The American Civil War using Google Earth (Extended)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2023
- Made using Google Earth.
The American Civil War from start to finish.
__
Music:
"Scott Buckley - Goliath" is under a Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0) license.
/ musicbyscottb
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🕕 6 Minutes of EPIC (F...
___
(Not endorsed by Google, this video is completely made by me. This video is not sponsored by Google.)
This video is for educational purposes only.
ℹWatch the new and remastered version here: ruclips.net/video/ESKMtzD4nCM/видео.html
Those causality numbers aren’t even close.
Are you really so burdened by your Western "exceptionalism"!?
When you make a conflict in which the Russians participated, you multiply their losses by 10, and when it comes to a conflict in which someone from the current NATO participated, you divide their losses by 10!?
Even your western crappy wikipedia says that the casualties in that civil war were over 800000!
Crazy how the confedreates put such a massive fight despite being massively outnumbered
Because the South knew they would be outnumbered fast. They had no choice but to keep attacking hoping to break the North before they could reinforce. North did that, without panicking and trying to take back lost territory which the South wanted to happen. "You give a little to take a lot."
@@jdgarcia2004 the south won one-sided battles way against the odds on top of that even when they were outnumbered. But they lost because they were slowly starved out and outmanned everywhere.
@@gamerland5007 that's what I just said; ABE LINCOLN knew the longer the war went on, the more of an advantage he would had
they fought for their freedom....
@@gamerland5007Not true. They were good at winning battles and making spectacles out of them, but they weren’t good at winning wars. Realistically, there was never any hope for them. They couldn’t have won. It’s simply not possible. This is in the same way the germans in world war two couldn’t have won in the way they wanted. They were good at winning battles, but not at winning wars.
Regardless of the various criticisms noted by others, the video would be much better if:
- Cities, railways (at the time), and battles had been marked.
- The casualty counters had have been in the lower right rather than over contested territory.
- You tabulated battle deaths, other military deaths, and civilian deaths.
- Naval battles had been marked.
the casualties are insanely inaccurate, but this is very well made.
Glory glory hallelujah!
I think the creator was referring to combat deaths, since many if not most were from disease.
yes but the total on the casualties witch the video shows is 132,286 witch is 22,186 more than realty
@@tonyjesus1657
Disease and civilian casualties were way higher
both of those ideas make sense, still seems off.
if i’m not mistaken the battle of Pittsburgh was bloodier than D day
0:06 when the casualties went to 1, i felt that, it was a very depressing lost 😢
Same i cried
But really, is there a story to that? Being a first & only casualty for 1,5 months sounds special.
@@karlkreisner5278yeah I'm wondering who that was
So the first casualty of the war was at Fort Sumter. He was not killed by the bombardedment of the fort, when the garrison surrendered the fort they wanted to fire off the cannons and do a 50 gun salute but oneof the barrels burst and killed one of the men on the cannon crew. Nobody was killed in the actual conflict there, it was just a freak accident
@@ColtLuttrell Woah, thats even more depressing
The mapping is innaccurate as well as the casualties. In fact the Battle of Union City, TN happened in December 1862. But i as a geographer noticed that the Confederate Territory never expanded in any way to Union City. I did notice that around that time they stretched out real quickly but is rather accurate however they didnt go far enough
Using conventional battle lines for this wasn't really a good idea considering the battle lines didn't stretch like they did in ww 1 or 2. Might have been better and easier to highlight the battles and maybe the places where the armies actually faced off.
@@harleymccartney7339 Not sure if i get your point?
@@noorna7123 My Apologies, it was obviously a typo, i meant 1862
I don’t have to imagine I did , I was just 13 when we got ac. My grandparents never got ac they lived to be in 90’s.
I believe they are only counting death from combat and left out death from disease
In total, some 600,000-750,000 soldiers died during the ACW as well as many civilians, making the the total casualties even higher, so the figures shown in the video are totally inaccurate. For example, in the Battle of Gettysburg, some 50,000-60,000 soldiers died... and that was just one battle...
2011 research considered that it can be actually up to 850k. But I disagree with your numbers at Gettysburg. there Union lost 3,155 killed, 14,531 wounded, 5,369 captured or missing, while Confederates - those numbers are less precise - 4,708 killed, 12,693 wounded, 5,830 captured or missing (but maybe totally Rebs lost 3-4 thousand more in altogether dead, wounded and missing).
50000 to 60000 casualties, not deaths.
60k killed, wounded, or missing
...and one in four deaths at G-burg were North Carolinians.
Gettysburg 50.000 - 60.000 soldiers died... For heaven Sake! in fact, killed around 7.000
Never forget 2 turning point battles: Vicksburg Ms. & Gettysburg, Pa.
Imagine living in the south with no air conditioning
That was pretty much everyone before the 1950s.
@@Novusod That must have sucked
what is bro on ? 😭
No wonder they rebeled 🤔
Some poor people in the south don't have AC, with global warming more and more people are suffering heavily, it's terrible
do the casualties represent deaths only as that seems way too low. I've seen 600k for dead & wounded, it also shows the Unions attrition war from about sept.64 onwards - what a waste.
feels like the south didnt have an overall strategy of how to win. the north seems like they knew what to do from the start.
South's strategy was always defensive, save for the two times Lee invaded the north. If he hadn't done that they may well have won.
@@harleymccartney7339They wouldn’t have won defensively either, infact the norths strategy was to lengthen out the war so that the south couldn’t sustain and that they were also outnumbered
@@Ibloop What really won the war was the 1864 election. Had Lincoln lost we'd be two countries right now. Thankfully, he didn't.
The North tried to capture the Southern capital, Richmond, from the start. To do so was considered the best way to win a war, which McClellan and others had learned. By March 1865, the North still hadn't succeeded in that, although it was winning by then.
. . . Only the later years showed that Scott's strategy of the Anaconda was actually the better approach. Grant used and modified it.
@@harleymccartney7339Polk, Zollicofer, and Bragg also attempted to invade Kentucky, and there were multiple attempts to invade Missouri. Every one of those attempts also ended in failure and contributed to the failed strategy, as you rightly note.
Estimate total casualties between 620-750K. At Gettysburg alone 50K in total.
lol
You should of put the numbers all the way to the right side of the map since thats where most of the fights happened
The casualties (dead, injured and captured) were WAY higher than the counter with the actual total casualties on both sides exceeding 600,000. I assume that the counter was only including the soldiers killed in the line of duty, be it from wounds sustained in battle or from disease.
nah
I noticed the ticker didn’t move as much in relation to the battle of Gettysburg
I think the casualty ticker was just on a consistent pace, moving towards an end number at an even pace. The end number isn't even correct, for deaths only, and doesn't count total casualties. Also, the ticker doesn't jump at all on the dates for the 13 biggest battles, where thousands of casualties happened in only a few days.
Even with your caveat, the numbers are completely innaccurate. Official statistics from the North state 141,000 KIA (in combat) for the Union ALONE .. plus 224K dead from epidemic disease and delayed death from battle wounds (mostly infection) ..... Confederate stats are less well organized but state about 200K fatalities. Recent research suggests that Confederate casualties were much higher
The most accurate figures are 1.1 million casualties with 620,000 of which were deaths.
Can u pls do russian civil war but with numbers or winter war also with numbers
It'll be very interesting
Imagine being that 1 first Union death so unlucky 💀
"Oh, ey Fred! you hear about that werid new south thing? such a werid name they give 'em selfs, con-fuder... confed-er-racey? They're strange folks if you ask m-"
*gets fucking nailed in the back of the head by Confederate 1853 Enfield Pattern Rifle Musket loaded with .577 caliber*
Rather be the first casualty than the last. Having gotten so close to the end and...........✝RIP
True@@raybarry4307
Elmer E. Ellsworth May 24th 1861
Somebody has to go first.
Can definitely see which way you lean, politically. Try switching the colors to more accurately reflect party lines
Casualty numbers are off by a factor of 10 at least
Do Bloods vs. Crips next, with the LA city map.
Well, it became a nation wide skirmish after the 70’s. I know of one particular kid having moved his act to the Midwest and is now doing life.
nicely done, but historically completely distorted, not only this map but also other maps, correct it and it will be nice
The casulties on both sides were maybe 5 to 6 times higher, while normally wounded soldiers are also regarded as casulties so maybe rather 20 to 30 times higher. My theory, as a non-english speaker, is that "casaulties" is something special, so maybe only the guys sitting on a horse being shot or civilian losses..
how do you program animation. what kind of card?
Dude grant has a single campaign in 64 which lost him 84,000 Union soldiers
Lee lost more soldiers than Grant overall.
@@Ares99999that's false
@@tylerhodges11 It's complicated depending on how you count, but arguably true: Lee lost a higher percentage of forces under his command than Grant did, and also arguably more numbers overall, but that had to do with how many troops each of them had under their command at any given time. For example, when Lee was the chief commander of the overall Confederacy, arguably all the losses in the Western Theater get counted for him, even though he wasn't commanding the battles.
But also made more complicated because Grant had the bigger army towards the end especially. But that tends to happen when you're winning the war.
@@thexalon it's says Lee lost up to 90 thousands while grants lost near 110 000 this was all in Virginia under lee command
@@tylerhodges11Since you don't tell me what "it's" is, I can't tell where you're getting your numbers or verify their correctness.
Since the Union forces were overall about double the size of the Confederate forces, that meant that while the Union had ~75,000 more killed overall, 29% of Confederate soldiers died while only 17% of Union soldiers died. But of course only some of that happened under Grant's and Lee's command on both sides.
In the Overland Campaign, the only time when Grant and Lee were both field commanders pitted against each other, Grant had 120,000 troops, of which 7600 were KIA, 38000 wounded, and 9000 missing, for 6% KIA and 45.5% lost overall. Lee had 65000 troops, of which 4300 were KIA, 19000 wounded, and 10000 missing, for 6% KIA and 51.2% lost overall. Plus Lee had the advantage of being the defender with prepared positions. So the claim that Lee was vastly better than Grant at avoiding casualties is probably not true.
Are you using some kind of frame generation AI? The numbers now look extremely distracting with them warping and creating artifacts.
This is a slowed down version of the original
There is a tutorial out there on this.
Curious to know how significant of a difference exists between playing on a 0 compared with a 00 wheel?
Your map was fairly good, you are missing a few back and forth incursions, especially in the east. Your troop strengths are off by quite a bit, and your casualties are waaaaaay off, not even close. It's almost as if just a counter was running at the same rate the whole video. There should have been massive jumps in casualties about 13 times that didn't happen: Shiloh (24,000 total casualties in 2 days), 7 Days (36,000 in 7 days), Perryville (8,000 in 1 day), 2nd Manassas (22,000 in 3 days), Antietam (23,000 in 1 day), Fredericksburg (18,000 in 2 days), Stones River (26,000 in 3 days), Chancellorsville (30,000 in 6 days), Gettysburg (43,000 in 3 days), Chickamauga (36,000 in 3 days), The Wilderness (29,000 in 3 days), Spotsylvania Courthouse (31,000 in 8 days), Cold Harbour (18,000 in 3 days). When the counter ran by these dates, the casualties did not jump. Good videos, but if you are going to do historical pieces, get them right.
There using deaths wounded as well so fuck you mean get them right they are nearly good
@jeremiahwilliams7997 tf you smoking there where 600k + killed in the Civil war thats Killed thats K.I.A and if we included wonded thats 1.5 million
@@jeremiahwilliams7997And your proof is where? He's right: The numbers are off.
And they have been sulking about it ever since 😢
Why casaulties are so low in this video? Wikipedia says 360k (110k KIA) at US side and 290k (94k KIA) at confederates side, other sources have similar statistics, some of them even says that number can be up to 850k combined.
wikipedia isnt always inaccurate
@@eisorama2216 Well, wiki is just an example, u can find a lot of sources with similar numbers. 130k combined is way too low.
@@eisorama2216 bro is my teacher 💀
@@vloggingwithsam4811 ?
@@eisorama2216 teachers don’t let you use wikipedia
I will have to look up why it says there are only 137,000 casualties.
i think the numbers in this video are not true lol
I'm pretty sure the numbers shown are battlefield casualties
@@christophernakhoul3998 supposedly only 650,000 soldiers have died in All American wars. So it is likely correct, I guess.
@@jls0037cslewis1 600,000+ soldiers died in the civil war alone. However, most of these were due to disease and deaths in POW camps. The numbers in the video are strictly battlefield related deaths.
Yeah, that's wrong. 659,000 Union and Confederate soldiers died in the war.
I thought Kentucky never seceded?
It didn’t. The map is wrong.
If the tractor had been invented sooner, the war might not have happened.
Unless contraband tractors will be sent to Canada from Georgia 🙂
Mechanical cotton harvesters finally appeared in the late 1920's. Too bad no one could figure out how to move past slavery before then.
? Ain’t no way capital is giving up free labor and total control. And I mean after the war you had stuff like sharecropping and even now farmworkers are largely cut out of labor protection legislation.
@@54321jcc Slavery had been legal in New England and other Northern states and was, in fact given up voluntarily by those states at different points in the late 1700's.
@@johnporter4628 And the economies and cultures of those states were very different. Chattel slavery was built up and integral to how the southern states ticked in different way. As long as those same people were in power they were never going to give that up on their own.
Including those who died of wounds up to a couple of years after the war around 750,000 had died.
1) great video; and 2) pretty big omission on the Battle of Schrute Farms. Northernmost battle of the war. And total deaths? Sure Gettysburg wins. But when we're talking DPA - deaths per acre - the Battle of Schrute Farms is way more.
There's a place in the video where the CSA is shown to be in control of a small portion of Massechusetts. I think the location is off a bit, but I believe that is a reference to the Battle of Schrute Farms.
@@aaronfleming9426 Indeed. I suspect the mislocation is a further attempt to distract by the Civil War history industry.
Bro casualties are insanely small for both sides than it's supposed to
you should do it with dummy nation next its gonna be hard tho
130 thousand casualties is not correct…
Ya half of this isn't even close to correct
Why are the casualty figures way off?
The casualties are completely wrong. There were 650k deaths, let alone just casualties.
It appears that the video maker was including only combat deaths, in which case it was fairly accurate. But labeling them "casualties" instead of "combat deaths" is incorrect.
Wow. Just wow!
Oh you are back! still remember you :D
@@pigeoninanutshellwhat kinda pfp is that?
Ice cream???
Билетинин 2-3 соз гана ма?
USING Google, how did it contribute other than single dodgy map?
Only showing 130k casualties? There were over 600k casualties in that war.
I was always told about 500,000 people died there because casualties at 60,000 each
Casualty counts are way way off
I'm not American I don't know who is fighting who?! Those guys in red map are surely brave to fight those massive number of blue ones with almost same number of casualties.
You can watch The American Civil War by Oversimplified to learn about it.
Courageous and supporters of slavery
The guys in red were desperate to keep the right to oppress and enslave people with brown skin. The blue were trying to free the slaves.
Basically the red folks are universally acknowledged bad guys.
They wanted nothin to do with the North East states. Sound familiar?
Red was bad, blue was good. History is written by the victor.
Kentucky was never in the confederacy. Also, how accurate are the troop strengths? Seems crazy that the union started 1865 with ~600k and merely 4 months later they were at half that strength. Were they disbanding units because they knew the end was near?
Casualties are way off. Gettysburg alone had 52,000
Cool video, but there were a hell of a lot more casualties than 132,000
It is a great map
The casualties seem off...significantly.
If someone know where the first casualty came from?
Elmer E. Ellsworth was killed in Alexandria Va. while trying to remove a confederate flag from the Marshal House May 24th 1861
bro your videos are so good made well done keep up the work and the wars bc i like to look at it and yes ik i have a werid pfp but i will chage it and im 14 yrs old btw keep it up i love your videos of how well made
Your 14 and you don't know how many military deaths there were? What do they teach nowadays.. how to tie shoe laces and gender equality? 😂 we're all fucked your generation grows up
I thought they lost 70K in one day at Antietam and about that at Gettysburg.
Total casualties at Antietam were about 23k, Gettysburg about 53k. But yeah, the numbers in this video are way off.
Crazy how Texas didn't change much except for El Paso
The confederates specially in the early days of the war had much less casualties than the Union and by the end of the war total casualties had risen to a staggering 800 000+ from each side!
Summer of '63 was rough for the Confederates.
-West Virginia seceded from Virginia and became an American State.
-Grant's victory at Vicksburg split the Confederacy in two.
-Lee's defeat at Gettysburg made the rest of the war a formality.
Um.. what flags are you using? How can we believe you know anything when its wrong from the start?
Why is it one casualty for the union?
this looks a bit like ai was used to increase the framerate after it was already rendered ;) (cool video still)
I used Smooth Frame Rendering.
@@pigeoninanutshell
not saying its bad, but it kinda ruins the video for me, seeing numbers shift weirdly instead of instantly changing makes me feel weird
@@UH-60_Blackhawkthis is a slowed down version
Quick reminder you forgot to ad the creation of West Virginia on June 20 1863 other that that great video
Fun fact: The original proposed name of the state was “Kanawha”. Personally, I think they should have kept that name, as “West Virginia” is a very lazy and unimaginative name.
@@gabrielagustinhomas it was supposed to be called new Virginia or
@@mountaineernews2 Yeah, “New Virginia” is just as lame to me. They could have at least called it “Appalachia”, or something.
Appalacha 👍 (to make it easier to pronounce) ⛏🤠
Hello, can you make a "Latvia War of Independence using Google Maps" like you did for Lithuania War of Independence? Thank you.
Это не война, это как Бандера на укр... Независимость от чего? От Тевтонов которые сотни лет использовали латвийцев как чернь, вот это было бы интересно... но тогда и страны то такой не было...
@@alexb6412ru⚡⚡ian
@@alexb6412What are you yapping about little Russian?
@@ancientwarrior3482 это здесь причем?
For the people crying over the numbers,Its actually really hard to do this.Give this man (or girl) some resepect
probably combat deaths rather than ALL deaths or somethin
First of all you used the juvenile, pejorative word "crying", which already shows a lack of respect - the very thing you're asking others to have. Secondly, if the statistics are far from accurate, then the video isn't worth much, no matter how much effort was put into it.
Numbers matter
REALLY matter!!
no, don't be all whiney and talk about participation trophies... if you are going to make historical pieces, you have an obligation TO GET IT RIGHT, and he isn't even close here. Imagine someone making a video about something you know 100%, inside and out, that you could recite in your sleep, and the video made is completely wrong, you would have a feeling and probably a comment about the inaccuracy...
7:05 General Sherman: "Okay boys, let's goooooo!"
Kentucky is wholly mishandled here, particularly given the attention given Missouri and that far chunk of VA that eventually grew into West VA. KY never seceded, was never in the control of the Confederacy, and, though inarguably a culturally Southern commonwealth, sentiments in the state were as 50/50 as in any in the borderlands. I have Kentucky ancestors from each side, as so many of us do.
Nice idea, lack in execution.
The underlying map was modern, with population centers at Dallas and Houston and with major traffic arteries connecting many cities. In contrast, there were only bad streets and a few railroad lines back then, but they were MASSIVELY important.
At 4/20/1865, the eastern theater should have switched blue, then the southeastern theater, all one by one, until Texas in June 1865.
Coloring Kentucky Confederate is incorrect. KY was indeed a slave state, but from start to finish it remained in the Union.
The second part is around the corner :)
I’m thinking you should’ve put the song Union Dixie over it
No one cares about your sexual preference.
Ok? Considering there were more than 600,000 military deaths between '61 and '65... I think your numbers are slightly off
You completely left out the Rio Grande Campaign.
Causalty data is inaccurate... simply more than 50.000 people died in Gettysburg and no jump occurred in the first days of july 1863
Losing your largest city with barely a shot fired early on in the war. Everyone likes to drone on and on about the so-called superiority of the CSA, but how do you explain that?
A few shots were fired by the US ironclads that captured New Orleans. It helped that the Confederate Spirit wasn't very high there.
Lack of navy, inadequate resources committed to the forts defending New Orleans, poor strategy, lots of wishful thinking.
The CSA inflicted about 70-75k more casualties than they suffered bc they had better sharp shooters despite being outnumbered 4-1
@@user-ru9cj1mv4eThe CSA was never (or almost never) outnumbered 4:1 in a major battle, in part because vast numbers of Union troops were required to protect supply lines through hostile territory. The casualty disparity is the result of the reality that the Union had to go on the offensive while the rebels often had the option of fighting from behind fortifications.
You can confirm my claim by examining battles where the CSA was on the offensive: Mill Springs, Gaines Mill, Malvern Hill, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, etc. Next, compare those to battles where they were on the defensive: Fredericksburg, 1 and 2 Bull Run, the assaults at Vicksburg, Cold Harbor, etc.
@@aaronfleming9426 the north had more population more factories and were more equipped and still suffered more casualties
1861 was First Bull run and other Battles ..where are the Casaulties ?
Can you plz make one about the 1979 Kurdish rebellion
I had always read that control of rail lines was key to the war. They should have just used the interstate highways!
(Yes I'm joking. The interstates appear because they used Google maps.)
You are completely off base!!!! They should have worked on controlling the airports first.
War ended in April 1865
But went on into July 1865 ???
Just like in ww1 and ww2 it always takes time for soldiers to stop fighting
Mexico: man this show epic
Mexico was too busy getting invaded by Napoleon
mexico didnt have time to enjoy the show (they were getting invaded by france)
fr@@notlucas6859
Teddy Swims wouldn't have known where to go without Bonnie's arrangement...the song carrys more weight sung by a woman and her version captures the exact mood of her thoughts in the dark room with her true love...
The confederate flag should have been changed to a white flag at the end of it
And the Confederate flag was never the one shown; that was just the Army of Northern Virginia. It should be the "Stars and Bars" flag.
Crazy how that has less than 110,000 casualties when over 680,000 soldiers died combined on both sides in the actual Civil War
You just throw some numbers down not caring if it's accurate or not.
I think the casualties count is wildly inaccurate
It definitely is " For more than a century, the most-accepted estimate was about 620,000 dead. A specific figure of 618,222 is often cited, with 360,222 Union deaths and 258,000 Confederate deaths."
@@LocestSwarmSC831 Most of the deaths were actually due to disease and not direct combat action, but I think even the combat fatalities are underestimated here.
yeah it’s insanely low, given a few battles were even worse than D-day
Maybe he didn’t count disease deaths which makes up 2/3rds of deaths
How was the Union able to take eastern Louisiana so quickly into the war?
I'm not sure, but some states did appeal there seccession and rejoin the union during the war.
I don't understand any of this. What does the red area represent? Confederate, OK.
Blue area? Union, OK.
Pinkish/purple area? ?
Green area? ?
Grayish/bluish area? ?
What do the numbers represent?
The only thing I understand is the casualties....I also understand they are inaccurate.
I like the idea. But it seems to me the creators didn't.
bro wrong confedarate flag and the casualties on the confedarecy there was 280000 deaths and 560000 on the union
Casualties are waaaaay off. But I still enjoyed the video. Map was spot on accurate
The number of losses were about 600k. Wtf.
You're daring to make a history piece that's crazy inaccurate. Wow!
Does military obstruction of southern independence violate democratic principles.
You fogot to add morgans raid
I'm surprised Diaper Don hasn't said it was rigged.
4 Pings 👍
Biden 2024 the south shall rise again!
I hear xiden wears a diaper
at least he would be able to communicate that... the blunderer in chief in the white house now wouldn't even be able to distinguish this from the French and Indian war..smh
Casualties?????
kentucky was never part of the confederacy
Good graphic but casualties not match with history
Rip that one guy that died at 0:06
brother against brother....
Funny how Kentucky wasn’t a confederate state
video is cool with nice music. but numbers are not correct
Did he accidentally shoot himself?
I'm Japanese. But finally, I understood why Texas is different from the other states.
Who is the soldier that die in usa first💀