re: What would be the worst war to fight in in history?

quote:

---

All of those sound more palatable than that medieval shite.

I mean I'd rather get shot than end up on a pike.

---

I’ll counter with this, the reason why I would rather be on the medieval battlefield and earlier is that, comparatively speaking, the medieval battle did not last as long. You could be in relative safety one day, be in mortal danger the next, and be in relative safety again the day after that.

Whereas, let’s just pick any number of famous 20th Century battles; Verdun for example. Verdun lasted almost 10 months. That’s 10 months of being under constant threat of death and artillery fire. Whole units would take multiple turns at the battle, that’s how long it lasted. You could ostensibly have served at Verdun for a couple weeks, then gone to another battlefield for a couple weeks, have a couple weeks R&R, and then go back to Verdun and be in the worst battlefield in human history.

WW1 was awful. Old generals with old tactics using modern weapons. The trench warfare at the end of the Civil War was indicative of what was to occur in WW1, except during WW1 there were automatic weapons, American barbed wire, gas, and very accurate artillery.

Korea

All of them - but I will go with the trenches of eastern France during WWI as being the shittiest time/place in the world to be.

quote:

---

To go more obscure, I’ll say the 3rd Crusade/Siege of Acre. Basically trench war for 3 years that left 40 thousand men dead. In the middle eastern heat. In heavy chain mail. With Middle Ages medicine.

---

Years? The Romans lost 20,000 men in just a few days in the Teutoburg Forest massacre. No one really knows how many more were maimed for life or taken as slaves.

I think I’d avoid war in any time period where the other side considered “OK, they’re ALL dead” to be only way to really declare victory.

Fascinating topic.

Depends on the era I guess. Deadliest Battles Ever.

And what our history teaches. We don't often know of some of the great battles throughout time unless we read about it, watch videos, actually visit the areas etc.

20th Century Battles.

One of the bloodiest battles in history? The Battle of Stalingrad. Estimated over two million casualties from Soviet and Axis forces. In horrifically brutal conditions. Unimaginable carnage.

I guess because of the movie, Gallipoli ranks up there with one of the worst for me. Can't imagine having to be in those trenches and ordered to charge. Cost of more than 250,000 casualties, including some 46,000 dead.

Civil War era would have been the Battle of Antietam where more than 23,000 soldiers were killed or wounded.

As a side note, if you're interested, here's a link from a recent trip to Slovenia. We stayed in the town of Kobarid. The Battle of Caporetto (also known as the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo, the Battle of Kobarid or the Battle of Karfreit) was a battle on the Italian front of World War I. It was one of the biggest military catastrophes ever for the Italian Army. Italian casualties at Caporetto totaled almost 700,000—40,000 killed or wounded, 280,000 captured by the enemy and another 350,000 deserted. To walk the battle fields, see the trenches, was a once in a lifetime experience for me.

WW I . It was wholesale murder/slaughter on a level that was unthinkable even by WWII standards. Battle of the Somme was a scene that would have horrified Dante and his imagination. Close to 20,000 British soldiers ceased to exist by sundown on July 1,1916 after waking up for breakfast that morning very much alive. That was the Somme. Verdun was just a frickin horrific meat grinder.

The fact that Gen Haig was not shot on November 12 1918 remains one of the great tragedies of British history. To be fair none of the participating leaders of the belligerents had clean hands in that war.

I would say WW1, but I cant think of one reason someone could talk me into lining up in an open field and take turns firing at another army like the Napoleon wars.

quote:

---

The European Theater is romanticized in my opinion due to D-Day.

---

Yes, most American media is about the Western European Theater of WW2. While yes, it was a war and certainly wasn’t good by any means, it was far more tame and chivalrous than the other theaters in WW2. The other theaters were more total war situations where one side sought to exterminate the other, whereas the Western Front was less brutal (minus carpet bombings).

Lofty post mate