Why was the American civil war so bloody?
Why was the American civil war so bloody?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Because it was American
Civil war is fake. Entire thread is retards
turns out people are filled with blood
New technology with changing tactics, also the fact that neither side wanted to settle for anything other than total victory.
pretty sure the south was satisfied with secession, that's why the north invaded them. It was actually the north that started total war tactics, targeting southern civilians towards the end of the war
Yeah, they wanted to win.
No such thing as Southern Civilians just traitors and slavers.
>anti-White mask off moment
lel
seethe forever subhuman
you will NEVER EVER decolonize your rapebaby mutt "people"
>racism bad
Rddit moment
Nice bait.
And you will never be a woman.
I'm no American, but it does seem very extreme that the only two wars comparable is the Second Punic War and Napoleons Russian Expedition which caused so much death. I'm really an outsider looking in, if you could expand on anything it would be interesting.
most death was from disease
true, there was a lot more pus than blood frankly. Rather than a bloody war you could say it was a pussy war.
The South knew they would never get "Total victory" They just wanted succession as
says. They were not planning invasions to take over the rest of the North.
We didn't realize how much fightiness there is in the average American, both North and South
Most civil wars have death in them. Along with wars in general. Be more specific.
disease.
/thread
i hate that homosexual sherman he done burned me great granpappys barn down
sad
high iron diet
It was no bloodier than any of the European wars of the period. The Crimean War killed more people than the ACW.
Crimean war killed less actually.
WWI would be the first European war that saw combat losses exceed those of the ACW.
There weren't any traditional military targets in the South (cities, major forts, etc.) that could have won the North the war. There was no locus of confederate power tactically or symbolically significant enough that its capture would have resulted in the disbandment of Confederate armies, plus the Confederate armies could always just wage a nasty guerrilla campaign in the southern wilderness if it came down to it. As a result, the only way the North knew it could win the war was by crushing the Southern armies themselves, either by breaking their spirit or literally killing every single one of their men.
Basically in most wars, you defeat armies to capture targets, but in the Civil War, the absence of any real targets made the armies themselves targets, which made it really fucking bloody.
Losing Richmond would have crippled the confederacy, like 2/3 of their industry was around it
The only time that Americans can come together is when there's a Non-American enemy. When none are present, someone from another state is just as good.
Southrons dragged that shit on far longer than necessary. Sherman didn't burn enough.
>passing up an opportunity to get paid to massacre dixoids and burn shit down
no
yeah must have been fun dying from eating raw meat and shitting your brains out without ever seeing action, you really paint a picture that would have been irrefutable for any red blooded white man to refuse leaving little to no ulterior motives
What a retarded subhuman you are. You're northern so I already know theres about 15 different races inside you homosexual
You're Southern so I know you're more inbred than an Afghan, you genetic freak. It's a family tree. Not a fucking family circle
wow did you have to look that one up
are you a circa 2000 joke website
That's really the best reply you could come up with?
you being retarded is a pretty good argument
do you think you stand for anything when you're a seething subhuman racist that posts about things they don't understand?
post your hands you dysgenic homosexual
I'd rather be inbred any fucking day (i dont know a single inbred person) rather than be a mystery meat israelite boy like you
>First israeli cabinet member in American history was a confederate
Wow im fucking owned I don't think you're subhuman anymore
Thanks anon, I knew you would stop being a retarded homosexual some day
: 3
Says the dysgenic whose ancestors fucked naggers. Ever nagger in America has upwards of 20% white ancestry because of this.
Ironic how I can already tell you're one of those retarded homosexuals on here who blame israelites for slavery, now defending the same people who owned those slaves. Sad!
The Fighting was done with rifles.
In European wars they had cavalry to inflict the majority of casualties.
some 90% of casualties in Euro wars were just captures from men caught by horsemen.
Americans had to actually shoot and kill eachother and if one side routed, the terrain and lack of dedicated cavalry prevented pursuit.
big figures like Napoleon and Frederick The Great never killed more than 10,000 men during the fighting in a battle.
While this was a regular occurrence in the Civil War.
the long range nature of rifle warfare and the rough terrain meant if one side wanted to fight the other side couldnt deny them.
American BVLLs love to fight.
>big figures like Napoleon and Frederick The Great never killed more than 10,000 men during the fighting in a battle.
>While this was a regular occurrence in the Civil War
>Austerlitz
>16,000 men killed or wounded
>Jena
>over 25,000 men killed or woundd
>Borodino
>45,000 men killed or wounded (total French and Russian losses were 70,000)
>killed or wounded
not from fighting
None of the battles you listed had fighting casualties exceeding 10k.
most of them were within the hundreds to low thousands with Borodino featuring 7.5k killed in actual battle as combat deaths.
Not men run down
not men captured
not men lost after the fact
Fighting men killed fighting.
Dunno bro, everytime I stumble on some wiki article about a civil war battle it has much less casulaties than your average napoleonic war battle
Napoleonic armies were about 2-3x the size of the average Civil War army.
bro maybe you should look at casualties from fighting and not casualties in "The Battle Of"
Good mixture of good killing technology and low human life value
Imagine being the poor fuck who has to carry the damn flag. Can't even fight because you're you're stuck holding a flag while charging at the enemy.
Carrying the flag was a great honour in old warfare because it was the primary tool of signalling to everyone in your unit and other units. If it falls, you know shit is fucked and battles were won and lost based on whether the flag stayed up. There are people who had to have their arms lopped off to make them drop it.
American terrain was very poor for manoeuvre, especially in the South. Rail networks were scant and a lot of America was covered in endless forests and mountains like in the Mississipi, where they at least had a river. The Union could control the Mississipi but taking everything around it was another matter. As well as having poor ground to work with, armies proved remarkably resilient. American cavalry was not strong enough to cause huge breakthroughs and encirclements and this basically left infantry and artillery to do all the work. Both of these were filled with conscripts and had volunteer officers, again making it far more difficult to carry out grand battle plans. Quite famously, First Manassas ended with the Union army disintegrating into a mob and routing. Except the Southern mob also disintegrated but remained in the field. Both armies were largely intact, just disorganised. As the war dragged on and training improved, the staying power of the infantry also improved, leading to bloody and indecisive rifle exchanges. Basically, neither side was able to score a decisive victory which would make the other give up like in a European war. Politicians on both sides were quite set on victory and it would probably take the complete destruction of one of their armies in Virginia to compel a peace treaty.
They had these, primitive, spherical bullets that was like getting hit with a sledgehammer at the speed of half a kilometer per second
that is true. huge rounds made of soft lead that would just demolish everything in its path. imagine being hit with a .69 caliber (well, really .65 caliber) musket ball.
Because they used old techniques BUT THE GUNS WERE RIFLED
The American military was not trained with fighting in mind. West point, which many of the commanders of the war graduated from, was intended as an engineering school first. With infantry schools ranking lowest in their priorities.
The American military also wasn't large, so both sides had to raise army from scratch and learn how too use them at the same time.
New technology with old tactics
They were fucking autists
Americans are simply better warriors and fighters than everyone else
First industrial-age war.