4 ms·

So, I had always learned that the American Civil war was a foreshadowing of WWI, both the high number of casualties, and the entrenchment which was being utiliz

So, I had always learned that the American Civil war was a foreshadowing of WWI, both the high number of casualties, and the entrenchment which was being utilized by the end of the Civil War... I knew about the Austro-Prussian and the Franco-Prussian Wars, but I didn't know about the casualties, OMG: > Total casualties in killed, wounded, and missing broke 100,000, with Austrian losses nearly doubling those of the Prussians. In two months of fighting? That's crazy, and at a 1-2 rate, definitely the end of the muzzle-loaded rifle. > Combined casualties from the combatants (killed, wounded, missing) neared the 1 million mark. In 9 months of fighting? That's insane. Those numbers far exceed the American Civil War, which was Approx. 650,000 for the entire four years. It should have been obvious to both France and Germany that WWI was going to be much much more deadly, they both had directly experienced it a generation before. It's sad this didn't give them pause.

WesleyLivesay 10y ago
I think they are erroneously including the number of men captured in the Franco-Prussian number. They aren't sharing sources for this article so it is hard to know but Wikipedia (which does source the number) lists 475,000 of that million number as prisoners of war that probably survived the war and were repatriated.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Well, even if you do divide it in half, that's still a rate of death of 500,000 a year. So using that as a way of estimating deaths of another conflict, it should have been enough to stop an actual war. That requires the people ruling the countries to actually care about the effects this would have on their own populations... Sadly, even using that as an estimate it would have been off by more than half of how many would actually die.
  - WesleyLivesay 10y ago
    Absolutely! I don't think your conclusions are wrong, it is pretty crazy that they would make that large of an error in the article. I assume they mixed up "missing" and "captured". It is also worth remembering that everybody thought the war in 1914 would be short, there were very few people who thought it would drag out for years. All involved probably did some mental math based on actions like the the Franco-Prussian war and figured that the same level of casualties, or even twice as many, was worth it. If they would have known, which we do with hindsight, that it was going to take 4+ years of fighting it may have never happened.
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? I agree, they definitely believed it was going to be over quickly, but why would they have thought it was less than 9 months (easy to assume 500K killed based on previous experience). In addition to that, you had two countries that were literally preparing for this conflict for years, poking each other around the world up to that point. I think anyone who thought it was going to be short, would have been completely ignoring all evidence that would have stated otherwise.
      - vkou 10y ago
        > Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? Yes. Germany came within spitting distance of Paris thanks to the Shlieffen plan, and was only hobbled at the eleventh hour by overextended supply lines. Meanwhile, the Entente was counting on the Russian juggernaut, with its millions of men to overrun East Germany. The Russians saw great successes against Austrian forces, but met a complete disaster when they engaged the Germans. As it turned out, the Russian empire was a paper tiger - completely unprepared to fight a war.
        grotsnot 10y ago
        Would the war have actually ended early if Germany had taken Paris? With the British and Russians still unmolested on their own turf, wouldn't the French have tried to retake the city instead of surrendering? Or at least their allies keep fighting? (I realize this perception is colored by how it played out in WWII so I'm curious whether it would also apply to WWI)
        vkou 10y ago
        The British expeditionary force was tiny, and the Russians were smashed. Neither could have fought on in Europe after France was eliminated. Unlike WW2, it was also not an existential war - it was just another European conflict. An armistice gets signed, the losers pay reparations, everybody goes home.
lmickh 10y ago
This is a common mistake when reading about military history. Casualties are not deaths. It is the lose of fighters for a wide range of reasons (death, injury, illness, catpure, and etc). Roughly 650k people were killed during the American Civil War, but the casualties were closer to 1.8mil. Much of the casualty count of the Franco-Prussian War is related to the fact that France lost entire forces in engagements. Mass routes nearly always lead to inflated injury and captured counts which in turn leads to high casualties. By comparison, few of the engagements were as one-sided in the American Civil War. The combat death rates were actually fairly close to each other over time (~160k/yr).
chiph 10y ago
Both France and Germany (Prussia) had observers placed with the US and Confederate Armies during the US civil war, where observation balloons, quick-firing rifles (lever-actions), rail artillery, and other innovations were created. They went back home, wrote reports, and were ignored by their leadership. Dooming the first several years of fighting in The Great War to be a repeat of all the other wars, with astronomical casualty counts on both sides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_repeating_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_repeating_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia_and_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia_and_the_American_Civil...

WesleyLivesay 10y ago

I think they are erroneously including the number of men captured in the Franco-Prussian number. They aren't sharing sources for this article so it is hard to know but Wikipedia (which does source the number) lists 475,000 of that million number as prisoners of war that probably survived the war and were repatriated.

bluejekyll 10y ago
Well, even if you do divide it in half, that's still a rate of death of 500,000 a year. So using that as a way of estimating deaths of another conflict, it should have been enough to stop an actual war. That requires the people ruling the countries to actually care about the effects this would have on their own populations... Sadly, even using that as an estimate it would have been off by more than half of how many would actually die.
- WesleyLivesay 10y ago
  Absolutely! I don't think your conclusions are wrong, it is pretty crazy that they would make that large of an error in the article. I assume they mixed up "missing" and "captured". It is also worth remembering that everybody thought the war in 1914 would be short, there were very few people who thought it would drag out for years. All involved probably did some mental math based on actions like the the Franco-Prussian war and figured that the same level of casualties, or even twice as many, was worth it. If they would have known, which we do with hindsight, that it was going to take 4+ years of fighting it may have never happened.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? I agree, they definitely believed it was going to be over quickly, but why would they have thought it was less than 9 months (easy to assume 500K killed based on previous experience). In addition to that, you had two countries that were literally preparing for this conflict for years, poking each other around the world up to that point. I think anyone who thought it was going to be short, would have been completely ignoring all evidence that would have stated otherwise.
    - vkou 10y ago
      > Agreed, but did they have any reason to believe it would be shorter than the Franco-Prussian War? Yes. Germany came within spitting distance of Paris thanks to the Shlieffen plan, and was only hobbled at the eleventh hour by overextended supply lines. Meanwhile, the Entente was counting on the Russian juggernaut, with its millions of men to overrun East Germany. The Russians saw great successes against Austrian forces, but met a complete disaster when they engaged the Germans. As it turned out, the Russian empire was a paper tiger - completely unprepared to fight a war.
      - grotsnot 10y ago
        Would the war have actually ended early if Germany had taken Paris? With the British and Russians still unmolested on their own turf, wouldn't the French have tried to retake the city instead of surrendering? Or at least their allies keep fighting? (I realize this perception is colored by how it played out in WWII so I'm curious whether it would also apply to WWI)
        vkou 10y ago
        The British expeditionary force was tiny, and the Russians were smashed. Neither could have fought on in Europe after France was eliminated. Unlike WW2, it was also not an existential war - it was just another European conflict. An armistice gets signed, the losers pay reparations, everybody goes home.

lmickh 10y ago

This is a common mistake when reading about military history. Casualties are not deaths. It is the lose of fighters for a wide range of reasons (death, injury, illness, catpure, and etc). Roughly 650k people were killed during the American Civil War, but the casualties were closer to 1.8mil. Much of the casualty count of the Franco-Prussian War is related to the fact that France lost entire forces in engagements. Mass routes nearly always lead to inflated injury and captured counts which in turn leads to high casualties. By comparison, few of the engagements were as one-sided in the American Civil War. The combat death rates were actually fairly close to each other over time (~160k/yr).

chiph 10y ago

Both France and Germany (Prussia) had observers placed with the US and Confederate Armies during the US civil war, where observation balloons, quick-firing rifles (lever-actions), rail artillery, and other innovations were created. They went back home, wrote reports, and were ignored by their leadership. Dooming the first several years of fighting in The Great War to be a repeat of all the other wars, with astronomical casualty counts on both sides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_repeating_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_repeating_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia_and_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia_and_the_American_Civil...