Many people believe, without question, that the bloodiest wars in history were fought over religion. I, however, produce evidence to prove conclusively that it's untrue. by Richard in Japan
(conservative)
Monday, March 28, 2011
We All Know … That Religion Causes the Bloodiest Wars
But does it?
Unlike most people who have heard this theory, I decided to put it to the test: I did some research and made a list of the most violent "religious" wars of all time. I used the traditional definition of a religious war: any conflict in which one or both sides were identified by their religious beliefs. (I deliberately avoided semantics, as in whether an army that ignored Christ’s injunction to "turn the other cheek" could legitimately claim to be Christian.)
Then I made another list of the 20 deadliest wars in history, both sacred and secular. If in truth religion causes the bloodiest wars, one would predict a strong overlap between the two lists; if not identical, the two should certainly have a lot in common, with a large death toll for both.
In reality -- it wasn’t even close. Even accepting this most generous of definitions, the carnage from all the "religious wars" in history COMBINED never reaches that of the SINGLE MOST DEADLY WAR IN HISTORY. The hypothesis fails. What We All Know … Isn’t So.
See below for the analysis. By every reasonable estimate, World War II was the single bloodiest conflict ever, taking some fifty million lives worldwide according to the most conservative count. (Shown in BOLD.) Following this are three wars centered in China and/or Mongolia (a recurring theme, according to my research) with an average of almost thirty million fatalities. Only then do we encounter the Taiping Rebellion, also in China, the first entry on the list of history’s worst wars with even a tenuous connection to religion; the leader of the rebellion had earlier declared himself the younger brother of Jesus Christ. That little-known war took twenty million lives. Further down the list is the Dungan Revolt of Chinese Muslims against their Han oppressors with eight million deaths, and much further down comes the Thirty Years’ War, notable as the first conflict on the list in which religion arguably was the reason the war was fought.
Event Number of deaths (est.) Location
1. World War II 50,000,000 Worldwide
2. An Shi Rebellion 33,000,000 China
3. Mongol Conquest 30,000,000 Asia, Europe
4. Manchu Conquest 25,000,000 China
5.Taiping Rebellion 20,000,000 China
6. World War I 15,000,000 Worldwide
7. Timur Conquests 15,000,000 Asia
8. Dungan Revolt 8,000,000 China
9. Russian Civil War 5,000,000 Russia
10. Second Congo War 3,800,000 Congo
11. Napoleonic Wars 3,500,000 Worldwide
12.Thirty Years' War 3,000,000 Europe
13. Yellow Turban 3,000,000 China
Rebellion
14. Polish-Lithuanian 3,000,000 Europe
Deluge
15. Korean War 2,500,000 Korea
16. Vietnam War 2,495,000 Asia
17. French Wars 2,000,000 France
of Religion
18. Shaka's Conquests 2,000,000 Africa
19. Second Sudanese 1,000,000 Sudan
Civil War
20. Crusades 1,000,000 Middle East
Even combining all of the wars in which religious beliefs help to identify the two sides (in italics on the chart) produces a total of 35 million deaths from six wars, or an average of 5.8 million. Compare this to the total for all other (non-religious) wars - 193 million from fourteen wars (avg. 13.7 million) and it rapidly becomes clear that so-called "religious" wars are not really more deadly than any other kind. On average, they’re actually much LESS deadly.
The truth is, living in China is a far greater risk factor for dying in war than all the religions in history. Wars centered in Asia occupy seven of the top ten places on the list, or half the list as a whole. The death toll for only wars in Asia amounts to 145 million from 10 wars, averaging 14.5 million (almost three times the average for so-called "religious" wars.)
"So-Called"??
I used the word "so-called" for a reason: I will now prove that most of the conflicts that have been labeled as "religious wars" don’t deserve to be.
The ongoing discord between the Irish Republican Army and the Ulster Unionists … do they fight because one side is predominantly Catholic, and the other side mostly Protestant? Or do they fight because they both want control of the same little wedge of land, which both claim as their birthright? Because they both want Northern Ireland, neither side is willing to give it up, and they’re not willing to share?
The permanent hatred between the Israelis and the Palestinians… do they fight because one side is mainly Jewish, and the other side overwhelmingly Muslim? Or do they fight because they both want control of the same little wedge of land, which both claim as their birthright? Because they both want the Promised Land, neither side is willing to give it up, and they’re not willing to share?
The Taiping Rebellion was a war of independence, in which one side happened to be Christian.
The Dungan Revolt and the Second Sudanese Civil War were fights between an oppressed minority and a tyrannical majority, one of which happened to be Muslim.
The Crusades, like the Saracen incursions into Europe that preceded them, were a series of land grabs, in which one side happened to be Christian, and the other side happened to be Muslim.
The French Wars of Religion, and the Thirty Years' War that followed like a bad movie sequel, were little more than a series of retaliatory strikes by disgruntled citizens, interspersed with opportunistic attacks by mercenary armies. Nonetheless, they appear to be the only conflicts on the list that truly constitute religious wars, in that religious differences colored the principal grievances. However, on a deeper level, the underlying cause was the preservation of the status quo for Catholic nobles against an increasingly Protestant populace, rather than a loyalty to any religious doctrine. Catholic France, for purely political reasons, fought on the side of the Protestants. Other groups made alliances with the Muslim Turks, whom European Christians had feared for a millennium as the worst infidels of all.
The prejudice that wars are fought over ideology has a long pedigree. In 1726 Jonathan Swift’s masterpiece of satire, Gulliver’s Travels, paid tribute to the idea by depicting two nations fighting over what end of their eggs to break open. More recently the refrain was picked up, perhaps most vocally, by the uber-atheist Richard Dawkins. (The following quotes are from The God Delusion [Bantam Press/Transworld Publishers] 2006.) First pooh-poohing the idea that wars are fought for any reason other than religion:
"…We have a pusillanimous reluctance to use religious names for warring factions. In Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants are euphemized to ‘Nationalists’ and ‘Loyalists’ respectively." (p.21)
he later backtracks, admitting
"… There really are genuine grievances and injustices, and these seem to have little to do with religion; except that -- and this is important and widely overlooked -- without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge…." (p.259)
This statement is absurd on its face. In my country’s civil war, the Union Blues and Rebel Grays could tell each other apart by the color of their uniforms, and the flags they marched behind. During the civil war in Dawkins’ England, the Roundheads and Cavaliers could be distinguished by the length of their hair. The Hutu and Tutsi tribes of Rwanda would appear identical to an outsider, but in their civil war that destroyed more that ten percent of the population, they had no difficulty telling each other apart.
"Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition …." (Preface p.1)
and he goes on like this. Four hundred years ago (once again, in China) thousands of people were massacred because they REFUSED TO GET A HAIRCUT. In a world where people kill for reasons as petty as skin color, poverty, education, and national origin, he appears to believe that a world without religion would be a world without hatred.
For all his obvious intelligence, Professor Dawkins falls victim to the most basic of errors -- failing to detect his own bias. The bloodiest wars, like practically every war you can name, were fought for more tangible reasons than theological differences of opinion. Some are fought for territory, or national sovereignty. Some are fought for natural resources, such as gold, slaves, and yes, oil. In fact, the bloodiest wars have always been fought, and continue to be fought, for REAL ESTATE. In all of the so-called religious wars, religion has merely been a very easy way to tell the two sides apart.
(c) Kublai Khan Unlimited 2011.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Richard in Japan only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Richard in Japan is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: March 28, 2011 11:39:10 AM
I have to say that your presentation that war is not caused by religion as some great revelation has me a bit perplexed. Your analysis separating secular and so-called "religious" wars also has me a bit perplexed because most legitimate historians know that all war has its roots in economics, not culture.
Here are the basic causes of your so-called “top six” conflicts.
World War II - Expansion of Empire and revenge for World War I
An Shi Rebellion - Power and land control
Mongol Conquest - Power and land control
Manchu Conquest - Power and land control
Taiping Rebellion - Power, land control and control of trade
World War I - Expansion of Empire and “sticky alliances”
And the list goes on.
The role of "religion" or "anti-culture" is simply a tool for those who wish to go to war to convince the masses to support such a war. For example, the Jews were a "convenient scapegoat" for the angry German people to blame for their defeat in World War I. Hong Xiuquan used tales of Christian atrocities to incite his followers to attack the leaders of the Qing Dynasty in the Taiping Rebellion. Western allies told tales of German "Huns" killing women and babies in order to incite British and French citizens to support the war effort.
As a result, atrocities on religious or ethnic lines usually result in large conflicts, but they are rarely the root causes.
Read the following two battle cries and you tell me which one inspires you to pick up a gun.
Battle Cry #1: "Let us take arms to secure a source for cheap gas!" or “My Hummer is hungry and MUST be fed!”
Battle Cry #2: "Sadaam is sitting on stockpiles of chemical and possibly nuclear weapons that he will not hesitate to use on you and your children!" or “The Iraqi government has formed an alliance with Al Qaeda and must be held accountable for the Terror Attacks of 9/11!”
Of course, the second Battle Cry were all lies, but it got you off your feet, didn’t it?
To assume that war has any other cause than economics just says that you've bought into the propaganda.
Posted By: M Stone-Richard
Date: March 28, 2011 11:48:52 AM
While I don't disagree with this assessment, I do find that it is lacking (and possibly so is the opposite viewpoint's statistics, I don't know, I haven't studied them). I think that a more accurate accounting would be reflective of the combined populations of the nations/sects at war and what percentage of the population died in that conflict. For example, approximately 3.70%* of the world's population died as a direct cause of WWII. Since most of the world's population was involved, that should be a fairly accurate number, at least for the purposes of the debate on these pages.
In the final analysis, the percentage of the population (of the countries involved) that died during religious wars would have to be weighed against the percentage of the population (of the countries involved) that died in secular wars. This may change the ratio between the numbers who died in all secular versus all religious wars combined.
I also find it to be somewhat misleading to claim that the Crusades were a series of "land grabs." Speaking hypothetically, if two different Christian or Muslim groups had controlled the lands, instead of one Christian group and one Muslim group, would there still have been the wars? Yes, one of the goals of the Crusades might have been land acquisition, but, the recruitment of armies was carried out in the name of religion. The same may be true for other religious conflicts; the motives of the ruling party are not they same as those presented to the populace for going to war. It's not as easy to drum up support for a land war as it is one based on religious differences or nationalism, which in itself may be viewed as a type of cult religion, e.g. the cult of personality that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others have employed, where the state supplants the church.
