Wars pre 1800?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

This is from the book, 'The Odd Body-3', by Dr Stephen Juan. 2007.

Believe it or not, human warfare is actually declining. Over the 20th century, combat deaths exceeded 100 million and over 170 million people died at the hands of governments. This was due to the enormous growth of war technology which still continues at an alarming rate. However, as a ratio of total population, adult war deaths have plummeted, especially in modern democracies. As anthropologist Lawrence H. Keeley argues "Archaeological evidence tells us that with very few exceptions, most foraging societies and early agricultural civilisations were at war almost incessantly- or at least far more frequently than modern societies today. Whereas among foraging and early agricultural societies an average of 25% of adults would die by warfare, this figure fell to less than 10% in early modern societies (about 200 years ago)."
According to Lloyd deMause an average of less than 1% of adult deaths among modern democratic nations today are war casualties.
This should make us pause, and maybe generate a little hope.
In my view, there will always be wars as long as there are humans. Perhaps it is because after two massive wars and new global media, we now understand what is involved in war. A few hundred years ago war was unlikely to affect civilians unless the combat occurred near them. Otherwise, their only exposure would be veteran's stories or descriptions. The First World War was the turning point, as the scale and cost of the fighting was far greater than they could have ever envisaged. Within te last 50 years or so, we have also developed weapons that could cause massive destruction. In 1900, no nation possessed a weapon remotely close to a nuclear weapon; there was no possibility of mutually assured destruction. There is also the growth in democracy, and that we are able to question or protest against actions that we disagree with. Another possibility (at least in the West) is the decline of religion, and people more willing to conserve their earthly life
It's quite an impressive list; that isn't even complete as it doesn't list those without names; those that were never declared; those between colonies; local wars or wars between pirates and companies with no nation politically involved (but a war nevertheless). And that doesn't include the skirmishes the colonial nations were having at sea time and time again without a declaration of war.

Recently I've been delving into the naval of the British Isles for past few weeks and it's safe to say, I'm quite shocked by what I didn't know - and in fact what most people seem not to know.

To think of all the Scottish that have a certain dislike for England because of the current situation; without realising that Scotland was too one of the colonial powers of Europe with exactly the same aims as England. So, in all reality, nothing bad can be said about England without looking at any other nation in Europe; including Scotland, and realising they were exactly the same.

It's interesting to note that until Sir Francis Drake circumnavigated the globe (1579 - 1580); English navigators were considered some of the worst in the world. The Scots were considered to be superior when it came to ocean voyages - and even had a colony in the Caribbean. While England found no friends in Europe; Scotland was considered a worthy ally - throughout the ages Scotland found friends against England from Sweden to Spain.

The Royal Navy had a lot of influence on the wars between Scotland and England; and many times saved England from a potential disaster which would have been a combined French/Scottish invasion - or Spanish/Scottish invasion (although some Spanish troops did land in Scotland). Even the Battle of Culloden was influenced by the Royal Navy. But the conquest of England by Scotland could have been and was very close many-many times.

But since the world of monarcy is all very muddled, to be polite, England "conquering" Scotland (as some people think it did) doesn't make a difference. England hasn't been ruled by an "English" monarch since before James I (who was Scottish), if I remember correctly, we've had William III (Dutch) who was allied with himself - but not officially because he didn't sign his name twice and then the Georgian era of Hanoverian origin which pulled England out of wars against France because George I and II were scared of losing Hanover - and was hostile toward Sweden in the Great Northern Wars; while England merely wanted to protect its trade.

I guess what I'm trying to say is; for all Europeans to think about (descendants or currently living here) - Because of the monarchy of Europe; whichever country you hate for a war that happened several hundred years ago; just forget it because you're all f*cking related! :lol: - except the French, you can still hate them - Louis XIV was a tw*t.

Oh, and Americans, did you know that New York was considered a second Port Royal! Pirate bast*rds ! :lol: I'm kidding
earlier someone asked about the Rangers during the American Revolution. I believe they were first formed during the French and Indian War. There is an old movie about Roger's Rangers called "Northwest Passage" starring Spencer Tracy and Robert Montgomery. Not a bad movie. If I recall correctly, Rogers got disenchanted with the Revolution and went back to England.

Users who are viewing this thread