>Taking a historical perspective, there have been wars fought in earth's
>past that the battle field held forces numbering 120,000 soldiers.
>this is quite large and excessive, it can also represent the battle
>place in multiple areas within the same battle zone.
>During the American Civil war for instance, I believe the Battle of
>Gettysburg/Monasis, (part 1) the Union forces numbered close to 70,000
>soldiers while the confederates held a number close to 40,000.
>Large battles to happen but the battlefield then usually encompasses
>of terrain, not a hypothetical "arena" where the armies are supposed to

Those battles took place in a time when transportation, rail, was
avaible to move huge amounts of troops to the battle fields. For a
perspective on medieval battles check out the English-French Hundred
Years war. And most of the time the armies worked their way towards
each other until they made contact and then met at the nearest place
they felt was 'good ground'. This was true even in the time of the
Civil War.

Just my 2 ep's,

__________________________________________________ ____
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com