Why was the American civil war so bloody?

Why was the American civil war so bloody?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Z

    Because it was American

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Civil war is fake. Entire thread is morons

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    turns out people are filled with blood

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    New technology with changing tactics, also the fact that neither side wanted to settle for anything other than total victory.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, they wanted to win.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        No such thing as Southern Civilians just traitors and slavers.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          >passing up an opportunity to get paid to massacre dixoids and burn shit down
          no

          >anti-White mask off moment
          lel
          seethe forever subhuman
          you will NEVER EVER decolonize your rapebaby mutt "people"

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >racism bad
            Rddit moment

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Nice bait.
          And you will never be a woman.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        most death was from disease

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          true, there was a lot more pus than blood frankly. Rather than a bloody war you could say it was a pussy war.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The South knew they would never get "Total victory" They just wanted succession as

      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

      says. They were not planning invasions to take over the rest of the North.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    We didn't realize how much fightiness there is in the average American, both North and South

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Most civil wars have death in them. Along with wars in general. Be more specific.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    disease.

    /thread

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    i hate that homosexual sherman he done burned me great granpappys barn down

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      sad

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    high iron diet

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It was no bloodier than any of the European wars of the period. The Crimean War killed more people than the ACW.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Crimean war killed less actually.
      WWI would be the first European war that saw combat losses exceed those of the ACW.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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 fricking bloody.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Losing Richmond would have crippled the confederacy, like 2/3 of their industry was around it

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Southrons dragged that shit on far longer than necessary. Sherman didn't burn enough.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >passing up an opportunity to get paid to massacre dixoids and burn shit down
    no

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      What a moronic subhuman you are. You're northern so I already know theres about 15 different races inside you homosexual

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        You're Southern so I know you're more inbred than an Afghan, you genetic freak. It's a family tree. Not a fricking family circle

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          wow did you have to look that one up
          are you a circa 2000 joke website

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That's really the best reply you could come up with?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            you being moronic 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

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I'd rather be inbred any fricking day (i dont know a single inbred person) rather than be a mystery meat israelite boy like you

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >First israeli cabinet member in American history was a confederate

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Wow im fricking owned I don't think you're subhuman anymore

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks anon, I knew you would stop being a moronic homosexual some day
            : 3

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Says the dysgenic whose ancestors fricked Black folk. Ever Black person in America has upwards of 20% white ancestry because of this.

        I'd rather be inbred any fricking day (i dont know a single inbred person) rather than be a mystery meat israelite boy like you

        Ironic how I can already tell you're one of those moronic homosexuals on here who blame israelites for slavery, now defending the same people who owned those slaves. Sad!

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >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)

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Napoleonic armies were about 2-3x the size of the average Civil War army.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        bro maybe you should look at casualties from fighting and not casualties in "The Battle Of"

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Good mixture of good killing technology and low human life value

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being the poor frick 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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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 fricked 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.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They had these, primitive, spherical bullets that was like getting hit with a sledgehammer at the speed of half a kilometer per second

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because they used old techniques BUT THE GUNS WERE RIFLED

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    New technology with old tactics

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They were fricking autists

  23. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Americans are simply better warriors and fighters than everyone else

  24. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    First industrial-age war.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *