Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1885-07-08
Losses in Battle.

Strange as it may sound, Improvements in
killing men in battle actually prevent men
from being killed. Ancient wars were al
ways more bloody, counting the number of
fighting men. than modern ones. Death
dealing machines 10 the hands Of an army or
navy 60 very far to make battles improbable.
In the Franco-Prussian war. France had
powerful feet of iron clads which was of not
the slightest use, because German torpedoes
and Krupp's great guns made venture into
German harbors a risk at annihilation. The
same thing happened in the last war between
the Russians and Turks. where neither side
ventured on naval battle though both had
ironclads. Indeed. in the march of skilled
warfare the time may come when two armies
confronting each other, and each finding at
tack to mean the determination of the assail-
ing party. one will either retire, gracefully
throwing up the sponge, or both will wait in
camp until the side which has the shortest
purse retreats without firing a gun. Or war
NAV become so dangerous that nations will
settle their differences in some other way
than one which promises military or naval
perditon.
Ali this has been shown lately by an analy
sis Of the per cent of the loss in the promi-
nent battles of the last 250 years. For evil
dent reasons the losses in attacks on fortified
places are omitted, and Waterloo losses, be-
cause there are no accurate returns Of the
latter For convenience these battles are d.
vided into periods. The first PERIOD from
1851 to 1914, embraces the time from when
firearms were generally used to the introduce
ton Of the iron ramrod and the bayonet. At
this time the rudest and heaviest muskets
were in use, together with the heavy iron
rest which the soldier used in firing, and
every musketeer stood with firing tools
enough hung round him to furnish out pack
peddler, while the loading and discharge of
his musket took about as much time as it
would for a smart housewife to get family
breakfast. Yet battles with such weapons
were very bloody, and the proportion of tie
killed to the wounded was very great. At
Marston's Moor, in the war between Charles
|. and Cromwell, the losses were over 1000
in total of about 40, 900 men Of both armies.
At Lutzen, Walenstein fighting against Gus
tavus Adolphus left 5000 dead. At Rocroy
of Is. 900 Spanish infantry 5000 were killed
in the ranks by the victorious French. The
average per cent of loss for this period was
26
In the second period, from l745 to 1913, the
old Brown Bess" smooth bore flint lock
musket, with bayonet, an improved irearm,
was used, and the Napoleonic wars came.
nc dNeThRt per Ctut VI loss III tiilS peIlou,
was 204. At Bunker's Hill the per cent was
"a, and at Lundy's Lane 10. The third pc
ROD from 1854 to 1868, witnesses the use of
rfled barrels and percussion caps. The per
cent of loss was 10. The loss at the Alma
1854, in the Crimean war, was 9 per cent; at
Solferino 8, at Shiloh "a, at Anletam l6, at
Fredericksburg s, and at Charlottesville l.
per cent of the forces engaged Grants Will
derness campaign is omitted in the estimate
because of the confusion in the Confederate
report of their losses. but the Union Army
from May 4th to June Sd, when it declined to
renew the attack at Cold IIarbor out of 1907
600 men lost over 5000, per cent much
above the general average.
The fourth period. 1866 to 1870, the age of
the breech-loading rifles, and embracing the
wars between the Prussians and Austrians,
and between Germany and France, shows a
loss of | | per cent. At KoHniggratz the loss
was per cent; at Sedan SO. From all OF
which it appears that the improvements of
war are fast destroying the bloodiness of
modern warfare.