Of all wars in which records are known, which war resulted in the greatest percentage of death among the participants in the war?
My gut instinct, for no real reason, says the American Civil War. Its probably WW2 though.
I think the Civil War is often cited as the war with the highest number of American casualties–not least, of course, because both sides were made up of Americans. Dunno about lethality, though.
Another factoid I’ve often heard thrown around: up until WWII, every modern war saw more soldiers succumb to disease than to enemy fire.
Well, this says that it was the Civil war, at 4.8% dying, and over 25% total casualties.
However, the site is just for the US. I realized that when I saw that the deaths for WWI were 1.1% (heh). There’s a table at the bottom of the page detailing a lot of pretty morbid stats.
Well, this says that it was the Civil war, at 4.8% dying, and over 25% total casualties.
However, the site is just for the US. I realized that when I saw that the deaths for WWI were 1.1% (heh). There’s a table at the bottom of the page detailing a lot of pretty morbid stats.
The Paraguayan War, also known as the War of the Triple Alliance from 1864-70 was a great deal more bloody percentage-wise than the US Civil War, and stands a good shot as being the bloodiest percentage-wise in modern history.
My gut instinct tells me that it’s the Thirty Years War, in which more than 1/3rd of the German population died
That gives percentage of ALL of the country, not just soldiers, because estimates on that (due to the desertion, conscription, arming civilians during sieges, and four “phases” being essentially different wars) range from about 10% to the 70’s.
(Two books, until about 10 minutes ago sitting under a pile of junk right by my desk, relatively agree at calling it 21/26% in battle, and 38/39% overall. They’re as trustworthy as anyone’s guess.)
I found another site which might have a better explanation about the Paraguayan war and how you counted deaths back then. No dispute that it was horrific. But the numbers may not be accurate. Depended on who was counting. And their methods.
It’s probarbly one of the wars from ancient times. When it was clear who was winning one side would flee and be cut down by the other side leading to enormous losses.
Yeah I’m sure in old times many didnt really care about people surrendering. They probably just killed them anyway.
Old times? Hell, they still do that today. In the first Bush war in Iraq, thousands of fleeing Iqrai’s were killed {by air} as they ran from Kuwait. Then there were the killing fields in Bosnia and Cambodia.
This makes perfect sense and in doing so pretty much negates itself. You’re far more likely to be shot than to be shot to death. There are more wounded soldiers to get sick (gangrene etc) and later die. The statistic is basically saying you’re more likely to die later than sooner once you’re shot or wounded. Pre-WW2, medicine wasn’t close to what it is today.
I think he meant getting sick with stuff like dysentary and other non-combat related illnesses due to living in crappy conditions.
Yep… diseases and other sort of microorganisms killed more than bullets and bombs until quite recently. Even in Vietnam the number of casualties with venereal diseases was quite heavy.
Actually, I’ve always heard it as being WW1 where more soldiers were killed in combat then by Diease.
I don’t get the question.
In most modern wars at least as many civilians as soldies are killed. (Exception: the US which never had to fight on it’s own soil.)
So what sense does it make to judge the cruelty of a war by the number of soldiers killed?
I don’t see what this has to do with judging the cruelty of any war.
The OP is just interested in this particular statistic.
How about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia? His Grande Armee consisted of some 500 thousand men when it reached Russia, and of these only somewhere between 10 and 40 thousand made it back to Poland. Admittedly, most of the casualties were due to typhus and hypothermia, and not Russian muskets, but still.
Russian casualties were also very high, though not to the staggering degree suffered by the French.
Account of the campaign
Graphical representation of the strength of the Grande Armee as it marched to Moscow and back
Unfortunately it was not only the French but pesants and others pressed to the grand army from all over western Europe.
Hmmm, I guess you are right. But what sense does it make to differentiate the death between those who wore a uniform and those who didn’t? Given that both, civilians and soldiers where killed by both, bombs and diseases, malnutrition etc.
And what about partisans?
And would you take unlawful combatants up into your statistics?
What’s with this, first Bush war it was Gulf War 1, have a little respect for your ex-president.
Incidentally those Iraqis fleeing Kuwait were carting off goods that did not belong to them, they had invaded a country, laid waste to lots of its buildings,killed its civilians (and tortured them) set oil wells on fire and in general behaved like a bunch of assholes…they deserved all they got…and more!!!:mad: