- This topic has 8 voices and 55 replies.
-
Posts
-
This question stems from a discussion I had with some of my fellow students in a military history class I was taking. There was no agreement on which was the first Modern War although a general consensus has it that the American Civil War fits the bill.I personally disagree and say it was the Crimean War. Mainly because the Crimean War used most of the same technology as the Civil war although not to as great an extent as was employed America. The Crimean War saw the first combat use of Minie rifles, shell guns, steam powered warships, ironclad warships, railroads, and the emergence of modern military medicine.
a general consensus has it that the American Civil War fits the bill.
I agree. The Civil War was a major conflict with modern technology: railroads, telegraph, etc. It saw the development of modern weapons such as the armored, steam-powered warship. But it was a modern war because it was a "total war" meaning it was waged against civilians as well as soldiers. The Civil War a modern war because it was a conflict between societies, not just armies. In the Civil War the ability of a polity to maintain an army in the field became a target of war, thus war was waged against civilians as well as soldiers resulting in things like Sherman's march to the sea. I haven't read much about the Crimean War, but I believe it was a war between armies, not societies. I don't think the ability of the populace to field an army was a target of war in the Crimean War as was the case in the Civil War. If so the Crimean War was not a "total war" and would not quality as a modern war.
This has been a question I've used with my classes for years; general opinion is WWI for most people because of machine guns, submarines, and tanks. You points about the Crimean War and our own Civil War are well taken as well. I'm not sure, however, a war has to be a total war to be in line as a modern war… it seems to me the technology and not the tactics (though many ancient wars included destruction of the population) were the factor of modernity.This in mind any war that introduces a new technology (or new application of existing tech) would qualify. When Ogg lashed a rock to a stick to extend how much force he could apply qualifies in my book. In short the current war is always the first modern war in the sense of the most modern technology or application thereof.
I guess a better way of phrasing the question is what was the first war of the modern era? I am speaking more of technology than anything else. Technology is mainly why I pick the Crimean War, it was the first in which modern industrial methods were used to produce the weapons and also the first in which what are arguably the immediate forerunners of present day weapons were used.Daniel,Were the Crusades modern then as well? They were also wars between societies and not just armies. Modernity has more to do with technology and means of production than societal organization in my opinion.Lastly what exactly is a war between societies? Do you mean the people actually fought each other? Or do you mean that the state mobilized a higher percentage of its manpower for war, or perhaps something entirely different? I thought the vast majority of wars were between armies.
I guess a better way of phrasing the question is what was the first war of the modern era? I am speaking more of technology than anything else. Technology is mainly why I pick the Crimean War, it was the first in which modern industrial methods were used to produce the weapons and also the first in which what are arguably the immediate forerunners of modern weapons were used.
Agreed; also the first war that was photographed... not to the extend of Brady et al in the civil War but photographed none the less.
Daniel,Were the Crusades modern then as well? They were also wars between societies and not just armies. Modernity has more to do with technology and means of production than societal organization in my opinion.Lastly what exactly is a war between societies? Do you mean the people actually fought each other? Or do you mean that the state mobilized a higher percentage of its manpower for war, or perhaps something entirely different? I thought the vast majority of wars were between armies.
... or like the (supposed) conflict between, say, the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon?
What do you mean by "Modern" ? death poll? technology? strategy? tactical?
I guess a better way of phrasing the question is what was the first war of the modern era? I am speaking more of technology than anything else. Technology is mainly why I pick the Crimean War, it was the first in which modern industrial methods were used to produce the weapons and also the first in which what are arguably the immediate forerunners of present day weapons were used.
What are modern strategy or tactics? I have had other people ask this as well and am at a loss as to what they are asking, perhaps you can explain it to me.
I'd say The French Revolutionary Wars, followed by the Napoleonic Wars for their use of national conscription and the concept of total war.
Well, I have added it as an option though I disagree with you. I also don't think the Revolutionary wars were Total wars although they certainly approached totality under Napoleon.
The American Civil War was the last of the traditional wars and the first of the modern wars. Rapid deployment, trenches, submarine warfare, and total war tactics were all employed toward the end of the war. The Prussians understood how warfare was altered by studying the American Civil War and employed the tactics of Sherman, Grant, Jackson, and Longstreet in the Franco-Prussian war. Notice I didn't include Lee because he was a traditional general who never quite embraced the innovations of his famous subordinates though he did prosper when he did listen to them.
The Prussians in large measure ignored the lessons of the American Civil War. In the collected works of Moltke the Elder there are very few references to the Civil War but many to the operational innovations of Napoleon. Moltke, who was largely the architect of Prussia's victories in the Wars of Unification was a very forward thinker. He mined the past for nuggets but spent most of his time assessing the implications of technology and how to apply them to achieve victory.A good primer on Moltke's operational and strategic thought is Hughes, Daniel J. ed. Moltke on the Art of War: Selected Writings. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1993
The Prussians in large measure ignored the lessons of the American Civil War. In the collected works of Moltke the Elder there are very few references to the Civil War but many to the operational innovations of Napoleon. Moltke, who was largely the architect of Prussia's victories in the Wars of Unification was a very forward thinker. He mined the past for nuggets but spent most of his time assessing the implications of technology and how to apply them to achieve victory.A good primer on Moltke's operational and strategic thought is Hughes, Daniel J. ed. Moltke on the Art of War: Selected Writings. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1993
Disagree. They used rapid rail deployment of troops and that's straight out of the Civil War especially Longstreet.
The Prussians used rail deployment because it made sense. Yes, the Americans showed it was possible but the Crimean War before that showed rail was militarily useful. The military usefulness of railroads was talked about from their invention. The Prussian staff began working on rail deployment timetables in the 1840's and Prussian rail development from the 1840's on was largely driven by strategic necessities except in the Rhineland where commercial interests drove their development.Don't get mislead into thinking that everybody watched the American's. This is simply not true. The Europeans as a whole were rather amused at the contortions and amateurishness displayed by both sides in the Civil War.
Don't get mislead into thinking that everybody watched the American's. This is simply not true. The Europeans as a whole were rather amused at the contortions and amateurishness displayed by both sides in the Civil War.
Amateurishness? Maintaining armies the size of several hundred thousand on multiple fronts with increasing technological and tactical advances throughout the four year war is amateurish? Not to knock on the Prussians, but even though their conflict was almost a decade later, they still didn't accomplish the feats displayed by the American "amateurs." The Crimean War? The Charge of the Light Brigade resembled Picket's Charge more than anything else (and Pickett was a throw back to the old style glamor seeking glory hounds of the previous generation). Don't get me wrong, I applaud the Prussians for ditching the old Junker mold and going modern, but they would not have known how had they not seen it play out in the American Civil War. Some textbook war stratagems that came out of the Civil War include:
- rapid mass troop deployment
- interchangeable parts/assembly line armies
- submarine and trench warfare
- total war
- intercontinental blockades
- guerrilla warfare
- aerial reconnaissance
- pill boxes
- cointelpro (well the Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Problamation qualifies)
The innovation of the American Civil War was emulated by the Prussians clearly and effectively, but emulated nevertheless.
Yes, Amateurishness. European armies disparaged both American armies because they were not long-service professional organizations. Of course that is not limited to the Civil War; they did that right up until WWII. America had professional forces by the end of the war, but they stumbled around for three years before true professionalism emerged, the only professionals at the beginning were Academy graduates and there was what at most 7,000-8,000 of them?The Prussians practiced partial rail mobilizations in the 1850's as part of annual exercises.The Dreyse Needle Gun that the Prussians adopted in 1848 was constructed with interchangeable parts and manufactured using primitive assembly line methods in state and privately owned factories in Prussia and Saxony. So were many of the Krupp breech-loading cannon the Prussians used in 1864 in Denmark and 1866 against Austria. Is it not significant that America did not fully adopt Breech-loading cannon until WWI when we bought French quick-firing 75?s because American companies could not enough cannon fast enough?Submarine and Trench warfare I will give you, they were definite American innovations except to the extent that trench warfare is nothing more than siege warfare writ large.The English had blockaded Europe numerous times in their wars with Holland and Napoleon and had even blockaded the American coastline during the Revolution and War of 1812, America did not invent continental blockade, just practiced it.Alexander the Great would disagree with you about the Americans inventing Guerilla warfare so would any one of several hundred thousand French soldiers who served in Spain during the Peninsular War. As to Balloons, I think you are right that the Americans were the first to use balloons for reconnaissance though I am not certain who came up with the idea.What is a pillbox?Information Ops are as old as warfare, the only thing that changes is the name.Doctrine and tactics are continually evolving. The Americans took from Europe and the Europeans took from America. The argument here is who took what and how much. I am not saying the Prussians ignored the Civil War but they also did not hang on it and draw extensive lessons from it. By and large they did not think the Lessons of 1861-1865 would be applicable in a European war because the nature of terrain in Europe was so different from the undeveloped wastes of America.
