21 Jan '12 11:46>2 edits
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.
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.