- This topic has 5 voices and 43 replies.
-
Posts
-
I still don't believe these numbers. There is no way to accurately know the death tolls of ancient wars. And casualty figures spanning over twenty and fifty year periods of time frankly would be unknowable. Anyone who puts out hard figures is guessing, and their estimates would be based on unscientific source material tainted by embellishments and propaganda. Furthermore, there were only approximately 60,000,000 living in the Roman Empire at its height. The infrastructure was just not there for such massive campaigns even as late as the 13th century with the Mongolian conquests.
So would you distrust all death tolls given by anyone writing before the early modern period? How would we estimate?
That's just it Phid, how do you get such estimates? Without actual body counts, how in the bloody blue blazes could you actually derive a hard data figure?Most of the people alive in many of these ancient conflicts were not registered with a census like we have today. Even if they were, most of those records no longer exist so we cannot verify anything. All we have are guesses at this point. These numbers could be close, but there is no empirical scientific way to verify them beyond any reasonable doubts.
Donald, what do you think about genocide ?
I think genocide is real and has happened repeatedly throughout history. Usually when one culture is technologically, economically, and numerically superior to another culture the "inferior" culture gets rubbed out. We live on a planet with limited resources, and some of the most valuable resources are concentrated in remote places. This situation breeds competition governed by the rules of force. Scarcity will always necessitate inequality and therefore put some cultures at a disadvantage if they inhabit regions devoid of valuable resources or lack the technology to extract them. Racism is created by many things, but one of the leading causes is technological advancement. When one group perceives itself to be more advanced, it leads to the temptations of feeling superior, which brings with it the sense of entitlement to more than one's fair share of resources. We see this happen over and over again throughout history.
Then what else would you call a government sanctioned mass killing of another ethnic group?
Genocie is an artificial term invented to make what the Nazis did a punishable crime. It has subsequently been used for all kinds of reasons. It is just as politically loaded as calling something/someone racist. If you object to its use than you must be heartless, therefor I am a heartless, pitiless rogue because I object to tis use.
That's just it Phid, how do you get such estimates? Without actual body counts, how in the bloody blue blazes could you actually derive a hard data figure?Most of the people alive in many of these ancient conflicts were not registered with a census like we have today. Even if they were, most of those records no longer exist so we cannot verify anything. All we have are guesses at this point. These numbers could be close, but there is no empirical scientific way to verify them beyond any reasonable doubts.
I agree with your sentiments in part. I disagree, however, that one needs an actual body count to come up with a figure. I do not think that even Civil War death totals are based merely upon body counts. Would you say those, then, are guesses? Probably not; you would, however, say they were estimates.Also, on what do you base your claim that "most of the people alive in many of these ancient conflicts were not registered with a census"? How could you prove that? Unless you have documentation stating that, aren't you guessing? Incidentally, I'm not disagreeing with your claim, but if you push the bar up too high it becomes one that nobody can surpass. Alright, tell me this - if you had documents from an ancient city stating that its population was 50,000, and that 10,000 men went off to battle; and other documents stating that the army was cut in half; and a year later, the population records show 45,000 population.....do you think you could reasonably conclude that the death total for that city was 5000 men? Obviously this cannot be verified, but there's a certain calculated estimation which historians partake in. These are admitted estimations, based on our best efforts, but they give us a plausible understanding of what happened at that point in time.
therefor I am a heartless, pitiless rogue because I object to tis use.
😀 😀You didn't answer the question. If not genocide, then what do you call it?
I agree with your sentiments in part. I disagree, however, that one needs an actual body count to come up with a figure. I do not think that even Civil War death totals are based merely upon body counts. Would you say those, then, are guesses? Probably not; you would, however, say they were estimates.Also, on what do you base your claim that "most of the people alive in many of these ancient conflicts were not registered with a census"? How could you prove that? Unless you have documentation stating that, aren't you guessing? Incidentally, I'm not disagreeing with your claim, but if you push the bar up too high it becomes one that nobody can surpass. Alright, tell me this - if you had documents from an ancient city stating that its population was 50,000, and that 10,000 men went off to battle; and other documents stating that the army was cut in half; and a year later, the population records show 45,000 population.....do you think you could reasonably conclude that the death total for that city was 5000 men? Obviously this cannot be verified, but there's a certain calculated estimation which historians partake in. These are admitted estimations, based on our best efforts, but they give us a plausible understanding of what happened at that point in time.
Even if I had documents from ancient times I wouldn't trust them because they didn't keep records as efficiently or truthfully as we do in modern times. I know it sounds like a cop out, but records keeping was done to please the king, not to actually record factual data. They wrote down what they hoped the king wanted to read. Even in Vietnam the body count was fudged for political reasons especially as the war entered into the latter unpopular stages. Often bodies were counted twice or more. The Pentagon even admitted it later. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think this didn't happen in the ancient world and then those numbers swelled over time as the war stories were recounted by the poets (remember they didn't have professional number crunchers like we do today). This is all I'm saying.
😀 😀 You didn't answer the question. If not genocide, then what do you call it?
I call it war deaths. Notice I did not say combat deaths, but war deaths.
Donnie, I agree that statistical figures from the ancient world can be off and therefore can be suspect. But that can apply today as well (didn't the Obama Admin say they were releasing only a few hundred illegal aliens recently, even though the number was actually in the thousands?). So, I ask – what statistics do you think are inherently reliable from different stages of history?
Want to know what genocide is ? One day you wake up and everyone is looking down at you. Your neighbours hate you, they wish to kill you. The government is randomly but regularly checking you : where do you go, who do you meet or talk to, you are barred of theatre, restaurant, public places, your job is suppressed, your phone is under control. You did nothing against the law, you are just a teacher. You are a citizen, you pay taxes, your fought for your country, you didn't do anything wrong. That's not the reason. The reason is you. Only you : who you are. And not only you because your 2 children are also like you and your pregnant wife as well so they must die as well.The next day your friends, colleagues are chasing you, you are going to die, you must die : everything gonna be better for them, for the country.One thing you didn't know is that it was planned a long time ago and now it's on its way but you couldn't believe the warning signs : you are a true citizen. You can't escape, you are trapped. Don't expect to get a quick death, bullets are too expensive, there are other ways to get rid of cockroaches like you.After your death, officials will say it was only a popular reaction, casualties of war, collateral damage, they didn't know but were obeying orders. Not guilty, your Honor.I was in Rwanda in 1994 and went back there 1 year after. Nothing was destroyed but people were gone. I'm still far away to really feel and to know what it is to be the target of a genocide but enough to get an idea.
Donnie, I agree that statistical figures from the ancient world can be off and therefore can be suspect. But that can apply today as well (didn't the Obama Admin say they were releasing only a few hundred illegal aliens recently, even though the number was actually in the thousands?). So, I ask - what statistics do you think are inherently reliable from different stages of history?
I don't really have an answer for that Phid. I honestly don't know.
WHAT IS GENOCIDE?I stand by my assertion that genocide is a politically and emotionally laden term invented to give emotional cover to the WWII victors for executing their former enemies.As to statistics, I remember a line about "numbers don't lie but liars use numbers." Any use of statistics or numbers in history are suspect and historians must be careful about using figures and most hedge when they do use numbers, especially about such things as war dead and population. That does not mean we must eschew demographic and casualty data because they are inherently unreliable. It means that historians must be careful about their assertions regarding such things. We have to use them, or what should we use in their stead? Vague statements like a lot, and a few don't seem to cut it.
As to statistics, I remember a line about "numbers don't lie but liars use numbers." Any use of statistics or numbers in history are suspect and historians must be careful about using figures and most hedge when they do use numbers, especially about such things as war dead and population. That does not mean we must eschew demographic and casualty data because they are inherently unreliable. It means that historians must be careful about their assertions regarding such things. We have to use them, or what should we use in their stead? Vague statements like a lot, and a few don't seem to cut it.
I would agree with that statement. I am not of the school that may assert we cannot come up with any statistics for pre-modern history. Historians may disagree on number, but that's part of the normal process of historical scholarship, and it (hopefully) leads to more research which provides greater evidence for more exact numbers.
