How good were the two armies in comparison to the rest of the world at the time

[lastcat3]

At the time of the war would the Union and Confederacy of been considered the best two military units in the world. Or would some of the countries in Europe (or anywhere else) of been considered even stronger?

[Dred]

They were most likely the largest, and after even only half the war the most experienced, and hard used combat force on the planet. Both of them could have probably licked any other army in the world at the time. That's jut opinion tho, I have nothing to back it up.

[J_Man0507]

I would have to hazard a guess that the British might have a better trained army at the time, but if they had come to fight on US soil (again) and the Union army wasn't preoccupied, they would have probly womped the Brits again (sorry Blockade if you are reading this!). Though the British Navy might have given the USN a tough fight. It is debatable though. Depends on manpower and manufacturing might, seeing as both countries were industrial powerhouses.

[Dred]

Guess it depends on when.. and which specific armies. The Aop or AOV, and when? 6 months in? 3 years in? I like this line of thought tho. English may have been better trained but did they have as much experience in battle.. especially teh type of battle the Civil War involved?? I don't think so.

[CW_Surgeon_1862]

I can comment on the medical side. Medically we were not up to par with the European countries ability to treat battlefield wounds and disease. Many of our medical/surgical manuals, methods, and surgeons who drove the medical methods were European. We were not on the same level as those countries when it came to hygiene and the use of antiseptics for sterilization. Now that did not mean that the later was being used across all of the European armies but I think in a battle with them the medical side would have played a large part. Specifically seeing that most casualties of the Civil War was at the hand of an unseen enemy....germs and viruses.

[timewalker]

Originally Posted by CW_Surgeon_1862

I can comment on the medical side. Medically we were not up to par with the European countries ability to treat battlefield wounds and disease. Many of our medical/surgical manuals, methods, and surgeons who drove the medical methods were European. We were not on the same level as those countries when it came to hygiene and the use of antiseptics for sterilization. Now that did mean that the later was being used across all of the European armies but I think in a battle with them the medical side would have played a large part. Specifically seeing that most casualties of the Civil War was at the hand of an unseen enemy....germs and viruses.

Thanks for that. I think many of us forget the importance that medicine plays in war.

[5fish]

Originally Posted by lastcat3

At the time of the war would the Union and Confederacy of been considered the best two military units in the world. Or would some of the countries in Europe (or anywhere else) of been considered even stronger?

Before the war started it was not one of the best in the world far from it. The U.S. Army had a good officers corp but the overall size it was small compared to European armies and less trained.

By the end of the civil war both our army and navy was one of the top military forces in the world and battle harden as well.

[johan_steele]

In a simple word the US Army of 1863-65 would have cleaned the clock of any army in Europe if such an Army had been foolish enough to come to the US to start a scrap. The CS... frankly I'd put the CS AoT, even w/ their abysmal leadership, against any European Army of similar size and still put my money on them.

By 63 the bugs had been mostly worked out for both sides. US Cav was effective, US Infantry was tough and battle hardened and the Arty was so good it is frightening.

The Brits had excellent discipline, markmanship and an abysmal officer corps. IMO they lacked the combat experiance of the US Army. Frankly, any fight would have been ugly w/ a lot of casualties but I'll put my money w/ the American soldier he proved too often that there is a fighting spirit matched by very few.

Trust the American soldier to win a war and politicians to muck it all up.

The French... a paper tiger. Brave soldiers, brave officers but inept leadership.

Austria Hungry... the same problem as the French.

Prussians... whooo boy. But I'll still put my money on the ability of the US soldier to march circles around any army in europe w/ less baggage & less food.

And the CS... not too far behind the US in fighting prowess, but WAY behind in logistical competance.

[ole]

Thank goodness this is a speculative question. The antebellum US army was a ragtag bunch and scattered all over the frontiers.

By, let's say, early 1863, England had the only army that might rival those of the US or the Confederacy. But England would have had some severe logistical problems conducting a war against anyone from Canada. Its ships required coal, and that supply would have required more ships and distant coaling stations.

England's army was professional. But it wasn't large enough to take on 100,000 US or CS veterans.

ole

[cw1865]

The 1865 US Army that partakes in the Grand Review, or the Army of Northern Virginia at its apex (say 1863) are better, due to experience, than any force that can be assembled....The forces whacking at each other at Bull Run are still fighting the previous war and in my opinion would run faster than you could say 'Bladensburg' vis-a-vis the British.