Hi again,

Which battle from the middle-ages do you think was the largest, in terms of the number of combatants involved.

1) Anywhere?
2) In Europe?

(Note: I'm not asking about a full campaign, just about a particular battle... and I'm not restricting the matter only to battles where knights or any other elite-warriors took part. I also know it's almost impossible to have truly accurate numbers, and some figures will be much more trustworthy than others... but anyway I still would like to hear your opinions)

Thanks a lot for your help.
Diego.

Give us the timeline that you're working with for "medieval"- it will help to narrow things down a bit.

I'd say the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212 (340,000 vs 60,000), depending on which account you read.

Numbers of soldiers involved or biggest important battle ? I could mention a few important one's like Lepanto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571)

Siege of Constantinople: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

Battle of Manzikert: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Battle_of_Manzikert

The number of soldiers involved in Medieval battles is notoriously overestimated by contempories, so one can't really know the truth. Supposedly, there were millions of soldiers involved in the Battle of Grunwald, fought in Poland in 1410 between the Teutonic Knights on one side, and the kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania on the other. The Teutonic Knights lost. I don't believe in Medieval armies with millions of soldiers, but that's what Wikipedia says, and declares Grunwald the biggest Medieval battle.

according to my war and diplomacy class an army of over 50k before the renaissance would have been beyond amazing. Part of the whole argument about the military revolution hinges on troop size. By the time of Louis XIV france had 400,000 men total and that was the biggest army in all of europe. During the 30yrs war Gustavus had like 149K roughly and that was total, in all countries under swedens control. So I would doubt if any medieval battle had more than 100k men in it.

And that is being overcautious.

Hi Roger,

Roger Hooper wrote:

The number of soldiers involved in Medieval battles is notoriously overestimated by contempories, so one can't really know the truth. Supposedly, there were millions of soldiers involved in the Battle of Grunwald, fought in Poland in 1410 between the Teutonic Knights on one side, and the kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania on the other. The Teutonic Knights lost. I don't believe in Medieval armies with millions of soldiers, but that's what Wikipedia says, and declares Grunwald the biggest Medieval battle.

The Wikipedia article for Grunwald does not claim that millions were involved, only that some early chronicles cited such numbers. In fact, the article gives a rundown of various historic numerical claims, along with estimates from modern scholars. It even gives some explanation of the limitations of medieval logistics.

Edit: You just beat me in commenting on your own post!

All the best,

Christian

Now, hold your horses with that XIX century depiction ...Matejko did some historical studies, yet he taken very phantastical approach ... as in say, Wagner.

German-language sources used to put millions on Alliance side to justify defeat and/or show lost greatness. They also claimed "we" were all pagans.

Also mind that due political reasons most descriptions/depictions of the Grunwald battle are skewed (to this day)

Grunwald was biggest horse-only battle, and it was beginning of the end of Teutonic Order. infantry based battle were much, much bigger (or so I think)

For more contemporary depiction see : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjfO9FHr790 :D
(peasant infantry is artistic licence due political reasons) ... and armours made from PCV :P

I re-enter this thread with some trepidation, but I want to say something about Towton, not the largest medieval battle, but considered to be the biggest and bloodiest battle ever fought in Britain.

Contemporaries estimate a total of around 100,000 men for both armies. After some analysis, A. W. Boardman (The Battle of Towton) comes up with the figures of 25,000 for Lancaster and 20,000 for York - still big numbers for medieval armies.

Fought in late March 1461 in Northern England on a snowy field, it was a nightmarish battle fought under very tough conditions. Many of the Lancastrian casualties came at the end of the day when that army fled the field. A lot of them drowned trying to cross the rivers Cock and Wharfe. Typically for any Wars of the Roses battle, any captured high ranking lord was executed on the spot, at Towton, or a few days later at York.

With a few mopping up battles shortly afterward, Towton would have ended the Wars of the Roses with Edward IV firmly in control. Unfortunately Edward alianated the Earl of Warwick so deeply that he turned his coat and revived the fortunes of Lancaster, causing another cycle to battles nearly 10 years later.

I don't have a 19th century propaganda painting to show, but here is a modern one by Graham Turner (not propagandistic)

---

 Attachment: 51.89 KB

Graham Turner

Gibbon thought that the battle of Chalons-sur-Marne in 451 AD involved a full million souls.

I quote from polish language sources, mainly from book by Andrzej Nadolski "Grunwald 1410", published by "Wydawnictwo Bellona, Warszawa 1996", That's second edition, published posthumously . Wiki bio stub on Author
He states forces at 15 000 for Teutonic Order, 30 000 for Alliance, all horse, with about 1:3 ratio of lancers to shot troops, mostly mounted crossbowmen.
On the page 47 he specifically states about Order forces:

Quote:

.Jednakże o działaniach piechoty krzyżackiej na Polach Grunwaldu, w otwartej bitwie, nie wspomina żadne z dobrze poinformowanych źródeł opowiadających nam o przebiegu zdarzeń 15 lipca 1410 r. Wyjątek stanowi krzyża­cka kronika w części zwanej Kontynuacją Possilgego, która opisując mobilizację wojsk zakonnych mówi, że na wyprawę stawili się wszyscy ludzie „razem na koniach i pieszo" Wzmianka ta niczego jednak nie przesądza, bo mobilizacja objęła także niewątpliwie zbrojnych przeznaczonych do wzmocnienia załóg zamkowych, a do tego piechota nadawała się jak najbardziej. "

Which I translate to:

Quote:

However, about actions of Teutonic infantry on Fields of Grunwald, in open battle, there is no mention in any respectable source telling the course of events of 15th of July 1410. Only exception is Teutonic chronicle named Continuation of Possilge[Chronicle], which describing the Order's muster says, that for the excursion there appeared all men "both on horses and on foot" . This mention does not fix anything, because the muster also involved troops needed to strengthen the castles, for which infantry was especially suitable

As for Alliance side, main factors were : the muster type, that precisely called for horse attendance of landlords only for offensive excursion (while two other types called for either city contingents or complete muster of male population capable of bearing arms), [part about place of muster for Alliance troops and distance needed to cover deleted , see 2 posts below] (of course one can argue about horse troops dismounting for battle, but than again- there is no mention of such custom in the time of the battle in this particular region). The "only horse" statement for Alliance troops one can find on page 60 of aforementioned book.

One must have in mind that before the battle both armies manoeuvred for days, it is said that battle was more or less coincidental, when two armies rode in the morning of 15th of July, sentries made contact and battle commenced on the field inbetween the roads. There was no preparation, fortifying, digging pits and other picturesque fantasies proposed by some authors. 4 hours needed for alliance troops to move through forest on their side Order used to pull baggage train in and commence cannonade, just as Alliance troops finished deploying. During this time the skirmishes taken place.

As for using handcannons, as I wrote, there's some speculation on that matter, given that both armies needed to "travel fast and light" and the battle was more or less accidental; this matter is just heresay in circles close to Castle Just a possibility. Dlugosz and other chronicles did mention use of large cannons by the Order that failed to do any damage. Polish side did have siege cannons in baggage train (there were used in sieges later in campaign).

One must remember that, as I stated before, Grunwald Battle is a very political theme, which draws many kind of fringe "historians", many of which take their knowledge from fictionalized book by Henryk Sienkiewicz- "Krzyzacy" (the link in my previous post was to a part of the movie made based on it) Its like writing English/Scottish history basing on Walter Scott's works. I prefer to stick to academic resources, still I'm willing to change my mind if better analysis would emerge. Right now i base on Nadolski's work (I'm architect not professional historian)

Anyway I will gladly continue this discourse, but I feel that this definitely not-the-biggest battle matter is "stealing the show". Maybe it needs separate Topic :)
I would stick with 15k to 26k estimate for Order, Alliance on 30 - 44 k , no more. Or so I think.

EDIT: Oh, and Jan Žižka matter. He was wealthy nobleman and records say that he with fellow Bohemians served in St. George's banner. They were not Taborites at the time (Hussite wars started in 1420 IIRC). Why he would not fight on horse?

Interesting. I admit web is not the best source for that kind of research, books are definitely better... It sounds like much of what most people, including me, regard as history is just a myth. For Jan Zizka, I agree that he with his companions would fight as cavalry if noble, but I thought of him more like a leader of lower - birth mercenaries that would likely fight on foot. A mistake obviously. :)
Thanks for the useful information. I always liked this battle, but never had a good source for exploring it. You know any good book about it in English?