The North-Carolinian., 1855-08-11
Loss Of Life in Great Rattfes.

The waste of human life in the unsuccessful
attacks on the Malakoff and Redan appears te
nave been nearly as great (though not quite,
! as in the average of the most destructive moderr
battles. More than five thousands of the as
saHants were killed and wounded vast pro-
! portion, when we consider how small compare
lively the stormng column was The--Ffrr1re
alone admit loss of thirty eight hundred men
out of an attacking force Of twenty-five thou
sahd; that Is to say, every seventh man was rem
dered incapable, either by death wounds.
There is, indeed, one modern siege, which
was more bloody than this--not actually how
ever, but when the numbers engaged are com
pared with those who fell We all,zle to the
aieee~af Rs4s.s5ssz
That famous Spanish fortress was invested by
Wellington, at the head of twenty-five thous-
and men, and finally carried by storm after
one OF the most sanguinary assaults on record.
In the attack on the great breach alone, not
less than thirty-eight hundred men fell. Yet,
Badaoz was small place, the fort not being
larger perhaps, than the Malakoff and its out
works. Whoever would realize half the hor-
ror of war; should read Napiers account of the
fall of Badaoz
NIarengo, Austerlitz, Wagram, Leipsc Drcs-
den, BorodinO and Waterloo were among the
most desperately contested battles of the first
Napoleon. At Marengo the Anstrians lost
ten thousand, more than a third of their whole
force while the French lost seven thousand
or about in the same proportion. A considera-
bic portion of these were prisoners, however,
while at the Re(lan and Malakoff but few pri
sOncrS were taken. At AUsteriitZ the French
lost twelve thousand, nearly a sixth of their
entire force; but the allies lost thirty thousand
or more than third. At Wagram the loss on
either side twenty-five thousand, about
one-seventh of those engaged. At Leipsic the
loss was forty three thousand on the side of the
allies, out of nearly three hundred thousand
e,fl
the French. out of hundred and seventy
five thousand. At Dresden the allies lost
twenty-five thousand, onc-sixth Of their en-
tire numbers while the French lost but twelve
thousand, one-tenth. At Borodino, the
bloodiest battle of all, fifty thousand fell on
each side, or third of those in the battle
At Waterloo the French lost forty thousand
or more than half; but large proportion OF
these fell in the rout; yet the English lost
nearly twenty thousand, or almost third OF
their entire troops.
1t is often said, in discussing military affairs
that our American battles have been too tri-
fling to take into consideration. But if we
consider, not tho numbers actually killed and
wounded, but the proportion which those num-
hcrs bear to the whole force engaged, shall
find That .hoeo .,ction1, tT,u- r,orrc, rs
hotly contested even the first Napolcon's
battles. At Eutaw Springs, for example, in
the revolutionary war, onc-thrd of both armies
were le1t upon the he1d. At Chippewa, ID the
war Of 1872 nearly one-Gfth cf the British was
disabled. At Lundy's Lane, the loss of the
Americans was about oncthird; and that OF
the British equally great. At New Orleans,
where the British attempted, on a smaller
scale the same rash experiment which they
have just been defeated in before the Redan
Malakoff; the assailants lost two thousand men
out of their army of twelve thousand
From these statistics it appears the battles
in the open field are generally more bloody,
though not always, than assaults Of entrenched
positions. The rea son is, that in the former
case the entire army is usually engaged, but i'll
the latter only the >storming column. The loss
by those actually occupied on the attack is
| always heavier, however, than the average loss
of an army in the open field 1t would appear
| also, that the allies in their later rcpulse, suf
fered as severely as the English at New Orleans
"a battle which has always been considered
one of the most sanguinary Oh record