English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-11-28 15:07:39 · 7 answers · asked by Daisy 1 in Politics & Government Military

7 answers

It was American against American and sometimes brother against brother. The death toll was out of control.

2006-11-28 15:22:41 · answer #1 · answered by withoutaname 2 · 0 0

FIrst off, in my opinion, all fighting during a war is brutal. But a civil war (American, English, French, not a single one was ever very civil). is family and neighbor against family and neighbor, brother vs brother. You are having to chose sometimes family values against what the gov't says is good for you.

It is easy to say, go to Korea and fight, it is not so bad, because you do not see it up front but ask any korean, and most will say that it was more brutal than some overseas (to them) american civil war.

Dont forget that the American Civil war was the testing ground for many new ways of killing people, alot of which did not work well and left injured and crippled people. Submarines, Torpedos, Improved rifled cannon were new weapons of the time, however the rifle still loaded slow and allowed people to get hand to hand and need to fight with rifle butts and bayonets. Much more brutal than tagging someone with 100% kill ratio with a laser guided munition from a jet at 40,000 feet.

2006-11-28 15:30:49 · answer #2 · answered by TheHangedFrog 4 · 0 0

A couple of reasons:

Civil War leaders still used 18th century tactics - the inline advance toward the enemy caused thousands of casualties.

The weapons of the time had improved their killing power - now cannon fire was far more accurate and deadly and the rifled shoulder arms were a big improvement from the smooth bore weapons of before.

The size of the rifle and musket projectiles was usually about .56. That's a half inch diameter of lead traveling and striking another soldier. The wounds were horrific. And the medicine had not kept up with the advances in killing.

2006-11-28 16:39:52 · answer #3 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 1 0

One man's brutal is another man's victory.

Brutal is a poor choice of words.

All war is brutal, and the times dictate the efficiency of the victor.

Brutal as it my be, when you are engaged in combat, you are engaged in a brutal fact of life (kill or be killed). Both sides know this.

Hopefully, someday there will be no more war. But it's not going to happen anytime soon.

So brutal wil be around for a long time.

2006-11-28 15:37:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

In the South food and possessions taken from civilians so that they could barely survive. As a child my great grandmother and her grandmother put everything in a wagon and fled the army. But they were caught and had everything taken from them. This was an innocent child and her grandmother. Court houses were burned destroying land and other records. My great grandmother's father was serving in the Northern Army, but it made no difference. They just went past common decency.

2006-11-28 15:35:01 · answer #5 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 0 0

more weapons, bigger casuelties. different kind of warefare at the time. and alot of people that were ready to die for what they beleived was right.. if u think about it. that is brutal. i mean think of everyone in the us that beleived what they beleived was right and was ready to fight and die for it.

2006-11-28 15:26:12 · answer #6 · answered by Dont get Infected 7 · 0 0

Uh.. well the object was to kill your opponent. Is this a serious question?

2006-11-28 15:15:01 · answer #7 · answered by Phil S 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers