I don’t think “realism” was ever something folks looked for in art with a martial focus. Military art has always focused on the glorious aspects of battle, not blood and guts. So I disagree with those who claim this is a characteristic of modern works. As for the threatening aspect you mention, I’ve never given it much thought. But, we need to keep in mind that Wyeth and Pyle were illustrating specific bits of literature – the picture was meant to accompany the text.

Not sure about the Vicksburg picture. I’ll keep an eye out for it.

Also, it’s possible that the ambiguity of these prints, both in content and in paint texture, doesn’t sit as well with modern viewers. Using Strain as an example, all the fine details are there, all the figures are clearly portrayed, both backgrounds and foregrounds are in neat, precise order, and there isn’t a sense of dread looming over them, as there is in say, the second image. I guess most modern artists want their war scenes “non-threatening”. As for the picture of the impending lynching of a Union trooper…obviously that wouldn’t go over well today at all. People would cry “Racism!” and “Jim Crow!” from morning to night, even though the victim isn’t black.

Question: was it Pyle who painted the famous Vicksburg scene of two women and a Confederate soldier covering in the trenches, while a shell with a lit fuse sputters directly in front of them? Another fine example of something that most people nowadays just don’t seem to want to have hanging on their walls.