Which era would have been the worst era to be a soldier?

[sendos]

I have an interesting question for avid fans of history: which era do you believe would have been the worst time to be a soldier?

I rate worst based on but not limited to:
- likelihood of death in each engagement/battle;
- variety of ways to die (including disease);
- consequences of becoming a prisoner of war;
- long lasting injuries; and
- method of fighting.

My view is that the worst possible time to be a soldier was the Renaissance/Industrial era, being a line infantryman or light horse, with WWI being close 2nd. My reasons are as follows:

1. It was an era where guns were plenty but the common strategy was for soldiers to literally stand under live fire from bullets and cannons, and shoot back with guns that take ages to reload (over time this was improved). Very occasionally you had cover.
2. If you were in the cavalry division, almost always it is a suicide charge into live fire, cannons and bayonets.
3. Guns at that era had a high chance to misfire and explode in your face.
4. Medicine took a backward step (think 4 humours) and new diseases were still lethal if not crippling.
5. Leaders started leading from the back, sometimes not anywhere near battles, meaning as a soldier, you were just a pawn on their battlemap.
6. No protection. Fancy bright uniforms worn to battle.
7. More likely to get blown to bits.

I am sure there are other reasons too.

Ancient and medieval warfare was also pretty bad, but at least you had a shield and sometimes good armor to protect yourself. Sieges would have been annoying and of course medicine was basic.

20th century warfare, excluding WWI, would have been horrifying, but at least soldiers are trained on taking cover and medicine improved. The same goes for modern day warfare.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Quintillus]

I vote for WWI, and the trench warfare era around then. In thinking over the options, a key factor is that for most of human history, being in the army meant you had a very low chance of dying on any given day, and most days weren't too terrible as you marched from place to place, built fortifications, and so on. Then you'd have the occasional day of a pitched battle of a siege battle, and your chance of dying would be significantly higher for a day.

Whereas in WWI, every day was awful. Your chance of dying on that day would be lower than on the day of a big medieval battle, but you'd be dealing with trenchfoot, artillery flying overhead and preventing you from getting sleep, and sanitation that would be bad by medieval standards. Stay in the trenches too long, and you'd be liable to develop shell shock. Altogether just a very bad time to be a soldier, and it only makes it worse that at the beginning of the war, 19th-century beliefs about the glamour of war were still prevalent, and many soldiers signed up thinking it would be an adventure and over before Christmas.

The other main factor for me is that by and large, the goal of battle has not been to kill the enemy, but to rout the enemy. While you have the occasional Genghis Khan who would create mountains of skulls in conquered cities, by and large the goal was to force the other side to concede some loss of territory or other objective, and it is not necessary to kill all their soldiers to do that, only to kill enough of them that the others flee. So even if you wind up on the losing side, your chance of survival were pretty good. In WWI, your chances of dying or suffering a permanent injury over the course of the war were quite considerable. And while you could argue that the same thing was true over, say, the 30 Years' War, that's a much longer period of time, and you may well not be obliged to serve the entire war.

I will admit that hand-to-hand fighting with spears and swords would have its downsides, and the intimate nature of killing (or worse, being killed) with melee weapons would be frightful. In more recent centuries, this has been one of the main roles of the bayonet charge - not to kill the enemy, but to cause them to flee when they realize they aren't going to be able to stop the charge, and they will have bayonets in their stomachs if they don't flee. However, for much of human history, that was the hazard of being a soldier, and may not have been as intimidating as when you were used to combat with muskets and rifles. I'd still take being a swordsman with that risk over being stuck in the trenches.

 

[Quintillus]

I agree with some, but disagree with others, of your points about why the Renaissance was a bad time. Standing around in bright uniforms being shot at would indeed be unfortunate. But until the end of that era in the poll - with the U.S. Civil War - most weapons were not very accurate at long ranges. There would be potshots from long range, but the short range would mean your enemy wouldn't be going Last Samurai on you with rifles and Gatling guns. So until the end of this time period, the range problem wouldn't be any worse than you'd have if you faced Longbowmen, and would be less of a problem than if you faced mounted horse archers. Cannons would be somewhat more of a problem, but I'd take my chance with 1600s cannons over WWII artillery.

I think the suicidal cavalry charge is also overstated. Granted, one of the great mysteries is what it was really like when two armies came together, what it was like being a Knight reaching the enemy infantry, or being on the other side of that equation. But most cavalry divisions over the years were not focused on frontal assaults. They'd scout, they'd try to flank the enemy, they'd chase down stragglers. They were more valuable for those roles than for directly assaulting the infantry - it's better to pin the enemy infantry with your infantry and only have the cavalry flank them than to try to break the enemy with a frontal cavalry assault. As a commander, you wouldn't want to waste your cavalry on a suicidal attack, and in any case if you gave orders the cavalry saw as suicidal, they may not follow them. The Charge of the Light Brigade excepted (and that was the result of a miscommunication), cavalry was generally used for roles it did well in, and avoided extreme casualty numbers.

Knights and heavy cavalry were somewhat different, but they were heavily armored as well. If you expected a significant amount of your knights to die on a frontal assault, you wouldn't order it. Would the nobles of your realm trust you as king if they learned that half of the knights you commanded at your last battle died in battle? Once tactics adopted to heavy cavalry - e.g. the tercio square - they were used less often and faded in importance, and before they adopted the losses were presumably not prohibitively high most of the time. Although I wouldn't want to be the horse.

I agree with the misfiring problem. How prevalent that was, I don't know. Probably more of a risk then than other time periods. I also somewhat agree on the medical front, although I don't know that you'd have statistically worse odds in the Renaissance than, say, in the medieval or ancient times. A lodged bullet, undisturbed, will often not be fatal; a sword wound likely has at least as good of a chance of being infected, as well as of hitting a vital organ. So, lose some on medicine, but potentially gain an equal amount on severity of injuries.

Citation needed on more leaders leading from the back in the 1600 - 1900 time period and considering their soldiers to be pawns as a result. I have a hard time seeing this as being any worse than WWI, or the USSR/Germany/Japan in WWII. For earlier time periods, it could be plausible, but earlier commanders with large armies could have the same problem, and you'd still have regimental commanders who would prefer not to send their men to an easy death. Perhaps fewer country-level leaders (medieval kings, for example) were personally leading armies, and that could have an impact, but I'd still take being under the command of some 1700s British general who commands from the back over being ultimately under the command of Stalin.

 

[sendos]

I vote for WWI, and the trench warfare era around then. In thinking over the options, a key factor is that for most of human history, being in the army meant you had a very low chance of dying on any given day, and most days weren't too terrible as you marched from place to place, built fortifications, and so on. Then you'd have the occasional day of a pitched battle of a siege battle, and your chance of dying would be significantly higher for a day.

Whereas in WWI, every day was awful. Your chance of dying on that day would be lower than on the day of a big medieval battle, but you'd be dealing with trenchfoot, artillery flying overhead and preventing you from getting sleep, and sanitation that would be bad by medieval standards. Stay in the trenches too long, and you'd be liable to develop shell shock. Altogether just a very bad time to be a soldier, and it only makes it worse that at the beginning of the war, 19th-century beliefs about the glamour of war were still prevalent, and many soldiers signed up thinking it would be an adventure and over before Christmas.

The other main factor for me is that by and large, the goal of battle has not been to kill the enemy, but to rout the enemy. While you have the occasional Genghis Khan who would create mountains of skulls in conquered cities, by and large the goal was to force the other side to concede some loss of territory or other objective, and it is not necessary to kill all their soldiers to do that, only to kill enough of them that the others flee. So even if you wind up on the losing side, your chance of survival were pretty good. In WWI, your chances of dying or suffering a permanent injury over the course of the war were quite considerable. And while you could argue that the same thing was true over, say, the 30 Years' War, that's a much longer period of time, and you may well not be obliged to serve the entire war.

I will admit that hand-to-hand fighting with spears and swords would have its downsides, and the intimate nature of killing (or worse, being killed) with melee weapons would be frightful. In more recent centuries, this has been one of the main roles of the bayonet charge - not to kill the enemy, but to cause them to flee when they realize they aren't going to be able to stop the charge, and they will have bayonets in their stomachs if they don't flee. However, for much of human history, that was the hazard of being a soldier, and may not have been as intimidating as when you were used to combat with muskets and rifles. I'd still take being a swordsman with that risk over being stuck in the trenches.

Indeed. It is certainly why I considered WWI a close second because some features of Renaissance era of warfare continued on in certain aspects. Trench foot was certainly one of the biggest concerns for a soldier in WWI, with feet constantly on wet muddy ground.

Regarding leaders during the Renaissance era, you're right I should find some citation. I know that it really started in the Medieval Era, with Kings starting to avoid direct fighting because the stakes would be too high if they were killed or captured. My logic was if there is a lot of artillery and cannons, it would make sense to keep leaders at the back, presumably out of artillery range otherwise your army could lose simply because your leader got hit by artillery. There's also increased rank and hierarchy, so I should probably define a military leader a bit more for this thread.

I'm sure some leaders, perhaps Napolean would be one example, led from the front and that is what made them great, along with their tactical and strategic skills.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I also think WWI would be the worst. The seemingly-abrupt lethality of the weapons made it so that the tactics were outdated, and happened to make it all worse (the infamous "over the top" suicidal charges into landmines, barbed wire and machine guns). iirc, there was one WWI battle that may have had the highest casualty rate in history, something like 35%. I'd have to look it up. Might've been the Somme. I think it was the one that cost the UK almost an entire "Oxbridge" class, and the French and Germans didn't do much better.

One of the things that doesn't always leap to people's minds when thinking about the horrors of WWI - machine guns, gas, airplanes, tanks, massive artillery - was the unanticipated effect of the recently-built Western European rail network. Massive amounts of men and ammunition were delivered to the front at shocking speed, which resulted in some of the most crowded battlefields in human history. The result was huge numbers of men in relatively small battlespaces. iirc, at the height of the fighting there was something like 50 divisions facing each other on a front something like a 100 kilometers.

Wikipedia says of the opening of the Battle of the Somme, the "Battle of Albert",

the Anglo-French infantry attacked on 1 July, on the south bank from Foucaucourt to the Somme and from the Somme north to Gommecourt, 2 mi (3.2 km) beyond Serre.

The forces arrayed against each other are identified as the British 3rd and 4th Armies, and the French 6th Army, totaling 24 allied divisions, and the German 2nd Army of 6 divisions. A page at Columbia.edu estimates a 1914 British Army Infantry Division at 12,000 men. According to Google, Foucaucourt to Gommecourt is 37.9km on the D197. A quarter of a million men, roughly, on a front 38km long. Infamously, the British dove headlong into a wood-chipper and suffered 57,000+ casualties on the first day (that couldn't continue, obviously, but still, the Brits took ~85,000 casualties, just in this little 2-week sub-battle of the Battle of the Somme).

 

[Sarin]

Renaissance was actually quite short period. The time between ~1650 and 1900 CE is generally called "early modern", and it was most definitely worst time to be a soldier.

The widespread usage of gunpowder changed warfare. Soldiers became cannon fodder, numbers mattered much more than quality. Armies became refuge for criminals and general rabble much more than before, and that resulted in even worse treatment of common soldiers than before and much harsher disciplinary measures. The industrialization also shifted warfare toward longer campaigns. All this led to extreme attrition rates and general misery during campaigns.

Survivability of soldier in battle didn't exactly improve either. Infected wounds were still big killers. The improvements in medical care during 17th-19th century were pretty much negated by sheer number of wounded to treat, and there were plenty of wounded when grapeshot started flying. The indecisive, wearing down part of battle became much more lethal, and it was not uncommon for victor to lose 10-20% of total force, which would be Pyrrhic victory in earlier eras. Prisoners couldn't expect any better treatment either.

While WWI comes close second due to simple fact that western front turned out to be virtually perpetual slugfest, the living conditions of soldiers actually improved compared to earlier eras. What might surprise some people is that if you look at % of casualties, 18th and early 19th wars were more deadly than WWI. Seven years' war, Napoleonic wars...they had total casualties within range 35-50% of involved troops, with easily half of it fatalities. That's more than WWI.

In the end, early modern period "wins" both on odds of getting killed or maimed and overall conditions.

 

[innonimatu]

I agree with the point about the rise in deadliness in the (early) modern period wars. But right until the 20th century it was at least relatively easy to desert. Even that was gone by the time of WW1: your own army was quite capable of killing you if you refused to take part on a suicidal attack.

 

[Normal Person]

I also think WWI would be the worst. The seemingly-abrupt lethality of the weapons made it so that the tactics were outdated, and happened to make it all worse (the infamous "over the top" suicidal charges into landmines, barbed wire and machine guns). iirc, there was one WWI battle that may have had the highest casualty rate in history, something like 35%. I'd have to look it up. Might've been the Somme. I think it was the one that cost the UK almost an entire "Oxbridge" class, and the French and Germans didn't do much better.

One of the things that doesn't always leap to people's minds when thinking about the horrors of WWI - machine guns, gas, airplanes, tanks, massive artillery - was the unanticipated effect of the recently-built Western European rail network. Massive amounts of men and ammunition were delivered to the front at shocking speed, which resulted in some of the most crowded battlefields in human history. The result was huge numbers of men in relatively small battlespaces. iirc, at the height of the fighting there was something like 50 divisions facing each other on a front something like a 100 kilometers.

Wikipedia says of the opening of the Battle of the Somme, the "Battle of Albert",

The forces arrayed against each other are identified as the British 3rd and 4th Armies, and the French 6th Army, totaling 24 allied divisions, and the German 2nd Army of 6 divisions. A page at Columbia.edu estimates a 1914 British Army Infantry Division at 12,000 men. According to Google, Foucaucourt to Gommecourt is 37.9km on the D197. A quarter of a million men, roughly, on a front 38km long. Infamously, the British dove headlong into a wood-chipper and suffered 57,000+ casualties on the first day (that couldn't continue, obviously, but still, the Brits took ~85,000 casualties, just in this little 2-week sub-battle of the Battle of the Somme).

although WWI did have a lot of dieses and bloody battles, nothing gets close to the trauma and horror of the Second World War. It was the largest conflict of human history and went from September 1st, 1939 to September 2nd, 1945 with about 70-85 million deaths and had the biggest geocide in history, and I'm not even talking about the technology it had, including the nuke bomb, even after the war Europe had still faced poverty after the destruction the Nazis left after their downfall.

According to Wikipedia, "World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished, or about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion). Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilians fatalities) are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additional estimated 19–28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilian deaths totaled 50–55 million." If you were in the US Forces, you had a less chance of dyeing since the United States had 407,316 in total of all branches of the USA, but if a soldier of the USSR your chances would be less likely to live since the Soviet Union had 8,806,453 dead, witch is only a fraction of both England and American deaths, even mixed with France. (oops forgot to include China, they had a lot of deaths.) And WWII was the first war to have civillians have higher deaths then soldiers.

 

[EgonSpengler]

although WWI did have a lot of dieses and bloody battles, nothing gets close to the trauma and horror of the Second World War. It was the largest conflict of human history and went from September 1st, 1939 to September 2nd, 1945 with about 70-85 million deaths and had the biggest geocide in history, and I'm not even talking about the technology it had, including the nuke bomb, even after the war Europe had still faced poverty after the destruction the Nazis left after their downfall.

According to Wikipedia, "World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished, or about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion). Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilians fatalities) are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additional estimated 19–28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilian deaths totaled 50–55 million." If you were in the US Forces, you had a less chance of dyeing since the United States had 407,316 in total of all branches of the USA, but if a soldier of the USSR your chances would be less likely to live since the Soviet Union had 8,806,453 dead, witch is only a fraction of both England and American deaths, even mixed with France. (oops forgot to include China, they had a lot of deaths.) And WWII was the first war to have civillians have higher deaths then soldiers.

There's no question that WWII was the "worse" war in many ways, particularly for civilians, but that wasn't quite what was being asked. To my eye, the living conditions of soldiers in the trenches of WWI was worse, and while the weapons and technologies of WWII were refinements and advances on the weapons introduced in WWI (except for gas, which was banned), the novelty of those weapons, all piled atop one another, meant that the officers didn't know how to handle them. It's always true that the development of weapons and tactics are intended to counter and destroy what came before them, but I think the archaic tactics employed in the trenches were particularly bad.

That said, if I were going to pick a single battle I wanted to most avoid, I'd have to include Stalingrad and Antietam on the shortlist, along with probably a few different WWI battles. Gallipoli would be another WWI battle I'd want no part of, and there was a battle between Americans and Germans in one of the forests that was nasty, I can't remember the name off the top of my head - I think there was a movie about it, with Rick "don't call me Ricky" Schroder.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Thinking some more about WWI: I was always taught that "shell shock" was an old-fashioned term what we call post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) today. In other eras, it was called "combat fatigue", "nostalgia" or "soldier's heart." However, I think our understanding of "shell shock" among veterans of World War I (and subsequent wars) now has to be expanded to include our new understanding of the lingering, possibly permanent, effects of concussions on the human brain - traumatic brain injury (TBI) - in addition to the emotional or psychological effects. One of the innovations of WWI was the artillery, in terms of size, quantity and use. Here again, we're talking about the unexpected effects of the Western European rail networks. Not only could trains carry tremendous numbers of guns of immense caliber into range of enemy positions, they could supply those guns with millions of rounds for barrages lasting days. Here again, the defensive thinking of the day - dig in - probably made it all worse, as in some cases, infantry positions wouldn't move for months at a time, and artillerymen could train their guns on the same spot of ground and launch shell after shell for days or weeks. In addition to the psychological effects of war, those WWI veterans probably suffered from literal, undiagnosed brain damage the rest of their lives.

EDIT: In fact, some of the artillery used in WWI were literally called "railway guns", because trains enabled the deployment of guns beyond conception in earlier eras. Here's a photo of a French 370mm/14.5" howitzer, courtesy of Wikipedia. I don't know if there are any Army or Navy vets here who could tell us what it's like to even be nearby a gun this size when it fires. And remember, the train didn't just move the gun into position, it also supplied the gun with nearly limitless ammunition.

Spoiler :

 

[Sarin]

Thinking some more about WWI: I was always taught that "shell shock" was an old-fashioned term what we call post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) today. In other eras, it was called "combat fatigue", "nostalgia" or "soldier's heart." However, I think our understanding of "shell shock" among veterans of World War I (and subsequent wars) now has to be expanded to include our new understanding of the lingering, possibly permanent, effects of concussions on the human brain - traumatic brain injury (TBI) - in addition to the emotional or psychological effects. One of the innovations of WWI was the artillery, in terms of size, quantity and use. Here again, we're talking about the unexpected effects of the Western European rail networks. Not only could trains carry tremendous numbers of guns of immense caliber into range of enemy positions, they could supply those guns with millions of rounds for barrages lasting days. Here again, the defensive thinking of the day - dig in - probably made it all worse, as in some cases, infantry positions wouldn't move for months at a time, and artillerymen could train their guns on the same spot of ground and launch shell after shell for days or weeks. In addition to the psychological effects of war, those WWI veterans probably suffered from literal, undiagnosed brain damage the rest of their lives.

EDIT: In fact, some of the artillery used in WWI were literally called "railway guns", because trains enabled the deployment of guns beyond conception in earlier eras. Here's a photo of a French 370mm/14.5" howitzer, courtesy of Wikipedia. I don't know if there are any Army or Navy vets here who could tell us what it's like to even be nearby a gun this size when it fires. And remember, the train didn't just move the gun into position, it also supplied the gun with nearly limitless ammunition.

Spoiler :

It would be hard, but possible, to find a living witness to firing of those guns. Maybe a few WWII navy veterans who served aboard a battleship or battlecruiser could tell, and US Navy was AFAIK the only military in the world that used such large guns in actual combat after WWII (Iowa-class battleships of WWII vintage provided fire support during Korean, Vietnam and First Gulf Wars), but in those wars, protection equipment for sailors was somewhat better so they were spared the worst.

 

[Joij21]

No prehistoric era? No distinction between the renaissance and industrial era? (gatling guns and repeating rifles are different after all from muskets and pikemen) No distinction between early and later medieval eras? (with only the later having rudimentary gunpowder weapons)

 

[Sarin]

No prehistoric era? No distinction between the renaissance and industrial era? (gatling guns and repeating rifles are different after all from muskets and pikemen) No distinction between early and later medieval eras? (with only the later having rudimentary gunpowder weapons)

I do not think that tribesmen whacking each other with clubs can be considered soldiers. Though some more time and place distinctions wouldn't hurt. You can't really compare life of Landsknecht from actual Renaissance with life on Napoleonic grenadier, or the latter with his contemporary impi from Shaka's army.

 

[Joij21]

I do not think that tribesmen whacking each other with clubs can be considered soldiers. Though some more time and place distinctions wouldn't hurt. You can't really compare life of Landsknecht from actual Renaissance with life on Napoleonic grenadier, or the latter with his contemporary impi from Shaka's army.

Ah, but both warriors and soldiers are in the business of war. Just that the soldier is full time

Though I agree, place distinctions wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Normal Person]

There's no question that WWII was the "worse" war in many ways, particularly for civilians, but that wasn't quite what was being asked. To my eye, the living conditions of soldiers in the trenches of WWI was worse, and while the weapons and technologies of WWII were refinements and advances on the weapons introduced in WWI (except for gas, which was banned), the novelty of those weapons, all piled atop one another, meant that the officers didn't know how to handle them. It's always true that the development of weapons and tactics are intended to counter and destroy what came before them, but I think the archaic tactics employed in the trenches were particularly bad.

That said, if I were going to pick a single battle I wanted to most avoid, I'd have to include Stalingrad and Antietam on the shortlist, along with probably a few different WWI battles. Gallipoli would be another WWI battle I'd want no part of, and there was a battle between Americans and Germans in one of the forests that was nasty, I can't remember the name off the top of my head - I think there was a movie about it, with Rick "don't call me Ricky" Schroder.

trenches between the big amount of warfare throughout WWII is nothing. I mean yeah, WWI had its fair share of not having trench warfare a like in the Eastern Front due to the rapid power and speed of Germany to push Russian Troop deep in thier own territory, but the only reason why people say WWI was worse to live is because of trench warfare and the diseases it carried, and modern warfare was just in its early times so trench warfare was the almost the only scary thing, WWII brought up a more scary and more cruel version of WWII, Russia lost soo many men during the war, and in Stalingrad were literary forced to not step back and fought close to the enemy to make bombardments usless, America and the UK faced not just Germans but the Japanese who were ruthless with the enemy, traps, bayonet charges, and somtimes death marches were done by the Japanese. plus WWII had much more advance technology to really put deaths to almost more than a million.

 

[sendos]

I agree with the point about the rise in deadliness in the (early) modern period wars. But right until the 20th century it was at least relatively easy to desert. Even that was gone by the time of WW1: your own army was quite capable of killing you if you refused to take part on a suicidal attack.

Desertion is an interesting factor to consider. I still consider it relatively minor compared to the other categories I have listed. It kind of opens up a new topic on which era would be most difficult to be a brigand/outlaw, because being a deserter requires you to effectively abandon your country of origin. Even then, the answer to that new topic would be modern era all the way.

No prehistoric era? No distinction between the renaissance and industrial era? (gatling guns and repeating rifles are different after all from muskets and pikemen) No distinction between early and later medieval eras? (with only the later having rudimentary gunpowder weapons)

I could have added more categories, but going further back in history from the ancient era seems redundant. There's not much difference in technology between a wooden club and a sword. The theme is pretty much the same: you charge at your opponent or you're a skirmisher with a bow/javelin/slinger.

As for more elaboration between renaissance era and industrial era, I could have done that. I was trying to capture the common theme of line infantry not taking cover while matching up to their enemy and firing, like as if the battle is one big duel. Then of course you add new technology like gatling guns and then around then that's where you get the blur between Industrial era and early 20th century WWI modern era.

Having said that, I am seeing good arguments here for WWI being worst time to be a soldier, especially because of both technological and strategic and tactical changes going on. I still say, at least your general and immediate superiors would promote cover for your safety in the form of trenches and rudimentary bunkers to improve survival chances, even if they were minimal (with the exception of suicide charges of course).

 

[Zardnaar]

WW1 was worse for soldiers. They learnt for m that in WW2, kept themobike and out of the trenches with organised entertainment etc.

Better healthcare as well.

Eastern Front being an exception.

 

[EgonSpengler]

WW1 was worse for soldiers. They learnt for m that in WW2, kept themobike and out of the trenches with organised entertainment etc.

Better healthcare as well.

Eastern Front being an exception.

Right, when we're talking about the World Wars, they were so big that we often have to narrow it down just to talk about it. WWI & WWII were almost more like several, simultaneous wars than one big one. The number of ways you can talk about the entire event as one are probably few and vague. Everything I wrote above was about the European Western Front, and probably applies to some degree to the Gallipoli campaign. I don't know if the fighting on the Eastern Front was characterized as strongly by trench warfare, poison gas, railroads, massive artillery, etc. I know relatively little about the Eastern Front of WWI, come to think of it. I should look for a book on that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Right, when we're talking about the World Wars, they were so big that we often have to narrow it down just to talk about it. WWI & WWII were almost more like several, simultaneous wars than one big one. The number of ways you can talk about the entire event as one are probably few and vague. Everything I wrote above was about the European Western Front, and probably applies to some degree to the Gallipoli campaign. I don't know if the fighting on the Eastern Front was characterized as strongly by trench warfare, poison gas, railroads, massive artillery, etc. I know relatively little about the Eastern Front of WWI, come to think of it. I should look for a book on that.

Easter front WW1 was more mobile. Cavalry actually worked there.

I would rather be a soldier in WW2 vs 1. Eastern Front being an exception.

The worst WW2 battles were similar to WW1. Otherwise the war was more mobile, dryer, and high command made a lot more effort to look after the troops.

Our first battle was Gallipoli, then sent to Mespotamia then thrown into Passchendaele.

WW2 Greece/Crete, then North Africa then Italy. Warmer at least than western front WW1.

France 1940 was over quickly and 44 more mobile.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Easter front WW1 was more mobile. Cavalry actually worked there.

I would rather be a soldier in WW2 vs 1. Eastern Front being an exception.

The worst WW2 battles were similar to WW1. Otherwise the war was more mobile, dryer, and high command made a lot more effort to look after the troops.

Our first battle was Gallipoli, then sent to Mespotamia then thrown into Passchendaele.

WW2 Greece/Crete, then North Africa then Italy. Warmer at least than western front WW1.

France 1940 was over quickly and 44 more mobile.

Ugh, yeah, Passchendaele is another one of those battles I'd want no part of, thank you very much. A 3-month-long fight in a salient that was maybe a handful of miles/km across, between forces something like 50 divisions on each side. And it was the third Battle of Ypres, so everything was flattened, just mud and shellholes as far as the eye can see, like the surface of the Moon after a tsunami. Anyone who can conjure the black-and-white mental image of, like, a single, bare tree trunk sticking up out of a field of mud - that's probably Passchendaele.

I can't remember if it was Passchendaele specifically, but I remember reading or hearing an account by a WWI veteran who returned to one of the battlefields years later and realized only then that the hill they'd been fighting for was like a little ski mogul. He'd never seen it from above ground, only from ground level, from the trenches, across No Man's Land, and I guess it had looked like Mt. Doom encircled by barbed wire.

An undated view of Passchendaele, courtesy of the Canadian War Museum. No gore in the photo, but a little disturbing anyway:

Spoiler :