Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 18th, 2011, 02:46 PM   #1

Mohammed the Persian's Avatar
Persicus Maximus
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Bahrain
Posts: 9,988
Blog Entries: 15
Bloodiest frontier in WWI?


A friend and I had an argument over which was the bloodiest frontier in WWI (ah, good old history arguments ). He was convinced that it was the Italian Frontier. I'm telling him it was the Western Front.

So can anyone set the record straight ?
Mohammed the Persian is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 18th, 2011, 02:52 PM   #2

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,556

Haven't the figures to hand but I think its really how you want to view it and play with statistics.

The Western Front was the biggest most violent , cutting edge of technology, priority for the 'main' powers etc the 'Main Front'.

That doesn't mean other fronts were not nasty or less bloody but different. The Italian front for instance was much smaller but fought in the Alps -- is that possible? well yes but very difficult.

So I'd say there is no frony was the 'worse' answer except the 'West' was the main front.
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 03:07 PM   #3

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,616
Blog Entries: 5

Well when looking at artillery barages, aerial battles and men lost per km2 it is definitely the western front, which was also the most important of ww1
bartieboy is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 03:27 PM   #4

Montcalm's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Paris
Posts: 156

Hello,

Could you please elaborate on "bloody" ? In terms of overall casualties, or % ? Population loss ?

In most cases, the Western Front was the bloodier, most violent of all. The Italian front was very hard, for sure, but only during vast offensives did real casualties go up. But in the end, the numbers tend to show the Alpine front as a sideshow (aprox. 1.7 million casualties versus 13 million dead on the Western Front).
Montcalm is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 03:34 PM   #5

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,616
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montcalm View Post
Hello,

Could you please elaborate on "bloody" ? In terms of overall casualties, or % ? Population loss ?

In most cases, the Western Front was the bloodier, most violent of all. The Italian front was very hard, for sure, but only during vast offensives did real casualties go up. But in the end, the numbers tend to show the Alpine front as a sideshow (aprox. 1.7 million casualties versus 13 million dead on the Western Front).
If you ask me which fronts are most important I'd say
1. French/belgian front
2. Russian front
3. Balkan/italian front
4. Mesopotamian front
5. Dardanelles front
6. African front
7. Pacific front

Did I miss a spot?
bartieboy is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 03:46 PM   #6

Montcalm's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Paris
Posts: 156

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
If you ask me which fronts are most important I'd say
1. French/belgian front
2. Russian front
3. Balkan/italian front
4. Mesopotamian front
5. Dardanelles front
6. African front
7. Pacific front

Did I miss a spot?
Hi,

If one were fussy, he could argue that the Atlantic was naval front.
Montcalm is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 03:53 PM   #7

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,616
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montcalm View Post
Hi,

If one were fussy, he could argue that the Atlantic was naval front.
One could say that, and sure, while it was important it was insignificant in terms of casualties... I would not call a naval theatre a front
bartieboy is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 04:00 PM   #8
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Moscow
Posts: 2,410
Blog Entries: 1

I believe these figures can give answer on your question

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun"]Battle of Verdun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusilov_Offensive"]Brusilov Offensive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme"]Battle of the Somme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties]World War I casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Montage is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 04:20 PM   #9

bartieboy's Avatar
.
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: The Netherlands
Posts: 6,616
Blog Entries: 5

You would expect Belgium to have taken more casualties then the USA.
A nice graph to give a clear overview...
Somethimes it is just hard to imagine that we are still talking about peoples lives here... Regular people like you and me...
bartieboy is offline  
Old December 18th, 2011, 04:43 PM   #10

Helios's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 662

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartieboy View Post
Somethimes it is just hard to imagine that we are still talking about peoples lives here... Regular people like you and me...
Not regular people anymore but heroes.
Helios is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
bloodiest, frontier, wwi



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The bloodiest ONE DAY military disasters... JohnnyH General History 68 December 21st, 2013 02:58 PM
Space. The Final Frontier PADDYBOY Speculative History 33 November 16th, 2012 10:25 PM
Frontier Life in the West Knarly Dan American History 3 March 6th, 2011 06:54 PM
Bloodiest Year in each Century Inc General History 45 November 7th, 2010 02:51 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.