Was war really that gully before modern weapons?

Which type of war front would be the worst to get caught in?

  • Ancient/Medieval war

    Votes: 43 76.8%
  • Post-industrial war (let's say WW1, WW2)

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • Total voters
    56

MischievousMonkey

Gor bu dëgër
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
19,672
Reputation
8,358
Daps
95,958
We all know the epic and brutal picture movies depicts when it comes to medieval and ancient wars



But the reality was different. Most of the times, there was no big charge army against army, no free for all where everybody was running around on the field dishing sword hits to everybody (in the heat of the battle, covered in mud, it would have been hard to recognize who is who...)

Most of the battles were in tight formations, and as soon as one camp started to look morale, they'd flee.

Average casualty rate for pre-industrial war was only 5%-6% for all sides according to some historians :ohhh: and most of that happened after the losing side started to flee (so killing retreating or surrending folks)

Compare this to casualties registered for WW1:

British Empire: 8.9 million mobilized; 908,371 killed; 2.1 million casualties

Germany: 11 million mobilized; 1.7 million killed; 5.3 million casualties

France: 8.4 million mobilized; 1.3 million killed; 4.7 million casualties

Austria-Hungary: 7.8 million mobilized; 1.2 million killed; 5.8 million casualties

Russia: 12 million mobilized; 1.7 million killed; 7.4 million casualties

Ottoman Empire: 2.8 million mobilized; 325,000 killed; 5.3 million casualties

So which type of war front was really the gulliest? Modern ones (after the industrial revolution) or the ones before that? In which type would you rather get caught?
 

CoryMack

Superstar
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
11,359
Reputation
2,390
Daps
41,187
The Battle of Cannae was basically described as a daylong long knife fight. Plus those armies had to walk everywhere. In his book ‘Hannibal’ Dodge says the ancient world was definitely more brutal, but says modern warfare is more deadly because of firearms and artillery. And he fought in the Civil War, so image how much more it is today with air support and modern bombs and weaponry.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
36,273
Reputation
9,121
Daps
193,763
I don’t think they could lift those heavy weapons over their heads like that, especially considering the poor diet, and lack of clean water, and medical care.
 

Vandelay

Life is absurd. Lean into it.
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,276
Reputation
8,208
Daps
100,115
Reppin
Phi Chi Connection
The stories of WW I sound like a complete nightmare compared to every other war you learn about in school

WWI from all accounts that I've read is probably the worst war to have fought in.

Now you just getting a high caliber bullet to your vital organs or blown up. It's a much quicker death.
 

east

Screwed up... till tha casket drops!!
Bushed
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
5,665
Reputation
5,075
Daps
18,494
Reppin
The Bronx ➡️ New England
the combat fatality rate's fallen a lot since wwii cause of advances in trauma care and armor, from 55% to 12%. the only really bad recent war i can remember is iran-iraq, they had chemical weapons, trench warfare, human wave attacks, all sorts of fukkery. :picard:

also back then you usually wouldn't receive quarter, just an execution or enslavement, i'd rather go out in battle :yeshrug:
 

Double Burger With Cheese

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
27,755
Reputation
17,610
Daps
162,459
Reppin
Atlanta
Yes, you had to have hands. The war referee would tell, 1,2,3, go! Then the two sides would run up throwing hands. Whichever side got the best hands win the war and get all the gold and wine and shyt like that that was important back in the day. Then weapons came in the game and fukked everything up
 
Top