I'm guessing it may have been to do with things like advancements in medicine not having occurred during the 19th Century. Could someone expand on this please?
What about things like the emergency services such as on organised ambulance? Did that make it worse?
Finally, how about things like weaponry and Napoleonic tactics?
If someone could shed some light on this it would be great.
Thanks in advance.
A few major things that effected the battlefield.
Battles in the ACW occurred at both a longer range then the Napoleonic, and had more accurate weaponry.
Rifled muskets, the minee ball, and advances in artillery design meant that infantry alone could be effective even 150 yards out and accurate at that range. And artillery could be accurate at 100's of yards, with even some early breach loading designs getting usage.
Battles were also very rarely truly decisive One or both side would slink away and be ready to fight the next day if need be.
One of the reasons for this was that neither side had any sort of heavy cavalry arm. Cavalry was limited mostly to recon, screening, and raids during the war, with occasional stints as light infantry. They were not used int he European tradition of pursuing a broken enemy, and thus an army that was retreating was rarely in danger of being destroyed.
You also had even in the South an extensive network of railroads which meant that supplies and men could easily be moved across the country, that meant that a week after suffering 10k casualties an army could be back ready to fight again and even grow in size.
Disease though accounted for twice as many deaths as battle. The commonly accepted numbers for the Union Army alone is that about 120k died in battle or from wounds, and about 200k died of sickness. So yes things like dysentery, typhoid, and all were major killers.