Genghis Khan’s conquests killed ~40 million people alone. That’s estimated to have been 11% of the worlds entire population at that time
Is that military men or does that also include women and children?
I still think the order of magnitude difference is too big between the two groups. 90% of women had children historically, and had kids for basically the entire time they could bear them. Men would be conscripted for war, true, but there were also long periods of peace and war wasn’t constant unlike childbirth.
The male subset is naturally smaller and more sporadic.
The female subset is larger, encompasses 90% of women, and was constant until menopause.
Is that military men or does that also include women and children?
A fair assumption would be that women and children were included in those ~40 million. How many or what percentage I cannot answer due to lack of surveys conducted at that time. But as far as I’m aware, If you opened your gates and laid down your arms, you’d be allowed to live while paying tribute to your new Khan. But if you didn’t, they would operate mostly like everyone else. Kill every man in sight, kill their sons, kill some of the rest for good measure, let a few run away to tell the tale, and enslave the rest.
Every man able to hold a spear. Is going to hold a spear. When enemies are knocking at your gate. Every man is a military man. The concept of “Military” and “Civilians” is a very modern concept. There was no distinction between the two.
What do you consider a “long period of peace”?
War has been pretty damn constant throughout the ages. England and France had a war lasting more than 100 years. Famously called “The hundred year war”. The USA have since their inception had roughly, 20 years of peace. Total. Africa has been a clusterfuck of warlords and infighting since (at least) the end of WW2. (Yes, I know why that’s the case. But that’s another topic for another day). The Middle East have always been good at war long before the brittish started drawing lines. And as for Asia. Well, we covered part of that with Genghis Khan. Not to mention the various Chinese dynasties and their conquests, infighting and rebellions. Japans recorded history is absolutely filled to the brim with wars.
Wars and fighting have been pretty much non stop for the vast majority of our history. The longest time of “peace” in Europe is considered to be either 1815-1914 or 1945 to 2022. But even those have the asterisk of “Peace among major powers in europe”. Since there’s been plenty of armed conflicts in Europe even during those years.
That being said it’s still not a convincing argument that more men die from war than women die from child birth. The Mongols also administered a massive empire with a massive chunk of the Eurasian population. It was said you could walk from one end of the Mongol Empire to the other with a gold plate on your head and never fear for your life or belongings. That period lasted for decades…
I think for your position to have any merit you’ll need to refute my point that (let’s use the numbers you gave of 2-4 billion female deaths from childbirth) over the total span of humanity more people have died from childbirth than war
It was said you could walk from one end of the Mongol Empire to the other with a gold plate on your head and never fear for your life or belongings.
I’m gonna go ahead and stop you at the “it was said”. People say a lot of things. Do you have anything to back that up with other than “someone once said that”?
It was said 9/11 was an inside attack. It was said that children playing on the fields would anger the underworldly entities. It was said that flies and maggots spontaniously appear out of thin air. It was said the earth is at the center of the universe. I could go on.
What do you mean i have to refute your point, that’s exactly what I’ve been doing at every step of the way. From your bogous claims that every single girl born grew up past puberty, to your fantasy of there being long periods of peace in the world.
I can to some degree work with archeological excavations of humans remains and recordings of battles to actually back up my claims of people dying related to battle.
You’re the one making the claim that “more women hace died from childbirth than men in battle, full stop” how about you provide anything of substance at all, to even remotely try to back that up? You’ve offered nothing at all beyond “i have a gut feeling”
over the total span of humanity more people have died from childbirth than war
I thought you wanted to restrict this to men/teens fighting in wars. But if we’re just gonna count all deaths from war, it’s not even close.
It comes from a Persian historian Ata-Malik Juvaini (13th century), who wrote that fear of the khans made the roads so safe “a woman with a golden vessel on her head might walk alone [across it] without fear or dread.” This quote comes from Tarikh-i Jahangushay (“History of the World Conqueror”), written ~1260.
Muslim chronicler named Ghazi (1270), holds that “a man might have journeyed from the land of the sunrise to the land of sunset with a golden platter upon his head without suffering the least violence from anyone”
“…it would seem that 73% of all
war-related deaths since 3000 Bc have
occurred in the 20th century AD, pro-rating
the data up to the end of the century.
Another 23% occurred from AD 1500 to
1900, so that the Modern period of history
accounted for 96%) of all war-related deaths.”
Cool. Some persian historian wrote a woman MIGHT walk with a golden vessel. Any records of that actually taking place or are we taking an unproven hypothosis ss fact now?
I suggest you actually read the “paper” you cited as 200 million deaths in battle since 3000BCE.
The author says himself, it’s to be considered a very preliminary estimation, with estimates that may increase significantly, primarily to provide incentive for future studies.
If you can’t even be bothered to read the papers you link. Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?
I did read it and It’s an order of magnitude reference in the worst case. You’re still short somewhere around 1.8 billion to 3.8 billion male deaths to overtake a rough best case estimate of total female deaths from childbirth.
I’ve gone above and beyond to support my argument while all you do is hand wave and move goal posts. Back your words up with something. Its really sad you can’t admit you’re wrong or support your argument at all.
It’s painfully obvious you didn’t actually read the paper. You looked at a few words, saw a number you liked and called it a day.
But to top it all off, you’re now comparing a paper trying to estimate soldier deaths from 3000 BC to present day. With your estimated childbirth mortality, from the beginning of our species.
I’m not short ~2 billion deaths, you’ve taken the liberty of giving yourself a 300’000 year long head start.
You have genuinly not managed to support any claim you’ve made. At all.
Even when you try to cherry pick a paper that is taking estimates of relatively modern European deaths and then extrapolating them across the globe over thousands of years. You can’t even be bothered to read the part where the author of that paper doesn’t even think that number is accurate.
I’ll say that again. The author of the paper you linked. Does not think his estimates are accurate. He thinks the numbers are significantly higher. And hopes that his paper will be an incentive for future, more in depth studies.
That’s not me handwaving or moving the goalpost. That’s the author’s own concluding thoughts. But you would have known that. If you actually read his work.
I don’t think you have because your position isn’t supported. If you did you would prove yourself wrong…
Are you incapable of actually sourcing something or even doing the detailed math to prove your position? Thats the core of it. Ive proved my point and you’ve just had waved and nit picked minutae that has no actual impact on either side. Prove it.
Is that military men or does that also include women and children?
I still think the order of magnitude difference is too big between the two groups. 90% of women had children historically, and had kids for basically the entire time they could bear them. Men would be conscripted for war, true, but there were also long periods of peace and war wasn’t constant unlike childbirth.
The male subset is naturally smaller and more sporadic.
The female subset is larger, encompasses 90% of women, and was constant until menopause.
Every man able to hold a spear. Is going to hold a spear. When enemies are knocking at your gate. Every man is a military man. The concept of “Military” and “Civilians” is a very modern concept. There was no distinction between the two.
What do you consider a “long period of peace”?
War has been pretty damn constant throughout the ages. England and France had a war lasting more than 100 years. Famously called “The hundred year war”. The USA have since their inception had roughly, 20 years of peace. Total. Africa has been a clusterfuck of warlords and infighting since (at least) the end of WW2. (Yes, I know why that’s the case. But that’s another topic for another day). The Middle East have always been good at war long before the brittish started drawing lines. And as for Asia. Well, we covered part of that with Genghis Khan. Not to mention the various Chinese dynasties and their conquests, infighting and rebellions. Japans recorded history is absolutely filled to the brim with wars.
Wars and fighting have been pretty much non stop for the vast majority of our history. The longest time of “peace” in Europe is considered to be either 1815-1914 or 1945 to 2022. But even those have the asterisk of “Peace among major powers in europe”. Since there’s been plenty of armed conflicts in Europe even during those years.
That being said it’s still not a convincing argument that more men die from war than women die from child birth. The Mongols also administered a massive empire with a massive chunk of the Eurasian population. It was said you could walk from one end of the Mongol Empire to the other with a gold plate on your head and never fear for your life or belongings. That period lasted for decades…
I think for your position to have any merit you’ll need to refute my point that (let’s use the numbers you gave of 2-4 billion female deaths from childbirth) over the total span of humanity more people have died from childbirth than war
I’m gonna go ahead and stop you at the “it was said”. People say a lot of things. Do you have anything to back that up with other than “someone once said that”?
It was said 9/11 was an inside attack. It was said that children playing on the fields would anger the underworldly entities. It was said that flies and maggots spontaniously appear out of thin air. It was said the earth is at the center of the universe. I could go on.
What do you mean i have to refute your point, that’s exactly what I’ve been doing at every step of the way. From your bogous claims that every single girl born grew up past puberty, to your fantasy of there being long periods of peace in the world.
I can to some degree work with archeological excavations of humans remains and recordings of battles to actually back up my claims of people dying related to battle.
You’re the one making the claim that “more women hace died from childbirth than men in battle, full stop” how about you provide anything of substance at all, to even remotely try to back that up? You’ve offered nothing at all beyond “i have a gut feeling”
I thought you wanted to restrict this to men/teens fighting in wars. But if we’re just gonna count all deaths from war, it’s not even close.
It comes from a Persian historian Ata-Malik Juvaini (13th century), who wrote that fear of the khans made the roads so safe “a woman with a golden vessel on her head might walk alone [across it] without fear or dread.” This quote comes from Tarikh-i Jahangushay (“History of the World Conqueror”), written ~1260.
Muslim chronicler named Ghazi (1270), holds that “a man might have journeyed from the land of the sunrise to the land of sunset with a golden platter upon his head without suffering the least violence from anyone”
Total war death since 3000 BCE are around 200 million
Here’s an article on pax Mongolia
From 1500-1800 the chance of death from childbirth was 5.6%, and this was with the Renaissance and enlightenment raising living standards somewhat. In antiquity and prehistory the rates would be either roughly the same or higher.
What a stupid hill to die on anyways
Cool. Some persian historian wrote a woman MIGHT walk with a golden vessel. Any records of that actually taking place or are we taking an unproven hypothosis ss fact now?
I suggest you actually read the “paper” you cited as 200 million deaths in battle since 3000BCE.
The author says himself, it’s to be considered a very preliminary estimation, with estimates that may increase significantly, primarily to provide incentive for future studies.
If you can’t even be bothered to read the papers you link. Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?
I did read it and It’s an order of magnitude reference in the worst case. You’re still short somewhere around 1.8 billion to 3.8 billion male deaths to overtake a rough best case estimate of total female deaths from childbirth.
I’ve gone above and beyond to support my argument while all you do is hand wave and move goal posts. Back your words up with something. Its really sad you can’t admit you’re wrong or support your argument at all.
You just never learn do you?
It’s painfully obvious you didn’t actually read the paper. You looked at a few words, saw a number you liked and called it a day.
But to top it all off, you’re now comparing a paper trying to estimate soldier deaths from 3000 BC to present day. With your estimated childbirth mortality, from the beginning of our species.
I’m not short ~2 billion deaths, you’ve taken the liberty of giving yourself a 300’000 year long head start.
You have genuinly not managed to support any claim you’ve made. At all.
Even when you try to cherry pick a paper that is taking estimates of relatively modern European deaths and then extrapolating them across the globe over thousands of years. You can’t even be bothered to read the part where the author of that paper doesn’t even think that number is accurate.
I’ll say that again. The author of the paper you linked. Does not think his estimates are accurate. He thinks the numbers are significantly higher. And hopes that his paper will be an incentive for future, more in depth studies.
That’s not me handwaving or moving the goalpost. That’s the author’s own concluding thoughts. But you would have known that. If you actually read his work.
Link something or shut up you moron
I don’t think you have because your position isn’t supported. If you did you would prove yourself wrong…
Are you incapable of actually sourcing something or even doing the detailed math to prove your position? Thats the core of it. Ive proved my point and you’ve just had waved and nit picked minutae that has no actual impact on either side. Prove it.