I hate charts where they use the absolute numbers for coloring. Obviously bigger countries will have more people and thus had more casualties. If you calculate the percentage already, use that number for coloring.
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
47 points (94.3% liked)
MapPorn
3857 readers
1 users here now
Discover Cartographic Marvels and Navigate New Worlds!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Highly recommend Hardcore History podcast's "Blue Print for Armageddon" that covers a lot of the events from WW1 and its various battles of attrition (Verdun, Somme, Brusilov offensive, Passchendaele). Hard to imagine loss on this scale, but Dan is an amazing story teller
Geeze which country lost 16% of their population!? There'd be barely a young adult male left standing!
Serbia, I believe that they are showing civilian casualties as well as soldiers.
Thanks....huh never knew they got hit that hard.
Anyone know what happened in Ottoman Empire to lose that many people?
Looking at the wikipedia it seems they didn't suffer many military casualties but suffered a lot from civilian deaths by military action at 1.5 million, probably mostly the Armenian genocide which estimates put at about 1 million. Also another 1 million from increase in civilian deaths which is harder to determine, maybe the empire was reliant on food imports pre-war that went away once the allies took control of the Mediterranean and blockaded them.