Body Count of the Roman Empire
necrometrics.com
necrometrics.com
Hannibal crushed the Romans several times, it didn't matter. Carthage still got wiped off the map.
Spartacus and the Slave Wars
Hannibal and Carthage
Bar Kohkba and the Judaic Wars?
The bloodiest war in Roman history was the second Punic war, that is the battles lost against Hannibal.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters
That's actually amazing.
Looking at deaths as a proportion to the populations will tell us the disruption to society, production and agriculture. It is sometimes used when looking at plagues, just since death counts can be somewhat less useful when we want to see how whole societies are wiped from the world. Wars however already causes societal damage by the very nature, so we can not infer the damage to society by deaths in proportion to population.
The peak Roman Empire population, in ~160 CE, was 60-70 million. Less than half that of the USSR. Still, the war dead over the empires history are just 1.25% of its peak instantaneous population. So yes, war was overall less deadly. But being an infant was far deadlier than today (~50% mortality by age 5).
Total Soviet casualties: 20-27 million, or 13.7% of the 1940 population. Compare against Poland at about 17%.
By contrast, the Third Reich saw ~8.5% population losses. The US and UK, less than 1% each, France, 1.4%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empi...
Consider that there was a vastly increased ability to deliver and effect damage on both military and civilian targets in WWII. I'm not sure that a direct comparison is particularly meaningful. And I don't much encourage one-upmanship in this particular sphere.
In contrast, in WWII, the Red Army conscripted 33 million men. One sixth of the population.
The source which really hammered this home for me was Daniel Yergin's book, The Prize. It's a history of oil, but if you think that that doesn't have anything to do with war ....
Yergin never quite comes out and state that WWI and WWII were resource wars, but they were resource wars.
WWI saw the introduction of mechanisation to battle: cavelry were replaced by tanks, first motorcycles, then cars and trucks were used for personnel and materiel transport. And aircraft. Plus rail and ships: Churchill had famously just converted the British Navy from coal to oil, a massive military and operation advantage, but also an incredible risk for Britain who lacked (so far as anyone knew at the time) any indigenous oil. Instead, by way of naval bases serving Suez and India, it happened to have a presence in Persia and on the Arabian peninsula ....
The United States singlehandedly supplied both its homeland, two fronts, and its allies with oil through WWII. Much of the Pacific battle was over Japanese access to Indonesian oilfields (and Chinese coal), which the US blocked by way of submarines. The Germans very nearly accomplished the same for domestic US oil shipments from Texas to East Coast population centres, resulting in a government financed-and-operated oil pipelines project, still in use today, the Big Inch and the Little Inch pipelines, from Beaumont, TX, to New Jersey.
And petroleum-fueled tractors meant that the U.S. could also feed not only itself and its troops but its European allies.
The U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia rank 1-3, in that order (I think) for the largest original oil reserves. Venezuala is 3rd, though with much heavier (harder to extract, not as useful, dirtier) petroleum.
I didn't know about that. It was called Operation Paukenschlag.
> [January to August] During this period, Axis submarines sank 609 ships totalling 3.1 million tons
That's three sunk ships a day. The biggest problem for German subs in that operation was running out of torpedoes. Completely insane.
Monsarrat's "Three Corvettes" is one of the few books that has moved me to tears (ironically enough while flying over the very same North Atlantic).
"The only villain is the sea, the cruel sea, that man has made more cruel..."
I re-read the "The Cruel Sea" a few weeks ago (a very old battered copy that I inherited from my dad). It didn't move me to tears, but is still a very moving piece of literature describing a horrendously gruelling theatre of war.
[1] U-Boat war? Sure, that was in the Atlantic, no? — Yes, but not only...
Look up "rule of capture" some time, for grins.
Realise that that's the basis for pretty much all wealth and production functions.
The Romans counted armies by rough estimates, generally didn't count dead civilians, and the scant remaining records tend to be propaganda pieces. Notice the complete lack of casualties during Caesar and Augustus' civil wars, and the listed sources for the Gaelic war deaths.
The two are incomparable, no amount of twisting gives anything more than a guess.
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-60-the-cel...
As far as I can tell, you've hit on exactly the distinction he's trying to make in the episode. There's a running theme of highlighting the difference in attitude towards war/death from the Romans to the modern era, especially with respect to things like civilian extermination.
The name might be unfortunate, but he's pretty open about acknowledging that it's an intentional juxtaposition.
Dramatic? Yes, but legitimately so based on the narrative and the presentation.
His style and interests won't match everyone's taste, but he is providing a high quality product.
You should not compare ancient post-war extermination events with a modern, civilized state exterminating a section of the population in an organized manner. It just dilutes the extremity of what the Nazi's did.
conversely, does the (sometimes aggressive) privileging of ww2 wrongs not "dilute" what others have faced? even in modern or near-modern times?
it also seems such a bizarre point of view that something was "relatively common" (and i'm not sure this phrasing is helpful) therefore it's /less/ of a tragedy for that fact.
Yes. I guess it was special. I think that it touches something we fear deeply - that seemingly rational/intelligent/scientific people can do evil things.
I think there have been plenty of things since then which have similar levels of horrificness (albeit usually on a smaller scale). I just don't think they proc the "there but for the grace of god go I" reaction
I'm just wondering there have been genocides of peoples throughout history right up to today. See Rwanda east timore/ south Sudan. I think in each case it was a holocaust for the targeted group.
In my view a genocide is a description of an event. The Jewish Holocaust articulates the target and effectively re-frames the conversation to group who was targeted. It also conveys that the genocide was general enough to affect the overall survival of the people. There are many conquests in history Rome defeated Carthage 3 times but only the third Punic war resulted in the cartagenian holocaust.
Yes.
Though I do enjoy his podcasts, it's more entertainment than history.
> It's estimated that 15M died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia.
Estimated based on what? Myth?
> Rome used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a permanent status) or tax-paying citizens.
And the mongols turned the peoples they conquered into tribute states. The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history. They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long as you accepted mongol rule and paid tribute. What do you think yuan china, duchy of muscow, mughal persia and a host of other khanates were?
The mongol army generally consisted of a few thousand to 30K and their campaigns were largely targeted at cities and capitals rather than populations. And keep in mind that during this time, most of the human population was rural rather than urban.
The idea that the mongols killed that many people is absurd. Not only did they generally target cities/capitals, once the ruler submitted or was deposed, the mongols generally went home and left a small contingent.
You shouldn't take anything you read in WaPo at face value. But even more, you shouldn't anything you read about the mongol empire at face value either. There is so much nonsense and myth that is written about the mongol empire.
In addition, it's my understanding he killed most of the men then slept with as many women as he wanted.
One could say a crater from a nuclear bomb was quite peaceful.
That's the number of casualties Weatherford (whose work is described in the article) argues against in his book. I compared such estimates with the Roman body count described by Matthew White.
> The Mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human history.
It's easy to be called peaceful when you slaughtered all opposition beforehand.
It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is nonsense.
If anything is a myth about the Mongols, it's this "noble/misunderstood savages" view of them. Saying "oh, they only destroyed cities" is hardly a testament to them being peacable. They pressed captured men into service as soldiers, on pain of death. Hardly 'inclusive' and 'peaceful'.
> They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long as you accepted mongol rule and paid tribute
How is this different to most other empires? The British Empire happily accepted all races, religions, and ideologies, as long as they bent the knee and paid tribute. It's not like the British put India to the sword in order to force-convert it to Christianity. The Ottoman Empire accepted many different religions, as long as you paid your tribute. And just like the Mongols, both of these empires allowed (or forced) people of conquered nations to fight for them.
And from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-...,
In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was generating some 23% (27% by 1700). By 1940, after nearly two centuries of the Raj, Britain accounted for nearly 10% of world GDP, while India had been reduced to a poor “third-world” country, destitute and starving, a global poster child of poverty and famine. The British left a society with 16% literacy, a life expectancy of 27, practically no domestic industry and over 90% living below what today we would call the poverty line.
The British in India played puppet states off each other. What they didn't do was wilfully exterminate entire cities.
Actually, the population of china rose during mongol rule. The population of some parts of northern china declined since many chinese fled to southern. But that got conquered too.
> Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols, and millions died.
No they weren't and no they didn't.
> They killed half a million people invading Rus - this argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is nonsense.
Really half a million? Why did russia's population grow so much during the mongol rule then? Russia went from nothing to one of the greatest empire during mongol rule. Wonder how that happened?
Also, most of the deaths occurred in kiev and other "rus" urban areas. Not in the countryside. Russia is a vast territory. A few thousands mongols would have died of exhaustion hunting down and murdering 500K russians over thousands of miles at the very least.
> Saying "oh, they only destroyed cities" is hardly a testament to them being peacable.
I didn't say they were peaceful. I said the mongol empire was peaceful ( pax mongolica ) and the mongols brought stability and rule of law into a wide region.
> They pressed captured men into service as soldiers, on pain of death.
They did? You mean like every empire in human history?
> How is this different to most other empires?
That's my point. They weren't different. But they are "caricatured" as bloody thirsty savages.
> The British Empire happily accepted all races, religions, and ideologies,
Except for the aborigines and the natives the british exterminated. The british are a poor example since theirs was a race based empire.
Anyways, my point is that the mongols were just another empire like any other more or less. Just bigger than most and far more inclusive.
The nonsense about the mongols exterminate this and that and were bloodthirsty is just historically incorrect.
Just like the ludicrous assertion that half of china died under the mongol rule. Feel free to study the Yuan Dynasty. Nothing of the sort happened.
It would have been biologically impossible. As I said, the mongol armies were a few thousand to maybe 20 to 30 thousand strong. Claiming they killed tens of millions of people over the vast territory of asia is ridiculous.
The mongols sacking baghdad isn't the same as the Nazis exterminating jews or the british exterminating aborigines or native americans.
The mongols didn't have a racist/religious ideology which would have led them to go on an extermination campaign. They didn't sack baghdad and go around killing every arab they could find. They didn't sack baghdad because they hated arabs for heir race. They sacked baghdad because their leader executed mongol emissaries.
That is different from the race-based extermination campaign where natives and aborigines were outright exterminated because of who they were. That's what separates the mongols from the british empire or nazi germany who specifically set out to exterminate a race.
Were the mongols brutal in their subjugation of certain peoples. Of course. But that's how you build empire. As soon as the nation submitted, they pretty much left and collected tribute. They didn't stay behind to wipe out the people.
The nazis exterminated ALL jews ( those who fought against them and those who submitted ).
> whereas an empire that massacres urban natives = inclusive and accepting.
My point was that the mongols went to war against states/nations/empires ( aka that's why they conquered cities ). The mongols didn't wage racial/religious wars of extermination. I'm not saying their massacres of the urban populace is good. It is horrific. But that's what all empires did. What separates british empire and nazi empire from the mongol empire is that the mongols didn't wage extermination wars. They didn't wipe out the russians, arabs, persians, chinese, koreans or anyone else for that matter.
There are chinese people in china, arabs in the middle east, persians in iran, russians in russia, etc. Something you can't say about the aborigines in australia or the natives.
The population of Europe also dropped by about 50% in roughly the same time frame, with cities hit particularly hard. The Mongol conquest coincided with the start of the Black Death, and their trade networks allowed it to spread.
As for the rest of your post, empire building is by nature evil. The Mongols were just better at building than most other empires. They were fairly inclusive and accepting for an empire, the various splinter kingdoms largely took on the culture and religion of the area they controlled.This was roughly the time of the Crusades, and the thought of them with Mongol military tactics is a terrifying.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14989642 and marked it off-topic.
If anyone wants to crunch numbers and determine a per capita "death as a result of state action" for various empires over time I think it would be really interesting.
How does a bad year in the roman empire compared to a purge year in the USSR? Average year vs average year? What about the great leap forward?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...