Being injured vs being dead

Sep 2018
6,733
1,147
cleveland ohio
6. Just Look at History: War technology has always been about killing the enemy more effectively than they can kill you. The introduction of gunpowder into the battlefields of the world demonstrates this fatal and paramount difference. Everybody knows how it turns out for those who bring a knife to a gunfight. This is why early settlers of the Americas were able to wipe out the indigenous populations, tomahawks and bows and arrows stood no match to even the most primitive of firearms. Even as firearms technology advanced, the introduction of the machine gun again proved how new generations of firearms are ultimately more devastating in their effect.
6. Just Look at History: War technology has always been about killing the enemy more effectively than they can kill you. The introduction of gunpowder into the battlefields of the world demonstrates this fatal and paramount difference. Everybody knows how it turns out for those who bring a knife to a gunfight. This is why early settlers of the Americas were able to wipe out the indigenous populations, tomahawks and bows and arrows stood no match to even the most primitive of firearms. Even as firearms technology advanced, the introduction of the machine gun again proved how new generations of firearms are ultimately more devastating in their effect.

Lone Star College Mass Stabbing: 6 Reasons Why Knives Are Not as Deadly as Guns
 
Nov 2013
2,645
1,147
NM
6. Just Look at History: War technology has always been about killing the enemy more effectively than they can kill you. The introduction of gunpowder into the battlefields of the world demonstrates this fatal and paramount difference. Everybody knows how it turns out for those who bring a knife to a gunfight. This is why early settlers of the Americas were able to wipe out the indigenous populations, tomahawks and bows and arrows stood no match to even the most primitive of firearms. Even as firearms technology advanced, the introduction of the machine gun again proved how new generations of firearms are ultimately more devastating in their effect.


Lone Star College Mass Stabbing: 6 Reasons Why Knives Are Not as Deadly as Guns
It depends on the particulars of each situation. The Spanish in Mexico in 1520s CE were driven out of what became Mexico City - gunpowder & allies & armor & horses notwithstanding, there were far more Aztecs, & their archery (& spear-throwing) technology was mature. The Spanish guns & cannon were awkward, heavy & took too long to reload. See Aztec warfare - Wikipedia A good archer apparently could draw & fire several times accurately in the time it took to reload a gun then - & of course if you're firing from ambush, archery is excellent - quiet, deadly, no smoke nor fire to give away the position.

The Spanish themselves adopted Aztec armor - quilted cotton, soaked in brine. It was lighter than Spanish steel (?), & just as effective against darts, obsidian blades, etc. The Spanish eventually won - but that was more due to disease cutting down their victims (& allies) than their superior technology - which turned out to be poorly adapted to the conditions @ hand in any event. Their broad military & diplomatic skills were more helpful than their pure military tech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MichaelT
Nov 2018
4,992
2,662
Rocky Mountains
It depends on the particulars of each situation. The Spanish in Mexico in 1520s CE were driven out of what became Mexico City - gunpowder & allies & armor & horses notwithstanding, there were far more Aztecs, & their archery (& spear-throwing) technology was mature. The Spanish guns & cannon were awkward, heavy & took too long to reload. See Aztec warfare - Wikipedia A good archer apparently could draw & fire several times accurately in the time it took to reload a gun then - & of course if you're firing from ambush, archery is excellent - quiet, deadly, no smoke nor fire to give away the position.

The Spanish themselves adopted Aztec armor - quilted cotton, soaked in brine. It was lighter than Spanish steel (?), & just as effective against darts, obsidian blades, etc. The Spanish eventually won - but that was more due to disease cutting down their victims (& allies) than their superior technology - which turned out to be poorly adapted to the conditions @ hand in any event. Their broad military & diplomatic skills were more helpful than their pure military tech.
This is a different view than I have assembled for the Spanish domination of Central and South America. The horse and steel were far more effective in the short run than any disease issue. At least that is how I remember it portrayed in Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, Steel" discussion of the conquest of the New World empires by the Spanish. Supposedly the conquistdores had battles where they never lost a man yet killed thousands of indios.
 
Nov 2013
2,645
1,147
NM
This is a different view than I have assembled for the Spanish domination of Central and South America. The horse and steel were far more effective in the short run than any disease issue. At least that is how I remember it portrayed in Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, Steel" discussion of the conquest of the New World empires by the Spanish. Supposedly the conquistdores had battles where they never lost a man yet killed thousands of indios.
Plus the Aztecs (& most of the Mesoamerican people) didn't fight wars to the death - for the Aztecs, it was to capture warriors to sacrifice to propitiate the gods - or tribute of people &/or goods from conquered peoples. I'll have to look @ Diamond again - it's been too long since the last time I read it. But I recall that he mentioned germs as part of the European success in the Americas.
 
Nov 2018
4,992
2,662
Rocky Mountains
Plus the Aztecs (& most of the Mesoamerican people) didn't fight wars to the death - for the Aztecs, it was to capture warriors to sacrifice to propitiate the gods - or tribute of people &/or goods from conquered peoples. I'll have to look @ Diamond again - it's been too long since the last time I read it. But I recall that he mentioned germs as part of the European success in the Americas.
Intriguing stuff to think about...
 
Nov 2013
2,645
1,147
NM
Plus the Aztecs (& most of the Mesoamerican people) didn't fight wars to the death - for the Aztecs, it was to capture warriors to sacrifice to propitiate the gods - or tribute of people &/or goods from conquered peoples. I'll have to look @ Diamond again - it's been too long since the last time I read it. But I recall that he mentioned germs as part of the European success in the Americas.
This is a different view than I have assembled for the Spanish domination of Central and South America. The horse and steel were far more effective in the short run than any disease issue. At least that is how I remember it portrayed in Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, Steel" discussion of the conquest of the New World empires by the Spanish. Supposedly the conquistdores had battles where they never lost a man yet killed thousands of indios.
From Guns, Germs, and Steel, p. 210:

"The importance of lethal microbes in human history is well illustrated by Europeans' conquest and depopulation of the New World. Far more Native Americans died in bed from Eurasian germs than on the battlefield from European guns and swords. … For instance, in 1519 Cortés landed on the coast of Mexico with 600 Spaniards, to conquer the fiercely militaristic Aztec Empire with a population of many millions. … But when Cortés's next onslaught came, the Aztecs were no longer naïve and fought street by street with the utmost tenacity. What gave the Spaniards a decisive advantage was smallpox, which reached Mexico in 1520 with one infected slave arriving from Spanish Cuba. The resulting epidemic proceeded to kill nearly half of the Aztecs, including Emperor Cuitláhuac. … By 1618, Mexico's initial population of about 20 million had plummeted to about 1.6 million.

"Pizarro had similarly grim luck when he landed on the coast of Peru in 1531 with 168 men to conquer the Inca Empire of millions. Fortunately for Pizarro and unfortunately for the Incas, smallpox had arrived overland around 1526, killing much of the Inca population, including both emperor Huayna Capac and his designated successor. … "
 
Nov 2018
4,992
2,662
Rocky Mountains
This is a different view than I have assembled for the Spanish domination of Central and South America. The horse and steel were far more effective in the short run than any disease issue. At least that is how I remember it portrayed in Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, Steel" discussion of the conquest of the New World empires by the Spanish. Supposedly the conquistdores had battles where they never lost a man yet killed thousands of indios.
From Guns, Germs, and Steel, p. 210:

"The importance of lethal microbes in human history is well illustrated by Europeans' conquest and depopulation of the New World. Far more Native Americans died in bed from Eurasian germs than on the battlefield from European guns and swords. … For instance, in 1519 Cortés landed on the coast of Mexico with 600 Spaniards, to conquer the fiercely militaristic Aztec Empire with a population of many millions. … But when Cortés's next onslaught came, the Aztecs were no longer naïve and fought street by street with the utmost tenacity. What gave the Spaniards a decisive advantage was smallpox, which reached Mexico in 1520 with one infected slave arriving from Spanish Cuba. The resulting epidemic proceeded to kill nearly half of the Aztecs, including Emperor Cuitláhuac. … By 1618, Mexico's initial population of about 20 million had plummeted to about 1.6 million.

"Pizarro had similarly grim luck when he landed on the coast of Peru in 1531 with 168 men to conquer the Inca Empire of millions. Fortunately for Pizarro and unfortunately for the Incas, smallpox had arrived overland around 1526, killing much of the Inca population, including both emperor Huayna Capac and his designated successor. … "

I do not have GGS handy, but here is quote from the PBS Series on the book:
Guns Germs & Steel: The Show. Episode Two. Transcript | PBS

" ...168 Spaniards attacked the imperial army of the Incas in the highlands of Peru. Before the day was out, they had massacred 7,000 people, and taken control of the Inca Empire. Not a single Spanish life was lost in the process..."
 
Nov 2012
41,152
11,840
Lebanon, TN
being injured vs being dead, the reason that we don't have 200,000 dead from the current wars is because of technology, M-16 vs M-14 .30 cal vs .223 cal

more accurate airpower and artillery.
 
Nov 2013
2,645
1,147
NM
I do not have GGS handy, but here is quote from the PBS Series on the book:
Guns Germs & Steel: The Show. Episode Two. Transcript | PBS

" ...168 Spaniards attacked the imperial army of the Incas in the highlands of Peru. Before the day was out, they had massacred 7,000 people, and taken control of the Inca Empire. Not a single Spanish life was lost in the process..."
If this is what you're talking about

"Voiceover: It’s the morning of November 16th, 1532. Ataxalpa
has agreed to meet the Spaniards in the town of Cajamarca, and sends
his entourage ahead of him. But he makes a fateful decision; that
his soldiers should not carry weapons.

"Efrain Trelles: The Indians were musicians and dancers. They were
soldiers, but unarmed. Why would Ataxalpa unarm his own soldiers?
Why, because he was in the festivity, he was celebrating. He wasn’t
going to war. He was going for a celebration so that the whole people
could see how the alleged gods would run away in fear. The fact
that some people believed that the Spaniards were gods would play
better in the hands of Ataxalpa’s purpose. If I know they
are not gods and I defeat the gods, then of course everybody will
be with me. But what if I defeat the gods with no show of force
at all? Then I am beyond the gods."

(My emphasis - from the transcript. Ataxapla is the Inca. & he's playing a bluff on the Spaniards; he hopes to overawe them. It nearly works - see the transcript.)

So Pizarro didn't take on the imperial Inca army - he took them on in their other role, as musicians. & they were unarmed. & they didn't know to hold position against horses.

After that slaughter, the program goes on to discuss the unwitting germ warfare that the Spanish (& Europeans in general) were waging against the Native Peoples of the New World. & Diamond goes on to discuss the disease vectors & repositories of the Spanish - domestic animals. Which don't exist in the New World cultures.
 
Dec 2014
27,891
15,399
Memphis, Tn.
being injured vs being dead, the reason that we don't have 200,000 dead from the current wars is because of technology, M-16 vs M-14 .30 cal vs .223 cal

more accurate airpower and artillery.
No, the difference is medical technology and the ability to get wounded off the field and under competent medical care rapidly. A good deal of the wounded die of blood loss and shock.
The M-16 is 5.56mm, the M-14 was 7.62mm.