Why was the Battle of Gettysburg such a bloody battle?

Question: Why was the Battle of Gettysburg such a bloody battle!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

In 1863 the war was becoming very hard economically for The South, but their will to fight was still strong, the South knew they did not have the resources for a long war, infact, it took them almost a hundred years to recover from the Civil War!.

The South knew England and France would not help them because of the Emancipation Proclamation, so General Robert E!. Lee decided to invade the North again (the first time being Antietam) Jefferson Davis approved his plan!.

General Lee wanted to march on Washington and force the North into a surender, the South had an army of roughly 65 00 - 70 000 and the North had an army of roughly 20 000 more, like usual the South was out numbered!.

On the first day the South failed to take control and wasted chances, they were without one of their best generals (Stone Wall) he died 3 months earlier at Chancellorsville!. The North brang more men in on the 2nd day and took control ofthe high ground!. You must remember that back then you had men with muskets, and you had to re-load, the high ground is crucial in warfare, especially then!. The South was out numbered by 20 000 men and the North had the highground!.

For 3 days 150 00 men waged war on each other, on the last day General Lee realised that he had attacked the left and right flank of the enemy and almost broke them, the North placed more men their flanks to be sure so they only left 5000 men in the centre, they did this because they thought lee would not attack the centre!.

Lee did however attackthe centre, almost 15 000 men of the South marched almost 1 mile across open and flat ground towards the enemy, many men died on the way, their was a stone wall protecting the Northern men!. When the north saw the South coming to the centre they opened fire from the all sides with all their cannon, The South had no hope!. Most men did not reach the wall and the ones that did were captured!.

1/3 of the armies on both sides were gone, 50 000 casualties, not deaths but casualties!.

It was bloody because both sides knew how costly it was and put alot and almost everything into it!. If the South won there they would have marched onto Washington and if the North failed to ask for peace they would have burned it and caused more chaos, the U!.S could have been very different today!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Most battles in the "War of the Rebellion between the States, Civil or unCivil" !.!.!.Civil War had very high casualty rates compared to today's battles!. Troops were typically aligned in set-piece fashion and one side generally wound up marching toward the other side in close order!. Cannons and 'small-arms' fire were deadly accurate under those conditions!.

Medical facilities, by today's standards, were primitive, but with the vast numbers of casualties, even today's evac to hospital methods would have been unable to save very many wounded!.

Consider for a second that no one even had helmets during the Civil War!. If you survived the long march and charge toward an enemy position, then you had to engage them in brutal bayonet and hand to hand combat!.

Untold thousands died on the battlefield, but, get this, several times as many died from disease and malnutrition!. Civilian deaths were probably far less, in percentage terms, than in today's asymetric fighting!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Two armies!. One side with 93,000 troops!. The other with around 70,000!. Fairly small battlefield!. Over 40,000 dead!. Lots of blood!. My great great grandad was actually wounded there!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Because of all the people, and guns, canons, etc!.Www@QuestionHome@Com