Was the Civil War the first Modern War.

Was the Civil War the First Modern War

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 28.8%
  • No

    Votes: 27 37.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 5 6.8%
  • Insufficient defination

    Votes: 23 31.5%
  • North America Only

    Votes: 3 4.1%

  • Total voters
    73
I can remember well that the Civil War was taught as the "first modern war" in my high school and college classes because of the technological innovations in warfighting equipment AND the attempt by both the USA and CSA to mobilize the economy for "total war."

The concept of total war is perhaps more important than the use of new machines. And total war is linked to the concept of 'hard war,' where the civilian population becomes an important military target.

I'm not even sure the American Civil War can claim a first in that. What the Thirty Years' War did to central Europe would make Sherman's march through Georgia look like a picnic.

800px-Vrancx_Soldiers_Plundering.jpg


I'll recommend this book to cover some the horrors of that conflict and others of the period.

Of course, targeting of civil populations economically is nothing new, for instance Hannibal burned Roman farms in Italy in an attempt to coax Fabius's legions to battle and the complete destruction of Carthage is the stuff of legends.
 
I'm not even sure the American Civil War can claim a first in that. What the Thirty Years' War did to central Europe would make Sherman's march through Georgia look like a picnic.

View attachment 131882

I'll recommend this book to cover some the horrors of that conflict and others of the period.

Of course, targeting of civil populations economically is nothing new, for instance Hannibal burned Roman farms in Italy in an attempt to coax Fabius's legions to battle and the complete destruction of Carthage is the stuff of legends.

I am not sure about it either. As you say, there are plenty of other examples from history of the civilian population being used as military targets, or the enemy population being subjected to economic warfare.

Maybe the concept of 'modern war' needs a better definition....
 
Last edited:
I'm not even sure the American Civil War can claim a first in that. What the Thirty Years' War did to central Europe would make Sherman's march through Georgia look like a picnic.

to be precise: a picnic in the rain - ome may also study the classics (as in thre real classic ages)

ceterum censeo carthaginem esse delendam, springs to mind or their idea about slavery which wasn't racist at all
 
Good thread. To a nation that had been at peace for 45 years, the Civil War seemed suddenly modern.
Just at the First World War shocked Europe, which had long been at peace, and hastened the collapse of the three big monarchies.
 
Good thread. To a nation that had been at peace for 45 years, the Civil War seemed suddenly modern.
Just at the First World War shocked Europe, which had long been at peace, and hastened the collapse of the three big monarchies.

what about the british - are you saying they didn't have a big monarchy?

@Waterloo50, get him !!
 
Yes, I believe the end of the civil war was the issuing in the era of modern industrial warfare which will come of age in WW One. At the end of the civil the concept of Total War, Continuous clashing of armies,the birth of Trench warfare and others. All these items will rear their ugly heads again in the second decade of the 20th century.
 
I would argue that the ACW was indeed the "first modern war". The ACW was the last gasps of old style Napoleonic linear tactics with weapons that were effective but out dated and soon to be obsolete. Smoothbore muskets could still fire a projectile into an enemy, but rifled muskets made the smoothbore a relic. And you had that clash of old and new everywhere through the war.

Crude aircraft usage
Ironclad battleships
Crude submarines
Land mines
Grenades
Machine guns
Trench warfare
Breech loading rapid fire rifles and handguns
Use of railroads and sea craft for movement
Telegraphs
Photography and almost instantaneous media coverage
Snipers and special operations
Intelligence, counter intelligence, spying, espionage

The list is much larger than this, but all these things are modern features that were prominent in the ACW. Late war photos are basically identical to those 50 years later on the Western Front. The American Civil War is perhaps one of the most studied conflicts in world history by military officials all over the globe due to the innovation and advances seen in this conflict.
 
This is definitely a discussion requiring a morel precise definition of what, exactly, constitutes a 'modern' war. I mean, any war is modern in that it is contemporaneous to its time, It was fought with all the weapons available at the time, to most technically advanced armies of its time.. In that respect, I believe, the Civil War was as modern as it could get for training and equipment available 1861-1865.
 
There are certainly examples of "modern war" features pointed out in the ACW that happened in other conflicts years earlier. But I would argue the ACW was the first conflict to see such a large grouping of all of these innovations and their use on a broad scale. This and that might have happened earlier but the ACW was the first to see a collection of just about all the innovations listed throughout the thread.
 
I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say - you may need to be clearer about it. Are you arguing that the "empty battlefield" was a major feature of the Civil War?
Because it seems pretty clear to me that it wasn't - troops could manoeuvre in formed blocks around the battlefield within line of sight of the enemy. (By contrast, in the Franco-Prussian War the Prussians could drop shells on anything they could see.)
I am pointing out that one can not move easily around a cw battlefield an sighting numerous examples. This was sited as a marker of a modern war. The Civil War fits this criteria.
In the woods the effective range of the infantry is a slugging match. In the open, this will be cut down by the artillery. The range called 'open' is relative to this. You cannot stand in the open unless some sort of truce is in effect.
You can not move freely about the battlefield an every scheme in the book is used to find a way to cross thus open ground.
This isnt new in war. But the statement was made that one could move freely on a civil war battlefield and this is not true.
 
Most wars that drag on will witness innovations, the ACW certainly did.
The Engineering Corps became very creative, medical advances were made.
Perhaps the most impressive thing to come out of that war was the dedication of the individual to a greater cause.
European militarists had long doubted the capacity of freemen to carry out a long bloody war.
Their doubts about our ability and willingness to suffer greatly and more importantly our ability to cause great sufferings were no longer doubted.
After that war, they couldn't wait to get us involved in thier family feuds as an allied.
 
Most wars that drag on will witness innovations, the ACW certainly did.
The Engineering Corps became very creative, medical advances were made.
Perhaps the most impressive thing to come out of that war was the dedication of the individual to a greater cause.
European militarists had long doubted the capacity of freemen to carry out a long bloody war.
Their doubts about our ability and willingness to suffer greatly and more importantly our ability to cause great sufferings were no longer doubted.
After that war, they couldn't wait to get us involved in thier family feuds as an allied.

who exactly called you up in 70/71 - it'd have been over before your guys boarded a ship anyway
 
This is definitely a discussion requiring a morel precise definition of what, exactly, constitutes a 'modern' war. I mean, any war is modern in that it is contemporaneous to its time, It was fought with all the weapons available at the time, to most technically advanced armies of its time.. In that respect, I believe, the Civil War was as modern as it could get for training and equipment available 1861-1865.

Of 3 books I reviewed, more or less the first three in the google book search where I could read what the authors wrote, we have yes, no and maybe on if the Civil War was the first modern war.
 
I think it was Bruce Catton, who described Lee as the last(and, one of the best) representative of the great Captains of the 18-19th Centuries, in his generalship When the personal capacities and qualities of the leaders was, usually, the deciding factors in the success and failures of their armies. Whereas, Grant, was the first of great 'modern leaders who won by superior application modern communications to command by superior staff work. I think I agree and in that respect, I think it was a modern War(at least from the Union side)
 
I am wondering if grant should be the harbinger of modern warfare. Yes, he had modern equipment, but he solved problems, sometimes, in a bull headed kind of way.
 
Back
Top