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.
It seems to me, that in the scenarios above, the British get a tough task: raise and transport an army to North America. If their task is to defend Canada its one thing(Canada has an excellent track record of repelling US attacks), but if they then have to march into the United States and attack either the AoP or the ANV, its nigh well impossible.
What about the US having the tough role of transporting an army to Britain and trying to conquer them?
Personally, I would think the Union military in cooperation with the Confederate Army with the focus on an external Army would be met with the same passion as the Revolutionary, French-Indian War and Battle of 1812.
What is different in this what if scenario, would be the introduction of the railroads into war transportation of men, supplies, food and evacuation and or redeployment.
In addition, the Civil War had--from what I gather, about 20,000 Native American Indians that fought on both sides. It depended where their reservations/territories were. The Confederate Brig. General Stand Watie, is said to have been the last portion of the Confederate Army to surrender--about 2 months after General Lee's surrender of the CSA to General Grant at Appomattox. Guerilla warfare, hit and run tactics by the Native American Indians had their added bonus to the results on the battlefield. I will further add, Briv. Brig. General Ely Samuel Parker, a Seneca Indian was the gentleman who wrote up the terms of surrender. He was also an attorney prior to the Civil War. He was also a aide-de-camp to to General Grant.
Weapons were another factor. Having iron factories, lumber and other resources on ground is an advantage over a foreign force. Plus, the resolve of citizens regardless who.
The US Military having come from the Mexican Wars, I would think would cause all to be seasoned and battle tested warriors. The problem was, the division of the US Military as states and commonwealths took their sides and or positions. The 'glue' of comrads and friends disappeared in some cases and in other cases resumed after the war ended. But, it was killing Americans by Americans that had to become accustom to. You had a citizen army being assembled and the leadership were those from the regular army and those in position to get an official rank. The excitement worn off--then the armies got down to business and could be taken seriously on both sides--be it Union or Confederate.
I personally feel, that the Cavalry of both Armies still used vintage tactics. It is my understanding, that cadets at West Point had to learn French as to read the manual on warfare, tactics, etc., from the French General Napoleon. Even General George S. Patton (WWII)'s West Point Class had to learn fluid French.
What I further see so far, is war tactics/strategy evolution. Sharpshooters for an example, new weapons, guerilla warfare, sabatoge, use of Railroads, use of air balloons, telegraph, cryptic orders, changes in medical practices with the US Sanitary Commission. Though most casualties were medical--insulated farmers, Native American Indians, meeting others from all over, picked up disease quickly. No different from when Cortez gave small pox to the Incas. Also the disposal of deceased animals, disguarded surgically removed limbs, burial of the deceased--all were important. In addition --clothing and food.
In summary though-when fighting for one's homeland--it is no longer over petty issues--its about home. Something that has been forgotten by too many armies since.
Now, as for the square formation--didn't General Custer use that at the Little Big Horn? I am sure if it worked on some occasions it would be used once and again if all favored that formation. As far as Cavalry, the best known attack into a line was the "V" in which the tip acted like an arrow and split like a wedge into the ranks. This has been used as long as the Midieval period. They have also used solid square formations as well.
Just some thoughts.
The most effective cavalry charge was that made by heavy cavalry. These were big men on big horses. They rode virtually boot to boot in a solid mass and blundered through anything in their path. An example would be the Heavy Brigade at the battle of Balaclava. They charged a much larger body of Cossacks and simply swept them away. One account describes this as being similar to charging a herd of elephants through a pony gymkana. Light cavalry were mainly used in a scouting role or for the pursuit of a beaten enemy. The exception being lancers, who were deadly against enemy cavalry.
Squares of pikemen were indeed used in medieval times, with varying degrees of sucess. Robert the Bruce used square formations called schiltrons to defeat Edward II at Bannockburn. Yet a few years earlier, William Wallace used the same formation at Falkirk and was badly beaten by Edward I. The difference was, Ed I used his new secret weapon, the longbow with greater effect.
I see to remember, perhaps from Bruce Catton's book series, The Army of the Potomac, a Confederate general's comment right after a hard fought battle with Union forces.
"Give me Yankee artillery and Confederate infantry and I'll lick the world!"
Sincerely,
Unionblue
If the Southern army had been properly feed and had the same equipment, the results might have been very different and the war would have lasted alot longer.
Somewhere back there someone mentioned Wilder's mounted infantry. Probably richard. Will beg to differ just a bit because Forrest's boys were never cavalry; they were mounted infantry.
Just a thought.
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
A mention about the British square and if it was used in our CW. I do not have a answer but I saw a picture in some book of a Confederate unit put into the British square for the picture.
Just a note.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Have very little exposure to Brit history, Blockade. Enjoyed "Braveheart" as entertainment and only loosely applied it as history. Maybe you can put it into perspective for me? Would appreciate it a lot.
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
Scuzzi! Would you please open another thread to give some insight as to what all that "Braveheart" was about?
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
