Talk:Battle of Mukden

Casualties

So, which were the real Russian casaulties? 25 000 or 40 000 dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.120.144 (talk • contribs)

Casualties is 8705 dead 51300 wounded 29330 pows 89000 total

Images

Isn't there a way to make the text appear alongside the graphics instead of above and below them creating so much white space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.125.24 (talk • contribs)

Yes, there is, expanding it. I tagged it. Aaрон Кинни (t) 09:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Largest Land Battle?

"Mukden would be the largest land battle ever fought, up to WWI."

According to all statistics I've seen Leipzig in 1813 was larger. The statistics for it on this site give a figure of 191,000 French troops and 330,000 Allied troops - 521,000 all told. Stephen Pope's Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars cites initial French forces of 177,000 with 14,000 reinforcements - supporting the 191,000 figure on Wikipedia. Pope suggests the Allied forces in the area of Leipzig amounted to 240,000 under Schwarzenberg, 54,000 under Blucher and 80,000 under Bernadotte for a grand total of 374,000 Allied troops. This gives a total of 565,000 troops at Leipzig. Either way it was a significantly larger than Mukden, which the figures cited here indicate involved 498,300 men. Also given the total numbers in armies involved in the Taiping Rebellion in the 1850s and 60s it seems likely that there may well have been a larger battle during that war, though accurate statistics are difficult to obtain. At any rate, I shall remove the above line and if anyone finds statistics that contradicts the ones cited in the article for the numbers in this battle, then please restore the line in question, though provide a citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.184.103 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

With the current (as of this writing) numbers of a total of 860,000 total. I don't know if would 're'-qualify for that distinction of largest. It would need a citation for sure if its to be said the largest pre-WWI land battle. --Xiahou 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the info in an uncontroversial form. All things considered, it was certainly among the 5 largest, if not among the 2 largest documented. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Battle of Nanking 1864, over 900,000 fought in that battle TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Good article, but woefully inaccurate in some areas

This article is nicely written and generally it's factually correct. I see two inaccuracies, though. First, isn't it known that Russian artillery losses were not too high? I know that contemporary media reports cited Russian losses of 200,000 personnel and over 500 guns. But those reports were quickly exposed as exaggerations. The second inaccuracy concerns the Russian positions following the battle. I'm fairly certain that General Linevitch took up new positions near Harbin. His army didn't actually evacuate Manchuria, as the article claims. Also, even though the Russian army was clearly defeated at Mukden, it didn't suffer a decisive reversal, and it was not rendered incapable of continuing the campaign. The Russian army was still formidably entrenched in northern Manchuria following the Mukden reversal. That military reality explains why the Japanese diplomats were not able to get the concessions that they expected from Russia during the Peace of Portsmouth negotiations.

It was not the largest battle fought before WW1

In 1864, third Battle of Nanking, had around 900,000 combatants TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)