Nature Of American Civil War Essay Research

Nature Of American Civil War Essay, Research Paper

To what extent was the American Civil War, the first modern war?

The Great War witnessed a important going from the Napoleonic tactics and engineering familiar to modern-day European military minds. Although the specifying factor remains equivocal, there is a silent credence that the First World War epitomises the modern war. It was a struggle of mass ground forcess waged with extremely efficient arms, which, coupled with the absolute chase of triumph, eroded the pseudo-chivilaric constructs which are widely associated with the Napoleonic epoch of warfare. Liing chronologically between the First World War and those of the celebrated Corsican general though, there is a trade of historiographical contention as to which class the American Civil War of the 1860 s decently belongs to.

It is an incontestable truth that the industrial revolution had, as is inexplicit in the rubric, effected a great alteration in the developed universe, in domestic and commercial Fieldss at least. Advocates of Thursday vitamin E instance that the American Civil War was a pre-cursor to the struggle of 1914 ( such as Farmer and Hagerman ) , base their statements mostly around the development of new engineerings since the bend of the 19th century. Battlefield tactics during the Napoleonic epoch were mostly necessitated by the inaccuracy ( in ranges beyond 100 paces ) of the omnipresent smooth-bore musket. The inability of firepower alone to pare down enemy formations resulted in the greater precedency given to the tactical offense, which characterises Napoleonic struggle.

Harmonizing to historiographers, such as Farmer, the debut of the rifle-musket was the most important technological development of the Civil War. The Union Springfield and Confederate Enfield rifles, could fire accurately up to 250 paces and, unlike their predecessors, were dependable even in inclement conditions owing to the replacing of the tradi tional flint lock with a percussion cock. By 1863 the new arms were extensively used by both sides, confirming Farmer s claim that the latter half of the struggle was more kindred to a modern war. Cavalry, one time the proud daze military personnels of war, were forced to unhorse their steeds ; which now served merely to do them larger and more inviting marks to enemy foot ( although Griffiths refutes this, detecting that horse were used to great consequence every bit tardily as 1863 at the conflict of Brandy station and that their weaknesss elsewhere were simply the consequence of hapless bid ) . Military officers, whose showy manner of frock made them susceptible to the attendings of enemy sharpshooters ( Generals were 50 % more likely to decease than the mean private ) , besides felt a demand to go more invisible, wearing the uniforms of normal soldiers. Infantry formations began to accommodate excessively, as traditional deep regiment +al blocks were replaced with farther spread, onslaught lines organised in moving ridges. As in the First World War this new advancing construction was an effort to avoid the concentration of fire which more traditionally arranged units faced, but was besides nessecary to assail the drawn-out, entrenched places of the enemy ( which extended further than in Napoleonic struggles partially owing to the greater strength Lent to the guardians by improved firepower ) . Furthermore, the gallant foot charges which so defined the conflicts of the late 18th century, became unviable. Merely 1 % of casualties in the Civil War owed to the bayonet, whilst some 90 % are attributed to slugs. Alternatively of bear downing enemy regiments, soldiers began to delve trenches, utilizing grapeshot firing heavy weapon to drive enemy frontal assaults ; by 1864 about all places were entrenched. While this seems reminiscent of scenes of the Great War, even advocates of the modern war position such as Farmer concede that the machine gun and munition tungsten eapons, which were chiefly responsible for the stagnancy seen in the Great War, were rarely or ne’er used. Griffiths claims that most regiments which came under enemy s close scope fire followed their natural inherent aptitudes and settled down to fire back. , entrenchment so, seems to hold been less a tactical invention in response to new arms, as it was the immediate response of ill-led voluntary military personnels ; an thought corroborated, to an extent, by Hagerman. While the Americans were more willing to be barbarous to civilians, as soldiers they seem to hold been ( by and large ) psychologically less prepared to decease than their European opposite numbers. In an age of individuality the citizen levies, even prior to the debut of the Springfield, showed an involuntariness to put on the line their lives as mere cannon-fodder. Advocates of the modern war position such as Farmer concede that the machine gun and munition arms, which were chiefly responsible for the stagnancy in the Great War, were either rarely, or ne’er, used.

Despi Te this, the Battle of Malvern Hill and Gettysburg seem to stand bloody testament to the failing of the foot charge. At Gettysburg, Pickett s Confederate soldiers outnumbered the defending Yankees about three to one. Yet of the 12,000 soldiers who embarked, merely 300 accompanied Lou Armstead as he was slaughtered on the enemies front line. Whether or non this mob of Confederate forces could hold taken topographic point were he faced with an enemy exerting muskets is problematic. Surely his opportunities would hold been statistically more favorable, with the resistance merely holding clip to fire, averagely, two as opposed to seven unit of ammunitions of fire into his progressing columns. Furthermore the sheer weight of this firepower, combined with the drawn-out nature of the conflict line, meant that it was really hard for leaders to retain control of their regiment ( in other conflicts generals failed to press frontward their triumphs, owing to the trouble of beat uping work forces so dispersed apart and without field wireless ) . However, Griffiths dismisses the impression that the impact of the new arms was decisive, or that the Napoleonic tactics still employed by some generals were anachronic

. Alternatively he claims that the cause of the comparative bloodiness and continuance of the American Civil War ( and both factors were comparable with the First World War ) , was chiefly due to the inability of the generals to properly implement the European tactical philosophies. Even during the alleged Napoleonic epoch the trouble of maneuvering work forces between near formatio N had been such a job that the strategian Hardee had dedicated clip to inventing a declaration. Harmonizing to Griffiths had Hardee s plans been put into pattern, the Civil War generals would hold been absolutely capable of pressing their advantages. Furthermore, Farmer accepts that conflicts were fought with Numberss ne’er transcending 100,000 on either side at a individual conflict, much as in Napoleonic conflicts.

Another factor cited in grounds of the wars moderness is the graduated table of the struggle ; which was made possible by the development of rail travel and telegraph. The considerable railroad web developed in peace clip, allowed military personnels to be rapidly transported where they were needed and for supplies to be sent to keep them. As no Napoleonic struggle had been fought upon such a graduated table a new signifier of military hierarchy was required to organize the attempts of the ground forcess. Armies at the bend of the 18th century had by and large had the single commanding officer at the caput of bid, while this was forced upon the ground forcess by the insufficiencies of communications, it was besides suited as runs were being fought with smaller Numberss, in familiar ( good mapped ) district with established communities supplying nutriment for ground forcess locally. The commanding officers in the Civil war had few of these luxuries and so there was a demand to seek and organize attempts. In the Union army the High Command formed a slightly informal system with staff cohesively be aftering a expansive scheme non dissimilar to the Gallic staff system in conceptual footings entirely. The Confederate forces besides managed to manner some gloss of modern bid. Yet merely the Union in the East successfully achieved in? tegration between all the beds of bureaucratism, through high bid, to bureaus and operation bid and, crucially, bid in the field. Communications grew so critical in the Civil War that it was the first struggle in which a specifically designated signal corps, with its ain officers, was developed. Apparently, even Griffiths accepts that logistical betterments, ushered in by railroads and telegraphs made the war far more kindred to the First World War.

Before his decease in 1831 the German theoretician Karl von Clausewitz claimed wars would go progressively affectional and thereby bloody. Indeed the First and Second World Wars were both fraught with emotion, evident in the haste to volunteer to contend against the common enemy. The preamble to the American Civil war was strikingly similar. In one of the most politicised states in the universe, caught up in a loyal excitement, deluded by romanticised images of war and cajoled by adult females, tonss of immature work forces from both sides joined up. Unlike Napoleonic wars the Ci? vil war was non perceived to be a conflict between professional ground forcess of authoritiess over district or some other such cause, which would non straight impact the people. Rather it was viewed in the North as a conflict to continue the Union against dissenters and in the South as a conflict to retain their manner of life ( of which bondage was a portion ) . The war saw a interruption with the silent understanding amongst Napoleonic commanding officers that civilians should non be embroiled in war. Communications and even civilian communities were specifically targeted by soldiers in an effort to perfectly kill the resistance. In 1864 Generals Sherman and Sheridan began a adust Earth policy, whereby they decimated the lands of civilians who supported the resistance ; while it is improbable that either general was seeking to kill civilians, they must hold besides appreciated that the deceases of some were inevitable. The impression that the war was more bitter than any Western European war is cardinal to the statement of Catton that the Civil War was a modern war. However, Griffiths and Farmer both refute this thought. They note that atrociousnesss were exceeding during the war and that there was fraternization between civilians on both sides, few of whom suffered the raping and plundering synonymous with more modern wars..

Ultimately it can be concluded that the American Civil War did witness a important passage runing methods, mostly precipitated by the new engineerings of railroads and telegraphs. Griffiths admits that without steam power it is improbable that the War could hold been fought as it was, peculiarly in the West. Furthermore, the size of the theatre created a demand to develop big military establishments ( including military infirmaries ) , which, while still fundamental compared to those of the Great War, had no analogue in the Napoleonic epoch. On the battleground excessively there were stairss off from traditional deep blocks of foot and horse were rendered about wholly useless in their old capacity as sh ocktroops, devolving alternatively into reconnaissance riders. The pre-emminent American tactician of the epoch, Denis Hart Mahan, began to adopt the virtuousness of active defense mechanism and the frontal assault became damaged. However, unlike the Great War these alterations took topographic point in the face of rifles entirely, as opposed to machine guns and munition. Nor were the new tactics employed by all commanding officers and, although rare, horse could, at times, continue to function in their old function. This is perchance the consequence of the wars graduated table. It is about impossible that conditions, non least geographically or climatically, would hold been the same all over such a sprawling run map. Consequently, while Farmer splits the war in two, claiming that with the debut of the Springfield in 1863 it moved towards going a modern war, it ought to be borne in head that regional disparities must still hold occurred and hence in some countries the struggle, may hold been more modern than others.