http://ourworldindata.org/data/war-peace/war-and-peace-before-1945/
What do you take out of this graphic?
What do you take out of this graphic?
Interesting data chart about war death's over last 500 years...big decline
- Thread starter GK4Herd
- Start date
I'm not sure you can conclude that from this data. Gunpowder was used by the Chinese in the9th century AD. Hand cannons, rockets, handguns, etc. were all used before the data begins on the chart. The rise of human deaths in warfare certainly was aided by the advent of guns.
A host of reasons. Medicine got better. So did methods are getting water and food sources. Dysentary, disease, etc. are treated better and controlled.
You can look at other things such as medicine on the battelfield and the use of aircraft to transport the wounded. Antibiotics as well.
Historically, I would think there are fewer empires and nations after land grabs. Modern tactics and technology would also lead to fewer deaths.
You can look at other things such as medicine on the battelfield and the use of aircraft to transport the wounded. Antibiotics as well.
Historically, I would think there are fewer empires and nations after land grabs. Modern tactics and technology would also lead to fewer deaths.
Link isn't working for me unfortunately. Every other link I checked on the site does though.
Improved medicine/hygiene is definitely a huge factor in what percentage of people die in a war. I don't have any exact numbers but I know in many campaigns, especially in ancient times, more lives were lost to disease than steel.
Another big difference is the development of states and democracy. A king who believes he is ordained by god (and more importantly has subjects who believe the king is ordained by god) has far fewer qualms than most democratically elected leaders about sending large numbers of his citizenry into combat.
The world wars were a horrific confluence of factors where huge leaps in technology combined with fertile grounds for a war and things spiraled horribly out of control. I would expect that if the graphs are done by percentage that they'd be somewhat even up till the early 1800s, start a slow decline, ramp up for the world wars, then go back into a decline.
Improved medicine/hygiene is definitely a huge factor in what percentage of people die in a war. I don't have any exact numbers but I know in many campaigns, especially in ancient times, more lives were lost to disease than steel.
Another big difference is the development of states and democracy. A king who believes he is ordained by god (and more importantly has subjects who believe the king is ordained by god) has far fewer qualms than most democratically elected leaders about sending large numbers of his citizenry into combat.
The world wars were a horrific confluence of factors where huge leaps in technology combined with fertile grounds for a war and things spiraled horribly out of control. I would expect that if the graphs are done by percentage that they'd be somewhat even up till the early 1800s, start a slow decline, ramp up for the world wars, then go back into a decline.
I read somewhere that 20% of the survivable wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been mortal if they happened as late as Vietnam, that medical science saved a ton of lives in that regard.
Honestly I'm surprised it's not more. Medical technology is miles ahead of where it was in the 60s, and makes the 20s look like the stone age.
Don't forget that nuclear war never errupted. We have the ultimate weapon but it isn't being used.
