancestor of mine, Lt Charles E. Hazlett was one of the Union casualties at Little Round Top. Gettysburg has a very strong resonance with me. Outside the Western Hemisphere, it does not compare to the scale of Stalingrad or Wuhan but it is very important as the turning point of the American Civil War and therefore the history of the world's only current superpower.
The bloodiest day in American history, the Battle of Antietam had close to 50,000 casualties in one day I believe. I honestly can’t imagine the sheer scale of some of these battles.
Numbers in the First and (especially) Second Punic Wars were also staggering! Especially Cannae. I know that the 80k KIA number for Cannae is probably over inflated, but IF it is actually accurate it would put it at the deadliest single day in military history. I don't think it was quite that high, but Hannibal did soundly defeat and kill the better part of TWO massive consular armies and a great majority did not escape. Also, good choice of background music! I always love the coda of that one.
Zachary Yemets the battle of vienna is where the league fought against the the ottomans and the hussars made to vienna just in time charging down the hill and blah blah blah
You English? Of corse You English. They speak and dont know what speak. You make Hussars in picture when this formation make victory 1:10 enemy and You make film many Ulhans picture Napoleonic War. Ulhans and Lanciers this is Polish Cavalery in Napoleonic War and make Hussars tradition. Lance Uhans destroy english army from battle Fureongilla on Malaga Napoleonic War and many battle. You dont make know history battle and Your film is parody and slogan english stupid in history.
@Javaid Iqbal Shah i am not commenting after watching videos or movies,najib ud dawla spread rumour "islam is in danger" to convince Ahmed shah abdali and other muslim inveders in north to fight against marathas ,he didn't want marathas control over delhi so he did this,not any rajput or sikh helped marathas this is why it was islamic invaders vs marathas
@Javaid Iqbal Shah your beliefs are poor not me,i was talking about battle, not conversion since you changed topic (a great move 😅) i must tell you i dont know is it prohibited or not but they did and it is mentioned in our history literature mainly bakhars do read them if get and btw only muslim thinks the rulers didn't forcefully converted If it was not forced then why did Persian Zoroastrians emigrated to india? Why there are hindu temples below many mosques in india Do you even know how Aurangzeb tourted Chatrapati sambhaji maharaj for not accepting islam? This is why he called" dharmavir" And another thing reason why they did not succeed to convert because many hindu kings stand against them this is why we Maharashtrians respect and worship Chatrapati shivaji maharaj But arguing on this topic against you is worthless ,you will always defend with your baseless claims
Heard of a few of these, and only recently learned of Borodino. Really enjoyed the one about the Georgian CHRISTIAN king's forces defeating the muslims ! ;-) Thanx for the education.
Battle of Cannae during the 2nd Punic war. Hannibal defeated a Roman army, killing over 70,000 men. I think this battle only lasted one day with most of them dying by sword.
Bobby Stevens I was wondering who else would mention this. Hannibal was one of the greatest military minds ever. Successful Pincer Movement sealed the fate of the Romans that day.
And similar tactics to the Greeks against the Persians, fall back allowing the enemy to believe they are winning then outflank, encircle and massacre...
It's only Polybius who gives that figure. Livy, who spoke to a veteran of the war, gives a figure of 48,000 dead and around 19,000 prisoners. Much of the Roman strength came from cities which had been tributaries of Rome, and Hannibal would have liked to enlist those as allies against Rome. Killing their men in a bloodbath would not have been a good idea in such circumstances.
What about the Battle of Kulikovo in 1370, between the Kievan Rus and the Mongol Empire? Estemates say that 200,000 - 400,000 poeple died, and records say that the river ran red with blood for 3 days.
+Emry Albert what is it with people and stalingrad? Modern battles aren't really even battles. Stalingrad lasted months and months, compared to a single day in ancient battles. You need to understand the difference between being large and being a bloody battle. Only a quarter of the men who fought in stalingrad died.... THAT is nothing compared to some of the battles on this list. Modern warfare is very peaceful and civilized compare to ancient wars.
I can think of a couple of other battles like WW1 Verdun or Somme or WW2 Stalingrad but a unique one is the Battle of Tenochtitlan. Date May 26 - August 13 1521 between the Aztec and the Spanish. it was the Battle of Tenochtitlan that was the final, decisive battle that led to the downfall of the Aztec civilization and marked the end of the first phase of the Spanish conquest of Mexico. It was one of the largest victories ever won by a force so small and entailed the capture of a vast amount of riches.
"It was one of the largest victories ever won by a force so small" -> Keep in mind that the about 1000 Spanish also had some other 80,000 allies from other tribes in that battle.
Spanish propaganda again. What the fuck were they in Mexico for to begin with?! Fucking colonialism and theft. Very proud are you defeating a primitive nation?
Leode Siefast Yes. Just like that "primitive" nation that they defeated, which brutally enslaved its neighbouring tribes and used them as cattle for lavish human sacrifice. That primitive nation also was a highly militarized empire, every single male was trained to become a warrior and to capture a prisoner to be sacrificed (those who failed at that task became workers later on then). While that does not excuse the atrocities committed by the Spanish, removing the Aztecs from power in Central America was a move in the right direction. Would you prefer the Aztecs to still be in power today, sacrificing many thousands of people to their gods every year?
I would have included the battle of thermopylae. Up to 70,000 persians vs 7,000 Greeks in what I would call hells hallway. The persians suffered between 20,000 and 50,000 men while the Greeks suffered losing 90% of its army including the king of sparta. It was one of the bloodiest battles the greeks participated in. It also really fucked with the heads of the persians and they lost tons of morale. The persians lost the war and their empire ended up being swallowed by Alexander the great's men less that 100 years later. Old alex never lost a battle.
Loved the video, here is a suggestion: Battle of Anchialos on 20th of August 917, 62,000 Byzantine soldiers led by Leo Phocas vs 60,000 Bulgarian soldiers led by King Simeon I, around 95,000 casualties, it was one of the biggest battles for that time, the Byzantine lost most of their army with only about 2000 being able to escape to a nearby cities and Leo Phocas escaping to Mesembria. After this battle King simeon received the title Simeon the great and expanded the country to its Territorial, Economical, Political and Cultural peak.
Gerelmaa Sergelen mongols had a terrein advantage, the steppes was there main battlefield, they lived the steppes. sometimes the number of troops doesnt matter, the mongols had more discipline than the jin.
Battle of Yarmouk. 120,000 killed between Byzantine empire and Rashidun Caliphate. So many that were more brutal than half of these because it was all hand to hand
A good friend of mine served in an Estonian unit at the Battle of Narva. I worked with a number of Balts. No one hates Russians like Balts (except maybe Hungarians).
BBtG You speak of history yet you know nothing about the greeks dark history & my great Turkic Ottoman empires reign over the middle east & nearly conquering Europe in itself. Civil war? Wannabe Sultan? Erdoğan is the truest leader and isn't scared to speak his mind against any who oppose Turkiye or can kill non combatant civilians like Israel dogs or indoctrinated americunts.
Another horrifically bloody battle was the engagement at Watling Street. The Roman General Paulinus, with his 1 1/2 legions and auxiliaries (about 10,000 men) faced off against Briton Queen Boudica's horde of an estimated 80,000-200,000 warriors and their families. At first, it seemed that Boudica's army had the advantage, as they had the greater numbers and had won some engagements against Roman forces in Britannia. However, thanks to Paulinus' brilliant use of terrain, the well-trained discipline amongst the Roman legions, and the fact that Boudica's victories were won through guerrilla action alone, Queen Boudica mistakenly placed her baggage train in the rear with the wagons interlocked and overconfidently launched her troops in human wave assaults. As such, the Romans were able to massacre Boudica's forces, ending the important revolt.
If you ask the average American about the Battle of Antietam, they will remark with "...?". One of the bloodiest and most tragic loses to the Union during the American Civil War.
This was an interesting presentation, and I appreciate the metric you used, i.e., body count to determine the intensity of each engagement. However, it occurred to me that body count alone doesn’t necessarily capture a battle’s intensity and scope. As an example, there were some extremely intense battles in WWII fought by thousands of US Marines and Japanese Imperial troops over tiny atolls. So, the missing metric that can increase the deadliness of the engagement is deaths/square meter. It would be interesting to see what that aspect yields. Thanks 😊🧐
American Civil War.... Battle of Gettysburg.....The Union and Confederate Armies suffered between 46,000 and 51,000. casualties. Combined Armies where 175,000 men. That is between 26% to 29% combined dead, 2x for wounded.
le polonais: Hussaria (Winged Hussards) - cheval moyen blindé avec de longues copies de la période (1500-1700) utilisé pour capturer un autre cavalerie, et de briser les formations ennemies Husarzy (Huzard) - cavalerie légère armés de sabres et d'armes à feu. Lansjerzy (Lancers) - cavalerie légère armés de lances de l'époque napoléonienne et plus tard google tranlator
The Battle of Towton was not mentioned. It was the bloodiest battle that ever took place on English soil during the War of the Roses in 1461. Until 1996 historians thought that the casualty figures were exagerated until huge mass graves were uncovered near the site. It took place at night in virtual pitch darkness in a driving winter snow storm. Arrows were just appearing out of the icey blackness and everyone was just lashing out blindly. The river ran red with blood for three days.
Open a German-English dictionary or google translate and paste Königstiger - the translation will be Bengal Tiger... Even Wikipedia knows this: "It is also known under the informal name Königstiger[6] (the German name for the Bengal tiger), often translated literally as Royal Tiger, or somewhat incorrectly as King Tiger by Allied soldiers, especially by American forces"
Mr. Blueberry, I'm glad that you and I concur that the battle of Stalingrad should have definitely been on this list. Any military historian would have certainly agreed with us both.
I am sure that at least 50% of these were pretty well known for example leipzig and kursk where some of the most important battles of history na dalso borodino and mukden should be well known names
