4 ms·

I think the thing is, the Franco-Prussian war was a limited war with limited goals. The reason why the Napoleonic war stands out as the last war of significance

I think the thing is, the Franco-Prussian war was a limited war with limited goals. The reason why the Napoleonic war stands out as the last war of significance is it was an unlimited war, which reformed europe after it. I don't think casualty counts are particularly good metrics here - rather, the metric should be the degree to which the civilian population is brought into the war, as victims, soldiers, or workers. In that sense, the colonies had been experiencing 'total' wars in the sense that, europeans rarely distinguished between civilian and enemy forces when putting down insurrection, and rarely had qualms about mass conscription in various forms. Consequently, the casualty numbers and social destruction of the first world war, while extremely unusual for europe, would have been far less unusual in east Africa, or India.

fork1 8y ago
Germany started WW1 with the ambition to make it a limited war, with limited goals. Quickly subduing France, and breaking Russia. Most people on either side thought it was going to be a short war. It evolved differently though. As for the second part, take the Franco-Prussian war then, and it's consequences for France, it was massive. Besides the war that went quite badly, a massive uprising happened in Paris (the Commune), under siege from both Germans and Loyalists forces. Starvation was rampant, civilian impact massive, and the final death toll quite important. The 19th century in Europe was characterized by nationalisms, unifications of countries in blood, and liberation of a few (Greece or Serbia for ex.), again in blood. I think you're disregarding history, in the name of your argument.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
lucozade 8y ago
In your estimation what wars, in 19C India and East Africa, are comparable to the Western Front in terms of "serious, bloody conflicts"?
- pjc50 8y ago
  The eight million dead in the Belgian Congo?

fork1 8y ago

Germany started WW1 with the ambition to make it a limited war, with limited goals. Quickly subduing France, and breaking Russia. Most people on either side thought it was going to be a short war. It evolved differently though. As for the second part, take the Franco-Prussian war then, and it's consequences for France, it was massive. Besides the war that went quite badly, a massive uprising happened in Paris (the Commune), under siege from both Germans and Loyalists forces. Starvation was rampant, civilian impact massive, and the final death toll quite important. The 19th century in Europe was characterized by nationalisms, unifications of countries in blood, and liberation of a few (Greece or Serbia for ex.), again in blood. I think you're disregarding history, in the name of your argument.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

lucozade 8y ago

In your estimation what wars, in 19C India and East Africa, are comparable to the Western Front in terms of "serious, bloody conflicts"?

pjc50 8y ago
The eight million dead in the Belgian Congo?