|
True and false. They didn't go around butchering enemies - i will say this though, part of the reason is that during the 1800's the # of wars after the Napoleonic Wars decreased considerably - the Congress of Vienna helped keep peace and even the Crimean War and Franco-Prussian War were fairly fast affairs.
Sure, there were times when people had stuff stolen, but think about it - at that time, many many armies were conscripted and often wore no shoes at times and were often poorly trained and equipped. Think of the American Civil War - everyone says the Confederates were poorly equipped but even the Union had soldiers going around barefooted - looting the dead was almost always common.
Yes even in the Civil War the word of the others would be kept - I remember the story of the battle where the two sides fought over a day and many wounded and dying men were left in no man's land between the union and confederate lines - the two sides had a one day truce and the next day they picked up the wounded and hell they practically had a picnic as the two sides sat there and talked - the next day they went back to killing each other.
I'd say as much that the main wars fought in Europe were much more honorable than the wars fought in the colonies where the "barbaric" tribes were often slaughtered and vice versa - and colonial rivalries often didn't follow the code.
Bitter hatred and nationalism you stated 18th century - i can see the 1700s since that would be the 18th century but Im guessing you meant hte 1800's (19th century)? which is what I was addressing anyways.
And yes during the "old times" - actually til the Civil War really - the musket / smoothbore was the usual weapon.
it was simple but inaccurate as hell - you could miss at 100 yards even if you bothered aiming - miss a whole goddamn mass of people - hence with large conscriptd armies, you had cheap soldiers that could be trained easily to fight - it seems stupid today but it was the sytle of fighting.
the early to mid 1800s saw the rifling of barrels and by the Civil War both sides had rifled weaposn though they were still pretty much reloaded the same way - but the technology of kiling had increased incredibly from the time of hte Civil War from just a decade ago in the Crimean War.
Suddenly inventors had invented self-contained cartridges which were employed in the first repeating rifles (the winchester and other rifles made their debut this time) - not to mention the gatling gun.
The reason they weren't employed en masse by teh Union as that htey ahd a stubborn as hell secretary of war and they were already manufacturing something like hudnreds of types of rounds already and they didn't see the need.
Thus the fighting was often the same line style battle - but the rate of kiling went up greatly. Hence we had some particuararly bloody battles all throughout the war - but the LARGEST amount of casualties still came as in millenia past from DISEASE. Infected wounds were almost sure death, and the medical procedure wasn't very good.
The actual # of Civil War COMBAT deaths is very little comapred to the # of deaths resulting from infection and disease.
By World War I however, war took another technologcial leap. Towards the end of the Civil War, the Confederates increasingly used trench lines to defend their position as they fought the last year of the war on the defensive - static lines around cities such as Richmond and so on. The European Nations took note of this - though there were almost nowars between after the Franco-prussian war (around 1870-1871 iirc) until WWI (1914).
During this time, the technology increased incredibly - first were explosvie shells fired by artillery - much mroe destructive than ever and used en masse.
Second was the basic rifle was changed - suddenly it didn't take 20 seconds to load an old musket - now a rifleman could fire 20 shots a second (bolt action rifles).
Third - airplanes, though they weren't used in combat until 1912 when italians dropped the first greandes from them - and weren't of age until actual WW1.
Fourth - machine guns, such as the Maxim gun. Ironically entering hte war, the empires of Europe often employed the same guns and airplanes - so Maxim machine guns were acutally used by both sides.
Not to mention during this time nations such as Germany and Britain had built up huge industries that could be geared for war - which lead to these weapons being used in mass. The railroads and what not were also used extensively to move troops for offensives and to secure sectors and waht not. Equipment could be transffered quickly.
When World War I came, the nations at first saw the fight as one that would be fought as their fathers and their fathers had fought - by the time they clashed it became clear it couldnt work.
When a shell could obliterate an entire line - when a machinegun could mow people down - the two sides on the Western Front dug in.
The war became the stalemate we know of as the Western Front - a meat grinder would be a word to describe it. Troops would constantly be brought in - to replenish the lines that were killed.
Through the 4 years of war, the line enver shifted more than i bleieve 20 miles?
Think about it - 4 years of war and within those 20 miles something like 20 million people ended up dying.
To THIS DAY (if you visit france) you can see the results of the war - craters are still there though it may be hard to notice - trench lines still run through fields, bombed out buildings and bunkers.
Think about every day non-stop shelling, occasionally patrols and probes into enemy lines which could cost many men - full offensives where you may seey our entire platoon mowed down by enemy defenses as you futilely charged, only to barely survive crawling back. The woudned left out to die - horses with guts all over the ground - bodies tangled in the barbed wire for shooting practice - and then of course gas was used for the first time in war, adding a whole new level.
And then by WW2 technology advanced yet again - better planes made heavier and more deadly bombings. The majority of deaths in WW2 were CIVILIANS - entire cities flattened by bombing - some of htese cities that had stood for thousands of years.
Think about it - Germany having maybe 60-80 million people at that time losing around 7 million men killed - and millions of wounded and maimed for the rest of their lives.
Russia - 150 million going into the war or something, estiamtes range from 22 to 30 million dead by the end of the war.
Britain lost nearly a million - Japan well over a million - China over 2 million. Hell I ahd a grandfather who fought there and out of his class of 20,000 military academy only 5,000 survived the war.
The U.S. had an armed forces of over 10 million and yet over 1 million were casualties of which around 1/3 were deaths.
Why suddenly did WW1 and 2 have many more casualties than deaths? Because medicine ahd caught up as well and treatment was much better and survival rate was incredibly high.
And yet by the end of WW2 people knew it - war had been so costly and bloody that yes now entire nations could cease to exist. Thus in a sense we are blessed with the fact that no one wants a major total war anymore - because all it may lead to is millions of deaths. A nuclear war? Almost guaranteed billions.
Thats why if you plot deaths per year due to war, you will see the number rise from the first recorded wars pretty consitently to 1914 then rise considerably then... lower a bit after the war.. then rise consiederably 1939 to 1945 - then after that the number plumets greatly.
Its something I feel that all humans shouldd learn - don't face the same wars because the horrors may only get worse.
|