Most Costly War in Human History

[Grays Harbor]

I believe that WW2 was more costly in lives than the Hundred Years War was.

[Yootopia]

I'm going to go ahead and say the First World War.

Yes, well you'd be wrong, unless you fall into the "WW2 was just a continuation of WW1" camp that disgust me so.

[Grays Harbor]

found a couple places which had some interesting info related to this topic. thought maybe somebody might like to look at them too.

War Casualties list

wars prior to the 20th century

[Dolphin Girl]

I think someone already said it, but An Shi Rebellion for sure.

[UNIverseVERSE]

I believe that WW2 was more costly in lives than the Hundred Years War was.

You have to consider populations at the time as well -- the Europe of WWII was far more populous than the Europe of the Hundred Years War.

However, I think the Thirty Years war might edge both out -- as I recall, something like 1/3rd of the European population of the time died.

[The Parthians]

In absolute numbers of people killed, it's World War II with over 60 million dead. In terms of long term historical impact and greatest proportion of people on Earth killed, it's the Mongol invasions, which killed somewhere between 8-13% of the Earth's population.

[Rhodmhire]

There's probably some unknown "war" that occurred when the human population was only about ten that annihilated six of them, which is the equivalent of killing 60% of the human race.

That would amount to over 3.6 billion people killed if it happened today.

I'll go with that one.

EDIT:

Also, I wish I knew the casualties involved in the battle(s) between Sumer and Elma. I mean, if you consider so many years of unwritten conflict a "war."

[Pevisopolis]

I'm going to go ahead and say the First World War.

Yes, well you'd be wrong, unless you fall into the "WW2 was just a continuation of WW1" camp that disgust me so.

WW1 involved countries on every continent on the globe, casualties were in the hundreds of thousands for each battle, and almost every participant was economically ruined afterward.

I know and recognize they are separate wars, for the record.

[Call to power]

It lasted for 113 years

only it wasn't a continual war

[Yootopia]

I'm going to go ahead and say the First World War.

Yes, well you'd be wrong, unless you fall into the "WW2 was just a continuation of WW1" camp that disgust me so.

WW1 involved countries on every continent on the globe, casualties were in the hundreds of thousands for each battle, and almost every participant was economically ruined afterward.

I know and recognize they are separate wars, for the record.

OK well err military casualties alone are far, far lower for WW1, and only about 8 civilians died outside of Belgium and Germany, all of them due to fainting at the barbarity of The Huns.

[Grays Harbor]

I believe that WW2 was more costly in lives than the Hundred Years War was.

You have to consider populations at the time as well -- the Europe of WWII was far more populous than the Europe of the Hundred Years War.

However, I think the Thirty Years war might edge both out -- as I recall, something like 1/3rd of the European population of the time died.

true, but the question was not "what percentage of population". The Thirty Years War has estimates of up to 11.5 million dead, civilian and military, and for the European Population of the time that was indeed devastating, but WW2 estimates are 50 million and up, so thast would put the percentages about the same I believe, plus the sheer level of devastation of the industrial infrastructure of Europe during WW2 required massive rebuilding, whereas Europe of the 30 years war period was primarily agricultural.

[BrightonBurg]

Voted WW2 it wins though cost of treasure and of lives military and civillian.

I fear the next few wars in the 21 century against a nuclear tipped Iran will pale WW 2 in numbers and in treasure,but this is just a hunch of mine..



* Returns yet again to the shadows, picked up by Shadow Batlecrab *

[Pevisopolis]

OK well err military casualties alone are far, far lower for WW1, and only about 8 civilians died outside of Belgium and Germany, all of them due to fainting at the barbarity of The Huns.

OK, for WW2, the highest estimate of overall casualties, civilian and military, is about 60,000,000.

WWI was 37 million



I suppose you're right.

[Rhodmhire]

Voted WW2 it wins though cost of treasure and of lives military and civillian.

I fear the next few wars in the 21 century against a nuclear tipped Iran will pale WW 2 in numbers and in treasure,but this is just a hunch of mine..

Iran?

Yeah. I'm just not feeling it.

* Returns yet again to the shadows, picked up by Shadow Batlecrab *

That's my thing.

*slithers into the shadows of the thread*

[Yootopia]

Voted WW2 it wins though cost of treasure and of lives military and civillian.

I fear the next few wars in the 21 century against a nuclear tipped Iran will pale WW 2 in numbers and in treasure,but this is just a hunch of mine..

Nah blood, nuclears weapons are kind of a non-issue. It'll be like mustard gas in the second World War - everyone knows how shitty they are for the general public (which is who the soldiers also are in any proper war) so they don't get used.

[Buxtahatche]

WWI was the most costly.
It lead not only to the death and destruction which it immediately caused, but the idiocy of the European heads of State lead to the Versailles Treaty's incredible lunacy. The reparations and resultant economic damage which resulted from this poor treatment of Germany were directly responsible for the European component of WWII... and thus all the resultant death and destruction that followed.

[Pevisopolis]

WWI was the most costly.
It lead not only to the death and destruction which it immediately caused, but the idiocy of the European heads of State lead to the Versailles Treaty's incredible lunacy. The reparations and resultant economic damage which resulted from this poor treatment of Germany were directly responsible for the European component of WWII... and thus all the resultant death and destruction that followed.

WWI may have had less casualties than WWII, but it was also certainly much more, ehh, Barbaric? Not to mention the reasons you put forth,

[BrightonBurg]

Voted WW2 it wins though cost of treasure and of lives military and civillian.

I fear the next few wars in the 21 century against a nuclear tipped Iran will pale WW 2 in numbers and in treasure,but this is just a hunch of mine..

Iran?

Yeah. I'm just not feeling it.

* Returns yet again to the shadows, picked up by Shadow Batlecrab *

That's my thing.

*slithers into the shadows of the thread*

Lots of people dont fear Iran,but I see it,I hear what comes from there,and I dont like it,like I said, just a hunch,I hope I am long dead before that shitstorm comes..

[BrightonBurg]

WWI was the most costly.
It lead not only to the death and destruction which it immediately caused, but the idiocy of the European heads of State lead to the Versailles Treaty's incredible lunacy. The reparations and resultant economic damage which resulted from this poor treatment of Germany were directly responsible for the European component of WWII... and thus all the resultant death and destruction that followed.

WW2 had more deaths and lost of treasure.

WW1's effects cast a longer poltical shadow,to this day...


* Returns again to the shadows,picked up by a Shadow Battlecrab *

[Yootopia]

The reparations and resultant economic damage which resulted from this poor treatment of Germany were directly responsible for the European component of WWII... and thus all the resultant death and destruction that followed.

Nope, Weimar Germany ran itself into the ground due to its woeful economic policies. At no point were reperations higher than 8% of total German industrial output and some small sum of money, the amount of which was repeatedly changed, and which probably would have been written off if they'd continued to play ball with the other European powers and the US.

Hyperinflation was a completely avoidable fuckup which was only done because it made German products a good export for a little while in the post-war readjustment period over Europe. The amount of US loans to the German government and banks was also their own fault. You can't blame Germany for the Wall Street Crash, but you can blame the economic mismanagement which led to it being extra horrible on Weimar policies.

[Call to power]

It lead not only to the death and destruction which it immediately caused, but the idiocy of the European heads of State lead to the Versailles Treaty's incredible lunacy. The reparations and resultant economic damage which resulted from this poor treatment of Germany were directly responsible for the European component of WWII... and thus all the resultant death and destruction that followed.

actually I think you will find that the Sumerian/Elamite war helped shape the political climate that created all latter wars

stoopid Sumerian's (I hope you see where I'm going with this)

WWI may have had less casualties than WWII, but it was also certainly much more, ehh, Barbaric? Not to mention the reasons you put forth,

please tell me how the unrestricted warfare of everything east of Berlin is less barbaric than fisty cuffs with the huns followed by tea and stickies

[The Parthians]

I believe that WW2 was more costly in lives than the Hundred Years War was.

You have to consider populations at the time as well -- the Europe of WWII was far more populous than the Europe of the Hundred Years War.

However, I think the Thirty Years war might edge both out -- as I recall, something like 1/3rd of the European population of the time died.

true, but the question was not "what percentage of population". The Thirty Years War has estimates of up to 11.5 million dead, civilian and military, and for the European Population of the time that was indeed devastating, but WW2 estimates are 50 million and up, so thast would put the percentages about the same I believe, plus the sheer level of devastation of the industrial infrastructure of Europe during WW2 required massive rebuilding, whereas Europe of the 30 years war period was primarily agricultural.

Still, considering proportion as the measurement of choice, it would probably be the Mongols rather than any inter-European war, simply because of a larger geographic scope and the sheer brutality of the Mongols on a scale far larger than anything like Magdeburg in the 30 years War.

From the time of Genghis Khan to the point when they finally achieved control of China, roughly 60% of the Chinese population died from massacre, famine, and epidemic. Iran didn't recover it's Pre-Mongol population until the early 20th century, and might even have reached the low of less than a million. Large parts of Central Asia were turned into a desert due to cutting of the irrigation systems, and in many places, there are still fewer people now than in 1208. Russia, Hungary, and Poland all probably lost about half their population as well.

All-in-all, a war with the same demographic impact on the human population today as the Mongols had would result in the deaths of 500,000,000 people, which is absolutely astounding.

[Pevisopolis]

The reparations and resultant economic damage which resulted from this poor treatment of Germany were directly responsible for the European component of WWII... and thus all the resultant death and destruction that followed.

Nope, Weimar Germany ran itself into the ground due to its woeful economic policies. At no point were reperations higher than 8% of total German industrial output and some small sum of money, the amount of which was repeatedly changed, and which probably would have been written off if they'd continued to play ball with the other European powers and the US.

Hyperinflation was a completely avoidable fuckup which was only done because it made German products a good export for a little while in the post-war readjustment period over Europe. The amount of US loans to the German government and banks was also their own fault. You can't blame Germany for the Wall Street Crash, but you can blame the economic mismanagement which led to it being extra horrible on Weimar policies.

The hyperinflation in Germany was caused in part by German workers under a french occupation in one area. Angered that their managers were french, the German government printed more and more money to add to their pay, and decided it would be a good idea to do that elsewhere.

[Yootopia]

WWI may have had less casualties than WWII, but it was also certainly much more, ehh, Barbaric? Not to mention the reasons you put forth,

How is setting entire towns alight to scare the shit out of the general population and hopefully kill them all, or just surrounding cities and starving them for literally years less barbaric than largely volunteer forces killing each other occassionally but massively in the first half of the war, followed by largely conscript forces killing each other occassionally but massively in the second half of the war?

WW1 mainly killed soldiers. WW2 mainly killed civilians. How is killing civilians less barbaric exactly?

[Pevisopolis]

WWI may have had less casualties than WWII, but it was also certainly much more, ehh, Barbaric? Not to mention the reasons you put forth,

How is setting entire towns alight to scare the shit out of the general population and hopefully kill them all, or just surrounding cities and starving them for literally years less barbaric than largely volunteer forces killing each other occassionally but massively in the first half of the war, followed by largely conscript forces killing each other occassionally but massively in the second half of the war?

WW1 mainly killed soldiers. WW2 mainly killed civilians. How is killing civilians less barbaric exactly?

I was thinking more along the lines of the horrors experienced by the soldiers there.