How Does The Civil War Qualify as the First Modern War?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- For 5,800 years of recorded history, wars were fought with pre-modern forms of transportation ad communication, where the world was powered by windmills, watermills, literal horse power and human muscle. However, this all changed with the invention of the steam engine and its implementation in the 19th century. In fifty short years, macadamized roads, canals, steam trains, steam boats, steam presses and telegraph communication revolutionized the transfer of energy and power. By the 1850s, every aspect of western civilization looked and functioned differently than it had for thousands of years. It was in this milieu the Civil War was fought. What did the first modern war look like and how did it differ from previous wars? How did wartime observations by foreign emissaries alter the course of future wars?
I'm not sure if he says it in this lecture yet because I'm saving it to watch later, but i'm doing so because I love every lecture this guy does. He sometimes repeats and stresses the line "this is history on a higher level" and goes into approaching history from a science or art perspective and every time he says that I think to myself "F yeah I'm getting some good stuff here."
An excellent presentation. When one takes into account these men do battlefield tours, present lectures etc I would say they’re all national treasures.
Troy is a fantastic guide and lecturer! We had the pleasure of meeting him on Oak Hill in 2013 at the 150th anniversary as he visually explained the Gettysburg campaign leading up to July 1, 1863.
That was my introduction to him as well! He made a point has ever since stuck with me. That was: Yes, the campaign was a failure as whole, however many of the sub-objectives were very successful. Virginia was able to reap their crops unmolested and that Lee fed his army through October with spoils taken during the Gettysburg campaign.
These Lectures are great. Cover a variety of topics.
Love Gnps channel!
Very informative ! 💥🇺🇸💥
Overall a very good speaker, but needs to better understand the technology that he is speaking about as the talk is filled with inaccuracies concerning the same. The general concept is good, it is his attempts to explain how things worked where he stumbles.
James Watt not Issac Watt
Chaucer is a medieval writer not a renaissance one.
+Boreas74 _"Chaucer is a medieval writer not a renaissance one."_
Chaucer was certainly not medieval, regardless of dates. His viewpoint was definitely post-medieval.
i believe the american civil war is diffidently a modern war but i would argue that he Crimean war is a good contender for a modern war at least the latter stage of the siege of Sevastopol you had trenches and use of artillery trains to move supplies
Good points made, but sieges such as Sevastapol had happened in much the same way throughout the peninsular War. Indeed any soldier from the Napoleonic era would have no problems recognising all aspects of the Crimean War and vice versa. Put a soldier from the Crimean War into the American Civil War though and they would not recognise the tactics and technology.
well as for tech your only talking 10 years other than the american civil war the rifle was more common were in the Crimea there are units with muskets still the pattern 53 enfield rifle musket was the common weapon for the British trooper and was also the primary rifle of the Confederacy as for tactics for a sizable part of the american civil war they still tried to use Napoleonic tactics
@@ionrileysbirdwatching7126 Umm... they wouldn't recognize line infantry, cavalry and cannons? I don't think their minds would be blown by a higher proportion of the muskets and cannon being rifled.
I made it to 6 minutes in and in those 6 minutes the inaccuracies were so glaring
that I had to stop and write this in the hope that
anyone who watches this will do so with a whole cellar of salt...
it is a demonstration of how badly the system of education in the US
continues to fail to teach
its own history
tell me the points you disagree with this, thanks
@@manuelkong10 if I have made the mistake of taking you seriously, I apologise...
off the top the "first modern war" took place in the Crimea...
in the course of the next 3 minutes, what he says about how humanism
impacted the world,
(it is as if he is talking to junior high students...they aren't...they paid to listen to this)
and what he tells them is a gloss, from 75 years ago, incomplete,
transcribed from a textbook, deeply out of date...
at his introduction of, "science in every day life"
and premodern in relation to what? and post modern in terms of
"we don't like him" Marx....and it only got worse from there...
@@manuelkong10 Later in the video he repeatedly confused the Monitor and the Merrimack (and at one point had the Monitor fighting the Monitor), that was the most glaring thing I noticed. There were a few instances of what I attribute to slips of the tongue, but nothing insanely serious.
@@fieryweasel exactly, made it hard to watch
@@kidmohair8151 you're somewhat right he credits many firsts to the Civil War that occurred earlier and he does mention at points earlier examples.
BUT the overall point is the Civil War was the first war to use these technologies on large scale and primarily in some examples.
For example in the crimean war you don't see rail used near the battle field. You don't see wounded troops moved 100s of miles in a day, you don't see machine guns, and so on.
What you do see in the crimean war is calvary charges, prolonged seiges, small armies, rail travel not used near the battles, other signs of older warfare. Granted many of the reasons for the older style was location and lack of modern infrastructure built up there.
This lecture was actually part of a whole program and the one on railways in the same program really hammers home alot of the modern aspect to the Civil War from stock piles of supply, companies bidding on government contracts, mass production, wired communications, rail lines impacting strategy on the battlefield, and so on.
There is then I think at least a debate to be made that the Civil War could be the first modern war based on how we define modern and how we set the goal posts. Imo I consider not just a small use of a technology the goal post. I consider wide use the goal post and the Civil War has that on many of these topics.
JIF is a peanut butter
I'm not sure the notion of the "first modern war" makes much sense. There was continuous technological change from the early 19th century to the present (and the future). The selection of any one conflict during that period as the first "modern" war would be completely arbitrary. Certainly, the ACW was more "modern" than wars that came earlier, and less "modern" than wars that came later, but the same could be said of any war of the period.
I think its a transparently dumb question. The civil war was fought not all that different from the Napoleonic wars 50 years earlier. But 50 years after the Civil War you have WWI with planes, tanks, fully automatic firearms and chemical weapons. Napoleon could have dropped into Gettysburg and been completely familiar with what was going on, e.g. line infantry, cavalry and cannons. In contrast you drop Grant into Verdun and he'd be completely out of place. Quite obviously the US Civil war was still in the previous military era. It wasn't the first "modern" war.
@@Sphere723 Grant would have done fine in Verdun. Take Petersburg and Verdun: Both ten months long, both with similar casualties, bith similar tactics. Don't spread your plagarism anymore pls.
@@SStupendous Didn't plagiarize a thing buddy. All my own thoughts and words. And no, Verdun and Petersburg did not have similar tactics. Airplanes, poison gas, long range breech loading indirect artillery, machine guns, automatic rifles etc. These would have all been completely new to Grant. Hell, they were rather new to most commanders during WWI itself. In contrast during the ACW the most common artillery piece was the 12-Pounder Napoleon and the most common infantry weapon at the start of the war was some version of the 1816 Springfield, introduced a year after Waterloo.
@@Sphere723 Yeah... You have pretty good points, but you are being off-topic.
"Breech - Loading Artillery, Machine Guns, Automatic Rifles, etc."
They did have breech-loading artillery in the war. and machine guns. To name a few significant battles where they were used was Middleburg, Seven Pines, Cold Harbor, Petersburg to name a few. And the confederates had a machine gun battery for goodness sake.
"These would all have been new to Grant"
Yeah, I mean he didn't know what Gatling Guns were and heavy artillery that can fire 15 miles away were right.
"In contrast during the ACW, the most common artillery piece was the 12-Pounder Napoleon "
Not true. look at the other most used artillery pieces, Parrott Cannons, Ordinance rifled, etc.
"the most common infantry weapon at the start of the war was some version of the 1816 Springfield, introduced a year after Waterloo."
We aren't talking about the start of the War. We're talking about 1865 -5, the final two years. You're being picky on your facts. In 1864 the most commonly used was the M1861 Springfield. If you didn't like that, you could have a lever gun for as little as $30 (assuming you didn't spend it on something else)
Also, many missing points; Petersburg, by comparison to Verdun, had 90,000+ casualties - Verdun 300k +(if it happened in WW1 they would call it a battle. Both are sieges technically.) In Petersburg, we see 153 miles of trenches, very much extensive. We see the use of modern tactics.
At Cold Harbor, we see a battle similar to the assault at the Somme; The Union, like the British, assault over a 7 - mile front of trenches. 16,000 fell, 7,000 in about 7 minutes.
At the Somme 60,000 fall on the assault, 127 dead for each yard. Unlike the British, the Union had the smart idea of assaulting at dawn (4:30 A.M.) The battle of the Crater was the basis for the attack during the battle of the Somme.
Let's look at other factors:
1) Uniform. Take the Dragoon; Civil War Dragoons are much more similar to the British in WW1 than ANY of the armies that fought in the Napoleonic Wars.
If you look at the other uniforms, they all much more resemble WW1 uniforms than Napoleonic ones - made for simplicity and maneuverability.
2) Weapons. For this one, let's look at the best (most advanced at the time and used) weapons of each of the three time periods: Best Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars:
The Congreve Rocket and the Gribeauval 12 - Pounder, which both revolutionized artillery. the Rocket could go over a mile but was inaccurate as to where it would land. The Gribeauval 12 - Pounder is one of the most advanced artillery pieces of the N. Wars, with a maximum range of 1.1 miles.
Best Artillery of the Civil War:
The Wiard Cannon and the 300- pound Parrott Cannon. The Wiard cannon was a Rifled cannon with an accurate range of nearly 4 miles. And that's just the 6 - pounder version.
The 300 - Pound Parrott rifled cannon had an effective range of 15 - 20 miles. (I'm shocked)
Best artillery of WW1:
The Canon de 155 C modèle 1917 and the Big Bertha. The Canon de 155 modèle 1917 had an effective range of 7 miles, while the 420mm Big Bertha had 6 miles (I don't know about larger variants, (about 20 miles, siege artillery could go around 10 - 15 miles except for the Paris Gun.)
Overall, the Artillery in the Civil War is much closer to WW1 than the Napoleonic Wars in my opinion. Let's look at small arms:
The Civil War guns are much closer to the ones in the First World War;
Weapons like the LeMat and Lefauchex revolvers saw usage throughout WW1. Lever - Action rifles were also used throughout WW1, as in the Civil War. Many guns of the Civil War era were used in the First World War. Why do you think that is? They were still useful, not obsolete as flintlocks and old cannon ignition systems were to the Civil War.
Weapons are much more closer, like modern bullets and cartridges being used in the Civil War as in WW1. Revolvers like the Beaumont - Addams are in effect as modern as Webleys in the Great War. There are few if any guns of the Civil War comparable to the ones of the Napoleonic Wars. Let's do a quick check: In WW1 and the Civil War, we saw bolt - action rifles, lever-action rifles, rimfire, centerfire, and pinfire. Such comparisons can not be drawn between the Civil War and the Napoleonic Wars. To end this point, it was WW1 soldiers and Civil War veterans that started the idea that the Civil War was the first modern war; They found them using the same tactics as they had in the Civil War's last 3 years. It was then they realized that the Americans in the war were not just terrible at tactics as the Europeans had mostly said during the Civil War. If the Civil War was fought "similarly to the Napoleonic Wars", then they wouldn't have noticed they were fighting so differently. The Austro - Prussian War, for instance, featured battles where infantry was defeated by Cavalry simply circling them (the Battle of Konnigratz in 1866) Which proves how the Prussians like many Europeans did not heed the tactics of the Civil War.
Lastly, let's look at Industry; the Napoleonic wars were at the end of the Industrial Revolution, the Civil War, and WW1 during the middle and end of the Second Industrial Revolution. (That part is not important though)
You can find that were you can find train tracks in the Civil War, you can also find a Battle. That's important to note - in modern wars, these are important strategically, as they give important forms of communication and moving troops or supplies. I do not count the Crimean War as the first modern war, I think that is one thing both of us can agree on. Also, you see the telegraph, teleprinter, and other important electrical forms of communication used, from your everyday telegraph to the wireless telegraph used early in the war, using magnetic fields. When Lincoln died, within three minutes people across the country heard about it, and within six, the developed world.
any war of "that period" is an admission that modern warfare in fact did start happening sometime "in that period" meaning the middle 19th C. - Your comment is silly gibberish. People order information by primacy and priority all the time, in matters important and not important, it is part and parcel to how we order the information that we experience.
The civil war was pivotal but not the first modern war, WW1 was. With Nichol steel guns for smokeless powder and the introduction of tanks for infantry support and the air war. Not to mention the technology of radio communications.
Yeah, I'd think that's obvious. There were a handful of colonial wars in the Pre-WWI era you might deem "modern", but WWI is the most sensible dividing line. The US Civil War was still essentially Napoleonic tactics using line infantry, cavalry and cannon.
@@Sphere723 Tactics alone do not define a war's "modernness". Throughout the First World War, flagbearers were used by both sides. You can see pictures of \war - torn flags from 1918. Doesn't mean that WW1 wasn't modern though.
The furst modern war was either the Crimean war, the Austro-prussian or the Franco-Gernan. The Anerican civil war was more learning on the job militia is slugging ut out.
Sorry...the first modern war was Crimea.
Great history, the presenter is ok.
Paddy Griffith would disagree with you.
Really asses you up that America is the best in everything doesn't it?
+Leonardo's Truth _"How is the Crimean War not the first modern war ...?"_
What in the world makes you think that the Crimean War was "modern"? Unless you think that the 93rd standing in line in the open to receive a cavalry charge is modern. Whether or not you think the American Civil War was "modern", cavalry did not charge infantry.
So the Ironclads Monitor and Virginia made all wooden warships obsolete, I take it he's never heard of the French La Gloire launched in 1859 or HMS Warrior launched in 1860!!
+Malcolm Hunt _"So the Ironclads Monitor and Virginia made all wooden warships obsolete, I take it he's never heard of the French La Gloire launched in 1859 or HMS Warrior launched in 1860!!"_
As far as I know, neither _La Gloire_ nor _Warrior_ ever sank a wooden warship; _Virginia_ did, proving the superiority of the ironclad, as opposed to that superiority being just theoretical. Both _La Gloire_ and _Warrior_ were of conventional design (except for the armor), and even had sails, as opposed to the forward-looking designs of both American ships, especially _Monitor_.
@michaelsommers2356 We compare here ocean Goin ships to some coastal or river ironclads that were build later.
Very much an american centric presentation which ignores earlier events and developments in Europe. Chaucer was a medieval, not a Renaissance writer wrting in the late 14th century over a full century before the Renaissance started arriving in England.
This is a really interesting subject, boy does he draw it out! I love the NPS lectures, but I find this speaker rambles on!
It doesn't, the Crimean War was the first modern war
BS