I’m watching the Ken Burns Civil War series on Netflix. Fantastic!!
I am particularly interested in the casualties of battle.
Gettysburg had 23000 Union casualties of which 3000 were killed.
How is this calculated? Would the 3000 killed be battlefield deaths? What about a soldier who was badly injured and died a week later? What about someone who had a minor injury but died of infection a month later?
It depends on where you get your numbers from. Original army casualties would have been likely just those that died on the battlefield, possibly revised with those who died from their injuries shortly afterwards. Those numbers would likely not include soldiers like those who died of infection a month or so later.
A lot of those numbers were later revised as widows and orphans attempted to collect military service pensions that they believed were due to them. Without knowing where your numbers came from, it’s difficult to say what they would have included.
Keep in mind that during the Civil War, more soldiers died of disease than died in battle. Camps weren’t healthy and medicine was primitive. The ratio was typically about 3 soldiers killed in battle for every 5 that died due to disease. WWI was closer to 50/50, with about 5 soldiers dying in battle for every 6 that died of disease. By WWII, medicine had advanced to the point where combat deaths outnumbered disease deaths by about 2 to 1.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the Civil War rifle-musket was the worst standard infantry weapon to get shot with in all of history. That big Minie ball flying at just under the speed of sound inflicted absolutely horrible wounds on the human body, worse than the round ball muskets that came before it and worse than the cartridge rifles that followed it. This was noticed by surgeons during the Spanish-American war, and was fairly recently confirmed with ballistic gel tests. Modern rifle bullets will penetrate a fair distance before the wound channel opens up, even if the round tumbles. Civil War Minie balls produce a huge wound channel right from the start, and that big heavy slug of lead was excellent at shattering bones.
Civil War soldiers feared getting shot by Minie balls, and with good reason, considering how deadly the wounds were that it produced and how poor medical care was at the time. Basically, if you got shot in the leg, they would usually just remove the leg because it would be too far gone to save. Similarly, if you got shot in the arm, they’d usually take off the arm. If you got shot in the torso, they’d dope you up with morphine and set you aside to die. If you got shot in the head, you were usually killed instantly, so there was no reason to treat you. There were a few survivors who got shot in the head or torso, but they were rare.
I shoot muskets as a hobby. People think that muskets were crude, inaccurate weapons, but they weren’t. A Civil War era musket was rifled, and a skilled soldier could hit a man-sized target up to 600 yards away. They compare surprisingly well to the accuracy of a modern rifle. Their disadvantage was that the reloading time was horrible. If you could pull off four shots in a minute, you were moving fast.
There were only a couple of minor changes to muskets between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. First, as mentioned, was the rifling. Second was the switch from flintlocks to mercury fulminate caplocks. Since these seem mostly minor, most experts did not expect Civil War tactics to be much different, but they were. Bayonet fighting had been crucial in the Revolutionary War (and before). George Washington got his butt kicked up and down the battlefield until he got his troops trained in proper military discipline and bayonet fighting. In the revolutionary war, bayonets accounted for roughly a third of all battlefield casualties. In the Civil War, it was less than 1 percent. Bayonets were still long and pointy, so that they could be used like spears as they had previously been. After the Civil War, the lesson learned was that bayonets were no longer crucial on the battlefield, and they changed to a more knife-like bayonet so that it could serve double duty as a camp knife.
There was however a bayonet charge at Gettysburg. Chamberlain’s men on Little Round Top ran out of bullets, so they fixed bayonets and charged. Surprisingly, they were successful.
They also learned that with accurate musket fire, and using cannons as huge shotguns against infantry, mass charges just didn’t work any more. Pickett’s Charge would have probably worked in the Revolutionary War. At Gettysburg, Pickett’s men were completely destroyed.
I live close to Gettysburg and have been to the museum there many times (I have taken so many out-of-town relatives there that I could just about be a tour guide at this point). It’s worth seeing if you ever get a chance to go there. One of the things they have on display is a surgeon’s kit, which has a lot more in common with a carpenter’s tool box than it does with a modern surgeon’s kit.
It’s a bit sobering to think of all of those arms and legs that were quickly sawed off on top of a dining room table that had been quickly converted into a makeshift operating table.
So interesting. Thanks.
engineer_comp_geek, why do you call them “muskets” when they were rifled? Doesn’t that make them a rifle? Or do we reserve that for repeating rifles?
Civil War weapons like the 1861/1863 Springfield and the 1853 Enfield were typically referred to as “rifle-muskets”. They were basically the same design as the smooth bore muskets, just with a rifled barrel. Most of these weapons came in a shorter version which was just referred to as a “rifle”. Only the longer version that was almost identical to the smooth bore version was referred to as a “rifle-musket” (also sometimes referred to as a “rifled musket”).
Interestingly, the Model 1863 Springfield was referred to as a rifle-musket, but after the Civil War, many of these were converted into breech-loaders (google Allin Conversion if you want to know exactly how they did it). After they were converted into breech-loaders they were only referred to as “rifles”, even though they were still the same length.
It’s only a handful of weapons that were referred to as rifle-muskets. Before them, they were smooth-bore muskets and after them they were all called rifles.
Some people make the distinction that a “rifled musket” is something like the Model 1840 and 1842 Springfields, which were produced with smooth bores and were later rifled, and a “rifle-musket” is something like the 1855 and 1861/63 Springfields which were produced from the start with rifled barrels, but the terms are often used interchangeably (perhaps incorrectly).
I’d just add that the term ‘musket’ when it originated in the 16th century generally implied a longer shoulder fired weapon, in those days as compared to an arquebus. Although neither was an exact technical term.
Also when rifles were somewhat widely introduced into European warfare after the British lessons fighting the American irregulars and the Continental Army, they were generally shorter weapons that muskets*, issued on a limited basis to sharpshooters and skirmishers. Likewise the standard US Army ‘rifle’ prior to the Minie ball era, the Model 1841 or ‘Mississippi rifle’ round ball percussion rifle, shorter than the Model 1842 round ball percussion smoothbore musket. Therefore likewise with the ‘rifle’ and ‘rifle musket’ versions of the Model 1855 percussion Minie ball firing weapons, 32.5" and 40" barrels respectively.
The Model 1866 metal cartridge breechloading conversion of the Civil War M1861/1863 series was referred to as a ‘breech-loading rifle musket’ in official documents of the period, but the term musket died out soon after. The definitive US Army ‘trap door’ breechloader, Model 1873, also had a barrel no longer than the Model 1855 ‘rifle’.
*speaking of rifles officially adopted for limited use by armies, like the British Pattern 1800 (aka Baker Rifle) which were shorter than contemporary muskets, hunting rifles used by irregulars were sometimes very long barreled.
I don’t doubt that you’re right about all of this, but Civil-War-era rifle-muskets were preceded by the Kentucky rifle/American longrifle, which was a long, rifled muzzle-loader. (Correct me if I’m mistaken about that).
This doesn’t negate anything you’ve said, but I mentioned it to emphasize that these names have never been all that consistent. In light of that, I think it’s pretty reasonable for a modern non-enthusiast to think that the phrase “rifled musket” is a contradiction in terms.
You note that “people think that muskets were crude, inaccurate weapons, but they weren’t.” Don’t you think people who say that are clearly referring to smoothbore muskets, which were crude and inaccurate compared to rifled weapons?
I’m a lifelong cyclist, and I often hear people say things like “I need to have my bike tire trued,” when they’re clearly talking about a wheel, not a tire. But I know what they mean and respond accordingly.
Similarly, my understanding is that in the US military, a rifle is either a “rifle” or a “weapon,” while a “gun” is definitely artillery. But if a soldier is being court-martialed for shooting a civilian and defends himself by saying “I shot him because he was aiming his gun at me,” no one in the courtroom thinks the dead civilian had a howitzer on his shoulder.
Is that fair, or am I missing part of your point?
Civil War era rifle-muskets weren’t the first rifles (not by a long shot), but they were the first standard infantry weapons that were rifled. If you shoot a black powder musket, you realize just how quickly the powder residue fouls up the barrel. It doesn’t take long at all for the weapon to become very difficult to load. This wasn’t a problem for hunters, since they could just stop and clean out their rifle after a couple of shots, but a soldier can’t stop in the middle of a battle and clean out his weapon. So for military weapons, they almost always used smooth bore muskets with undersized balls. They weren’t terribly accurate, but you could still reload them after numerous shots. IIRC Napoleon didn’t even allow rifles at all in his armies.
So yes, rifles existed long before the rifle-muskets, but they were hunting weapons or sharpshooter weapons. They weren’t carried by the infantry grunts. And they were usually just called “rifles”, like the Pennsylvania/Kentucky Rifle, the 1841 Mississippi Rifle, the Harpers Ferry Model 1803 Rifle, etc.
Oh yeah, it is definitely a contradiction in terms and is definitely confusing to anyone who hasn’t done some reading on the subject.
Maybe it’s just my experiences, but I have run across a lot of people who aren’t aware that Civil War muskets were rifled, and those that are often don’t seem to realize exactly how accurate those rifle-muskets were. Many people that I have talked to have been very surprised to learn that my 1853 Enfield is capable of shooting a 4 to 5 inch group at 100 yards (as long as someone with better eyes than me shoots it - I’ve had to back off to 50 yard targets in recent years due to old eyes).
To be fair, the 1853 Enfield has better sights than the 1861 Springfield.
The Whitworth Rifle made the Enfield look silly though. Unfortunately for Mr. Whitworth, his rifle cost too much to produce.
One more thing, for comparison, I do have a smoothbore flintlock. It shoots straight for about 50 to 75 yards. After that, where the ball goes is anyone’s guess.
Smoothbores firing round balls pretty much always fire curve balls. The ball is going to randomly strike the side of the barrel as it goes down, which is going to make it spin as it leaves the barrel.
They used to say that you could stand 100 yards away from a single musketeer and not fear getting shot by him. That’s not quite true, but you get the point.
You can make it a bit more accurate by using tighter fitting lead balls. Militaries back in the day intentionally used looser fitting musket balls to avoid loading issues with fouled barrels.
They didn’t even bother to put sights on my musket. You can still aim it using the tang screw at the back and the bayonet lug up front as sights of a sort, but they aren’t terribly accurate.
Not entirely consistent, then or now. But, as I mentioned, military rifles, as opposed to hunting weapons used in warfare by irregulars, from the late 18th century, were generally shorter than muskets. Besides the British Pattern 1800, a later pre-Minie example was the US Model 1841 percussion .54 cal round ball firing muzzle loading rifle, a weapon issued in limited numbers to specialized formations or detachments. It had a 33" barrel v 42" standard on US .69 caliber smoothbore muskets going back to the Model 1812 flintlock, and still the length of the Model 1842 smoothbore percussion musket.
The introduction of the Minie type bullet, which could be loaded relatively easily into an already fouled rifled barrel, was what made rifled barrels come to be viewed as suitable for general infantry use rather than just sharpshooters and skirmishers. There was therefore less of a fundamental distinction between ‘rifle’ and ‘musket’, but the distinction based on barrel length persisted in US Army terminology, as in the Model 1855 Rifle (32.5" barrel) vs. the Model 1855 Rifle Musket (40" barrel), two otherwise very similar percussion rifled muzzle loaders.
As metal cartridge firing military shoulder arms became shorter post Civil War, the term ‘rifle musket’ disappeared. The Model 1866 was called a ‘breech loading rifle musket’ with a 36.6" barrel but the Model 1873 had only 32.6" barrel and the term wasn’t used after that.
I know what you mean about people thinking that civil war muskets weren’t rifled, but again, that’s a demographic that assumes that anything called a “musket” is, by definition, not rifled.
You say many people are surprised to learn that your 1853 Enfield shoots 4-5” groups at 100 yards, and I’d imagine that there are also people who are surprised to learn that your 1853 Enfield is rifled. How much overlap is there between those two groups?
We could also turn this on its head: is it common for people to understand that many civil war weapons were rifled but who think those rifled arms were only about as accurate as smoothbore muskets?
If so, I’d be surprised. In my limited experience, those who are aware of the difference between rifled arms and smoothbore muskets are also aware that rifling was a huge step forward in accuracy.
But this is your hobby and I bet you talk to all sorts of people about it; obviously, I don’t.
Oops. You basically answered the question I just asked, ECG, a few posts up. I missed that. Sorry!
And as promised, I am surprised that a plurality of people who know that Civil War weapons were often rifled are unaware that the rifling was responsible for a big increase in accuracy (and, by extension, range).
I shoot at a regular range, so most of the people there have modern hunting rifles and not a lot of knowledge of older firearms. Most of them aren’t aware that Civil War weapons were rifled and have no idea what a Minie ball actually is. Tell them that they were rifled, and they still think that they were somewhat inaccurate, maybe more accurate than a smoothbore, but nowhere near as accurate as a modern hunting rifle. After all, it’s ancient technology, right?
They also have the general impression that muskets were “weak” compared to modern rifles, and they don’t believe me when I say that one shot from a Civil War era musket will f*** you up much worse than one shot from a modern rifle will.
The only time I ever run into anyone who has actual knowledge about Civil War weapons is when I am in Gettysburg. I had a very interesting and long talk with a guy in the museum, comparing my Enfield to his Springfield. I still say mine has better sights. 
I totally take you at your word. Thanks for filling me in on your experience. I’m surprised, but maybe I shouldn’t be.
Interesting.
I’ve never seen any original documentation on these, but I personally have never heard of them being called a rifle musket. I have always heard them called trapdoor Springfields or trapdoor rifles. I was under the impression that once they switched from muzzle loading to breech loading that they stopped calling them muskets.
It makes sense I guess, since all of the Model 1866 Allin conversions started out as Model 1863 rifle muskets.
“Casualties” includes killed, wounded, and missing/taken prisoner. In real life, the last two categories are usually bigger than the first.
I have been doing a little reading on exactly how battlefield casualties were counted.
Commanders had a muster roll which was updated monthly. This documented who was available for fighting, and who was absent and why they were absent. This was important, because military commanders needed to know exactly how many men they had available for whatever they might be planning.
Officers were also required to compile casualty lists after every engagement. So your first round of numbers for how many casualties (dead and otherwise) there were at Gettysburg came from this count.
Hospitals would also keep records of men who died from their wounds or died from disease. There is an obvious problem here that if a man dies from disease, where did he get the disease? Was it from his wounds? Was he sick before he was wounded? Did he pick up the disease while he was in the hospital recovering from his wounds? How do you count this man?
At the end of a battle, you would have many men unaccounted for. Were they deserters? Did they die and fall into a bog somewhere so that their body was missed? Were they taken prisoner? Prisoners often gave false names when captured, for various reasons.
There isn’t one big record of every man in the Civil War, so if you ask how many casualties were there at the battle of Gettysburg, it’s not a simple question to ask. Historians have to pull all of these numbers together, and a lot of the records are notoriously inaccurate. You have muster rolls with names missing off of them from one month to the next with no explanation as to what happened to the soldier. You have names of men missing from battle, never to be mentioned in any record again. Were they deserters? Did they crawl off and die somewhere where no one managed to find their body? Were they captured and did they give a fake name? Did they die in a prison camp under that fake name so that no one really will ever know who they were?
Take the battle of Gettysburg for another example. The Union won that battle, and since it was in Union territory, the Union dead were well taken care of. They were documented properly and were given a proper, if hasty, burial. For Confederate soldiers, they did not take so much care as to properly identify the soldier, and instead of a careful burial, long trenches were dug, and Confederate soldiers were unceremoniously plopped into the trenches, head to foot, and when the trench was full, they covered it up. Union soldiers were given grave markers. Confederate soldiers were not.
Muster rolls needed to be accurate enough to give the commanders a good idea of their force strength, but that was it. If there were errors, they often wouldn’t bother to go back and correct them. They would just try to make next month’s muster roll a bit more accurate.
When the unit was disbanded, they attempted to give an accurate accounting of every soldier that had served in that unit, but those records were also often incomplete or incorrect.
The long and short of it is that the records we have are a mess, and getting an accurate count is all but impossible. Historians look at this mess and try to come up with numbers that are as accurate as they can make them, but these numbers are always estimates. You will often find very specific numbers listed in various sources. The wikipedia article on Gettysburg has what looks to be very accurate numbers, for example. Take those numbers with a grain of salt. Those might be someone’s official count, but those numbers aren’t anywhere near as accurate as you might think at first glance.
Civil War casualties were horrific because both armies were comprised of Americans and because the medical care was almost non-existent. I believe the Civil War easily had more American casualties than all of our other wars combined.
Just checked and nope, not quite:
The figures you quote are just deaths. If you count all casualties, including wounded and captured, I think the Civil War would win hands down.
My great-great-grandfather was captured at the Battle of Petersburg and ultimately died of scurvy in Andersonville Prison Camp. He would have been a casualty of the battle, even though his death didn’t occur until months later.
Mrs. Geek had family members on both sides of the war (not that uncommon back then). One of Mrs. Geek’s ancestors managed to survive Andersonville, so there’s a decent chance that he knew your great-great-grandfather.