Five Myths

'Modern War' needs a definition...what defines wars of, say, the 20th century, or distinguishes them from previous wars?

(Reading my original post, I don't think I was clear)

In the American Civil War, the 'Modern War' innovations I see are:
Use of rail transport for both strategic and tactical objectives
Use of wireless telegraphy for real- and near-real-time communication
Use of cryptography and cryptanalysis on more widespread, systemic basis (rather than ad-hoc and locally)
Use of aerial reconnaissance, no matter how limited
Use of submarine warfare, again without regard to limit
Use of structured intelligence services both nationally and on battlefield commanders' staffs (staves? LOL)...may be stretching this a bit.

We could also add in widespread use of war correspondents embedded with the armies and reporting in near-real-time, providing information directly to the public; add to that the use of public pressure- often led by the papers- to force the governments to act/refrain from action. The first war of public opinion? At least shaped as events unfolded?
 
Last edited:
Moving troops with Railroads was done in 1848 and by 1860 it was part of the warplanning in all European armies.

Trenches have been used for 2000+ years.

Rifled firearms had been around in relevant numbers since the 18th century.
By 1850 we have battles like the one at Isted with more than half of the engaged infantry using rifle muskets. (80% on one side and 25% on the other), The crimean war had them... and in 1859 we have the battle of Solferiono. Way way bigger than any battle during the civil war... with both sides armed with rifle muskets.
Also the rifle musket was a technological dead end, that was made obsolete in 1841 by the Breechloaded rifle....

So none of them was new by 1861.

Ironclades was used in the Crimean war... but yes, the first ironclad on ironclad was during the civil war.
(like how jet fighters was used by both sides during WWII, but the first jet on jet fight was in Korea)

The 7 year war (global war),
Napoleonic wars (Huge mass armies based on conscripton),
Franco-Prussian war (large armies armed with breech loaded rifles. Mass use of rifled artillery)
and The Great War are all better candidates for "first modern war" depending on what areas you focus.

No your quite right its down to personal opinion , I totally agree all of the wars you mention have features of the ACW maybe American historians consider the ACW the first modern war , But the Franco-Prussian war is a better fit I grant you.
 
No your quite right its down to personal opinion , I totally agree all of the wars you mention have features of the ACW maybe American historians consider the ACW the first modern war , But the Franco-Prussian war is a better fit I grant you.
Basic problem is that most American historians never really studied European military history to any large extent.
And if they did they focused on wars involving the "UK"... since they read books in English.
So the rebellions in 1848, the Unification of Italy, the two Sleswig wars, 1866 and so on very rarely get any coverage.

So a lot of claimed about how x or y was new is simply not correct.
Just look at the rifle musket. I have seen otherwise good historians claim it was a new and modern weapon that had not been used in war before.. despite the fact that they had been around for 15 years, used in multiply wars and was actually made obsolete in 1841... before it was even invented.

And Iam not much better. really don't know much of anything about Wars in India in the 17th century, or the wars in 19th century South America.
 
Basic problem is that most American historians never really studied European military history to any large extent.
And if they did they focused on wars involving the "UK"... since they read books in English.
So the rebellions in 1848, the Unification of Italy, the two Sleswig wars, 1866 and so on very rarely get any coverage.
Although outside the subject here, one of the more obvious influences of the wars of Italian Unification was the Zouave craze among U.S. militia units, both North and South, evident in units like Elmer Ellsworth's Chicago Zouave Cadets, the Louisiana Tiger Rifles Zouaves, and many others. The inspiration came from the exploits of the French Algerian Native troops fighting alongside Garibaldi's insurgents against the Austrians in battles like Solferino, etc. in the years immediately preceding the Civil War and reported in the English and American press.
 
In the latest issue of Civil War Monitor, five well known Civil War historians offered what they thought were the five more persistent myths about the Civil War.

1. The Emancipation Proclamation was not a significant and game changing measure. Two huge changes followed. The army could actively encourage slaves to flee. Enslaved men in border states were encouraged to enlist in the army.

2. Grant had a "free hand" after he took command of the Union armies in 1864. Grant did not get much of a free hand until August 1, 1864. Lincoln need political results and the next 8 weeks Grant produced.

3. The South couldn't have won the war. How? How could they get back control of New Mexico and Arizona? Take back Norfolk?
How were they going to convince Kentucky to allow an international boundary on the Ohio River? When did the Confederates ever demonstrate the ability to hold on to anything in Missouri? In what way was the US shipbuilding capacity on the Atlantic Coast or on the internal rivers even slightly diminished? The US finished with a larger population, more agricultural production, more manufacturing and the world's largest navy. Four years later they finished a transcontinental railroad. The 1870 census showed what the US had was a complex economy full of tradespeople, small businesses, and big businesses. The Midwest grew by 3.9M people during the war decade. The experience of NYC was irrelevant to what was going on in the west.

4. The Civil War was the first "modern" war. The reporters in the Crimean War used the telegraph to send the news home. There were photographers documenting the war. That probably demarcates modern from Napoleonic.

5. The stories of reconciliation around Appomattox, like Chamberlain's men "saluting" the surrendering Confederates. There was much more contact between the troops at Vicksburg. At Vicksburg, many soldiers were from the same states and same towns. They had been in close contact for many weeks and the Yanks were very happy about not having to take the city by assault. There was a lot more to celebrate and many Rebs just wanted to GTF out of there.
 
The stories of reconciliation around Appomattox
I think I must disagree with the five historians: while "reconciliation" may be too strong a word, there was an empathy. My preference for ACW reading is first hand accounts and recently I have been reading the journals of Abner Small who was one of the handful of the 16th Maine Infantry who survived Gettysburg. Only 2 days after his unit had been decimated, he was out helping the dying Confederates from Pickett's Charge--because he understood, all too well, what they experienced. He reported several instances of each side warning the other that a volley was to be let loose. Chamberlain's order was in keeping with his entire life (which went far beyond his few years in the military). Even Grant was said to have called for an ceasing of any celebration. Elizabeth Pryor Brown, citing Philip R. Katcher, reports a Union soldier as saying to a Confederate: "If I were you, I would be the proudest man in the world. When I rode into your lines this morning and saw the poor remnant of the army which had baffled us for so long, I was ashamed".
 
Back
Top