About Fiercest Battle in History Page 4
|January 12th, 2005||#34|
| || |
think about it info
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
|January 13th, 2005||#36|
| || |
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.
Ducimus: we lead
The difference between bravery and stupidity is timining.
|January 14th, 2005||#37|
| || |
Anyone think of this one? info
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.
|January 15th, 2005||#39|
| || |
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
|January 15th, 2005||#40|
| || |
Re: Anyone think of this one? info
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).