News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

The 20th century’s 10 deadliest battles

Started by Brazen, February 27, 2014, 06:07:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Brain

Women want me. Men want to be with me.


Ed Anger

I'm having that now with my constipation.

MAH COLACE
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Brazen on February 27, 2014, 07:00:34 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 27, 2014, 06:59:08 AM
Pray, may I ask who the author might be?
Not me, which is what you're really asking, right?

We know you wouldn't confuse battles with campaigns, dear.  :hug:

PJL

Quote from: lustindarkness on February 27, 2014, 12:27:26 PM
Can someone go ahead with the ACW thread highjack already?

Fact; America's most deadly enemy in her wars has been Americans...

PJL

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2014, 02:00:43 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 27, 2014, 12:27:26 PM
Can someone go ahead with the ACW thread highjack already?

Those 20th century battles/disasters/engagements or whatever bone pick Grumbler has, have nothing on the battles/disasters/engagements of the American Civil War.

Yeah, I read that the Battle of Sharpsburg had the highest casualties for one day until the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Which in itself is considered the deadliest day of battle ever.

Zanza

#51
Quote from: PJL on February 28, 2014, 04:51:43 AM
Yeah, I read that the Battle of Sharpsburg had the highest casualties for one day until the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Which in itself is considered the deadliest day of battle ever.
Cannae is a fairly well documented one day battle which probably saw more dead than the first day of the Somme. And I am sure there must be more ancient or medieval battles like that. When you just meet with two armies on a field and slaughter each other, you can get very high one day losses.
What makes industrial warfare so deadly is that these kind of battles were sustained over weeks and months.

grumbler

Quote from: Zanza on February 28, 2014, 05:13:50 AM
Cannae is a fairly well documented one day battle which probably saw more dead than the first day of the Somme. And I am sure there must be more ancient or medieval battles like that. When you just meet with two armies on a field and slaughter each other, you can get very high one day losses.
What makes industrial warfare so deadly is that these kind of battles were sustained over weeks and months.

What makes industrial warfare so deadly is also that the victor was almost as devastated as the loser, and so the battles, while bloody, were not decisive.  In a battle like Cannae, the bulk of the Roman losses came after their formations fell apart, and so were inflicted at hugely disproportionate rates.  There was still an effective Carthaginian army to take advantage of its victory and make sure the broken Romans didn't escape and recover.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

PDH

Yeah, it seems that ancient battles (as far as I know, not an expert), were fairly low casualties until one side broke due to exhaustion or being flanked.  The victors would then slaughter the defeated if they could.
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.
-Umberto Eco

-------
"I'm pretty sure my level of depression has nothing to do with how much of a fucking asshole you are."

-CdM

alfred russel

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 27, 2014, 02:52:17 PM
Just imagine if Pickett's men had kevlar vests.   :hmm:

What would have happened if South African racists went back in time and gave the Confederacy AK-47s? So we know the answer to that one.

But what if at the same time, the NAACP found out about the plot, and went back in time to deliver kevlar vests to the Union?

Now that sounds like the makings of a great book...
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

lustindarkness

Quote from: PDH on February 28, 2014, 10:01:59 AM
Yeah, it seems that ancient battles (as far as I know, not an expert), were fairly low casualties until one side broke due to exhaustion or being flanked.  The victors would then slaughter the defeated if they could.

We should go back to that.
Grand Duke of Lurkdom

MadImmortalMan

How many ancient battles had the sheer number of participants in them? Logistics made uber-concentrations of soldiers relatively rare.
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

grumbler

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 28, 2014, 06:21:42 PM
How many ancient battles had the sheer number of participants in them? Logistics made uber-concentrations of soldiers relatively rare.

I am not sure what you are arguing.  Certainly, numbers reported in ancient "histories" are generally much exaggerated (like the "two million man" army Xerxes supposedly invaded Greece with), but large armies (like that of Xerxes, which may well have been in excess of 500,000 including support personnel) were mustered for a campaign season.  Alesia probably involved a quarter-million men and probably saw 100,000 casualties, including prisoners later released.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

CountDeMoney

Quote from: lustindarkness on February 28, 2014, 11:28:44 AM
Quote from: PDH on February 28, 2014, 10:01:59 AM
Yeah, it seems that ancient battles (as far as I know, not an expert), were fairly low casualties until one side broke due to exhaustion or being flanked.  The victors would then slaughter the defeated if they could.

We should go back to that.

We do.


Ed Anger

Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive