Shiloh lasted days.
The Somme started in July, ended in November.
San Jacinto? Everyone knows the Alamo, but it’s hardly the greatest battle fought by the Texas Army during the Revolution. That distinction falls to San Jacinto, where 900 Texans attacked 1360 Mexicans and routed them absolutely- 11 Texans were killed, 30 wounded, to 650 Mexican soldiers killed, 208 wounded and 300 captured. Presumably 202 Mexican soldiers got away.
In 18 minutes.
As a result of the battle, the Texans captured Gen. Santa Anna, caused him to sign the Treaty of Velasco, thereby recognizing Texan independence. If you believe the inscriptions on the monument, San Jacinto was what set into motion the events leading to the Mexican-American war and the subsequent annexation of about 1/3 of the US.
Yes, some do. I mean, everybody loves a story about the underdog defeating the mighty army of the civilized invaders, thus securing their freedom and independence.
But if we look at the historical truth, the picture changes. First, what does one Germanic tribe of the first century really have to do with modern day Germans, and in what way can they be considered our ancestors? And Roman culture was alive and thriving in the German regions left of the Rhine, in cities like Trier and Cologne, which are still proud of their Roman heritage, and the Germans living there surely enjoyed the amenities and luxury of Roman life. Modern Germany definitely is much more based on the heritage of Roman civilization, whereas the influence of first century Germanic culture and customs is practically non-existent.
Battles that are particular to a state? I give you the battle that DIDN’T happen between Ohio and Michigan over the Toledo Strip. Two armed groups set out, but were lost in the swamps and didn’t find each other.
Getting back to the OP’s “What were you taught about your country?” The only thing I remember after all these years is the American Revolution - Valley Forge and Washington crossing the Delaware.
Well, they do speak German…
We just don’t know, because Germanic people were illiterate and didn’t leave scriptures, but I don’t think that modern High German has much to do with what the Cherusci spoke.
ETA: but yes, point well taken, there’s definitely some connection between their language and modern Germanic languages, which is bigger than that of romance languages on modern German.
Shiloh saw about 3500 men killed, which in World War I wouldn’t even have merited getting a name. Britain lost over 19,000 men killed in one day at the Somme.
That said, certainly the effect of Shiloh was similar to the impact of the horrific slaughters in the Great War. The extent of the bloodbath horrified people at the time. It was by far the bloodiest battle of the war up to that point, and was shockingly bad by the standards of the time. The Americans lost only about twice that many men in combat in the entire Revolutionary War (albeit way more to diseases.)
Nitpick: Culloden was after 1707.
It’s a matter of scale. The Somme was a HUGE battle - on the first day, there were 13 British divisions, comprising about 390,000 men, with 60,000 casualties for a roughly 15% casualty rate.
Shiloh was much smaller… but the rate was higher on both sides. 13047 casualties out of roughly 63000 Union troops, or about 21%, and 10,699 out of 40,335 for roughly 27%.
So Shiloh was in a sense, bloodier than the Somme, in that a higher percentage of combatants were killed or wounded. This was true of most of the US Civil War battles; people tend to underestimate just how savage the conflict was- a 20-30% casualty rate wasn’t uncommon for a large battle.
Granted, a lot of this was basically foreshadowing the same issues that were faced in WWI, with the rifled muskets having a MUCH longer range than the Napoleonic smoothbores that their tactics were designed around. And the solution tended to be trenches/fortifications, just like WWI. But when they didn’t do that, the fighting was absolutely murderous, with both sides being able to shoot at each other from 200-300 yards, well out of bayonet charge range.
The large WWI “battles” would be called “campaigns” in Civil War historical terminology, to be honest. They typically went on for months at a time and had multiple major actions. Somme was 140 days.
As a comparison the worst day of the Sommes the British suffered 19000 killed and upward of 57000 casualties. Comparing the single day Battle of Shiloh to that, and factoring in the much smaller army sizes of the two armies at Shiloh, I don’t think it is at all out of band for Bosda to have made the remark that Shiloh had “WWI level casualties.”
Not a nitpick, an important point.
What I should have said is “post disputes over who rules what bits of the island”
Interestingly, I think 50 years ago there was more celebration of Scots roles in British victories but nowadays I don’t how many people would identify e.g. the Thin Red Line as a Scots contribution to British martial glory. Or even think in those terms
I think Churchill didn’t use that example because it went badly, and it was kind of his fault.
Surely Yorktown would rank worse than Saratoga?
I had a great uncle in the Canadian army infantry killed at a battle at Ypres Belgium In 1916 during WW1. That was where the Germans had infamously used chlorine and mustard gas as weapons.
Yes, the Battle of Delville Wood I mentioned was part of the Somme, and itself went on for 3 months…
Dieppe is an interesting story. Obviously there was value and Russian pressure to open a Western front ASAP. Churchill only mentions it twice in his memoirs in very brief terms implying lessons were learned which were useful later.
In The Oxford Companion to Canadian Military History, Granatstein thinks this nonsense - the “lessons” were obvious and the beaches at Dieppe were very different than those used later. Canadians lost 56 officers, 851 other ranks and had 586 men wounded, and 1946 taken prisoner. 106 aircraft were lost, the heaviest daily toll since WW2 had began (to 48 Luftwaffe and 600 German men). Heavy bombing and big naval guns did not precede the assault. They depended on surprise and made no changes when this was lost. And the port was dominated by cliffs - where one would obviously put firepower.
Churchill of course knew this, but no one wants to say “all those people died for nothing.”
Even Canada’s Veterans Affairs website sounds like Churchill:
In fact, the battle was not pivotal in any way - I don’t think the author here chose that word with a regard to what it means - and no lessons were learned that weren’t learned elsewhere or could not have been learned at far lower cost. It’s also worth noting the GERMANS learned lessons as well, which they applied in 1944.
Around here (a Commonwealth country), it’s a given that the Commonwealth landings more successful than the American landings on D day, and partly because of better use of armour. Is there any truth to that?
The French Foreign Legion is always mentioning Camarón…
Not really, no.
The American leading went great at Utah Beach; it was a success, with few casualties. The bloodbath was specifically Omaha, and a lot of things went wrong, most notably the total failure of the preliminary bombardment.