Low casualties in this time period

[KnightsofEngland]

is it me or did this time period only have relatively low casualties, bunker hill, plessay, walcourt all had low casulties compared to the deployment. Why was this

[arkeologen]

is it me or did this time period only have relatively low casualties, bunker hill, plessay, walcourt all had low casulties compared to the deployment. Why was this

Battle of Narva, Fraustadt, Poltava.. no.. It differed.

[Korporal]

There is an additional factor one should keep in mind when looking at the relatively low casualty rates in many (but not all) battles of the 18th century: Quite often, only those soldiers who died on the battlefield were counted as casualties. But of those who were wounded, a large number died in the days and weeks following the battle due to gangrene, inflammation of wounds, blood poisoning or simply because of the low hygenie standards in primitive field hospitals and insufficient skills of the military surgeons. And many who survived their injuries were cripples - a musket bullet would completely destroy a bone, much different from a modern bullet. All these soldiers would not appear in the casualties list, but they clearly were casualties.

[CBR]

Bunker Hill had about 1/3 for the British and 1/6 for the Americans. I would not call that low casualties.

Just because something is called a battle does not mean every unit on the battlefield was involved in actual combat, especially if a general felt he was losing or there was too much risk.

There are numerous bloody battles in the 18th century. Just look at the Seven Years War for examples.


CBR

[schoenkoenig]

is it me or did this time period only have relatively low casualties, bunker hill, plessay, walcourt all had low casulties compared to the deployment. Why was this

No lower on average than the average casualty rate of battles in other time periods. It has more to do with certain constants of the human psyche than with technology.

[Vassilli]

is it me or did this time period only have relatively low casualties, bunker hill, plessay, walcourt all had low casulties compared to the deployment. Why was this

It just depends, on how the people set up, what their tactics are, and how good they are trained. Because look at other battles, like Waterloo for example, you cannot tell me that there werent many casulties there.

[Osskssa]

Prob had something to do with the tactics of the time....a line of British redcoats stomping towards you not stopping despite taking casualties then firing a deadly volley of musket fire at you.....think there was alot more running away lol

[The_Bulgar_Slayer]

The biggest difference is that in the ancient and medieval world, compared to this time, the vast majority of casualties were suffered not in actual combat but in pursuit. That is why the winners of ancient battles typically suffered very few casualties (usually <10%) while the losers lost horribly (usually >70%). These pre-modern battles saw more even losses between winners and losers due to similar weapons, training, and the ability of most generals to extricate a defeated army out of a situation intact. Of course the range of the fighting taking place made it easier to disengage than at close quarters.

[Tazgrent]

It would depend on locale, troops, weapons, etc. For instance, the British only lost 98 men at Brandywine.

[remosu37]

The biggest difference is that in the ancient and medieval world, compared to this time, the vast majority of casualties were suffered not in actual combat but in pursuit.

this is exactly the point, but a little more on this. Commanders of this period were considerably more hesistant in unleashing the full extent of their forces on an all out pursuit due to the tactics of the period. Most combat took place with carefully choreographed firing-lines, which required a high degree of unit concentration to maintain discipline and order. A medieval army armed with spears/swords could charge as a fairly disorganized mass and maintain a degree of combat effectiveness, but a disorganized mass of musketmen lose a MUCH higher degree of combat effectiveness.

This hesitation was well placed--a good example of what happened to an army of this period if it overpersued was the battle of cowpens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_cowpens).

thus mass casualties tended to happen more where one army suceeded in cutting off the escape of its opponent (a la Napoleon at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulm_Campaign, or where a river slowed an army's escape--Napoleon's defeat at Berezina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berezina)

[Xerrop]

The biggest difference is that in the ancient and medieval world, compared to this time, the vast majority of casualties were suffered not in actual combat but in pursuit. That is why the winners of ancient battles typically suffered very few casualties (usually <10%) while the losers lost horribly (usually >70%).

There were only few battles were the loosers lost more than 70% - like Cannae, where the romans got crushed.

But normally even the loosers have low losses (mostly under 20 %) - in many battles both armies could have under 10% losses.

Beside from the big and decisive battles in wars there were many smaller skirmishes with very few losses on both sides for the control of single towns or areas - where it wasn´t necessary to fight stubborn for the whole day.

IN ALL BATTLES in History (from ancient times to actual times) there were not all men of an army engaged in actual combat. It was not uncommon, that many soldiers haven´t even shoot an enemy the whole day during a bigger battle.

[General A. Skywalker]

One also has to have in mind: Not all troops of an army that participated in a battle took part actively in the battle.

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

@ the OP: actually, even by modern standards these are high, when you consider that that means 1000 british and 500 american were casualties, out of two roughly equal armies (3000 men). scale this up to a battle the size of fontenoy, and you are running into the tens of thousands; in fact, proportionally, it was bloodier than fontenoy, which was alread a gorefest for the 18th century.

I conducted a research into 18th century battles, and most averaged 11% on both sides. battles that were considered catastrophically bloody cost far more, often going into the 40's and 50's % (e.g st.Foy, 1760). the eastern front (prussia & the asutr russian alliance) in the SYW era, averaged 15% or more.

also, as the last post said, it was often the case that only a few regiments participated in the battle out of the total force, so those who did take part would have been in some real killing.

[Maethius]

I know this might not count towards the right time period, but at the battle of Lund, between Denmark and Sweden both armies numbere about 7 000 to 8 000 troops or something like that and at the end of the battle 50% of all combatants on both sides were dead or wounded.

[AUSSIE11]

also when you look at it as 10% causalties you lose the human element of the caualty figures. if you look at it from a different perspective that is 1 in 10 soldiers dead. that is quite a high portion really.

[Khassaki]

Prob had something to do with the tactics of the time....a line of British redcoats stomping towards you not stopping despite taking casualties then firing a deadly volley of musket fire at you.....think there was alot more running away lol

Yep, Both Swedish and French doctors commented that they saw people with bayonet wounds when fighting the Russians, when they were practically unknown otherwise. Mostly it was a battle of wills. French units broke almost immediately after they fired at a Brit unit and the British failed to rout. Same thing with the Russians, they were trained to depend on the bayonet for the outcome of their fights and would not break just to shooting.