Why were Civil War casualties so high?

Why were Civil War casualties so high?

  • 1. Because Civil War generals employed outdated tactics?

    Votes: 27 36.0%
  • 2. Because it lasted four years?

    Votes: 14 18.7%
  • 3. Because death and sickness due to disease were common in that era, especially in cities?

    Votes: 55 73.3%
  • 4. Because the United States did not fully and properly engage its advantage in naval power?

    Votes: 3 4.0%
  • 5. Because Grant was a butcher?

    Votes: 3 4.0%
  • 6. Because Jefferson Davis did not want to admit that the Confederacy was beaten?

    Votes: 6 8.0%
  • 7. Because minie`ball wounds could not be treated with existing medical technology?

    Votes: 24 32.0%
  • 8. Because casualties of both combatants are counted as US casualties?

    Votes: 17 22.7%

  • Total voters
    75
That, too, is a good point. The problem of replacing 40,000 trained troops in short order for a nation-state of limited (geographical) size is a much different one than that of finding 40,000 motivated but amateur recruits (to fight similar opponents) across a ‘continent’. The logistical challenges coupled with the inability of ACW armies to routinely inflict 40% damage on each other certainly helped to drag things out. And, speaking politically, of course it is significant that First Manassas didn’t go the other way.

All these things factor in.
 
So very true! And the civilian portion of the deaths in China far exceeded that of the US in relative terms, so when comparing K/WIA I would be surprised if the figures weren’t in the same ballpark. Nothing is as important as the context for understanding these things, and if my chosen example of ‘large modern conflicts’ failed to point that way I do apologize.
No criticism intended. :smile:

In the Taiping Rebellion, they had organized exterminations going on, sometimes at the rate of 30,000 people per day. Thankfully, we had nothing like that here (although there are a few atrocities to cite for either side in the ACW and some bad death numbers in POW camps for either side, nothing on that scale can be found here.) Given the religious elements in the Taiping Rebellion, that probably is not too surprising -- religious wars can get very, very nasty.

Lest anyone think I am trying to downplay the horrors of ACW POW camps: I have a friend who came to this country about 1950 or so, when he was an infant. His father had been captured on the Eastern Front in 1943 and survived the Russian POW camps. They "released" him in 1948, which means they herded him into a boxcar and dumped him in East Germany. He was from a little town near the Belgian border, so he walked and begged his way across the border (no solid Iron Curtain yet) and the width of occupied West Germany to get back to his wife. Shocked the family when he showed up at the door, not having been seen or heard from in five years. Since some say that the long-term death-rate for German POWs in Russian hands was 98%, I figure he must have been tougher than an old tree root to survive. ACW POW camps had their horrors, but they probably rank below what that man went through. My friend was born after all that.
 
Lest anyone think I am trying to downplay the horrors of ACW POW camps: I have a friend who came to this country about 1950 or so, when he was an infant. His father had been captured on the Eastern Front in 1943 and survived the Russian POW camps. They "released" him in 1948, which means they herded him into a boxcar and dumped him in East Germany. He was from a little town near the Belgian border, so he walked and begged his way across the border (no solid Iron Curtain yet) and the width of occupied West Germany to get back to his wife. Shocked the family when he showed up at the door, not having been seen or heard from in five years.

I knew a fella who had the same experience, the janitor of the apartment building next to my Dad's on the West Side of Chicago. He was in the German army and captured by the Soviets and was assumed dead by his family in Munich. Then in 1948 the Soviets released him and one day he showed up in Munich, much to the surprise of all. The Soviets worked him like a set of twins operating on the reasonable enough principle of you wrecked it, you fix it.
 
Last edited:
One element of the Civil War that can't be underestimated is the fact that soldiers in the Union and Confederacy were, at times, related to the opposition. Fathers and sons, brothers and brothers, neighbors, cousins, uncles and grandfathers were willing to fight to the death in support of their respective causes. This war was personal not king against emperor, country against country and not a single monarch deciding the fate of their subjects.
 
The existence of the Confederacy was at stake. Especially by 1864, every battle had a desperate nature. For the US, the legitimacy of the Constitution, and the fulfillment of the dreams summarized by Manifest Destiny, led to war for total victory. There was not an easy to see territorial compromise, or economic treaty, that would resolve the issues.
 
The existence of the Confederacy was at stake. Especially by 1864, every battle had a desperate nature. For the US, the legitimacy of the Constitution, and the fulfillment of the dreams summarized by Manifest Destiny, led to war for total victory. There was not an easy to see territorial compromise, or economic treaty, that would resolve the issues.
I think to be honest that to some extent this trivializes the wars in Europe, and that's probably going too far. For the Spanish in the Peninsular War it was very much a war of national survival, and against Napoleon "an easy to see territorial compromise" for the states in question was no compromise at all - it meant having to pay heavily for the upkeep of French armies, to provide large drafts of manpower as French armies themselves, to lose large quantities of terrain (often to give royal titles to Napoleon's favourites, or his relatives, or to be used to pay off other powers).
For Britain meanwhile it was well understood that Napoleon intended to invade if he had the chance.

There is a reason why the powers of Europe were consistently willing to go to war against Napoleon over and over again, despite repeated defeats and harsh peace, and it is that they could see that a compromise with Napoleon was not truly possible - Napoleon would always double down and always seek to push.

Let us not forget that in 1806 Napoleon demanded territory from Prussia under threat of force, then tried to bribe Britain into neutrality with the promise of more Prussian land. That is the background under which Prussia goes to war; conversely, Napoleon was offered France's pre-war borders in 1814 (and his confirmation as Emperor) but refused, expecting that more conflict and more lost lives would give him a better position.

It is consistently the case that "easy to see territorial compromise" is either not enough for Napoleon or the "compromise" means allowing the nation losing vast chunks of territory to still exist... or installing one of Napoleon's brothers as the ruler of that nation, making it a French puppet.
 
Lest we forget, in this thread previously I stated a proposition (casualties not counting prisoners should be higher in the Civil War) which you agreed with, and then once I provided an example that refuted that proposition you said you didn't agree with the proposition at all.

I want to be absolutely certain that I am refuting the right thing first.

So.

Is your argument relating to an army being able to sustain a large % of casualties (with or without MIA) and to continue fighting, thus becoming the victorious army?
Reread post 130
 
Reread post 130

Here's post 130:
Yes I agreed after reading too quickly and believing you actually saw the light. When I realized your tack I saw that it was a trap. No dice mate. Gave you plenty of examples to refute. Crickets
Which demonstrates that you read what I said, and agreed with it, and then - after I had gone to the trouble of providing a counterexample - reneged because "it was a trap".*

Surely you must understand that, given this, I must verify exactly what your position is - and give you a cooling-off period to confirm - before I go for counterexamples?

Instead, what you can do is to link where you have previously stated your argument, and the example you wish to use for it. I may then end up asking clarifying questions.


* of course, the whole point here is that I'm trying to see if your position can be refuted. That's how discussion and debate works.
 
I think to be honest that to some extent this trivializes the wars in Europe, and that's probably going too far. For the Spanish in the Peninsular War it was very much a war of national survival, and against Napoleon "an easy to see territorial compromise" for the states in question was no compromise at all - it meant having to pay heavily for the upkeep of French armies, to provide large drafts of manpower as French armies themselves, to lose large quantities of terrain (often to give royal titles to Napoleon's favourites, or his relatives, or to be used to pay off other powers).
For Britain meanwhile it was well understood that Napoleon intended to invade if he had the chance.

There is a reason why the powers of Europe were consistently willing to go to war against Napoleon over and over again, despite repeated defeats and harsh peace, and it is that they could see that a compromise with Napoleon was not truly possible - Napoleon would always double down and always seek to push.

Let us not forget that in 1806 Napoleon demanded territory from Prussia under threat of force, then tried to bribe Britain into neutrality with the promise of more Prussian land. That is the background under which Prussia goes to war; conversely, Napoleon was offered France's pre-war borders in 1814 (and his confirmation as Emperor) but refused, expecting that more conflict and more lost lives would give him a better position.

It is consistently the case that "easy to see territorial compromise" is either not enough for Napoleon or the "compromise" means allowing the nation losing vast chunks of territory to still exist... or installing one of Napoleon's brothers as the ruler of that nation, making it a French puppet.
Which goes a long way to explaining the escalation of Napoleon's assaults on Europe and the stiffening resistance to his rule, and great cost in lives and treasure. My tweet applies more to the previous wars in which the US was involved, and wars between equal monarchs.
 
Here's post 130:

Which demonstrates that you read what I said, and agreed with it, and then - after I had gone to the trouble of providing a counterexample - reneged because "it was a trap".*

Surely you must understand that, given this, I must verify exactly what your position is - and give you a cooling-off period to confirm - before I go for counterexamples?

Instead, what you can do is to link where you have previously stated your argument, and the example you wish to use for it. I may then end up asking clarifying questions.


* of course, the whole point here is that I'm trying to see if your position can be refuted. That's how discussion and debate works.
You're having a bit of fun with him now. 😎
 
You're having a bit of fun with him now. 😎
Not really. I would much rather have a solid, well stated proposition and see whether it holds up under examination. The questions would be to make sure I understood it in detail, and so that I don't end up trying to refute something that the other side of the conversation doesn't believe in the first place.
 
Here's post 130:

Which demonstrates that you read what I said, and agreed with it, and then - after I had gone to the trouble of providing a counterexample - reneged because "it was a trap".*

Surely you must understand that, given this, I must verify exactly what your position is - and give you a cooling-off period to confirm - before I go for counterexamples?

Instead, what you can do is to link where you have previously stated your argument, and the example you wish to use for it. I may then end up asking clarifying questions.


* of course, the whole point here is that I'm trying to see if your position can be refuted. That's how discussion and debate works.
Key words “read too quickly”, “thought you had seen the light”. When someone realizes their initial error and explicates it thusly it means they really don’t agree with you. You changed the parameters in your “counter argument “; omitting pow/mia losses. You have lost all credibility by continuing to use sophistry instead of the facts you claim to adore and claim to be able to cite. Still not a single counter to my examples or even an analysis of the figures involved in them. Smh
 
Key words “read too quickly”, “thought you had seen the light”. When someone realizes their initial error and explicates it thusly it means they really don’t agree with you. You changed the parameters in your “counter argument “; omitting pow/mia losses. You have lost all credibility by continuing to use sophistry instead of the facts you claim to adore and claim to be able to cite. Still not a single counter to my examples or even an analysis of the figures involved in them. Smh
Well, here is the thing.

What I want to do is to make sure that - when I am providing a counterexample - I am actually providing a counterexample to your argument. That is why I want to check it.
That's the whole point. It's because the first time I tried providing a counter you then said it wasn't appropriate, despite my acting in good faith by providing a counterexample where I had specifically confirmed that it wold count beforehand.


Can you please confirm what your argument is, so that I know I am providing a counterexample to the right thing? I may ask follow-up questions, again to confirm that I am providing a counterexample to the right thing.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think you really understand how logical argument works. I stated my position in this thread and our previous argument. Percentage of loss is comparable and sometimes exceeds Napoleonic battles. I have provided examples aplenty. Refute or be silent. We can discuss the why after you have proven your thesis.
So I have bolded your argument here.

What I would like to check are the following:

1) Is this about the resilience of the defenders? (i.e. is it the argument that the defenders can endure significant punishment before breaking, thus leading to a sustained battle which means the victors - whoever they are - suffer heavy casualties.)
The reason why I specify this is that it changes whether certain battles can be used in the comparison.
2) Does this include or exclude captured men/men MIA? (Earlier you seemed to be saying it did not count, then you appear to have changed your mind; this is why I want to make sure I am not misinterpreting you.)
3) Which is the battle you consider to have exceeded Napoleonic battles? (For this last one I will assume Chickamauga unless stated otherwise.)
 
Borodino vs. Chickamauga​
Borodino​
Chickamauga​
Starting strength (both sides)​
260000​
125000​
Total casualties including MIA​
86000​
34624​
Total casualty %​
33.1%
27.7%​
Total casualties excluding MIA​
68000​
28399​
Total casualty %​
26.2%
22.7%​
Victor starting strength​
130000​
65000​
Victor casualties including MIA​
34000​
18454​
Victor casualty %​
26.2%​
28.4%
Victor casualties excluding MIA​
25000​
16986​
Victor casualty %​
19.2%​
26.1%
Loser starting strength​
130000​
60000​
Loser casualties including MIA​
52,000​
16,170​
Loser casualty %​
40.0%
27.0%​
Loser casualties excluding MIA​
43000​
11413​
Loser casualty %​
33.1%
19.0%​


So this is Borodino versus Chickamauga. Bolded are the higher numbers in the comparison.

Based on this, if Chickamauga is to be taken as blooder than Borodino, the focus must be specifically on victor casualties, either with or without counting MIA. Any of the other four categories results in Borodino coming out significantly bloodier.
Note that the numbers for Borodino are uncertain, but in apportioning 130,000 men per side I have taken the average of all historians who've weighed in on the battle; if Roberts (the most recent) is correct then it looks like this:


Borodino vs. Chickamauga, with Roberts strengths​
Borodino​
Chickamauga​
Starting strength (both sides)​
223800​
125000​
Total casualties including MIA​
86000​
34624​
Total casualty %​
38.4%
27.7%​
Total casualties excluding MIA​
68000​
28399​
Total casualty %​
30.4%
22.7%​
Victor starting strength​
103000​
65000​
Victor casualties including MIA​
34000​
18454​
Victor casualty %​
33.0%
28.4%​
Victor casualties excluding MIA​
25000​
16986​
Victor casualty %​
24.3%​
26.1%
Loser starting strength​
120800​
60000​
Loser casualties including MIA​
52,000​
16,170​
Loser casualty %​
43.0%
27.0%​
Loser casualties excluding MIA​
43000​
11413​
Loser casualty %​
35.6%
19.0%​


Note that I am not saying Borodino necessarily is the required counterexample. I am saying that, unless your argument about Civil War battlefields being bloodier is focused specifically on the number of casualties taken by the victor, Borodino qualifies as the counterexample.
 
Regardless of the weapons being used, both governments knew the war had become much more deadly by early 1864. Why didn't the Confederacy concede defeat? Why didn't the US proclaim victory and fortify and nationalize what they had? All the reasons suggested excuse the leaders who made decisions to continue the killing. The casualties were all man made.
 
Regardless of the weapons being used, both governments knew the war had become much more deadly by early 1864. Why didn't the Confederacy concede defeat? Why didn't the US proclaim victory and fortify and nationalize what they had? All the reasons suggested excuse the leaders who made decisions to continue the killing. The casualties were all man made.
That's off topic for the thread, but I should note here that the reasons are because the objectives of the combatants are different.
 
Well, here is the thing.

What I want to do is to make sure that - when I am providing a counterexample - I am actually providing a counterexample to your argument. That is why I want to check it.
That's the whole point. It's because the first time I tried providing a counter you then said it wasn't appropriate, despite my acting in good faith by providing a counterexample where I had specifically confirmed that it wold count beforehand.


Can you please confirm what your argument is, so that I know I am providing a counterexample to the right thing? I may ask follow-up questions, again to confirm that I am providing a counterexample to the right thing.
ACW combat losses(as a percentage) are often equal to and at times exceeded Napoleonic battles.
 
So I have bolded your argument here.

What I would like to check are the following:

1) Is this about the resilience of the defenders? (i.e. is it the argument that the defenders can endure significant punishment before breaking, thus leading to a sustained battle which means the victors - whoever they are - suffer heavy casualties.)
The reason why I specify this is that it changes whether certain battles can be used in the comparison.
2) Does this include or exclude captured men/men MIA? (Earlier you seemed to be saying it did not count, then you appear to have changed your mind; this is why I want to make sure I am not misinterpreting you.)
3) Which is the battle you consider to have exceeded Napoleonic battles? (For this last one I will assume Chickamauga unless stated otherwise.)
All losses should be included
Kia
Wounded
Missing/captured/deserted(if possible determine)
Sorry I didn’t have time to study the table you created but will attempt to do so when my schedule lets up some
 
ACW combat losses(as a percentage) are often equal to and at times exceeded Napoleonic battles.
I'd concur with the "equal to" (I think they're fundamentally the same sort of battles) and dispute the "exceeded".
All losses should be included
Kia
Wounded
Missing/captured/deserted(if possible determine)


My example here for a simple first-pass is Borodino. 33% of those who were on the field (i.e. one third) became casualties of some description.
 
Back
Top