View Full Version : War you would have wanted to be in
I decided to start this since I have nothing better to do.
What war would you have liked to fight in if you were alive during that period in history?
My choice would probably be WW1. I have always had a weird fascination with it for some reason. Though it was a horrendous war I still would have like to be in it.
Geezer57
10-09-2006, 20:04
I think war is best experienced from a safe distance - I wouldn't want to be in any of them.
Having lived overseas during a couple of revolutions, I can say it's not a particularly comfortable event.
I wouldn't want to fight in any war whatsoever. If I had to it would probably be WWII, hopefully at some silent place like guarding a weapon depo in Texas or something.
Avicenna
10-09-2006, 20:31
A general in the Cold War of course. It involves hardly any danger once Stalin's dead, and once the War's over you get filthy rich selling all those weapons.
Justiciar
10-09-2006, 21:10
I decided to start this since I have nothing better to do.
What war would you have liked to fight in if you were alive during that period in history?
My choice would probably be WW1. I have always had a weird fascination with it for some reason. Though it was a horrendous war I still would have like to be in it.
You're kidding? You'd want to sit around in a ditch somewhere, cold, hungry, and stricken with bowel diseases while being occasionally bombarded, choked to death and blinded, until being told by some inbred twit that you'll be legging it into the sights of a machine-gunner in a couple of days, by which point your nerves will have just gone into melt down, and when the time finally comes all of your chums will be cold corpses while - granted you survive - you become a changed, severely depressed, alcoholic man, unable to look your family in the eyes, wracked by nightmares and any number of mental health issues? *Gasps for air*
Me too! :laugh4:
Seriously, I wouldn't want to be in any war, full stop. I'd only ever join one out of necessity or - perhaps - a sense of duty. But even then I wouldn't exactly be chuffed of Stockport.
It's a hypothetical question.
Justiciar
10-09-2006, 21:36
I know, I know.
Just saying though, that doesn't negate the fact that war is something any sane person should avoid.
But alright.. I'll play along! :2thumbsup:
Gah! There are so many.. the Peninsula War would be interesting, or to just follow Genghis Khan around for a bit.
Randarkmaan
10-09-2006, 21:36
If I had to fight in a war, I would probably have preferred the British colonial wars in Africa. Anyway I would view the same way as Captain Edmund Blackadder 'Even spears made us think twice, the people we'd prefer to fight were 2 feet tall and armed with dry grass' (quote might not be correct).
A U.S. Marine in Desert Storm. Short, sweet, and to the point.
Randarkmaan
10-09-2006, 22:01
Wouldn't that mostly consist of the airforce bombing the crap out of the enemy aided by cruiser missiles and such and then move in and destroy the little remaining opposition?
IrishArmenian
10-09-2006, 23:35
No one wants to fight in any war. I have no choice. Being a sniper though, does spare one of most of the horrors, but not all.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-10-2006, 00:16
The War of 1812, guarding Hudson's Bay. :knight:
Even hypothetically I can't really say I would like to have been in any war.
I deal well enough with blood, but not with broken bodies or cut meat. And I would have to deal with that in pretty much any conflict I suppose.
So naturally I would have to se something like a horse archer for the Parthians or some such... But that coems down more to what kind of warrior I would like to be.
blahblahblah
10-10-2006, 00:47
Being one of those Longbowmen in the Hundred Years War where I'm at the very back, where I don't have to die and where I can nail the French Knights down with that longbow of mines.
Otherwise, I'd stick to Medieval I/II Total War for wars.
Strike For The South
10-10-2006, 02:09
A US Marine on Iwo Jima
Slartibardfast
10-10-2006, 02:12
Alexanders (Iskander the "son of the devil") campaign of conquest and exploration.
Pretty horrific stuff to survive but the memories of all the places you got to visit and the shear number of interesting peoples and cultures that you came across might of made all the nightmares almost worthwhile.
Basileus
10-10-2006, 02:22
Propably the Vietnam war, always been fascinated with it. Most likely not a good choise though .
Samurai Waki
10-10-2006, 03:24
I wouldn't want to be in any war. I can handle blood and guts, but I couldn't stand being separated from my home and my family. I think that would suck the worst... that... and seeing all of the guys you've trained with, your best friends perhaps, die in a senseless carnage.
Although from a historical point of view, I think I would've preferred being a Legionary during the Roman Wars of Conquest, more specifically, Gaul and Britain.
IrishArmenian
10-10-2006, 04:30
Hypothetically, I would probably be a Mongolian Rider, not under Ogodei, preferably in the army of either Subodei, Batu, Ongke then after all those, the Great Khan's. I just think he had to learn on the job, and Subodei, Batu and Ongke already knew how to deal with non-Mongolians . They suffered few casualties, saw many different places, and fought the way I do in all TW games. I also have no problems with seeing the dead/butchered/bloody and other atrocities.
Derfasciti
10-10-2006, 05:53
What a good question!
If I had my choice, it'd either have to be World War one, the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic Wars.
Preferably a high ranking officer who did all the planning but rarely got shot at.
As for sides:
WW1:Germany
Seven Years War: Probably France or Prussia or England
Napoleonic Wars: Definitely France.
Mostly for the purposes of seeing how the wars could have been different. But for WW1 and Napoleonic Wars, I genuinely have sympathy for Germany and France.
Ah Napoleonic Wars I would have like to fight for Prussia. Just for planning and such not getting shot at maybe could have made a difference.
Avicenna
10-10-2006, 08:18
Hypothetically, I would probably be a Mongolian Rider, not under Ogodei, preferably in the army of either Subodei, Batu, Ongke then after all those, the Great Khan's. I just think he had to learn on the job, and Subodei, Batu and Ongke already knew how to deal with non-Mongolians . They suffered few casualties, saw many different places, and fought the way I do in all TW games. I also have no problems with seeing the dead/butchered/bloody and other atrocities.
Isn't Jebe also a good commander to be under?
Somebody Else
10-10-2006, 08:55
Depends... what do I get to bring back with me?
What sort of social position/military rank do I get to have?
I reckon going back to Syria in 53 BC armed with rifle section's armament plus plenty of ammunition and an encyclopedic knowledge of Crassus's campaign could be fun. The Parthians would be in for quite a surprise...
Or is re-writing history not allowed?
lanky316
10-10-2006, 10:09
No one wants to fight in any war. I have no choice. Being a sniper though, does spare one of most of the horrors, but not all.
Seeing close up the faces of those you shoot through the skulkl all the time? :inquisitive: I have to say that's not one that I'd like.
I've always liked the Napoleonic periods so probably then. Ideally in the Imperial Guard (tha's what they were called isn;'t it?) that way would see all of Napoleans greatest victories and live through most of them!
Pannonian
10-10-2006, 10:24
If I was going to set out to see exactly how horrible war could be, I'd also say Vietnam war. American soldiers who suffered through that have my utmost respect, as no American army before or since has had to deal with such outrageous conditions.
Italy wasn't exactly a cakewalk. The various assaults on Monte Cassino supposedly chalked up a higher casualty rate than Omaha beach in terms of fraction of troops committed, except there were more troops involved, and the battle took several months to resolve.
Battle of Monte Cassino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino)
The central thrust by U.S. 36th Division commenced three hours after sunset on January 20. The lack of time to prepare meant that the approach to the river was still hazardous from uncleared mines and booby traps and the highly technical business of an opposed river crossing lacked the necessary planning and rehearsal. Although a battalion of the 143rd Regiment was able to get across the Rapido on the south side of San Angelo and two companies of the 141st Regiment on the north side, they were isolated for most of the time and at no time was Allied armour able to get across the river leaving them highly vulnerable to counter-attacking tanks and self-propelled guns of General Rodt's 15th Panzer Grenadier Division. The southern group were forced back across the river by mid-morning of January 21. Maj. General Keys, commanding II Corps, pressed Maj. General Fred Walker of 36th Division to renew the attack immediately. Once again the two regiments attacked but with no more success against the well dug-in 15 Panzer Division: 143rd Regiment got the equivalent of two battalions across but once again there was no armoured support and they were devastated when daylight came the next day. 141st Regiment also crossed in two battalion strength and despite the lack of armoured support managed to advance half a mile. However, with the coming of daylight, they too were cut down and by the evening of January 22 the regiment had virtually ceased to exist with 40 men making it back to the Allied lines. The assault had been a costly failure with 36th Division losing 2100[2] men killed, wounded and missing in 48 hours.
And that was just one attempt, out of the many that took place.
Mount Suribachi
10-10-2006, 10:51
If I had to fight in a war, I would probably have preferred the British colonial wars in Africa. Anyway I would view the same way as Captain Edmund Blackadder 'Even spears made us think twice, the people we'd prefer to fight were 2 feet tall and armed with dry grass' (quote might not be correct).
I believe it was a very sharp piece of mango ~;)
I wouldn't want to be in any war. Anyone who wants to have been in a war should go ask Kafirchobee & Gawain how much they enjpyed Vietnam or Redleg how much he enjoyed Desert Storm or Faisal how much he enjoyed Yugoslavia......
Pannonian
10-10-2006, 11:57
I believe it was a very sharp piece of mango ~;)
I wouldn't want to be in any war. Anyone who wants to have been in a war should go ask Kafirchobee & Gawain how much they enjpyed Vietnam or Redleg how much he enjoyed Desert Storm or Faisal how much he enjoyed Yugoslavia......
IIRC Kafirchobee didn't mind Vietnam so much, as it was an improvement on the Korean standoff. Maybe I'm being callous, but his account of being driven mad by the North Koreans had me LOLing.
Derfasciti
10-10-2006, 14:38
I almost forgot! The English Civil War. I would probably have been a monarchist:oops:
American Civil War used to be my main focus of interest when I was young. Not so much anymore but I'd not mind going back in time to that. Seeing what would happen if the Confederacy won.
Quick Question: Anyone know the casualty figures of the English Civil War? Was it worse than the American Civil War?
IrishArmenian
10-10-2006, 15:48
Seeing close up the faces of those you shoot through the skulkl all the time? :inquisitive: I have to say that's not one that I'd like.
I've always liked the Napoleonic periods so probably then. Ideally in the Imperial Guard (tha's what they were called isn;'t it?) that way would see all of Napoleans greatest victories and live through most of them!
It is not that bad after a few times. I am just spared of dismemberment and the artillery that we and they used to use.
Duke Malcolm
10-10-2006, 15:49
Considering the English Civil War was several wars, it might be an unfair comparison.
Considering the English Civil War was several wars, it might be an unfair comparison.
However, those wars aren't likely to top the 600,000+ deaths in the ACW.
Derfasciti
10-10-2006, 16:07
However, those wars aren't likely to top the 600,000+ deaths in the ACW.
I don't remember where or from what but for some reason I remember reading or hearing that the English Civil War(s?) cost about 800,000 casualties.
Don Corleone
10-10-2006, 17:02
I guess choosing to be in a war, you'd have to pick a cause that you truly believe in and where you think additional manpower might have actually made a difference. To that end, I would have wanted to be in the British army, navy or RAF in 1940. Truly at no point in history was there so clearly a case of white hats/black hats and was it so important, yet so tenuous, that the white hats were able to hang on. If the UK had fallen, history would have turned out very, very differently. I was tempted to say Poland in 1939, but the techonolgy gap was just too great... there wasn't much more bodies fighting for the Poles could have done, except add to an even higher casualty rate.
Mithradates
10-10-2006, 18:03
I think it would have been quite interesting to be one of the first fighter aces in WWI those guys had honour and you would be doing stuff which people in the previous generation could only have dreamed of.
Geoffrey S
10-10-2006, 22:35
Preferably none, of course. Otherwise, Don Corleone's description of Britain in WW2 appeals somewhat, but my actual choice would be a Greek hoplite in the times before the Peloponnesian war.
I think it would have been quite interesting to be one of the first fighter aces in WWI those guys had honour and you would be doing stuff which people in the previous generation could only have dreamed of.
Hmm... Yes that is one I could have lived with. Or rather died with I guess.
However, late in the war it was a turkeyshoot on the green pilots on both sides, and being shot down was rather more fatal than in later wars.
I don't remember where or from what but for some reason I remember reading or hearing that the English Civil War(s?) cost about 800,000 casualties.
Casualties... The key word is casualties here. I believe the 600,000+ in the ACW was actually kills. Then there were all the other casualties. And I believe this doesn't include the civilian casualties, which the ECW must have included in that number (when armies seldomly had more than 30,000 in them).
I wouldn't mind being in the Home Guard
"There are Germans in the church, don't panic, don't panic!!!"
"Hey, put that light out, put that bloody light out!!!"
I want polish-russian war 1609-1619. I would visit Kremal :)
Seamus Fermanagh
10-11-2006, 00:10
Hmm... Yes that is one I could have lived with. Or rather died with I guess.
However, late in the war it was a turkeyshoot on the green pilots on both sides, and being shot down was rather more fatal than in later wars.
Me too. I'd probably have gotten myself dead trying to push a Nieuport-17 past its structural profile. As you correctly note, getting shot down was not often followed by a gentle float to earth.
Casualties... The key word is casualties here. I believe the 600,000+ in the ACW was actually kills. Then there were all the other casualties. And I believe this doesn't include the civilian casualties, which the ECW must have included in that number (when armies seldomly had more than 30,000 in them).
Quite right Krax' as you can see:
The Price in Blood!
Casualties in the Civil War
At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222
The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:
Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000
The leading authority on casualties of the war, Thomas L. Livermore, admitting the handicap of poor records in some cases, studied 48 of the war's battles and concluded:
Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.
Mortality was greater among Confederate wounded, because of inferior medical service. The great battles, in terms of their toll in dead, wounded, and missing is listed on this site:
The Ten Costliest Battles of the Civil War.
Some of the great blood baths of the war came as Grant drove on Richmond in the spring of 1864- Confederate casualties are missing for this campaign, but were enormous. The Federal toll:
The Wilderness, May 5-7: 17,666
Spotsylvania, May 10 and 12: 10,920
Drewry's Bluff, May 12-16 4,160
Cold Harbor, June 1-3: 12,000
Petersburg, June 15-30 16,569
These total 61,315, with rolls of the missing incomplete.
The Appomattox campaign, about ten days of running battles ending April 9, 1865, cost the Union about 11,000 casualties, and ended in the surrender of Lee's remnant of 26,765. Confederate dead and wounded in the meantime were about 6,500.
Lesser battles are famous for their casualties. At Franklin, Tennessee, November 30, 1864, General Hood's Confederates lost over 6,000 of 21,000 effectives -most of them in about two hours. Six Confederate generals died there.
Hood lost about 8,ooo men in his assault before Atlanta, July 22, 1864; Sherman's Union forces lost about 3,800.
The small battle of Wilson's Creek, Missouri, August 10, 1861, was typical of the savagery of much of the war's fighting. The Union force Of 5,400 men lost over 1,200; the Confederates, over 11,000 strong, lost about the same number.
The first battle of Manassas/Bull Run, though famous as the first large engagement, was relatively light in cost: 2,708 for the Union, 1,981 for the Confederates.
The casualty rolls struck home to families and regiments.
The Confederate General, John B. Gordon, cited the case of the Christian family, of Christiansburg, Virginia, which suffered eighteen dead in the war.
The 1st Maine Heavy Artillery, in a charge at Petersburg, Virginia, 18 June, 1864, sustained a "record" loss of the war-635 of its 9oo men within seven minutes.
Another challenger is the 26th North Carolina, which lost 714, of its 800 men at Gettysburg-in numbers and percentage the war's greatest losses. On the first day this regiment lost 584 dead and wounded, and when roll was called the next morning for G Company, one man answered, and he had been knocked unconscious by a shell burst the day before. This roll was called by a sergeant who lay on a stretcher with a severe leg wound.
The 24th Michigan, a gallant Federal regiment which was in front of the North Carolinians on the first day, lost 362 of its 496 men.
More than 3,000 horses were killed at Gettysburg, and one artillery battalion, the 9th Massachusetts, lost 80 of its 88 animals in the Trostle farmyard.
A brigade from Vermont lost 1,645 Of its 2,100 men during a week of fighting in the Wilderness.
The Irish Brigade, Union, had a total muster Of 7,000 during the war, and returned to New York in '65 with 1,000. One company was down to seven men. The 69th New York of this brigade lost 16 of 19 officers, and had 75 per cent casualties among enlisted men.
In the Irish Brigade, Confederate, from Louisiana, Company A dwindled from 90 men to 3 men and an officer in March, '65. Company B went from 100 men to 2.
Experts have pointed out that the famed Light Brigade at Balaklava lost only 36.7 per cent of its men, and that at least 63 Union regiments lost as much as 50 per cent in single battles. At Gettysburg 23 Federal regiments suffered losses of more than half their strength, including the well-known Iron Brigade (886 of 1,538 engaged).
Many terrible casualty tolls were incurred in single engagements, like that of the Polish Regiment of Louisiana at Frayser's Farm during the Seven Days, where the outfit was cut to pieces and had to be consolidated with the 20th Louisiana. In this action one company of the Poles lost 33 of 42 men.
One authority reports that Of 3,530 Indians who fought for the Union, 1,018 were killed, a phenomenally high rate. Of 178,975 Negro Union troops, this expert says, over 36,000 died.
Some regimental losses in battle:
Regiment Battle Strength Per Cent
1st Texas, CSA Antietam 226 82.3
1st Minnesota, US Gettysburg 262 82
21st Georgia, CSA Manassas 242 76
141st Pennsylvania, US Gettysburg 198 75.7
101st New York, US Manassas 168 73.8
6th Mississippi, CSA Shiloh 425 70.5
25th Massachusetts, US Cold Harbor 310 70
36th Wisconsin, US Bethesda Church 240 69
20th Massachusetts, US Fredericksburg 238 68.4
8th Tennessee, CSA Stone's River 444 68.7
10th Tennessee, CSA Chickamauga 328 68
8th Vermont, US Cedar Creek 156 67.9
Palmetto Sharpshooters, CSA Frayser's Farm 215 67.7
81st Pennsylvania, US Fredericksburg 261 67.4
Scores of other regiments on both sides registered losses in single engagements of above 50 per cent.
Confederate losses by states, in dead and wounded only, and with many records missing (especially those of Alabama):
North Carolina 20,602
Virginia 6,947
Mississippi 6,807
South Carolina 4,760
Arkansas 3,782
Georgia 3,702
Tennessee 3,425
Louisiana 3,059
Texas 1,260
Florida 1,047
Alabama 724
(Statisticians recognize these as fragmentary, from a report of 1866; they serve as a rough guide to relative losses by states).
In addition to its dead and wounded from battle and disease, the Union listed:
Deaths in Prison 24,866
Drowning 4,944
Accidental deaths 4,144
Murdered 520
Suicides 391
Sunstroke 313
Military executions 267
Killed after capture 104
Executed by enemy 64
Unclassified 14,155
Source: "The Civil War, Strange and Fascinating Facts," by Burke Davis
Most of the 618-700k casualties were not combat deaths, but the casualty figures list only the military cost. The private citizens killed at Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Atlanta, Franklin, and a few score other towns were not included in the figures. Both sides were reasonably good about not hitting the civvies, but innocents on both sides caught lead. Moreover, the effects of starvation resulting from foraging efforts, from diminished transportation of foodstuffs, and disease exposure spreading outward from the military are virtually incalcuable. Best guestimate is somewhere near 1M.
Another challenger is the 26th North Carolina, which lost 714, of its 800 men at Gettysburg-in numbers and percentage the war's greatest losses. On the first day this regiment lost 584 dead and wounded, and when roll was called the next morning for G Company, one man answered, and he had been knocked unconscious by a shell burst the day before. This roll was called by a sergeant who lay on a stretcher with a severe leg wound.
The 24th Michigan, a gallant Federal regiment which was in front of the North Carolinians on the first day, lost 362 of its 496 men.
What a battle those two units had! They fought each other to the point of disbandment.
And even thought this is horrific I found this when roll was called the next morning for G Company, one man answered, and he had been knocked unconscious by a shell burst the day before. This roll was called by a sergeant who lay on a stretcher with a severe leg wound, to be almost comic. It is so far out that it can only happen in novels and comics, yet it happened.
However I believe that a lot of the Disease category would also include wounded who died from infections and/or bloodloss, and of course those who died on the table. So the direct combat related deaths must have been pretty heavy still.
Also, the bombardment of Richmond and other CSA cities must have produced considerable civilian casualties. Shells don't destinguish between military and civilian.
But in all, those losses were horrific. Damn! So many units suffered so many losses. And in all 15% lossrate among the CSA. That is downright nasty, I don't think we have had many wars that can top that.
I guess that is what happenes when you pit lines of men against industrial style warfare.
Kagemusha
10-11-2006, 01:07
I hope i dont have to go to any war just like many others sayed. But if i would have to choose it definately would have been the Winter War.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-11-2006, 03:30
And even thought this is horrific I found this when roll was called the next morning for G Company, one man answered, and he had been knocked unconscious by a shell burst the day before. This roll was called by a sergeant who lay on a stretcher with a severe leg wound, to be almost comic. It is so far out that it can only happen in novels and comics, yet it happened.
....
But in all, those losses were horrific. Damn! So many units suffered so many losses. And in all 15% lossrate among the CSA. That is downright nasty, I don't think we have had many wars that can top that.
I guess that is what happenes when you pit lines of men against industrial style warfare.
The personal vignettes of that war are surprisingly moving. The loss rates were horrific -- and they didn't even employ the gatling guns they might have. It was the height of early industrial "rifle" wars and there was a basic disconnect between the tactics available and the lethality of the tools. In some ways so advanced as to be then unique, in others so primitive that they'd changed little since Marathon. I suspect that Von Moltke was the only one who really took the lessons of that war to heart -- much to Europe's sorrow. Even the USA put too many of those lessons in a drawer and forget them prior to the first global.
Side note about casualties:
I've always been chilled by the footnote that Tuchman included in the wrap-up of Guns of August. Apparently, until its destruction in WW2, the chapel at St. Cyr listed, by year, the names of its graduates who had died in the service of France. One entry was shorter then most; it read, simply, The Class of 1914.
Justiciar
10-11-2006, 03:47
However, those wars aren't likely to top the 600,000+ deaths in the ACW.
It's unlikely. The only figure I can find after a brief search states that between 10-15% of Britain and Ireland's population died during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Given that I don't know what the population of the Isles was at that time, I can't give a definate answer. But aye, I'd imagine the American Civil War had more casualties, though I haven't the foggiest how big the ol' margin would be. :dizzy2:
I've always been chilled by the footnote that Tuchman included in the wrap-up of Guns of August. Apparently, until its destruction in WW2, the chapel at St. Cyr listed, by year, the names of its graduates who had died in the service of France. One entry was shorter then most; it read, simply, The Class of 1914.
:shame:
That's a loss to be felt.
If I had to choose, it would probably be the Yom Kippur or Six Day war on the Israeli side. Or maybe the Falklands. I'm far too cowardly to fight anyone without some form of automatic weapon.
Mount Suribachi
10-11-2006, 14:51
The Israelis came awful close to losing the Yom Kippur war. Losses were very high - take the fighter pilots for example. The IDF/AF lost so many F-4s to SAMs whilst attacking the Egyptian bridgehead over the Suez canal that in the end the ground troops asked them to stop the attacks because they couldn't bear to see them continually shot out the sky. Luckily for Israel, Egypt went back on their word to Syria and refused to advance out of their SAM umbrella, allowing Israel to shift troops north.
As for the Falklands, you wouldn't have been very safe on the Atlantic Conveyor, Sheffield, Coventry......and the land battles were a series of short, but very intense firefights. I forget which particular hill it was, but one company had something like only 30 men left standing by the time they took the summit.
yesdachi
10-11-2006, 15:21
I would want to be an Æsir battling the forces of chaos in the great war of Ragnarök. A great bloody ax in my hands and a mountain of defeated evil beneath my feet! Accepting a legendary death at the claws of the Fenrir just before the All Father tears the beast asunder from the inside! :viking:
Non-mythological answer: A mounted Samurai defending against the Mongols back in the late 1200’s. :stwmean:
Derfasciti
10-11-2006, 15:47
I've always been chilled by the footnote that Tuchman included in the wrap-up of Guns of August. Apparently, until its destruction in WW2, the chapel at St. Cyr listed, by year, the names of its graduates who had died in the service of France. One entry was shorter then most; it read, simply, The Class of 1914.
Man when I read that I got like a chill. That's so...horrible.:shame:
ajaxfetish
10-12-2006, 07:35
The War of the Sexes. :girlslap:
Ajax
Kralizec
10-12-2006, 15:35
80 years war, if I had to pick a war.
The Stranger
10-12-2006, 15:47
world war 2
and i would liked to fight along side hannibal at cannae, with the spartans at thermopylae and on the medieval battlefield. Oh and as ab hussar in the napoleontic army :D
The Stranger
10-12-2006, 15:53
I guess choosing to be in a war, you'd have to pick a cause that you truly believe in and where you think additional manpower might have actually made a difference. To that end, I would have wanted to be in the British army, navy or RAF in 1940. Truly at no point in history was there so clearly a case of white hats/black hats and was it so important, yet so tenuous, that the white hats were able to hang on. If the UK had fallen, history would have turned out very, very differently. I was tempted to say Poland in 1939, but the techonolgy gap was just too great... there wasn't much more bodies fighting for the Poles could have done, except add to an even higher casualty rate.
I have deep respect for the Poles. Their country was occupied for one of the longest periods, and yet so many managed to escape. Even more they returned to the european battlefields and fought in many countries but not in their own.
Watchman
10-12-2006, 15:58
I've always been chilled by the footnote that Tuchman included in the wrap-up of Guns of August. Apparently, until its destruction in WW2, the chapel at St. Cyr listed, by year, the names of its graduates who had died in the service of France. One entry was shorter then most; it read, simply, The Class of 1914.I've read the French lost something like one-fifth to one-quarter of that entire generation of young men in the war or something similarly crazy - their relative casualties were the highest of all the participating countries, IIRC.
Small wonder they rather folded in the second round than go through that grinder again really, especially as Nazi ideology had no noticeably nasty designs for them so it was an actually viable option (unlike, for example, for the Soviets). That sort of bad shit is the kind that leaves lasting national traumas.
Anyway, as for the main topic I'd really prefer to not be in any war - I know enough of them to know they're best avoided altogether - but if I really had to choose it'd be something horribly one-sided and quickly resolved where one side comes off with barely noticeable casualties (naturally, I'd want to be on the totally overwhelming side). And even then I'd want to be in the support corps back home that don't even see the front - I'm too nice a person to have any desire to go around killing people.
The Stranger
10-12-2006, 18:21
would the 45-minutes war suffice?... thought that one had zero casualties
Pannonian
10-12-2006, 22:18
I've read the French lost something like one-fifth to one-quarter of that entire generation of young men in the war or something similarly crazy - their relative casualties were the highest of all the participating countries, IIRC.
I've read somewhere that the French lost a third of all males aged 18-30. The French population did not recover to pre-WW1 levels until the 1970s.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-13-2006, 04:50
I've read somewhere that the French lost a third of all males aged 18-30. The French population did not recover to pre-WW1 levels until the 1970s.
Per capita casualties:
France 1 in 28 (3.6%), roughly 1.75M killed
Germiny 1 in 32 (3.1%), roughly 1.75M killed
Britain 1 in 57 (1.8%)
Russia 1 in 107 (0.9%), roughly 1.75M killed
According to Richard Koenigsberg:
To convey a sense of the magnitude of the destructiveness of World War I, I provide the following statistics from a U. S. War Department table entitled "Casualties of All Belligerent in World War I." Data is provided for the Allied nations, which included Russia, France, the British Commonwealth, Italy and the United States, and for the Central Powers, namely Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria. According to the U. S. War Department, there were a total of 65,038,315 forces—people that is—mobilized to fight in this war.
Of the forces mobilized (civilians excluded), 8,538,315 were killed or died, 21,219,452 were wounded, and 7,750,919 were taken prisoner or reported missing. Total casualties, in other words, were 37,508,686, or 57.9% of all forces mobilized. For some nations, the percentage of casualties reached astonishing proportions. For Austria-Hungary, for example, of 7,800,000 forces mobilized, 7,020,000 or 90% were casualties; for Russia, 76.3% of 12 million forces were casualties; for France, 73.3% of 8,410,000 forces were casualties.
The magnitude of the destruction is matched by the extraordinary manner in which many of the battles of the First World War were fought. On the Western front much of the fighting was done out of trenches, with one enemy line facing the other. "Attack" occurred when long rows of soldiers got out of a trench and advanced toward the enemy line, where there was a substantial probability that they would be hit by an artillery shell or mowed down by machine-gun fire. Here is the way historian Modris Eksteins describes the pattern:
The victimized crowd of attackers in no man's land has become one of the supreme images of this war. Attackers moved forward usually without seeking cover and were mowed down in rows, with the mechanical efficiency of a scythe, like so many blades of grass. "We were very surprised to see them walking," wrote a German machine gunner of his experience of a British attack at the Somme. "The officers went in front. I noticed one of them walking calmly, carrying a walking stick. When we started firing we just had to load and reload. They went down in the hundreds. You didn't have to aim, we just fired into them." A Frenchman described the effects of his machine gunners more laconically: "The Germans fell like cardboard soldiers." (1989, p. 100)
The following is an account of the British attack at Loos in September 1915 that appeared in the German 15th Reserve Regiment's diary:
Ten ranks of extended line could clearly be distinguished, each one estimated at more than a thousand men, and offering such a target as had never been seen before, or even thought possible. Never had the machine-gunners such straight-forward work to do nor done it so effectively. (Eksteins, 1989, p. 188)
The enormous number of troops killed and vast proportion of casualties was a logical consequence of the method of fighting. Eksteins describes the results of some of the early (1914) battles:
German and French casualties had been staggering. The Germans lost a million men in the first five months. France, in the "battle of the frontiers" of August, lost over 300,000 men in two weeks. Some regiments lost three-quarters of their men in the first month. Total French losses by the end of December were comparable with the German, roughly 300,000 killed and 600,000 wounded or missing. At Mons, Le Cateau, and then especially at Ypres most of the original British Expeditionary Force of 160,000 had been wiped out. As an example of the scale of casualties, the 11th Brigade of the British Expeditionary Force had, by December 20, only 18% of its original officers left and 28% of its men. (1989, p. 144)
Obviously, the aggregate casualty figure of 57.9% includes a significant number of people who were wounded (and thus a casualty) more than once, but even so the numbers are appalling.
If you consider a hypothetical French village of 1,000 people, 36 of them died. Moreover, since all those fighting were male aged 13 and up (mostly in the 13-40 age bracket, these 36 would not be spread evenly.
1000 - 500 femme = 500 homme, divide these 500 chaps further divide into brackets of 10 years (0-10 years, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61+) and assume that each bracket is roughly even in numbers, yielding 71 per bracket. The 21-30s probably represent 25 of those 36 dead -- a full third plus of the age bracket. The others would be teens and 31-40's with maybe 1 or 2 above that.
Moreover, that is only the dead, the maimed also figure into this, sending the percentage closer to half in the prime casualty age group.
THEN, we can throw in the influenza that hit as the war ended, killing as many again (though more evenly spread this time).
....and we wonder why the 20's were a little whacked?
Pannonian
10-13-2006, 05:27
If you consider a hypothetical French village of 1,000 people, 36 of them died. Moreover, since all those fighting were male aged 13 and up (mostly in the 13-40 age bracket, these 36 would not be spread evenly.
1000 - 500 femme = 500 homme, divide these 500 chaps further divide into brackets of 10 years (0-10 years, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61+) and assume that each bracket is roughly even in numbers, yielding 71 per bracket. The 21-30s probably represent 25 of those 36 dead -- a full third plus of the age bracket. The others would be teens and 31-40's with maybe 1 or 2 above that.
Moreover, that is only the dead, the maimed also figure into this, sending the percentage closer to half in the prime casualty age group.
THEN, we can throw in the influenza that hit as the war ended, killing as many again (though more evenly spread this time).
....and we wonder why the 20's were a little whacked?
The Spanish flu supposedly caused fatalities when the immune system overreacted to the virus. The fit and young had stronger immune systems, which ironically made them more prone to death by overreaction. The deaths may have been spread across the two sexes, but it was those of fighting age who copped it again, leaving only the very young and very old whose immune systems weren't strong enough to kill them.
The illness crossed from animals to humans thanks to the British doctrine of keeping the trenches fully manned, and keeping livestock near the front to provide fresh food. Presumably this meant the Germans were less exposed to the disease than the Allies.
Samurai Waki
10-13-2006, 06:44
Ugh. If there was any war that I could say I wouldn't have wanted to be a part of it would probably be WW1, Being an Infantry Soldier it would almost seem like Walking into a meat-grinder. One of the most Horrible and ignoble wars the has ever scarred our planet.
Anita War, a gorgeous woman with a D-cup
IrishArmenian
10-13-2006, 15:23
Virtual pat on the back to Andres.
Pannonian
10-13-2006, 15:57
Another charming aspect of the First World War was the phenomenon known as the "Pals Battalions". Recruited from a small area, then trained and deployed together to maximise the cohesion and morale benefits. One such unit was the 11th bn, East Lancashire Regiment, aka the Accrington Pals. They first saw action on 1st July 1916, the opening day of the Somme offensive.
Accrington Pals (http://www.pals.org.uk/pals_e.htm)
At 7.30am, the bombardment was lifted from the German front line and the leading waves rose and walked in line towards the German positions. Machine gun- and rifle fire immediately tore into the advancing lines of infantry. By 8am, the battle for Serre was effectively over.
"The History of the East Lancashire Regiment in the Great War" records that out of some 720 Accrington Pals who took part in the attack, 584 were killed, wounded or missing.
The initial accounts of success on the Somme, including an erroneous report of the capture of Serre, soon gave way to pages filled with photographs of the killed, wounded and missing. Few, if any, of the town's population could have been untouched by the tragedy. Percy Holmes, the brother of an original Pal, recalled "I remember when the news came through to Accrington that the Pals had been wiped out. I don't think there was a street in Accrington and district that didn't have their blinds drawn, and the bell at Christ Church tolled all the day."
The Stranger
10-13-2006, 16:53
Ugh. If there was any war that I could say I wouldn't have wanted to be a part of it would probably be WW1, Being an Infantry Soldier it would almost seem like Walking into a meat-grinder. One of the most Horrible and ignoble wars the has ever scarred our planet.
The most horible war in military sense... WW2 cant top that. but on human/civilian scale definitly ww2
ww1 was crazy... a total waste of lives and talent. just because some stupid generals thought they could repeat waterloo and win a war in one battle
ww1 was crazy... a total waste of lives and talent. just because some stupid generals thought they could repeat waterloo and win a war in one battle
I don't think's as simple as that. Nor that a major war could really be avoided with the political situation in which Europe was. Although it could possibly have been a smaller and less bloody war if things had happened differently.
The Stranger
10-13-2006, 20:35
oh no... that is not what i'm saying. war in europe at that time was almost inevatable... though without versailles ww2 could be avoided.
but globally watched, just the war it was definitly a waste of talent and lives and sadly also a lesson for generations to come
Seamus Fermanagh
10-13-2006, 20:40
Back to the original query.
1st option: World War One Flier, preferably scouts.
2nd option: Gunnery officer on an old rag-wagon frigate, c. 1800.
Watchman
10-14-2006, 00:32
Age of Sail navies (also the merchant, but particularly the military) almost without exception had really lousy living conditions on their ships. Plus the actual sea battles were pure splatter movie; the ships' hulls themselves could take virtually infinite amounts of fire without being actually destroyed (things got different if fires broke out or the powder magazine got hit, naturally), but a sustained battle tended to turn the crowded gun decks in particular into gory, claustrophobic slaughterhouses quite literally swimming with blood, guts and other loose bits of human anatomy. Heck, the British made it their paradigm tactic to get in close and blast the enemy hull to kill the crew...
Frankly, I wouldn't wish that smelly horror on my worst enemy.
Derfasciti
10-14-2006, 00:52
Age of Sail navies (also the merchant, but particularly the military) almost without exception had really lousy living conditions on their ships. Plus the actual sea battles were pure splatter movie; the ships' hulls themselves could take virtually infinite amounts of fire without being actually destroyed (things got different if fires broke out or the powder magazine got hit, naturally), but a sustained battle tended to turn the crowded gun decks in particular into gory, claustrophobic slaughterhouses quite literally swimming with blood, guts and other loose bits of human anatomy. Heck, the British made it their paradigm tactic to get in close and blast the enemy hull to kill the crew...
Frankly, I wouldn't wish that smelly horror on my worst enemy.
oh yeah, truly one of the most disgusting lifestyles. I'm very surprised all the world's navies during that time era werent permanently plagued with numerous diseases. Those who survived them had guts... then again most of the time they didn't have much of a choice in the matter.
Still, I wouldn't mind visiting one of those ships and even spending some time looking at what people who were in there back then lived like.
French Navy during Napoleon's time really could've used help.
macsen rufus
10-14-2006, 12:52
Honestly, none of them. If absolutely necessary, well, whenever the invaders are advancing along my street.
The Stranger
10-14-2006, 14:51
oh yeah, truly one of the most disgusting lifestyles. I'm very surprised all the world's navies during that time era werent permanently plagued with numerous diseases. Those who survived them had guts... then again most of the time they didn't have much of a choice in the matter.
Still, I wouldn't mind visiting one of those ships and even spending some time looking at what people who were in there back then lived like.
French Navy during Napoleon's time really could've used help.
during that time almost al battlefields were gory filled with human anatomy... they just stood infront of each other and got hit by whatever the enemy possessed, followed by a cav charge here and there.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-15-2006, 03:36
For all the admitted hardships associated with naval life in that era -- and please remember I specified a time after the development of anti-scorbutic doctrines -- how was the life of the sailor noticeably more vile than that of a landsman?
The ships were as clean or cleaner than most towns, the food more consistent, etc. Dangerous? Yes. But do you think a cropper in Shropshire had it easy? Or that homesteading in Appalachia was peaceful and comfortable? I'd take life on a frigate over life in a London rookery of that era in a hot minute.
Tribesman
10-15-2006, 04:13
Out of curiosity Seamus , any particular reason why you opt for frigate rather than something bigger or smaller ?
It wouldn't be money by any chance :inquisitive:
Prizemoney would certainly be a good incentive to sail on frigates. But also, frigates were far less crowded than the big lineships. So it wouldn't be as bad. Further the frigates had that nice size where it was big enough to not feel small, but small enough not to be too big for the waves (and thus creating really unpleasant situations in bad weather), and finally it was a much better seagoing type than the lineships, creating a much better feeling overall.
If I had to choose I would say a frigate, or perhaps a corvette. A brig would be the smallest I would go for, and a large frigate (such as the Bonhomme Richard) the largest. Never a lineship.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-15-2006, 17:20
Kraxis has the right of it. I'd add that frigates were more likely to make cruises -- sometimes to interesting places, and somewhat less likely to be involved in sitting monotonously on someone's "front porch" for 8 months at a stretch.
Besides, given the state of naval pay in that era, a bit of well-invested prize money would be vital to a goodly retirement.
Tribesman
10-16-2006, 03:31
Prizemoney would certainly be a good incentive to sail on frigates.
yep , if the agents actually delivered ,whichwas not always the case
But Seamus , that sitting on someones porch for 8 months was the reason frigates were more likely to obtain prizes .
Seamus Fermanagh
10-16-2006, 03:36
But Seamus , that sitting on someones porch for 8 months was the reason frigates were more likely to obtain prizes .
Absolutely. And strategically vital -- I've read a bit of Mahan and agree. I just think it wasn't much blinkin' fun.
Prizemoney would certainly be a good incentive to sail on frigates.
yep , if the agents actually delivered ,whichwas not always the case.
Of course not, but you got a whole lot more prizemoney by getting actual prizes than sitting outside French ports all year round, maintaining a blockade.
It is like the lottery, you might not win, but you certainly don't win unless you play.
And even if I didn't get any prizes, I would say that sailing around the Caribbean (for instance) would be a whole lot more fun than sitting outside some obscure port in Europe in sleet and rain.
Tribesman
10-16-2006, 15:03
Of course not, but you got a whole lot more prizemoney by getting actual prizes than sitting outside French ports all year round, maintaining a blockade.
It was while sitting outside ports maintaining blockades that large numbers of ships were siezed .
I would say that sailing around the Caribbean (for instance) would be a whole lot more fun than sitting outside some obscure port in Europe in sleet and rain.
Yep , yellow jack can be fun .
Alternatively you could try the orient . Batavia was a popular spot for ships crews to get over the strains of the voyage and recover their health , though it had strange recuprative qualities which could decimate entire crews in very short order .
Nice exotic locations have nice exotic diseases .
De' Medici
10-17-2006, 20:55
In the Thirty Years War, fighting alongside with Gustav II Adolph of Sweden or Christian IV of Denmark.
Prince Cobra
10-17-2006, 21:28
Well, three options.
First. In the battle of Adrianople (1205) between the Bulgarians (with Cuman allies) and the Crusaders won by the Bulgarians leaded by their king ( however he claimed he was tzar (emperor) and he had some right) Kaloyan.
Second. A clergyman in the Spanish Conquest. I think it was safe but position with high influence at that time. In addition I have some passion for Spanish history esp. at XI - XVIII century although I do not approve what happened to the Indians ( well, I should admit most of them died of European diseases; the legends about Spanish cruelty was exaggerated to some extend(but had some truth in it; unfortunately it is the dark side of the European glory)).
Third. A landlord during the period of Sengoku (the Period of the Warring States) (XV- XVI century) in Japan.
The Stranger
10-18-2006, 14:36
i would definitly not in any time wanted to be a chinese soldier. and most certainly not in ww2 from 1937-1945, neither fighting or serving as prisoner
Conradus
10-18-2006, 14:46
He's correct though, Japan invaded China after WWI and started an actual war with it in '37.
I'd rather stay out of any wars, but officer on a British frigate in napoleonic times wouldn't be too bad. Or being part of steppe-armies has always fascinated me.
He's correct though, Japan invaded China after WWI and started an actual war with it in '37.
doesn't matter, WWII started in 1939, even tho some countries started fighting earlier.
Uesugi Kenshin
10-18-2006, 18:44
It all depends on where you went to school actually, I bet the Japanese and Chinese learn that it started in 1937. Be more tolerant of other peoples ideas, there isn't a definate correct answer for when WWII started when you're talking to people on an international forum.
Yeah I'm an exchange student so I am probably a bit more into that sort of tolerance as I used to be, but it is good to keep that sort of thing in mind. My history teacher here in Germany brought "the American policy of Roll Back" which I had never heard of back in the states, but it's okay because I understood him.
The Stranger
10-18-2006, 20:30
thanks Uesugi, you said what i wanted to say.
It all depends on where you went to school actually, I bet the Japanese and Chinese learn that it started in 1937. Be more tolerant of other peoples ideas, there isn't a definate correct answer for when WWII started when you're talking to people on an international forum.
No m8, we didn't speak of WORLD WAR, till the war in Europe began. Till Germany invaded Poland. Till the whole of Europe (the whole important part, Germany, England, Russia, France) were at war. Before that no-one ever spook of the World War, as it was just 2 countries fighting.
Italy already fought in Africa in the mid-Thirties, do we call that World War?
No, WORLD WAR is a term, tho introduced after the war, it strictly used.
Uesugi Kenshin
10-19-2006, 09:53
My knowledge of Italy's foray into Ethiopia is very limited, but I do not think that conflict proved to be large enough or central enough to the Second World War to even be debated as the beginning. Now the war did turn into a world war when Germany invaded Poland, but the Pacific Theater did prove to be an extremely important element of the war and I would say that it is fair to argue that the Second World War began when Japan invaded China. I would not say that it was a world war at that point though.
The only real problem I have with your argument is that you seem to think you have to be right and that there is no room for other points of view. That is not the case, for Japan and China WWII definately began far earlier than 1939 and the enthusiasm with which you try to deny that merely proves how Euro-centric your view of WWII (and perhaps more) is.
Yeah I know the fighting there started before 1939. If I'm correct it even started before 1937. But this war too was not centralized enough. You have to see it like this. In the Pacific, the only "free countries" were China and Japan (and Australia some further south, but that was still half a colony). Japan did not attack the, who in the Europe were known as, allies till 1941. At that point Japan joined the World War.
The war in China is know as the Sino-Japanese War from 1937 to 1945. It has a name of his own. And so has the war in the entire Pacific theatre.
I would not want to be in any war [well maybe the one in "Mars Attacks!", as aliens were beaten there by country music...yeah]....Any other war: Me is first to leave the area hopefully with all the beloved ones.
:captain:
I would not know what I would do, if i were forced to defend myself or somebody close in a war. And I do not consider myself a coward, b/c when it comes to fights in clubs, pubs etc. I usually try to calm things down and get the combatants apart.
Watchman
10-19-2006, 12:21
In the Thirty Years War, fighting alongside with Gustav II Adolph of Sweden or Christian IV of Denmark.What, you fancy death by starvation, disease and/or infected wounds ? Soldiers those days lived every day like it was their last for a reason; for the rank and file retirement really wasn't something to worry about.
The aristocracy who formed the officer corps had it a bit easier, but even then the turnover was high.
And even if I didn't get any prizes, I would say that sailing around the Caribbean (for instance) would be a whole lot more fun than sitting outside some obscure port in Europe in sleet and rain.It'd also mean spending inordinate amounts of time at sea with a shipful of men without much any hygiene - sense or facilities - to speak of. And the issues with what could happen with food and water on long trips, especially if the weather decided to turn uncooperative. And the hideous discipline the English navy in particular was infamous for.
Still, I'll agree that sailing around in a small fast all-purpose ship like a frigate ought to beat duty in the ships of the line. Those things were the ones that got to bear the brunt of the dying in major battles.
Roman_Man#3
10-19-2006, 19:01
i dunno if its actually classified as a war or a revolution, but i would want to fight under william wallace in scotland/england. or a sniper in ww2
yesdachi
10-20-2006, 15:49
It'd also mean spending inordinate amounts of time at sea with a shipful of men without much any hygiene - sense or facilities - to speak of. And the issues with what could happen with food and water on long trips, especially if the weather decided to turn uncooperative. And the hideous discipline the English navy in particular was infamous for.
There were islands/colonies all over the Caribbean. I have always been under the impression that it was relatively easy to operate (and catch an std) in the area.
The Spartan (Returns)
10-21-2006, 01:47
as a Catholic fanatic (i am kinda) i would love to join... 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Crusade!
The Stranger
10-21-2006, 17:50
join the crusade as a knight or as a footsoldier or as a pelgrim?
The Spartan (Returns)
10-22-2006, 02:37
a knight! ill lead the damn frankish charge!
Craterus
10-22-2006, 18:48
The War of the Sexes. :girlslap:
Ajax
Nice work on ganking my joke.. :2thumbsup:
:no:
Anyway OT, I'd loved to have fought at the battle of Watling Street. Maybe suggest a more ordered or tactical approach to the Boudica. I'd love to see Britain non-Romanized.
Wouldn't mind going to 'Nam, or the Western Front in WW2, or WW1.
I've got a new theory on life, and with this, I wouldn't mind doing my bit in any war, as long as I was fighting for a cause I believed in.
Tribesman
10-24-2006, 01:35
Welcome back Craterus .
I would not have wanted to be in any war at any time.
Maybe peace would have been worst than war under german/japanese domination, so let us say word war II but this is not a positive choice.
The Stranger
10-25-2006, 19:00
Nice work on ganking my joke.. :2thumbsup:
:no:
Anyway OT, I'd loved to have fought at the battle of Watling Street. Maybe suggest a more ordered or tactical approach to the Boudica. I'd love to see Britain non-Romanized.
Wouldn't mind going to 'Nam, or the Western Front in WW2, or WW1.
I've got a new theory on life, and with this, I wouldn't mind doing my bit in any war, as long as I was fighting for a cause I believed in.
WELCOME BACK YOU FRIGGIN R-TARD!!! I MISSED YOU SGAA!!!
CountArach
10-28-2006, 09:50
I would love to have been on the Roman side in the Third Punic War... all that loot!
The Wizard
10-28-2006, 19:32
The Great Migrations. Raiding across the border: loot, women, booze -- and hardly a chance that the Romans would ever catch you ~:pimp:
Eigther a pilot in World War II or Cavalry for the Golden Horde. that is only if i had to choose. like many before said war shouldnt be something you volunteer for
Innocentius
11-09-2006, 13:13
If I had to pick one, I'd be an american soldier in the first three weeks of the secon Iraqi war. Not that I'd be fighting for a good cause or anything, it's just that the american army was quite superior to the Iraqi one, and didn't starve like most other armies in history.
Second would be being a longbowman at Crécy, particularly if in the last rank of the company. Although physically exhausting, at least I would be safe from real dangerous melee.
Definite last choice would be any solder i WWI.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.