Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner commented on what is now considered the most famous speech by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called it a "monumental act." He said Lincoln was mistaken that "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here." Rather, the Bostonian remarked, "The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech."

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I was going to put a Memorial Tribute video but decided not to. I went with Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. Drink one for those who can no longer join us this weekend.

 Jihadin wrote:

On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner commented on what is now considered the most famous speech by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called it a "monumental act." He said Lincoln was mistaken that "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here." Rather, the Bostonian remarked, "The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech."

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I was going to put a Memorial Tribute video but decided not to. I went with Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. Drink one for those who can no longer join us this weekend.

I've already had like six.

Four

I havnt had any yet, but I do appreciate all the men and women of the armed forces, alive and dead.

Exactly.

Toasting to all those who serve and those who paid the ultimate price.

Thanks to all those who served, and paid the ultimate sacrifice. You will not be forgotten.

Nothing drunk yet, but when I get off work there will be toasting.

Nothing witty to say, Just thanks to all those who served and never came back.

In the UK, this is just simply the Spring Bank Holiday.

Is this more closer to our Remembrance Sunday in the 11/11th. Or is Memorial Day commemorated in addition to something like that?

 whembly wrote:

Exactly.

Toasting to all those who serve and those who paid the ultimate price.

Exalted

My question is this, How, with all this advanced weaponry, our death toll in current wars is like less than 3000 per year. (I don't know how much it is really. I guessed high to be safe) But bakc in the sword and Sandal days that was the average death toll for 1 day at war?

Because it isn't popular to kill civilians, and armies are generally smaller. And we haven't had a "real" war against a competent opponent for a while.

The last real war we were in was the Vietnam war. The Iraq war, at least the war part of it, was a rofl-stomp.

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
My question is this, How, with all this advanced weaponry, our death toll in current wars is like less than 3000 per year. (I don't know how much it is really. I guessed high to be safe) But bakc in the sword and Sandal days that was the average death toll for 1 day at war?

Better training, armor, and medical care mostly.

That too. Even a small scratch could turn septic, largely due to lack of hygiene.

Thats actually one advantage for those crazy Celts who fought naked. No soiled clothing to get forced into a wound

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
But bakc in the sword and Sandal days that was the average death toll for 1 day at war?

I dunno how true that really is, to be honest. - I believe there's a tendency for Epic writers to well... exaggerate a lot. For one thing, even when you have very large armies with very large battles, don't most people just frigging leg it?

 Compel wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
But bakc in the sword and Sandal days that was the average death toll for 1 day at war?

I dunno how true that really is, to be honest. - I believe there's a tendency for Epic writers to well... exaggerate a lot. For one thing, even when you have very large armies with very large battles, don't most people just frigging leg it?

While there was some exaggeration, there wasn't nearly as much as you'd think.

Most Roman records are seen as being fairly reliable, outside of personal accounts, but official records are good. The Romans did love their records.

And then there is any physical evidence left at the battle.

There was one battle in China(Badger Gorge or something like that) where there is good evidence that the claimed 1 million deaths in one day is not an exaggeration.

And while Xerxis may not have had a million soldiers fighting the Spartans, he most likely had 2-4 hundred thousand. Which is still a mindbogglingly large number.

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
My question is this, How, with all this advanced weaponry, our death toll in current wars is like less than 3000 per year. (I don't know how much it is really. I guessed high to be safe) But bakc in the sword and Sandal days that was the average death toll for 1 day at war?

It's actually significantly less than 3,000 a year. Like a lot less. The total dead for American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is 6,700 over a combined total of roughly 20 years (13 in Afghanistan, ~7 in Iraq) Any way you put it, it's the lowest casualty ratio per number of troops serving in American history, barring any small-scale statistical anomalies. Part of that is tactics, part of that is technology, and part of that is the fact we're fighting a war that quite often only puts American materiel in danger, not American personnel (ie. drones, cruise missiles, smart bombs, etc.) I have trouble understanding just how the American Military has been protecting my freedoms by invading Iraq, but lets not get into that and just honor those who truly did fight to keep America, and American ways of life free and unmolested by war.

And ancient battles didn't have an average death rate all that high from combat. The vast majority of deaths from antiquity up till WW1 were from disease. It's interesting to think about the (I think) ~80K Roman dead in the Teutonberg (?) Forest, but that was a historical marker; not at all indicative of what warfare was like for most of the time.

 Compel wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
But bakc in the sword and Sandal days that was the average death toll for 1 day at war?

I dunno how true that really is, to be honest. - I believe there's a tendency for Epic writers to well... exaggerate a lot. For one thing, even when you have very large armies with very large battles, don't most people just frigging leg it?

Battle of Cannae: 60,000 dead (1 day)
Battle of Alesia: 100,000 dead (1 month)
Battle of Tours: 13,000 dead (1 day)
Battle of Agincourt: 8,000 dead (1 day)
Battle of Gaugamela: 40,000 (1 day)

They were bloody affairs back in the day, real bloody. I'd say it primarily goes back to the three things I referenced earlier. Medical care being the biggest issue.

Yeah, sounds like it. Oh well, I learned something else today!

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Compel wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
But bakc in the sword and Sandal days that was the average death toll for 1 day at war?

I dunno how true that really is, to be honest. - I believe there's a tendency for Epic writers to well... exaggerate a lot. For one thing, even when you have very large armies with very large battles, don't most people just frigging leg it?

While there was some exaggeration, there wasn't nearly as much as you'd think.

Most Roman records are seen as being fairly reliable, outside of personal accounts, but official records are good. The Romans did love their records.

And then there is any physical evidence left at the battle.

There was one battle in China(Badger Gorge or something like that) where there is good evidence that the claimed 1 million deaths in one day is not an exaggeration.

And while Xerxis may not have had a million soldiers fighting the Spartans, he most likely had 2-4 hundred thousand. Which is still a mindbogglingly large number.

Ancient Chinese battles were ludicrous. Made even the worst Roman blood baths look like afternoon brawls. There were periods of their history where the population would plummet by the millions. It's believed that around the year 130AD more then 20 million people died in an incredibly short span of time.

 djones520 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Compel wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
But bakc in the sword and Sandal days that was the average death toll for 1 day at war?

I dunno how true that really is, to be honest. - I believe there's a tendency for Epic writers to well... exaggerate a lot. For one thing, even when you have very large armies with very large battles, don't most people just frigging leg it?

While there was some exaggeration, there wasn't nearly as much as you'd think.

Most Roman records are seen as being fairly reliable, outside of personal accounts, but official records are good. The Romans did love their records.

And then there is any physical evidence left at the battle.

There was one battle in China(Badger Gorge or something like that) where there is good evidence that the claimed 1 million deaths in one day is not an exaggeration.

And while Xerxis may not have had a million soldiers fighting the Spartans, he most likely had 2-4 hundred thousand. Which is still a mindbogglingly large number.

Ancient Chinese battles were ludicrous. Made even the worst Roman blood baths look like afternoon brawls. There were periods of their history where the population would plummet by the millions. It's believed that around the year 130AD more then 20 million people died in an incredibly short span of time.

That's why I don't ever want to go to war against the Chinese, those guys know how to throw down.

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
My question is this, How, with all this advanced weaponry, our death toll in current wars is like less than 3000 per year. (I don't know how much it is really. I guessed high to be safe) But bakc in the sword and Sandal days that was the average death toll for 1 day at war?

If you get shanked now days, you can rely on the wound to be cleaned out. You can rely on antibiotics. You can rely on medicine.

A cut could easily kill you back then. There are plenty of accounts of great warriors and generals dying of minor infections that could easily be prevented today.

Attila the Hun died of a freaking nose bleed

Sad thing I notice is that thread about the son of a bitch that went on a murder spree because he couldn't get laid is getting more traffic than this thread about people that gave their all for this country.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Compel wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
But bakc in the sword and Sandal days that was the average death toll for 1 day at war?

I dunno how true that really is, to be honest. - I believe there's a tendency for Epic writers to well... exaggerate a lot. For one thing, even when you have very large armies with very large battles, don't most people just frigging leg it?

Battle of Cannae: 60,000 dead (1 day)
Battle of Alesia: 100,000 dead (1 month)
Battle of Tours: 13,000 dead (1 day)
Battle of Agincourt: 8,000 dead (1 day)
Battle of Gaugamela: 40,000 (1 day)

They were bloody affairs back in the day, real bloody. I'd say it primarily goes back to the three things I referenced earlier. Medical care being the biggest issue.

There was also no Geneva Convention, and the boys back then weren't shy about killing prisoners and wounded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just a word about my father, who enlisted in WW2. He wanted to be a pilot, but didn't have the eyes for it, so he became an aircraft mechanic. He was in the Phillipines and later, Japan, then later,
he had to leave his wife and two new daughters when he was called back for Korea. He told me when I was old enough to understand that war was not glorious or full of happy endings like in the movies, but a lot of stupid suffering that carried poison down the generations and sent a lot of broken men home. Even with having said that, he told me he would do it all over again to protect his family and country, because if people refused, we wouldn't have a country.
I held his hand as he died and I hope I've made my life worth it for him and others like him.

A Toast to those who have fallen. You'll never be forgotten.

I made sure not to have fun. Semper Fi

I had a drink for each branch of the armed forces

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I had a drink for each branch of the armed forces

Oh.

I had a drink for each of our Aircraft Carriers, current or decommissioned.

I need to lie down for a while...

Should we send a nurse in yet Kronk?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Should we send a nurse in yet Kronk?

Let's just send his girl friend the sexy nurse outfit...

Then, he'd be aight.

Relapse wrote:


There was also no Geneva Convention, and the boys back then weren't shy about killing prisoners and wounded.

Only in some cases... Most of the time, especially if knights or other "nobility" were taken prisoner they were ransomed back to their country to help pay for the war effort.

Agincourt really went a long way to changing that, as King Henry didn't really have any alternative other than killing his prisoners because there was another wave of French coming for him