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.
Let’s get one thing straight here. I’m not making the claim that “more men died in battle full stop”. It’s you that’s making the claim “more women died in childbirth full stop”. I’m pointing out that what you provide to support that doesn’t hold water and isn’t even remotely close.
Now, i wasnt even going to bring this up, because normally it doesn’t really matter. But since were going back hundreds of thousands of years, it actually does matter.
Girls and boys are not born 50/50. (UK study)
There are usually ~105 boys born for every 100 girls. And we have in modern times seen that number increase after times of war and distress.
couple with a very disturbing practise called “female infanticide”. Why would they do that? You probably ask. And again. We can only truly answer for the modern times since they didn’t really catalog that sort of thing 4000 years ago. But it boils down to that boys are more capable of hard labour and more likely to stay with their family, compared to the women who would go to stay with their partner and his family.
So if you are worried about who will take care of you when you’re old. You’ll be looking at your sons. So when food is running scarse. Who do you think they feed first? Or at all for that matter.
And you will probably say something like, pfff sure, how often did that happen? And the answer to that is more than enough for the Brittish to outlaw it in 1870
And of course. It’s not exactly the kind of thing most people wrote down and documented (dear diary, today we killed our baby daughter). So we can’t know how prevelant it was across the world throughout history. But from our modern accounts, it seems to occur more as resources decrease. 50% of your kids were expected to die anyway. Might as well keep feeding the ones that can protect you later.
More boys being born. Girls being killed in their cribs for being a waste of food. Leads to a society with more boys than girls. More boys => larger army = larger wars => more deaths among soldiers
Which all points towards that the notion that more women dying in childbirth than men in battle. Historically speaking, isn’t very clear. I think now having looked into it more, that it’s entirely possible more men have died in battle. Can i prove it? Of course not. We don’t know too much about what happened 10000 years ago. People were unfortunately notoriously illiterate and not very good at writing things down.
As a final note. You have not proved anything. Beyond that you seem to think every girl born grew up past puberty. And that your scope of “calculations” consists of trying to compare 300000 years of births with, 5000? 7000? years of men dying in battle.
Me calling out your moronic statements is not finger wagging or moving a goalpost. Anyway. You wanted some links, enjoy. Bonus points if you can read enough to learn which ethnicity in the UK is suspected of aborting girls due to having a lot more boys born than girls on average.
Hahahahha “there are 5% more boys than girls therefore suddenly we go from ~200 million military male deaths to surpass your rough conservative estimate of 2-4 billion mothers who died in childbirth.”
Its getting harder and harder to find people capable of making coherent arguments online. At least you know how to read and write (must have a water proof keyboard to survive the drooling) but it seems doing the bare minimum like math and Fermi estimating are a lost art.
I hope you dont work anywhere important or do anything that could affect peoples lives beyond greeting them at Walmart. I really pity you…
Holy shit. You’re so dense, scientists need to study what you’re made of.
Personally I hold a masters in economy. But even a fifth-grader should be able to inform you that 105 boys being born for every 100 girls (in peace time) isn’t 5% more boys. It’s 1.2% more boys. What was that you said about bare minimum math being a lost art? You know what. For once, you and I agree on something.
That 1.2% is just from babies being born. Once you factor in female infanticide you’ll get an even larger gap.
Not to mention. You don’t even remember that the 200m figure you came up with is a halfbaked estimate extrapolated from battles in the 1400’s, applied to the past 5000 years, rather than the past 300000. psst, that’s a 295000 year difference.
And before you try to do that yourself. Since we both know bare minimum math isn’t your strong suit. It’s gonna be a very annoying integral to solve due to lack of reliable census data.
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.
Let’s get one thing straight here. I’m not making the claim that “more men died in battle full stop”. It’s you that’s making the claim “more women died in childbirth full stop”. I’m pointing out that what you provide to support that doesn’t hold water and isn’t even remotely close.
Now, i wasnt even going to bring this up, because normally it doesn’t really matter. But since were going back hundreds of thousands of years, it actually does matter.
Girls and boys are not born 50/50. (UK study) There are usually ~105 boys born for every 100 girls. And we have in modern times seen that number increase after times of war and distress.
couple with a very disturbing practise called “female infanticide”. Why would they do that? You probably ask. And again. We can only truly answer for the modern times since they didn’t really catalog that sort of thing 4000 years ago. But it boils down to that boys are more capable of hard labour and more likely to stay with their family, compared to the women who would go to stay with their partner and his family.
So if you are worried about who will take care of you when you’re old. You’ll be looking at your sons. So when food is running scarse. Who do you think they feed first? Or at all for that matter.
And you will probably say something like, pfff sure, how often did that happen? And the answer to that is more than enough for the Brittish to outlaw it in 1870
And of course. It’s not exactly the kind of thing most people wrote down and documented (dear diary, today we killed our baby daughter). So we can’t know how prevelant it was across the world throughout history. But from our modern accounts, it seems to occur more as resources decrease. 50% of your kids were expected to die anyway. Might as well keep feeding the ones that can protect you later.
More boys being born. Girls being killed in their cribs for being a waste of food. Leads to a society with more boys than girls. More boys => larger army = larger wars => more deaths among soldiers
Which all points towards that the notion that more women dying in childbirth than men in battle. Historically speaking, isn’t very clear. I think now having looked into it more, that it’s entirely possible more men have died in battle. Can i prove it? Of course not. We don’t know too much about what happened 10000 years ago. People were unfortunately notoriously illiterate and not very good at writing things down.
As a final note. You have not proved anything. Beyond that you seem to think every girl born grew up past puberty. And that your scope of “calculations” consists of trying to compare 300000 years of births with, 5000? 7000? years of men dying in battle.
Me calling out your moronic statements is not finger wagging or moving a goalpost. Anyway. You wanted some links, enjoy. Bonus points if you can read enough to learn which ethnicity in the UK is suspected of aborting girls due to having a lot more boys born than girls on average.
Hahahahha “there are 5% more boys than girls therefore suddenly we go from ~200 million military male deaths to surpass your rough conservative estimate of 2-4 billion mothers who died in childbirth.”
Its getting harder and harder to find people capable of making coherent arguments online. At least you know how to read and write (must have a water proof keyboard to survive the drooling) but it seems doing the bare minimum like math and Fermi estimating are a lost art.
I hope you dont work anywhere important or do anything that could affect peoples lives beyond greeting them at Walmart. I really pity you…
Holy shit. You’re so dense, scientists need to study what you’re made of.
Personally I hold a masters in economy. But even a fifth-grader should be able to inform you that 105 boys being born for every 100 girls (in peace time) isn’t 5% more boys. It’s 1.2% more boys. What was that you said about bare minimum math being a lost art? You know what. For once, you and I agree on something.
That 1.2% is just from babies being born. Once you factor in female infanticide you’ll get an even larger gap.
Not to mention. You don’t even remember that the 200m figure you came up with is a halfbaked estimate extrapolated from battles in the 1400’s, applied to the past 5000 years, rather than the past 300000. psst, that’s a 295000 year difference.
And before you try to do that yourself. Since we both know bare minimum math isn’t your strong suit. It’s gonna be a very annoying integral to solve due to lack of reliable census data.