
Body Count of the Roman Empire - Red_Tarsius
http://necrometrics.com/romestat.htm
======
meanonme
For anyone interested in historical atrocities, _" The Great Big Book of
Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History's 100 Worst Atrocities"_
by Matthew White hardcover is on sale for $7. Oddly, the Kindle version is $10
and paperback $11.

[http://amzn.to/2voMw7Y](http://amzn.to/2voMw7Y)

------
Red_Tarsius
If the numbers are true, Genghis Khan killed more people in a few decades than
the Romans did in a thousand years. It's estimated that 15M died in the
Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2004/04/04/steppe-
masters/1606bbc8-77ff-4170-a73d-f87ae4899208/?utm_term=.c7aeada4b360) Rome
used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a permanent
status) or tax-paying citizens.

~~~
usefulcat
Just to add a bit of context: that 15M figure averages out to a quarter
million people _every single month for five years_.

~~~
Red_Tarsius
Jack Weatherford, author of the controversial _Genghis Khan and the Making of
the Modern World_ , wrote that " _...more conservative scholars place the
number of dead from Genghis Khan 's invasion of central Asia at 15 million
within five years._" But he strongly disagrees with that estimate.
[https://books.google.it/books?id=A8Y9B5uHQcAC&pg=PA118&lpg=P...](https://books.google.it/books?id=A8Y9B5uHQcAC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=jack+weatherford+15+million&source=bl&ots=Cc40qIf6i3&sig=Ge_Dc0Ooj7Bq1jZCO_ZyzH5Px-o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4rOHtvc_VAhVFxRQKHaD5A8MQ6AEITjAI#v=snippet&q=%22while%20the%20destruction%22&f=false)

------
FlashGit
The Romans weren't afraid to win wars by attrition. Some of their generals
were definitely good but they could just swarm any opposing force with highly
disciplined, well armed troops.

Hannibal crushed the Romans several times, it didn't matter. Carthage still
got wiped off the map.

~~~
EGreg
Who dealt Rome the most damage?

Spartacus and the Slave Wars

Hannibal and Carthage

Bar Kohkba and the Judaic Wars?

~~~
yk
In a single event, the Roman navy during the first Punic war. Rome lost the
entire invasion fleet with estimates of more than 90.000 drowned during a
storm. (It is still the second worst maritime disaster in history as Wikipedia
counts. [0] Wikipedia lists the Mongol invasion of Japan as the worst, with
more than 100.000 lives lost.)

The bloodiest war in Roman history was the second Punic war, that is the
battles lost against Hannibal.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters)

~~~
EGreg
What about the sinking of the Spanish armada invading Britain? As far as
maritime disasters it was pretty huge. And that seems to have turned the tide
of history.

~~~
_delirium
That's third on the list linked above, with estimated 15-20k men lost.

------
beloch
The author of this seems to have quit on the Eastern (Byzantine) empire
several hundred years early...

------
afterburner
This is (oddly enough) a part of Matthew White's "Historical Atlas of the 20th
Century", one of my favourite early history sites.

------
fastball
1000 casualties averaged a year?

That's actually amazing.

~~~
lurcio
Yes, especially when compared to suicide rates, occupational or traffic
fatalities.... or numbers like 2 Kings 19:35

------
Animats
Smaller than Russian losses during WWII.

~~~
dredmorbius
The USSR's population in 1939 (immediately pre-war) was about 188 million.

The peak Roman Empire population, in ~160 CE, was 60-70 million. Less than
half that of the USSR. Still, the war dead over the empires _history_ are just
1.25% of its peak instantaneous population. So yes, war was overall less
deadly. But being an infant was far deadlier than today (~50% mortality by age
5).

Total Soviet casualties: 20-27 million, or 13.7% of the 1940 population.
Compare against Poland at about 17%.

By contrast, the Third Reich saw ~8.5% population losses. The US and UK, less
than 1% each, France, 1.4%.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empi...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire)

Consider that there was a vastly increased ability to deliver and effect
damage on both military and civilian targets in WWII. I'm not sure that a
direct comparison is particularly meaningful. And I don't much encourage one-
upmanship in this particular sphere.

~~~
vkou
To add to your point - due to mechanization, and fossil fuel-operated
logistics, participants in WWII could field much larger armies. In ancient and
medieval societies, a huge portion of the population was needed to work full-
time to feed relatively small groups of artisans/warriors/politicians.

In contrast, in WWII, the Red Army conscripted 33 million men. One sixth of
the population.

~~~
dredmorbius
Very much this.

The source which really hammered this home for me was Daniel Yergin's book,
_The Prize_. It's a history of oil, but if you think that that doesn't have
anything to do with war ....

Yergin never quite comes out and state that WWI and WWII were resource wars,
but they were resource wars.

WWI saw the introduction of mechanisation to battle: cavelry were replaced by
tanks, first motorcycles, then cars and trucks were used for personnel and
materiel transport. And aircraft. Plus rail and ships: Churchill had famously
just converted the British Navy from coal to oil, a massive military and
operation advantage, but also an incredible risk for Britain who lacked (so
far as anyone knew at the time) any indigenous oil. Instead, by way of naval
bases serving Suez and India, it happened to have a presence in Persia and on
the Arabian peninsula ....

The United States _singlehandedly_ supplied both its homeland, two fronts,
_and_ its allies with oil through WWII. Much of the Pacific battle was over
Japanese access to Indonesian oilfields (and Chinese coal), which the US
blocked by way of submarines. The Germans very nearly accomplished the same
_for domestic US oil shipments_ from Texas to East Coast population centres,
resulting in a government financed-and-operated oil pipelines project, still
in use today, the Big Inch and the Little Inch pipelines, from Beaumont, TX,
to New Jersey.

And petroleum-fueled tractors meant that the U.S. could also _feed_ not only
itself and its troops but its European allies.

The U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia rank 1-3, in that order (I think) for the
largest original oil reserves. Venezuala is 3rd, though with much heavier
(harder to extract, not as useful, dirtier) petroleum.

~~~
dom0
> The Germans very nearly accomplished the same for domestic US oil shipments
> from Texas to East Coast population centres

I didn't know about that. It was called Operation Paukenschlag.

> [January to August] During this period, Axis submarines sank 609 ships
> totalling 3.1 million tons

That's _three sunk ships a day_. The biggest problem for German subs in that
operation was _running out of torpedoes_. Completely insane.

~~~
arethuza
I seem to remember that Nicholas Monsarrat, who served on RN corvettes, had
particular respect for the crews of oil tankers who had an even lower chance
than normal of surviving an attack by a U-boat.

Monsarrat's "Three Corvettes" is one of the few books that has moved me to
tears (ironically enough while flying over the very same North Atlantic).

 _" The only villain is the sea, the cruel sea, that man has made more
cruel..."_

~~~
KineticLensman
Agree. Monsarrat wrote a horribly graphic description of the aftermath of a
torpedo strike on an oil tanker in "The Cruel Sea" [1]. Not only do the crew
have to survive the sinking, they then have to (try to) outswim the burning
oil. In the same book Monsarrat also has a very angry dig at the home
population who then casually waste petrol and other convoyed products, which
he brings to life by describing the reaction of the convoy escort crews when
they get home.

I re-read the "The Cruel Sea" a few weeks ago (a very old battered copy that I
inherited from my dad). It didn't move me to tears, but is still a very moving
piece of literature describing a horrendously gruelling theatre of war.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cruel_Sea_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cruel_Sea_\(novel\))

------
DanAndersen
Relevant: Dan Carlin just came out with a new episode of Hardcore History
called "The Celtic Holocaust," which deals with the subject of the Roman
subjugation of Gaul and the Celtic people.

[http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-60-the-
cel...](http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-60-the-celtic-
holocaust/)

~~~
zichy
I tend to ignore people who call something a Holocaust that wasn't the actual
Holocaust.

~~~
jitix
I agree. The term holocaust is more contemporary. Back in roman times
enslavement and extermination seems to have been relatively common.

~~~
InitialLastName
[Disclaimer: I've only listened to the first chunk of the episode. It's 6
hours long, and I have other things to do with my brain]

As far as I can tell, you've hit on exactly the distinction he's trying to
make in the episode. There's a running theme of highlighting the difference in
attitude towards war/death from the Romans to the modern era, especially with
respect to things like civilian extermination.

The name might be unfortunate, but he's pretty open about acknowledging that
it's an intentional juxtaposition.

~~~
jitix
I feel that the term "Holocaust" is being used here to sensationalize
something that used to be a relatively common occurrence back in those days
(infact also used to happen in medieval and post medieval - e.g. Trail of
tears - times).

You should not compare ancient post-war extermination events with a modern,
civilized state exterminating a section of the population in an organized
manner. It just dilutes the extremity of what the Nazi's did.

~~~
abiox
> It just dilutes the extremity of what the Nazi's did.

conversely, does the (sometimes aggressive) privileging of ww2 wrongs not
"dilute" what others have faced? even in modern or near-modern times?

it also seems such a bizarre point of view that something was "relatively
common" (and i'm not sure this phrasing is helpful) therefore it's /less/ of a
tragedy for that fact.

~~~
Ntrails
> conversely, does the (sometimes aggressive) privileging of ww2 wrongs not
> "dilute" what others have faced? even in modern or near-modern times?

Yes. I guess it was special. I think that it touches something we fear deeply
- that seemingly rational/intelligent/scientific people can do _evil_ things.

I think there have been plenty of things since then which have similar levels
of horrificness (albeit usually on a smaller scale). I just don't think they
proc the "there but for the grace of god go I" reaction

------
davidreiss
The numbers attributed to genghis khan and the mongols are pretty much
scientifically impossible. It's propaganda/folk lore than real.

> It's estimated that 15M died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central
> Asia.

Estimated based on what? Myth?

> Rome used to turn the defeated tribes into slaves (though it was not a
> permanent status) or tax-paying citizens.

And the mongols turned the peoples they conquered into tribute states. The
mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in human
history. They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long
as you accepted mongol rule and paid tribute. What do you think yuan china,
duchy of muscow, mughal persia and a host of other khanates were?

The mongol army generally consisted of a few thousand to 30K and their
campaigns were largely targeted at cities and capitals rather than
populations. And keep in mind that during this time, most of the human
population was rural rather than urban.

The idea that the mongols killed that many people is absurd. Not only did they
generally target cities/capitals, once the ruler submitted or was deposed, the
mongols generally went home and left a small contingent.

You shouldn't take anything you read in WaPo at face value. But even more, you
shouldn't anything you read about the mongol empire at face value either.
There is so much nonsense and myth that is written about the mongol empire.

~~~
vacri
> _The mongol empire was one of the most inclusive and peaceful empires in
> human history._

It lasted less than 90 years and spent that time expanding via the sword. The
population of China dropped drastically in only 50 years of Mongol rule, down
to 50% by some accounts. Iranians were plagued with famine due to the Mongols,
and millions died. They killed half a million people invading Rus - this
argument that they left the rural people alone, therefore 'peaceful' is
nonsense.

If anything is a myth about the Mongols, it's this "noble/misunderstood
savages" view of them. Saying "oh, they only destroyed _cities_ " is hardly a
testament to them being peacable. They pressed captured men into service as
soldiers, on pain of death. Hardly 'inclusive' and 'peaceful'.

> _They accepted all races, all religions and all ideologies - as long as you
> accepted mongol rule and paid tribute_

How is this different to most other empires? The British Empire happily
accepted all races, religions, and ideologies, as long as they bent the knee
and paid tribute. It's not like the British put India to the sword in order to
force-convert it to Christianity. The Ottoman Empire accepted many different
religions, as long as you paid your tribute. And just like the Mongols, both
of these empires allowed (or forced) people of conquered nations to fight for
them.

~~~
nonamechicken
Regarding British in India, according to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule),
there are estimates of 20-50 million people died to famines which happened
because of British looting.

And from [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-
britain-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-
empire-railways-myths-gifts),

In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing
just 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was generating some 23% (27% by
1700). By 1940, after nearly two centuries of the Raj, Britain accounted for
nearly 10% of world GDP, while India had been reduced to a poor “third-world”
country, destitute and starving, a global poster child of poverty and famine.
The British left a society with 16% literacy, a life expectancy of 27,
practically no domestic industry and over 90% living below what today we would
call the poverty line.

Also,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4)

~~~
vacri
It's no secret that Britain stripped India of its wealth. I wasn't saying the
the British were a benevolent empire. But to imply that India dropping from
23% GDP from 1700 - 1940 was all Englands fault is grossly misleading. You're
completely ignoring _the Industrial revolution_ that swept Europe and North
America in doing that, along with the immense increase in international trade
that happened at the same time.

The British in India played puppet states off each other. What they didn't do
was wilfully exterminate entire cities.

------
dsfyu404ed
It took them nearly a millennium to do only a fraction of what communists
accomplished in about a century.

If anyone wants to crunch numbers and determine a per capita "death as a
result of state action" for various empires over time I think it would be
really interesting.

How does a bad year in the roman empire compared to a purge year in the USSR?
Average year vs average year? What about the great leap forward?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But, percapita? There were far fewer people around in Roman times. The 'death
rate' must have been an order of magnitude higher then.

