As |I have said before, the battle of Assaye (India) could be the fiercest. The young Duke of Wellington was commander and always claime afterwards that it was so. When asked he always grunted one word -'Assaye'!

It can be found on Google etc.

And how about any of the civil war battles - hand to hand. Don't any of those qualify?

i think....

BATTLE OF TRAFFALGER
ALEXANDER's INVASION TO INDIA (wich he was injured)
BATTLE In NORMANDY....

man ASSAYE was bloody too!!!!

The quesiton is, how does one define "Fiercest"? It's sortof unmeasurable.

The Somme of World War I was the bloodiest battle in human history.

The Battle of Stalingrad is believed by many to have been bloodier, but it has not been proven thusfar.

Both of these conflicts involved tenacious fighting on a scale that is difficult to comprehend. Neither side gave an inch without significant blood spilled. More importantly, both fall into the era when the militaries involved had tossed out the idea of playing by any rulebook. They are both within the era of "Total War" which would have been a foreign concept to any conflict earlier than World War I.

And how about any of the civil war battles - hand to hand. Don't any of those qualify?

The battles for the Wilderness and Petersburg were probably the nastiest of the US Civil War. The reason I don't think that the Civil War battles really qualify is that there was still a general sense of "playing by the rules" which amounts to limitting the intensity of a fight. For instance, allowances were made for the opposing sides to see to their wounded and dead in every battle that I'm aware of. I wouldn't have wanted to be the medic sent into no man's land (in the Somme) to find and help wounded or dead. There was literally no such thing possible in the Battle of Stalingrad.

The Somme - 1st day casualties for British - 60,000.

Can we define 'Fierce'? Is it # of KIA?

On a single day: The Somme.

If its an entire Battle: Verdun or Stalingrad

I imagine it would be a combination of casualties and conditions of battle based around its length.

The French Battle at Verdun was even bloodier than the Somme. The Battle of the Somme was mainly fought to take the pressure of the French at Verdun. If I remember rightly both sides at Verdun had about 500.000 casualties a piece

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

The French Battle at Verdun was even bloodier than the Somme. The Battle of the Somme was mainly fought to take the pressure of the French at Verdun. If I remember rightly both sides at Verdun had about 500.000 casualties a piece

Hehe I thought Verdun as well although it may have the same problem as the Somme in that it was fought over an extended period of time, I am starting to lean toward a few of the more ancient battles such as Cannae or Adrianople where casualty numbers were lower but the entire battle was fought in the space of day.
Obviously the problem with choosing these battles is finding accurate casualty rates.

The graves of British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in the Battle of the Somme have been desecrated with Nazi insignia. On the simple white headstones in Northern France, swastika and SS signs. The soldiers fell in 1916, in a campaign that cost the British Empire more than a million lives.

Express 26 oct 07.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

The graves of British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in the Battle of the Somme have been desecrated with Nazi insignia. On the simple white headstones in Northern France, swastika and SS signs. The soldiers fell in 1916, in a campaign that cost the British Empire more than a million lives.

Express 26 oct 07.

That\s f**ked