Why did North America have the devastating ACW, and Europe no comparable thing?

[Max Sinister]

In the ACW, more than 600,000 men died during four years, and even today, some people have grudges over it.

Roughly at this time, Europe only had four comparably minor wars: The Sardianian-French-Austrian war 1859, the German-Danish war 1864, the Prussian-German war 1866 and the Franco-German war 1870/71.

Why this big difference? Both North America and Europe were part of the western world, their technology levels were comparable... so why?

 

[KingCrawa]

Because Europe is not one unified country having a massive civil war?

 

[Alex Richards]

Well, if we're going for 'devastating wars that waged destruction against large parts of Europe with consequences that led to grudges for generations afterwards' there's the German Peasant's War, the Eighty Years War, the Thirty Years War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, the 1848 liberal revolutions, World War One*...

I mean what are you expecting that Europe would have had a conflict break out at exactly the same time as the American Civil War?

*This is by no means an exhaustive list.

 

[Max Sinister]

I was talking about the rough time period. About the middle between Napoleonic Wars and World War 1.

 

[Artaxerxes]

I was talking about the rough time period. About the middle between Napoleonic Wars and World War 1.

We were busy fighting everywhere else.

 

[Bolt451]

At the actual time of the ACW? Colonies and a ton of proxy wars are probably a part of it.

We saved up our continent wide conflicts for the 20th century

 

[Arnold d.c]

Are you asking why the American Civil War was more bloody than the wars in Europe? Assuming it is so, one major reason would be disease. Compared to Western Europe, soldiers fighting in the South had a very great chance of contracting diseases. A good example is the Vicksburg campaign, throughout November 1862-June 1863 both Grant’s army and Pemberton’s army suffered very heavily from illness (Grant’s percentage of troops afflicted was 6% in Nov 1862, remained at 4% for Dec’62-May’63 and skyrocketed to 8% in June’63, Pemberton’s army consistently suffered a higher sick rate than Grant’s army). The total death as a percentage of total reported illness were 2.48% for the Confederates and 2.15% for the Union in the Vicksburg Campaign.

 

[Alex Richards]

I was talking about the rough time period. About the middle between Napoleonic Wars and World War 1.

So roughly 1850-1890 then?

Well apart from the Taiping Rebellion there was the Indian Mutiny, the Xhosa Wars, the Zulu Wars, the Crimean War, the 2nd Opium War, wars against the Maori, the Ashanti Wars, the Afghan Wars, the 1st Boer War, the Mahdist War and the Anglo-Burmese Wars, and that's just the ones involving Britain.

 

[avernite]

In the ACW, more than 600,000 men died during four years, and even today, some people have grudges over it.

Roughly at this time, Europe only had four comparably minor wars: The Sardianian-French-Austrian war 1859, the German-Danish war 1864, the Prussian-German war 1866 and the Franco-German war 1870/71.

Why this big difference? Both North America and Europe were part of the western world, their technology levels were comparable... so why?

Consider the Crimean war; roughly 750k casualties with only about 100k attributed to wounded-only (so sayeth wiki).

This in just 2 years.

And supposedly grudges over the matter helped ensure Prussia could roflstomp Austria and France with Russia cheering them on.

Looks similar to me.

 

[UCB79]

In the ACW, more than 600,000 men died during four years, and even today, some people have grudges over it.

Roughly at this time, Europe only had four comparably minor wars: The Sardianian-French-Austrian war 1859, the German-Danish war 1864, the Prussian-German war 1866 and the Franco-German war 1870/71.

Why this big difference? Both North America and Europe were part of the western world, their technology levels were comparable... so why?

There were a series of Civil Wars in Spain
in this period IOTL: the First Carlist War
(1835-1839), a revolution in 1868, which
forced Queen Isabella II into exile, & a
second Carlist War(1873-1876). I don't
know what the death toll in all these con-
flicts was but I'm sure it ran into the tens
of thousands.

So there was one European conflict that
@ least somewhat resembled the ACW.
Still, not as bad a record as ours. I think
the reason for the difference is that no
European state outside of Spain had any
issues in them as divisive as slavery was
in the U.S. Plus, @ least in this period,
The Congress of Vienna(1815)had settled
the major issues between the various
European powers. (Yes, as posters above
pointed out, there were wars but they did
not get out of hand).

 

[Max Sinister]

So roughly 1850-1890 then?

Well apart from the Taiping Rebellion there was the Indian Mutiny, the Xhosa Wars, the Zulu Wars, the Crimean War, the 2nd Opium War, wars against the Maori, the Ashanti Wars, the Afghan Wars, the 1st Boer War, the Mahdist War and the Anglo-Burmese Wars, and that's just the ones involving Britain.

These conflicts are not comparable. None of them was restricted to the western world.

 

[New Potomac]

These conflicts are not comparable. None of them was restricted to the western world.

The Crimean War? That was almost entirely in the Western World wasn't it?

The BBC pegs the human toll as:

Human cost
In military terms, the war was a midway point between Waterloo and World War One. The armies employed Napoleonic uniforms and tactics, but improved weapons. It emphasised the overriding importance of logistics, entrenchments and firepower, anticipating the experience of the American Civil War (1861-1865).

In addition it saw the first military use of many innovations, such as armoured warships, the intercontinental electric telegraph, submarine mines and war photography. American experts were quick to visit the Crimean, and published a full report on ‘The Art of War in Europe’ in 1861, just in time to shape their own conflict.

The human cost was immense, 25,000 British, 100,000 French and up to a million Russians died, almost all of disease and neglect. The human aspect of the conflict was recognised in Britain by the introduction of the highest decoration for gallantry. Unlike other medals, the Victoria Cross was awarded to officers and men without distinction.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

These conflicts are not comparable. None of them was restricted to the western world.

1) There was no massive difference of opinion within or between any countries in Europe on the level of slavery vs sanity.

2) Because Europe is not one big country, any disputes between countries can be resolved by diplomacy and by limited wars. And countries were scared enough of major losses that they didn't go hell-for-leather over limited goals in Europe when there were easy pickings in the rest of the world.

3) Is Alsace-Lorraine not in the western world or something?

 

[Zaffre]

Why this big difference? Both North America and Europe were part of the western world, their technology levels were comparable... so why?

Why wouldn’t they be different?

It’s not like the Civil War was caused by any of the things you listed - “being part of the western world” or “technology levels” or people getting all pissy during a specific decade or whatever - it was caused by a long-running national debate over slavery which Europe had already resolved.

This makes as much sense as asking why Spain had a civil war from 1936-1939 and the U.S. did not.

 

[Max Sinister]

3) Is Alsace-Lorraine not in the western world or something?

As I said in the OP: It was a short, comparably unbloody war with a fraction of the victims.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

Consider the Crimean war; roughly 750k casualties with only about 100k attributed to wounded-only (so sayeth wiki).

As I said in the OP: It was a short, comparably unbloody war with a fraction of the victims.

I reckon, that's good enough...

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

As I said in the OP: It was a short, comparably unbloody war with a fraction of the victims.

900,000 casualties per year, for fuck's sake.

I mean, the reasons for the Franco-Prussian War being shorter than the ACW are:
- Not a civil war, and the Prussians had limited goals, so nobody saw it as a fight for sheer survival
- Western Europe being more densely populated, which meant that strategic objectives were closer together
- A limited front, between the Low Countries and Switzerland, which meant that overbearing force could be brought to bear on one point
- A complex diplomatic picture meaning that most of Europe didn't get involved

So I think the onus is on you to give some semblance of a justification for thinking that there should be a near-simultaneous ACW analogue in - and completely limited to - Western Europe.

 

[KingCrawa]

So roughly 1850-1890 then?

Well apart from the Taiping Rebellion there was the Indian Mutiny, the Xhosa Wars, the Zulu Wars, the Crimean War, the 2nd Opium War, wars against the Maori, the Ashanti Wars, the Afghan Wars, the 1st Boer War, the Mahdist War and the Anglo-Burmese Wars, and that's just the ones involving Britain.

To paraphrase Blackadder we were a little busy engaging in villainous empire building to have a European wide war.

 

[History Learner]

Franco-German war 1870/71.

Contemporary American criticism focused on the fact that both sides took, collectively, ~180,000 losses in less than a year for a comparatively much smaller area than was fought over during the ACW. Interesting, to say the least.

 

[Mikestone8]

Cuz we'd had our big war two or three generations earlier, from 1792-1815, and tensions took a full century before they built up enough to cause another biggie.