You all are wrong. CIVIL WAR PEOPLE! More deaths than all the wars combined! AND it was brothers against brothers! A brother from the south shot his confederate brother! Terrible!
Assuming you mean the American Civil War, what makes an american life more important or worthwhile than anon-american life? If your just gonna go on deaths there are many wars that are worse.
Deth666, over 900,000 people where killed. Imagine shooting your own dad with a musket.
Well, 600,000 were killed in 5 years. The American Civil War was tame compared to most modern wars. People also have this idea that it was the only war that was "brother against brother." Well guess what, most wars are like that. American's please get off your high horse.
I think 600,000 is closer from what I know. But in the Sudan civil War (second) about 1.9 million people have died. As far as death tol goes the American Civil war is no where near the worst.
Deth666, over 900,000 people where killed. Imagine shooting your own dad with a musket.
ok sounds like fun i never met him
i agree the american civil war was a pretty brutal war but it don't think its the worst and i think the count is like 600k not 900 where as 40 million died in WWI
I forgot about all the horrible poison gases that were cooked up especially mustard gas. They really didn't have anything to protect themselves against it except gas masks but they didn't help with the chemical burns.
Most of the best war poetry came out of WW1. Here's a great one describing a gas attack and the horror of it.
Deth666, over 900,000 people where killed. Imagine shooting your own dad with a musket.
1 million British soldiers were killed in WW1. The total number of casualties of the war was around 30 million.
That's because only modern wars have included the technology enabling killing to take place on a scale never seen before, even in the most epic of sword and shield era battles.
In fear of turning this thread into a loop: shouldn;t it be how many people were killed compared to the total population rather than just how many people were killed.
In fear of turning this thread into a loop: shouldn;t it be how many people were killed compared to the total population rather than just how many people were killed.
It should be on a case by case basis. Number of killed, or proportion of total population killed is not always the definitive indicator as to which war was the 'wrpst'. Take WW2 for example. Proportionally, Greece suffered the worst, with 10% of its population being killed (total population around 6 million). 2.8% of Russians were killed, but that equated to 20 million deaths. Which nation do you think suffered more? Stats like that are confusing, which is why it should not be based purely on deaths/proportion killed.
In fear of turning this thread into a loop: shouldn;t it be how many people were killed compared to the total population rather than just how many people were killed.
i don't think the amount of people killed should be the deciding factor the amount of dead don't necessarily convey how atrocious and bloody the fighting was
True but then of course we have to add in nationality because American deaths are far worse which is why the civil war (like its the only one) is the worst. (it makes me cry it really does) lol.
What do you think the worst individual battle was? In any war.
True but then of course we have to add in nationality because American deaths are far worse which is why the civil war (like its the only one) is the worst. (it makes me cry it really does) lol.
Lol.
What do you think the worst individual battle was? In any war.
If I had to choose one batle it would have to be Stalingrad. It was simply awful for both sides. I highly recommend the book entitled Stlingrad by Antony Beevor. It's an excellent study on it.
