3 ms·
I think you might underestimate how bloody the American Civil War was, especially since it was 50 years before the improved killing technologies of WW1.
by ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
I think you might underestimate how bloody the American Civil War was, especially since it was 50 years before the improved killing technologies of WW1.
- byroot 11y agoAmerican Civil War: Total estimated between 625,000 and 850,000 dead World War 1: 8,528,831 killed. I know we could account for relative population, but in absolute there is just no possible comparison. Relevant source: https://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html https://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html
- ZanyProgrammer 11y agoThat's total killed for all combatants during WW1 though. American casualties during the Civil War were comparable to European countries individually during WW1.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y agoIts especially impressive when you consider WW1 had a 50 year advantage in perfecting the art of killing people.
- NLips 11y agoIn fact, the civil war number is for dead and wounded. The WW1 number for comparison is 29,717,985. Or compare dead only... 8,528,831 : 364,511
- seszett 11y agoThere were more casualties in just this one battle than in the whole Civil War though. And the Battle of the Somme that was being fought at the same time had even more dead in the same timeframe. These two battles fought in 1916 add up to more dead soldiers than there were participants in the whole Civil War. The combined population of France and Germany in 1916 was also about three times that of the US in 1860, but I think that doesn't make up for the x10 casualties.
- tormeh 11y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CErUTpuDbd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CErUTpuDbd8