The American Civil War - A Modern War?
"We signed up in San Antone my brother Paul and me
To fight with Ben McCulloch and the Texas infantry
Well the poster said we'd get a uniform and seven bucks a week
The best rations in the army and a rifle we could keep"
From Ben McCulloch by Steve Earle (1975)
Your correspondent would like to regard himself, dear reader, as a very amateur student of military history. After all, there is after all no finer way to spend a winters evening, once Free Market Towers is quiet, than sitting in front of a fire, three fingers of something dark & peaty in the glass, a large brown boy gently smouldering in the ashtray & a weighty tome that recalls tales of hardship & daring-do. Currently, I am ensconced in a history of the 49th 'Polar Bear' Division's campaign in North West Europe.
Recently, I have been reading up on the American Civil War. Before I started this, I knew little about the conflict beyond what we had been taught in the classroom and that is some time & a lot of damaged brain cells ago. What interests me in particular is the oft made assertion that this war should be regarded as the first 'modern war' - a claim that is in fact made about numerous conflicts & one that I tend to regard with a little alcohol induced circumspection.
Sitting on the eastern side of the pond (as one does), the basis of this claim appears to be that during the war, rifled weapons were introduced; there was extensive use of trench warfare & the casualty rates suffered by both sides.
Small Arms Development
Turning firstly to the matter of small arms, the introduction of more modern cartridge fed & rifled weapons reality had little impact, certainly with regard to engagement ranges. Whilst there are well documented accounts of 1,000 yard single shot kills, especially among certain generals, these are notable as exceptions, rather than the rule - besides, what is a general or two among friends? - There is always another one along in five minute
Firstly, the topography of the landscape over which most combat took place was remarkably 'close', militating against long range engagements. (I will put my hands up on this point & state that as yet, I haven't had the opportunity to do any battlefield visits, save for one trip to Gettysberg).
What however it is true is that very few if any units regularly undertook target practice. As the shooters among you will know, being able to hit a target at any distance is all about practice. The stresses that riflemen endure in combat make this practice all the more important. Furthermore, most officers had trained with smoothbore weapons & continued to employ 'old' tactics. Consequently, infantry engagement ranges did not really change (certainly not from the Napoleonic War ranges) because the range of effective fire had not increased. If infantry had be capable of putting down 1000 yard fire then both infantry & artillery would have effectively removed from the battlefield. Thus infantry tactics did not change as a result of the introduction of rifled weapons because the battlefield was no more dangerous than in prevous conflicts.
Small Arms - An Aside
The really important innovation in small arms design that would have impact in the later stages of the war was the development of repeating weapons deployed by Union cavalry. Whilst cavalry actions were infrequent in large battles before 1864 & small by Napoleonic standards, once equipped with repeating arms ,they started to have a real effect.
Therefore, it was the weight of fire issue rather than the range of small arms that was to impact upon the conflict & chart the course for future weapons development.
Fortifications
It is often held that the incidence of fortifications was a function of small arms development rather than a 4,000 year old response to the employment for non-professional soldiers. Field fortifications are after all a historic force multiplier, utilised since the first stone mason utter the timeless comment, Cor blimey gov, those battlements are out of plum!
There is nothing new or innovative about either building up or digging down - castles, once Great Britain has a surfeit of them. As for trench warfare, those Roman fellows had a pretty competent Corps of Engineers or as an alternative, look at Wellington's immense set piece sieges during the Peninsular War.
Casualty Rates
Ah ha Mr FM, you cry, your ambient whisky levels are clouding your judgement (again). Just look at the casualty rates.I confess that the whisky does tend to take the edge off a lot of things these days, however hear me out on this one. Casualties suffered by both sides merely seem to be higher because of their scale. This war was immense in comparison all preceding conflicts that had taken place in the New World. Therefore it is the scale of casualties in totality that is of interest, not there rate of incidence. Rates of death & injury at say Gettysburg or even Antietam ("Americas bloodiest day") were no higher than the huge late-Napoleonic battles, or indeed those suffered during the Crimean War.
Modern War
The first modern war, is in the opinion of your humble correspondent the Great War but perhaps not for an obvious reasons. World War I was notable for trenches, machine guns & artillery, radios, poison gas & air power - all of these were refinements of existing weapon systems.
What makes the real difference in this conflict & what turns it into a modern war is this...
An Englishman, Peter Durand, received a patent from King George III for a tin-plated iron can as a food container in 1810. At first not practical, by the 1870-80s, the first automatic can-making machinery is introduced.
This simple invention allowed large armies to stay in the field during winter months. In previous conflicts, armies returned to winter quarters after the campaigning season was over . This innocuous development allowed the killing to continue year round & modern warefare to develop. Over time, it has permitted warefare to take place anywhere & at any time - something than can't we said of any weapon - it has defined the modern war & made it possible
Comments
I would agree with http://www.southafrica.info/ess_info/sa_glance/history/angloboer.htm and say that:
"The Boer War is considered the first "modern war". Guerrilla tactics, camouflage uniforms, concentration camps and attacks on civilian targets, all of these the ugly signatures of 20th century warfare, were first used in that campaign."
Posted by: An Englishman | January 20, 2004 10:57 AM
Guerrilla tactics were hardly new & camouflage uniforms, what about Sir John Moore's 'light troops'? As for the targeting of civpop, nothing new or modern there - nope, sorry, I stand by my final paragraph
Posted by: Mr Free Market | January 20, 2004 3:49 PM
I don't much think about The Late Unpleasantness because I already thought about it.
But, Mr. Free Market, though your point about canning is a good one, you have overlooked quite a bit. Most important is not this or that technological development, but the pyschic change from a medieval chivalric attitude towards a value-free ethic of efficiency. That is what is modern.
To cite one example, the parole. For most of the war, a prisoner need only swear that he would be a non-combatant if released, and he was on his way home. He agreed if he broke his word and was recaptured, he could be executed on the spot. Clearly, a medieval arrangement based on honor. Grant ended the policy in 1864 not because released Confederates were breaking their word, but because they were raising crops, etc. An old standard of Christendom was rejected in favor of increased efficiency.
This ethic of efficiency resulted in the prolonged war on civilians. Sherman's March to the Sea is the most famous example of this. Civilian were not simply targeted. The civilian life of huge areas, its infrastructure, everything was eradicated, even including that of sympathizers with the Union army. "A crow flying over the Shenendoah valley would have to carry his lunch," said Sheridan. Every Quaker farm, barn, and house was destroyed.
Apart from a dramatic change in the spirit of warriors, the waragainstyankeearrogancethewarwelost (to be pronounced as one word), saw such innovations as the use of trains to transport troops, hot air balloons for reconnaisance, the use of flags for semiphore, a totally different projectile (Minie balls,) telescopic sights, electronic devices like the telegraph, trenches built with more trenches within them at right angles to defeat enfilade fire, ironclad warship battles, a submarine, too many to mention in a comment box...
There was important long range work done by Berdan's Sharpshooters at Yorktown, Malvern Hill, etc.. His Sharpshooter's were camoflaged from head to toe in green uniforms with leaves stuck on them. His two regiments are sometimes credited with killing more Confederates during the war than any other regiments in the Yankee army.
But but even at Gettysburg long range work by regular troops played a prominent role in repelling Pickett's Charge.
You are right about target practice during the war, but most Southerners had plenty of it before the war. Not a few Yankees did too, esp. the ones from rural and wild areas, which were plentiful. Community target shoots were popular entertainments and still are in rural America. (Even now rural America starts 5 miles from the downtowns of many cities-- Richmond, for instance.)
Also, it is not true that long range work with shoulder fired weapons characterizes modern war. It didn't in Iraq. Or Vietnam. Or most 20th century wars, though it did in WW1 and in some places in WW2, though not the Pacific Islands or Asian jungles.
There was no real modern medicine. Pasteur had not yet developed the germ theory. But they did have anasthesia, a feature of modern medicine.
I think it is clear that the tech. innovations represented transitions to the modern world. But the psychic/spiritual alteration was not a transitional phase. It was a leap, but whether it was towards the modern or the prehistoric is debatable.
Posted by: George E. Lee | January 20, 2004 5:33 PM
George E Lee has it right with the addition of one item that most people forget...paperwork. This was the first true bureaucrats war…afloat on a raft of paper. The volume of records generated by both sides has been a major boon to researchers.
Coupled with the availability of quick(er) communications both in the field and on the home front, an unprecedented abundance of personal memoirs, and the popularity of newspapers, this war was the first MEDIA war.
Posted by: bjbarron | January 20, 2004 5:45 PM
Mr. Free Market, If you would like to get a feel for at least the tactics of the War of Northern Aggression, if you have a chance, come to a reenactment. These events come in all shapes and sizes, from national events(this year, something like the Wilderness or the battles around Atlanta) to small one or two unit battles. As for the booze, reenactors are rather friendly, so I think you'd probably be in luck there(more with some units than others)
Posted by: Dan | January 20, 2004 8:19 PM
The Monitor, steam powered, armored, guns in a rotating turret. The archetype of all battleships to follow.
The first Geneva Convention and founding of the Red Cross, 1864.
Posted by: Fred Boness | January 21, 2004 6:07 AM
'Anyone know of any battle fields with good bars'? Why yes I do, thanks for asking. There are many excellent bars all around the 'battle of Atlanta' in Atlanta, GA. There are great panoramic views of the battle areas from Kennesaw and Stone mountains. Kennesaw mountain still has visible trenches. Chattanooga is just up the road and has an outstanding battle field, Chicamauga, and museum on the top of Lookout mountain. Please drop me a line if you intend to confirm for yourself and it would be my honor to show you around.
Cheers!
Posted by: phil | January 21, 2004 5:47 PM
Looks like a bad case of the spammers there, old boy.
Take something medicinal and return the compliment with an e-mail bonb.
RM
(UPdate - thanks, Spam comments now consigned to dustbins of history and the fires of hell)
Posted by: The Remittance Man | December 14, 2005 10:29 AM
Well Mr. FM, if you consider canned goods to be the basis of judging the first modern war, then we're back to the American Civil War. Why you might ask? Beans I say. Canned beans. Van Camps beans to be exact. They recieved the contract to supply the Union Army with canned beans back in 1861. Just so you know.
Posted by: RayH | December 14, 2005 4:46 PM
I understand Napoleon canned peas in bottles which afforded him his disasterous march on Russia.
What war was fought first fought primarily with the metallic cartridge - Afghan or Zulu wars? I dunno - I'm even less of a sub-amateur student.
It also seems to me if you choose to view a Naval "battlefield" while afloat (there were many river engagements), then shipboard stores of liquor should be made readily available!
Posted by: -keith in mtn. view | December 14, 2005 5:02 PM
Try to find a copy of 'Picketts Charge' by George Stewart, Houghton Mifflin, 1959. A fuzzy memory, but I recall a strong argument for "the first modern war" throughout. A dry, sometimes difficult read, but well documented.
Posted by: lenf | December 14, 2005 5:26 PM
I was going to say that perhaps it was the use of exploding artillery shells that made it the first "modern war", but I decided to look it up and found this link about the Crimean War.
http://www.cwreenactors.com/~crimean/criwar.htm
They also go into several other modern "advances". Interesting. I also had no idea that the Crimean War had more casualties than the Civil War.
Maybe it was the Gatling gun, which saw very limited use, or the use of balloons for observation. Or morphine.
Not sure why anyone would want to hold the "title" anyway. General Sherman did say that "war is hell", but not until 1880.
Here's a better quote from him...
"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the
sooner it will be over."
-William Tecumseh Sherman
Posted by: Hog Whitman | December 14, 2005 6:43 PM
Your piece is good, but your commenters are fantastic. That's really the fun of a blog, is it not?
I can only add that I think that the question is the wrong question. I have been lately reading about the Franco-Prussian War, and it seems to me that tactics evolve with a considerable lag time, following technical advances. As they always say, armies always prepare to fight the previous war.
Posted by: bird dog | December 16, 2005 10:28 PM
"Guerrilla tactics & camouflage uniforms":
see "American Revolution"
Posted by: Stuart | December 21, 2005 7:12 AM