Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Trice suggested that some earth shattering insights I was posting on the Charles Dickens thread over in Secession and Politics deserved a new thread. I have a couple of directions:
Military: What was the influence of the Civil War experience on other armies and conflicts?
Social-Political: What was the influence of the Civil War experience on other societies and politics?
Trice suggested that some earth shattering insights I was posting on the Charles Dickens thread over in Secession and Politics deserved a new thread. I have a couple of directions:
Military: What was the influence of the Civil War experience on other armies and conflicts?
Social-Political: What was the influence of the Civil War experience on other societies and politics?
WoW! Have no idea about that Dickens thread, but will check it out directly.
Those are excellent questions, either separately or combined.
I'd also like the perspectives of the ordinary persons, not just about what big (European) fish of those generals, govn'trulers, the paper editors.
This was really a big story all over most of the literate world. l'd think most would have heard of it.
My first thing; these folks might/could have heard about this oddball country where there was no KING, etc. What did they think about that 'democracy' thing? was going to continue or be a failure?
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
The Russians & Brits in particular looked very closely at it as did the French. Ironically just a few years later the French bought huge numbers of surplus US CW Arms, in particular almost the complete supply of Spencer carbines & rifles.
The Prussians were a bit contemptuos of that "Amatuer affair" though they learned a hard lesson in 1917-18 when those amatuers came over and finished them off...
Many military types noted succesful use of breach loading & lever action repeating arms as well as the devestating effectiveness of those "**** turtles" (ironclad gunboats).
A lot of firsts and succesful firsts at that; they did not go unnoticed. US Arms after the CW would be the arms upon much of the rest of the world judged others. Berdan, Colt, Peabody, Remington, Spencer & Sharps would all leave their mark upon the rest of the world.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
On the military side, I recall that the Khedive of Egypt hired several CS officers to help train his new "modern" army.
I think that the European officer corps tended to look at the CW battles as unsuccessful. They were bloody, inconclusive and marked by amateurish among the soldiers and officer. As I posted earlier, they took their models from the Prussians: sudden carefully planned offensives against weaker, diiplomatically isolated foes. These wars(against Denmark, Austria and France), were short and successful.
Unfortunately that was the wrong lesson to learn about "modern" warfare: the Great War would resemble the worse aspects of the Civil War: offensives ending in bloody stalemates, econmic dislocation and destruction, mass armies of barely trained volunteers, then conscripts, the greater numbers grinding down the lesser numbers.
Shane,
I wouldn't put my expertise in firearms against yours(because I don't have any expertise), put the Europeans didn't develop lever action arms, but rather bolt action arms, which we would adopt(Krags, then 1903 Springfields).
Military: What was the influence of the Civil War experience on other armies and conflicts?
In general, most European militaries (Army) ignored the experience of the Anmerican Civil War. The observers they did send here were looking for technology changes, so:
1) they looked for the effects of rifled artillery, particularly on brick fortifications. As a result, they studied Charleston, Savannah, etc. Their conclusion, like that of American officers, was that rifled guns made brick forts like Sumter dangerously obsolete.
2) they were overwhelmed by the logistical accomplishments of the Union and the USMRR service. The Prussians/Germans adopted the structure of that organization wholesale, particularly after their own logistical difficulties against France in 1870.
On most other matters, the continental powers saw no reason to pay attention or change anything in what they were doing.
The British had *some* officers who saw valuable things in the US and they themselves had started on the Cardwell reforms after the Sepoy Mutiny and the Crimean War to improve officer professional training. Very impressed by West Point. Interested in the experience of raising a largely "amateur" army in a hurry since they saw a growing need for such a force on their own. Saw a relationship between US camapigns in far regions with little supporting infrastructure to their own experience in the Empire. Had a true cavalry/mounted infantry debate of their own going on. But most of that got swept under the carpet in 1870 with the Franco-Prussian War and the copying of all things Prussian throughout the militaries of the world.
It was not until the emergence of G. F. R. Henderson as a military historian and teacher in the 1880s, supported by Wolseley, the British Army commander, that things changed. Henderson was the great biographer of Stonewall Jackson's campaigns, and a great admirer of Lee; also the intel chief who helped crush the Boers in South Africa. The generation of officers who fought WWI were his pupils, including Allenby who conquered Palestine. Study of Confederate campaigns (almost all in Virginia by Lee and Jackson) was required.
In reaction to that slaughter, a new generation emerged, led by B. H. Liddel-Hart and J. F. C. Fuller. Fuller was a Grant man; Liddell-Hart was a Sherman man. This is the generation that saw the seeds of the stalemate of WWI in the Civil War, and was looking to see how Grant/Sherman/the Union had won. This generation of officers fought WWII.
The Russians saw similarities between the US experience and their own situation: vast spaces, rough country, tenuous supply lines. They paid more attention, particularly to cavalry as mounted infantry and cavalry raids behind the lines. By the 1870s, Cossacks (by then regular Army units with 1 regiment assigned to each Corps) had been trained to fight dismounted with the rifle and bayonet. They also assigned a sapper unit to each Cossack regiment to destroy things on raids, noticing the difficulty most ACW cavalry units had in destroying anything that wouldn't burn. A Cossak raid in the war with Turkey in 1877 may have decided that struggle, with the Cossacks taking a crucial town with the bayonet.
The Prussians (soon Germans) officially ignored the entire thing. The General Staff never produced a study of the ACW, as they would for other contests like the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05. They did pick up some lessons on RR units and siegeworks. Generally, they seem to have believed they already knew what they were doing and studied their own experience from the three Danish Wars (1849-1864), the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Pretty much the not-invented-here syndrome. For example, it was the Russo-Japanese War that led them to make entrenching a standard part of their defensive tactics -- not the ACW.
The French -- well, they were the French. They didn't send any official observers until 1864. Then they sent a two-man team that reads like something out of a bad spy novel. The colonel in charge -- despite being married to an American wife from Baltimore -- did not speak English, and was the caricature of a stuffy garrison colonel. The junior officer with him is widely believed to have been military intelligence. Their official report came in two parts, it seems, and one part was still classified secret the last mention I saw (1958).
The two Frenchmen cooled their heels in New York for a while, and then spent time with Grant's army down near Petersburg. They visited West Point and were very impressed. They recommended the French Army adopt US McClellan saddles (found very few sore-backed horses) and US hygene methods. It is rumored they made a "sensation" with their report to the French Artillery Committee. But essentially, the French Army was regarded as #1 in the world at the time and no one changed anything back home.
My own guess is that someone had noted that the Confederates were looking shaky and that the French war in Mexico wasn't going so well. They wanted to see how tough the Union would be if they won. I don't think they liked what they saw.
The Prussians already had a breechloader in service since the 1840s, and had made the decision to arm their entire army with it in 1862. This was the famous Dreyse "Needle Gun" of the 1866 and 1870 wars. In retrospect, it was a pretty poor gun that leaked badly at the breech, but it was a lot better than Austrian muzzle-loading rifles at close range in 1866, whuich made it famous. Following the 1866 Austrian defeat, the French suddenly adopted the Chassepot with an emergency appropriation for 1,000,000 rifles. The Chassepot was the best breechloader in the world at the time, but the French had already rejected it for Army use about 1864. US experience with breechloaders/repeaters had no noticeable effect upon these Prussian and French decisions.
While the Europeans came to America to observe rifled artillery in use, that was generally because it was the only war going on. Rifled guns had been used in Europe in the 1850s. The Austrians converted to them after losing to the French in Italy in 1859. The big innovation came with Krupp's breechloading rapid-fire steel guns in 1866 and 1870.
Prussian and Austrian cavalry was regarded as the best at the time. They saw no reason to pay attention to Americans. In fact, the German cavalry resisted training for dismounted action all the way up to WWI.
This is not to say that the changes going on in the Civil War did not point the way to the future. It is only to say that European professional soldiers did not pay a lot of attention to them in their study and training.
Shane,
I wouldn't put my expertise in firearms against yours(because I don't have any expertise), put the Europeans didn't develop lever action arms, but rather bolt action arms, which we would adopt(Krags, then 1903 Springfields).
Matthew, here is a bit...
The US Army was testing bolt action rifles in the 1870's (none compared favorably to the accuracy or durability of the Trapdoor Springfield) M1871 Ward Burton was a monster in .50-70 that had many of the same problems of the Dreyse. Several other Bolt Action arms were heavily tested including 1st & 3rd Model Hotchkiss Rifles, a Lee Magazine Rifle & the Chafee Reece Magazine Rifle all tested in the late 1870's to early 1880's. And then there was the Greene rifle purchased, though never issued during the ACW. Marines were actually using one of the Bolt Action arms mentioned above well prior to the adoption of the Krag...
The Remington rolling block was heavily used throughout the world and the Peabody was the predecessor to the Martini Henry used by the Brits. The Brits also used the Sharps carbine for a while but I couldn't tell you how long.
The Russians used a lever action rifle (whose grand daddy was the Henry) up into WWI... excellent rifle by the way. And they used a Bolt action rifle designed by Hiram Berdan and his design of the Berdan Primer made centerfire the way to go.
The Turks actually used the Henry for their Cav up until replaced by the Mauser and loved both the Remington Rolling Block & Peabody.
The Austrians foolishly decided to adopt the Greene model of breachloader to their Lorenz rifles... didn't work.
THe French used & apparently liked the Spencer w/ some of their troops carrying them into action in Indo China & later using them in WWI.
US Small Arms have greatly influenced the world of Small Arms design. From the 1st breach loaders, 1st interchangeable small arms, 1st repeater, 1st practical Machine Gun etc. Really after the CW most of the rest of the world was widely using US influenced arms.
Men like Berdan, Colt, Remington & Browning to name just a few American Arms designers greatly influenced the direction of Small Arms in the 19th & early 20th Century.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
To veer into the social-political side, its a cliche that in England, the upper classes favored the South, while the lower classes favored the Union. How much truth is in the cliche, and why? I have some theories, which I will be posting later.
Unionists thought of the war as defending the concept of representative democracy: would it be successful over such a vast and diverse land?
In England, many of the ruling classes were not heartbroken by the thought of a powerful potential rival splitting up, and had little sympathy for the US. William Russell's dispatches to the Times about the Battle of Bull Run, detailing the humilitation of Union forces ended by predicting the US was about "to fall."
Punch magazine lampooned both sides, but most of the barbs were directed at the Union. Lincoln was sometimes characterized as a lawyer whose client(the US) was getting fed up with his handling of the case.
In contrast, working class Englishmen were often sympathetic with abolition and the Union cause. There is a great letter to Lincoln by the textile workers in Northern England, who, despite the hardships they were suffering because of loss of cotton, urge him to stay the course against slavery.
To veer into the social-political side, its a cliche that in England, the upper classes favored the South, while the lower classes favored the Union. How much truth is in the cliche, and why? I have some theories, which I will be posting later.
Cliches are usually based on some kind of truth. In this case, it seems to have been generally true of England, and possibly also of France.
In both cases, when you find evidence of support for the South, it tends to have been among what would be called the "upper classes". In France, the Napoleon III had fewer restraints through public opinion and seemed more inclined to intervene or favor the South than his English counter-parts, who had to listen to a vocal anti-South/anti-slavery interest.
Partly this was a social thing. But it had at its root a long-simmering trade competition and a diplomatic rivalry. Britain particularly, but also France, would be very pleased to see a growing US collossus humbled and weakened.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Civil War international 
Linear Mode
