Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The US Civil War was incontrovertibly the bloodiest, most devastating conflict in American history, and it remains unknown - and unknowable - exactly how many men died in Union and Confederate uniform.
Now, it appears a long-held estimate of the war's death toll could have undercounted the dead by as many as 130,000. That is 21% of the earlier estimate - and more than twice the total US dead in Vietnam."
Very interesting article and thanks for posting. My great, great grandfather was a Civil War veteran, 15th Pennsylvania Cavalry. Thankfully, he survived, and lived until 1924.
I have always been taken aback by the percentage of deaths due to disease, but the recent Crimean War should have been a prime example.
I know that in that conflict, British deaths due to disease far outnumbered battle casualties. In both wars, medical care, and especially knowledge, was sketchy at best, lethal at worst.
Also wanted to say thanks for posting that link. As they said, the number ultimately doesn't matter when telling the story of the conflict and the impact it had, but it's certainly interesting. Most of us were raised in a time period where accurate and constant casualty counts are readily available and highly accurate. In recent conflicts there are even online "tickers" counting the death toll and they are hyper accurate. It's interesting to see that for pretty much anytime past the early 20th centruy this kind of information really is just based on good guesses and the further back you go, the less accurate they are.
Casualty counts from the past will always involve some art with your science, and sometimes more art than science. We know that whether it was 650, or 750 thousand who perished in the Civil War, more than half were the victims of disease rather than combat. It was close camping with primitive sanitation measures which faciliated the spread of those diseases, but it struck me that at least a portion of those who perished from illness while in the service, would have perished via disease or misadventure if they had not been in the armed forces. I suppose a percentage could be worked out using the mortality rates for US males of fighting age in the 1850's...how many could have been reasonably expected to die even if there had been no war, with the calculated total then subtratced from the war's fatal victim figure.
If someone were inclined to do that...
Last edited by Grandstander; 04-26-2012 at 04:57 PM..
it struck me that at least a portion of those who perished from illness while in the service, would have perished via disease or misadventure if they had not been in the armed forces.
I would argue that every person killed during the Civil War would have died... eventually. The problem with your premise is that the average age of a Civil War combatant was 26 while the life expectancy of an 20 year old male in 1860 was 60 years of age.
I would argue that every person killed during the Civil War would have died... eventually. The problem with your premise is that the average age of a Civil War combatant was 26 while the life expectancy of an 20 year old male in 1860 was 60 years of age.
Most of my ancestors from that time lived more like 70-80 years.
I would argue that every person killed during the Civil War would have died... eventually. The problem with your premise is that the average age of a Civil War combatant was 26 while the life expectancy of an 20 year old male in 1860 was 60 years of age.
If you read my post again you'll see that I specified examining the mortality rates of military service age males in the 1850's.
If you read my post again you'll see that I specified examining the mortality rates of military service age males in the 1850's.
Ok, let's give that a go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
it struck me that at least a portion of those who perished from illness while in the service, would have perished via disease or misadventure if they had not been in the armed forces.
I looked for the average age of Civil War combatants and came up with the figure of 25 years of age. Then using an online morbidity calculator (I've forgotten where I found it) I selected 20 year old males for 1860 and the returned value was 60 years of age. I would think that if the average life expectancy of a 20 year old in 1860 was 60 years, then having not served in the war the average male could expect to live that long. Which would make sense that the morbidity rate of disease, as you pointed out, was based upon a number of factors, living in concentrated populations, poor sanitation, physical fatigue, and constant exposure to the elements would be contributing factors to a higher mortality rate than those who were not exposed to those conditions, particularly those not exposed to densely populated conditions of an Army encampment.
I looked for the average age of Civil War combatants and came up with the figure of 25 years of age. Then using an online morbidity calculator (I've forgotten where I found it) I selected 20 year old males for 1860 and the returned value was 60 years of age. I would think that if the average life expectancy of a 20 year old in 1860 was 60 years, then having not served in the war the average male could expect to live that long. Which would make sense that the morbidity rate of disease, as you pointed out, was based upon a number of factors, living in concentrated populations, poor sanitation, physical fatigue, and constant exposure to the elements would be contributing factors to a higher mortality rate than those who were not exposed to those conditions, particularly those not exposed to densely populated conditions of an Army encampment.
What am I missing?
I'm uncertain because I do not understand what it is you thought you were doing with the above. It isn't what I had in mind.
Males of military service age would be everyone between the ages of 15 and 45, why are you looking at just 20 year olds?
I also am unclear as to what point you are trying to make with any of this. If you gathered 100,000 people into conditions which make the spread of disease easier, of course more will die of disease than if you left those people in their homes. But...there would still be a percentage who died of disease at home. So....if 5% die of disease when gathered in army camps, but 1 % would have died anyway, then the actual war caused death toll from disease would be 4%, not 5%. That was the point.
I do not see what your above post has to do with that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
