Does the description really say "Experience the truth behind the most gruesome war in history: the American Revolution?" Really? The American Revolution might in fact have been one of the LEAST gruesome wars in history. Yes I know I'm making much ado about nothing, but that really irritates me!
The revolutionary war WAS in fact one of the most gruesome wars in history. Most of the fighting was up close and personal and apparently you have no knowledge of the time period. Instead of pain killers soldiers were told to "bite a bullet" while a doctor would attempt to stitch the wound of a 50. caliber rated musketball that would break up into thousands of tiny pieces INSIDE the soldier, probably knicking an artery or , if unlucky, a normal blood vessel cuasing internal bleeding that would guarenteee a very slow and excrutiating death. Does that sound like the least gruesome war in history? Oh and if he survived that he most likey enjoy fighting hand to hand with another soldier to the death, or getting his leg litterally a BLOWN off by a passing canonball.
Apparently you have no knowledge of any other time period. "Up close and personal?" Perhaps during the bayonet charges, but most of the fighting was not up close and personal. And are you forgetting that there were wars before guns existed? Much more up close and personal. Hacked off heads, limbs and disembowelments seems more gruesome to me than a musket ball nicking an artery. Did they have pain killers in any wars during the Middle Ages? During the Napoleonic Wars? Any other wars during this time or before it? Have you heard of the Mongol invasions? Where entire cities of hundreds of thousands were put to the sword? Have you heard of World War II? Where millions were killed, many by their own neighbors "up close and personal," and two atomic bombs were used? Very gruesome. And these wars just scratch the surface. European warfare between The Thirty Year's War (a MUCH more gruesome war) and the French Revolutionary Wars (again much more gruesome) was somewhat governed by Enlightenment ideals which *mostly* spared civilians from war, was generous to captives, and was NOT especially gruesome, in as far as war can be "not gruesome," at least compared to war in any other time and place. I suppose you could call the American Revolution the most gruesome war of this time period, since the Americans didn't exclusively stick to European style line up on the battlefield and shoot each other. Of course there is "gruesome" injury and death in all war. But most other wars easily have the American Revolution trumped in their brutality and "gruesomeness."
"Hacked off heads, limbs and disembowelments seems more gruesome to me than a musket ball nicking an artery."
Ever hear of grapeshot? It's comparable to a large shotgun round that can do all the things you said to a group of charging infantry quickly. Thousands of soldiers also died from disease (including lead poisoning, a slow and painful death if you got shot) and exposure (most famously at Valley Forge where the dwindling Continental Army was short on basic necessities.
"Did they have pain killers in any wars during the Middle Ages? During the Napoleonic Wars?"
You do know that the American Revolution was between the two, right? Before you insult other people's knowledge of history, you might want to double-check your own.
I am fully aware of when the Middle Ages and the Napoleonic Wars were. That has nothing to do with my point. The point was that the American Revolution was not the only war where there were no pain killers. Disease is a significant cause of death in most wars, often times taking more lives than the actual fighting. Compare Valley Forge to Napoleon's retreat from Russia. And I didn't mean to insult you. I am not saying that the American Revolution was not gruesome. All war is. Just that its not even close to being the "most gruesome in history."
I said before I didn't agree it was either. But I also disagree with you saying it was one of the LEAST too, especially when you consider how desperate the situation was for the Continental Army at its lowest points. People, both Americans and overseas often see the American Revolution as either very idealistically or dismissively (like the British barely touch on it in history class from what I've heard). Often the brutality of war is only highlighted to emphasize stupid decisions, like charging no-man's land or invading Russia during winter. It seems the most brutal wars are also the most unnecessary and pointless ones.
Well yes, you're right. The American Revolution wasn't the LEAST gruesome war in history any more than it was the MOST. I guess I'm just annoyed that Ubisoft is using such ridiculous language to sell their game. (Though admittedly it does look pretty cool.)
Never said it was the MOST gruesome war, said it was ONE OF the most gruesome wars in history. I was more dissagreeing with the "Least gruesome war ever" comment. And if we are doing those wars then, why not go back to the ancient clan wars between early homiosapius, where if forced upon starvation, would eat the bodies of their foes OR have children raised as livestock to eat. Finally there were few tools for warfare (only basic clubs and bludgening tools) to use to fight other families and creatures for survival.
yeah the brits were pussys. Our minutemen would pick them off like sitting ducks! They had enough of that pretty quick and took of back to england to plan on colonizing China and getting them all hooked on opium.