Campfire Chat - General DiscussionsThis is a forum for posting discussion topics, questions, current events, and anything else you'd like to chat about. Please post serious Civil War History threads in appropriate History Forums.
IMO the writer failed to make his case.
He seems to have measured the Civil War by technology: Telecommunication, Photojournalists, Aerial observation, submarines, railroads, Rapid Fire Weapons, steam and Iron-Clad Ships. Each described under its own heading. Yet WWI technology is under one title and is merely a listing of the advances in military technology from the Civil War to 1918. The writer seems to argue that the CW was decided by changing technology, while WWI was decided by the changing of mentality of the participants. After all the Death and Glory Syndrome was as well entrenched in the armies and their commanders in 1861 as it was in 1914. The men and leaders of both wars learned by hard experience to change both their technologies and minds about what was actually required to win the new kind of war both era's had to fight.
Both wars was bumbled at first because the leaders, as usual, planned their present war according to what they learned in their last wars.
It can be argued, that WWI ended like the CW; superior manpower and technology overcoming (by outlasting) the more limited manpower and technology of its opponentT
To me the author did not really address the 'ancient' part of his comparisons, except as being a 'mentality' abberation, which, IMO he did not really prove was anyway more prevalent in WWI than in the CW.
In the matter of predictions, it is interesting that Lord Kitchener, a field marshal and newly appointed Minister of War in the British Cabinet, stunned his fellow ministers by predicting a war lasting 'at least' 3 three years and requiring an army of millions, demanding the utmost sacrifice by the country. This, at a time when almost everyone in England and Europe expected the war to be over by Christmas and Britains entire combat ready army numbered 80,00 men.
In the matter of predictions, it is interesting that Lord Kitchener, a field marshal and newly appointed Minister of War in the British Cabinet, stunned his fellow ministers by predicting a war lasting 'at least' 3 three years and requiring an army of millions, demanding the utmost sacrifice by the country. This, at a time when almost everyone in England and Europe expected the war to be over by Christmas and Britains entire combat ready army numbered 80,000 men.
I believe every war has its modern and ancient aspects. WWII had both more modern and ancient, by the standards of the time.
Germany had ballistic missiles and used horses for transportation -same war-WWII.
In the attack at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Navy had machine guns and single shot cannon for an obsolete defense against modern flying aircraft. Marines used bolt action rifles in the early island campaigns in the Pacific; The Navy took time to supply its ships with 20mm and 40mm cannon.
The Union eventually won the Civil War because they could produce more and better weapons, supplied to more soldiers. They could sustain railroads, and they could feed a huge army and its horses and mules.
The U.S. could produce modern rifles and carbines in quantities, such as the Spencer and Sharps rifles and carbines. The Confederacy could produce a limited number of rifle models, designed previously. The U.S. Navy could build more steamers and iron-clad ships, than the Confederacy could accomplish. The Confederacy had too few places and equipment to compete in steamers.
In most wars, one nation seems to compete better. It has the better capacity to produce the weapons of the time, needed to win. I think it is more than a simple look at modern and ancient.
Both wars was bumbled at first because the leaders, as usual, planned their present war according to what they learned in their last wars.
Seems it was ever thus. After all, where do you get your generals? From the Colonels in the last go round.
The nature of the two arenas in which we are currently engaged has been changing month by month since their onset. It would seem that every general expects something a bit different than he finds. Was there ever a war anywhere that began and ended as expected?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Its always going to be the units in contact with the enemy that will report their difficulties up the chain of command. In the Civil War they get wise pretty quickly and start digging (despite a general disdain for the activity at the beginning of the war).
The problem is that you still had generals willing to throw infantry waves at breastworks. Grant, Lee, Sherman, Bragg and Hood all seem to do this, so its not peculiar to one side.
In fact, the WW I Generation learned as quickly as any other generation in responding to the realities of the wars they fought. It was just that, their responses were limited. The Western Front stretched more or less, continuously from Switzerland to the Channel Coast, there was NO way around, no real flanks, only salients. Before, mobility could be restored to the war, the Front had to be penetrated and broken, the various offensives by the Allies were attempts to penetrate and pass through the defensive lines to restore the desired mobility of operations.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Modern vs. 'Ancient' War ? 
Linear Mode
