Skip to main content
13 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 14, 2018 at 23:00 history edited Pieter Geerkens CC BY-SA 4.0
edited body
Jul 13, 2018 at 16:14 comment added jamesqf @Pieter Geerkens: Oh, I don't disagree about casualty counts, just musing on the monumental egos of some politicians, and the sheer stupidity of some generals.
Jul 13, 2018 at 10:55 history edited Pieter Geerkens CC BY-SA 4.0
added 30 characters in body
Jul 12, 2018 at 21:24 comment added Pieter Geerkens @jamesqf: And, by comparison, compare it to the carnage at Waterloo in barely 1/3 the time and with less than 1/2 as many men on both sides.
Jul 12, 2018 at 20:59 comment added T.E.D. @jamesqf - Sadly, for WWI that phrase is quite possible to write. :-(
Jul 12, 2018 at 19:06 history edited Pieter Geerkens CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 1 character in body
Jul 12, 2018 at 18:29 history edited Pieter Geerkens CC BY-SA 4.0
added 413 characters in body
Jul 12, 2018 at 17:09 comment added Pieter Geerkens That's only 6% of the attacking force (170,000 strong). A remarkably low casualty rate in any war for an attacking force, never mind WW1. Try to find any significant battle of the American Civil War with at least half as many combatants and less than twice as many casualties. I don't think there is one.
Jul 12, 2018 at 16:56 comment added jamesqf I really appreciate the way you can write "barely 10,000 casualties".
Jul 12, 2018 at 15:31 history edited Pieter Geerkens CC BY-SA 4.0
added 134 characters in body
Jul 12, 2018 at 15:21 history edited Pieter Geerkens CC BY-SA 4.0
added 134 characters in body
Jul 12, 2018 at 15:11 history edited Pieter Geerkens CC BY-SA 4.0
added 277 characters in body
Jul 12, 2018 at 14:59 history answered Pieter Geerkens CC BY-SA 4.0