| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Lynchburg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casualties edit
I do not believe the Confederate casualties of only 6 killed and 95 wounded out of a force of 14,000. From fighting on two days? The Battle of Tom's Brook was a big enough route that it is jokingly called the "Woodstock Races", yet the victor (Union) had 57 casualties for a force of 6,300. The Battle of Lynchburg was not that one-sided—the casualties listed do not make sense. TwoScars (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I updated the casualty figures based on modern National Park Service figures, replacing those from 19th century sources. Mojoworker (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Confederate losses are always probably reported less than what they actually were simply because their records were frequently incomplete, late (Jackson famously did not submit his reports for his valley campaign until late winter/early spring 1863 - almost a year after - look up Official Records, Vol. 12/2, p. 184 - Report of LTGEN T. J. JACKSON, Second Corps, Army of Northern Virginia, April 4, 1863), or nopt submitted at all. Add in a lot of revisionsim courtesy of the Lost Cause mythology/propaganda and you frequently see lopsided losses. Of course another factor was that U.S. forces were probably attacking more. Ahyhow, NPS has been doing a lot of research in the last 20 years trying to get more precise in CSA losses. My two cents. Boo Boo (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)