Information is readily available that Stalingrad was the greatest battle in world history, in terms of participants and casualties, which would make it also the greatest battle ever fought in the Northern and Eastern Hemispheres. It is likewise easily accessible that Gettysburg was the greatest battle ever fought in the Western Hemisphere. However the internet seems to be mute on the greatest battle ever fought in the Southern Hemisphere. Admittedly the Southern Hemisphere is sort of a global backwater insofar as major events in world history, but there have been armed conflicts south of the Equator, so there has to be a greatest battle ever fought in the Southern Hemisphere. What was it?
In terms of popular impact, Isandlwana sprang to mind first but according to wiki in Paraguay the First Battle of Tuyuti has it beat casualty wise.
I’d pick the Battle for Guadalcanal.
The battle of Guadalcanal would be my first guess.
ninja’d
What do you mean by “greatest”? Most participants? Most casualties? Most historically significant?
I nominate the Battle of the Coral Sea.
I don’t know if it’s the greatest, but the battle of Cajamarca was historically significant.
One war wiped out virtually the entire male population of Paraguay, I don’t know if that can be subdivided into discrete battles. There was also the Zulu wars.
When one battle was was fought with spears and the other with aircraft carriers, it’s really hard to nail down which one was the “greatest” in terms of any metric…
For land-based battles, The Battle of Cuito Cuanavale is up there - biggest battle in Africa since WWII. Not got the casualty count of that Paraguayan one, but it did have Hot! Tank-On-Tank! Action!™
Yeah, the Guadalcanal campaign beats the other S. American and African battles by quite a bit, casualty wise, and there were both land and naval components.
The New Guinea campaign was pretty big- 1942-1945, and had horrific Japanese casualties, and quite a few Allied ones as well.
The OP is too subjective a question, so–off to IMHO.
samclem, moderator
What was the Boer War like? Fought in South Africa, I think.
Taking the whole Guadalcanal campaign and calling it a battle is cheating IMO. The differences between battles and sieges and so on are a fuzzy semantic issue. Or how something huge like the Battle of Moscow has smaller but still absurdly large battles inside of it, like the Kiev encirclement.
For the Southern Hemisphere, the answer could be a battle from the Inca Civil War which was devastating but not particularly well documented. Maybe The Battle of Quipaipan. Only problem with anything Inca is the huge error bars you have to put around army size and casualty estimates. The Incas were basically the Rome of South America and fielded sizable armies across a system of roads and here the losing side was supposedly obliterated. A potential candidate, at least.
Supposedly ~20K died in the Battle of the Maule. Bring your own salt.
Everything I’ve read about the ten month Siege of Cuzco makes it sound horrible, but I can’t ever find casualty estimates.
I’d think the Second Congo War would have a candidate since millions died (though the higher numbers of ~5 million are disputed), but it’s mostly guerrillas/irregulars/warlords gone wild and the vast majority of the dead are displaced civilians. Rwanda did invade a couple times and I’ve read about battles but never in any detail (mostly about how the Congo forces lose badly and flee). Anyone know more about that? Don’t see much about it in the Western press.
Battle wise, it was a Boer.
How exactly would you propose doing it after about 1900 or so? The “battles” after that point are longer and larger scale than the 1-3 day battles that came before.
I figure if the OP defined Stalingrad as a battle, then Guadalcanal counts as well.
Maybe not the greatest, but I didn’t want the battle of the Graf Spee to be wholly overlooked.
Was Omdurman in the southern hemisphere? I think it’s south of the equator. (Just checked: yeah, way south.)
Omdurman is 15 degrees north of the equator.
Well, I don’t know about the largest, but the punitive Mongol expedition to Java in 1293 may have involved a pretty large engagement. If cited numbers are to be believed, which I don’t necessarily. But they’re not impossible figures based on what we know of Yuan capabilities and Java’s dense population. A situation where a much smaller ( but still very substantial ) Mongol expeditionary force seems to have won an initial victory in the field against a larger but militarily inferior native army, but were unable to take substantive advantage of that victory due to lack of resouces ( men, material ) seems reasonable enough.
I think the Falklands was pretty significant. It ensured the Thatcher government would be returned to power in the next election, which had seemed unlikely, and for better or worse allowed Thatcherism a deeper impact on the UK.
It showed one of the main NATO militaries winning a tidy little war, while the main Warsaw Pact military was dragged through the dust in Afghanistan.
And it discredited the Kissinger/Kirkpatrick doctrine by forcing the US to choose between the UK and a right-wing dictatorship, when the previous sole worldview had been between RW dictatorships and anti-RW factions who, being to the left might as well have been robots from the Kremlin. This spelled the end later for Marcos and Noriega (and Saddam, but then anything can be taken too far).