As I recall it, allready the Iran-Iraq war in the beginning of the 80ies was refered to as the first gulf war. So now we’re at #3 or #4…
There is a difference between surrendering and retreating and/or fleeing.
The Paraguayan war is not a good example even if it was pretty bloody… the OP put percentage of SOLDIERS. The Paraguayan War casualties were mostly males of all ages… and many not in combat.
Soldiers wise I had been made to understand that the US Civil War was particularly bloody. WWI might have involved huge number of soldiers… but many troops that were not in fact in the frontlines might have skewed the percentages. Troops “going over” were slaughtered wholesale and certainly would constitute a stupidly higher percentage.
The U.S. was killing Iraqis that were surrendering? Cite?
Let’s not get pedantic here, you know perfectly well what it is I am saying
And as for fleeing/surrendering, would you mind telling me when in the FIRST gulf war the Iraqis surrendered, the fleeing bit was because they were/had the shit kicked out of them and blind panic set in.
This Englishman believes his own country is the finest on Gods good earth followed VERY closely by the USA. Your people are among the most generous and friendliest I have ever met and believe me I’ve travelled a lot.
Sometimes however you damn well irritate me by your one eyed view of events which at the time of their happening you looked at with both eyes open.
Well, if you thought against the Mongols your casualties were pretty much total.Since they made a policy of wiping out anyone who didn’t roll over immediatly
That’ll be the THOUGHT police then;) 
Without Googling it, I would have to say whatever war it was when Napoleon left Paris with 280,000 troops marching towards Moscow, and only returned with 10,000. That’s more than a 95 % casualty rate. But in truth, most of those casualties were from disease and exposure, so it depends on what a “casualty of war” is actually defined as.
Preview is my friend :smack:
Oh , and if you did roll over immediatly. They’d sell you all into slavery and (because they disapproved of them) level your city anyway.
Wasn’t really a best case scenario when dealing with the Mongols.
Okay, to justify my OP: I’m just curious as to which war, if I were a soldier, would I be least likely to return from.
Possibly the War of Jenkins Ear 1739-1741, England v Spain.
England won 2-0 AET 
Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812 during the Napoleonic wars, the retreat took place in 1813 and as you say most of the casualties ocurred through exposure/disease and starvation.
As a matter of interest there was a TV programme on UK TV recently and bodies of that era have been discovered in a mass grave just ouside Moscow, some 2000 soldiers of the Grand Armee dumped in the grave died of exposure, the poor buggers.
As an aside I venture to suggest that humanity itself is a casualty in any war 
One thing I have noticed is that in any truly huge war, the “old army” seems to suffer an enormously disproportionate number of casualties. For example, the highly trained standing army of the United Kingdom–trained to fire fifteen aimed shots per minute, a rate so fast and effective that it was thought to be machine gun fire by German soldiers–was largely consumed in the first months of the First World War, and they appear to have suffered less than France:
[QUOTE]
After the Battle of the Marne and the First Battle of Yprès the casualties were:
[ul][li]Britain 85,000 of an army of 160,000[/li]
[li]France 850,000 of an army of 1 million [/li]
[li]Germany 677,000 of an army of 1,500, 000[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
According to this page. It goes on to say, “The old regular army ceased to exist, the soldiers killed, wounded, crippled or transferred to training duties. Its place was taken by reservists and Territorials.” If you want to die in a war, one way to make certain is to get there first.
The Western Front of the First World War was probably the most lethal battlefield environment ever created. That having been said, modern armies usually employ a much larger non-combat contingent than ancient armies did, replacing a civilian contingent that historically was often very much involved in actual combat–wagon trains were a primary target in many battles. Seige warfare, in which all the residents of a city were at least indirectly involved the defence (or undermining of the defence), further blurred the line between combatant and non-combatant.
Judging by that less rigorous standard, the reduction of Carthage in the Third Punic War merits examination. The population of the city of Carthage is in dispute–I’ve seen figures of anywhere from 250,000 to three quarters of a million–but we’re pretty certain that only 50,000 civillians emerged alive, and they were sold into slavery. As best I can tell, all captured Carthaginian soldiers were killed. The harbor was destroyed and the city systematically burned, and Carthage as a nation forever disappeared.
Generals Keegan and Brooking obviously weren’t commanding at the time…
Interesting article. My knowledge of the Paraguayan War isn’t very deep, it comes mostly from passing references to it comparing it to the US Civil War, though in terms of accuracy of numbers, I came up with this as well, from Dupuy & Dupuy’s Encyclopedia of Military History:
J. F. C. Fuller summed up the problems of accuracy in casualty figures pretty well with “War may be a science or an art; but it’s reporting is mainly a dodge.” 
One big problem with deaths amongst armies is deciding whether non-battle deaths count or not. Until this century, most deaths amongst armies in the field occurred though disease, malnutrition, and starvation. I’d argue that they should count, as they occurred as a result of an army doing its job, which meant among other things marching in the field and conducting sieges away from logistical supplies and living under harsh conditions.
While not exactly a war, [the Battle of Toledo](http://wiwi.essortment.com/toledowar_rzxq.htm) had no casualties, and only one injury.err I misread your quote as the most likely to return from:smack:
An opportunity to post (probably again):
“It may well be the best statistical graphic ever drawn.” Charles Joseph Minard’s 1861 thematic map of Napoleon’s ill-fated march on Moscow was described thusly by Edward Tufte in his acclaimed 1983 book, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. "
http://www.ddg.com/LIS/InfoDesignF97/dknauft/napoleon/map.html
The French ALWAYS suffer less casualties than any other side when they are at war due to their tactics of retreating at the first sight of the enemy.
For further info on this just type in *french military victories *in your address bar.
Incidentally did you know that the French are the only nation to have ever lost TWO wars aginst the Italians, that’s right TWO!!!
In october 1944 Italy under Marschall Badoglio declared war on the third Reich. So practically Germany lost both world wars against the Italians…