Do people really grasp...

[fldinosaur]

Watching the Mets-Yankees game last night, somewhere in the middle of it, it hit me. When you consider all the sources it's safe to say there were around 53,000 casualties at Gettysburg, 7,500 actual KIA.
Now we all can say 53,000 sounds like a lot...and it is...but consider, Yankee Stadium was almost, if not sold out. That's 49,600 plus people. That's still around 4,000 short. When I realized that, the next time they showed a shot of the crowd my heart sank. Now even considering the first day at arguably 15,000 that still leaves about 38,000 (Approx. Fenway Park capacity) scattered between Culp's and Cemetery Hill to BRT and Triangular Field.

Point being, we all read the numbers but do we really realize how many that is? Next time you watch a baseball game with a full stadium think about it.

 

[TinCan]

Wouldn't you like to see a movie about, say Gettysburg, when the studio used it's CGI magic to put the accurate number of cannons firing on the field with an accurate image of the numbers of troops involved? That would give you a very close "feelf what it was like to be there.

 

[fldinosaur]

Yes, I've seen the movie countless times and have been there once. However, no picture does the place justice. Yes, my imagination can be vivid so standing at Lee's statue looking at the "clump of trees" or at the Angle looking back, I could well imagine the lines of tattered gray and butternut marching towards me, or staring at a line of rocks with all the blue and cannon and bayonets. I was just trying to put a modern day visual to the carnage.

 

[rpkennedy]

The short answer is no, people don't realize it at all. Once numbers hit a certain point, they become abstract and most people can no longer make the connection.

For example, how many people can picture the Sunken Road at Antietam so covered in bodies that one could walk from one end to the other without touching the ground? We even have pictures of what it looked like and people still have trouble conceiving of such a thing.

R

 

[fldinosaur]

This is true. My first thought at Gettysburg was that all the movies and pictures you ever see just doesn't do the place justice. I'm sure Antietam, like all the others, is the same. I just used Gettysburg for that is one place I've been able to visit and have seen for myself. (Been to Lookout Mountain twice and still don't understand how the Confed's were pushed off there.)
Maybe my analogy is bad for it depends on whether people have been to a big league park. It would still be just a picture on TV to them.

 

[kevikens]

I have always thought that those men who witnessed Pickett's Charge, from either end, whether they would live for another sixty minutes or another sixty years, would carry that indelible image with them to their final moments.

 

[fldinosaur]

I only saw grass and fences and I'll always be able to picture it. Can't imagine the thoughts of both sides....maybe the Rebs saying why am I doing this and the Yanks saying come and get it!

 

[KLSDAD]

I was thinking about that the other day....not so much from the casualty standpoint but more from what it would be like for two large armies to gather in a relatively small space. Then I realized that 100,000 fans plus their cars often gather for a football game in an even smaller space.

No porta potties back then though!

 

[Cumpston1862]

Many of us have seen the image below. Taken at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania after the battle on July 5th or 6th 1863 of Union dead. There is still much debate on exactly where it was recorded but let us look at it in a different perspective. A perspective more in line to the present thread.

These men seem to lying "as they fell" and not gathered for burial as many of the photographs of Gettysburg dead are. What does this mean? Well first off this means that these men were killed instantly or died soon after they were wounded. What also must be considered is statistically, and everyone has their own math, for everyone of the men lying here there were between 5-6 men wounded. And from that most likely 1-2 of those men died of their wounds shortly thereafter. When one starts doing a little math it quickly makes you realize the fighting at this particular "sliver" of battlefield was severe.

In this image and again we all will see a different number of men lying here I count conservatively about 15 bodies. 15 x 5 = 75 casualties also conservative. So most likely before the wounded were cleared off there were about 75 soldiers lying here dead, dying and wounded unable to continue fighting in the battle. When you consider that perspective...yes it does make your heart sink.

And consider this thought. They weren't lying there exchanging their opinions on what crops prices were going to be at home or if General Meade was a good choice for their new commander. These men were in agonizing pain and probably after the shock wore off crying for water and help. The personal recollections and biographies of the men who fought at these great battles often mention the piteous and heart wrenching cries of the wounded caught between the lines. Who hasn't at some point in their life seen or heard a person cry out in pain or anguish? There are many thoughts that run through a person's mind at these times. You want to help them but you also after a while are uncomfortable that they are crying out because their is often nothing you can do. Of further reflection is that on a Civil War battlefield there would be hundreds, thousands sometimes tens of thousands crying out for help. Could you sleep with thousands asking for water or to be put out of their misery? And...what if your friend from home, your brother, uncle or father was one of those wounded?

 

[AUG]

I only saw grass and fences and I'll always be able to picture it. Can't imagine the thoughts of both sides....maybe the Rebs saying why am I doing this and the Yanks saying come and get it!

A great book is Pickett's Charge: Eyewitness Accounts at the Battle of Gettysburg by Richard Rollins, which is a compilation of first hand accounts of the charge from both sides, from start to finish.

For me, reading first hand accounts really puts a battle into perspective more so than anything else, especially if you know the actions of the units on the field and can trace those accounts to those unit's actions. When you put two and two together you get a pretty vivid mental image of what took place, at least as best as we can imagine. Before my last visit to Gettysburg and Antietam in 2012 I read a wealth of first hand accounts before going and it really did give me a new perspective on different areas of the battlefield, and what took place there.

 

[dlavin]

I got done Trudeau's Gettysburg and in the back in the Order of Battle section, he lists the army size and casualties.

His numbers are well below the 50,000 - 53,000 number that I have always read/heard about. He lists 22,813 for Union (which is close to other estimates) and 22,874 for CSA (which other sources have that number around 28000-29000). So his come out to 45,687 (if I did math correctly).

Where is the missing 5000-7000?

 

[dlavin]

But to answer the question, I cannot grasp it. I think it would take lining up the number of casualties in person and seeing how large an area that was...for example get x,xxx number of people at the Cornfield in Antietam and have them stand there and get an overhead shot of what that is like.

 

[Jamieva]

If you ever listen to the Hardcore History podcast, anytime he talks about something with casualties over 50k he relates that to losing everyone in an average sports stadium

 

[jackt62]

If you ever listen to the Hardcore History podcast, anytime he talks about something with casualties over 50k he relates that to losing everyone in an average sports stadium

I went back to the original thread post relating the size of the crowd at a baseball game to the casualties at Gettysburg. Having just been a spectator at the Mets v. Rockies game at Citi Field on August 13th, I can absolutely affirm how on the mark these comments are about relating over 50k CW casualties to losing everyone in an average sports stadium. Citi Field's total capacity is only 45,000 and the stadium was pretty full the other night. So when I think about that crowd and try to conceptualize them as Gettysburg casualties, it very much puts into perspective the magnitude of the Gettysburg devastation.

 

[rpkennedy]

I got done Trudeau's Gettysburg and in the back in the Order of Battle section, he lists the army size and casualties.

His numbers are well below the 50,000 - 53,000 number that I have always read/heard about. He lists 22,813 for Union (which is close to other estimates) and 22,874 for CSA (which other sources have that number around 28000-29000). So his come out to 45,687 (if I did math correctly).

Where is the missing 5000-7000?

It depends on whose numbers are being used as a baseline. The simple fact is that the we don't known exactly how many men Lee had nor exactly how many he lost. Unfortunately for us, we just don't have the records that would allow us to give an exact count.

Personally, I believe that the higher estimates are closer to being accurate based on the number of casualties left behind when Lee retreated but we just don't know for sure.

R

 

[jackt62]

It depends on whose numbers are being used as a baseline. The simple fact is that the we don't known exactly how many men Lee had nor exactly how many he lost. Unfortunately for us, we just don't have the records that would allow us to give an exact count.

Personally, I believe that the higher estimates are closer to being accurate based on the number of casualties left behind when Lee retreated but we just don't know for sure.

R

Almost all of the figures I've read use the 53,000 number. It is very true that Confederate records of battle losses were in many cases, lost or never accurately kept. Therefore, many consider Southern losses in all engagments to be under, rather than over estimated.

 

[dlavin]

Its really "Inconceivable" (in Princess Bride tone) to consider 50000 casualties

 

[CW Buff]

Sorry if this is a misstep. I had a question and could not find a better place to pose it. This is also my first trip outside Secession and Politics. Feel free to bump/move it, or whatever the term is, if there is a better place.

In general, the Union suffered higher casualties than the CSA. I don't know if this has more to do with one part of the war (like Grant's final campaign into VA) than others, but it seems early battles are no exception. This has always seemed to me a natural result of fighting on the offensive in enemy territory. So, why does it seem that casualties at Gettysburg were fairly even. I believe the CSA suffered roughly 2,000 more killed, the Union 2,000 more wounded, and overall it seems about even (of course, I'd rather be wounded than dead). Antietam seems similar, though I'm not as familiar with that battle. In Gettysburg, the Union assumed the defensive, and the CSA had to attack. Of course, on the first day they both began arriving at the same time, but after the Union fell back to Cemetery Ridge, it seems like a come and get us affair. Also, I found a site on casualties. Not sure if it was just a sampling, or the 14 highest single-battle regimental percent losses of the war (I would hope so, since they ranged from about 67% to 82%). While 1st TX at Antietam was at the top, the only 2 Gettysburg listings shown are 1st MN and 141st PA.

Thx,

Paul

 

[rpkennedy]

Sorry if this is a misstep. I had a question and could not find a better place to pose it. This is also my first trip outside Secession and Politics. Feel free to bump/move it, or whatever the term is, if there is a better place.

In general, the Union suffered higher casualties than the CSA. I don't know if this has more to do with one part of the war (like Grant's final campaign into VA) than others, but it seems early battles are no exception. This has always seemed to me a natural result of fighting on the offensive in enemy territory. So, why does it seem that casualties at Gettysburg were fairly even. I believe the CSA suffered roughly 2,000 more killed, the Union 2,000 more wounded, and overall it seems about even (of course, I'd rather be wounded than dead). Antietam seems similar, though I'm not as familiar with that battle. In Gettysburg, the Union assumed the defensive, and the CSA had to attack. Of course, on the first day they both began arriving at the same time, but after the Union fell back to Cemetery Ridge, it seems like a come and get us affair. Also, I found a site on casualties. Not sure if it was just a sampling, or the 14 highest single-battle regimental percent losses of the war (I would hope so, since they ranged from about 67% to 82%). While 1st TX at Antietam was at the top, the only 2 Gettysburg listings shown are 1st MN and 141st PA.

Thx,

Paul

The Union usually had more men involved in the battles which will generally yield more casualties when things are said and done.

As for Gettysburg, the Army of Northern Virginia may have lost 5000+ more men than the Army of the Potomac, depending on whose numbers are being used.

R

 

[E_just_E]

Sorry if this is a misstep. I had a question and could not find a better place to pose it. This is also my first trip outside Secession and Politics. Feel free to bump/move it, or whatever the term is, if there is a better place.

In general, the Union suffered higher casualties than the CSA. I don't know if this has more to do with one part of the war (like Grant's final campaign into VA) than others, but it seems early battles are no exception. This has always seemed to me a natural result of fighting on the offensive in enemy territory. So, why does it seem that casualties at Gettysburg were fairly even. I believe the CSA suffered roughly 2,000 more killed, the Union 2,000 more wounded, and overall it seems about even (of course, I'd rather be wounded than dead). Antietam seems similar, though I'm not as familiar with that battle. In Gettysburg, the Union assumed the defensive, and the CSA had to attack. Of course, on the first day they both began arriving at the same time, but after the Union fell back to Cemetery Ridge, it seems like a come and get us affair. Also, I found a site on casualties. Not sure if it was just a sampling, or the 14 highest single-battle regimental percent losses of the war (I would hope so, since they ranged from about 67% to 82%). While 1st TX at Antietam was at the top, the only 2 Gettysburg listings shown are 1st MN and 141st PA.

Thx,

Paul

Gettysburg was unlike most battles (Shiloh is the other one I can think that might be similar,) because it was a large 3 day battle with different results each day. Had Lee left once the Union secured the Hills and Cemetery Ridge, the count would had been a tad different. The casualty numbers alone really do not tell the Gettysburg story. I'd love to see the following numbers:

Combatants and Associated people per square mile of Battlefield
(that's pretty straight forward to calculate: 250,000/9.36 = 26,709. )
Here is a good comparison: Population density of New York City (2010) = 27,016
So, for 3 days, the Gettysburg Battlefield was like NYC...

Burials per square foot of Battlefield
% Farmhouses that became hospitals
% Town houses that became hospitals