Top 12 Largest Armies Ever Seen In History

Support the channel by becoming a member and get exclusive features:
/ @build.betteryou
Intro: 00:00
Army of Ramses: 00:47
Army of Cyrus The Great: 1:16
Army of Mauryan Empire: 1:43
Army of Roman Empire: 2:14
Army of Tang Dynasty: 2:50
Army of Genghis Khan: 3:24
Army of Ming Dynasty: 4:14
Army of Napoleon: 4:34
Army of German Empire: 5:14
Army of Soviet Union: 5:29
Army of Third Reich: 6:08
Army of US: 6:36

[@UnicornLyndseyS]

Germany’s armed forces weren’t at their peak in 44, they were devastated and running out of manpower by then.. not an accurate video for sure

[@kirkspinelli3815]

lol them liking this comment says it all

[@rokker333]

the Wehrmacht indeed hat the most personnel in 1943 and 1944 (about the same size in both years).

[@gmoritz71last52]

These should be ranked in relation to population size. Relatively-speaking, the US in 1945 wasn't even breathing hard.

[@Worldcitizen7777]

Biggest ancient army :- Gupta army 2,000,000 million soldiers Biggest medival army :- Chola empire 2,000,000 soldiers Biggesr modern era army :- N@zi German 12,000,000 soldiers

[@build.betteryou]

do you think its really possible for ancient armies to have the same number of soldiers (2 mil) as the medieval army? I think not

[@Staxx0]

The Germans had 14 million over the course of the whole war. The us at one point had 12.1 million soldiers serving at the same time.

[@blueworld9706]

​@@build.betteryouprobably 1million

[@Worldcitizen7777]

​@@build.betteryouGupta empire's population was larger than Chola so maybe it can have

[@Chris-ty7fw]

Think you missed the British/Empire army ... Looking it up .. "The largest size the British Army reached in its history was during World War II. At its peak in 1945, the British Army numbered about 2.9 million personnel. This immense size was due to the massive mobilization required to fight in multiple theatres of war across Europe, Africa, and Asia. This figure includes regular army units, territorial units, and other auxiliary forces that were raised for the war effort."

[@build.betteryou]

That is true, but have you seen the sheer size of us and nazi armies during ww2? That is why Brits didnt get their spot in the video

[@virgilius7036]

The size of these armies is exaggerated. Ramses II did not have 100,000 men and Cyrus even fewer 500,000!

[@obiwanfx]

The roman army had nowhere near 500K soldiers in the first century. Augustus even made a point out of it to restricting the amount of legions to the minimum for the simple reason that a standing army costs tons of money. Augustus himself also witnessed the immense pension problems ceasar had with his vets. Romans preffered quality over quantity pretty much untill the third century crisis. While ofcourse the number changed over a 100 years depending on the amount of direct threats the empire had, it usually varied between 24 and 32. +/- 5K a legion means more like 150k. You can add auxilaries but you wouldn't reach more than 250k. Hence why He and Tiberius shit such massive bricks after teutoberg forrest. Losing over 10% off your entire army in a day . Also puts into perspective how pissed off Hadrianus was with the jews to land in judea with 50K+

[@build.betteryou]

Its pretty possible that they had 500k, considering the empires population plus merceneries

[@obiwanfx]

@@build.betteryou I just explained to you why they didn’t. It’s documented

[@wouldiwas8520]

Han Dynasty also had a large and powerful army that defeated the Huns.

[@paulhomsy2751]

Interesting videos but one zero can be deducted from each army's number of men. There were no 100 thousands men armies in Egypt at the time of Ramses and the Persians didn't have an army of half a million. These are dreamed up numbers.

[@build.betteryou]

Modern historians believe that those numbers could be right, but we can take that with a grain of salt

[@leeedsonetwo]

Most of these estimates of armies are vastly exaggerated.

[@svante1994]

There is just one problem. In medieval times, likely also ancient times, people had a different relationship to numbers. So often they would note that the armies were bigger to better convey the grandeur and conceived strength of them… Take this from a professional archaeologist with an expertise in castle warfare who has this specific information from Denmark’s leading historian on this matter.

[@build.betteryou]

That is true, but most modern historians disagreed with ancient sources talking about the army size and suggested a more realistic numbers

[@MasterZelda44]

Just getting my feet wet in storytelling and video experimentation, you know? VideoGPT quietly slipped into my workflow, adding that sophisticated touch to my content.

[@ericwong4213]

Genghis Khan once face to face with Jurchen Empire in single battlefield, stretching over than 750,000 army. It was the ocean of armies that even Genghis Khan amazed. Meanwhile Mongol army he led was not even a third of that amount. The battle won easily by Mongol as Jurchen commander never once set foot on battlefield before and was appointed due to corruptions.

[@doomie21]

Like Russia and Ukrain these days. Russia suffers big losses because of corruption.

[@abubakaromer5860]

the one guys army who built the wall to prevent giants from roaming the earth and massacring humans gets no credit?

[@build.betteryou]

Skill issue

[@rrgale55]

I am legitimately surprised that the US took #1. Wow!!

[@frankgesuele6298]

The Arsenal of Democracy⚔

[@seejur]

Not that surprising: The human population has BOOMED after the invention of modern medicine, and after WW2, there is no need of large armies (inbefore WW3 happens)

[@Kimoboy69]

Of course. They bought their position

[@RobertClolery]

How many were fighters and how many were cooks. drivers or clerk typists.

[@gengis737]

Logistic was crude until 19th, ancient and medieval armies had an unorganized crowd of followers for menial tasks, that could amount to a third of the number with little fighting capacity, but could dwindle to nearly nothing when food went low.

[@graceskerp7679]

General John Pershing, "Infantry wins battles; logistic wins wars." If the combat troops don't have their bombs, bullets, beans, blankets and bandages, how can they do the job? Oh yeah, a quote by my late husband, munitions maintenance tech and Nam vet, "They haven't made the bomb or bullet that stops in mid-flight because a non-combatant is in the way."

[@freethinker7187]

Inaccurate. Qin army in 221BC is estimated to be 1million. 600K were committed against Chu.

[@zaskiaalsakila7248]

Forgot the big one... The armies in Koei Tecmo Musou games haha... Those are indeed very large.

[@goblues4769]

He pronounced Genghis name wrong.

[@johnmorales7057]

Ahh it’s all about symmetry you could say .

[@user-gf9ui1wp1k]

Humanity May God Bless .!!! No more wars.!!!

[@build.betteryou]

sadly, the world can't exist without wars

[@tommske]

@@build.betteryou bella, horrida bella

[@build.betteryou]

Did I forget any large army from history? Tell me in the comments

[@gengis737]

I guess that Osmanli, Moghul and Qing armies (Manchu empire) should be checked.

[@mattnewman8103]

British empire had over 3.5 million troops at end of WWII

[@obiwanfx]

rather overestimated the size of the roman standing army quite a bit tho

[@gengis737]

@@mattnewman8103 Compared to contemporary Soviet, German and US armies it did not qualify as one of the largest armies.

[@mrtrek64]

You did a good job on this video. Regardless of all the phd's in world history we have in our company. I've come to learn that history is now dependent on the source material a person reads and what they want to believe. It's sad but true.

[@TonyNoBoloni65]

I thought the Ottoman Empire's military was one of the largest and most powerful in the world.

[@build.betteryou]

You would be right with most powerful, but not the largest

[@Gyneco-Phobia]

The Ottoman "Empire" the only reason they captured Constantinople was because the crusaders ransacked the city twice. For another 200 years they couldn't even invade Crete. They had no idea by sea-affairs or actual military strategy. That's the reason Turks themselves became second class citizens in their own empire. Greeks commanded the Fleet, Greeks were the most educated and yet, Greeks didn't ever submit to the Turks or converted to Islam. Talk about legendary bravery. Worthy successors of their forefathers, the Ancient and Byzantine Greeks. All the while they eventually managed to liberate their country and the constant fighting with the Turks during the "Empire". Greeks were far too smart, playing double game until the right moment arrived.

[@Sirius-Voyager]

15th and 16th centuries Yes.

[@Sirius-Voyager]

@@Gyneco-PhobiaIndeed,Greek soldiers with skirt has been always scary in battleground.

[@user-yx1yu6gl6s]

Long Live Persia ❤

[@Wolfen443]

Imagine them going at it all together in one battlefield at least the more ancient ones before the Napoleon era and one scenario with Napoleon era featuring all the French troops and ally's vs their rival European combined forces. If Putin had 10 million troops and equipment at the ready the Ukraine War could be over in a week. So, the 3 largest ones did see action against each other in WWI in part at least. If there was no pacific theater all these U.S. troops in Europe could have been a factor in the war even more. 36,000,000 million in one continent could be horrendous casualties wise.

[@lemsdarkapprentice2535]

if there was no Pacific theatre, the USA would not have become involved in WW2 at all, though: The USA only got involved with the European side of things because the Japanese had signed an alliance with Hitler a few days beforehand. Also, the Germans didn't know about the planned attack on Pearl Harbour (otherwise they almost certainly would not have signed it). [el'sda2].

[@Wolfen443]

@@lemsdarkapprentice2535 , many alternative scenarios feature the U.S. staying neutral or even joining the Axis powers if there is no Pacific war.

[@tango6nf477]

@@lemsdarkapprentice2535 The Tripartite Pact was an agreement between Germany, Italy, and Japan and it was actually signed in Berlin on 27 September 1940

[@janefelix3821]

@@lemsdarkapprentice2535 The USA got involved in the European theater because Hitler declared war against the United States on December 11, 1941, so the United States reciprocated.

[@user-tq7ks2xu1c]

WWII USA had 14 million men and women in arms obviously not all combative but women played a huge part in the air core moving planes to arraas and what not

[@richardh615]

Hum ? Did you count them? Or was it a guess? Just like most historical writers ? All we know is some battles are a lot bigger than those in other battles,? What did these numbers feed on?

[@Kimoboy69]

German army had three million soldiers when they invaded Russia

[@rokker333]

Only the invasion force was about 3,7 million including auxiliary troops. But the Wehrmacht was bigger. It had troops in Western Europe, Balkans, Greece, North Africa. And it had the Navy as well.

[@Kimoboy69]

@@rokker333 my mistake. Thank you for correcting this

[@ShadowKage123]

I don't know where the hell I heard this but, I heard Roman empire deployed 2 million soldier to fight the persian empire

[@harryedwards9318]

The population of Great Britain estimated to be 70 million ish . Far too many for a tiny place .

[@build.betteryou]

Britain is huge

[@Yajna007]

2:04 On that map,, why is there a *second* Gedrosia in the present--day western Madhya Pradhēśh and southern Rājasthān region?? You have correctly shown the *first* Gedrosia in Balōchistān region. Baluchistān was of course within undivided India till 1947 (until the creation of Pākistān). But. Why have you depicted another Gedrosia?? Why is there a *second* Gedrosia on your map {somewhere to the North West of present--day Indian province of Madhya Pradhēśh and somewhere along Southern Rājasthān}??

[@StarRider253]

Yay for more AI content

[@build.betteryou]

Thanks for your comment, what did you think about the video?

[@Wildo1125]

Where is the British Empire?

[@gengis737]

Even including the East Indian Company forces, British forces were always way smaller than their opponent's, but managed to involve allies with greater human resources, and staid immune thanks to its superior navy.

[@build.betteryou]

Not the largest

[@Wildo1125]

Thank you

[@rogerjamespaul5528]

The Brits were very good at intimidation, as exemplified during their occupation of India.

[@TheSuperhoden]

I don't think you do history.

[@build.betteryou]

Why?

[@ArianAdamMousavi]

Soviet union lost more 28 million Russian soldiers in WW2 this video is completely inaccurate

[@birgidvandercruyssen2414]

Civilian deaths:

[@gengis737]

Please don't mix history with Bilble's religious views, that arm Middle East so deeply.

[@build.betteryou]

Every fairy tale has some truth in it

[@steventhibert9531]

Oh so nothing before Rome grow up

[@gengis737]

@@steventhibert9531 I did not say that. Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Persia, Hellenic empires are historic. But no Pharaoh was drown pursuing the Hebrew tribe across red Sea. Or Egyptians, who were much better at writing, would have registered this.

[@robertolafrancesca3406]

What do you mean Fairy tail? you know this comment could be seen offensive

[@davidtherwhanger6795]

@@gengis737 Dude. We have a super nova that was visible over a thousand years ago in the night sky. Yet only one report for one observatory out of dozens in India alone survived to modern times. Nothing from the other great astronomer groups at the time mention it at all. But modern science has confirmed it was there by looking at that account and checking that part of the sky finding the remains of a super nova. Records get lost, decay, or are destroyed. So stop with the false narrative that all records from ancient times did survive for us to read.