DR_Hanna
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Location
- North East GA
Been cruising all the threads comparing Southern soldiers/armies to Northern soldiers/armies in terms of military training, fighting spirit, comparative casualty numbers, desertions, etc.
There really doesn't seem to be a lot of clear difference in actuality.
However, Northern Armies were more numerous (more armies and more soldiers in them), had more turnover (Southerners weren't allowed to go home when their enlistments were up), and portions of Northern armies seemingly were not committed to battles for various reasons.
When I follow the battle history of many Southern regiments I am struck by how many important battles a Southern soldier could claim to have participated in.
It occurs to me that the Southern soldier might have fought on average in more battles than an average Yank soldier did.
Has any research been done in this area?
There really doesn't seem to be a lot of clear difference in actuality.
However, Northern Armies were more numerous (more armies and more soldiers in them), had more turnover (Southerners weren't allowed to go home when their enlistments were up), and portions of Northern armies seemingly were not committed to battles for various reasons.
When I follow the battle history of many Southern regiments I am struck by how many important battles a Southern soldier could claim to have participated in.
It occurs to me that the Southern soldier might have fought on average in more battles than an average Yank soldier did.
Has any research been done in this area?