Want this question answered?
The side that came out in worse condition was the South. The reason why is because Grant ordered more troops when Souths troops were exasusthed.
worse at what? He was bad as a dictator, as he did not dictate. He was bad as an artist, at least according to his critics. He was bad as a husband. I do not know how well he played baseball, so i could not comment as to who was worse than him.
This was considered a Union victory, despite the fact that the Union forces - comprised of Grant's Army of the Tennessee and Buell's Army of the Ohio - actually suffered more casualties than their Confederate counterparts. Confederate forces, commanded by Generals Albert Sidney Johnson and P.T. Beauregard not only retreated after the Union forces received reinforcements, but failed in their objective of stopping Grant's army from controlling vital railroads and waterways to Southern strongholds, thus opening the door for subsequent Union victories at Memphis and Vicksburg. Moreover, the C.S.A. troops at Shiloh were more poorly equipped and inexperienced in battle, allowing the Union to win smaller skirmish victories while pursuing several disarrayed Confederate battalions retreating after the major bloody battle had finished. In short, the Union strategically out-maneuvered the Confederacy at Shiloh and, despite the Confederates' advantage of launching a surprise attack, Union forces held their ground (for the most part) and caused Johnson and Beauregard to retreat with troops in much worse shape than their enemy, leaving the South vulnerable to further attacks.
There would be different opinions on this but Hitler did kill a whole lot more people than Judas did so that makes him much worse.
The South was in worse shape, since they were defeated. Plus there was the Reconstruction Era which penalized the South and burdened them with additional bureaucracy.
homewood middle school?
The side that came out in worse condition was the South. The reason why is because Grant ordered more troops when Souths troops were exasusthed.
No, The Battle of Shiloh had more casualties. It was one of the bloodiest battles of the war. Antietam, however, stands as the bloodiest single day of combat and in terms of killed and wounded they are very nearly the same.
If one wants to state that a bigger war is worse than a small war, then yes.
Yes, a plot complication can often make the conflict worse by adding additional obstacles or challenges for the protagonist to overcome. This can increase tension and raise the stakes of the conflict, making the resolution more satisfying for the audience.
There is no proper answer to this question. This is because the health in Afghanistan before the conflict was awful already. The health has been made obviusly worse by the conflict, as the sanitation the people need is less than before.
No, not according to an Forbes article that states Chernobyl disaster (level 7 on International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale) was magnitudes worse than the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, which was a level 4 and likely be upgraded to a level 5.
Both events were tragedies, but in sheer body count 9/11 was ten times worse than the Great Chicago Fire.
The conflict of this book is that maleeka has been getting laught at almost her whole school year,and when this new teacher Miss Saunders comes in ,she makes it even worse for maleeka.
3 Goats
White Collar crimes can have a far worse impact than blue collar crimes, look up 'Madoff'. Also they usually do not receive equal punishments. Blue collar punishments tend to be worse.
avoiding