3 ms·
It's your right to be pissy. Let's drop the "global" then. I counted 18 wars with upper deaths range above 1M between 500BC and 1800AC. There were 29 of them a
by bttrfl 5y ago
It's your right to be pissy. Let's drop the "global" then.
I counted 18 wars with upper deaths range above 1M between 500BC and 1800AC. There were 29 of them after 1800. I didn't bother to sum the casualties. Full list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
- WalterBright 5y agoThere are a lot more people today, too. Of course war death tolls will be larger.
- bttrfl 5y agothis got me curious as I wasn't sure how much is "a lot more". Turns out the population in the year 0 was 190M so there are 40x more people now [0]. Anyway, according to the previously cited wikipedia article, the Three Kingdoms War, the deadliest ancient conflict, took toll of 40M people. but that happened over 96 years. That's 416k per year and 0.2% of global population at that time. WW2 caused 14M deaths per year which was "just" 0.07% of global population. Not sure how accurate these numbers are. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
- carapace 5y agoFair enough. It also adds to your point that the earlier wars tended to be a lot longer than the later ones, meaning the intensity of the killing has been increasing, eh? FWIW I'm usually on the doom-and-gloom side of the argument (benefit vs. hazard of tech).
- greedo 5y agoI think it's the opposite. Though the casualties in earlier large conflicts are numerically smaller than compared to WW1/WW2 etc, as a percentage of the population involved, they're higher, no?