Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
What Made The American Civil War so Deadly? | Animated History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 сер 2024
- Use this link to sign up for a Free Trial of the Great Courses Plus and learn more about the Civil War! ow.ly/a4hP30l0LL3
Check out EmperorTigerStar's Video!: • How World War I Was Fo...
What Made The American Civil War so Deadly?
Sign up for The Armchair Historian website today:
www.thearmchai...
Ironside Computers - Click here to customize your own PC: ironsidecomput... *USE DISCOUNT CODE "History" FOR 5% OFF!*
Our Twitter: / armchairhist
The Great Courses Plus is currently available to watch through a web browser to almost anyone in the world and optimized for the US, UK and Australian market. The Great Courses Plus is currently working to both optimize the product globally and accept credit card payments globally.
Sources:
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era ~ James M. McPherson
The American War: A History of the Civil War Era ~ Gary W. Gallagher
www.digitalhist...
blogs.ancestry...
www.battlefiel...
If you want to learn more about the Civil War, and other historical events, please check out The Great Courses Plus! ow.ly/a4hP30l0LL3
Check out EmperorTigerStar's Video! ua-cam.com/video/8j1sJacctiA/v-deo.html
Our Patreon: www.patreon.com/armchairhistory
Our Twitter: twitter.com/ArmchairHist
Thanks,
Griff
The Armchair Historian when will the video on *History of communism* come out ?
The Armchair Historian One factor overlooked in the amount of KIA through history, is the amount of troops brought to bear, and those were died of their wounds in relation to the time periods.
The reason I point this out is the evolution of field medicine over the years. An injury that would likely be a death sentence in Vietnam has a higher survival rate today due to advances in medication, and techniques used by those who are the first line of medical care providers on the field of combat. Comparing the ratio of WIA versus KIA throughout history, to include WIA but later died of wounds, usually of sepsis or internal hemorrhage.
We still have outbreaks of disease for the reasons mentioned, and preventive medicine has advanced significantly, stopping massive outbreaks in units before they get started, as you mentioned.
The Armchair Historian I appreciate that you have little notes for when you misspeak. It drives me crazy when videos do not pronounce words correctly. It's just a stupid pet peeve but I thank you for that.
Thanks for not berating us in the south like every yank does these days.
Everything in the vid seems spot on from my classes and personal readings.
If you want a neat historical vid for a good story as well, look into the story of Jack Hinson.
Colonizer-Chan, I agree. The story of John W. "Jack" Hinson is fascinating. What one determined man can do is quite amazing. Anyone reading this definitely should read about his single-handed campaign against the Union troops.
People using outdated tactics with vastly improved technology. Basically a test run for WWI.
truth
yep, pretty much. People are dumb, end of story.
Jerry Dalrymple Don’t bring in politics to the video
Grant and Lee both figured out that if you dig into the ground, you can pretty much avoid bullets and indirect artillery fire. It really was a test run.
Jerry Dalrymple dude you do realize the parties back then we’re nothing like they are today. The democrats were largely split between a conservative and a centrist faction. As you can as guess it was the conservative faction that instigated the war (the south always has and always will be conservative and the south as usual was very concerned with states rights as they are today, although that only meant when it suited them). The republicans were largely what you would call progressive for the time period. Lincoln especially was progressive in that he was very in favor of using the federal government to expand certain programs like the railroads and land grant institutions. You could also argue slavery however that would be more of a party line. It’s wishy washy as neither party could be considered wholly progressive or conservative like today until much later in our history. Even Lincoln had certain conservative qualities not unlike all politicians of the day. The democratic and republican parties wouldn’t even begin to remotely resemble the modern makeup until the 1920’s. Lisa McGirr makes the argument in her book “the war on alcohol” that it was the prohibition which laid the foundation for the Democratic Party to become liberal and the republicans more conservative , although the parties we recognize really didn’t come along until the 70’s and arguably the 60’s (the defining moment was the 1960’s but it takes time for change)
1.Disease or infection
2. Both sides are American
3. Rifle Technology
4. Repeating Rifles
5. Parrot rounds
Plus you have vastly outdated war tactics with newer, deadlier, longer range weapons.
INFECTION.
Repeating rifles were not that common, only cavalry, officers and those who could afford it, and ammunition for repeaters was very rare, because it was made of brass, so repeater rifles were used, but had a small overall effect.
Discovery Outdoors / Matt-N-Abra you forgot the Minie ball, the deadliest bullet in history, 1 inch long 1 centimeter thick left a golf ball size hole and completely shattered bones, those bullets caused most of the amputations in the war.
@@russianoldschoo48 there were union brigades halfway through the war gradually outfitted with them. They already were in full force producing muskets and had tons of surplus so they couldn't just make the switch instantly.
John Ratican you had a much higher chance of dying from disease than on the battlefield, disease spread through the camp like wild fire. Plus poor hygiene and amputations done by untrained or not properly trained doctors made it worse.
Generally, any civil wars are the most brutal kind of conflict because it gets really personal for anyone fighting against their own brothers.
You are right, the most brutal war Spain has ever fought was its last Civil War
@North Georgia Rebel walking L
Same goes for Ireland
As was the English civil war in the 17th century.
BOSNIA, SERBIA and CROATIA could attest to that.
6:05 my 3x-great grandfather was in the Siege of Petersburg, in the single greatest loss to a unit in a single assault. The 1st Maine Heavy Artillery had been handed rifles for this campaign. About 900 charged, with 632 casualties.
My ancestor survived, but records point to him not being unscathed. I found a record of him in a different unit later in the war. The unit was for injured soldiers who couldn’t do combat service anymore but were still able to do something to help. Seems likely he caught some projectile or another.
“General Pickett, you must look to your division.”
“General...I have no division.”
May I see General Hancock
I am the division
@@joshimdhishim309 and i am Spartacus
NO, "I" am Spartacus!
@@generalmortars7557 no, this is patrick
“It’s good that war is terrible, for men might grow fond of it”. -Robert E. Lee
Close, but not quite ...
"Tis a good thing that War is all Hell, least we grow accustomed to it": Gen W. T. Sherman ...
So right quote, just the wrong man ... will still give you a like, because, irrespective of who said it, it remains true.
Also I wouldn't be at all surprised if Gen. R. E. Lee said something similar. He was considered a tatical, and srategic genius by his peers, and President Lincoln, personally, asked him to lead the Union Army. After a sleepness night, pacing his house, Lee picked his State over the Country. Lincoln is reportedly have said to Mary Todd (Lincoln's wife, whom, unbeknownst to her husband, being how busy he was, kept a detailed, and extensive diary) that when Gen. Lee turned down his offer, Lincoln exclaimed that "I have just lost my greatest General ..." ... it took many, disastrous attempts at find an equal to Lee, before Lincoln settled on Grant, backed by Sherman. Don't quote me, but am pretty sure Grant fairley respected Lee, even as he strove to defeat him. I believe Lee felt the same way about Grant, that they were both honourable me, fighting an ignominious war ... even if, as one of the major net results, was the eventual Abolition of Slavery, especially through the Emancipation Proclamation, that it resulted in tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of men dying, some, still, with an unknown grave, with many more with life-long crippling injuries, the question still remains: was it worth it ...?
Indeed, if I also may, in everything I have read about Lee, he was a deeply thoughtful man, whom rarely celebrated victories, but deeply felt the losses, especially when casualty rates per battle reached insane levels of 40%, or more. It was clear to him, as it was with Sherman, that it wouldn't be an easily won war. Far from it, as 1863 rolled over into 1864, it became rapidly clear that the battle tactics of old was being far exceeded by the weapons faught in that war. Generals were still fighting the previous war, including with cavalry charges, against absolute withering fire, and canster shot that, during the Battle of Gettysburg, was often times fired two at a time, from the same gun, with one powder charge. It's impossible to imagine what it must have been like, facing double canister, whilst fighting uphill ... from accounts, whole ranks just disappear, felled like wheat before a scythe, but with a deathy groan that I'm not sure I personally want to know what that sounded like ...
But I digress ...
As explained better than I ever could, what made the Minié 'ball' (although really resembles a prototype bullet) truly deadly, was, being it was soft lead, that, combined together with a rifled barrel, instead of smooth bore muskets of the era, meant not only did it have a higher muzzle velocity, as the ball had a much tighter fit within the barrel, but much higher impact velocity, as the extra spin by that tighter fit meant more gas was propelling it, than the smooth bore musket balls. Equally, being made of a specific lead alloy meant that, like hollow point rounds, way more energy was imparted to the target, especially when fragmenting against bone. The result was smashed limbs, in which the only option available, at the time, was immediate amputation. Field surgeons, on either side, was simply swamped with numbers that even current battlefield medics would still find nearly impossible to deal with, especially when each casualty has extensive, and severe, injuries, that requires intensive, painstaking, work, in tying off bleeding veins, and arteries, as well preventing infections, exanguation, and organ failure, to name, but a few ... pneumonia was especially deadly, leading to the infamous 'Barracks Cough' ...
In contemporaneous photos, after a particular brutal battle, the dead can been scattered, with they uniforms all askew. That isn't necessarily the results of post-battle scavengers, although that did happen, but rather the dying men themselves, trying to find where they had been hit. They knew enough that, if it was a gut shot, they were as good as dead, it was just a matter of agonizing minutes, before they succumbed to slipping into that unrecoverable coma* ...
... unfortunately, the lessions learnt, in battlefield trauma treatment, drenched in literal blood, didn't get passed on into WWI, but that's a entirely different story ...
[Edit: *= forgive me if I made that sound more prosaic than it actually was. My mum passed away, aged 81, on the 2nd March. Although divorced from my day (long story ...), what utterly shocked me is that she kept putting me off from visiting her, week after week. Turns out, she had a very good reason: my dad was essentially her carer, which utterly dumbfounded me, as I thought that ... well, another long story ...
... on top of it all, it was he whom found her collapsed, in her bedroom. He tried, and failed, to revive her, using CPR, but she was too far gone ... I can imagine that, having had a lung infection that felt like I was having a heart attack, the utter agony I experienced, was followed by blissful oblivion. I have to think that, otherwise the alternative is too much for me to even bare ... ]
@@nigelft well...
Awesome comment
Thanks for passing on your knowledge
Or..."The saddest event next to a battle lost...is a battle won"
@LUIS VELEZ You sound Ignorant
@LUIS VELEZ Robert E Lee once fought for the Union are you aware of that? And he did not owned slaves , I don't like the confederates but General Lee was one of the best in History
I’ve read some British accounts that mention they were surprised that, during the American civil war, neither side ever charged with the bayonet, which was a very common tactic at the time and usually induced one side to route.
In the absence on bayonet charges, two sides simply kept shooting at each other for far longer periods of time, resulting in much greater casualties.
Bayonet charges were usually reserved for last ditch because of how costly they were. Charging towards rifled muskets and accurate cannon fire loaded with grapeshot wasn’t fun. It’s also not fair to say that they never happened. Two famous examples are Picketts Charge and at Little Round Top. But if you look at the casualties of Picketts Charge then you’ll see why commanders opted not to
did u forget the Pickets charge ?
@@extraordinarygamer937That wasn’t really a bayonet charge. It was a long march through an open field in full view of artillery and only a handful of the original units that took part were left by the time they got in range to break into a run.
Hi, my husband and I are Australians and in our 60s 😨, when we went to school in Australia we were taught about history of all countries as well as our own of important times. We are soo sad that today's school kids are not. We think your short videos should be part of your countries history learning at school. Please keep up your good good 😊
Good for you! I agree. Such a shame that people aren’t taught their own country’s history in school.
It’s usually political :/ they don’t want to teach things that give people the wrong idea or that support narratives they don’t agree with. Happens more lately
ua-cam.com/video/x5fbYJMEyes/v-deo.html
In germany you learn the history of youre Country in 2 or 3 classes and also of other countries
They do not want any critical thinking in regards to history. My HS education in the 80s about history was very watered down. Nothing at all regarding Vietnam either.
Its like French military schools skipped this chapter when training generals for WW1
They pretty much did just that lmfao they didn’t like the lessons that the civil war and the later wars told them so they ignored it at catastrophic results for French troops early in the war
@@Anomaly-uz9pr I am glad we are in agreement Pepe.
Because the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 seemed more relevant.
There was also a massive bias in Europe seeing the US as incompetent and stupid.
@@danjudex2475 Definitely true. To be fair, there were solid reasons to view the training of American officers and soldiers to be less complete than what was the norm in the English or French or Prussian army, and that colored their conclusions about the ACW.
For example, skills like rotating rows of musket-armed soldiers to maintain a high local rate of concentrated fire was practiced by only by a rare handful of units in the ACW. The British had been doing that for a century. While it is surely an exaggeration to say that all units in the European armies at that time could do so effectively, these were well known kinds of skills to drill soldiers towards in the mid 19th century, and I would expect seasoned troops to be capable
I mention this because lack of skills for the Americans contributed to the inability to effectively concentrate force, and not concentrated force caused armies to sprawl out seeking to use superior numbers usefully on a flank. And the resulting increased distances made the lines of communication between not well trained officers more sloppy.
When entering a base camp you always knew which tent was the hospital tent. It was the one with huge stacks of arms and legs piled outside of it.
craigdamage they also had to post men with rifles to keep hogs or dogs from eating the severed limbs pretty gross but true
You got it right. Weapons improved just enough and tactics didn't keep up. WWI was just a further development. It wasn't until WWII that fire and maneuver became the tactical standard.
It's crazy how hard the confederates fought with such tactics because they couldn't replace their men as the union could, the union started with 22 Million, and the confederacy started with 5-6 million.
Irish Immigrants were pressed into military service at the dock or put back on the boat home. Union "draft" lotteries were corrupt. all said and done, the northern states used less than 10% of it's total war making power. the southern states used everything. had McClellan defeated Lincoln for the Presidency the United States would most definitely had a different history.
@joey lucas Really, there was actually Cheating in War. Lol.
But they were on the defense, they had the home turf advantage.
@@ronal8824 No it wasn't lol. The confederate goal was a war of attrition that they hoped would eventually wear the Union out,
@@geographyhistorygeopolitic3851
Not just that. They were waging a political war.
They desperately wanted the euros to join or for the Democrats to win the election or as you said for the U.S to lose enough men for them to decide that the war wasn't worth waging.
People tend to ignore the political aspect outside of "muh slavery". The actual political and interstate goals and relations if the south and north tend to get overlooked.
Thanks for the collab! Great video!
Likewise!
Hey, are you ever going to finish part 5 of the alternative southern victory. It was where you said that you would create the maps of the alternative wars that took place in Harry Turtledoves book.
I’m not gonna lie I’m from the south and that accent isn’t that bad 😂
Well I'm from the south too. :P
EmperorTigerstar hi I'm from montana so I don't really have a southern accent, great collaboration
*fires rifle*
*Wilhelm scream*
Exactly what i came to the comments to find.
AHHH
But what is it was...
A terminator scream AHHHHH GET TO THE CHOPPER
That poor family
"MY LEG."
They fought using outdated Napoleonic line tactics, while using a lot more powerful rifles and projectiles. Just the conical bullet alone and grape shot were devastating. I wonder who the general was that looked and finally said Gee.... maybe standing all neat in a row 50 yards from the enemy isn’t a good idea, especially when they’re firing rifles with 1000 yard range
2:20 That Wilhem scream was perfectly timed
Vietnam: America fears me the most.
Soviet Union: No, America feared me the most.
America:*luaghs in banjo*
And this one will eat you. Get cooked in my fires they should. They’re responsible for 50% of the wars America has lost
@@tmlfan7785 The US would of eventually won. Its not easy to get rid of guerilla forces especially when they can just disappear into the jungle.
Garrett H im sorry but theres no excuse for the most powerful military on the planet losing to a bunch of hillbillies. I don’t know if your into sports but thats like the Yankees losing a doubleheader to Miami
GoRidersGo 1910 just because your the most powerful military in the world don’t mean you are gonna win every war.The Vietnamese we’re actually decently organized
Heyman thegreat they weren’t organized, they didn’t want to fight a conventional war.....they knew they’d lose so they stuck to guerilla tactics.
Nobody: attacking America
America: guess I’ll do it myself
*Vietnam War and both World Wars fails to take the trophy from American Civil War
Covid-19: *Fine I'll do it myself.*
and for what? for the greed of slave owners! the sad thing is, today many would blindly follow into a war only corporations could benefit from
@@sorcierenoire8651 we're not even a third of the way there
@@sorcierenoire8651 dude, the Spanish flu was already more than all of those
@@JDP2104 who says it wouldn't?
My History of Warfare teacher was constantly drilling this into our heads: "Generals are always preparing to fight the previous war"
Also keep in mind the shape of bullets changed from a ball to the conical shape it is now. Therefore inflicting more damage and going deeper into the body making it all the more difficult to remove if it doesn't kill you.
The Halifax explosion towards the end of WW1 was probably the loudest man-made sound in North America until the A-bomb, though it was an accident.
True, but the largest in the Civil War occurred during the Battle of the Crater in 1864. The union stacked explosives under the Southern trench and detonated it, though ultimately lost. Pretty interesting battle.
Michael Scofield indeed. The battle was lost because Union troops had the brilliant idea of going into thr crater instead of around it.
The artillery barrage before Pickett's Charge was so loud it could be heard in Philadelphia.
@@levystephens89 The Halifax explosion BROKE windows 100km away (thats aprox 70 miles). It could be heard for nearly 600km away. (aprox 420 miles away)
@Jay M lmao this guy
“The American Civil war was the costliest war in American history”
Could that be because literally all casualties where American?
nah bro. up until recently i thought that too, but it turns out the union is what they’re referring to. if you include both sides than it’s like 1.3 million dead
@@gorfanramslaw7877 I did some research and according to the Ohio State University (ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions/cwsurgeon/cwsurgeon/statistics) About 360'000 Union soldiers where killed (this number fluctuates according to who you ask but its around the 350'000 to 400'000) and according to the National WWII Museum New Orleans (www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war) 416'000 American soldiers died in World War II. So by that I take it they must be referring to the deaths of BOTH sides when they say the bloodiest war in American history.
Then again I could be completely wrong, I'm just going off what I know. Regardless it was a huge cost of life, and it is impossible to compare one level of human suffering to another.
As a foreigner, I could say it is because you always turn up late for World Wars. I don't mean to be offensive, but I do find it an insult to all those that died, when American memorials say WW2 was 1941 - 45. It started 1939, many would say earlier.
@@jonathanscott7372 Im not american
@@GuyMaleMan Hi Andre, I did not mean you personally.
The way prisons were run on both sides contributed to many of the deaths as well. Conditions of them and the way prisoners were forced to live there was beyond inhumane, on both sides.
Having participated in re enactments using live ammunition( against wood and cardboard targets) be it a Springfield or Enfield reproduction I will state the Minie bullet is probably one of the most deadly bullets ever devised. Advancing in line on a scrub brush and firing by file it was sobering to see the horrible damage that was done to the scrub saplings and we all imagined what it would have been the result had they been human beings. To quote Winston Churchill" War is one of the worst and costliest ways to settle disputes".
Applying new technology to old strategies
Joel0937 Not really. They were still using muzzle loading rifles with paper cartridges during the time of Henry and Spencer lever guns.
Yeah, they were using the tactics invented by Gustavus Adolphus in the early 15th century, when these musket things were a quite new thing...
That happened during The Great War.
Nick Angelos actually the north started using a new repeating rifle, those battles gave them superior advantage.
@@NA-ck6cz 2 words "repeating rifles"
France : USA, 8% of your male population was lost in a war ? hold my beer.
The Battle of the Frontiers in August 1914 surely was a textbook example how to not to attack as France.
Paraguay: Hold my Caña
Samuel Lubell No one can bit paraguay in that game.
Serbia ww1
Well, germany lost around 30% of it‘s population in the 30 years war
Just found this and you're at 999k and still posting so you've got my sub. Good vid mate grats on the 1 mil soon
Well two things that made it so bad was the introduction of riffling while using musket tactics and the romance of using bayonet charges. The book “Attack and Die” shows the casualties combatants received while in battle and the what they received when the officers decided to commit to a line and bayonet charge even after the enemy was in retreat. Then some units received lever action rifles which an officer said it was “murder” of what they did to the confederate forces that came against them.
Old Napoleonic tactics, new modern weaponry
Recipe for disaster.
“What could go wrong?!”
BINGO !!!
And no advanced medicine
also include primitive medic and hygiene
To everyone saying it was a combination of "new technology and old tactics," here's something to think about: The theoretically increased range of the rifle-musket did not significantly increase combat ranges compared to earlier conflicts. Combat still took place within 100yds the overwhelming amount of the time. With the confusion and smoke of a black powder battlefield, linear tactics would've still been applicable/appropriate. I would propose that industrialization had a greater impact on casualties: increased availability of ammunition made soldiers willing to consume more compared to previous conflicts, where a few volleys were fired, then a bayonet charge was made to conserve ammo. The bayonet charge would break one side or the other, and end the battle.
Increased industrialization also increased the availability of artillery, which hit harder and and longer ranges than ever before.
I guess also trains and steamboats changed just how quickly armies could be raised and mobilized
Glad SOMEBODY doesn't buy into this "linear warfare am dumb. Me much smarter than the generals and soldiers of the time." Nonesene
They never talk about a simple scratch being a potential death sentence.
This is a great channel and I'm stoked to find it and follow. Keep em comin!
"Forward! they cried!, From the rear, As the front line dies " "Us and Them" Pink Floyd
As the Front ranks died*
@@SuperMaryjaneman ok Karen
@@kalikan-ze8ve What?...
@@kalikan-ze8ve it was an autocorrect error, the original rhymed. Might not call someone a Karen that fast, it is an awefull thing enough in itself, having so much real Karens.
How can someone start a fight about the lyrics written by the greatest band of all times? Maybe the greatest album ever... Be happy, roll a joint and listen to DSOTM ❤️
Fun fact: The largest man made explosion until WW1 happend in the American civil war.
Box in a corner General Sherman blew up a train.
Was it the dynamite explosion at the Battle of the Crater?
@@cripplehawk Yes.
@cripplehawk hehehe battle of crater
The explosion actually killed more than 200 soldiers in that blast unlike the largest man-made explosion.
*north takes 100k more casualties than the sound
*shows south getting mowed down in every clip
Majority of the deaths came from disease
Meh, fucking dont charge uphill next time
Civil Wars are almost always more brutal than more "conventional" peer-to-peer conflicts. Dave Grossman discusses the reasons why in his book, "On Killing."
Civil wars have a level of motivation that is difficult to match in a war between nations. There's just not the same willingness to suffer losses.
Very True. The War of the Roses and the Civil Wars of the 1640s were some of the bloodiest and merciless wars in English and British/Irish history.
@@TheFranchiseCA In Civil wars, it feels like a battle for the soul of the nation. But war between nations is almost always political.
Especially if the country having a civil war is China 😅
Without even watching - lack of medical technology
Johnny Z mostly wrong
Actually he is MOSTLY right. A lot of amputee's when the war ended.
80% of the deaths in the civil war were due to primitive medical practices, no antibiotics, and dying of disease that was hardly a concern a century later
Of the 620,000 soldiers who died in the civil war, nearly 420,000 of them died from disease alone
@@granddukeofmecklenburg 420 nice
I found a grape shot cannonball in a filed in Missouri. I can see why it was so brutal, I can’t imagine having hundreds of those coming at you at once and burning hot. Talk about maiming
So my question is why were the Balkan wars, which were what ww1 generals based their initial tactics off, much less deadly?
Because it’s the Balkans. Small armies, poor industrial bases.
Also less open battlefields. The Balkans are much more mountainous
Population and how it’s distributed in both countries certainly plays a part.
USA had a lot of cities populated with fighting age men. Balkans had some cities but a lot of rural villages all over the place.
The main reason for civil war regiments fighting in solid blocks was lack of time for training and lack of officers and noncoms qualified for training open order combat. Light infantry had been around in the Napoleonic Wars aplenty. The Voltigeurs were one great advantage the french armies had over the more conservative continental powers and Wellesley (the later Duke of Wellington) had an entire Light Division in his army during the Peninsula War. Most civil war regiments were militia raised during the war and had just enough time for learning the marching column and the firing line and switching from one to the other. One such regiment with about 1000 men needed to get lucky to have more than one sergeant from the regular army assigned to it. Most officers also had no military training at all. All they got was the Jomini book which was of little use to them as it was written for staff officers and the assumption that the reader knew all the basics already.
In short, the carnage resulted from fighting with 19th century weapons and 18th century tactics. And I do not think that the majority of West Point trained officers did not know better. They simply had neither the time nor the personnel to train their troops for open order combat.
Thanks man actually a really cool bit of knowledge there
The Napoleonic wars were still overwhelmingly fought by troops in close order formations though. The armies of the American Civil War did employ more open formations when the circumstances permitted.
I don't agree that the tactics of the ACW were such a mismatch for the weapons. Wars were getting deadlier as weapons technology advanced, while the human body remained the same.
kenny desee That would’ve saw the complete destruction of their centers of power then
@kenny desee Always outnumbered, always outgunned, never outmatched.
@kenny desee Before he surrendered some of Lee's officers urged him to scatter his army into the nearest mountains to start a guerrilla compaign. Lee refused, saying the effects of such a war would so devastating it would years for the country to recover.
620,000 is said to have died in the 4 years of civil war. But it said to be much higher! Anywhere from 600 thousand up to 1 million deaths, with anywhere from 800 thousand up to million were wounded!
If what I have read is correct, roughly 600k widows claimed benefits, but modern computer-aided review of the 1870 census shows 800k+ people missing.
@@georgehill5919 Many soldiers are not married.
Lincoln suppressed the casualties numbers because he was under attack by Northerners to stop the war because of the cost. Before Chickamauga the Union had lost over 400,000 men. New studies have concluded at the very least 850,000 Americans deaths including thousands of slaves. Also Lincoln's order 200 or 201 to take the war to defenseless citizens which had been stopped in the civilized World for over a 100 years before our Civil War. History has twisted the truth about Lincoln. He destroyed the Constitution to wage war on the South. History says Lincoln had to destroy the Constitution to save the Constitution. That is complete BS. If he had followed the Constitution we would have never had this war.
@@kurtsherrick2066 That's one way to look at it. I think that the constitution needed changes that nobody was going to enforce otherwise, and that's what led to a war. Make no mistake this wasn't about states rights but human rights. The constitution isn't any sort of document that is innately perfect. Its a social contract that can be changed. It was changed for very good reason I might add. You can also point a lot of fingers at the south leadership that wasn't willing to hear reason or to not profit off of slavery. Ultimately their choice to not acknowledge people that were slaves as having rights and being fully human led to exactly what ended up an incredibly destructive war.
Lincoln was a president that actually faced the most divisive issue in America and made a stance against the abuse of people. Humans are what the constitution was made for. The very people Lincoln decided to serve. It is arguable that he followed the constitution in the way it was meant to be followed where as the south decided to ignore people for profit.
As a note I tried looking up the general orders 200 and 201 and couldn't find anything other than a general replacing another general.
@@thenightninja13 Brother you don't have to tell me about Lincoln. He didn't go to war to free one slave. He called it a Tax Revolt/ Rebellion repeatedly. I have Thanksgiving dinner to deal with and I will give you so many facts 99% of people don't know. The Northern Revisionists has said he had to destroy the Constitution to save the Constitution. What BS. Lincoln was the tyrant Jefferson warned us about. The South just wanted to leave. It was their Sovereign States and the South didn't want a war. Read the original Emancipation Proclamation that was issued on September 22, 1862. He offered the South that they could keep their slaves if they came back to the Union by January 31,1883 slaves would only be Emancipated in the States that continued to rebel. He didn't free slaves in Union States and in territory where Union had captured like parts of Tennessee and Louisiana. He didn't care one bit about the slaves. He was only against slavery Expanding West because of slavery kept wages down for whites. He was in negotiations to colonize the slaves to Belize and New Liberia with Britain. You see the slavery argument is mute by his own words and actions. His war was completely illegal and he knew it.
I know times are crazy but we should all treat each other like our brother and sisters and not let something like this happen again
Amen. If only more people valued peace and home.
The war already started. Anti-fa has been stacking bodies.
@@springerworks002 The USA in 1944 were ANTIFA,turn off the right wing media and get your mind back...smfh
@John Barber lmao
Nope we should not
Great video thank you for sharing your knowledge
probably because americans fought on both sides of the war, instead of just on one side?
Is the civil war still the deadliest for Americans if you only take one side or the other?
Lambert2191 actually yes.
Oh and on another note, probably because Americans fought on their home turf, thus civilians etc were actually affected as opposed to the 2nd world war for example.
That explains why it was so bloody compared to other US wars as most of the American wars have been fought against inferior enemy or against enemy in large disadvantage. But still it was deadly compared to European wars where both sides had best equipment of the time on both sides.
No, WWII slightly edges it out if you only count it for one side - there were roughly 650-700,000 total American deaths in the Civil War, with slightly more Union than Confederate dead, so let's say 400,000-ish Union to 300,000-ish Confederate. WWII had 420,000 American deaths.
The number of American soldiers who died in WWII was 416,800. The number of American Union soldiers who died in the American Civil war was 360,222.
"Impressive southern accent" no I can assure you literally everyone north of the Mason Dixon overdoes it
It was overdone, but it was certainly better than most fake accents I've heard. It was kind of a "fancy" accent, more common among the upper class in the 19th century.
I guess the American south just has a hard accent to replicate.
@boston ma lol nice
Well, look at what the vast majority of people not actually living in the south had for a template:
"Fortunately, I say, fortunately I keep mah feathers _numbered_ for just such a predicament."
It’s called a drawl
@@cooleyYT my old theatre teacher once told my class of a time he went to New York. Almost immediately after he and his class walked into a shop, the shopkeep there said with the most forced accent ever, "Oh, are y'all from Teeex-uuus?".
The southern drawl is distinct, but it's commonly overdone. Even Matthew McConaughey is pushing it in his films.
1: diseases/bad logistics/healthcare/hygiene
2: both sides were American
3: largest scale conflict fought in American ground (thus higher casualties for Civilians).
4: technology outpacing tactics.
5:17 No.
The loudest pre-nuke man-made sound in North America was the Port of Halifax explosion in 1917. It was 1/7th the power of the Little Boy bomb.
1:03 My great-great-great-grandfather fought in the civil war. All his brothers did too, and all survived minus one, who died of disease.
Sam Lemont honestly, why is that something to be proud of especially if they fought for the south?
it's interesting if your family has a history, not because you can be proud.
my grand grandfather fought the germans in ww2, we lost. but i still find it cool that my family goes back that far and took part in historical events.
Jordan Williams, Not stating it as being proud, stating it as he mentioned most died of disease instead of being KIA. Also, never said my family were southerners, they served in the 1st Maine Cavalry regiment, a union regiment.
@john pardon, I'm proud of all my relatives that served in every major US war since the revolution.
Jordan Williams It’s not wrong to be proud of that since they were willing to die for their homes, family, and for those even living in the north or south today. Those men experienced horrors that you will probably never see in your life, so show some respect.
I’m doing genealogy and I discovered ancestors who were on both sides of the civil war
Bound to happen
Chris Joy
You’re not alone. A lot of Americans are in the same boat. I’ve got ancestors who I think were both from Tennessee but I do know one was a Confederate soldier and the other one fought for the Union apparently they never spoke to each other again after the war.
Titus Pullo NC didn’t even leave the Union until hostile Union Troops had already invaded the state and began attacking.
@popseed2
African Americans had their ancestors fight on only one side of the war.
Same
Linear tactics were still necessary on civil war battlefields due to cavalry. Massed infantry is necessary to stop cavalry charges in a time when repeating firearms were rare. Skirmish lines if used on mass would be weak to a charge by cavalry units.
Historian/Author Shelby Foote: “The technology vastly surpassed the tactics.”
It’s crazy how mobilized each side became within such a short period of time. The US had a laughable military at the time. But by 1863, each side had the size, training, and logistical support to match any European power at the time. The war proved however to be a war of attrition with the South not having nearly enough infrastructure to keep up that kind of conflict on its own for more than a few short years, peaking in 1863.
MuskratandRatman Well this is a bit overestimate. In the Franco Prussian War it took 6month for the Prussian to have a victory over France. I think the Prussian German force could field about 1.5 million and the French about 2 million. About 45.000 died on the Prussian side and around 150.000 on the French side. They fought a fast decisive campaign. This is the difference between a professional trained armies which could rely on reservists that are not only trained but belonged to reserve regiments that could be called together quickly. It was a war machinery on a totally different scale.
We had shitty leaders who never understood the value of guerrilla warfare. 770,425 sq miles is the size of the CSA and at the Union's peak had about 700,000 soldiers that's less than one soldier per sq mile. We could have won if he had better leadership, but the confederate leadership was retarded.
@@newvegasify1 the confederate leaders and genrals were far more skilled commanders than the majority of union commanders, and for the majority of the war southern forces were winning huge victories with conventional napoleonic tactics, but it should be noted that they certainly did use and understand the value of guerilla tactics when it was an actually effective tactic (which it normally wanst) however when it was an actually effective idea guerilla tactics were used to quite some effect IE nathan bedford forrest's cavalry
@@josephbasurto404 I agree with some of your points like bedford and the worst generals being Union Fredericksburg being a prime example of Union stupidity. I disagree in that the Confederate generals were so skilled. If they were so then they should have won their war. Many times people pump up the enemy as a distraction from their own incompetence. The union would say to its people that your leaders are not stupid its that we are against a mighty foe. Propaganda is a powerful tool. General Lee I believe fought in 21 battles the 3rd most battles ever fought by a general. 2nd is Gaius Julis Caesar with 25 and 1st is Napoleon with 41. Notice the difference here Caesar and Napoleon both won multiple wars against a numerically superior foe. Yet Lee didn't not, the average # of battles a general fight is 1.5. Lee had literally more experience in his left foot than most generals gain in their lifetime. Yet Lee couldn't win the one war he was charged with.
@@newvegasify1 all out guerilla warfare is a relatively new phenomenon
My Great Great (Great?) Uncle lost his leg to a Union cannon in Pickett's charge, it was definitely a brutal battlefield.
Jeesh it must have been excruciating pain for him to lose a leg
@@egret4393 No, wrong, the Confeds were bad. Dont try to turn my comment into some fuckin neoconfed rallying cry
(He deleted his comment but he was saying "Vietnam and the Civil War, the south are always the good guys")
E G R E T you think what the south was doing was good? Not all the soldiers were bad but the idea they fought for was bad.
Shocked that he survived that! Must have been a tough S.O.B.
robothawk not sure what he thought he would gain from that
It's funny, as a daughter of a Southerner, I always heard them call it a "miney ball". Now, these were rural people and maybe it was the accent. I was astounded when I heard it pronounced correctly. OR I was influenced by the extreme popularity of the "mini-midi-maxi" fashionable terms of the late 60's-early 70's and I just assumed. Just as my 2nd grade teacher found it hysterically funny that I spelled "hate" as "haight" as in "Haight-Ashbury". I had a logic to it. My mom's rear view mirror had two settings: DAY/NITE. So I made a logical assumption that just as "nite" was an abbreviation of "night", then "hate" must be a shortening of "haight". You can understand it, right?
Anyway, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I felt they were "miney" balls in that they were small explosive mines, I think, which is why they blew soldiers' hands or digits or elbows to bits....
And you would be wrong...so it goes
“There were few automatic weapons”
So... there were automatic weapons? This is news to me.
Yeah, but they were in limited used. The Gatling gun was used at the Siege of Petersburg.
2:20 Wilhelm scream :D
It's interesting to look at old photos of the Civil War and see how much the battlefield changed over 4 years. By the end of the war, there were trenches and gun emplacements that foreshadowed World War 1 (see photos from Petersburg). Firearm ranges had advanced to the point that an infantry unit could engage virtually any enemy within sight, but rate-of-fire had not yet advanced to the point that traditional line infantry could be replaced by modern squad-sized elements like the Germans would pioneer in the World Wars.
I mean, a casualty for either the Union or the Confederate was still an “An American Casualty”. It’s what happens when you fight your own brother.
No automatic weapons?
Union army: Laughs in man turned gattling guns
Still not automatic! Which is why anybody can go out and buy a Gatling gun.
Union soldier: *cough* grant: congratulation you have been promoted to bullet shield
Confederate soldier: *does nothing*
Lee: Diddle Diddle let's charge straight up the middle
Edit: Just figured out Lee had a higher casualty rate and lost more troops overall than Grant :/
@@generalfred9426 yes yes he did
*Inferior Minds:* that one thing when you get red dots or something
*Well Read Scholar:* Smallpox
*True Intellectual:* Smalltox
Its like coolhwip
Why the civil war was so deadly. 1. It was a family conflict, 2. Modernized weapons with antiquated tactics, 3. Bad medicine and injury treatments, 4. Men trying to make a name without tactical skills, 5. George Pickett. Nuff said.
Using percussion, rifled muskets at point blank range probably explains it.
This is an easy question to answer. My father explained it to me. I believe it is accurate. The war fighting tactics of the time were out dated. Fire arms and artillery had advanced farfuther than tactics and medicine. It was a perfect storm for carnage.
I grew up going to civil war reenactments and my dad had a 6lbs cannon. He did both Confederate and Union to be historically accurate artillery wise. But I do remember a black man that dressed up as Confederate and said towards the end of the war a small number of black men fought for the South in exchange for their freedom.
Pestilence Plauge Interestingly, near the end of the war, the CSA had integrated units.
That was more out of desperation than wanting to give them their freedom
Pretty sure they were largely conscripted.
Andrew S a bunch of them were actually slave owners
Towards the last days of the war the black confederate soldiers a dwarf company or two of black hospital workers was attached to a unit of a local Richmond home guard just a few weeks before the war's end. The regular Confederate army apparently managed to recruit another 40 to 60 men men whom it drilled, fed, and housed at military prison facilities under the watchful eyes of military police and wardens reflecting how little confidence the government and army had in the loyalty of their last-minute recruits.
This strikingly unsuccessful last-ditch effort, furthermore, constituted the sole exception to the Confederacy's steadfast refusal to employ African American soldiers. As Gen. Ewell's longtime aide-de-camp, Maj. George Campbell Brown, later affirmed, the handful of black soldiers mustered in Richmond in 1865 were "the first and only black troops used on our side."
The key reason the war so deadly: The Founding Fathers "passed the buck" of the slavery issue, for future Americans to deal with. The reasoning was that many colonies would not join the effort for Independence from England if not allowed to maintain their slavery economy.
In hindsight this was a huge mistake, as with each ensuing decade, the death and destruction of war would only become greater as technology improved and more people were available to participate.
Trench warfare can be nasty. Trench foot is absolutely devastating. Rats will eat you as you sleep. Really it was a war of lack of hygiene and it shows.
Also fun fact Grant was a big drunk and when he was drunk in battle he was more aggressive in his tactics. Lincoln loved this and would send him whiskey non a regular bases.
Line tactics did still make sense. Even though rifles increased range, massed volleys were superior to individual fire.
Sharp shooter and light infantry formations show the opposite. By utilizing cover as well as hit and fade tactics it doesn't matter if it takes you a few seconds to reload, all you need is to set your units in small squads and set up fire by squad tactics instead of massed line firing.
@@Darqshadow If your goal is a desultory firefight, sure. But if you are looking to achieve decisive results when your troops are armed with weapons that have a rate of fire of 2-3 shots a minute at best, massed formations are the way to go.
@@Darqshadow both sides understood and used those tactics. But both sides also understood that those formations could and would be swamped by large masses of infantry. And while skirmishing had its role, it would have been impossible to press home strategically significant offensive campaigns using hit and fade tactics.
@@mjfleming319 perhaps for the earlier wars yes, but for the civil war era we had rifles that were accurate past 250 yards. At that point line formations are pretty much obsolete
@@Darqshadow after a few rounds the battlefields were so covered in smoke that troops couldn’t see 250 yards, so the rifled musket has been somewhat overrated. More deadly was the increased number of cannon on the field, and the increased effective range of those guns. And my point stands that although skirmishing was known and employed by both sides, it was not possible to conduct strategic campaigns on hit and fade tactics alone. This is proven by the historical reality that skirmishes always fell back before massed infantry. You can only fade so long until you’ve faded right out of your capital, your industrial centers, and other strategic positions.
Now, were massed lines tactically week? Very much so, and there was very little tactical innovation during the war. One helpful advance would have been an increased number of howitzers that could provide more covering fire for advancing infantry. But I think it’s fair to say that the defense remained dominant until the advent of mechanized warfare, and it’s not terribly fair to fault civil war generals for not having tanks and tactical strike aircraft.
There are really only two things that can defeat an American...
-Vietnamese
*-AMERICANS*
Werent defeated by Vietnam. We pulled out.
@@armandosoria7993 because you were getting defeated?
Reminds me of the old adage: “It takes a Caucasian to defeat a Caucasian”
@@wogagamobindi3769 does that make the Vietnamese the most Caucasian of Asians?
Lard Thing I’m referring to the people of the Caucus region but sure lmao
We except the empty chair at the table, we just don't want to get them all killed.
Because Generals and Admirals always fight present wars using the past war's tactics. Like the US is doing now with expensive and vulnerable carriers. Even Admiral Chester Nimitz stated: Battleships were the Queen of the seas in WW1, Carriers were the Queen of the seas during WW2, He then stated Submarines were the future Queen of the seas for the next big war. Yet we still build carriers (aka: Targets).
Maybe it’s the fact that if you sprained your leg, the doctor would rather try and saw it off.
It would be cool if the 501st stormtroopers actually had blue marks
Yeah....
rando comando what?
@@LAV-III Star Wars.
@@sam8404 I know
Excellent analysis. Most historians, when discussing the Civil war never mention the Minie Ball or out dated Napoleonic tactics.
The Minie ball completely changed the game and the generals were too stupid to notice that.
Didn't confederates use guerilla warfare
@@trentparker3701 Both mass attacks and guerilla warfare.
Disease....you got it right away. Disease always kills 2x as many back then
Great vid, kid
I believe that the 1860 US Census counts the population of the entire country, including slaves, as around 32 million, and nearly 3 million men served in both the Union and Confederate Armies, meaning that nearly one in nine Americans had served in the Civil War, which is not an insignificant number.
American Civil War: 500.000 deaths in 4 years.
Napoleon' s russia campaign: 1.000.000 deaths.
hey Russia is hard to conquer with its vast land
@@VioletMilks it was more of the fact that Napoleon over extending his lines and relied on foraging off the land. So when Moscow was purposely razed they had no food or shelter so they were easily routed back through Russia with no food. Plus cossacks make good cavalry lol
Not sure what your point is but I googled it anyway and it said over 500,000 French and over 400,000 Russian casualties.
@@peterlonergan I refered to both sides, not only the french casualties. My point was, that in this era were so many conflicts, which lastet less time and were much brutal.
@@nicolasmarazuela1010 good point. Thanks.
I think the Halifax explosion in 1917 was considerably louder than any artillery barrage in the civil war
I think the Lochnagar mine (doing the Battle of the Somme) beats it as well.
It the one placed in the tunnel and detonated beneath the German front line
If only he hadn't said "on the North American continent until the atomoc bomb"
Honestly though, in terms of decibels, I wouldn't be surprised if bombing or artillery training in the 20th century was louder. When the gun bunnies open up during a large exercise, you have stuff rattling off the shelves some 30 miles away.
Yes Halifax explosion. Agreed. What a bang that must've been.
IIRC until the atomic bombs, the Halifax explosion was the largest man made explosion. Obviously not intentional, but still.
Theo Bush Halifax definitely was larger, the artillery at Gettysburg was more sustained though, I’m not sure how that works out volume wise.
In one of my history classes we learned that in the beginning of WW1 the French and Germans starting out using linear fighting tactics. It didn’t take long for either side to realize that the weapon technology had progressed to the point where they now had to completely change how they fought war.
Not that we ever had a chance but when someone invades your home, you fight real hard! 🤠
"We should blow up that bridge blondie!"
“Good southern accent, yo”
-A southerner
Hello there, I'd like to know if you are gonna one day do a segment on the Texan Revolution and the Mexican-American War. Those are interesting subjects.
The lack of experience with the new technology compounded with the lack of experience in symmetrical pitched warfare imo.
Great video man! Love these animations!
WoR ftw
North Carolinian here, I approve of the gentleman's impressive era appropriate southern accent
I couldn't imagine the horror of being in the civil war. I'm from the south and I'm the direct descendant of 3 Confederate civil war vets. All that suffering and horror and they couldn't even say it was worth it. Nothing was accomplished but bloodshed.
In addition to everything you mentioned, both sides were determined to win at all Hazards.
"no high explosives"
What about the 300 - pounder Parrott Rifled Cannon's shell? Or the 110Ib Armstrong Gun, etc?
@@Another-Address No. Grapheshot was used in most wars of the past 2 centuries by then. That's not high explosives, or remotely like it, though..
Explosive =/= high explosive
"High explosive" refers to a specific type of explosive. You can make just as big a boom if you just use more low explosives.
@@TheFranchiseCA you literally do not make as much as a boom. I suggest you google “high explosives vs low explosives” to learn something
@@dabongrippa7093 Pretty certain the 250-ft crater at Petersburg sure made a "boom". I would tell you perhaps that was a misnomer, I know high explosives, i.e. nitroglycerin are called that, a type of explosive as Matt mentioed and blackpowder is not considered as such, the point of my comment was that there sure were some civil war ordinance that blew quite a bang. Thanks for being a know-it-all to us all here, though.
“War be poopy, and you can’t make it all good like.” William Tecumseh Sherman
The generals were playing hyper agressive in a meta where defensive play was the only real way to win with trench warfare basically
Bullets, artillery, weather. Almost zero medical treatment.
The US Civil War reminds of the Battle of Umbara from the 2008 Star Wars Clone Wars TV Show. The US Civil War is a war that the American soldiers are killing their on soldiers for more territory. The Battle of Umbara is the battle that the Clone Troopers are killing their own clones for more resources and the casualties are extremely high.
GRAPESHOT artillery rounds literally "mowed men down" in clouds of large lead balls as they advanced in columns towards their adversary`s lines. They were devastating & resulting carnage, horrific !
Who else just randomly started watching Armchair Historian and now just watch it like it’s just an everyday thing
Most people of this era never traveled more than a few miles from where they were born. No immunities.
>says its a rifled musket
>draws a 1842 springfield which was a smoothbore .69 cal.
Nyctelea This guy rifles
You're correct, since the one he shows on here is a smoothbore 42. However, they did rifle some 42's to take .69 conical round and added a rear sight, making it a rifled-musket.
lojafan Even though some 42’s where rifled the larger majority were not. So in that sense it makes sense to show the norm of 1861’s, 63’s, and 1853’s opposed to the few when speaking about rifled muskets.
Nyctelea I couldn't agree more.
The .69 Model of 1842 musket was one of several models rifled in the late 1850s, which is why it is a RIFLED MUSKET. The Springfield was a RIFLE-MUSKET, while the Enfield came in two versions, a RIFLE-MUSKET and a RIFLE.
Hello! I wish everyone in the comments a fantastic and healthy day!!!
Doc. Filipovic what I good doggo. I wish you many head pats.
Doc. Filipovic thank you
Doc. Filipovic you too!
What if I want a bad day?
You too! I wish there were more people like this in the world.
Grab some popcorn for the next one.
The civil war was deadly
World War II: I’m I a joke to you