Who is typically affected the most by wars throughout the course of human history?

Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
9,571
Name the demographics and support your argument with reasons.
 
I feel weird about ranking trauma. War is hell for everyone, soldier and civilian alike.

Statistically, I'd say young men from lower socioeconomic statuses. All wars involve them killing one another. Some wars spill over to noncombatants after the battle.

The people who get killed?

Reason - cuz they dead? Cant get much more "affected" than that

Thinking about it, getting shot and bleeding out over a couple minutes in shock is preferable to being raped and tortured by an advancing army.
 
Thinking about it, getting shot and bleeding out over a couple minutes in shock is preferable to being raped and tortured by an advancing army.

Perhaps but:
the soldiers, more than likely, had no choice to begin with. You can't say the people who had no choice in the first place were "the lucky ones" when the others can always voluntarily put themselves out of their misery if they want to.
 
Perhaps but:
the soldiers, more than likely, had no choice to begin with. You can't say the people who had no choice in the first place were "the lucky ones" when the others can always voluntarily put themselves out of their misery if they want to.

Not lucky, no. Just that I think there are worse things than death, so using death as the ultimate standard of affect doesn't sit right with me.

As a specific example, I'd rather have been a German infantryman on the eastern front at any point of the war (excluding Stalingrad anyway) than a German woman in East Prussia in 1945
 
I feel weird about ranking trauma.
:goodjob:

You should.

Ranking trauma is popular nowadays. Healing/avoiding it is more important.

Thinking about it, getting shot and bleeding out over a couple minutes in shock is preferable to being raped and tortured by an advancing army.
Yeah I think about that when musing on post-apocalyptic situations. Wouldn't it be better to just die right away than scrabble for survival when you're likely to live a horrible life and be dead within 6 months anyway. But most people just don't want to die.

Interesting fact I read somewhere, during wartime suicides generally go down (don't recall the source or country or time period).
 
Not lucky, no. Just that I think there are worse things than death, so using death as the ultimate standard of affect doesn't sit right with me.

As a specific example, I'd rather have been a German infantryman on the eastern front at any point of the war (excluding Stalingrad anyway) than a German woman in East Prussia in 1945

The German woman in East Prussia would be brutalized, but probably not killed. Meaning she had a choice to begin with. She could end it herself to guarantee she doesn't have to suffer, or she she can tough it out because she wants to live and can only hope things will eventually get better.

It's worth noting that for the purpose of "people affected by war"

1) In wars, even the winning/offensive side is going to have causilities too, while the women/children stay home (going off of ww2, American and British women compared to their male counterparts). Yeah some women were nurses and such but didn't see live combat.

2) not every attempt to take a city or village be successful.

So there are plenty of wars/battles that will be in an open battlefield somewhere, not even necessarily involving women and children at all. And then there are times where attempts will made to capture the city/town/village/castle but will fail, because soldiers died to defend it (successfully). So overall, I would say the soldiers are affected the most.
 
I already stated that I think soldiers are most affected for precisely those reasons. My point was merely that deaths are not my only criteria. Instead of the hypothetical East Prussian frau, I'm also thinking of a childhood friend who served in Iraq. I would rather be dead than go through what he did. And in a way, his burden did kill him, at least who he was. The person I knew just doesn't exist anymore, not even an echo.
 
I already stated that I think soldiers are most affected for precisely those reasons. My point was merely that deaths are not my only criteria. Instead of the hypothetical East Prussian frau, I'm also thinking of a childhood friend who served in Iraq. I would rather be dead than go through what he did. And in a way, his burden did kill him, at least who he was. The person I knew just doesn't exist anymore, not even an echo.
But you never know what's going to happen tomorrow....hope and survival are likely strong evolutionary traits
 
The poor. Not only are they the bulk of the fighting force on all sides of any given conflict, but the impoverished civilians suffer the brunt of the effects on the home front as well. They are hit hardest by rationing, and it is usually their homes and workplaces that suffer the most collateral damage.
 
The German woman in East Prussia would be brutalized, but probably not killed. Meaning she had a choice to begin with. She could end it herself to guarantee she doesn't have to suffer, or she she can tough it out because she wants to live and can only hope things will eventually get better.

That's a real comfort. If you're traumatised at least you have the choice of suicide.
It's worth noting that for the purpose of "people affected by war"

1) In wars, even the winning/offensive side is going to have causilities too, while the women/children stay home (going off of ww2, American and British women compared to their male counterparts). Yeah some women were nurses and such but didn't see live combat.

2) not every attempt to take a city or village be successful.

So there are plenty of wars/battles that will be in an open battlefield somewhere, not even necessarily involving women and children at all. And then there are times where attempts will made to capture the city/town/village/castle but will fail, because soldiers died to defend it (successfully). So overall, I would say the soldiers are affected the most.

Tell women and children in Dresden or Coventry in WW2 that they won't be affected because they are at home. Tell it to anyone living in an occupied territory. Its a very US perspective that those at home aren't affected.

Still, as to who is worst affected, anyone soldier or civilian who has to live the rest of their life with a crippling injury quite possibly with PTSD as well.
 
Poor people suffer the most. They are drafted and forced to fight or work the ammo factories - this was the case with WW2. They do not have the finances to get away nor bribe. They do not have the means to procure weapons and in a war environment, which is "larger fish eats smaller fish" - they're they ones that are being stepped upon and exploited - either by individual soldiers by "might makes right" or on a large scale by governments for cheap labor.
 
Depends on the war but poor in modern era.

Greece Hoplites only the rich had fill hoplite armor so they went in the front.

The poor who could only afford partial armor further back and the ones with should and spear were at the back.

Spartans only the rich were Spartans and were citizens. The Spartan elite were all rich. Wealth was tied to citizenship.

Parthia used lots if heavy cavalry. Poor people don't own horses so....

Officers also tended to come from upper classes and junior ones in the British army iirc took higher casualties than general infantry iirc in WW1.
 
Top Bottom