Stalingrad, but there are some pretty terrible runners-up in WW2 and WWI.

when Hannibal's army killed 45,000 Romans in a single day

My picks would be Stalingrad, Berlin, and the Somme for the hundreds of thousands who threw their bodies against bullets, tanks, shells, idiotic generals, and enemy soldiers for a few yards of ground. Very expensive ground

for me Verdun. am i correct in saying that french reinforcements went to Verdun Baaaing-lambs to the slaughter.

Stalingrad hands down is the most fierce. However seeing as most people here realize that, maybe Okinawa or Chosin Reservoir. Okinawa was pretty fierce seeing as 95% of the 117,000 man Japanese force was killed. Chosin Reservoir wasn't large in terms of amount of troops committed, but it was extremely fierce seeing as the outnumbered and surrounded UN troops were able to breakthrough to the sea and destroy 40% of the PLA 9th Army in the process.

The question was about the fiercest battle. Now this question is pretty ill defined. It doesn't mean the most killed, as in Stalingrad. It you define fiercest as the most killed within a certain period of time then you can somewhat compare using historical statistics but, those get more hazy the further you go back. Also, recorded history is mostly a European history that does not include those Japanese or Chinese battles which are poorly documented. he only answer to the question in an opinion. The only way we can form an opinion is by reading about the battle and using some sort of rule-of-thumb to make the determination. Percentages, as some have mentioned are useless without other considerations. A battle of two will have 50% casualties if one is killed. Where one fights a battle against an enemy with their whole soul, that is the fiercest battle in history.

Originally Posted by coscking

The question was about the fiercest battle. Now this question is pretty ill defined. It doesn't mean the most killed, as in Stalingrad. It you define fiercest as the most killed within a certain period of time then you can somewhat compare using historical statistics but, those get more hazy the further you go back. Also, recorded history is mostly a European history that does not include those Japanese or Chinese battles which are poorly documented. he only answer to the question in an opinion. The only way we can form an opinion is by reading about the battle and using some sort of rule-of-thumb to make the determination. Percentages, as some have mentioned are useless without other considerations. A battle of two will have 50% casualties if one is killed. Where one fights a battle against an enemy with their whole soul, that is the fiercest battle in history.

Excellent point there.
However, I notice this is your first post. Why not post in the introductions subforum?

Originally Posted by coscking

The question was about the fiercest battle. Now this question is pretty ill defined. It doesn't mean the most killed, as in Stalingrad. It you define fiercest as the most killed within a certain period of time then you can somewhat compare using historical statistics but, those get more hazy the further you go back. Also, recorded history is mostly a European history that does not include those Japanese or Chinese battles which are poorly documented. he only answer to the question in an opinion. The only way we can form an opinion is by reading about the battle and using some sort of rule-of-thumb to make the determination. Percentages, as some have mentioned are useless without other considerations. A battle of two will have 50% casualties if one is killed. Where one fights a battle against an enemy with their whole soul, that is the fiercest battle in history.

Good point - well illustrated by Wellington himself. The young Wellington won the bloody battle of Assaye in india, with great losses. He rated this as his greatest battle won.

However, he hated to think of it and thoughout his life, it is said, when asked what was the fiercest battle he had fought, he would always just grunt "Assaye" and close conversation.

News reports, war correspondents, military officers, and eyewitness accounts of battles following the Nazi invasion of Crete certainly qualify it as among the fiercest in history.

It is not for the number of losses, which were quite heavy on all sides, but for the surge of fighting spirit, the unique and never repeated attack tactics, the unyielding fighting spirit of poorly equipped defenders, and the hand-to-hand combat that involved men, women and even children of the Island.

General Kurt Student, in command of Germany's best trained troops, won the battle with unceasing air assaults but the losses of Germany's crack troops were so severe that many Nazi leaders felt the costs outweighed the benefits. A meeting between Baron Von Der Heydte and General Student shows just how dispirited General Student was after his victory:

[The following is reference from Baron Von Der Heydte's
Daedalus Returned: Crete 1941]

General Student visited us almost immediately after the fall of Canea. Had fourteen days really elapsed since I had last seen him issuing orders in Athens?
He had visibly altered. He seemed much graver, more reserved, and older. There was no evidence in his features that he was joyful over the victory — his victory — and proud at the success of his daring scheme. The cost of victory had evidently proved too much for him. Some of the battalions had lost all their officers, and in several companies there were only a few men left alive.
. . . The battle for Crete was to prove the overture to the great tragedy which reached its climax at El Alamein and Stalingrad. For the first time there had stood against us a brave and relentless opponent on a battleground which favoured him.
On this occasion things had gone well with us, but it seemed almost a miracle that our great and hazardous enterprise had succeeded. How it did, I cannot say to this day. Success had suddenly come to us at a moment when, as so often happens in war, we had ceased to believe in the possibility of success.
My interview with General Student was brief and to the point. In answer to his questions I concisely reported our experiences in the attack and told him of our losses. When I had finished he grasped me firmly by the hand and held it for a long time. “I thank you,” was all he said; but the grasp of his hand and those three short words were quite sufficient for me.

1. Further to "coscking ", it has to be said that it is impossible to select a battle that has been the fiercest. If death, destruction, the degree of animosity, the intensity of hatred and the loathing of the adversary put together determine the fierceness of a battle, then we need to search far and wide into human history. In a way for the killer and the killed any battle is fierce. How can you kill if you do not hate?

2. The other point emerging is the mode. Modern warfare involves killing without seeing the victim. Ancient battles involved direct slaughter. I believe to be fierce would involve direct slaughter/massacre. In that category battles of Changez Khan, Attila the Hun and Taimur Lang would surpass most. Such hatred and poor opinion of the the adversary has not been seen in modern times except in the Imperial Japanese Forces in all their modern wars.