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.

Originally Posted by BootStomp

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by 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

And now it's conquest by immigration.

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

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

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.

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

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.