The most terrible battle?

I would go with Verdun.

1) For the ferocity
2) The duration
3) The terrain
4) Psychological train, the fact that relief after relief of men, literally months of dead piled up and still no progress.

There are many battles I am glad I was not part of... Verdun heads the list though (Flanders and the Somme taking 2nd and third....)

Stalingrad urban battles on the russian side, in the early months.
I read once, that on average each russian soldier survived 18 hours after entering the battle (crossing to the west side of the Volga).
Later, the few russians that survived the slaughterhouse of Stalingrad, apart from becoming guard troops, were also cynically acclaimed as to have finished the "Stalingrad academy of urban warfare".


Edited by xristar - 09-Jan-2008 at 16:16

When did this occur? (I will look it up in wikipedia, - it seems interesting)

Towton was pretty awful... No cavaly, no archery, just a brutal hand to hand across a narrow front in icy weather.

The siege of Sevastopol, during the Crimean war... Wiki (I know, I know...) lists the forces as being 55,000 Anglo-French troops, 35,000 Russian troops; and the casualties at an estimated 50,000 for the Anglo-French, 20,000 for the Russians. The Anglo-French forces won, with a casualty rate of almost 90%. It was an early example of trench warfare. The British and French troops bombarded the city with 120 guns from the land, while the Allied Fleet also bombarded the port city. The Russians returned fire with 360 cannon from the city for the duration of the Siege, which lasted from September 1854 to September 1855 (one full year). That winter was particularly harsh, and disease incapacitated many of the Allies. Sniper fire, in murderous amounts from both sides, claimed many, including the Russian commander, Admiral Nahkimov (huh-huh-huh-headshot).
There you have it; trench warfare, massive artillery barrages, disease, snipers, winter, year-long duration, excessively high casualty rates... plus, no antiseptic, no anesthesia, no antibiotics... gets my vote for the most terrible battle (from the perspective of a soldier) of all time.

True, but I seem to recall nowhere that I said "this battle was like WWI." The fact of the matter was that Sevastopol was one of the first major battles involving trenches and breech-loading rifles, which, as we know, makes for an extremely high casualty rate.
Anyway, WWI is the war in which trench warfare was the defining feature, and the one most popularly associated with it. Lighten up, bud.

And, on top of that, while trench warfare was used earlier, in it's very nature it was highly different to Crimean or WWI trench warfare. Muzzle-loading muskets and early artillery weren't nearly as lethal as the technology employed in later wars.

How about being a Roman, encircled at Cannae?

Originally posted by Sikander Unfortunately I also have to go for Verdum and Somme. Stalingrad would come third. They lived in sheer terror for months...

what about Leningrad then?

Not to take anything away from those who suffered through the Seige of Leningrad, but there wasn't as much fighting in the city itself as there was in Stalingrad.  Leningrad was a large city that was kept supplied by a very tenuous 'lifeline'.  Most of the supplies necessarily went to the military, leaving the civilians on 'starvation' level rations.  However, other than the occasional artillery shell the fighting never penetrated into the city itself.  In Stalingrad the Germans captured most of the city after 'slogging' their way through it street by street and block by block.  In terms of 'battle' (as opposed to suffering or bombardment of civilians) I would rank Stalingrad higher. 

If I were to choose in general, I would probably go along with Verdun.  I might mention the Battle of the Atlantic, although I view that as more of a prolonged 'campaign' than a 'battle' in the traditional sense of that term.  In terms of 'intensity', if not scale, I would suggest Iwo Jima, where the Japanese force was ultimately killed almost to the man (99% fatalities) and the US suffered heavy losses themselves (actually greater losses than the entire Japanese force, although not all deaths).

 

Edited by deadkenny - 13-Jan-2008 at 15:03

Borodino

50 000 mens death in one battle. A terrible engagment, the most bloody battle of the 19th.

I am agree too with Crimean Wars.