There are some interesting numbers about the proportion of deaths in some famous ancient battles.
The world population at the time of the ancient battles quoted below was estimated at between 50 and 200 million people. And in a lot of cases, the battle took place on one day - if not on one day then maybe a few days, in times when killing had not been automated.
I purposely hand-picked a few battles that I knew about. There are plenty more. Admittedly the records are scant but I have used the lower range of the estimated number of casualties below.
333 BC, Alexander v Darius at Issus, 50,000+ dead
331 BC, Alexander defeats Darius at Gaugamela, 50,000+ dead
217 BC, Hannibal v Romans at Lake Trasimene : 30,000+ dead in one day
216 BC, Hannibal v Romans at Cannae, 50,000+ dead in one day
We will have seen wholesale loss of life in WW1 and WW2 but I'm guessing, for individual battles (not campaigns), these ancient battles represent a larger proportion of the population at that time. Certainly some of the longer campaigns during the world wars would have had a far greater number of casualties - but as a proportion of the population and comparing battles with battles and campaigns with campaigns? I'm not so sure that we are worse off today.
The battle of the Somme in WW1 had about 58,000 casualties on the first day - at a time when the world population was about 1,600 million. The Battle of the Somme lasted 3.5 months with casualties of 1 million - about 10,000 men per day. Given the world population size was 10 times that of 100-200BC, the relative casualty rates (as a percentage of the world population) in the ancient battles were significantly higher.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by RBHILLSo in other words, the end of times are coming. Yup I've heard that rumor. By the way I'm fighting on Satan's side and contrary to popular opinion we're going to win because while you people are sitting around whinging and wringing your hands we're preparing for battle. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!
If you take the time and read the list of wars and famine in history on the wikipedia site. You will see that there has been more wars fought in modern days then in the past. Same goes for famines list.
Originally posted by googlefudgeBut the tsunami is not a war.
and?
The Japan tsunami killed twenty odd thousand and the boxing day tsunami killed hundreds of thousands.
The American war's in Iraq and Afghanistan killed tens if not hundreds of thousands.
9/11 probably doesn't factor in the top 50 most fatal events of the last decade.
And more people die annually in car crashes in the USA than died on 9/1 ...[text shortened]... atalities about once every month on average.
None of which has any baring on my arguments.
Originally posted by RBHILLIt was an act of terrorism, not state-sponsored so not an act of war. The US chose to respond to it by starting two different wars by invading two other countries despite no evidence linking the governments of those countries to the atrocity.
It was cause by man. It was the start of one.
Originally posted by RBHILLWhich isn't good for your statistics is it?
But the tsunami is not a war.
I am still waiting for you to substantiate your claim.
Read your OP again. It says that we will 'see that there has been more wars fought in modern days then in the past', yet we do not in fact see this.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethere is inherent harmony in dissolving salt in water. a person can ascribe "intelligence" to it if they like, but such attribution is irrelevant.
no you cannot, because the person has examined the natural world and can point to
intricate harmonious systems. If he or she wishes to ascribe to those intricate system
an intelligence, what will you say, there is no harmony, their is no intelligence in design,
i dont think so, no reasonable person sound in mind observes a complex system
ani ...[text shortened]... telligence, only those who have limited their thinking to unintelligent agencies have
done so.
"wondering" about concepts of intelligent design is not evidence or proof of such.
seriously, is that all you have? your entire argument is basically:
" i see something too complicated for me to understand, i wonder if some intelligence is behind it...yes, that must be it. some intelligence must be behind it. no further evidence is necessary for me, i like my ignorance, thank you."
Originally posted by VoidSpiritis this all you have a condescension proffered from your room full of mirrors, spare me
there is inherent harmony in dissolving salt in water. a person can ascribe "intelligence" to it if they like, but such attribution is irrelevant.
"wondering" about concepts of intelligent design is not evidence or proof of such.
seriously, is that all you have? your entire argument is basically:
" i see something too complicated for me to unde ...[text shortened]... t be behind it. no further evidence is necessary for me, i like my ignorance, thank you."
please, I have better things to do than read such drivel.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso far all you've offered is "inference."
is this all you have a condescension proffered from your room full of mirrors, spare me
please, I have better things to do than read such drivel.
inference is not evidence, it's a poor-mans hypothesis formulated from available evidence. you then have to go on and gather more evidence to form a viable hypothesis. after you have that, you'll need even more evidence to formulate a theory. the theory then becomes subject to all sorts of falsification experiments.
so what do you have? a guess. that's all. and a bad guess at that.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethats my point Robbie - its not!
its evidence to the people who are drawing the inferences.
I draw inferences when I want to place the cards at bridge but I know it is not evidence! (Else I would accuse opponents of cheating everytime I got a finesse wrong!!)
Originally posted by avalanchethecatConcerning four planes used as bombs or torpedos, aimed at the military center and the government center. (9/11)
It was an act of terrorism, not state-sponsored so not an act of war. The US chose to respond to it by starting two different wars by invading two other countries despite no evidence linking the governments of those countries to the atrocity.
You would not count an attempt to cripple a nation by destroying one of its financial centers as an act of war ? To crash a plane into a country's center for military planning would not be an act of war ?
I don't know about that.
Originally posted by jaywillan act of war by which country?
Concerning four planes used as bombs or torpedos, aimed at the military center and the government center. (9/11)
You would not count an attempt to cripple a nation by destroying one of its financial centers as an act of war ? To crash a plane into a country's center for military planning would not be an act of war ?
I don't know about [b]that. [/b]
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI guess the implication of your question is that no "country" could be said to have attacked the Pentagon or the Capital Building (by intention).
an act of war by which country?
Can only countries make war ?
Suppose someone gets together a few people and burst through the Pentagon gates with albiet primitive weapons, seeking to take out military officers.
No room there to call that an act of war though a "country" is not represented ?
Originally posted by jaywillIt would be a violent, criminal act and murder or attempted murder. The actual and perfectly sufficient meaning of words gets rinsed and distorted so much, and so unnecessarily. There is nothing to be gained from misusing the word "war" when the word "criminality" is available and perfectly apt.
Suppose someone gets together a few people and burst through the Pentagon gates with albiet primitive weapons, seeking to take out military officers.
No room there to call that an act of war though a "country" is not represented ?