The most destructive war

[Insidious Von]

War, humanity's folly. What is the most destructive war to date?

A strong case could be made that it was WW I. An entire generation of young men was slaughtered in the trenches - but it brought about the end of absolute monarchy. The Thirty Years War, or IMHO The European Civil War, wrought slaughter on a horrific scale and completely destroyed Germany - but it broke the back of religious power.

IMHO the most destructive war happened in the 7th Century. A 26 year war that caused two great cultures Byznatium and Persia to bleed to death with no positive results. Here is an overview:

 

[danmand]

War, humanity's folly. What is the most destructive war to date?

A strong case could be made that it was WW I. An entire generation of young men was slaughtered in the trenches - but it brought about the end of absolute monarchy. The Thirty Years War, or IMHO The European Civil War, wrought slaughter on a horrific scale and completely destroyed Germany - but it broke the back of religious power.

IMHO the most destructive war happened in the 7th Century. A 26 year war that caused two great cultures Byznatium and Persia to bleed to death with no positive results. Here is an overview:

All wars are horrible and unnecessary, useless and futile.

But at least WWI was mainly destructive to the misguided youths that willingly and happily marched into machine gun fire.

In other wars, notably the Vietnam war, and the Korean war, civilians were targeted and millions died.

 

[mandrill]

War, humanity's folly. What is the most destructive war to date?

A strong case could be made that it was WW I. An entire generation of young men was slaughtered in the trenches - but it brought about the end of absolute monarchy. The Thirty Years War, or IMHO The European Civil War, wrought slaughter on a horrific scale and completely destroyed Germany - but it broke the back of religious power.

IMHO the most destructive war happened in the 7th Century. A 26 year war that caused two great cultures Byznatium and Persia to bleed to death with no positive results. Here is an overview:

The war was followed by a huge plague and both Byzantium and Persia were so bled out that the Arabs conquered both in the space of a few decades in the early 600's. Constantinople survived only because of its huge fortifications. This was one of the great turning points in history and the end of the ancient world. From that time and for the next 800 years, Islam was the dominant force in the Mediterranean.

Although - interestingly - writers question to what extent the Arabs were "Islamified" at the time of the Conquest. There are theories that Islam was created or evolved after the Arab Conquests and the history rewritten as an Islamic triumph.

 

[managee]

War, humanity's folly. What is the most destructive war to date?

A strong case could be made that it was WW I. An entire generation of young men was slaughtered in the trenches - but it brought about the end of absolute monarchy. The Thirty Years War, or IMHO The European Civil War, wrought slaughter on a horrific scale and completely destroyed Germany - but it broke the back of religious power.

IMHO the most destructive war happened in the 7th Century. A 26 year war that caused two great cultures Byznatium and Persia to bleed to death with no positive results. Here is an overview:

I think you'll have to qualify "most destructive" (and what you consider a 'war') to make that question answerable.

Regardless, I appreciate the efforts, but that video is practically unwatchable. It's like they're trying to make it terrible.

 

[rhuarc29]

All wars are horrible and unnecessary, useless and futile.

I wouldn't necessarily say all wars are unnecessary. But certainly all wars are unfortunate.

Can you imagine what we could accomplish if so much of the world's budget wasn't used on weapons of destruction? We'd likely have colonies on Mars by now. We'd likely have solved global warming, and the overpopulation crisis. We'd likely have a renewable, plentiful and cost effective energy source.

Very unfortunate.

 

[oldjones]

I wouldn't necessarily say all wars are unnecessary. But certainly all wars are unfortunate.

Can you imagine what we could accomplish if so much of the world's budget wasn't used on weapons of destruction? We'd likely have colonies on Mars by now. We'd likely have solved global warming, and the overpopulation crisis. We'd likely have a renewable, plentiful and cost effective energy source.

Very unfortunate.

Again, the Ken Burns doc illuminates a little of that, although not so much in Hanoi (and not at all in Saigon) as in Washington. It is truly frightening and enlightening how universally The Dear Leaders admitted to themselves and each other, that the war was a hugely costly mistake, but that they had to carry on, pretending victory was near. The one thing they could not do, was be honest with the parents and children they were sending to die, nor with the people they were putting under the enemy's bombs.

 

[Insidious Von]

Although - interestingly - writers question to what extent the Arabs were "Islamified" at the time of the Conquest. There are theories that Islam was created or evolved after the Arab Conquests and the history rewritten as an Islamic triumph.

The answer to that question is a resounding no, Islam was already germinating before the Arabs unified. It was not an official religion, just the opposite. Islam was persecuted by the warlords that controlled the Arabian Peninsula. At the time of the 602 - 628 War, the Yemenis had become the dominant force. As the video says, the Sassanid Shah broke of his war with Byzantium to deal with the Yemenis. He won a crushing victory but it was pyrrhic. With the Yemenis out of the picture, it opened the door for a charismatic Islamic leader to unite the Arabs. The Prophet Mohammad say an opportunity and ran with it.

After the Byzantine Sassanid war ended matters got interesting. In 679, Byzantium looked as if it would become history, Constantinople was under siege from two front. The Avars (later day Huns) were closing in from Europe and a combined Arab - Persian army sat across the Bosphorus. Just as all seemed lost the Byzantines caught a break, a new tribe (The Slavs) appeared in Europe forcing the Avars to retreat to defend their lands. The combined army from the east was repulsed. Failure to take Constantinople caused a schism within Islam, the Persians became followers of the Shia faith. Against all odds the Byzantines successfully defended their capital.

The Greek Romans had a secret weapon:

 

[Insidious Von]

Not that much is known about the Avars except that they were descendants of The Huns. In the end they were exterminated, they were attacked from three sides: The Byzantines in the south, the Slavs in the east and Charlemagne's Franks in the west.

 

[Aardvark154]

In terms of shear destruction, it would be hard to argue against World War II.

 

[mandrill]

The Taiping Rebellion or the Taiping Civil War (simplified Chinese: 太平天国运动; traditional Chinese: 太平天國運動; pinyin: Tàipíng Tiānguó Yùndòng; literally: "Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864 and was fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly Kingdom of Peace.

The Taiping Rebellion began in the southern province of Guangxi when local officials launched a campaign of religious persecution against a millenarian sect known as the God Worshipping Society led by Hong Xiuquan, who believed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus Christ. The goals of the Taipings were religious, nationalist, and political in nature; they sought the conversion of the Chinese people to the Taiping's version of Christianity, the overthrow of the ruling Manchus, and a wholesale transformation and reformation of the state.[5] Rather than simply supplanting the ruling class, the Taipings sought to upend the moral and social order of China.[6] The war was mostly fought in the provinces of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Jiangxi and Hubei, but over 14 years of war the Taiping Army had marched through every province of China proper except Gansu. The war was the largest in China since the Qing conquest in 1644, and it also ranks as one of the bloodiest wars in human history, the bloodiest civil war and the largest conflict of the 19th century, with estimates of the war dead ranging from 20–70 million to as high as 100 million, with millions more displaced.[7]

Death toll

With no reliable census at the time, estimates are necessarily based on projections, but the most widely cited sources put the total number of deaths during the 15 years of the rebellion at about 20–30 million civilians and soldiers.[27][28] Most of the deaths were attributed to plague and famine. At the Third Battle of Nanking in 1864, more than 100,000 were killed in three days.

The rebellion happened at roughly the same time as the American Civil War. Although almost certainly the largest civil war of the 19th century (in terms of numbers under arms), it is debatable whether the Taiping Rebellion involved more soldiers than the Napoleonic Wars earlier in the century.[citation needed]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

 

[mandrill]

The answer to that question is a resounding no, Islam was already germinating before the Arabs unified. It was not an official religion, just the opposite. Islam was persecuted by the warlords that controlled the Arabian Peninsula. At the time of the 602 - 628 War, the Yemenis had become the dominant force. As the video says, the Sassanid Shah broke of his war with Byzantium to deal with the Yemenis. He won a crushing victory but it was pyrrhic. With the Yemenis out of the picture, it opened the door for a charismatic Islamic leader to unite the Arabs. The Prophet Mohammad say an opportunity and ran with it.

After the Byzantine Sassanid war ended matters got interesting. In 679, Byzantium looked as if it would become history, Constantinople was under siege from two front. The Avars (later day Huns) were closing in from Europe and a combined Arab - Persian army sat across the Bosphorus. Just as all seemed lost the Byzantines caught a break, a new tribe (The Slavs) appeared in Europe forcing the Avars to retreat to defend their lands. The combined army from the east was repulsed. Failure to take Constantinople caused a schism within Islam, the Persians became followers of the Shia faith. Against all odds the Byzantines successfully defended their capital.

Interesting notes.

What saved Byzantium's ass repeatedly (starting with Attila the Hun in the 400's) is that the city walls were unbreachable before the advent of gunpowder and large artillery pieces. A hostile army could besiege Constantinople, but could not get inside. As long as the city stocked enough food, eventually the besiegers would give up and move on. The other factor is that the Byzantines always had a large navy and could block any crossing of the Bosphorus up to their era of decline after the 1200's.

Constantinople fell in 1453 when Sultan Mohammed brought up massive Medieval artillery pieces and blew holes in the walls and then had his huge army rush the breaches.

 

[oldjones]

In terms of shear destruction, it would be hard to argue against World War II.

Certainly that seems pretty obvious, if only because the World that fought and suffered was a richer one than in any previous war. Not to mention WWII 'legitimized' the strategy of deliberately laying waste not just the battlefield but as much of the belligerent nation as you could reach. With air-power and missiles that meant pretty much everywhere. Of course Viet Nam spectacularly proved that strategy doesn't win the war, no matter how destructive the bombing. What you have to destroy is the will to resist.

More to the point, if that's all you do, you've simply set the stage for the next war which will surely follow as soon as the destruction's been repaired. For that, just look at the peaceable Middle East how well Israelis and Palestinians get along now. If your lives aren't going to be one destructive war afetr another, better start focussing on what's the most productive strategy for peace.

 

[danmand]

In terms of shear destruction, it would be hard to argue against World War II.

As long as the world continues to allocate the majority of innovation in technology to the goal of military destruction, every major war will be more destructive than the last. The military industrial complex in USA has been behind almost all technological innovations the last many decades, being it the internet or self driving cars (autonomous vehicles).

 

[Insidious Von]

Interesting notes.

What saved Byzantium's ass repeatedly (starting with Attila the Hun in the 400's) is that the city walls were unbreachable before the advent of gunpowder and large artillery pieces. A hostile army could besiege Constantinople, but could not get inside. As long as the city stocked enough food, eventually the besiegers would give up and move on. The other factor is that the Byzantines always had a large navy and could block any crossing of the Bosphorus up to their era of decline after the 1200's.

Constantinople fell in 1453 when Sultan Mohammed brought up massive Medieval artillery pieces and blew holes in the walls and then had his huge army rush the breaches.

The siege of 1453 nearly failed, the Ottoman's fieldpieces were mostly ineffectual. The ruble the guns created made for a defender's dream. The Sultan launched four assaults from the Bosphorus and they all failed - then the Sultan did something audacious. Part of Constantinople's unbreakable defense was a massive chain across The Golden Horn which barred access to the heart of the city. The Sultan went around the chain by pulling a massive Fitzcarraldo. He sailed his ships to what is today the Istanbul suburb of Besiktas, then rolled his ships overland and into The Golden Horn. Constantinople fell not long after that.

 

[boneman]

The War on Drugs. The lives wasted and money squandered on criminalizing what is really a public health issue is not only destructive but is a crime unto itself.

 

[K Douglas]

The War on Drugs. The lives wasted and money squandered on criminalizing what is really a public health issue is not only destructive but is a crime unto itself.

Good grief put the pipe down.

 

[oldjones]

The War on Drugs. The lives wasted and money squandered on criminalizing what is really a public health issue is not only destructive but is a crime unto itself.

I'd hardly call it the most destructive, but 100% wrong-headed and wasteful of treasure and lives for sure.