Leftcoaster
03-11-2006, 02:33 AM
I ran across that factoid in a popular science book about different types of natural occurring disasters. It added without any further elaboration that both Italian and Austrian forces had used avalanches as a weapon.
I haven't run across any confirmation about anyone intentionally using avalanches as weaponry, the following site provides some arguments why the contributor considers that urban legend type mythology or exaggeration, but the 60,000 killed crops up frequently enough as well as a figure of 10,000 dead from what several sites describe as a single avalanche, though reading that may actually be a string of connected avalanches in the same area over the course of a day or so.
http://www.worldwar1.com/itafront/avalan.htm
That seems like a grisly way to go, and I'd thought that the 60,000 figure was noteworthy, but taking a refresher glimse at some other WWI facts, another 60,000 dead seems almost not worthy of mention
From the following link:
"60,000 Alpine troops would freeze to death in the "high mountains" (Dolomiti Adamello ranges) during 3 years of war."
"During World War One, 230 soldiers perished for each hour of the four and a quarter years it continued."
"There were 70,000,000 men and women in uniform of that number one-half were either killed, wounded or became prisoners of war."
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-17226.html
Those last two paragraphs seem especially numbing.
Aside from questioning whether avalanches were actually employed as weapons, I'm interested in whether it would be considered a legitimate form of warfare. The contributor in the first link refuted the suggestion that it happened in the Alps during WWI, and I can appreciate his reasoning, but I'd figure if you're engaged in all out war that you'd use what was available to put the most hurt on your opponents. Using avalanches or designed flooding would seem like a legitimate form of warfare to me.
I haven't run across any confirmation about anyone intentionally using avalanches as weaponry, the following site provides some arguments why the contributor considers that urban legend type mythology or exaggeration, but the 60,000 killed crops up frequently enough as well as a figure of 10,000 dead from what several sites describe as a single avalanche, though reading that may actually be a string of connected avalanches in the same area over the course of a day or so.
http://www.worldwar1.com/itafront/avalan.htm
That seems like a grisly way to go, and I'd thought that the 60,000 figure was noteworthy, but taking a refresher glimse at some other WWI facts, another 60,000 dead seems almost not worthy of mention
From the following link:
"60,000 Alpine troops would freeze to death in the "high mountains" (Dolomiti Adamello ranges) during 3 years of war."
"During World War One, 230 soldiers perished for each hour of the four and a quarter years it continued."
"There were 70,000,000 men and women in uniform of that number one-half were either killed, wounded or became prisoners of war."
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-17226.html
Those last two paragraphs seem especially numbing.
Aside from questioning whether avalanches were actually employed as weapons, I'm interested in whether it would be considered a legitimate form of warfare. The contributor in the first link refuted the suggestion that it happened in the Alps during WWI, and I can appreciate his reasoning, but I'd figure if you're engaged in all out war that you'd use what was available to put the most hurt on your opponents. Using avalanches or designed flooding would seem like a legitimate form of warfare to me.