Ancient vs modern warfare

[Questioner]

I've heard different things about ancient vs modern warfare than the differences. (I've planned on reading some history of military thought, such as the "Just War Theory" by Augustine, but haven't done so yet).

Generally, modern warfare is seen as deadlier due to technologies such as weapons of mass destruction (e.x. nuclear weapons), and the casualties of recent wars, such as Hitler's genocide of 20 million people or Stalin and Mao's genocides, or other post-Industrial revolution wars such as the American civil war, or both world wars.

However, I've also heard arguments that ancient warfare was often deadlier relative to the available technology and culture of its time (e.x. Ghenghis Khan allegedly killed 40 million people, using the most sophisticated technology of his day and age - swords, bows, spears, and so forth; I also recall hearing that Khan's military strategy wasn't rediscovered again until Nazi Germany).

Likewise, I've heard that warfare between ancient tribes (e.x. hunter-gatherer tribes) sometimes killed a higher percentage of their populatons than modern wars have, even though the actual population numbers and death tolls were much smaller.

Anyone care to venture any thoughts on this?

 

[gulfman]

Do you think Robert E Lee would have used nuclear bombs on the North if he had them?

 

[Questioner]

Do you think Robert E Lee would have used nuclear bombs on the North if he had them?

Unsure, I heard he was a sympathizer with the North but ultimately fought for the South, and was respected by Lincoln.

I'm not sure about General Grant, maybe he would have.

 

[WinterBorn]

With modern small arms, a few soldiers could hold off hundreds of ancient soldiers.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Soldiers used to fight soldiers. And oddly, people would picnic on the periphery of the battlefield. How creepy. Reminds me of the Romans taking their seats in the Coliseum. With the advent of the airplane, all that changed. Areas were targeted and everywhere became a potential battlefield.

How many good souls have we lost due to war...

 

[WinterBorn]

Soldiers used to fight soldiers. And oddly, people would picnic on the periphery of the battlefield. How creepy. Reminds me of the Romans taking their seats in the Coliseum. With the advent of the airplane, all that changed. Areas were targeted and everywhere became a potential battlefield.

How many good souls have we lost due to war...

Far too many.

 

[OldLady]

Soldiers used to fight soldiers. And oddly, people would picnic on the periphery of the battlefield. How creepy. Reminds me of the Romans taking their seats in the Coliseum. With the advent of the airplane, all that changed. Areas were targeted and everywhere became a potential battlefield.

How many good souls have we lost due to war...

That's really sick. "Rubber necking" on a grand scale, huh?

Now that we have missiles that fly with pinpoint accuracy and unmanned drones, we can destroy a place without sending in an army of flesh and blood soldiers. But like you said, our targets have become hidden in among the citizens--so innocents die whenever we target someone with those weapons.
War is going to continue to suck big time until some nut sends the nukes flying, and then we will have peace. Forever.

 

[Oddball]

I've heard different things about ancient vs modern warfare than the differences. (I've planned on reading some history of military thought, such as the "Just War Theory" by Augustine, but haven't done so yet).

Generally, modern warfare is seen as deadlier due to technologies such as weapons of mass destruction (e.x. nuclear weapons), and the casualties of recent wars, such as Hitler's genocide of 20 million people or Stalin and Mao's genocides, or other post-Industrial revolution wars such as the American civil war, or both world wars.

However, I've also heard arguments that ancient warfare was often deadlier relative to the available technology and culture of its time (e.x. Ghenghis Khan allegedly killed 40 million people, using the most sophisticated technology of his day and age - swords, bows, spears, and so forth; I also recall hearing that Khan's military strategy wasn't rediscovered again until Nazi Germany).

Likewise, I've heard that warfare between ancient tribes (e.x. hunter-gatherer tribes) sometimes killed a higher percentage of their populatons than modern wars have, even though the actual population numbers and death tolls were much smaller.

Anyone care to venture any thoughts on this?

WWII killed more civilians than any other war...In terms of raw numbers anyway, I've not heard any percentages worked out in comparison.

In that respect, modern warfare is far more deadly to the population at large.

 

[gulfman]

With modern small arms, a few soldiers could hold off hundreds of ancient soldiers.

The British lined the dead Zulu up like a cord of wood

 

[harmonica]

I've heard different things about ancient vs modern warfare than the differences. (I've planned on reading some history of military thought, such as the "Just War Theory" by Augustine, but haven't done so yet).

Generally, modern warfare is seen as deadlier due to technologies such as weapons of mass destruction (e.x. nuclear weapons), and the casualties of recent wars, such as Hitler's genocide of 20 million people or Stalin and Mao's genocides, or other post-Industrial revolution wars such as the American civil war, or both world wars.

However, I've also heard arguments that ancient warfare was often deadlier relative to the available technology and culture of its time (e.x. Ghenghis Khan allegedly killed 40 million people, using the most sophisticated technology of his day and age - swords, bows, spears, and so forth; I also recall hearing that Khan's military strategy wasn't rediscovered again until Nazi Germany).

Likewise, I've heard that warfare between ancient tribes (e.x. hunter-gatherer tribes) sometimes killed a higher percentage of their populatons than modern wars have, even though the actual population numbers and death tolls were much smaller.

Anyone care to venture any thoughts on this?

..hitler's genocide was NOT warfare--modern ''WEAPONS'' were not used ..they used gas for a lot of the killing ..it was genocide--not warfare

....more people were killed with conventional weapons than with nuclear weapons ..there was only one war where nuclear weapons were used and that was by only one country at the end of the war

..the Tutsis killed more people per time period with medieval type weapons used than Germany killed in the Holocaust time period

..the hunter-gatherers had a LOT less population--so the comparison is wrong

 

[harmonica]

With modern small arms, a few soldiers could hold off hundreds of ancient soldiers.

you think???!!!
..the Brits had firearms and the Zulus had mostly spears--the Zulus killed the all

 

[harmonica]

With modern small arms, a few soldiers could hold off hundreds of ancient soldiers.

The British lined the dead Zulu up like a cord of wood

...actually the Zulus killed all the Brits at Isandlwana...the Brits had firearms and the Zulus mostly spears

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

With modern small arms, a few soldiers could hold off hundreds of ancient soldiers.

Yawn, so did some soldiers in the past.

Poland & Sparta. particularly come to mind.

Battle of Hodow 400 Poles held off 40,000 Tatars.

 

[harmonica]

I've heard different things about ancient vs modern warfare than the differences. (I've planned on reading some history of military thought, such as the "Just War Theory" by Augustine, but haven't done so yet).

Generally, modern warfare is seen as deadlier due to technologies such as weapons of mass destruction (e.x. nuclear weapons), and the casualties of recent wars, such as Hitler's genocide of 20 million people or Stalin and Mao's genocides, or other post-Industrial revolution wars such as the American civil war, or both world wars.

However, I've also heard arguments that ancient warfare was often deadlier relative to the available technology and culture of its time (e.x. Ghenghis Khan allegedly killed 40 million people, using the most sophisticated technology of his day and age - swords, bows, spears, and so forth; I also recall hearing that Khan's military strategy wasn't rediscovered again until Nazi Germany).

Likewise, I've heard that warfare between ancient tribes (e.x. hunter-gatherer tribes) sometimes killed a higher percentage of their populatons than modern wars have, even though the actual population numbers and death tolls were much smaller.

Anyone care to venture any thoughts on this?

WWII killed more civilians than any other war...In terms of raw numbers anyway, I've not heard any percentages worked out in comparison.

In that respect, modern warfare is far more deadly to the population at large.

a lot of those were from starvation and disease [ not modern ] and genocide [ not modern ]

During WWII, famine-related deaths matched or outnumbered military losses.

The famines of WWII | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal
Casualties of World War II | History of Western Civilization II

 

[Questioner]

I've heard different things about ancient vs modern warfare than the differences. (I've planned on reading some history of military thought, such as the "Just War Theory" by Augustine, but haven't done so yet).

Generally, modern warfare is seen as deadlier due to technologies such as weapons of mass destruction (e.x. nuclear weapons), and the casualties of recent wars, such as Hitler's genocide of 20 million people or Stalin and Mao's genocides, or other post-Industrial revolution wars such as the American civil war, or both world wars.

However, I've also heard arguments that ancient warfare was often deadlier relative to the available technology and culture of its time (e.x. Ghenghis Khan allegedly killed 40 million people, using the most sophisticated technology of his day and age - swords, bows, spears, and so forth; I also recall hearing that Khan's military strategy wasn't rediscovered again until Nazi Germany).

Likewise, I've heard that warfare between ancient tribes (e.x. hunter-gatherer tribes) sometimes killed a higher percentage of their populatons than modern wars have, even though the actual population numbers and death tolls were much smaller.

Anyone care to venture any thoughts on this?

WWII killed more civilians than any other war...In terms of raw numbers anyway, I've not heard any percentages worked out in comparison.

In that respect, modern warfare is far more deadly to the population at large.

a lot of those were from starvation and disease [ not modern ] and genocide [ not modern ]

During WWII, famine-related deaths matched or outnumbered military losses.

The famines of WWII | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal
Casualties of World War II | History of Western Civilization II

That's not totally dichomotic.

I consider WWI and WW2 "modern" as in having existed after the Industrial Revolution, but I take it you mean warfare since the end of the Cold War, or something like that.

 

[harmonica]

I've heard different things about ancient vs modern warfare than the differences. (I've planned on reading some history of military thought, such as the "Just War Theory" by Augustine, but haven't done so yet).

Generally, modern warfare is seen as deadlier due to technologies such as weapons of mass destruction (e.x. nuclear weapons), and the casualties of recent wars, such as Hitler's genocide of 20 million people or Stalin and Mao's genocides, or other post-Industrial revolution wars such as the American civil war, or both world wars.

However, I've also heard arguments that ancient warfare was often deadlier relative to the available technology and culture of its time (e.x. Ghenghis Khan allegedly killed 40 million people, using the most sophisticated technology of his day and age - swords, bows, spears, and so forth; I also recall hearing that Khan's military strategy wasn't rediscovered again until Nazi Germany).

Likewise, I've heard that warfare between ancient tribes (e.x. hunter-gatherer tribes) sometimes killed a higher percentage of their populatons than modern wars have, even though the actual population numbers and death tolls were much smaller.

Anyone care to venture any thoughts on this?

WWII killed more civilians than any other war...In terms of raw numbers anyway, I've not heard any percentages worked out in comparison.

In that respect, modern warfare is far more deadly to the population at large.

a lot of those were from starvation and disease [ not modern ] and genocide [ not modern ]

During WWII, famine-related deaths matched or outnumbered military losses.

The famines of WWII | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal
Casualties of World War II | History of Western Civilization II

That's not totally dichomotic.

I consider WWI and WW2 "modern" as in having existed after the Industrial Revolution, but I take it you mean warfare since the end of the Cold War, or something like that.

....but a lot didn't die from modern warfare --
...MORE people and countries were involved than ever before = so you can't say modern warfare was deadlier....the weapons were --not so much the warfare

 

[WinterBorn]

With modern small arms, a few soldiers could hold off hundreds of ancient soldiers.

The British lined the dead Zulu up like a cord of wood

...actually the Zulus killed all the Brits at Isandlwana...the Brits had firearms and the Zulus mostly spears

The battle was in 1879. Hardly modern firearms.

Also, the Brits were not sure where the Zulus were, or how many. Modern warfare includes intell that could not be gotten with ancient armies.

Plus, being able to move an entire army via mechanized means, would make the modern army even more invinceable.

 

[harmonica]

With modern small arms, a few soldiers could hold off hundreds of ancient soldiers.

The British lined the dead Zulu up like a cord of wood

...actually the Zulus killed all the Brits at Isandlwana...the Brits had firearms and the Zulus mostly spears

The battle was in 1879. Hardly modern firearms.

Also, the Brits were not sure where the Zulus were, or how many. Modern warfare includes intell that could not be gotten with ancient armies.

Plus, being able to move an entire army via mechanized means, would make the modern army even more invinceable.

..spear range how long? maybe 20 feet
..Martini Henry --about 1000 YARDS

 

[harmonica]

With modern small arms, a few soldiers could hold off hundreds of ancient soldiers.

The British lined the dead Zulu up like a cord of wood

...actually the Zulus killed all the Brits at Isandlwana...the Brits had firearms and the Zulus mostly spears

The battle was in 1879. Hardly modern firearms.

Also, the Brits were not sure where the Zulus were, or how many. Modern warfare includes intell that could not be gotten with ancient armies.

Plus, being able to move an entire army via mechanized means, would make the modern army even more invinceable.

..the German and Japanese WW2 main rifles were single shot like the Brit weapons were single shot
...the Native Americans massacred Custer and they used mostly non-firearms against firearms
..WW2 K98 15 rds pm
..Martini Henry 12rpm

 

[SavannahMann]

Warfare is never pretty, no matter what era it is in. As far as most deadly, there are a lot of factors that could go into that discussion. For example, it is far more likely that a wounded soldier, or civilian will survive today, and even in “modern” wars of the 20th Century, thanks to advances in medicine. At the time of the Civil War (American) for example, we were just learning that “death” was on the hands of the surgeons, and some of them washed, and some did not, before moving onto the next wounded troop.

Infections were often death.

Fifty years later, we understood about bacteria, and bacterial infections. We did not develop Penicillin for example, until 1928. Sulfa was another “modern” invention that did not get developed until the interwar years. It like Penicillin was considered a miracle drug. It saved lives that would have died before.

You can chart the improvements in medicine step by step by wars. What we learn, when we learn it, and how we apply it. Today’s shock trauma standards were developed by the Military in many cases. Lessons learned, techniques developed to save lives on the battlefield.

Think of it this way. In the 1830’s, a study revealed that you were literally just as likely to recover if you went to a Doctor, or not. Your odds of survival did not improve one bit going to a Doctor. The action of cutting off a limb to stop an infection. It was often done with dirty knives, and saws, which meant that more infection could well be introduced into the system. If you were strong enough, and your system was able to fight off the infection or disease, you lived. If not, you died.

In Afghanistan, we have roughly speaking, ten wounded for every death. That is perhaps seven or eight who would not survive in a historical battle. Today, there are Doctors who are furious that they are not saving those one out of ten. They are trying to come up with new techniques, new ways of saving those lives. We used to joke when I was in, if you made it to the Aide Station alive, you had a solid 80% chance of survival, no matter how badly you were hurt.

We had a training accident during a jump. A buddy was leap frogging to the ground with another troop. He hit hard. Real hard. On the ground, we approached our friend and hesitated. The injuries we saw were problematic to say the least. Broken Femur. Broken arm, probable neck or spine injuries, pink foam on his lips, so broken ribs with punctured lungs. If we roll him to clear his airway, good chance we would have him bleed out from the broken leg, or kill him with a spinal injury. We couldn’t roll him until we had braced his leg, and head. I won’t go into the details of how we did it, but we did not give up and neither did he.

The Dustoff bird was a UH-60, and I have never seen a Helicopter take off faster than that one did the second they got him aboard and the door closed. My friend lived, don’t ask me how. He was walking in six months, with the help of a cane. He was medically discharged from the Army, and I have no idea what happened to him after that, but I hope he lives today.

That Helicopter redlined the engines getting to the Hospital at Fort Bragg as fast as it could. Minutes were precious, seconds were valuable, and the Doctors did an impossible job to save his life.