But that simply doesn't mean that it is fiercer than Stalingrad.

Well its kind of a silly question really.. Stalingrad "is" the fiercest battle.
Thats a fact.. not much to debate really...

Well its kind of a silly question really.. Stalingrad "is" the fiercest battle.
Thats a fact.. not much to debate really...

Nice facts to back up that statement

Just because one battle has guns and another from 43bc doesn't.........that doesn't offically make it fiercer.....you think romans version of a gun would of been the weapons they used and it scared people just as guns scare us

actually, i think sharpel and artillery gun fire that could split ur body, rip ur limbs apart and create holes in your body is alot more evere than a mere knife wound

Originally Posted by paratroopa

actually, i think sharpel and artillery gun fire that could split ur body, rip ur limbs apart and create holes in your body is alot more evere than a mere knife wound

O I don't know, I'm pretty sure spears put holes in your body, and swords no doupt rip your limbs off pretty good.

That being said, it would be a mistake to assume ancient battles were continuous. Most historians believe that ancient battles, perticularaly Roman and Greek period ones, would have been faught in many short periods, with the formations moving into each other and fighting hand to hand for a brief period of time then pulling back, recouping and attacking again. Certainly it was not like the continuous warfare we see in more modern times.

Well i guess it really boils down to your definition of " feirce" personally i think you would also have to put sometime of time limit when you say " the most fierce battle" If you have a open ended time limit, then ya the huge drawn out siege of stalingrad would probably win. If you are looking at single BATTLE, that is a 1-3 day confrontation by two opposing armies. I would definitiely go with a older war. Melee combat, in my mind, will always be much more up close, much more personal, and much much more fierce then the combat of modern times. ( Thats not to belittle the harsh conditions of modern combat)

I think, with a reasonable time contraint, the fierciest battle would be the battle of Cannae. Im sure your all familiar with it, its where Hannible implemented this massive double envelopment, surrounded 70 thousand or so terrified Romans, and proceeded to slaughter them for a whole day. I think when men are backed into a corner, they fight hardest and fierciest. Plus the up close and personal nature of ancient warfare would have made it definitely a contender for the fiereciest fight.

boy oh boy did i forget to spell check that

if ur talking about fierce as in concentration of men and the amount of time, then i definetly say kursk

especially the battle of provohoka where thousands of tanks clash and thousands of invantry fought from trench to trench

the battle lasted a whole day and thousands of tanks lay dead, nearly 1/3 of russian tank strength was used up

i still say modern battles are more fierce

Originally Posted by PasLon

I think, with a reasonable time contraint, the fierciest battle would be the battle of Cannae. Im sure your all familiar with it, its where Hannible implemented this massive double envelopment, surrounded 70 thousand or so terrified Romans, and proceeded to slaughter them for a whole day. I think when men are backed into a corner, they fight hardest and fierciest. Plus the up close and personal nature of ancient warfare would have made it definitely a contender for the fiereciest fight.

Having just come off writing a term paper on the Punic wars, I think I might have something to say. Wars of this period were bloody; but generally not terribly "fierce". "Fierce" would imply a continuous swirling melee of un halted slaughter...ancient warfare did not look like that. The simple fact that both the Carthagrinian and Roman armies were heavily dependant on heavy infantry meant that both sides would only fight for short durations of time, back off, then go at it again.

In comparison, Stalingrad was fought 24 hours a day, every day, for it's entire durations. There were no pauses in the conflict; and troops would be fighting on the front for prolonged periods of time. This contrasts sharply with the battles of the Punic wars, were only a small percentage(the first ranks) of troops actually fought, and only then for small periods of time, a quarter of an hour at the most. To prove this, try pugilt(sticks with padded ends) fighting for a 3 minute bought...it's exhausting. That's with only a stick, and maybe some football/hockey gear on. The Romans and Carthaginians wore bronze and carried wooden shields(for the most part).