What war do you believe to be the bloodiest in US Hist.

Bloodiest war

  • Persain gulf war (1991)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Vietnam War (1961-1973)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Korean War (1950-1953)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • World War 1 (1917-1918)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • war with China (1900)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Philippine-American War (1899)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Spanish American War (1898)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nez Perce war (1877)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wakarusa War (1855, 1856)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • War with Mexico a.k.a Mexican-American War (1846-1848)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters


Active member
Just another topic to get peoples opinion...

The current war in iraq was not included because in my opinion has only begun......

And yes i know there were many more wars than what i have included... if you feel there is any that should be included in the poll, just let me know....
Very good topic, Airman.

I would have to say the American Civil War. It was faught on American soil, American against American, killed 600,000 soldiers, and countless numbers of civilians.
Absolutely without question Civil War. Pitched brother against brother, more casualties than any other war, divided a country.
The American Civil War. As Rndrsafe said it was all Americans doing the fighting and dieing. At Atietam (Spelling?) The creek and a lane became known as Bloody Creek and Bloody lane due to the amount of blood from the casualities.
Civil War, without question.... a very bloody war.

It was very intense, and I like reenacting it


^^Link to my Civil War Unit... and yes we are actually hardcore, no we aren't fat and old and load up our campers for the weekend event.

Those people ruin the CW. :evil:
Definately the Civil War. The North couldn't get enough soldiers because all of them were being killed. And at the Bloody Lane (Antitam, i think.) over 4000 soldiers died.
The only reason the Civil War was the bloodiest was because the leaders for each side didn't have any idea what they were doing. Either side could have won that war a lot faster than they did if they would have used some common sense in regard to tactics.
Mainly because the North was an industrial country, they had way more men, supplies, money, and a stable government (I take that last part back, if it was stable there would have been no Civil War). The North was much better supplied, also with railroads and just about everything. The South put up a hard fight, considering what little they had.
Yah, the North had more everything except for good generals and the stronger will to fight. Lincoln conscripted men into the army because so many were dying. About every family in the country felt the pain of the Civil War.
DarkMB, the south also conscripted, which was a HUGE PR disaster for Jefferson Davis. As far as Grant being a drunk, this was mainly slander spread by his detractors (although surely with a grain of truth). However, success can redeem a multitude of sins. And he was a damn good general, who happened to win the war.
I believe the main reason the tactics were so poor was simply the changing technology. The tactics used initially were designed for less accurate, slower firing weapons, where mobility was less important than iron nerve. Also, the hard-headedness of the generals regarding dug-in positions: It hadn't penetrated yet that storming an entrenched stronghold would get you 50-90% more casualties than the defenders.
Definitely the bloodiest war, and the saddest, for how naive the country was: Everyone thought it would be over in 3 months.