Surgebound Rainspren Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 So I was thinking and I found some similarities between the War of vengeance and World War One. 1. Both started when a major political leader was assassinated and the blame was given to a party that wasn't entirely responsible. 2. Both lasted close to six years 3. Both would have ended much earlier if the groups working "together" had unified from the beginning 4. Both caused the construction of more and more powerful weapons. 5. Rumors where spread through each army that their opponent was running low on resources and manpower. Does anyone disagree or have any more reasons they are similar. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxal Posted September 4, 2014 Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 Both sides made little progress in gaining or losing ground over the span of the whole war. However, there is a strong discrepancy between both wars: the causalities. WW1 was a blood bath. Poor soldiers were send to walk straight, unprotected, under the bullets of early machine guns. In the matter of minutes, hundred of men could be slaughtered. They also lived in poor conditions, in trenches, in the mud, the rats and the diseases. WW1 was horrible. No fancy parties being held every week, no officer parading wearing the last fashion... They may have started similarly, they may share some common aspect, but their reality was quite different. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surgebound Rainspren Posted September 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2014 true but this is also reflected in Sadeas war-camp, sure the men of higher or normal ranks take have little fear of their own safety. the slaves or bridge men work and live in horrible conditions. and they have to charge headfirst into enemy fire and are not allowed to heal their injured. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts