Fiercest Battle in History

[cisco]

I don't think

there is ONE fiercest ballte. But I think there have been a few making the top 10.

Naval battles in the 17th and 18th century when entering an enemys ship, the melees from 14th to 17th century, with mercenaries stlaughtering each other in close combat (look up the sacking of rome and the fate of the papal swiss guard on the net), Verdun, fighting in the trenches of WWI in general, stalingrad. There are so many, I doubt you will find THE fiercest one.

 

[Panzercracker]

Modern- Staligrade and I would also say Iwo Jima.

Ancient Times- Cannae

Over all- Cannae

Explanation- Friece to me means ocmbat and bloodshed so Cannae, body count and days def Stalingrade.

Cannae was more of a massacre, Iwo Jima was fierce but there's so many bigger ones, Stalingrad definitely.

Rorke's Drift has to be pretty high up by any count though and not to be cliched by Thermopylae takes the cake.

 

[gman992]

For the person fighting it, the battle was he involved with. A soldier only wins by surviving.

 

[richard34]

Hello
The Ottoman Turks' unsuccessful siege of Vienna in 1529 marked the beginning of the long decline of their empire. It also stopped the advance of Islam into central and western Europe, and ensured that the Christian rather than the Muslim religion and culture would dominate the region.
In 1520, Suleiman II had become the tenth sultan of the Ottoman Empire, which reached from the Persian frontier to West Africa and included much of the Balkans. Suleiman had inherited the largest, best-trained army in the world, containing superior elements of infantry, cavalry, engineering, and artillery. At the heart of his army were elite legions of Janissaries, mercenary slaves taken captive as children from Christians and raised as Muslim soldiers. From his capital of Constantinople, the Turkish sultan immediately began making plans to expand his empire even farther.
Suleiman had also inherited a strong navy, which he used with his army to besiege the island fortress of Rhodes, his first conquest. Granting safe passage to the defenders in exchange for their surrender, the Sultan took control of Rhodes and much of the Mediterranean in 1522. This victory demonstrated that Suleiman would honor peace agreements. In following battles where enemies did not surrender peacefully, however, he displayed his displeasure by razing cities, massacring the adult males, and selling the women and children into slavery.

By 1528, Suleiman had neutralized Hungary and placed his own puppet on their throne. All that now stood between the Turks and Western Europe was Austria and its Spanish and French allies. Taking advantage of discord between his enemies, Suleiman made a secret alliance with King Francis I of France. Pope Clement VII in Rome, while not allying directly with the Muslim Sultan, withdrew religious and political support from the Austrians.



link removed

 

[George]

Hello
The Ottoman Turks' unsuccessful siege of Vienna in 1529 marked the beginning of the long decline of their empire. It also stopped the advance of Islam into central and western Europe, and ensured that the Christian rather than the Muslim religion and culture would dominate the region.
In 1520, Suleiman II had become the tenth sultan of the Ottoman Empire, which reached from the Persian frontier to West Africa and included much of the Balkans. Suleiman had inherited the largest, best-trained army in the world, containing superior elements of infantry, cavalry, engineering, and artillery. At the heart of his army were elite legions of Janissaries, mercenary slaves taken captive as children from Christians and raised as Muslim soldiers. From his capital of Constantinople, the Turkish sultan immediately began making plans to expand his empire even farther.
Suleiman had also inherited a strong navy, which he used with his army to besiege the island fortress of Rhodes, his first conquest. Granting safe passage to the defenders in exchange for their surrender, the Sultan took control of Rhodes and much of the Mediterranean in 1522. This victory demonstrated that Suleiman would honor peace agreements. In following battles where enemies did not surrender peacefully, however, he displayed his displeasure by razing cities, massacring the adult males, and selling the women and children into slavery.

By 1528, Suleiman had neutralized Hungary and placed his own puppet on their throne. All that now stood between the Turks and Western Europe was Austria and its Spanish and French allies. Taking advantage of discord between his enemies, Suleiman made a secret alliance with King Francis I of France. Pope Clement VII in Rome, while not allying directly with the Muslim Sultan, withdrew religious and political support from the Austrians.

link removed

And now it's conquest by immigration.

 

[EladBell]

so historyons say that one of the most vicous battles in modern history was the battle of the Israeli-Syrian armor in 1973 at the Golan hightes

 

[captiva303]

these types of questions depend on opinion
but that battle involving the 300 Spartans vs the Persians would have to of been pretty friece...

 

[koalaburger]

One that has impressed me is the siege of Breslau. The germans were under siege for the last month of the war and kept the Russians at bay against overwhelming odds with mostly Hitler Youth.

 

[Riddell10]

I'd have to say Cannae hands down in percentage wise Romans taking a good 90% casualty rate punic taking over 20%, in a single day of pitched battle

 

[Britney]

I would say Stalingrad, it lasted so long and millions where lost as a result. It was rare to give or receive mercy for either side and surrender normally ment a fate worse then death. To top it off drastic supply shortages plagued both armies and with the brutal Russian winter it only made ti worse.

Iwo Jima is a good choice, but i think if Japan didn't surrender it would have easily been a battle for Tokyo.

 

[Yin717]

Well for me it depends on what you mean by fierce. If you mean by deaths then I would have to say the Battles of the First World War and Stalingrad. If you mean by fighting then the battle for Berlin was a pretty fierce battle. I can never remember how long that lasted though.

 

[Guaporense]

Interesting link:

The Bloodiest Battles of the 20th century

Ranking:

1- Siege of Leningrad (Eastern front, WW2) - 850.000
2- Stalingrad (Eastern front, WW2) - 750.000
3- Moscow (Eastern front, WW2) (Barbarossa) - 719.000
4- Kiev (Eastern front, WW2) (Barbarossa) - 678.000
5- 1st Smolensk (Eastern front, WW2) (Barbarossa) - 535.000
6- Voronezh-Voroshilovgrad (Eastern front, WW2) - only the Russian KIA is 370.000
7- 1st Bielorussia (Eastern front, WW2) (Barbarossa) - 375.000
8- Operation Bagration (Eastern front, WW2) - 350.000
9- Kursk (Eastern front, WW2) - 325.000
10- Somme (Western front, WW1) - 306.000

So, the most fierce battle in the 20th century must have been some battle in the eastern front in WW2.

 

[Yin717]

Interesting link:

The Bloodiest Battles of the 20th century

Ranking:

1- Siege of Leningrad (Eastern front, WW2) - 850.000
2- Stalingrad (Eastern front, WW2) - 750.000
3- Moscow (Eastern front, WW2) (Barbarossa) - 719.000
4- Kiev (Eastern front, WW2) (Barbarossa) - 678.000
5- 1st Smolensk (Eastern front, WW2) (Barbarossa) - 535.000
6- Voronezh-Voroshilovgrad (Eastern front, WW2) - only the Russian KIA is 370.000
7- 1st Bielorussia (Eastern front, WW2) (Barbarossa) - 375.000
8- Operation Bagration (Eastern front, WW2) - 350.000
9- Kursk (Eastern front, WW2) - 325.000
10- Somme (Western front, WW1) - 306.000

So, the most fierce battle in the 20th century must have been some battle in the eastern front in WW2.

Well, notice that it says bloodiest. Just because it had the most deaths, doesn't mean it was the fiercest. Many battles have had little casualties but the fighting was fierce. As I have said, it depends what you are meaning by 'fierce'.

 

[wolfen]

The title of this thread say Fiercest battle in history, not fieriest MILITARY battle in history, therefore again I mention my divorce, I'd rather go disarm roadside bombs, and play in mine fields than go through THAT again

 

[Guaporense]

Well, notice that it says bloodiest. Just because it had the most deaths, doesn't mean it was the fiercest. Many battles have had little casualties but the fighting was fierce. As I have said, it depends what you are meaning by 'fierce'.

I think that exists some correlation between the two.

 

[Yin717]

I think that exists some correlation between the two.

Not necessarily. You can have fierce battles in that the fighting was so fierce that both sides found it hard to advance or retreat and so forth. But very few men died in the conflict. And then you can have WW1 were the advance was relatively simple yet lots of men died. Although for a majority cases there is normally a correlation, it;s not always the case.

 

[antonpsarri]

i think that only the battle of Marathon must be honored with the <<Title >> Fiercest Battle in History (dont forget that until this battle the Persina army had never deafeted in the Battlefield the greeks were only 10.000 and the barbarians 60.000 to 120.000).Instead to fear the Greek army attack first to barbarians with mighty speed and courage

 

[brinktk]

Yeah, air combat is very fierce, but how about something from 'Nam? What does every one here think about those battles and operations?

I think combat within Jungle areas that are so dense that you at times need flashlights during day time would be unbelievably frightening.

Dak To comes to mind for Vietnam. Unimaginable carnage in a very small area.

Operation Buffuloe in July 1967 up around Con Thien. It was single worst loss of life in a day for the Marine Corps throughout the war. Assault barrages, hand to hand, napalm mere meters from their perimeter.

Then there's Hue...nobody can argue that this battle was 6 weeks of just utter carnage.

Ia Drang also comes to mind, particularly the ambush on the American column after the fight for LZ X-ray.

Khe Sanh was pretty crappy too...1500 rounds of incoming day in and out for months...enough to make anyone go crazy. Even worse were the jarheads up on 881 S that took just as much arty and had to fight off several determined NVA attacks on their base.

I would definitely say that these were some of the worst for the Vietnam war (American).

 

[MontyB]

I am still going for Verdun but for slightly different reasons than just the casualty rate, primarily that it was designed as a meat grinder battle all of the proposed battles were fought for territory Verdun was not.

The original German plan (that backfired) was to take something that the French had to retake and then sit there and grind up the French army as attempted to retrieve the territory.

The German commander-in-chief General Erich von Falkenhayn considered England to be Germany’s most important enemy. He believed England would collapse as soon as France, their most important ally, would be defeated. That is why a target had to be found that would be so important to the French, that they would be willing to sacrifice their entire army. This army would 'bleed to death' (the Germans called this 'weissbluten') and could then easily be defeated.

http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/battleverdun/kortverdun/index.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/verdun.htm

 

[Jasta Elf]

I tend to agree with MontyB's assessment of Verdun as "fiercest battle". I think "weissbluten" translates more colorfully as "to bleed white". Unfortunately, German casualties were also extremely heavy. Additionally, huge French losses led directly to the "sister" Battle of the Somme as an attempt to relieve the hard-pressed French by the British. The giant artillery duels truly made mincemeat of human flesh,to say nothing of machine-gun fire and the vicious hand-to-hand trench fighting of the first big Industrialized War. Battles of material[attrition] are BRUTAL!!!!