The most terrible battle?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23137
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 21:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The most terrible battle?
Posted By: ChrisBoonzaier
Subject: The most terrible battle?
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 03:49
|
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....) ------------- See "Whats new" at http://www.kaiserscross.com/40020.html |
Replies:
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 10:22
|
All battles are terrible, one way or another.
------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 11:34
|
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". ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 12:35
|
Siachin Glacier Pakistan-India; 24-25,000 feet heights, -50-60 C. Hell. ------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 13:52
|
When did this occur? (I will look it up in wikipedia, - it seems interesting)
-------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 16:01
|
as we speak.
wiki is not a good source, too many flame wars.
here is a good one (pakistani)
http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/siachen/ - http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/siachen/ ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 16:06
|
Towton was pretty awful... No cavaly, no archery, just a brutal hand to hand across a narrow front in icy weather. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 19:48
which battle of Flanders? ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 21:10
|
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. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 21:51
i really hate those ww1 comparisons with teh Crimean War. the point is, all this (trenches etc) already were commonplace in all the sieges since the 17th century at least but came more and more out of favour until the Nap wars, therefore everyone thinks the Crimean War was already a preview for ww1 while it was, basically, a return to much earlier practices. ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 03:12
|
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. |
Posted By: Sikander
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 17:26
| Unfortunately I also have to go for Verdum and Somme. Stalingrad would come third. They lived in sheer terror for months... |
Posted By: Catalán
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 17:43
| How about being a Roman, encircled at Cannae? |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 18:46
but the Crimean "trench warfare" was a siege trench like in previous centuries, not a trench in ww1 as a field fortification. weapons in the Crimean war were still not as deadly as in ww1, they were closer to the Nap Wars than ww1. in the 17th century they also already deployed snipers with rifled muskets that would try to shoot defenders on the ramparts. also even 17th century mortars could shoot a whole town into burnign ashes, its not that in those centuries there was no devastation or high casualty rates. Magdeburg was razed to the ground and 90% of the population killed in the process. there is really nothing special or outstanding about the Crimean War. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 18:47
what about Leningrad then? ------------- |
Posted By: Catalán
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2008 at 14:38
|
Interestingly, although I've been studying the Second World War for years now, I could never really imagine what the citizens of Leningrad were going through. Two years ago, my uncle (a Spaniard) married a Russian woman, who's parents had gone through Leningrad. Their stories really revealed a personal aspect to the siege of Leningrad, and really helped to give a much more vibrant idea of what they went through.
|
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2008 at 15:02
|
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).
|
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 13-Jan-2008 at 22:47
| Yelnia Salient in 1941. German officers who had fought at Verdun considered Yelnia was worse. |
Posted By: Samara
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 09:59
|
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. ------------- "All is loose, just the honour" Francis in the battle of Pavia |
Posted By: Scaevola
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 09:17
I was thinking Cannae too. What a slaughter. ------------- SPQR| Alea Iacta Est |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 09:50
|
Nanking 1864. Awful. Borodino 1812, Third Panipat 1761, the British retreat from Kabul, 1842. ------------- |
Posted By: Illirac
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 14:38
|
Stalingrad(ww2), Verdun(ww1) and Hattin(crusades) perhaps
------------- For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it. |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2008 at 02:57
I agree that the seiges of the Crimean War aren't the best examples of trench warfare but perhaps the other battles such as Balaclava provide a better one? Either war, the era of trench warfare could still probably be traced all the way back to Waterloo with the way firepower and defence won the day and even the American Civil War as firepower became more decisive. The era of trench warfare only peaked in World War I and then was quickly replaced by maneuver warfare.
As for most terrible battle my vote goes to Passchendale; it was trench warfare except with flooding. Out of 250,000 Allied casualties, 40,000 were never even found
 If we want to go by pure blood, it's definitely Leningrad, it recieved first prize on this list: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm - http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 04:14
|
The Battle of Pelusium was less a battle than a man slaughter for the Egyptians. ------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: Workhorse 61
Date Posted: 15-May-2008 at 02:45
|
I am going to have to go with Iwo Jima because 1) I have a personal bias (I am a Marine after all) and 2)certain facts and figures that go along with it. For an island only 21K square, there were about 47,000 casualties (killed, wounded, missing, captured) in an operation that lasted just over one month. Additionally 27 Medals Of Honor were awarded for actions during the battle. 14 of these were posthumously. 23 were awarded to Marines, and the other 4 were awarded to sailors. The 23 Medals awarded to Marines constitute 30% of the Medals of Honor awarded to Marines for the entire duration of the Second World War. ------------- "Ultima Ratio Regnum" The Ultimate Argument of Kings |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2008 at 06:50
|
Iwo Jima is a reason why the Pacific had either higher or lower morale (depending on how you look at it) than the ETO. Fighting for uninhabited attols rather than cities. ------------- |
Posted By: Workhorse 61
Date Posted: 15-May-2008 at 23:47
|
I agree. The other factor is even though you are moving forward through the island chains, there is no relative distance to compare where you are from where you landed. Such as, in the ETO you could measure the distance from your position to the Normandy beachead and have a physical idea of how much ground you covered that gave tangible proof of progress. ------------- "Ultima Ratio Regnum" The Ultimate Argument of Kings |
Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 02:25
Yes, Cannae. But the problem is what we mean for "terrible"? Are we talking of number of casualties or of percentage of deaths or intensity of fighting or massacre of survivors or whatelse? Cannae was a slaughter, but the same can be said of Verdun and Stalingrad and Iwo Jima and Attila's Camp Catalaunici and the battle of Manzikerth (between Turks and Bizantine) and the battle of Adrianopolis (between Gots and Romans) and so on......... I believe it is not possible to give a precise answer. For example, in the battle of Otranto the Turks killed all the city's population (even the few women and children who had survived the siege and surrendered) and suffered heavy casualties, but the siege of Leningrad was bigger in number of deaths (and was "terrible" even because of the many cases of "cannibalism").
Brunodam ------------- |
Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2008 at 19:17
Absolutely. I bet Hannibal slept like a baby after that day's work, and probably walked around with a boner for the next week. ------------- Know thyself |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2008 at 16:25
| Battle of the Field Of Blood 1119 |
Posted By: Dodgeballer
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2008 at 07:45
| I must say that for that stalingrad was by far the most terrible due to first casualties secound russian terrian in winter is very very harsh for either side.some battles may have had a higher casualty rating but the climate and terrain of winter russia on top of the casualties makes this battle a little more horrific then others |
Posted By: Benedictus
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2008 at 15:12
|
Verdun was undoubtedly one of the worst due to 1) Troop position in trenches (I have visited) 2) Starvation 3) Savagery of fighting when encountered (bayonets, unpredictability of attack) 4) Mustard Gas (horrible death) I can't imagine the sheer terror of having to rise out of the trenches knowing that once you did, a maelstrom of shells from a Gatling gun would surround you and your comrades (no pun intended). But all in all, I would say that the Battle of Antietam was the worst in modern history. This is why. 1) The raw power of the musket doesn't just make a hole, it rips large portions of the body as it passes through,; ergo massive trauma, huge risk of infection/loss of limb/death. 2) Sheer number of the troops involved (100,00's+) caused it to last several days. 3) Because it was spread over a number of days, sheer exhaustion sets in and causes one to lose sanity due to the savagery of warfare and increases chances of recklessness (charging when unlead by commander) 4) Called one of the bloodiest if not the bloodiest battle in American History. http://www.historynet.com/george-smalley-reporting-from-battle-of-antietam.htm This details a first-hand account of a reporter who attended the battle and stood with Brigadier General, Joseph Hooker as the fighting raged. I don't assume to say that it was the worst in history; I think it could be any where disease and starvation are key elements. (what would be the motivation to fight and die savagely if no semi-decent conditions occur?). What about being beseiged by a Roman army for years? Let me know your thoughts about Antietam. :) |
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2008 at 14:05
|
I have to say Stalingrad. The battle lasted several months, utterly destroyed a city, house to house fighting, and in the end, hundereds of thousands dead. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 15:55
| I'd second Verdun for pure lunacy and sustained artillery fire against anyone and anything that moved. |
Posted By: Jallaludin Akbar
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 18:06
|
Verdun is really said to be the deadliest battle in human history Other deadly battles are: The Battle of Kabul and Gandamak Battle of Somme Stalingrad Battle of Cannae Siachen Glacier ------------- "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 19:07
| The battle of Carrhae must have been terrible for the Roman soldiers as well. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 21:30
|
62 BC - Catalina's forces versus Ciceros' in Northern Gaul - according to Sallust, pretty much a massacre on both sides - all bodies found dead at their posts. In any case, it must have been pretty darn bloody.
1879 AD - Rookes' drift - a small number of troopers left over from Isandlwana hide in a mission house and are besieged by a troop of Zulu warriors who were late for the main battle (Isandlwana) and are eager for a victory.
June 7th, 1896 - The battle of Ferkeh against the Mahdist forces. Kitchener's army was equipped with bolt action rifles, repeating rifles, grenades, maxim guns, cannon etc and the Mahdists with muskets, pistols and hand-to-hand combat weapons. What do you think happened? ------------- |
Posted By: macayana
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 03:49
|
My thoughts about Antietam :) 1) I did not know that the battle lasted several days. From what I've read, the day after the battle was relatively quiet, with both armies staying put in their positions. Had McClellan attacked, then Lee would probably have been crushed. 2) It may have been the bloodiest one-day battle in the Civil War, but in terms of total number of casualties, it was exceeded by Gettysburg (which was fought over three days), and even by Chancellorsville (which was fought over two days). 3) In any event, the @25,000 casualties suffered by both sides at Antietam are dwarfed by the @75,000 casualties suffered by both sides at Borodino. Antietam was a terrible battle, yes. But there were others (such as Verdun) which, imho, were worse. Nice thread :) |
Posted By: Galahadlrrp
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 05:22
|
--A wee quibble. Borodino wasn't the bloodiest battle of the 19th Century. That "honor" belongs to The Battle of Nations/Leipzig, in 1813. Casualty estimates range from around 90000 to nearly 120000.
--Though its total numbers aren't way up there along with the likes of Verdun and Cannae, The Battle of Cold Harbor on 3 June 1864 was pretty nasty. The Union forces lost about 7500 men and the Confederates lost about 1500--in about a quarter of an hour. That doesn't seem too bad if you're accustomed to what machine guns and rapid fire field guns can do.....but they were using muzzleloaders. |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:17
|
Galahadlrrp - I cannot think of the 19th century's bloodiest battle, but I have one option. 3rd Nanking in the Taiping Rebellion took place in 1864, with over 200,000 killed, let alone casualties. ------------- |
Posted By: Galahadlrrp
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:46
| --You're right. I'd forgotten the Third Battle of Nanking, same as most people forget that the final Battle of Carthage was the bloodiest battle of the Punic Wars. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 16:48
battle of Leipzig was not a single battle but is a generic name for a number of individual battles fought in the vicinity of Leipzig. none of the individual battles was bloodier than Borodino. |
Posted By: Galahadlrrp
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 21:34
| --Leipzig is considered a single battle, despite being composed of seperate engagements that took place other than at one specific locale. So are the likes of Leyte Gulf, Operation Market-Garden, Operation Overlord, the Battle of Kursk, the Battle of Koniggratz, etc. There are quite a few of them. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 03-May-2009 at 18:56
|
battle of Kursk is not the name of the battle, that's just an edutainement name for an Operation and counter-operation, operations are not battles and vice versa. |
Posted By: Galahadlrrp
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 00:02
|
--Quible, quibble, quibble. According to the Soviet General Staff Study on the battle, it's called the Battle FOR Kursk. Normally the winner names the fight. Are you calling the Soviet General Staff an "edutainment" facility?
--Regardless, you knew what I meant. |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 00:57
|
Ashoka the great's war against the Kalinga. 110 000 dead, 150 000 prisoners. Such a terrible battle that Ashoka becomes buddhist despite winning. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 17:59
no, the Germans called their offensive Operation Zitadelle, while the Soviets called their counter-offensives Operation Kutuzov and Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev. no "battle for kursk" whatsoever. and that's not quibble but fact. |
Posted By: Galahadlrrp
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 20:39
|
--Quibble, quibble, quibble.
--The Soviet counteroffensive is not quite the same thing as the Soviet defensive, since it was composed of two operations, with one unleashed before the German ops had stopped, and the other being withheld until after they had stopped. In either case, the sum of the fighting is still known as Kursk, despite being composed of several smaller actions, each of which was composed of again smaller actions, and several different code names for various parts, given by the two sides. --As for what the Germans named the offensive, I know they called it Zitadel. The Allies called their invasion of France Overlord--and each of its parts had a different name.....but it's still called the Normandy Invasion. Same as the "official" name for the Battle of the Bulge is the Ardennes Counteroffensive, as named by the winners; the losers called it Watch on the Rhine. --In all cases, the great majority of people--including those writing serious history and writing at staff and war colleges--for example: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp--call the battles Kursk, Normandy and the Bulge. I know; I taught at the US Army War College. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 06-May-2009 at 21:00
for someone who claims to have taught living creatures you display the maturity and discussion style of a retarded sociopath. i mean if you want to come here to discuss instead of showing off and refuting all counter-arguments and are immune to reason and correction by "lesser" beings then i guess your stay here won't be very long.
first of, it's spelled Zitadelle, not Citadel with a Z. second, Germans also named this Operation as Ardennenoffensive. I know; I am German  btw i like how you say "taught" as opposed to 'teach'. does that mean they threw you out for some reason...? like answering your students questions with "quibble, quibble, quibble" all the time? |
Posted By: hiddenhistory
Date Posted: 27-May-2009 at 21:40
| what about the tutenburger wold 25,000 romans and there fams killed and tortured over 3 days, only a handful escaped |
Posted By: Chookie
Date Posted: 27-May-2009 at 23:26
|
Modern or ancient? Modern - Stalingrad without a doubt Ancient - Teutoberg Forest or Watling Street ------------- For money you did what guns could not do......... |
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 28-May-2009 at 00:52
|
Verdun was pretty intense as well if this hasn't been mentioned, I think in one day the British lost 60,000 men. ------------- Sun Tzu All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu |
Posted By: Bertucat
Date Posted: 28-May-2009 at 07:05
| English army was not at Verdun during the battle ( 1916 /02 /21 to 12/19 ). US army was there in 1918. |
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 29-May-2009 at 20:16
|
I'm sorry it must have been the Somme sry ty for correcting. ------------- Sun Tzu All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu |
Posted By: macayana
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 08:21
|
Sir Galahadlrrp, Sorry, did not mean to say that Borodino was the bloodiest battle of the 19th century. All I meant to say was that Antietam paled in comparison to it (or to Gettysburg, for that matter). Nonetheless, while Leipzig may have exceeded Borodino in terms of total casualties, it should be noted that Leipzig took place over four days, whereas all the casualties at Borodino were suffered in one day. If I'm not mistaken, Borodino is still the bloodiest one-day battle in history. Also worth noting is the fact that the French casualty lists at Leipzig included some 35,000 prisoners (those who were stranded when the bridge was blown up prematurely), whereas the casualty lists at Borodino consisted of mostly killed and wounded. |
Posted By: JRScotia
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 18:46
I have to agree. It does seem to me that it depends on definition. Slaughter of defenseless civilian population would seem to me to rank high and execution of defeated survivors. That would make my definition different than one that had a higher death count among combatants.
------------- |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 22:02
|
Borodino is one of the bloodiest one-day battles in history but not bloodier than the first day of the Somme, 1916. If we're avoiding generic names/groupings, then the first day of the Battle of the Somme where the British suffered 60,000 casualties alone, is the bloodiest one-day engagement.
Temujin: I agree that the name "Battle of Kursk" was highly probably an edutainment phrase to begin with, it has since creeped its way into scholarly works. ------------- Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing? Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
Posted By: macon
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2009 at 02:34
|
Borodino and Cannae. I don't know if this one was mentioned. What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salsu - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salsu |
Posted By: macon
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2009 at 04:16
| . |
Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2010 at 00:28
| My vote is for passendale, for the simple fact that more British troops were killing on the first day than on the first day of the Somme. There might have been less overall casualties, but there were more killed. And the conditions were terrible to fight in. |