First Modern War.

[wausaubob]

This transition produced the pre conditions for the slaughter that took place on the western front in WW I.

 

[danny]

I still think WWI is the first "modern war" as we evolved from largely muzzleloaders to bolt actions and somewhat better rapid fire weaponry (as opposed to the Gatling). Plus, tanks and planes.

But, the Union troops were using repeating rifles in ever increasing numbers. It was pretty much sheer murder

 

[Sgt. Tyree]

I still think WWI is the first "modern war" as we evolved from largely muzzleloaders to bolt actions and somewhat better rapid fire weaponry (as opposed to the Gatling). Plus, tanks and planes.

I'm inclined to agree because the conventional infantry began to fight in open order and use infiltration tactics.

Even though the ACW saw repeating rifles used to devastating effect, by and large the infantry advanced in line and closed up. Just like the Greeks, Romans, and other ancients.

 

[Waterloo50]

I'm inclined to agree because the conventional infantry began to fight in open order and use infiltration tactics.

Even though the ACW saw repeating rifles used to devastating effect, by and large the infantry advanced in line and closed up. Just like the Greeks, Romans, and other ancients.

It seems to me that the question of 'First modern war' is unanswerable because nobody can agree on a perfect description of what a modern war is, if the question was approached using a scientific method then one would apply a scientific baseline but to my knowledge that baseline has never been established. In order to find the first modern war then one needs to know which modern war we're talking about, how else are we supposed to make a comparison when we don't have a baseline!

This thread has made for some great reading, I've enjoyed reading the different (baselines) that people use to identify a modern war, there have been opinions about the technological side of war, others have focused on the tactics used and others like myself have argued that a modern war is one in which the ideology behind war has changed.

In some respects, I'd have to agree with those that claim that WW1 was the first modern war but that's because I believe that WW1 witnessed the start of the industrialisation of war and mass production of weapons, other than that I can't see a great deal that separated the Napoleonic wars/Crimea or WW1. Haven't all wars up until recently been fought over territory/politics and religion!

I'll throw you guys a challenge, a base line, what if I argued that (Desert Shield and Desert Storm) a coalition effort was the first modern war. My argument being that unlike all previous wars, the gulf war (Desert Shield) was not about territorial gain/regime change or politics, it was about defending and policing a constitutional sovereign state which as we know had to be followed up with much tougher measures (Desert Storm) ...is it possible to look back at all preceding wars and find a historical comparison? Oh, before anyone points out the comparison to the Korean or Vietnam wars, I think it's fair to say that they were ultimately about preventing the spread of a political ideology. Can anyone find a historical comparison to the first gulf war?

Im not trying to divert from the O/P but I think some kind of agreement on what a modern war is could help narrow things down a tad.

 

[leftyhunter]

It seems to me that the question of 'First modern war' is unanswerable because nobody can agree on a perfect description of what a modern war is, if the question was approached using a scientific method then one would apply a scientific baseline but to my knowledge that baseline has never been established. In order to find the first modern war then one needs to know which modern war we're talking about, how else are we supposed to make a comparison when we don't have a baseline!

This thread has made for some great reading, I've enjoyed reading the different (baselines) that people use to identify a modern war, there have been opinions about the technological side of war, others have focused on the tactics used and others like myself have argued that a modern war is one in which the ideology behind war has changed.

In some respects, I'd have to agree with those that claim that WW1 was the first modern war but that's because I believe that WW1 witnessed the start of the industrialisation of war and mass production of weapons, other than that I can't see a great deal that separated the Napoleonic wars/Crimea or WW1. Haven't all wars up until recently been fought over territory/politics and religion!

I'll throw you guys a challenge, a base line, what if I argued that (Desert Shield and Desert Storm) a coalition effort was the first modern war. My argument being that unlike all previous wars, the gulf war (Desert Shield) was not about territorial gain/regime change or politics, it was about defending and policing a constitutional sovereign state which as we know had to be followed up with much tougher measures (Desert Storm) ...is it possible to look back at all preceding wars and find a historical comparison? Oh, before anyone points out the comparison to the Korean or Vietnam wars, I think it's fair to say that they were ultimately about preventing the spread of a political ideology. Can anyone find a historical comparison to the first gulf war?

Im not trying to divert from the O/P but I think some kind of agreement on what a modern war is could help narrow things down a tad.

Ask the Mods if we can discuss because now we're getting into modern politics.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

But, the Union troops were using repeating rifles in ever increasing numbers. It was pretty much sheer murder

Murder is a crime vs war is legal. Since when has it been illegal by domestic or International law to use improved technology?
Leftyhunter

 

[Waterloo50]

Ask the Mods if we can discuss because now we're getting into modern politics.
Leftyhunter

Thanks lefty, it's not so much that I wanted to discuss modern warfare but rather that we could at least attempt to come up with a rough baseline to measure the civil war against. I appreciate you pointing out the modern politics issue but in my previous post, I deliberately avoided mentioning any modern political or military names. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[David Knight]

Coming late to this thread it is becoming very obvious that 'modern' is a term that does not age very well. The English Longbow was once modern and very destructive. Now we have drones and missiles delivering long distance death. In terms of these the Civil War is not modern in any way. Paddy Griffiths in his Battle tactics of the American Civil War he comes to the conclusion that it had more in common with the age of Napoleon than the Great War.

The technology of the 1860s does give the logistics a more modern feel compared to early 19th Century but even by the Great War technology etc had advance tremendously so the civil war looks outdated.

 

[jackt62]

It seems to me that the question of 'First modern war' is unanswerable because nobody can agree on a perfect description of what a modern war is,

Very true. There needs to be an accepted and objective definition of "modern war," which to my knowledge does not exist. In any case the term "modern" is always applicable to the particular year or era that a conflict is being fought so it is a rather meaningless term. What most folks are probably more interested in is whether the CW was some kind of watershed between the warfare that predated it and that which came afterward. In some respects, the CW was a continuation of the Napoleonic method of using massed infantry in battle line formation with cavalry and artillery serving adjunct functions. On the other hand, the CW was among the first wars to utilize new technology including rifled weapons, the telegraph, railroad, and ironclad vessels. From a strategic point of view, I'm not sure if the CW was that much different in its use of turning movements, force concentration, and the importance of logistics that remain valid to this day.

 

[Irishtom29]

I can't say what was the first modern war but I don't think you had without high velocity smokeless powder small arms and high explosives.

 

[Sgt. Tyree]

What most folks are probably more interested in is whether the CW was some kind of watershed between the warfare that predated it and that which came afterward.

"Watershed." Thank you. I believe that's a good way to put it.

I've argued that it was because of tactics. Others have argued that it was because of technology. This has been an interesting thread with many good points made.

 

[Sgt. Tyree]

It seems to me that the question of 'First modern war' is unanswerable because nobody can agree on a perfect description of what a modern war is, if the question was approached using a scientific method then one would apply a scientific baseline but to my knowledge that baseline has never been established. In order to find the first modern war then one needs to know which modern war we're talking about, how else are we supposed to make a comparison when we don't have a baseline!

For your consideration: Military theorist William S. Lind argues that "Modern War" means the nation state has a monopoly on warfare in the pursuit of "national interest."

Before the nation state acquired said monopoly, many entities waged war: clans, tribes, gangs, ethnic groups, etc. And for many reasons: religion, notions of honor, pillaging and acquiring personal property, impressing the girls, etc. Lind acknowledges that this continued to happen and happens still, but such groups and the reasons they fight for don't have a monopoly.

Notable is that the above definition is not dependent on either tactics or technology.

 

[wausaubob]

The Crimean War forms the boundary between pre-modern and modern. Once power equipment can be used to supply the troops, over the water, and in the zone of the fighting, there is a vast escalation in the duration and size of the conflict. Once the news of the war arrives at the capital in a few days, instead of weeks or months, the political impact of results is much greater. Steam power increases the scale of warfare, but telegraph communication should have shortened it. The national governments became very skilled at diverting and diluting the war news, but the effect is modern.

 

[Sgt. Tyree]

The Crimean War forms the boundary between pre-modern and modern. Once power equipment can be used to supply the troops, over the water, and in the zone of the fighting, there is a vast escalation in the duration and size of the conflict. Once the news of the war arrives at the capital in a few days, instead of weeks or months, the political impact of results is much greater. Steam power increases the scale of warfare, but telegraph communication should have shortened it. The national governments became very skilled at diverting and diluting the war news, but the effect is modern.

You are articulate and have argued your position well. I'm glad you started this thread and I value your contributions to it. But I do not agree that your definition of modern should be the definition of modern war.

 

[wausaubob]

You are articulate and have argued your position well. I'm glad you started this thread and I value your contributions to it. But I do not agree that your definition of modern should be the definition of modern war.

Other watersheds are possible per Carl von Clausewitz.

 

[SoAlaNorthGeorgian]

I see the usual suspects have done their thing in this thread. I'm not shocked.

Time and motion studies for troop movements during the ACW were based upon those utilized by the Generals who ran the Napoleonic wars, as were the Crimean campaigns, one would assume.

We had manuals and books back then. I don't understand the question.

 

[Acbernsen]

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.
View attachment 378786

I guess most historians look to 1914 as the beginning of the modern era, the 20th century and the birth of modern war, but a strong argument can be made that the first whiff of this was the US Civil War. In many ways, much more similar, especially in the late stages to WWI than the Napoleonic wars.