“The dead, the dead, the dead—our dead—or South or North—ours all,”
March 14, 2015 5:02 PM Subscribe
The Long Twentieth Century by Drew Gilpin Faust [The New Yorker]
The American Civil War anticipated transformations often attributed to the years between 1914 and 1918.This essay is adapted from the Rede Lecture, which was delivered, earlier this year, at Cambridge University.
The Siege of Petersburg foreshadowed the stalemate on the Western Front in many, many ways.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:05 PM on March 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:05 PM on March 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
By the way, the devastation caused by Sherman's "March to the Sea" had precedent in Sheridan's Shenandoah campaign.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:10 PM on March 14, 2015
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:10 PM on March 14, 2015
This was very interesting, thank you.
The strains of modernity (a war too great for words, photography, mass participation, &c) are obvious now, looking back, and certainly came to their full flower in the Great War. But then, the participants had no idea of what was to come.
It's only by looking back that we can [make sense of|impose order upon] the past, and see the seeds that, when planted, will grow and bear fruit.
I wonder what things we take no notice of today, that looking back to, we will say: yes, this was the forerunner.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:54 PM on March 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
The strains of modernity (a war too great for words, photography, mass participation, &c) are obvious now, looking back, and certainly came to their full flower in the Great War. But then, the participants had no idea of what was to come.
It's only by looking back that we can [make sense of|impose order upon] the past, and see the seeds that, when planted, will grow and bear fruit.
I wonder what things we take no notice of today, that looking back to, we will say: yes, this was the forerunner.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:54 PM on March 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wow, this is insanely Anglo-centric. It's true that those were the first long-duration wars of the post-Napoleonic era, but conscription was already common on the continent, and Industry had already played a great role in the fight against Napoleon (for instance, Napoleon would capture the arsenals, which were then refilled with British-made muskets).
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 9:26 PM on March 14, 2015
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 9:26 PM on March 14, 2015
It was delivered at Cambridge, and she's a Civil War historian, so maybe that's the reason for the America-Britain focus?
One could find other precedents in European warfare at around the same time. The Franco-Prussian war featured rifles, railway transport of armies, etc.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:09 PM on March 14, 2015
One could find other precedents in European warfare at around the same time. The Franco-Prussian war featured rifles, railway transport of armies, etc.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:09 PM on March 14, 2015
Because of the electric telegraph, the American Civil War was the first continental war in which the commanding general was able to keep on top of what all his armies were doing, everywhere in the field.
That was completely new. (Of course, later radio did it even better, but the telegraph represented a drastic improvement over messengers riding on horseback.)
It was the first war in which the infantry on both sides were armed with rifles instead of muskets.
It was notable that neither side bothered with any heavy cavalry.
It was the first war in which machine guns were used.
It was the first war in which mechanized transportation was used tactically, not just strategically. (At Petersburg, the Union built a railroad line the whole length of the trench line, so reinforcements and supplies could reach any part of the front in hours or less.)
The American Civil War saw the introduction of the first modern warship. USS Monitor had a hull built entirely of iron and was propelled by a screw run by a steam engine. Its main gun was mounted in a rotating turret. It was the first gun-armed warship where the main battery was NOT aimed by the tiller; its direction of movement and direction of fire were completely independent. It was revolutionary; within 30 years of its introduction, the navies of the world had changed completely. The only wooden-hull warships still in service were museum pieces.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:11 PM on March 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
That was completely new. (Of course, later radio did it even better, but the telegraph represented a drastic improvement over messengers riding on horseback.)
It was the first war in which the infantry on both sides were armed with rifles instead of muskets.
It was notable that neither side bothered with any heavy cavalry.
It was the first war in which machine guns were used.
It was the first war in which mechanized transportation was used tactically, not just strategically. (At Petersburg, the Union built a railroad line the whole length of the trench line, so reinforcements and supplies could reach any part of the front in hours or less.)
The American Civil War saw the introduction of the first modern warship. USS Monitor had a hull built entirely of iron and was propelled by a screw run by a steam engine. Its main gun was mounted in a rotating turret. It was the first gun-armed warship where the main battery was NOT aimed by the tiller; its direction of movement and direction of fire were completely independent. It was revolutionary; within 30 years of its introduction, the navies of the world had changed completely. The only wooden-hull warships still in service were museum pieces.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:11 PM on March 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wow, this is insanely Anglo-centric. It's true that those were the first long-duration wars of the post-Napoleonic era, but conscription was already common on the continent, and Industry had already played a great role in the fight against Napoleon (for instance, Napoleon would capture the arsenals, which were then refilled with British-made muskets).
One could find other precedents in European warfare at around the same time. The Franco-Prussian war featured rifles, railway transport of armies, etc.
The Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian War (and its Austro-Prussian and Prusso-Danish predecessors) are both perfect examples of dynamic, mobile warfare - the interesting thing about the Civil War was that it was fought by generals trained in Napoleonic tactics, and many of the generals (not only on the German side) who directed the First World War had in mind a replication of the swift, smashing victory of the Franco-Prussian War. What they got instead, in both cases, was a situation of bloody, usually stationary conflict* in which technological changes had rendered the earlier tactics not just ineffective but suicidal.
In that sense, at least, Napoleon's and Bismark's wars were the antithesis of the new modes of warfare that Professor Faust is exploring. Both dependent more on tactical skills of the commanders to defeat larger and more resource-laden opponents, whereas the Civil War and WWI were grinding contests in which superior resources in materiel and manpower allowed the side which suffered initial defeat (and which never surpassed their enemy in the sheer officer corps skill) to hang on and eventually went.
* The Army of Northern Virginia's successes and German successes on the Russian front in WWI were the exceptions which proved the rule, I think, and neither proved able to save their side from defeat.
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:13 PM on March 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
One could find other precedents in European warfare at around the same time. The Franco-Prussian war featured rifles, railway transport of armies, etc.
The Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian War (and its Austro-Prussian and Prusso-Danish predecessors) are both perfect examples of dynamic, mobile warfare - the interesting thing about the Civil War was that it was fought by generals trained in Napoleonic tactics, and many of the generals (not only on the German side) who directed the First World War had in mind a replication of the swift, smashing victory of the Franco-Prussian War. What they got instead, in both cases, was a situation of bloody, usually stationary conflict* in which technological changes had rendered the earlier tactics not just ineffective but suicidal.
In that sense, at least, Napoleon's and Bismark's wars were the antithesis of the new modes of warfare that Professor Faust is exploring. Both dependent more on tactical skills of the commanders to defeat larger and more resource-laden opponents, whereas the Civil War and WWI were grinding contests in which superior resources in materiel and manpower allowed the side which suffered initial defeat (and which never surpassed their enemy in the sheer officer corps skill) to hang on and eventually went.
* The Army of Northern Virginia's successes and German successes on the Russian front in WWI were the exceptions which proved the rule, I think, and neither proved able to save their side from defeat.
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:13 PM on March 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'd also volunteer the Boer War as offering some insights into how war was progressing (which were also ignored in Britain, sadly for us)
posted by alasdair at 1:09 AM on March 15, 2015
posted by alasdair at 1:09 AM on March 15, 2015
And lets not forget this:
The Japanese were on the offensive for most of the war and used massed infantry assaults against defensive positions, which would later become the standard of all European armies during World War I. The battles of the Russo-Japanese War, in which machine guns and artillery took a heavy toll on Russian and Japanese troops, were a precursor to the trench warfare of World War I.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 2:34 AM on March 15, 2015
The Japanese were on the offensive for most of the war and used massed infantry assaults against defensive positions, which would later become the standard of all European armies during World War I. The battles of the Russo-Japanese War, in which machine guns and artillery took a heavy toll on Russian and Japanese troops, were a precursor to the trench warfare of World War I.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 2:34 AM on March 15, 2015
Sidenote on the pace of change in the South: at VMI, cadets trained on horseback for WWII. My father joined the cavalry and took his horse with him (no idea what happened to that horse, or where).
posted by mmiddle at 4:53 AM on March 15, 2015
posted by mmiddle at 4:53 AM on March 15, 2015
In that sense, at least, Napoleon's and Bismark's wars were the antithesis of the new modes of warfare that Professor Faust is exploring. Both dependent more on tactical skills of the commanders to defeat larger and more resource-laden opponents, whereas the Civil War and WWI were grinding contests in which superior resources in materiel and manpower allowed the side which suffered initial defeat (and which never surpassed their enemy in the sheer officer corps skill) to hang on and eventually went.
But in the end, it is grinding that defeated Napoleon. He was killing it for years, yet in the end, the enemy had more resources and men.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 10:43 AM on March 15, 2015
But in the end, it is grinding that defeated Napoleon. He was killing it for years, yet in the end, the enemy had more resources and men.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 10:43 AM on March 15, 2015
the title quote: “The dead, the dead, the dead—our dead—or South or North—ours all,”
reminds me of the inscription at ANZAC cove:
reminds me of the inscription at ANZAC cove:
"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives…posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:05 PM on March 15, 2015
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours…
You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."
Ataturk, 1934
« Older Too Hard to Keep | Obscure, Mysterious, Delicious Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Postroad at 7:22 PM on March 14, 2015