@TheLethem77 the British helped the confederate army hoping to corrupt the union trade market due to the cotton in the south. Cotton for arms. Plain and simple.
Wow, and America calls other nations savages when they are involved in any type of warfare for more noble causes than that of the civil war.
The sad thing is that not many young Americans know the full meaning of the civil war, sure they touch the story in High School and stuff, but they are worried about Lady Gaga, Britney Spears, Eminem, rock bands, girlfriends, drinking, drugs, while this story just passes unnoticed through their brains.
1:45 I hate Mini Balls they are deadly in three ways 1. if one hits you your body will explode and you will be mutilated.(the explosion will break your bones) 2. if you get hit in arm or leg you get gangrene and a one way ticket to the amputater to get you limbs removed. 3. if you touch one without gloves you will die of lead poisoning.
@tinosnit Too bad for you that many leading confederates wrote a lot saying slavery WAS the reason they were separating, including EVERY states constitution that lists slavery as THE reason for separation. You can talk about southern heritage, but slavery is the heritage of both the north & south.
@brianthao102 Even today, nothing can really save your arm after a direct hit from a minie ball. The round expands into a mushroom and transfers almost all it's energy into the target. The back of the bullet is a glowing mass of soft, semi-molten lead. Depending on the angle of the hit, the impact alone would be sufficient to tear your arm off. Today, the minie ball is used by professional hunters in Africa to bring down rhinos, Cape buffalo and elephants with one shot. It is a hunting round.
Why was slavery SO important to the south that it would eventually come to this - Americans killing Americans. Were whites so afraid of hard labor or did they just think they were above it? No matter what, if there was some good leadership in government back then, this could have been avoided. Slavery would have eventually went away.
@pucksterz12 No. The whites were the minority population in the South. There were many white farmers in the South who did their own farming, but when you have such a vast farm/plantation, you can't possibly do it by yourself or with your few sons. Blacks had been slaves already, and with the boom of cotton as a cash crop, they needed more than just the labor that they could provide on their own. So that's why the slave market skyrocketed. The government wasn't bad, per say, but it just wasn't
(cont'd) as big of a deal when it started until it really took hold. And the North was the North, the South was the South. It wasn't the United States IS but the United States ARE. It was already divided by the extreme differences (the South depended more on farming whilst the North on more industrial activities). Like mentioned on this show, if it wasn't for the invention of the cotton gin, slavery probably would have faded (it was already on its way). I mean, there were already free blacks.
@lp4tiempo There had always been free blacks, but the facts say slavery was not on its way out. There were 3,200,364 in 1850 and by 1860 the number had grown to 3,950,511. Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S. (1970). Slavery was entrenched and growing.
@10palexand Oh, I meant slavery was fading before the invention of the cotton gin, which was in the earlier 1800's. I didn't mean on it's way out near the Civil War. When the cotton gin was invented, the cotton industry really boomed, and so did the need for slaves, so, naturally, it grew to tremendous amounts.
@predpis92 STFU you stupid czech. No one gives a shit what you say. It's obvious you are envious of America. Isn't our fault we are superior to you and your people. END of story LOL
For instance Stonewall Jackson is listed as dying from disease. He was wounded in battle and even recovered from his wounds. But developed a disease during recovery. He died of disease, but it was combat caused.
This is actually the first time I ever hear someone claim that half were combat fatalities. Every work of history I've read on this issue says one third, even American ones.
@Faxe90Swe That's the fine line of argument. You could die from disease, but the cause might have been a wound you suffered in combat. Many died of Pneumonia and Fever while recovering from wounds.
No. I see your point but it isn't true. See, just take the three years of 1811-1813. In there you have the bloodiest battles of the Peninsular war as well as the approximately 380,000 dead Napoleonic soldiers and the 210,000 dead Russian soldiers in the invasion of Russia in 1812.
Yeah i like the debating too, only not when I'm stubborn and then proven wrong as in our other discussion - it's especially frustrating when I know better than to make statements based on something I'm not sure I can support by explicit source refering. Still, I heard that 600,000 figure somewhere, and it did have something to do with the marine Corps - I will make it my cause to find out what that figure meant, and then I'll kick its ass for placing me in a tough spot.
Anyway, that these two-thirds of the CW casualties were non-combat casualties i can verify. James MacPherson's estimates in his book "Battle Cry of Freedom" places the Confederate's total military death toll at approx. 260,000. According to the "Oxford Companion to American Military History", the Confederate combat deaths were 73,000, so almost 187,000 Confederates died non-combat deaths.
Also according to the "Oxford Companion to American Military History", Union combat deaths were 141,000, while other non-combat fatalities were around 224,000. Thus we have a total of 213,000 combat deaths both sides, and 424,000 non-combat fatalities. The Union figures are also verified in the Official Records, but I'm not sure. And the CSA is sure to have had at least an equal amount of non-combat deaths as the Union, given their insufficeint supply and medical service.
If Grant could have had it his way, he would have just wanted Lee's entire Army, and his entire Army to meet on a field and settle it in one day. But Lee's Army took on the "fight to live another day mentality." They were trying to survive as a fighting force and cause the North to become jaded with the conflict. One large, decisive battle was not in tune with the South's strategy. Because if they lost, they would be finished as a country.
Also, lets remember that all historians agree that the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 was the first war in recorded history where combat fatalities exceeded non-combat fatalities.
Just a few days short of a full year. And that make all my arguments null and void or what's your point? That the war was shorter changes nothing, proportionalety still serve as an indicator no matter what length of the two wars in comparison.
@Faxe90Swe I wasn't making a point. I just think that is an interesting War. Seeing as it was so short. The French must have really had the shit kicked out of them.
The reason I think this was, was because the Confederacy was invaded and they had the initiative in most battles. They were being strangled by the immense Federal Navy's Anaconda plan, so the supplies and rations that their soldiers were given were usually captured Union provisions. They has to fight smart and deceptively to not just win, but just to continue to fight, too keep their men from starving. They could not risk HUGE large bloody single days, because their situation was so fragile.
Yeah, but it takes more than one side to fight a battle, and that other side was the Union, which carried out many massed attacks. And don't forget Malvern Hill.
@Faxe90Swe I admitted that there was some large scale attacks which were tactically retarded.
In the Napoleonic Wars one large battle was staged that decided the entire fates of campaigns. In the Civil War you have battles like Antietam that also produced tons of dead, but you also have battles before and after Antietam. Like I said, smaller battles, but in higher volume.
Waterloo had the battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras and Genappes before it and the battle of Wavre during it. As I said, Napoleonic campaigns were NOT often decided by one battle. The campaign in Germany in 1813 included half a dozen great battles and scores of smaller ones.
Thousands of Union soldiers died in Confederate POW camps, and disease was common from the start, every regiment being made up of men living far from eachother with no immunity to strange viruses, and the Western theater was ridden with tropical diseases like malaria. And then we have the fact that the last years of the war were dominated by trench warfare, which is always good ground for disease.
@Faxe90Swe 620,000 died in the Civil War. The number of Union KIA is debatable, but could be as much as 140,000, the Confederate KIA was around 80- 90,000. And it is said that another 100,000 died of wounds later. About half died from battle.
Well, I trust my sources and scholars, you trust yours. I still hold that one-third were combat fatalities.
The French got their asses kicked strategically and operationally, but tactically they were superior to the Prussians. The Prussians lost far more men than the French in all major battles except Sedan. At one battle 26,000 French held off 100,000 Prussians for a whole day, mostly due to their superior rifles.
@Faxe90Swe I don't know shit about the Franco- Prussian War. But I do know that more than 1/3 died from combat related injuries. You have to consider the amount of wounded that died later from disease. Many listed as dying from disease may have been wounded, in which wounds caused a disease.
Yes, but would not almost every one of those have survived if given proper care? As i see it, and obviously as most scholars see it, wounded dead doesn't count as combat fatalities.
The difference between the Civil and Napoleonic Wars was that campaigns were often decided with one large battle in the Napoleonic Wars. Whereas the Civil war had numerically more battle. The Napoleonic Wars and less battles that were larger in scale. I think there was close to 200 individual battles during the CW. Napoleon I don't even think participated in 50 battles.
You know that Leuthen is not a Napoleonic battle, right? It's a "Frederician" battle. And the Napoleonic wars consisted of more battles than Napoleon personally participated in. I seem to be in good company concerning inaccuracies. Napoleonic campaigns were NOT often decided by one great battle. The invasion of Russia included dozens of battles, big and small. The Hundred Days included 4 big battles and some small ones. Etc. etc.
Aspern-Essling, TWO days, similar size of the armies as at Gettysburg: 13,200 dead .
Spotsylvania Courthouse, 13(!) days: 4,200 dead
Leuthen, ONE day: 4,150 dead.
What's unique about the Civil war is rather that there were incredible amounts of wounded, as at Fredericksburg, where not even 1,000 Union soldiers were killed, but 12,000 were wounded.
@Faxe90Swe It seems like every comment I see you post is in some way inaccurate. Almost 1300 Union soldiers died at Fredericksburg. Not less than 1000. Also what made Fredericksburg bad was that only one Union division did 90% of the fighting. Most of Burnside's Army was not even engaged.
Also, these two examples (Essling and Leuthen) were carefully chosen to match the size of the CW armies of Gettysburg and Spotsylvania Courthouse. It is precisely from the fact that the CW battles were longer yet not as bloody as the two shorter fought examples that I make my point from. Also, i think you misunderstood your infromation. The 200 battles of the CW were not remarkable per se, it was that they were fought within 4 years which makes them remarkable.
@Faxe90Swe Right! The way the campaigns in both Wars were fought were wayyy different. In the Napoleonic Wars, in most battles, entire Armies were engaged. In many battles in the Civil War, maybe only divisions, or regiments, or even battalions were engaged at one time. Even at Gettysburg, both full Armies were not all committed at once. It was usually separate units that were committed individually. The advances in weaponry made huge, full scale attacks of men or cavalry obsolete.
I would be a bigot if I didn't recognize the very good point in that reasoning. But huge full scale attacks did happend quite often, which is why, according to history, the CW was so bloody - for the same reasons ww1 was so bloody. And for the record, Napoleonic battles didn't always include the whole armies at once. It was the Napoleonic wars that saw the first light of the "battle within the battle", where divisions faced off divisions, corps faced off corps etc.
@Faxe90Swe Sure you are right. Full scale attacks did happen, even in the CW. Like Lee's charge at Gettysburg, which was obviously doomed from the get go. The only point that I have made, was that the leaders of both armies, executed battles in different fashions.
I am not sure what it is worse. One huge battle that kills more. Or 10 straight days of fighting that kill a similar number.
And given the massed attacks on field fortifications such as at Cold Harbor, Spotsylvania, Petersburg, Chattanoga etc., you'd expect more severe casualties, but in casualties these repeated attacks over several days do not match many Napoleonic battles which were fought in one day with similar troopt strengths. That's what i find strange, given the supposed superior bloodyness of the CW over all other previous wars.
I actually don't how can make statements such as "bringing death on a scale never seen previously in warfare". It's the same deal with actual historians on both sides of the Atlantic - the civil war was bloodier than other wars. First, remember that two third of the total amount of dead were non-combat casualties. Then let us take a look at the casualties of the bloodiest and longest battles and compare to previous battles in history...
This war proved that the North's Industry with a strong agriculture made victory possible for the Union. I admire the South for their dedication and their fighting skills, but as a Northerner and a diehard admirer of Lincoln I'm glad our nation survived and hopefully can achieve more longevity.
@frontiergame Yo dawg I heard that you came from ketterer's class so I came from Mr. ketterer's class and told told you that I was from mr. ketterer's class.
I went to Gettysburg last summer. Now in the present day, the town is supposed to be haunted, and that is NOT a lie. My mother and I were walking along the treeline and starting hearing loud bangs. They sounded exactly like cannons. We had a phsycic come to the inn we were staying at. (The Farnsworth) My mother contacted my grandmother with a pair of dousing rods. She passed on May 4, 2004 at 9:36 PM. It was truly breathtaking to also meet the confedarate soilder who killed jenny wade..
The south just became too reliant on slavery. Slavery has existed in many forms throughout human history, always benefiting the masters. Slavery existed in both the north and south at one point, but the south hit the jackpot when they found how well they could grow cotton down there, meaning they needed more slaves. The north had to find other ways to make money, which is why it had to develop factories and other industries quickly.
@carlsm95 Slavery was in the decline in the south until the invention of the Cotton Gin. Plus, the farmers and southerners wanted states rights, and the right to nullify laws that they felt were unconstitutional, such as the United States Tarrif on Great Britain, which taxed cotton. Besides, the Civil war screwed up the south pretty bad.
@carlsm95 Few realize how few of the men in the confederate army actually cared for slavery. Rather just doing it as it was looked at as the "right thing to do" Same idea on both sides really. The fight wasnt about freedom until it was over.
@carlsm95 the south was actually well on its path to ending slavery, and the civil war was not necessary to end it as it was already headed in that direction
The thing about new tech and better accuracy along with age old tactics is that all it does is make war shorter in a sense, the same amout of people die regardless, they just die quicker..
I never saw the south as "evil" or the "bad guy", but i do believe the greater outcome for America was union victory. Both sides had their good reasons to fight.
@m1grand70 I definitely agree with you. I am happy that the Union won because i know it was a better outcome than what would have happened if the south won, but i dont dislike the south or anything. Sure a lot of them were racist, but they were also just protecting their families and such.
must read this once u have started there is no turning back. a little 10 year old girl was raped and murderded in 1945. her body was not found until 1947. then a boy last week read this and did not copy and paste this message. the dead girl appeared in his room haunting him and killed him. if you do not copy and paste this onto 10 vidoes in 30 minutes the dead girl will apear in your room tonight and haunt you and kill you. well you better start to copy and paste to saved
@aggies436 Well technically the colonies did not have the right to rebel, they were committing treason, same with the South in the Civil War....that's why the British levied war in America and the same goes for the Union.
@soccergk121 ya when i use to be in philippines some people were jeleous they werent americans that did all these memorable things and i am proud to be 69 percent philippine 30 percent american and 1 percent other i think
@guyinkentucky1 Actually the Civil War was the bloodiest in American History, over 2 percent of the American population. The American Revolution was about 1 percent, placing second. But both were VERY costly for the respective American population of their age.
@FunnyThingsWithAJ Is it really any surprise being that both sides were Americans in this war as oppose to every other war, only one side being Americans....
0:00 It was war North against South brother against brother comrade in arms against comrade in arms. these blood brothers were killing their own men. Its war on our own soil these guys need to lay down their arms and fight the bad guys not each other.
@ke4bss those muskets fire a .58 caliber ball, thats really big. a modern .30 caliber round can leave a hole the size of a golf ball when it exits, believe me i know a dude who got shot by one and he can fit a golf ball into his shoulder. plus the old civil war rounds are softer so they flatten out, causing enormous damage
@BurroBurrito1 Yes I know they are really large soft lead rounds but by itself it wont tear off a limb. It will really damage muscle, bone, flesh etc. but it will severe a limb. Now, yes multiple hits by minnie balls will do just that kind of damage. Either way I would not want to be on the recieving end. "It's a mans entire duty to pray and fight!" T.J. (Stonewall) Jackson.
everybody dont listen to aussie we dont actually call northeners yankees... most of the time. aussie is just one of those idiotic trxans with no life.
The minnie ball itself was Not the great equalizer in this war. For the first 2 years the Union suffered from Terrible Leadership that crippled their efforts.
LIARS YOU EVIL YANKEES KILLED ALMOST EVERY FAMILY IN THE SOUTH IN A BURNING DEATH IT WASNT ABOUT SLAVERY!ONLY CITYS SMALLER THAN RANDLEMAN NEEDED SLAVERY WE ARE STRONG HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY ARRESTING PEOPLE WHO TEACH THE CSA SIDE,EH YOU CANT YOU EVIL LIEING BASTARDS!
@LeahWalentosky The reason Americans are so fixated on this war is due to the unbelievable casualties endured in a war that lasted four long years, more than all other American wars combined. This was also a war that was going to make or break our nation, very much worthy of notice. In fact, the Civil War is the most researched and written about era/subject in American History.
"were pioneers and trailblazers, we fight for freedom, we transformes our dreams to the truth, our become a nation, god that part makes me proud to be an american
even thought this is the saddest of all american wars, it is truly amazing the technological advances, the tactics, the way war was fought was amazing. And the last war where generals would lead their men into battle along side them.
thanks for your upload. of the position of economic rights, I am an information pirate. of the the position to the rights to information, thanks for your upload on behalf of humanity for equal opportunity access to information.
when i am able to contribute to pass it forward, remember that it's actions like yours whom it allows me to benefit it to fuel me to do the same when i am able in my later years.
@TheLethem77 the British helped the confederate army hoping to corrupt the union trade market due to the cotton in the south. Cotton for arms. Plain and simple.
tmart333 16 hours ago
just wish they could get correct uniforms for once
MichaelJCaboose98 1 week ago
they do an amazing job reenacting this
DonutKingDx 2 weeks ago
Why do they have to get the guy with fucked up teeth to play the confederate?
MrBeaukinz 2 weeks ago
@MrBeaukinz It's the 1800s... everybody had teeth like that.
Paragon468 2 weeks ago
lol the nbc dude said you dotn want to know when the bullet enters the body but history channel tell them anyway
Topaz997235 3 weeks ago
If the Civil War teared america apart, the British would've invaded.
TheLethem77 3 weeks ago
if the united states was weakened enough the English empire would have reclaimed America as a colony. Thumbs up if you agree.
willansteige 3 weeks ago
@willansteige YOU mean British Empire
Abbadon380 3 weeks ago
A shitty and utterly useless war.
TemplarX2 1 month ago
@TemplarX2 like most
MrBeaukinz 2 weeks ago
@TemplarX2 I think there were much better alternatives; diplomacy for one. But it did change the United States. Still, war is never good.
Paragon468 2 weeks ago
liev kinda sounds different when narrating.
PsyphaX09 1 month ago
Liev Schreiber
jgabriellam 1 month ago
CALL OF CIVIL WAR
XxM4RKoZxX 2 months ago
one shot one kill lol. if it hit ur bone, you're screwed.
ijamesza016 2 months ago
Wow, and America calls other nations savages when they are involved in any type of warfare for more noble causes than that of the civil war.
The sad thing is that not many young Americans know the full meaning of the civil war, sure they touch the story in High School and stuff, but they are worried about Lady Gaga, Britney Spears, Eminem, rock bands, girlfriends, drinking, drugs, while this story just passes unnoticed through their brains.
archifx 2 months ago
@archifx Nah, mane, I love history. More specificly the World War II era. But the Civil War is pretty entertaining to learn about.
BadHershey721 4 weeks ago
modern warfare 4 is the civil war
harojamesninja 2 months ago
@harojamesninja It wouldn't be "Modern" Warfare then, would it?
MrTokyo34 2 months ago
@MrTokyo34
let's just call it the "NOT SO MODERN WARFARE".....=P
PsyphaX09 1 month ago
Brian Williams is a dork. Where's Shelby Foote when ya need him?
Methrt3 2 months ago
what an interesting war...we fucking murdered eachother...to say the least
aridchimp 2 months ago
YO THIS IS THE SAEM GUY FROM HBO 24/7 SERIES?
OjintheSky 2 months ago
1:45 I hate Mini Balls they are deadly in three ways 1. if one hits you your body will explode and you will be mutilated.(the explosion will break your bones) 2. if you get hit in arm or leg you get gangrene and a one way ticket to the amputater to get you limbs removed. 3. if you touch one without gloves you will die of lead poisoning.
geomodelrailroader 2 months ago
funny, i saw this in school....... :P
123thecoolones 3 months ago
All these men dead, so much later on, obama can be your leader ! How's that working out for you ? (Grin)
GlockMod23 3 months ago
I liked the way they showed the rebel's bad teeth so you could see how backwards the south is. Damn Yankees!
ericjarviscpa22 3 months ago
I hate how everyone blames bush for everything, America's problems aren't all his fault.
klinsa12 3 months ago
LINE FORMATIONS AND VOLLEY TACTICS= RETARDED
Abbadon380 4 months ago
BUSH UNDID THE WORK OF 200 YEARS IN A 8 YRS CURSE U FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH U SCREWED EVERYBODY
Abbadon380 4 months ago
Massive battles are always epic >:D
james65508 4 months ago
The war was not faught over slavery.
tinosnit 4 months ago
@tinosnit no but it was the leading cause that lead to the separation.
kbz1231 4 months ago
@tinosnit Too bad for you that many leading confederates wrote a lot saying slavery WAS the reason they were separating, including EVERY states constitution that lists slavery as THE reason for separation. You can talk about southern heritage, but slavery is the heritage of both the north & south.
10palexand 4 months ago
saw this in history and didnt pay attention and big test cmng up soon so yeah
jojocircus1000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
kill kill kill
highron2 7 months ago
Death is more acceptable then communism!!!
Partyffs 7 months ago
@Partyffs Better dead than red, eh?
acorn1775 6 months ago 7
wait if i was hit in the fore-arm with a minie-ball round i would have to have an amputation in this time era?
brianthao102 7 months ago
@brianthao102 yes
callumbann19 6 months ago
@brianthao102 Even today, nothing can really save your arm after a direct hit from a minie ball. The round expands into a mushroom and transfers almost all it's energy into the target. The back of the bullet is a glowing mass of soft, semi-molten lead. Depending on the angle of the hit, the impact alone would be sufficient to tear your arm off. Today, the minie ball is used by professional hunters in Africa to bring down rhinos, Cape buffalo and elephants with one shot. It is a hunting round.
Rachen30 3 months ago
Why was slavery SO important to the south that it would eventually come to this - Americans killing Americans. Were whites so afraid of hard labor or did they just think they were above it? No matter what, if there was some good leadership in government back then, this could have been avoided. Slavery would have eventually went away.
pucksterz12 7 months ago
@pucksterz12 No. The whites were the minority population in the South. There were many white farmers in the South who did their own farming, but when you have such a vast farm/plantation, you can't possibly do it by yourself or with your few sons. Blacks had been slaves already, and with the boom of cotton as a cash crop, they needed more than just the labor that they could provide on their own. So that's why the slave market skyrocketed. The government wasn't bad, per say, but it just wasn't
lp4tiempo 5 months ago
(cont'd) as big of a deal when it started until it really took hold. And the North was the North, the South was the South. It wasn't the United States IS but the United States ARE. It was already divided by the extreme differences (the South depended more on farming whilst the North on more industrial activities). Like mentioned on this show, if it wasn't for the invention of the cotton gin, slavery probably would have faded (it was already on its way). I mean, there were already free blacks.
lp4tiempo 5 months ago
@lp4tiempo There had always been free blacks, but the facts say slavery was not on its way out. There were 3,200,364 in 1850 and by 1860 the number had grown to 3,950,511. Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S. (1970). Slavery was entrenched and growing.
10palexand 4 months ago
@10palexand Oh, I meant slavery was fading before the invention of the cotton gin, which was in the earlier 1800's. I didn't mean on it's way out near the Civil War. When the cotton gin was invented, the cotton industry really boomed, and so did the need for slaves, so, naturally, it grew to tremendous amounts.
lp4tiempo 4 months ago
Brother against brother - he means immigrant against immigrant, there s a big difference.
predpis92 7 months ago
@predpis92 STFU you stupid czech. No one gives a shit what you say. It's obvious you are envious of America. Isn't our fault we are superior to you and your people. END of story LOL
SocalDNM 7 months ago
@TunesAndTuts Original one from the era or new?
Libertyin2010 8 months ago
3 killstreak, UAV ready
quinney2022 9 months ago 20
Comment removed
RaymondETV 4 months ago
For instance Stonewall Jackson is listed as dying from disease. He was wounded in battle and even recovered from his wounds. But developed a disease during recovery. He died of disease, but it was combat caused.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
Gangrene is considered dying from disease man.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
Over 30% of ALL combat wounded, died later.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
This is actually the first time I ever hear someone claim that half were combat fatalities. Every work of history I've read on this issue says one third, even American ones.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe That's the fine line of argument. You could die from disease, but the cause might have been a wound you suffered in combat. Many died of Pneumonia and Fever while recovering from wounds.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
When it comes down to simply how you define something, we're at a dead-end. At least on that issue.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I mean five year period.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
The CW in it's 5 year period, was overall bloodier than any 4 year period in the Napoleonic Wars.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
No. I see your point but it isn't true. See, just take the three years of 1811-1813. In there you have the bloodiest battles of the Peninsular war as well as the approximately 380,000 dead Napoleonic soldiers and the 210,000 dead Russian soldiers in the invasion of Russia in 1812.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe Yeah, I can't imagine. Napoleon lost way more men to weather than battle in Russia.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Yeah, and two thirds of the casualties in the CW were due to exposure, malnutrition and disease, so it's still fully compareable.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe Sounds good, hit me up tomorrow, I like the debating. Also 2/3 is a bit of an exaggeration. About half of the men died of disease.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Yeah i like the debating too, only not when I'm stubborn and then proven wrong as in our other discussion - it's especially frustrating when I know better than to make statements based on something I'm not sure I can support by explicit source refering. Still, I heard that 600,000 figure somewhere, and it did have something to do with the marine Corps - I will make it my cause to find out what that figure meant, and then I'll kick its ass for placing me in a tough spot.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Anyway, that these two-thirds of the CW casualties were non-combat casualties i can verify. James MacPherson's estimates in his book "Battle Cry of Freedom" places the Confederate's total military death toll at approx. 260,000. According to the "Oxford Companion to American Military History", the Confederate combat deaths were 73,000, so almost 187,000 Confederates died non-combat deaths.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
I don't know what time it is where you are, but here it's way past bedtime, even for night persons. I will answer tomorrow if you're still at it.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Also according to the "Oxford Companion to American Military History", Union combat deaths were 141,000, while other non-combat fatalities were around 224,000. Thus we have a total of 213,000 combat deaths both sides, and 424,000 non-combat fatalities. The Union figures are also verified in the Official Records, but I'm not sure. And the CSA is sure to have had at least an equal amount of non-combat deaths as the Union, given their insufficeint supply and medical service.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
If Grant could have had it his way, he would have just wanted Lee's entire Army, and his entire Army to meet on a field and settle it in one day. But Lee's Army took on the "fight to live another day mentality." They were trying to survive as a fighting force and cause the North to become jaded with the conflict. One large, decisive battle was not in tune with the South's strategy. Because if they lost, they would be finished as a country.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Also, lets remember that all historians agree that the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 was the first war in recorded history where combat fatalities exceeded non-combat fatalities.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe God, that was a quick War. Wasn't the Franco Prussian War less than a year long?
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Just a few days short of a full year. And that make all my arguments null and void or what's your point? That the war was shorter changes nothing, proportionalety still serve as an indicator no matter what length of the two wars in comparison.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe I wasn't making a point. I just think that is an interesting War. Seeing as it was so short. The French must have really had the shit kicked out of them.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
The reason I think this was, was because the Confederacy was invaded and they had the initiative in most battles. They were being strangled by the immense Federal Navy's Anaconda plan, so the supplies and rations that their soldiers were given were usually captured Union provisions. They has to fight smart and deceptively to not just win, but just to continue to fight, too keep their men from starving. They could not risk HUGE large bloody single days, because their situation was so fragile.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Yeah, but it takes more than one side to fight a battle, and that other side was the Union, which carried out many massed attacks. And don't forget Malvern Hill.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe I admitted that there was some large scale attacks which were tactically retarded.
In the Napoleonic Wars one large battle was staged that decided the entire fates of campaigns. In the Civil War you have battles like Antietam that also produced tons of dead, but you also have battles before and after Antietam. Like I said, smaller battles, but in higher volume.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Waterloo had the battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras and Genappes before it and the battle of Wavre during it. As I said, Napoleonic campaigns were NOT often decided by one battle. The campaign in Germany in 1813 included half a dozen great battles and scores of smaller ones.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe How many battles did Napoleon fight in any 5 year period?
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Thousands of Union soldiers died in Confederate POW camps, and disease was common from the start, every regiment being made up of men living far from eachother with no immunity to strange viruses, and the Western theater was ridden with tropical diseases like malaria. And then we have the fact that the last years of the war were dominated by trench warfare, which is always good ground for disease.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe 620,000 died in the Civil War. The number of Union KIA is debatable, but could be as much as 140,000, the Confederate KIA was around 80- 90,000. And it is said that another 100,000 died of wounds later. About half died from battle.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Well, I trust my sources and scholars, you trust yours. I still hold that one-third were combat fatalities.
The French got their asses kicked strategically and operationally, but tactically they were superior to the Prussians. The Prussians lost far more men than the French in all major battles except Sedan. At one battle 26,000 French held off 100,000 Prussians for a whole day, mostly due to their superior rifles.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe I don't know shit about the Franco- Prussian War. But I do know that more than 1/3 died from combat related injuries. You have to consider the amount of wounded that died later from disease. Many listed as dying from disease may have been wounded, in which wounds caused a disease.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 '
Yes, but would not almost every one of those have survived if given proper care? As i see it, and obviously as most scholars see it, wounded dead doesn't count as combat fatalities.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
The Napoleonic wars, 15 years of warfare, included far more than 200 battles... "LOL"
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
The difference between the Civil and Napoleonic Wars was that campaigns were often decided with one large battle in the Napoleonic Wars. Whereas the Civil war had numerically more battle. The Napoleonic Wars and less battles that were larger in scale. I think there was close to 200 individual battles during the CW. Napoleon I don't even think participated in 50 battles.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
You know that Leuthen is not a Napoleonic battle, right? It's a "Frederician" battle. And the Napoleonic wars consisted of more battles than Napoleon personally participated in. I seem to be in good company concerning inaccuracies. Napoleonic campaigns were NOT often decided by one great battle. The invasion of Russia included dozens of battles, big and small. The Hundred Days included 4 big battles and some small ones. Etc. etc.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
Gettysburg, 3 days: 7,800 dead (both sides).
Aspern-Essling, TWO days, similar size of the armies as at Gettysburg: 13,200 dead .
Spotsylvania Courthouse, 13(!) days: 4,200 dead
Leuthen, ONE day: 4,150 dead.
What's unique about the Civil war is rather that there were incredible amounts of wounded, as at Fredericksburg, where not even 1,000 Union soldiers were killed, but 12,000 were wounded.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe It seems like every comment I see you post is in some way inaccurate. Almost 1300 Union soldiers died at Fredericksburg. Not less than 1000. Also what made Fredericksburg bad was that only one Union division did 90% of the fighting. Most of Burnside's Army was not even engaged.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
Also, these two examples (Essling and Leuthen) were carefully chosen to match the size of the CW armies of Gettysburg and Spotsylvania Courthouse. It is precisely from the fact that the CW battles were longer yet not as bloody as the two shorter fought examples that I make my point from. Also, i think you misunderstood your infromation. The 200 battles of the CW were not remarkable per se, it was that they were fought within 4 years which makes them remarkable.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe Right! The way the campaigns in both Wars were fought were wayyy different. In the Napoleonic Wars, in most battles, entire Armies were engaged. In many battles in the Civil War, maybe only divisions, or regiments, or even battalions were engaged at one time. Even at Gettysburg, both full Armies were not all committed at once. It was usually separate units that were committed individually. The advances in weaponry made huge, full scale attacks of men or cavalry obsolete.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
I would be a bigot if I didn't recognize the very good point in that reasoning. But huge full scale attacks did happend quite often, which is why, according to history, the CW was so bloody - for the same reasons ww1 was so bloody. And for the record, Napoleonic battles didn't always include the whole armies at once. It was the Napoleonic wars that saw the first light of the "battle within the battle", where divisions faced off divisions, corps faced off corps etc.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
@Faxe90Swe Sure you are right. Full scale attacks did happen, even in the CW. Like Lee's charge at Gettysburg, which was obviously doomed from the get go. The only point that I have made, was that the leaders of both armies, executed battles in different fashions.
I am not sure what it is worse. One huge battle that kills more. Or 10 straight days of fighting that kill a similar number.
StonewallJackson26 9 months ago
@StonewallJackson26
And given the massed attacks on field fortifications such as at Cold Harbor, Spotsylvania, Petersburg, Chattanoga etc., you'd expect more severe casualties, but in casualties these repeated attacks over several days do not match many Napoleonic battles which were fought in one day with similar troopt strengths. That's what i find strange, given the supposed superior bloodyness of the CW over all other previous wars.
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
I actually don't how can make statements such as "bringing death on a scale never seen previously in warfare". It's the same deal with actual historians on both sides of the Atlantic - the civil war was bloodier than other wars. First, remember that two third of the total amount of dead were non-combat casualties. Then let us take a look at the casualties of the bloodiest and longest battles and compare to previous battles in history...
Faxe90Swe 9 months ago
thanx for putting the links to the next episodes at the end of each vid, I get so freakin tired of trying to find other peoples videos.
alternativedominance 9 months ago
This war proved that the North's Industry with a strong agriculture made victory possible for the Union. I admire the South for their dedication and their fighting skills, but as a Northerner and a diehard admirer of Lincoln I'm glad our nation survived and hopefully can achieve more longevity.
rockndude87 9 months ago
This is JR, I'm here for Mr. Kett's thing, check out my game @ moddb.com/games/frontier
frontiergame 9 months ago
@frontiergame yo im doing it for mr. kett too
holyship00 9 months ago
@frontiergame and also im TT you know i sit next to you on the bus.
holyship00 9 months ago
@frontiergame Yo dawg I heard that you came from ketterer's class so I came from Mr. ketterer's class and told told you that I was from mr. ketterer's class.
-WP
crazyrabbit23 9 months ago
more people died in this war than every other war put togethor of american blood
YodelingLuigi 10 months ago
i love these episodes
BUTTCHEEKism 10 months ago
I can't stop getting enough of the epicness between 0:00 and 1:00
shutupiownedu 10 months ago
i love the intro to this show
codeman409 11 months ago 3
0:36 QUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
TheBigtony115 11 months ago
I went to Gettysburg last summer. Now in the present day, the town is supposed to be haunted, and that is NOT a lie. My mother and I were walking along the treeline and starting hearing loud bangs. They sounded exactly like cannons. We had a phsycic come to the inn we were staying at. (The Farnsworth) My mother contacted my grandmother with a pair of dousing rods. She passed on May 4, 2004 at 9:36 PM. It was truly breathtaking to also meet the confedarate soilder who killed jenny wade..
gamefan1997 11 months ago
@gamefan1997 And i'm just gonna lol.
Subcidal 10 months ago
Thumbs up if your proud to be an American!!!
BeconMovies 11 months ago 3
The south just became too reliant on slavery. Slavery has existed in many forms throughout human history, always benefiting the masters. Slavery existed in both the north and south at one point, but the south hit the jackpot when they found how well they could grow cotton down there, meaning they needed more slaves. The north had to find other ways to make money, which is why it had to develop factories and other industries quickly.
carlsm95 1 year ago 19
@carlsm95 Slavery was in the decline in the south until the invention of the Cotton Gin. Plus, the farmers and southerners wanted states rights, and the right to nullify laws that they felt were unconstitutional, such as the United States Tarrif on Great Britain, which taxed cotton. Besides, the Civil war screwed up the south pretty bad.
LeavinGA 11 months ago
@carlsm95 Few realize how few of the men in the confederate army actually cared for slavery. Rather just doing it as it was looked at as the "right thing to do" Same idea on both sides really. The fight wasnt about freedom until it was over.
Subcidal 10 months ago
@carlsm95 the south was actually well on its path to ending slavery, and the civil war was not necessary to end it as it was already headed in that direction
kterris1 9 months ago
I only feel empathy and sympathy for the Union soldiers. 'Straight up.' (RIP)
AfrocentricAzn 1 year ago
@AfrocentricAzn why? a lot of southern troops didn't wanna be there either
GhettoBlaster100 1 year ago
um... whats the epsiode of the mexican-american war.
arnaldodacomando 1 year ago
@arnaldodacomando I belive epsiodes 4 & 3 include the alamo and a small section on the war
1Historygenius 1 year ago
The thing about new tech and better accuracy along with age old tactics is that all it does is make war shorter in a sense, the same amout of people die regardless, they just die quicker..
SirOttoVBismark 1 year ago
I never saw the south as "evil" or the "bad guy", but i do believe the greater outcome for America was union victory. Both sides had their good reasons to fight.
m1grand70 1 year ago
@m1grand70 I definitely agree with you. I am happy that the Union won because i know it was a better outcome than what would have happened if the south won, but i dont dislike the south or anything. Sure a lot of them were racist, but they were also just protecting their families and such.
LifeOfAubrey 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
must read this once u have started there is no turning back. a little 10 year old girl was raped and murderded in 1945. her body was not found until 1947. then a boy last week read this and did not copy and paste this message. the dead girl appeared in his room haunting him and killed him. if you do not copy and paste this onto 10 vidoes in 30 minutes the dead girl will apear in your room tonight and haunt you and kill you. well you better start to copy and paste to saved
at40100 1 year ago
@at40100 lol youre gay
deepnightmare16 1 year ago
Modern Military Technology + Older Military Tactics = Disastrous Warfare...
rockndude87 1 year ago
the south should have a right to independence if they want to. we did against the british why cant the south?
aggies436 1 year ago
@aggies436 Well technically the colonies did not have the right to rebel, they were committing treason, same with the South in the Civil War....that's why the British levied war in America and the same goes for the Union.
rockndude87 1 year ago
@aggies436 because the colonies won the war
codeman409 1 year ago
@aggies436
But you have to remember also, that the British retaliated as well, it just happens to be that the British lost.
Bryan34657 10 months ago
Why did they have to tell us what the bullet does when it enters the human body? I didn't want to know!
Handitar 1 year ago
this is a great upload but it doesnt seem to be in order of play, why is that?
kingston0708 1 year ago
I wish everyone could watch this series. I even think everyone, even critics of our government, would be proud to be an American
soccergk121 1 year ago 2
@soccergk121 ya when i use to be in philippines some people were jeleous they werent americans that did all these memorable things and i am proud to be 69 percent philippine 30 percent american and 1 percent other i think
shiptech2k9 1 year ago
In terms on population The Revolutionary War was bloodier.
guyinkentucky1 1 year ago
@guyinkentucky1 most oh the men that died, died of sickness
sniken93 1 year ago
@sniken93 in what war
guyinkentucky1 1 year ago
@sniken93 in the revolution
sniken93 1 year ago
@sniken93 Very true, no one knew about germs or that maybe it was a bad idea to take a dump close to your water source.
aznluvr7 1 year ago
@aznluvr7 they also didn't know how much gunpowder to put in their guns.
DespicableMegaGeeks 11 months ago
@guyinkentucky1 Actually the Civil War was bloodier, about 2% of the American population. The American Revolution places second in bloodiest.
rockndude87 1 year ago
@guyinkentucky1 There were more American deaths in the Civil War then all of the other American wars compined...
FunnyThingsWithAJ 1 year ago
@FunnyThingsWithAJ in total numbers yes. But in precentage of population the Revoulution was bloodier
guyinkentucky1 1 year ago
@guyinkentucky1 Actually the Civil War was the bloodiest in American History, over 2 percent of the American population. The American Revolution was about 1 percent, placing second. But both were VERY costly for the respective American population of their age.
rockndude87 1 year ago
@FunnyThingsWithAJ Is it really any surprise being that both sides were Americans in this war as oppose to every other war, only one side being Americans....
BahamutElDiablo 10 months ago
0:00 It was war North against South brother against brother comrade in arms against comrade in arms. these blood brothers were killing their own men. Its war on our own soil these guys need to lay down their arms and fight the bad guys not each other.
geomodelrailroader 1 year ago
I was hope that if I can get the intro music, it is so EPIC!
Teh777 1 year ago
@Teh777 i would also like to find it out aswell.....anyone know it???
AstroChiLee1 1 year ago
A Minnie ball or Musket ball does not severe limbs.............but Artillary Does!
ke4bss 1 year ago
@ke4bss those muskets fire a .58 caliber ball, thats really big. a modern .30 caliber round can leave a hole the size of a golf ball when it exits, believe me i know a dude who got shot by one and he can fit a golf ball into his shoulder. plus the old civil war rounds are softer so they flatten out, causing enormous damage
BurroBurrito1 1 year ago
@BurroBurrito1 Yes I know they are really large soft lead rounds but by itself it wont tear off a limb. It will really damage muscle, bone, flesh etc. but it will severe a limb. Now, yes multiple hits by minnie balls will do just that kind of damage. Either way I would not want to be on the recieving end. "It's a mans entire duty to pray and fight!" T.J. (Stonewall) Jackson.
ke4bss 1 year ago
everybody dont listen to aussie we dont actually call northeners yankees... most of the time. aussie is just one of those idiotic trxans with no life.
hardcorefakes12 1 year ago
Comment removed
FreakingHarryPotter 1 year ago
The minnie ball itself was Not the great equalizer in this war. For the first 2 years the Union suffered from Terrible Leadership that crippled their efforts.
ke4bss 1 year ago
LIARS YOU EVIL YANKEES KILLED ALMOST EVERY FAMILY IN THE SOUTH IN A BURNING DEATH IT WASNT ABOUT SLAVERY!ONLY CITYS SMALLER THAN RANDLEMAN NEEDED SLAVERY WE ARE STRONG HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY ARRESTING PEOPLE WHO TEACH THE CSA SIDE,EH YOU CANT YOU EVIL LIEING BASTARDS!
ChristheAussie 1 year ago
@ChristheAussie
.......are you sure you're an aussie?
Drownedinlight 1 year ago
@ChristheAussie A decent fate for separatist's, and traitors. Anyway, this happened hundred's of years ago. Get over it.
Dobbs198 1 year ago
@ChristheAussie This took places hundreds of years ago, and their had been worse wars, not in American history but others.
This was over a centery ago.
Get over it, and move on.
LeahWalentosky 1 year ago
@LeahWalentosky The reason Americans are so fixated on this war is due to the unbelievable casualties endured in a war that lasted four long years, more than all other American wars combined. This was also a war that was going to make or break our nation, very much worthy of notice. In fact, the Civil War is the most researched and written about era/subject in American History.
rockndude87 1 year ago
@ChristheAussie First of all... Calm down, and second of all, yes, it was primarily about slavery.
K4life123Productions 1 year ago
@K4life123Productions oh my god you idiot
RememberSoCal 1 year ago
@ChristheAussie calm down on crack
Frdchanga 1 year ago
"were pioneers and trailblazers, we fight for freedom, we transformes our dreams to the truth, our become a nation, god that part makes me proud to be an american
americanmarine1 1 year ago
haha.. the southener with his stereotypical bad teeth :).. soo funny
dariuspajouh 1 year ago
@dariuspajouh yeah thats a steryotype. im pretty sure the soccer mom type northener is a steryeotype too. is this is coming from a NEGRO
hardcorefakes12 1 year ago
if each episode is about 42 minutes, why are the episodes you uploaded 9 10 minute parts, 90 minutes?
benzimm2185 1 year ago
even thought this is the saddest of all american wars, it is truly amazing the technological advances, the tactics, the way war was fought was amazing. And the last war where generals would lead their men into battle along side them.
BurroBurrito1 1 year ago
Comment removed
alexthelizardking 1 year ago
thanks for your upload. of the position of economic rights, I am an information pirate. of the the position to the rights to information, thanks for your upload on behalf of humanity for equal opportunity access to information.
when i am able to contribute to pass it forward, remember that it's actions like yours whom it allows me to benefit it to fuel me to do the same when i am able in my later years.
thanks.
thanksforyouruploads 1 year ago 8
Comment removed
UP5314 1 year ago
excellent work! truely the best docs ive ever seen!!!
thc024 1 year ago 2
Thanks again man, keep it up ;)
realmackoy88 1 year ago