First Modern War.

[Waterloo50]

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.

Thanks for hearing me out, it's appreciated.
I wish that I had the time to explore the causes of all wars but as you know that would take several lifetimes to achieve and as such I can only discuss my understanding of those wars in which I have had an interest in. With that said.

It seems to me that throughout history the wars have been fought primarily over multiple causes, 'religion, territorial disputes, arguments between monarchs and the total restructuring and replacement of political ideology.

Someone earlier mentioned the French Revolution as an example of people fighting to replace one ideology with another, replace the monarchy and feudalism with a republic but there were other underlying complex reasons behind the revolution e.g Catholicism, taxes, starvation and inequality, there was also a will/need for France to expand its territorial gains. France struggled to develop its own constitution and when it did the revolution became the new religion, not so much an ideology but a massive shift to a more balanced way of life. In some respects the revolutionaries had an underlying shared ideology but at the time nobody could really agree on the finer points. If you look at the 'American CW' everything was pushed forward and underpinned by an already establish constitution, those same things which needed were missing in France. The American patriots throwing off the shackles of an overseas monarchy and developing its own constitution was in some respects similar to the revolution in France, people wanted equality and freedom for self governance, to me, that's not so much an ideology but more of a natural progression which was always going to happen.

I'm mindful that I have a very Eurocentric view of the world and that obviously influences the way in which I decipher things, WW1, a modern war, yes but it was never about enforcing an ideology, all colonial wars, again not about ideology, WW2, fascism caused a war that was definitely caused by an incompatible ideology. All wars since strike me as being nothing more than a conflict of ideologies, even our latest wars (war against terror) is an ideological response to a threat, the ideology being the values and rules of the UN Council.

So that's it in a nutshell, a government supporting its military during a civil war based upon a value-base or shared ideology compared to those wars that went before which had very different causes. Wars today are a response from the more powerful forces imposing their will upon those that would do harm to those values not unlike the CW. As Ive said before, the starting point for modern war (just my opinion) was the CW.

 

[A. Roy]

So that's it in a nutshell, a government supporting its military during a civil war based upon a value-base or shared ideology compared to those wars that went before which had very different causes. Wars today are a response from the more powerful forces imposing their will upon those that would do harm to those values not unlike the CW.

Fascinating! have you done some writing or teaching on this topic? Seems worth exploring and sharing. It makes me think of a book written by a friend of mine some years ago about the concept of 'The Just War':

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1566636019/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

Roy B.

 

[Waterloo50]

Fascinating! have you done some writing or teaching on this topic? Seems worth exploring and sharing. It makes me think of a book written by a friend of mine some years ago about the concept of 'The Just War':

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1566636019/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

Roy B.

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my thoughts.
'The Just war', is now on my 'to read list'.
The last thing that I ever sat and wrote was at university but that was ages ago.

As for the morality of war, have you ever heard of 'Just war theory', it's an important theory that underpins our military ideology today. I only mention this because the morality of war is an often overlooked and yet fundamental part of our understanding of why and how wars are fought, that's my point really, many will rightly argue that the CW was the first modern war because of the advancement in technology whereas I have tackled the question from a different point of view, for me personally, the morality of war explains how we fight and ideology explains why we fight. With regards to the CW, I believe the ideology was a sense of shared destiny, the morality of war can be found with the introduction of the Lieber code which was really a refinement of the earlier articles of war, it isn't that dissimilar to the current just war theory.

 

[A. Roy]

As for the morality of war, have you ever heard of 'Just war theory', it's an important theory that underpins our military ideology today.

Yes, my friend Peter Temes's book The Just War is on exactly that topic. I think you'll like it. Looks as if it's out of print, but I see you can get used copies on Amazon.

The last thing that I ever sat and wrote was at university but that was ages ago.

Well, at least you can write about it here. Seems like a valuable subject.

Roy B.

 

[Waterloo50]

Yes, my friend Peter Temes's book The Just War is on exactly that topic. I think you'll like it. Looks as if it's out of print, but I see you can get used copies on Amazon.



Well, at least you can write about it here. Seems like a valuable subject.

Roy B.

Is your friend Peter Temes an academic director by any chance?

 

[A. Roy]

Is your friend Peter Temes an academic director by any chance?

He's had some academic jobs and has crossed over between administration and teaching. For about 15 years now, he's headed up an institute focused on innovation in large organizations -- basically a small management consulting firm. Somehow he finds the time to always be working on a book project, and just war theory was an interest of his during the early 2000s.

Roy B.

 

[leftyhunter]

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.

Antebellum slave owners financed " Fillabusters" most famously William Walker who temporarily siezed Nicaragua but eventually was captured by Honderan troops and his career has a serial Fillabuster was permanently terminated.
Colonel Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis was almost recruited by former Spanish General Narciso Lopez to size Cuba from Spain and establish an independent slave republic.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

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 have argued previously in a similar thread the first modern war was one with out the concept of complete victory but just to achieve a very limited politcal goal. Such wars have occurred but much later then the ACW. The ACW is not a modern war by that definition since the Union had no limited objectives it was fought with limitations on military force.
Leftyhunter

 

[Waterloo50]

I have argued previously in a similar thread the first modern war was one with out the concept of complete victory but just to achieve a very limited politcal goal. Such wars have occurred but much later then the ACW. The ACW is not a modern war by that definition since the Union had no limited objectives it was fought with limitations on military force.
Leftyhunter

A modern war has its limitations. There's a vast difference between the objectives of war and the planning of how the war should be fought. when the war started there were in some respects limited objectives, namely Reunification and emancipation, those were seen as the conditions of victory but just like some of our modern wars the way in which those objectives were to be achieved were constantly evolving. The conditions for victory came down to one thing, who was prepared to pay the higher cost! it's not always about military strength, it's about resolve, you can pick a fight with the smallest guy in the room but if he keeps getting up and coming back at you, sooner or later you're going to have to give up.

Wars today are fought to enforce change or to prevent change from occurring, we see it with regime change or the removal of hostile forces from occupation, sometimes that means pushing into enemy territory but it's rarely ever for territorial gain, it's more about maintaining the status quo, thats where I see a comparison between the CW and modern warfare. I'm not saying for one moment that every war since the CW has been a 'modern war, one only has to look at the behaviour of Jacob H Smith '"I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.'... yep, the morality of war can alter in a heart beat.

 

[leftyhunter]

A modern war has its limitations. There's a vast difference between the objectives of war and the planning of how the war should be fought. when the war started there were in some respects limited objectives, namely Reunification and emancipation, those were seen as the conditions of victory but just like some of our modern wars the way in which those objectives were to be achieved were constantly evolving. The conditions for victory came down to one thing, who was prepared to pay the higher cost! it's not always about military strength, it's about resolve, you can pick a fight with the smallest guy in the room but if he keeps getting up and coming back at you, sooner or later you're going to have to give up.

Wars today are fought to enforce change or to prevent change from occurring, we see it with regime change or the removal of hostile forces from occupation, sometimes that means pushing into enemy territory but it's rarely ever for territorial gain, it's more about maintaining the status quo, thats where I see a comparison between the CW and modern warfare. I'm not saying for one moment that every war since the CW has been a 'modern war, one only has to look at the behaviour of Jacob H Smith '"I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.'... yep, the morality of war can alter in a heart beat.

True the goals changed as the ACW program. At first the Union goal was reunification and in 1861 it wasn't uncommon for the Union Army to return escaped slaves to their Southern masters but then General Butler came to realize that was really stupid and eventually Congress passed the Confiscation Acts leading to the Emancipation Proclamation.
What is arguably the first modern war is not the ACW where the US sought complete victory but the Korean War post 1950 where the US just sought the territorial integrity of the Republic of Korea not the defeat of North Korea.
Leftyhunter

 

[wausaubob]

In the time between the Napoleonic wars and the Crimean war, steamships and telegraphy became important parts of war. They weren't the only technical changes, but they changed the balance of power and the pace of operations. These British web pages explore that change.

The Crimean War as a technological enterprise - PMC

Discussions of the Crimean War (1853–56) often emphasize its leaders’ military and political incompetence and logistic failures, which led to heavy losses both on the battlefield and to disease. This portrayal ignores the significant entrepreneurial ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In the US Civil war, the fact that the US had three different water based fronts on which to attack the Confederacy with steam powered ships and boats, and had telegraph wires across the continent allowed the US do things differently than even the British had been able to do in 1812 in North America. Time and space were compressed.

 

[wausaubob]

That made things difficult for the Confederacy. They did not get the benefit of an extended period of inertia and the quickly found themselves in a multi front war. Unless the British intervened in the US Civil War the way the French intervened in the US Revolutionary war, the Confederacy was caught fighting a naval war which was asymmetrical at first, and completely dominated by US naval power by the end.

 

[leftyhunter]

That made things difficult for the Confederacy. They did not get the benefit of an extended period of inertia and the quickly found themselves in a multi front war. Unless the British intervened in the US Civil War the way the French intervened in the US Revolutionary war, the Confederacy was caught fighting a naval war which was asymmetrical at first, and completely dominated by US naval power by the end.

As well as it should be as naval warfare is rather cut and dry in that the bigger side wins. Also the Union Navy relied to a large extent on sailiors of color for approximately twenty to twenty five percent of it's manpower. Per our own @andy Hall one of these sailor's if color was one of the sons of Jefferson Davis.
Leftyhunter

 

[covers]

I think what changed the most about warfare in the 19th Century occurred first in the Crimean War - The "common" soldier, at least the French and English, could read and write, there were War corespondents to the newspapers (like William Russell) and there were photographers on the scene (notably Roger Fenton). Images with text went a long way to bring the war to the people back home.

Nursing changed, Medicine changes, Siege Warfare changed, Naval Warfare changed (steamships screw propellers, exploding naval shells and armored ships), communications changed (telegraph) and newspaper (which allowed warfare to become truly political) and there was even a train line at Sevastopol.

I built an extensive collection of Crimean War letters and postal history for a client that I described and mounted into an exhibit that may eventually make it to book form. The exhibit is linked below and there is a PDF file for download here.

Crimean War Exhibit

 

[wausaubob]

I think what changed the most about warfare in the 19th Century occurred first in the Crimean War - The "common" soldier, at least the French and English, could read and write, there were War corespondents to the newspapers (like William Russell) and there were photographers on the scene (notably Roger Fenton). Images with text went a long way to bring the war to the people back home.

Nursing changed, Medicine changes, Siege Warfare changed, Naval Warfare changed (steamships screw propellers, exploding naval shells and armored ships), communications changed (telegraph) and newspaper (which allowed warfare to become truly political) and there was even a train line at Sevastopol.

I built an extensive collection of Crimean War letters and postal history for a client that I described and mounted into an exhibit that may eventually make it to book form. The exhibit is linked below and there is a PDF file for download here.

Crimean War Exhibit

There was a big jump over the 40 year interval. Military insiders like Robert E. Lee, but especially naval officers that remained in the US or went with the Confederacy, were very aware of how fast things were changing.

 

[Waterloo50]

I think what changed the most about warfare in the 19th Century occurred first in the Crimean War - The "common" soldier, at least the French and English, could read and write, there were War corespondents to the newspapers (like William Russell) and there were photographers on the scene (notably Roger Fenton). Images with text went a long way to bring the war to the people back home.

Nursing changed, Medicine changes, Siege Warfare changed, Naval Warfare changed (steamships screw propellers, exploding naval shells and armored ships), communications changed (telegraph) and newspaper (which allowed warfare to become truly political) and there was even a train line at Sevastopol.

I built an extensive collection of Crimean War letters and postal history for a client that I described and mounted into an exhibit that may eventually make it to book form. The exhibit is linked below and there is a PDF file for download here.

Crimean War Exhibit

I have to be honest, I know very little about the Crimean war, it's an odd thing to talk about a war in terms of popularity but it doesn't appear to get the same amount of attention like the Zulu war or Napoleonic wars. I think most people know about Balaclava and the Light Brigade but not much beyond that. As a Brit, perhaps I should pay the Crimean war a little more attention. Thanks for posting the links, I'll take a look.

 

[covers]

These two pages are related to "The Charge of The Light Brigade" ... "some may blame Capt. Nolan, he was the first killed, they may blame him, the dead cannot speak"

 

[j2huggies]

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.

 

[Waterloo50]

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.

That's a good point but if you think about it, the world had never seen any thing like it before or since. In my humble opinion, a single war despite the advancements in technology doesn't really make it a modern war. If by 'modern', we mean a standard set by which all following wars are fought then WW1 doesn't meet that criteria. The CW would have more in common with today's latest conflicts than WW1.

 

[wausaubob]

By the time of the Crimean War and the US Civil War, the transition was complete. The troops were conscripted or enlisted and maintained in the field for the duration of hostilities. https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/BK5ch14.html#a