Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: p. henry

Yup.

Although we generally discount the efficiency of "primitive" weapons.

The huge death toll in Rwanda was achieved almost entirely with sticks and knives.

The Romans, at Cannae, lost 50,000 killed out of 80,000 men in a few hours. That is a much higher death rate than any of our bloody Civil War battles. Such losses were not uncommon in ancient warfare.

The Taiping Rebellion of the middle 19th century against the Manchus was fought mostly with relatively primitive weapons. It is estimated that 50M people died.

Primitive weapons are ineffective when pitted against modern weapons. They can be highly efficient at slaughter when pitted against other primitive weapons or the unarmed. All you need is soldiers willing to keep killing.

And somebody to sharpen your blade every few hours.


26 posted on 07/18/2006 8:20:00 AM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Restorer

> The Romans, at Cannae, lost 50,000 killed out of 80,000 men in a few hours. That is a much higher death rate than any of our bloody Civil War battles. Such losses were not uncommon in ancient warfare.


There's actually a good reason for that: it was face-to-face. When Side A met Side B in combat, they'd hack away at each other until Side A decided to call it quits. But Side B would be *right* *there*, and would hack 'em to bits when Side A turned to run. You simply couldn't escape the victor.

Then long range weapons became the order of the day. When Side A decided they were losing, they could turn and run and dodge behind trees and such much easier, since the enemy was now at some distance.


45 posted on 07/18/2006 8:41:20 AM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Restorer
The difference between Rome and now is that not only did the Romans refuse to receive Hannibal's peace envoys when he had destroyed the largest army they'd ever fielded; the Senate forbade the families of those taken captive from ransoming them. Plus, there were no Murthas, Pelosis, Kerrys, etc, calling for retreat, negotiation,or surrender. The lack of a NEW YORK TIMES, and MSM probably helped, too.
54 posted on 07/18/2006 8:54:20 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Restorer
Primitive weapons are ineffective when pitted against modern weapons. They can be highly efficient at slaughter when pitted against other primitive weapons or the unarmed. All you need is soldiers willing to keep killing.

I saw an interesting reconstruction of the Battle of Agincourt. You may recall that the English Logbow was credited with virtually wiping out the massed armored knights of the French Army. The battle reconstruction focused on the narrow frontage & treated the French heavy cavalry charge from a "crowd control" perspective. Essentially the heavily armed & armored French were hemmed in so tightly that there wasn't enough room to fight -- or to escape. They literally trampled themselves & those survivors were slaughtered by the English -- many after they surrendered.

162 posted on 07/19/2006 9:51:35 AM PDT by Tallguy (When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson