Why do Civil War battles have two names?

Chris Mackowski of Emerging Civil War explains why some Civil War battles have two names.
Welcome to Battlefield U! We provide answers to your questions about the Civil War, Revolutionary War and War of 1812. We aim to increase your baseline knowledge of American history, whether it be for school, battlefield visits, or Trivia Night!

[@jph0917]

I learned this in history class in high school.
Bull Run/Manassas; Shiloh/Pittsburgh Landing; Sharpsburg/Antietam; Murfreesboro/Stones River and many more.

[@kfrausto]

Fantastic stuff. Thanks 👍🏼

[@skpjoecoursegold366]

or just know both names.

[@py8554]

Does it mean the battle of Gettysburg got its name from the south?

[@robertbodell55]

it's not just a us civil war thing it is a constant thing one example I know of is that the 100 years war battle of Poitiers was called that in English records while the French referred to it as the battle of Tours, one reason the English didn't call it that was that the was a earlier famous battle at Tours in the 732AD again the muslims vs Charles Martel

[@markholbrook3949]

I thought it was the other way around?

[@lennysmom]

Same with the name of the armies.

[@dhaqq18]

Could you do a video to explain why the Confederate armies were so much better than the union? At least it seems that way

[@nickloughren1919]

I think they have done one but for a quick overview the confederates had better officers at the start of the war and over time the green union officer corps got better with each battle and eventually became equals to their confederate counterparts also the confederates couldn’t replace their loses, and weren’t about to arm slaves and teach the to fight for fear of armed rebellion from within if they had won

[@dhaqq18]

@@nickloughren1919 Thanks

[@oshaqsha9826]

I know I’m late, but I need to mention that you should keep in mind the different kind of war the two armies were fighting; The south generally had the advantage of fighting defensive battles in their own territory, which helped offset the disadvantage of numbers.
Union generals, more than being green, suffered a lack of focus. McClellan spent a lot of time thinking of the political implications of his actions, and the political push from Washington forced Burnside’s hand at Fredericksburg, despite it being turned from a promising campaign to a suicide mission. Officers like Grant or Sherman didn’t suffer from this so much, but they may have had more leeway given the Union armies in the west spent a lot of time steamrolling over the Confederate army. (Which puts a thorn in the idea that the South had objectively better leaders; all the victories Lee scored in battle meant nothing when things were unravelling on the other front.)

[@prechabahnglai103]

I wouldn’t say Armies with an S. Other Confederate armies weren’t so great.

[@Edinboron]

Since when does the losers get to pick the names of the battlefields? The NPS needs to change Manassas back to Bull Run.

[@kevincerna777]

Those losers won twice at Manassas

[@Edinboron]

@@kevincerna777 Lot of good it did them.

[@oshaqsha9826]

Honestly I like the name Manassas better, even though BR is technically a more fitting name. Anyone that prefers Sharpsburg is a brainlet, though. As if the war needs more ‘-burg’s.

[@jancarlosreymundi-pabon4611]

Just cuz they were Confederate doesn't mean they were losers people need to get history right most of the confederates didnt even belive in slavery that was only 10% of the reason the war was fought and those ""loser"" won twice at Manassas