Common Misconceptions/Myths

[Saphroneth]

Being a famous battle does not Necessarily make it a good comparison

It doesn't necessarily make it a good comparison, but when I'm comparing it with one of the highest-casualty battles of the Civil War then it's not necessarily a bad comparison either - if one of the first battles people have heard of when they think of the Napoleonic Wars is higher in casualty % count than the biggest Civil War battles, it tells you something at least.


As it happens, Wikipedia has a page with the 31 costliest Civil War battles in it. Some of these are siege assaults so caveat lector (and the usual reliability issues with Wikipedia numbers), but here's how they stack up sorted by total casualties as % of those on the field:

Battle ​	Campaign ​	Date ​	Union str​	Confed str​	US Cas​	CS Cas​	Total ​	Union cas​	Confed cas​	Total cas​
The Crater​	Richmond-Petersburg Campaign​	July 30, 1864​	8500​	6100​	3798​	1491​	5289​	44.68%​	24.44%​	36.23%​
Stones River(Murfreesboro)​	Stones River Campaign​	December 31, 1862 – January 2, 1863​	41400​	35000​	12906​	11739​	24645​	31.17%​	33.54%​	32.26%​
Gettysburg​	Gettysburg Campaign​	July 1–3, 1863​	93921​	71699​	23049​	28063​	51118​	24.54%​	39.14%​	30.86%​
Chickamauga​	Chickamauga Campaign​	September 19–20, 1863​	60000​	65000​	16170​	18450​	34624​	26.95%​	28.38%​	27.70%​
Shiloh(Pittsburg Landing)​	Federal Penetration up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers​	April 6–7, 1862​	66812​	44699​	13047​	10699​	23746​	19.53%​	23.94%​	21.29%​
Spotsylvania Court House​	Overland Campaign​	May 8–21, 1864​	100000​	52000​	18399​	12687​	31086​	18.40%​	24.40%​	20.45%​
Fort Stedman​	Richmond-Petersburg Campaign​	March 25, 1865​	14898​	10000​	1044​	4000​	5044​	7.01%​	40.00%​	20.26%​
Perryville​	Kentucky Campaign​	October 8, 1862​	22000​	16000​	4276​	3401​	7677​	19.44%​	21.26%​	20.20%​
Antietam(Sharpsburg)​	Maryland Campaign​	September 17, 1862​	75500​	38000​	12401​	10316​	22717​	16.43%​	27.15%​	20.01%​
The Wilderness​	Overland Campaign​	May 5–7, 1864​	101895​	61025​	17666​	11033​	28699​	17.34%​	18.08%​	17.62%​
Opequon (3rd Winchester)​	Sheridan's Valley Campaign​	September 19, 1864​	40000​	12000​	5020​	3610​	8630​	12.55%​	30.08%​	16.60%​
Cedar Creek​	Sheridan's Valley Campaign​	October 19, 1864​	31610​	21102​	5764​	2910​	8674​	18.23%​	13.79%​	16.46%​
2nd Bull Run(2nd Manassas)​	Northern Virginia Campaign​	August 29–30, 1862​	62000​	50000​	10000​	8300​	18300​	16.13%​	16.60%​	16.34%​
Gaines's Mill​	Peninsula Campaign​	June 27, 1862​	34214​	57018​	6837​	7993​	14830​	19.98%​	14.02%​	16.26%​
Atlanta​	Atlanta Campaign​	July 22, 1864​	34863​	40438​	3641​	8499​	12140​	10.44%​	21.02%​	16.12%​
Franklin​	Franklin-Nashville Campaign​	November 30, 1864​	27000​	27000​	2326​	6252​	8578​	8.61%​	23.16%​	15.89%​
Chancellorsville​	Chancellorsville Campaign​	May 1–4, 1863​	133868​	60892​	17197​	13303​	30500​	12.85%​	21.85%​	15.66%​
Peachtree Creek​	Atlanta Campaign​	July 20, 1864​	21655​	20250​	1710​	4796​	6506​	7.90%​	23.68%​	15.53%​
2nd Petersburg​	Richmond–Petersburg Campaign​	June 15–18, 1864​	62000​	38000​	11386​	4000​	15386​	18.36%​	10.53%​	15.39%​
Seven Pines(Fair Oaks)​	Peninsula Campaign​	May 31 – June 1, 1862​	34000​	39000​	5031​	6134​	11165​	14.80%​	15.73%​	15.29%​
2nd Corinth​	Iuka and Corinth Operations​	October 3–4, 1862​	23000​	22000​	2520​	4233​	6753​	10.96%​	19.24%​	15.01%​
Missionary Ridge​	Chattanooga Campaign​	November 25, 1863​	56359​	44010​	5824​	6667​	12491​	10.33%​	15.15%​	12.45%​
Champion Hill​	Vicksburg Campaign​	May 16, 1863​	32000​	22000​	2457​	3840​	6297​	7.68%​	17.45%​	11.66%​
South Mountain​	Maryland Campaign​	September 14, 1862​	28000​	18000​	2325​	2685​	5010​	8.30%​	14.92%​	10.89%​
Nashville​	Franklin–Nashville Campaign​	December 15–16, 1864​	55000​	30000​	3061​	6000​	9061​	5.57%​	20.00%​	10.66%​
Cold Harbor​	Overland Campaign​	May 31 – June 12, 1864​	108000​	59000​	12737​	4595​	17332​	11.79%​	7.79%​	10.38%​
Fredericksburg​	Fredericksburg Campaign​	December 11–15, 1862​	114000​	72500​	12653​	5377​	18030​	11.10%​	7.42%​	9.67%​
Glendale​	Peninsula Campaign​	June 30, 1862​	40000​	45000​	3797​	3673​	7470​	9.49%​	8.16%​	8.79%​
Malvern Hill​	Peninsula Campaign​	July 1, 1862​	54000​	55000​	2100​	5650​	7750​	3.89%​	10.27%​	7.11%​
1st Bull Run(1st Manassas)​	Manassas Campaign​	July 21, 1861​	35000​	34000​	2896​	1982​	4878​	8.27%​	5.83%​	7.07%​
3rd Petersburg​	Richmond-Petersburg Campaign​	April 2, 1865​	76113​	58400​	3500​	4250​	7750​	4.60%​	7.28%​	5.76%​

What should be immediately clear is that in this list of highest-casualty Civil War battles - going down to 1st Bull Run with under 5,000 casualties - is that the average is not enormous. In fact the average casualties come to 1/6 of those on the field, with the Union suffering about 1/7 on average and the CSA suffering about 1/5 on average.


Compare these with some of the costliest Napoleonic War battles which don't just see a wholesale outmanoeuvering and surrender, and what we see is that they fall within the space defined by these Civil War battles and in some cases peak higher - the Battle of Waterloo sees a higher casualty count as % of those engaged than any of these battles including the Crater (which is a siege assault and doesnt really apply properly), while Jena–Auerstedt sees 29% casualties of those on the field and is right up near the top.

You can't just ignore Waterloo because it conflicts with your position - there has to be some other reason...

 

[leftyhunter]

One pervading myth is that doctors & nurses over prescribed newly available anaesthesia, causing the reported rise in narcotic addiction at the end of the 19th century. Some veterans no doubt developed an addiction, but these were few in number- indeed those who were addicts were denied their pension !

Not so sure about the myth of narcotic addiction. When Bayer Pharmaceutical developed heroin in 1876 there medical salesman promoted heroin as the cure for morphine addiction has if a morphine addict took heroin instead of morphine he could function normally in society. Obviously Bayer exaggerated a bit on the eiffacy of heroin in that regard.
Leftyhunter

 

[67th Tigers]

Not so sure about the myth of narcotic addiction. When Bayer Pharmaceutical developed heroin in 1876 there medical salesman promoted heroin as the cure for morphine addiction has if a morphine addict took heroin instead of morphine he could function normally in society. Obviously Bayer exaggerated a bit on the eiffacy of heroin in that regard.
Leftyhunter

The mass availability of hypodermic syringes didn't happen until just after WW2. Until then they were an expensive piece of specialist equipment.

At the time, morphine was used in the form of laudanum (a tincture of opium) as a form of general analgesic, and morphine sulfate which was used as a local anesthetic (rubbed into a wound). Only smoking opium produced effects like a real narcotic. It was only 1867 that it was shown that an injected drug had a systematic effect rather than only at the site of injection.

The tract about the "soldiers disease", a tall tale released by the temperance movement about 500,000 IV morphine users, was released in 1915.

 

[Sbc]

Well, it seems to me that the chain of discussion goes like this:

Wasusabob:
The myth: battle casualties were extremely heavy. @Saphroneth states they were not, they were typical of Napoleonic battles, and even somewhat low.

You (in direct reply to that):
They were heavy as a percentage of combatants

Me:
Not really...



Which means that it seemed to me (and still seems) that your original post was contesting the idea that ACW casualties were "typical of Napoleonic battles" (as a percentage of combatants) and were claiming that instead they were heavy (as a percentage of combatants); i.e. that they were heavier than Napoleonic battles as a percentage of combatants.

What I have subsequently shown is that Napoleonic battles and ACW battles fit into the same space in terms of the number of casualties suffered; I have also shown that Gettysburg (which sees casualties on par with the Napoleonic) is the highest-casualty field battle in the Eastern Theatre post-McClellan, and that most others don't rise to the casualty heights of Gettysburg. (Spotsylvania and Chancellorsville are the second and third and are the more "typical" battles in the sample set.)

So, what is your contention about Civil War battles, and what battles are you thinking of to support it? Are you arguing that ACW battles are heavier in % casualties than Napoleonic battles (which I dispute), that ACW battles fall into the same ballpark as Napoleonic battles as regards % casualties (with which I would broadly agree) or something else?

Actually I replied to post # 28 by wasusabob , not you. I implied NOTHING. I stated a fact which you dispute and continue to cite events wholly unlike anything Gettysburg or really ANY ACW battle.

 

[Sbc]

It doesn't necessarily make it a good comparison, but when I'm comparing it with one of the highest-casualty battles of the Civil War then it's not necessarily a bad comparison either - if one of the first battles people have heard of when they think of the Napoleonic Wars is higher in casualty % count than the biggest Civil War battles, it tells you something at least.


As it happens, Wikipedia has a page with the 31 costliest Civil War battles in it. Some of these are siege assaults so caveat lector (and the usual reliability issues with Wikipedia numbers), but here's how they stack up sorted by total casualties as % of those on the field:

Battle ​	Campaign ​	Date ​	Union str​	Confed str​	US Cas​	CS Cas​	Total ​	Union cas​	Confed cas​	Total cas​
The Crater​	Richmond-Petersburg Campaign​	July 30, 1864​	8500​	6100​	3798​	1491​	5289​	44.68%​	24.44%​	36.23%​
Stones River(Murfreesboro)​	Stones River Campaign​	December 31, 1862 – January 2, 1863​	41400​	35000​	12906​	11739​	24645​	31.17%​	33.54%​	32.26%​
Gettysburg​	Gettysburg Campaign​	July 1–3, 1863​	93921​	71699​	23049​	28063​	51118​	24.54%​	39.14%​	30.86%​
Chickamauga​	Chickamauga Campaign​	September 19–20, 1863​	60000​	65000​	16170​	18450​	34624​	26.95%​	28.38%​	27.70%​
Shiloh(Pittsburg Landing)​	Federal Penetration up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers​	April 6–7, 1862​	66812​	44699​	13047​	10699​	23746​	19.53%​	23.94%​	21.29%​
Spotsylvania Court House​	Overland Campaign​	May 8–21, 1864​	100000​	52000​	18399​	12687​	31086​	18.40%​	24.40%​	20.45%​
Fort Stedman​	Richmond-Petersburg Campaign​	March 25, 1865​	14898​	10000​	1044​	4000​	5044​	7.01%​	40.00%​	20.26%​
Perryville​	Kentucky Campaign​	October 8, 1862​	22000​	16000​	4276​	3401​	7677​	19.44%​	21.26%​	20.20%​
Antietam(Sharpsburg)​	Maryland Campaign​	September 17, 1862​	75500​	38000​	12401​	10316​	22717​	16.43%​	27.15%​	20.01%​
The Wilderness​	Overland Campaign​	May 5–7, 1864​	101895​	61025​	17666​	11033​	28699​	17.34%​	18.08%​	17.62%​
Opequon (3rd Winchester)​	Sheridan's Valley Campaign​	September 19, 1864​	40000​	12000​	5020​	3610​	8630​	12.55%​	30.08%​	16.60%​
Cedar Creek​	Sheridan's Valley Campaign​	October 19, 1864​	31610​	21102​	5764​	2910​	8674​	18.23%​	13.79%​	16.46%​
2nd Bull Run(2nd Manassas)​	Northern Virginia Campaign​	August 29–30, 1862​	62000​	50000​	10000​	8300​	18300​	16.13%​	16.60%​	16.34%​
Gaines's Mill​	Peninsula Campaign​	June 27, 1862​	34214​	57018​	6837​	7993​	14830​	19.98%​	14.02%​	16.26%​
Atlanta​	Atlanta Campaign​	July 22, 1864​	34863​	40438​	3641​	8499​	12140​	10.44%​	21.02%​	16.12%​
Franklin​	Franklin-Nashville Campaign​	November 30, 1864​	27000​	27000​	2326​	6252​	8578​	8.61%​	23.16%​	15.89%​
Chancellorsville​	Chancellorsville Campaign​	May 1–4, 1863​	133868​	60892​	17197​	13303​	30500​	12.85%​	21.85%​	15.66%​
Peachtree Creek​	Atlanta Campaign​	July 20, 1864​	21655​	20250​	1710​	4796​	6506​	7.90%​	23.68%​	15.53%​
2nd Petersburg​	Richmond–Petersburg Campaign​	June 15–18, 1864​	62000​	38000​	11386​	4000​	15386​	18.36%​	10.53%​	15.39%​
Seven Pines(Fair Oaks)​	Peninsula Campaign​	May 31 – June 1, 1862​	34000​	39000​	5031​	6134​	11165​	14.80%​	15.73%​	15.29%​
2nd Corinth​	Iuka and Corinth Operations​	October 3–4, 1862​	23000​	22000​	2520​	4233​	6753​	10.96%​	19.24%​	15.01%​
Missionary Ridge​	Chattanooga Campaign​	November 25, 1863​	56359​	44010​	5824​	6667​	12491​	10.33%​	15.15%​	12.45%​
Champion Hill​	Vicksburg Campaign​	May 16, 1863​	32000​	22000​	2457​	3840​	6297​	7.68%​	17.45%​	11.66%​
South Mountain​	Maryland Campaign​	September 14, 1862​	28000​	18000​	2325​	2685​	5010​	8.30%​	14.92%​	10.89%​
Nashville​	Franklin–Nashville Campaign​	December 15–16, 1864​	55000​	30000​	3061​	6000​	9061​	5.57%​	20.00%​	10.66%​
Cold Harbor​	Overland Campaign​	May 31 – June 12, 1864​	108000​	59000​	12737​	4595​	17332​	11.79%​	7.79%​	10.38%​
Fredericksburg​	Fredericksburg Campaign​	December 11–15, 1862​	114000​	72500​	12653​	5377​	18030​	11.10%​	7.42%​	9.67%​
Glendale​	Peninsula Campaign​	June 30, 1862​	40000​	45000​	3797​	3673​	7470​	9.49%​	8.16%​	8.79%​
Malvern Hill​	Peninsula Campaign​	July 1, 1862​	54000​	55000​	2100​	5650​	7750​	3.89%​	10.27%​	7.11%​
1st Bull Run(1st Manassas)​	Manassas Campaign​	July 21, 1861​	35000​	34000​	2896​	1982​	4878​	8.27%​	5.83%​	7.07%​
3rd Petersburg​	Richmond-Petersburg Campaign​	April 2, 1865​	76113​	58400​	3500​	4250​	7750​	4.60%​	7.28%​	5.76%​

What should be immediately clear is that in this list of highest-casualty Civil War battles - going down to 1st Bull Run with under 5,000 casualties - is that the average is not enormous. In fact the average casualties come to 1/6 of those on the field, with the Union suffering about 1/7 on average and the CSA suffering about 1/5 on average.


Compare these with some of the costliest Napoleonic War battles which don't just see a wholesale outmanoeuvering and surrender, and what we see is that they fall within the space defined by these Civil War battles and in some cases peak higher - the Battle of Waterloo sees a higher casualty count as % of those engaged than any of these battles including the Crater (which is a siege assault and doesnt really apply properly), while Jena–Auerstedt sees 29% casualties of those on the field and is right up near the top.

You can't just ignore Waterloo because it conflicts with your position - there has to be some other reason...

I stated the reasons about Waterloo in post #274

 

[Saphroneth]

Actually I replied to post # 28 by wasusabob , not you. I implied NOTHING. I stated a fact which you dispute and continue to cite events wholly unlike anything Gettysburg or really ANY ACW battle.

I agree you replied to Wasusabob, because that's what I said you did.
What you said was that the casualties in the Civil War were heavy "as a percentage of casualties", in reply to someone saying that Civil War battle casualties were "typical of Napoleonic battles"

When you said that, what exactly did you mean? Did you mean to say that the casualties in the Civil War were heavy as a percentage of casualties, but not to compare them to any other series of battles? Did you mean to say that the casualties in the Civil War were not heavy in absolute terms but heavy in percentage terms?

As for citing events "wholly unlike anything Gettysburg", what I'm citing is the casualty counts at this point.

I stated the reasons about Waterloo in post #274

Oh, I see. What you said was:

Waterloo involved 3 armies, neutral ground, multiple nationalities, relatively few terrain obstacles, divergent supply lines, and lots more cavalry that played a key role.

But these make no sense as reasons why Waterloo is not comparable.

Waterloo involved three armies, yes, but only two sides (Coalition and French), which means that it's comparable to - for example - Shiloh (which also involved three armies).

Neutral ground isn't the case - Napoleon was invading the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Wellington's army included a significant Dutch contingent.

Multiple nationalities - well, this is just special pleading. If you insist that any battle that involves "multiple nationalities" isn't useful for comparison then it reduces the basis for comparison to civil wars, but that's basically saying that the casualty percentage rates in the Civil War aren't comparable to the Napoleonic Wars because only one of them was a Civil War.

Relatively few terrain obstacles - it, like Gettysburg, featured the dominating terrain consisting of ridges, and it (like Gettysburg) featured areas of close terrain as well. The Forest of Soignes was just behind Wellington offering good terrain into which to retreat, while the area around Smohain featured broken terrain and Hougoumont had a wood in it. It's basically an area of farmland with some terrain features of significance, and while there are certainly ACW battles which involve more terrain obstacles it's not completely out of the comparison space.

Divergent supply lines - why would this even matter?

Lots more cavalry - well, yes, this is one of the key differences between Napoleonic warfare and Civil War warfare, and may have contributed to the number of men captured on the field. In that case though we would want to look at an estimate of casualties in Civil War and Napoleonic battles without counting the captured, to remove that confounding variable.

But none of these mean that you can simply ignore the casualty counts at Waterloo and then assert that Civil War battles see higher casualties than Napoleonic War battles, because it's still fact that Waterloo saw a high casualty count and was a Napoleonic battle (and a field engagement rather than a siege battle, which were different and those differences actually recognized at the time).



I think the thing I'm not really understanding is why any of these reasons mean Waterloo doesn't count as a field battle. I could equally say that the highest-casualty Civil War field battle in my sample set (Stones River) doesn't count because it was a surprise attack, but that would be mendacious of me.

 

[Saphroneth]

Actually I replied to post # 28 by wasusabob , not you. I implied NOTHING. I stated a fact which you dispute and continue to cite events wholly unlike anything Gettysburg or really ANY ACW battle.

Just to be clear about this and make sure I'm not arguing against a position you don't hold, can I check something?

Which of these statements do you agree with:

1) Civil War casualties were heavier than Napoleonic War casualties, in absolute terms.
2) Civil War casualties were equivalent to Napoleonic War casualties, in absolute terms.
3) Civil War casualties were lighter than Napoleonic War casualties, in absolute terms.
4) Civil War casualties were heavier than Napoleonic War casualties, in percentage terms.
5) Civil War casualties were equivalent to Napoleonic War casualties, in percentage terms.
6) Civil War casualties were lighter than Napoleonic War casualties, in percentage terms.
7) Civil War casualties are impossible to compare with Napoleonic War casualties.

It is possible to agree with more than one of these.

 

[FPT]

That the Confederate soldier fought primarily to protect his home against invasion.

Most, if not all, of the men who enlisted in the Confederate armed forces in 1861 wanted war to establish an independent slaveowner confederation in North America. They had no notion of protecting their little towns and farmsteads from massive Union armies. Instead, they wanted to be part of a revolutionary movement to separate their own communities from the 'Black' Repubican Party-dominated federal government.

Later in the war, the CSA enforced extreme conscription measures to supply its armies with replacements. A good part of the fighting forces of the CSA were conscripts (or near conscripts) who deserted in huge numbers as the CSA began to disintegrate in late 1863.

Since the majority of Southerners were non-slaveholders, other than the "fire eaters", I cannot buy the idea of the South wanting the to establish an independent slave holding confederation.

Regards.

 

[Saphroneth]

Since the majority of Southerners were non-slaveholders, other than the "fire eaters", I cannot buy the idea of the South wanting the to establish an independent slave holding confederation.

I think it's worth pointing out that the majority of modern Americans are not millionaires and yet there's a significant political movement which favours policies which only benefit millionaires. I don't bring this up to insert modern politics but to use as an example - it is quite possible for a significant number of people to favour a political movement which benefits people they do not qualify as, especially when it fits in with a worldview in which you could qualify as that category (i.e. an aspirational one) or one in which the beneficiaries are seen as admirable.

In this case it would be that a Southerner would consider "owning a slave" to be the sign of someone who's really "made it" in life, and something to aspire to.

In addition, the structure of slavery in the South was such that it was possible to rent slaves, and thus get the benefit of the service of a slave without actually being a slave owner. But the portion of slave owning families was higher than you might think:

In the 1860 census:

1860 Census	Families Owning Slaves (%)
Delaware	3
Maryland	12
Missouri	13
Arkansas	20
Kentucky	23
Tennessee	25
Virginia	26
North Carolina	28
Texas	28
Louisiana	29
Florida	34
Alabama	35
Georgia	37
South Carolina	46
Mississippi	49

(per snopes)

For these reasons, I do not consider it inconsistent that most Southern families would fall into at least one of these categories:

- Owned slaves themselves (the numbers in the above table)
- Had the option to rent a slave and get the benefit that way
- Could not own or rent slaves, but considered it something to aspire to

Basically, owning one or two slaves was middle-class; owning a lot was upper class.

 

[Sbc]

I agree you replied to Wasusabob, because that's what I said you did.
What you said was that the casualties in the Civil War were heavy "as a percentage of casualties", in reply to someone saying that Civil War battle casualties were "typical of Napoleonic battles"

When you said that, what exactly did you mean? Did you mean to say that the casualties in the Civil War were heavy as a percentage of casualties, but not to compare them to any other series of battles? Did you mean to say that the casualties in the Civil War were not heavy in absolute terms but heavy in percentage terms?

As for citing events "wholly unlike anything Gettysburg", what I'm citing is the casualty counts at this point.


Oh, I see. What you said was:

But these make no sense as reasons why Waterloo is not comparable.

Waterloo involved three armies, yes, but only two sides (Coalition and French), which means that it's comparable to - for example - Shiloh (which also involved three armies).

Neutral ground isn't the case - Napoleon was invading the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Wellington's army included a significant Dutch contingent.

Multiple nationalities - well, this is just special pleading. If you insist that any battle that involves "multiple nationalities" isn't useful for comparison then it reduces the basis for comparison to civil wars, but that's basically saying that the casualty percentage rates in the Civil War aren't comparable to the Napoleonic Wars because only one of them was a Civil War.

Relatively few terrain obstacles - it, like Gettysburg, featured the dominating terrain consisting of ridges, and it (like Gettysburg) featured areas of close terrain as well. The Forest of Soignes was just behind Wellington offering good terrain into which to retreat, while the area around Smohain featured broken terrain and Hougoumont had a wood in it. It's basically an area of farmland with some terrain features of significance, and while there are certainly ACW battles which involve more terrain obstacles it's not completely out of the comparison space.

Divergent supply lines - why would this even matter?

Lots more cavalry - well, yes, this is one of the key differences between Napoleonic warfare and Civil War warfare, and may have contributed to the number of men captured on the field. In that case though we would want to look at an estimate of casualties in Civil War and Napoleonic battles without counting the captured, to remove that confounding variable.

But none of these mean that you can simply ignore the casualty counts at Waterloo and then assert that Civil War battles see higher casualties than Napoleonic War battles, because it's still fact that Waterloo saw a high casualty count and was a Napoleonic battle (and a field engagement rather than a siege battle, which were different and those differences actually recognized at the time).



I think the thing I'm not really understanding is why any of these reasons mean Waterloo doesn't count as a field battle. I could equally say that the highest-casualty Civil War field battle in my sample set (Stones River) doesn't count because it was a surprise attack, but that would be mendacious of me.

Point by point:

The terrain was radically different as the Union line at Gettysburg featured nearly impregnable hills and ridges coupled with superior numbers, artillery, and firearms. Citing the feature of Soignes forest is irrelevant as no action took place there.
If you believe every one in Belgium sided with the Coalition then you are ignoring the complexities of human nature and European history. Most soldiers there were not especially fond of the Dutch and owed them no allegiance.
Multiple nationalities of the coalition was there greatest weakness. Neither Blucher nor Wellington could speak the other's language. The Congress of Vienna demonstrated each coalition member distrusted the other and had their own agenda.
Supply lines matter——Wellington could not be positive the Prussians would not retreat eastward. A promise is just a promise until it is fulfilled.
Murfreesboro was NOT a surprise attack; the Rebs just rose earlier started before the Yanks.
If Waterloo the battle is similar to Shiloh then compare it Shiloh for crying out loud.
Borodino as I said before resembles Gettysburg more than any Napoleonic battle.

 

[Generic Username]

That the Confederate soldier fought primarily to protect his home against invasion.

Most, if not all, of the men who enlisted in the Confederate armed forces in 1861 wanted war to establish an independent slaveowner confederation in North America. They had no notion of protecting their little towns and farmsteads from massive Union armies. Instead, they wanted to be part of a revolutionary movement to separate their own communities from the 'Black' Repubican Party-dominated federal government.

Later in the war, the CSA enforced extreme conscription measures to supply its armies with replacements. A good part of the fighting forces of the CSA were conscripts (or near conscripts) who deserted in huge numbers as the CSA began to disintegrate in late 1863.

One wonders what Sherman was thinking in late 1864 and early 1865, then.

 

[leftyhunter]

Since the majority of Southerners were non-slaveholders, other than the "fire eaters", I cannot buy the idea of the South wanting the to establish an independent slave holding confederation.

Regards.

Yet that was what the Confedracy was fighting for per their Constititon.
Leftyhunter

 

[Saphroneth]

Borodino as I said before resembles Gettysburg more than any Napoleonic battle.

Borodino is a Napoleonic battle..?

But what I'm comparing here is actually whether Civil War battles and Napoleonic war battles fall into the same casualty ballpark. Can you please look at that list of statements so I can be sure I'm arguing against a position you actually hold?

 

[Saphroneth]

The terrain was radically different as the Union line at Gettysburg featured nearly impregnable hills and ridges coupled with superior numbers, artillery, and firearms. Citing the feature of Soignes forest is irrelevant as no action took place there.
If you believe every one in Belgium sided with the Coalition then you are ignoring the complexities of human nature and European history. Most soldiers there were not especially fond of the Dutch and owed them no allegiance.
Multiple nationalities of the coalition was there greatest weakness. Neither Blucher nor Wellington could speak the other's language. The Congress of Vienna demonstrated each coalition member distrusted the other and had their own agenda.
Supply lines matter——Wellington could not be positive the Prussians would not retreat eastward. A promise is just a promise until it is fulfilled.
Murfreesboro was NOT a surprise attack; the Rebs just rose earlier started before the Yanks.
If Waterloo the battle is similar to Shiloh then compare it Shiloh for crying out loud.
Borodino as I said before resembles Gettysburg more than any Napoleonic battle.

I think the thing that I'm not understanding here is why any of these mean Waterloo doesn't count, rather than it merely being that Waterloo is a bit different. It would not be entirely unsurprising if the characteristics of Civil War and Napoleonic War battles did not align in all particulars, and especially if you could not line them up one-to-one as "battle X is the Civil War version of battle Y".

If your argument is that Civil War battles and Napoleonic War battles are fundamentally the same, and you do this by ignoring one of the battles which is different, then your argument doesn't really hold together.
But if your argument is that the characteristics of Civil War battles make them higher casualty, and you discount Waterloo because of things that make it different to Civil War battles (when those things contribute to the higher casualties, as you seem to assert) then you're arguing that battles with different characteristics can be compared to one another unless that battle happens to be Waterloo.


Now, I would be quite happy to take the previously given sample set of high-casualty Civil War battles, and also include all the Revolutionary and Napoleonic War Battles which are on the Wikipedia page for "highest casualty battles" (a similar selection method) OR to use another sample set like "all the battles personally commanded by Napoleon Bonaparte", and see whether high-casualty ACW battles tend to a different distribution of casualties as a % than high-casualty Napoleonic battles.


I really must insist however that you make it clear what position/s you actually hold - the list is to be found here in case you missed it.

 

[Sbc]

Borodino is a Napoleonic battle..?

But what I'm comparing here is actually whether Civil War battles and Napoleonic war battles fall into the same casualty ballpark. Can you please look at that list of statements so I can be sure I'm arguing against a position you actually hold?

Sorry did not proofread my post. It is most like Gettysburg.

 

[Dave Farnsworth]

As a relatively junior student of the War there's a seemingly never-ending parade of myths, misinterpretations, false summations, etc (collectively, 'myth'). Over time one version of a story may be accepted as canonical but then a generation later that changes. Out of your studies of the war and environs, what myth of the War would you most like to snap your fingers and remove from the collective memory of humanity? What do you think has been the most destructive?

I too am no historian, but one of the common narratives that has perplexed me for many years has to do with the culmination of the battle at Gettysburg. The popular narrative in which Union and Confederate forces fought in Pennsylvania on July 1-3, 1863, is that it ended with the north's repulse of Pickett's charge on the afternoon of July 3, 1863.

As noted by scholars like Eric Wittenberg, popular literary treatments of the battle such as Michael Shaara's "Killer Angels" and the film "Gettysburg" "focus on the romantic side of the grand assault and portray the repulse of Pickett's men as the end of the battle."

There was more, however, to the afternoon of July 3, 1863. Before the end of the day, a series of cavalry engagements would occur at the southern end of the battlefield below Big Round Top in which Federal troops were pitted against the right flank of the Confederate army.

By sunset, Elon J. Farnsworth, a twenty-five-year-old who had been a Brigadier-General for only four days, would die, becoming the only Union general to fall within the enemy's lines during the Civil War, his body not retrieved for several days.

There is the popular narrative and then there is all of what happened on July 3, 1863. I think I understand why that narrative (you use the term myth) was adopted and promoted. But it has been over a century and a half and the story is not as necessary as some may have thought at the time.

 

[Andersonh1]

Yet that was what the Confedracy was fighting for per their Constititon.
Leftyhunter

Lefty, you've just stated one of the myths that this thread seeks to identify and counter. In the "mission statement", the preamble, the Confederate Constitution says the following:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.​

Avalon Project - Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

In their own stated goals, there is no mention of slavery. There are four goals for the Constitution:
- to form a permanent federal government
- establish justice
- insure domestic tranquility
- secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

You'll have to look elsewhere to support your "fighting for slavery" contention.

 

[leftyhunter]

Lefty, you've just stated one of the myths that this thread seeks to identify and counter. In the "mission statement", the preamble, the Confederate Constitution says the following:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.​

Avalon Project - Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

In their own stated goals, there is no mention of slavery. There are four goals for the Constitution:
- to form a permanent federal government
- establish justice
- insure domestic tranquility
- secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

You'll have to look elsewhere to support your "fighting for slavery" contention.

Not true there are articles in the Confedrate Constititon that I have posted in the past concerning the sanctity of slavery.
Leftyhunter

 

[Georgia]

pardon my light attempt at humor, but growing up in the area many school trips are to Gettysburg. The Jennie Wade house was always on any tour. So after learning a little more about Gettysburg I found a lot of things that I initially had 'been told' were not really factually true.... and as my kids grew up we would always joke as we drove past "Jennie Wades house"..... that's not even Jennie Wades house!!

With the advent of the intarwebs back in the 90's and discussion forums like this or MilitaryHistoryOnline, GDG etc.... I was genuinely shocked to find that the little house we always called "Jennie Wades" was actually the home of Georgiana McClellan, her sister.

And then a commenter said well her name isn't Jennie, her name is Mary Wade. I was like wait....what? What else did I not know?
Jennie wade was a good Union supporter baking bread in her kitchen I was told in grade school....

And then this commenter chimed in that 'Jennie' was her nickname, but as is always the case another commenter chimed in that her nickname was in fact not Jennie.... it was Ginnie. As he name is Mary Virginia Wade. WTH! I have been lied to!

And of course some other person like a chaplain chuck type who always liked to put up an opposite opinion, chimes in that 'you know when they asked John Burns about Ginny he didn't have any nice things to say about her....' again....what in the living heck are these people doing to me? She was a good Union supporter girl name Jennie baking bread when.... but no John Burns believed her sympathies may have been more southern and called her a she-confederate !!! say it ain't so.

Dear lord what other things did these fly by night Gettysburg guides lie to me about?

That wasn't her house, her name is not Jenny, her nickname wasn't even Jennie.... she actually lived up the street and may have been thought of as a little ****ty ? Good lord.

So, sorry for the long story but finally one day many years after first visiting I was actually getting a Ritas Italian ice and staring at the
house and thinking of the story of her death. Some thought that the shot fired that killed Mary Virginia Wade was fired from the Farnsworth house.... yet if you stand there and look on this street that just does not make sense. That house is not in a direct line.
And as I was remarking to my kids, who were rolling their eyes at me.... some man walking by overheard me and said "You know they moved the house...right ??"

I just stared at him blankly, and couldn't even respond. He is walking away and says he works in the Holiday Inn hotel and when they
built the hotel .... they moved the Wade house like 50 yards up the hill.

So... ever since then I take everything I hear about Gettysburg with a grain of salt. Trust but verify....

It's got a little Betsy Ross storyline feel to it, doesn't it?

 

[leftyhunter]

Lefty, you've just stated one of the myths that this thread seeks to identify and counter. In the "mission statement", the preamble, the Confederate Constitution says the following:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.​

Avalon Project - Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

In their own stated goals, there is no mention of slavery. There are four goals for the Constitution:
- to form a permanent federal government
- establish justice
- insure domestic tranquility
- secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

You'll have to look elsewhere to support your "fighting for slavery" contention.

Again false the Confedrate Constititon specifically protects slavery .
Every single Confedrate soldier fought to uphold the Confedrate Constitition which specifically upheld slavery.
Article I Section 9
1. Bans foreign slaves from being imported
2. Only Slaves from Confedrate states can be sold.
Sounds very humanitarian but it benefits Confedrate slave owner so they can get a better price for their slaves. If the Confedracy was anti slavery they would of outlawed slavery but they didn't. I wonder why?
Article III Section 3
All new states admitted to the Confedracy must accept slavery.
Article IV Section
All escaped slaves must be returned to their masters.
Leftyhunter