why was the 1st world war so different to other wars in history?

Answer 1

Technology evolved so much that a change in the way two armies fought each other was needed. Hence Trench warfare was born. No longer did two armies stand 40 yards apart shoulder to shoulder and just fire at each other. Now they dug down 8-10 feet and fired across from each other. Many different advancements in weapons were made during WWI. Artillery was created and used with disatrous effect during WWI. Thousands of shells were fired during a single day completly decimating the entire landscape and troops caught in the path of the artillery. Gas was used for the first time during WWI. Chlorine gas was a favorite during the war. This gas lingered around shell holes and trenchs for quite sometime and caused many deaths during the war. Flamethrowers were used for the first time during WWI with disatrous effect. Barbed wire was invented and spread through out no mans land which made advancements difficult during charges and led to the long stalemate that lasted throughout most of the war. Hope thos helps!

Answer 2

The First World War was a war of attrition, a war where millions of soldiers were quite literally stuck in the mud, unable to advance due to the well-matched weaponary on both sides. It was a necessary war, but public opinion since has been altered by the poetry which came out of the trenches.

It is estimated that the British Empire fielded 8.9 million soldiers in the war, of which more than 900,000 were killed. That sort of death can only lead to the war being seen as justifiably 'different'.

The development of new weapons, such as the tank and fighter aircraft, meant that centuries old strategies were redundant and new tactics had to be created and tested.

Answer 3

Society at that time didn't really have much of an idea about war during a time of rapid evolution. There was the we'll be home by christmas mentality only for it to become a massive stalemate in the fields france leading to trench warfare, stupid decisions and the idea of acting like civil societies eg. walking through no mans land during an offensive and generally getting thousands upon thousands killed in minutes (the somme) with outdated tactics. It finally brought the horror of a modernising warfare home to all the nations involved. Which is why there was such a difference between WWI and WWII, the last great battles of man to man fighting compare to todays pre-emptive missile strikes from thousands of miles away

Answer 4

The First World War can be seen as the end of a transitional period that began with the American Civil War. Both wars were seen as industrial war, that is the means to kill your enemy were produced on an industrial scale. If you look at the American Civil war you can see columns of men advancing on defencive positions, whereas the First World War may have started like this, French Soldiers advancing in scarlet and blue uniforms, it ended with small patrols of men targeting specific points (Stormtroopers).

Answer 5

Because it was like you said 1st world war, it was the first time in history man had a war on a global scale nation against nation.

Answer 6

Probably because of its scale: it mobilised the largest empires of the time. It is also the first "modern war" you have to consider all the weapons (and how efficient they proved to be)
It's lenght and intensity: 4 years of ininterupted fighting...taking millions away.
Death: in some places, a very heigh %age of the male populatiuon was decimated.
It is still in the present memories and maybe we (general public) do not know much about intensive past wars

Answer 7

Technology was at that point. But it really wasn't that different from the last couple of years of the War Between the States in many ways. By 1864/65 you saw masses of soldiers digging in and fighting from trenches, even with their muzzle-loaders. Once the machine gun became ubiquitous it was inevitable that a war in the trenches would happen.

Answer 8

It was the first time armies had mechanised transport, and modern weapons. This 'progress' allowed them to kill each other in vaste numbers. It involved almost all the countries of Europe and dragged in places like India that were part of the Empire. It changed attitudes to war. Read Rupert Brooke's poems from the early stages of the war and compare them with those of Wilfred Owen.

Answer 9

Aside from the technologies of the time, enabling massive destruction of life, & the fact that many nations were more DIRECTLY involved.
I don't think it was any different.
The cause was the same as every other war; greed.
The lies, excuses, & justifications, are still around today.
And the same will be true of the next war, & the one after that, & so ad infinitum.

Answer 10

It was the first war where modern Armies received casualties on an industrial scale. First day of the Somme 60,000 British Casaulties on day 1.
Never before had such whole scale slaughter been seen by both sides. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had a casualty rate of around 90%. By Casualty, I mean killed, wounded, missing in action and taken prisoner of war.
It is estimated that French artillary alone killed around 76,000 of their own troops.
Heaven knows what the British figures were.
So now you see why it was so different from what had gone on before.