- This topic has 8 voices and 55 replies.
-
Posts
-
Ok, then we won't debate.
I'll stand with you on this Scout; the Prussians were the kick a$$ and take names army if not after the war with Austria then, for sure, after the Franco-Prussian War. Hope Donnie is considering the "winding-up" that the Federal Army req'd and the luck of Bobby Lee that the Feds were "slow on the up take".
Ok, then we won't debate.
I'll stand with you on this Scout; the Prussians were the kick a$$ and take names army if not after the war with Austria then, for sure, after the Franco-Prussian War. Hope Donnie is considering the "winding-up" that the Federal Army req'd and the luck of Bobby Lee that the Feds were "slow on the up take".
I will grant that the Union Army at the end of the war was first class, but it was also almost all veterans and the product of the crucible of four years of war.
What about the Boer Wars? During these wars between the British Empire and the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic, the British Army pursued the policy of rounding up and isolating the Boer civilian population into concentration camps.During the second Boer War, the Boer commanders adopted guerrilla warfare tactics, primarily conducting raids against infrastructure, resource and supply targets, all aimed at disrupting the operational capacity of the British Army. Their tactics were to strike fast and hard causing as much damage to the enemy as possible, and then to withdraw and vanish before enemy reinforcements could arrive.In response, the British Army used armoured trains, established fortified blockhouses at key points and started the scorched earth policy of Roberts and Kitchener.The concentration camp system was the first time that a whole nation had been systematically targeted, and the first in which some whole regions had been depopulated.
I will grant that the Union Army at the end of the war was first class, but it was also almost all veterans and the product of the crucible of four years of war.
+1.
What about the Boer Wars?
weren't these after the wars previously mentioned?
Well maybe Ivkhan would like to chime in on this. I'm sure the Bulgarians would have cleaned Grant's clock had he dared to set foot in Eastern Europe. 🙂
Ok, then we won't debate.
I'll stand with you on this Scout; the Prussians were the kick a$$ and take names army if not after the war with Austria then, for sure, after the Franco-Prussian War. Hope Donnie is considering the "winding-up" that the Federal Army req'd and the luck of Bobby Lee that the Feds were "slow on the up take".
Sure. The Prussians learned from their mistakes.
Ok, then we won't debate.
I'll stand with you on this Scout; the Prussians were the kick a$$ and take names army if not after the war with Austria then, for sure, after the Franco-Prussian War. Hope Donnie is considering the "winding-up" that the Federal Army req'd and the luck of Bobby Lee that the Feds were "slow on the up take".
Sure. The Prussians learned from their mistakes.
Not debating here but learned from whose mistakes?
Ok, then we won't debate.
I'll stand with you on this Scout; the Prussians were the kick a$$ and take names army if not after the war with Austria then, for sure, after the Franco-Prussian War. Hope Donnie is considering the "winding-up" that the Federal Army req'd and the luck of Bobby Lee that the Feds were "slow on the up take".
Sure. The Prussians learned from their mistakes.
Not debating here but learned from whose mistakes?
Why the Americans' of course. Muahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
Certainly, because the professional armies of Europe thought that a war in America was so similar to what would happen in Europe. There was then a huge difference in the nature of the respective theaters. For one, Europe had something like 4-5 times the number of roads as existed in America even in the more heavily settled eastern part of America. In rail capacity they were roughly similar but railroads dont get you to the fight, just to the closest rail-head. Rail is strategic.I am not saying they did not pay attention to the civil war, if nothing else the use of technology and its battlefield effects were of interest. But remember, the Prussians had a breech-loader in 1849, America did not introduce the Sharps carbine until the war was already two years old.Yes there were lessons to be learned, but only some. I think you are placing too much emphasis on America. America was not a world power in 1860 or 1865 and would not become one until the turn of the 20th century at the earliest.
Certainly, because the professional armies of Europe thought that a war in America was so similar to what would happen in Europe. There was then a huge difference in the nature of the respective theaters. For one, Europe had something like 4-5 times the number of roads as existed in America even in the more heavily settled eastern part of America. In rail capacity they were roughly similar but railroads dont get you to the fight, just to the closest rail-head. Rail is strategic.I am not saying they did not pay attention to the civil war, if nothing else the use of technology and its battlefield effects were of interest. But remember, the Prussians had a breech-loader in 1849, America did not introduce the Sharps carbine until the war was already two years old.Yes there were lessons to be learned, but only some. I think you are placing too much emphasis on America. America was not a world power in 1860 or 1865 and would not become one until the turn of the 20th century at the earliest.
I don't see what being a world power has to do with this discussion? America kept 1 million soldiers on the field for nearly four years mobilized across a territory far greater than anything Prussia did, and absorbed massive casualties that kept being replaced over and over again. Over 600,000 men died on the battlefield. The Franco Prussian War was eclipsed by Gettysburg and Vicksburg alone. There have only been a handful of wars that were bigger and more destructive than the American Civil War in terms of scale and scope of destruction. They are: World War I, The Russian Civil War, and World War II primarily. The American Civil War ushered in modern warfare as we know it today.
The measure of military prowess is not how many casualties a given country can sustain or how long they can be kept in the field but how fast you can defeat a given enemy. The more equivalent the combatants are and the quicker the victory, the more expert an army appears. I dont consider a bloody four year slogging match an example of an expertly waged war.
The American Civil War ushered in modern warfare as we know it today.
I disagree, see my first post on this thread for why. you are free to disagree and I will even debate you but you have not disproved my initial points just highlighted your bias for anything having to do with the Civil War. I am not putting down what the Union or Confederacy accomplished, I just dont think the civil war was the first Modern War, it was not even the first Total War.
Sherman's March To The Sea is a prime example of new total war tactics. You also have to remember two very skilled and familiar armies were battering each other with the exact same training. That's why the casualties were so high.
I voted the American Civil War, and while I can't offer reasons that really distinguish it from other wars of the 19th century, I can present some reasons why this particular war was somewhat unique and make it more “modern”:- Instant communication: Lincoln was able to use the telegraph to the Union's military advantage because information was now passed on over hundreds of miles, more or less in "real time" - Massively improved logistics: Lincoln used the North's superior network of rail lines to rapidly move troops closer to the front lines and to for resupply purposes- Improved weaponry: increased accuracy and range led to a high number of deaths during the war (NB: however, the antiquated way in which armies faced each other suggests that the war was not nearly as "modern" as it could have been)- Economizing the war: the North shifted a large part of its economy to aid in the war effort, so it was a comprehensive effort
When I talk modern war, I am asking about technology. That is why I pick the Crimean War, all the modern technology that was used in the Civil War except submarines was present in the Crimean War. Modernity has nothing to do with scope unless we want to get into a discussion of industrial methods. There is room in the debate for this but when I speak of modernity I am talking in purely technological terms.
