rexonaddy1 t1_j9rl1jw wrote
Super crazy the same people who fought in the civil war got to witness the escalation of violence that was the first world war.
jcd1974 t1_j9tgpxi wrote
WWI began 49 years after the Civil War. At the time Civil War vets would be like Vietnam vets today.
PaoliBulldog t1_j9rmxhn wrote
The Civil War is actually considered the harbinger of modern warfare. The Great War was like the Civil War, but worse.
Hambredd t1_j9rr2y3 wrote
It really wasn't. The franco-prussian war or the russo-japanese war are probably better fits for that. The American Civil war wasn't much more modern than Napoleonic wars.
PaoliBulldog t1_j9rs32v wrote
Disagree wholeheartedly. The Union in particular brought the power of industrialization to the battlefield for the first time in the history of warfare. The Civil War introduced rapid-fire weaponry (the Gatling gun), modern supply chain logistics, submarine & aerial warfare, long distance communication & mass battlefield carnage to the world.
Louis_Farizee t1_j9tfqd8 wrote
You’re forgetting about the transformative effect the railroad and the telegraph had on logistics, and the transformative effect the telegraph, photography, and mass media had on propaganda.
Thunda792 t1_j9u8yrd wrote
Napoleonic tactics started to go out the window after the first couple years as well, and were largely replaced by proto-WWI style trench warfare.
dressageishard t1_j9wbrf9 wrote
I made that point, too. I added continuous fighting through winter. No more winter camps.
Hambredd t1_j9rsxev wrote
The Gatling gun and submarines (if you can even call them that), were barely used. Balloons are hardly aerial warfare and were used in the Napoleonic wars. What about artillery the single most important weapon of World war 1? It was still used like the Napoleonic armies had. The infantry still fought in massed ranks.
emcee_pern t1_j9s3mp7 wrote
The Siege of Petersburg towards the end of the war was nine months of trench warfare that very much looked like an early version of the front lines of WW1.
Also artillery was extremely important during the Civil War. It wasn't as advanced of course but there was still plenty of it having a large impact on battles.
[deleted] t1_j9t7psy wrote
[deleted]
Hambredd t1_j9s4z3l wrote
Trenches have been in sieges seen ancient times. The Battle of Alesia, of the siege of Vienna both had stagnant trenches.
Artillery was used like it had been for hundreds of years. Sit a battery on a hill and fire at the enemy you can see. A far cry from the millions of high explosive rounds constantly fired from 20 miles away.
This is just the old american exceptionalism myth , the same is the idea american revolution invented light infantry.
KindAwareness3073 t1_j9scx71 wrote
If you want to claim your nation deserves more credit for the industrial scale senseless slaughter of human beings I am sure the US will give that to you.
TheGallant t1_j9u2fwn wrote
We're getting downvoted to oblivion, but I'm with you: Civil War is in no way a harbinger of the First World War. Anyone who says otherwise does understand the unprecedented scope and scale of the Great War.
WiseBreadfruit5335 t1_j9w6y5s wrote
I honestly wouldn't consider anything until the turn of the 20th century the harbinger of Modern Warfare. It isn't until the Second Boer War really that you start to see an analysis of small unit tactics and a break away from big conventional armies in formations.
Obviously groups like the Zulu and Maori have used irregular tactics for centuries, but on a global scale, it was really the Second Boer War that brought global attention to small infantry tactics and when people started looking into "ok, how do we operate with a squad/platoon in close quarters and adapt to unorthodox maneuvers" rather than "how do i organize this company in ranks and columns and follow a set battle drill?"
Then obviously we have WWI and Rommel's Infantry Attacks. That's when small unit tactics really started to become the basis of modern warfare.
dressageishard t1_j9wbjui wrote
Generals Sherman and Grant introduced what was considered warfare. This includes the Gatling gun and grenades. Additionally, the Civil War brought about constant fighting through winter. There was no more winter camp.
Shank6ter t1_j9uogia wrote
This was taught but it really wasn’t. Most European powers were not impressed by American battle tactics. I think the only two things of note were the first use of ironclad warships and the extent of artillery used by both sides was abnormal for the time
CharonsLittleHelper t1_j9w18rv wrote
And trenches. Tail end of The Civil War they used trenches.
Not WW1 scale. But still trenches.
Shank6ter t1_j9w1i3v wrote
Yeah I mean they did introduce Gatling gun but it didn’t have nearly as big an impact as the ironclads and the artillery. To be fair the trenches towards the end were likely a last ditch effort to hold ground. By late 1864 it was obvious who was wining that war
gourdsworth t1_j9w52yc wrote
The trenches certainly were a "ditch effort" -- last or otherwise
dressageishard t1_j9wb5co wrote
1864, I think you mean.
jonsticles t1_j9ww3fa wrote
>By late 1864 it was obvious who was wining that war
Please, do go on. I like the next part.
Shank6ter t1_j9wwak2 wrote
Oh do you mean Sherman burning the south in the single most inspired bit of military history ever, or the part where Grant thrashed Lee to the point of submission?
jonsticles t1_j9wzktj wrote
Who can even pick between those two?
Shank6ter t1_j9x02zf wrote
I prefer Sherman’s March, simply for the balls on that man
TheGallant t1_j9s38ve wrote
r/shitamericanssay
EDIT: Wow, you folks are bloody ignorant about the First World War.
piquedinhighschool t1_j9swqj3 wrote
You need some help man.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments