First Modern War.

wausaubob

Colonel
Member of the Month
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Its all there in the Crimean War, including Florence Nightingale and the beginning of women in nursing. https://archive.org/stream/reportonartofwar00unit#page/272/mode/2up Steam powered transport vessels, telegraph reporting for governments and journalists, photographs, and rapid advances in emphasis on sanitation, it was known in 1858. The knowledge came pouring in through New York, and army insiders like Colonel Lee, General Johnston and for the US Delafield himself.
This may explain why George McClellan was so important in the early months of the war for the US. He not only worked on the report, but had talked to many European officers and read much of the literature on the Crimean War. His familiarity with these subjects had to be of great help to Lincoln.
McClellan's youth and intelligence had to sharply contrast with Scott's age and Halleck's outdated emphasis on Napoleonic geometry.
1603115535303.png
 
Once again it depends upon ones definition of Modern war. Most wars are fought with the latest technologies available at the time. The Napoleonic Wars were massive conflicts between large nation states, requiring their govts to bend every available resource, technological, economic, popular resources within their means.

I myself have usually thought of the ACW, and perhaps the Crimean War, as precursors to WWI. I define modern wars as being those where the race for technological superiority is the deciding factor in their winning. It is by this definition I usually think of the ACW as a precursor of the modern wars of the 20th Centuries, i.e., the ACW, although won by superior technologies, or, at least their production, the goals of the war and the fighting of the War themselves, seem to me more in line with all previous wars. So, to me, the ACW was a mixture of both modern and contemporary wars and cannot be classified as being exactly modern, within my definitions.
 
Its all there in the Crimean War, including Florence Nightingale and the beginning of women in nursing. https://archive.org/stream/reportonartofwar00unit#page/272/mode/2up Steam powered transport vessels, telegraph reporting for governments and journalists, photographs, and rapid advances in emphasis on sanitation, it was known in 1858.

Interesting points here. I've read that, up to the Crimean War, nursing in Britain was considered a menial job, and that when Nightingale's nurses returned they had quite a struggle to become recognized as knowledgeable, skilled workers.

Roy B.
 
Is it the mechanics of a war (Industrialisation/logistics) that defines its modernity!
I don’t think so.

it’s possible to argue that modern war could be defined by the emergence of a national conscience which unite against opposing ideologies. It seems to me that many wars prior to the CW, had primarily been fought over territory/ religion or both e.g the Crimea war was a territorial war. The civil war was fought over differing political/societal ideologies and as such was probably the first modern war, by modern war I mean that there was nothing to be gained other than forcing a political will. The taking and holding of territory was just a consequence of a civil war but not the reason for it.
 
Last edited:
The gap between the Napoleonic wars and the Crimean war made people realize how much had changed. Steam powered transport vessels were much more reliable than sailing vessels. The war news also arrived much faster, and it made people expect faster results.
Neither change was fully exploited by the Crimean War belligerents. However US military men, in both the army and the navy, followed British and French methods very closely. The US had the ship building facilities to launch a progressive steam powered navy. The officers who went with the Confederacy had seen the report and its detailed engineering specifications. What they lacked was the manpower and the experienced construction trade workmen and managers to fully employ the methods available.
During the Crimean War I believe the British built a military railroad. The railroad was powered by horses and cable at first, but eventually the British delivered locomotives to the front. Oddly Grant eventually employed a siege railroad too. He probably chose the James River, City Point location because of it existing rail connections and the viable ground to the west through which additional miles could be extended.
It was really after 1842, and then during the Crimean War, that the possibility of steam powered naval vessels, without masts or rigging, and carrying armor, began to developed. Both US and Confederate naval officers were aware that naval vessels were undergoing rapid change.
 
it’s possible to argue that modern war could be defined by the emergence of a national conscience which unite against opposing ideologies. It seems to me that many wars prior to the CW, had primarily been fought over territory/ religion or both e.g the Crimea war was a territorial war. The civil war was fought over differing political/societal ideologies

That's an intriguing idea. In connection with the ACW, there certainly was much mention of ideology -- patriotism, freedom, ****, abolition, right of self-determination, divine providence -- along with the importance of the American republic as the hope of humanity:

"...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." (A. Lincoln, Gettysburg Address)

But how does that make the ACW a "modern" war? Not exactly arguing here, just wondering what your thinking is. And is it really so that ideologies weren't key factors in previous wars? I'm thinking about religious wars, for example.

Roy B.
 
Telegraphs and railroads, steam and iron, yes. And yet tactically the single-shot infantry weapon predominated until the 1870s...
The problem with all our labels of convenience is that history - quite unlike a history book - is an evolutionary process rather than a series of chapters. So... you are all correct. LOL
The first “modern” war was either Charles VIII’s artillery-assisted invasion of Italy in 1494, or the global Seven Years War, or the nationalist wars sparked by the French Revolution, or any one of the transitional conflicts of the Industrial Age (1854-56, 1861-65, 1870-71, 1899-1902, 1904-05)...
I pick World War I myself, for no better reason than ‘everything’ seems to have been in place by then, if you don’t count the tank, the warplane, or the aircraft carrier...

(And I still don’t know what to do with the surreal blitzkrieg of Feb 1991 that happened at 73 Easting. ...the first 'postmodern' war?)
 
Last edited:
That's an intriguing idea. In connection with the ACW, there certainly was much mention of ideology -- patriotism, freedom, ****, abolition, right of self-determination, divine providence -- along with the importance of the American republic as the hope of humanity:

"...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." (A. Lincoln, Gettysburg Address)

But how does that make the ACW a "modern" war? Not exactly arguing here, just wondering what your thinking is. And is it really so that ideologies weren't key factors in previous wars? I'm thinking about religious wars, for example.

Roy B.
The comparison between religion and ideology is a long debated an controversial subject but there Is a difference e.g...’(ideologies tend toward political movements and religions tend toward the spiritual), there are indeed differences between the two. Religions are generally classified as subgroups of ideologies, in that they meet all the requirements and perform similar functions to an ideology, but have unique 'properties' unto themselves.’ Clear as mud I know but if you think of it like this, religion holds a world view with for an example an explanation for human existence whereas ideologies don’t. Religion requires that a specific set of criteria or conditions are met whereas an ideology does not. Sorry about the waffle but in my humble opinion ideology and religion appear to be the same but there are subtle differences.

Back to my original post, I think I’d be right in claiming that the confederacy and the Union had an ideology but the prerequisites for choosing which side of the fence an individual stood on weren’t as stringent as the requirements for choosing a side in a religious war.
I hope that I haven’t muddied the waters too much but my thoughts on what defines a modern war are based upon the fact that the civil war, was a war fought over a specific set of values, an ideology if you will and I can’t really find any other example of a war prior to the CW where territorial or religious disputes weren’t a factor.
 
The arrival of steam vessels, joined with British advantages in navigation, made naval power dominant, not just incidental. The outcome of land battles no longer determined the balance of power.
Electronic communication via telegraph was not just a slight change from post riders and post roads.
Both changes compressed time and space. Railroads greatly reduced the cost of sustained warfare.
The other changes were set forth in the introductory pages of the Delafield report. Artillery had much greater range and was more accurate. Rifled long arms proliferated in the infantry. Both changes made it almost impossible for cavalry to fight a stationary line.
 
To journalists and then to historians, the US Civil War seemed new. However to US military men, on both sides of the US Civil War, everything that happened was based on what had been demonstrated in the Crimean War.
 
To journalists and then to historians, the US Civil War seemed new. However to US military men, on both sides of the US Civil War, everything that happened was based on what had been demonstrated in the Crimean War.
Fair point but one could then argue that the Crimean war was the first modern war, for me personally it’s all relative, for every war that’s ever been fought the latest technology has been used and as such was the first modern war, it’s the definition of modern that’s the problem. in the future when humanity gets to the point when soldiers become redundant or not as necessary as they are now, people will say that their push button laser guided war was the first modern war.
 
The comparison between religion and ideology is a long debated an controversial subject but there Is a difference e.g...’(ideologies tend toward political movements and religions tend toward the spiritual), there are indeed differences between the two. Religions are generally classified as subgroups of ideologies, in that they meet all the requirements and perform similar functions to an ideology, but have unique 'properties' unto themselves.’ Clear as mud I know but if you think of it like this, religion holds a world view with for an example an explanation for human existence whereas ideologies don’t. Religion requires that a specific set of criteria or conditions are met whereas an ideology does not. Sorry about the waffle but in my humble opinion ideology and religion appear to be the same but there are subtle differences.

Back to my original post, I think I’d be right in claiming that the confederacy and the Union had an ideology but the prerequisites for choosing which side of the fence an individual stood on weren’t as stringent as the requirements for choosing a side in a religious war.
I hope that I haven’t muddied the waters too much but my thoughts on what defines a modern war are based upon the fact that the civil war, was a war fought over a specific set of values, an ideology if you will and I can’t really find any other example of a war prior to the CW where territorial or religious disputes weren’t a factor.
I would agree on the definitional rule of thumb that religion orients to the spiritual while ideology orients more directly to the worldly-political. Beyond that, however, I would say that when either expresses itself in war power and security issues and perceptions dominate. That’s what makes the dividing line very blurry indeed.
 
That's an intriguing idea. In connection with the ACW, there certainly was much mention of ideology...

But how does that make the ACW a "modern" war? Not exactly arguing here, just wondering what your thinking is. And is it really so that ideologies weren't key factors in previous wars? I'm thinking about religious wars, for example.

Roy B.

Political ideology? The wars of the French Revolution come immediately to mind. As does the English Civil War.
 
But none of the technology listed changed infantry tactics in a big way among major armies until well into WWI.

Tactically, the ACW was still largely a war of line and column as was Crimea before it; shoulder to shoulder and wave attacks. Skirmish line tactics, open formations, and what we today call fire and maneuver was the exception, not the rule. It wasn’t until the prevalence of the machine gun on the WWI battlefield that the major world powers began to accept that things had to change in a big way.

Non-major world powers? They’ve always fought “Indian style.” The Boers were more tactically advanced at the small unit level than either side in the ACW.

Again, I understand that certain units within major armies were different and always have been. But this post refers to the mass of line infantry well into WWI and not sharpshooter units, colonial rangers, English archers, or King David’s slingers.
 
The civil war was fought over differing political/societal ideologies and as such was probably the first modern war, by modern war I mean that there was nothing to be gained other than forcing a political will. The taking and holding of territory was just a consequence of a civil war but not the reason for it.
the civil war, was a war fought over a specific set of values, an ideology if you will and I can’t really find any other example of a war prior to the CW where territorial or religious disputes weren’t a factor.

I get what you're saying about the importance of ideological positions in the Civil War, and I think you have a good point. I wonder, though, whether there's an argument to be made that territory was a significant factor in the war as well -- I imagine some might even argue that territory was more important. I'm sure the U.S. government didn't want to lose the vast southern land and resources claimed by the Confederacy, right? From the Confederate side, I've heard some folks argue that many supporters of secession had an economically-motivated ambition to expand their slave-labor economy into other areas, such as Central and South America and the Caribbean.

Roy B.
 
I get what you're saying about the importance of ideological positions in the Civil War, and I think you have a good point. I wonder, though, whether there's an argument to be made that territory was a significant factor in the war as well -- I imagine some might even argue that territory was more important. I'm sure the U.S. government didn't want to lose the vast southern land and resources claimed by the Confederacy, right? From the Confederate side, I've heard some folks argue that many supporters of secession had an economically-motivated ambition to expand their slave-labor economy into other areas, such as Central and South America and the Caribbean.

Roy B.
I absolutely believe that argument can be made. Some say the secession crisis itself was over how states created in western territories would affect the balance of power at the Federal level. It's interconnected in 1860 as it is for the vast majority of all human conflicts.
 
I get what you're saying about the importance of ideological positions in the Civil War, and I think you have a good point. I wonder, though, whether there's an argument to be made that territory was a significant factor in the war as well -- I imagine some might even argue that territory was more important. I'm sure the U.S. government didn't want to lose the vast southern land and resources claimed by the Confederacy, right? From the Confederate side, I've heard some folks argue that many supporters of secession had an economically-motivated ambition to expand their slave-labor economy into other areas, such as Central and South America and the Caribbean.

Roy B.
I’d say that there’s a difference between fighting to gain territory and fighting to prevent its loss, you mentioned in your earlier post, ‘ I'm sure the U.S. government didn't want to lose the vast southern land and resources claimed by the Confederacy,’...here’s an interesting fact which I think is worth considering,

‘ The North, by contrast, was well on its way toward a commercial and manufacturing economy, which would have a direct impact on its war making ability. By 1860, 90 percent of the nation's manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South. Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South.’

I think it’s a fair point to claim that the war was not so much about land grabbing but more about holding onto and imposing a political will on territories that viewed things differently (ideology) we know that the war was fought over economic/moral and political differences but for me anyway, I think it was also the possible long term effects of secession that helped to fuel the war, the fact that the north would not recognise the legitimacy of secession was born from the belief that secession would set a precedent which in the long term would undermined democracy and would possibly result in a completely fragment nation. For now anyway, I’m going to stick with my belief that the CW was as a result of a clash between two similar yet differently motivated ideologies.
 
As far as modernity goes, steam engines made cotton extremely valuable. It was durable commodity that could transported to a port on a steamboat, shipped overseas on a steamship, spun and woven with steam powered equipment and then the products distributed over the entire world by nations that had a widespread commercial network. Because it was durable and not for consumption, the speed at which the logistics of cotton moved was not critical.
Railroads were made for wheat. The wheat has to be kept dry and the faster it moves the better the quality. Also, wheat grown on newly opened land probably has a higher yield and is more nutritious. To keep the wheat moving takes collector railroads, elevators, trunk railroads and fast reliable steamship transport across the Atlantic.
The availability of cotton affects one very important industry. The price of wheat and bread affects everyone in every city.
Railroad technology inevitably set up a power struggle between Illinois and Wisconsin on the one side, and the Cotton south on the other side.
 
The progress of the Crimean war was heavily influenced by casting of ever heavier artillery guns, machining rifles, but then also mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and the observational links between cleanliness and infection. The war ends with a different technological situation than what existed in the beginning. The same thing happened in the US Civil War, as technology changed as the war progressed, especially regarding railroad logistics and civil engineering. In the US Civil War systems experts, which we would call industrial engineers, especially McCallum and Carnegie were very successful. That became a feature of all subsequent wars. Management not inspiration became the critical skill and the pace of science accelerated.
 
I think it was also the possible long term effects of secession that helped to fuel the war, the fact that the north would not recognise the legitimacy of secession was born from the belief that secession would set a precedent which in the long term would undermined democracy and would possibly result in a completely fragment nation.

Thanks for elaborating. I think I understand better what you're getting at. I would say what you mention here is reflected in Lincoln's pretty consistent focus on maintaining the Union and the importance of the American republic on the world stage.

I'm still interested, though, in the idea you brought up about the Civil War as (maybe the first) modern war because of the role of ideological motivations. How does that make the ACW "modern"? Are you thinking, for example, of the roles of ideas like democracy, fascism, communism, freedom, and totalitarianism in the wars of the 20th century? What's the trend you see, and how does the Civil War represent a flexion point, if that's the right word?

Roy B.
 
Back
Top