Armchair Dragoons Forums

Wargaming => Age of Gunpowder => Topic started by: bayonetbrant on June 24, 2019, 09:37:32 AM

Title: But, but.... why?!
Post by: bayonetbrant on June 24, 2019, 09:37:32 AM
We spent an episode of Mentioned in Dispatches on "why do we care about the Napoleonic Wars?" and madcap fun was had by all


However, I wonder just as much why the fascination with the American Civil War* not only in the US, but overseas, too.
I get the WW2 fascination - major shooting war that's reasonably recognizable as today's military, global political ramifications still very much with us today, and it helps that we have living WW2 veterans still around to talk about, and most wargamers can rattle off a half-dozen or more WW2 veterans that were around for a non-trivial part of our lifespans.

But none of those circumstances (recognizable military, current global political ramifications, living veterans) applies to the ACW.
Is it just that it's so easy to visit the battlefields?  That doesn't seem to apply if you're overseas.  There are still political ramifications in the US but again, not relevant in the UK, or Japan, or Italy.  The veterans have been gone for decades.

So perhaps even more than Napoleon, you gotta look at the ACW and wonder, "why?"

What do you guys think?




* let's also take a moment to ponder why, even overseas, "The Civil War" is always understood to be the ACW, and not the ECW, or the Greek Civil War of 1940s, or the disintegration of Yugoslavia, or Mao's China, or any other
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: bbmike on June 24, 2019, 10:31:02 AM
Wait, who cares about the Napoleonic Wars?  :whistle:
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: Barthheart on June 24, 2019, 10:45:07 AM
Who cares about the ACW?  :dunno:
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: bbmike on June 24, 2019, 11:07:08 AM
Who cares about the ACW?  :dunno:

The companies who sell crap to all the ACW reenactors!  :bigthumb:
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: bayonetbrant on June 24, 2019, 11:31:33 AM
Who cares about the ACW?  :dunno:


I absolutely do not, but GMT has, and is selling, about 29834750239487503 different ACW games, so someone is buying them

Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: JasonPratt on June 25, 2019, 10:19:56 AM
The ACW is absolutely a paradigm for the transitional period from early gunpowder warfare into industrial war; combined with some excellent terrain dynamics (both strategically and tactically, ranging from coastal to the opening of the American west), lots of colorful personalities on both sides some of whom are internationally famous, gallantry on both sides, a uniquely American look (for variety from the standard European look of the time), the drama of brother-vs-brother at a national level, and the massively huge stakes which are relevant to world history: can a nation devoted to institutional slavery survive into the modern world?

To which can be added the color, and even the spectacle, of a nation with the soul of a church (as GK Chesterton later put it in 1922 during his visit, echoing the French historian who toured America shortly before the ACW whose name I ought to remember but the relevant neurons are laughing at my efforts right now ::) ) bringing that spiritual and political emphasis into the contradictions of a total civil war. Clearly good men, fighting for clearly good reasons on each side, are tearing each other apart -- but then one side is threatening centralized tyranny with a federal imposition, and the other side is protecting actual tyranny over enslaving their fellow man! It would be a miracle if anything good came out of the victory of either side; and yet, it did.

Also there are gatling guns.  >:D

On the other hand, the Americans have no idea how to use cavalry (by European standards), and yet they're out there being awesome anyway. Such as by pulling around and deploying small cannons and (this must be emphasized) gatling guns.  :biggrin:


For a brief look at what Europeans sometimes see in the ACW, I can very much recommend this contemporary account by the British Lt. Col. Freemantle and his tour of the southern states up to and including arriving in time for Gettysburg: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0995074712

(Edited to add: opps, that book is out of print now. Too bad; that was a great print edition. There may be free electronic editions available somewhere tho, or physicals for sale on ebay etc.)
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: bayonetbrant on June 25, 2019, 11:31:13 AM
echoing the French historian who toured America shortly before the ACW whose name I ought to remember but the relevant neurons are laughing at my efforts right now ::) 


Alexis de Tocqueville?  he was a little while before the ACW
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: JasonPratt on June 25, 2019, 12:00:49 PM
That's him! I tend to think of the generation before the ACW as "shortly before". ;) Mainly because many of the principle leaders were professionally active at that time, and then became elder professional commanders or statesmen during the ACW.

He didn't coin the phrase, but Chesterton clearly had him in mind when talking about what he (Chesterton) meant: that America alone of all nations had been founded on a what amounted to a religious ideal.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: besilarius on June 25, 2019, 08:12:21 PM
Jason, if you're interested in how good the cavalry could be, you should try Eric Wittenburg's Holding the Line on the River of Death

How Union Mounted Troops Opened the Ball at Chickamauga

Among the most prolific of Civil War historians, Wittenberg, author of One Continuous Fight, Like a Meteor Blazing Brightly, The Battle of Brandy Station, and many other works, has the knack of getting readers right into the front lines, while at the same time familiarizing them with the “Big Picture” and the conduct of war. This is well displayed in this look at the remarkable holding action by two rather weak Union mounted brigades on the eve of the Battle of Chickamauga that certainly saved the Army of the Cumberland from a disaster far worse than that which befell it over the following two days.

Wittenberg begins by introducing us to Col. H.G. Minty’s ”Saber Brigade”, cavalrymen armed mostly with breech loaders, and Col. John T. Wilder’s “Lightening Brigade”, most mounted infantrymen armed with Spencer repeating rifles. He explains the circumstances that brought them to spend September 18, 1863, covering the front of the Army of the Cumberland as Maj. Gen. William S. Rosecrans desperately juggled his army corps to cope with an unanticipated Confederate offensive, and then plunges into a detailed account of their actions that day.

With a thorough knowledge of tactics, and excellent use of terrain, the two brigades, numbering hardly 2,000 men with a few pieces of artillery, held off far larger forces, in an action easily matching the more famous holding one by Brig. Gen. John Buford’s cavalry on the first day at Gettysburg. At times Wittenberg gives us almost a minute by minute account of the events, drawing upon a large volume of personal accounts by men from both sides, while offering us a basic course in tactics; his description of vidette and outpost duty is the best summary this reviewer has seen.

Wittenberg covers the events of the 18th, and the role of the brigades during the Battle of Chickamauga through the Union retirement into Chattanooga, arguing that the battle, usually dated September 19-20 actually extended over a longer period. He follows with an overview of the careers of the two colonels and their troops through and beyond the end of the war, and then adds a mini-guidebook for anyone who wants to visit the scene.

This is an outstanding account of one of the most impressive, and very overlooked, feats of arms during the Civil War, and worth a read by anyone with an interested in the war or in mounted operations..
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: JasonPratt on June 25, 2019, 08:45:42 PM
Oooooo! That is very squee!

Incidentally, Fremantle passed through the area earlier that summer on his tour, during the light skirmishing (this was some time before Gettysburg of course, but not long before due to a train ride afterward). He recorded a firsthand account of Confederate dismounted cav skirmishing as they withdrew through his position after launching their sneak attack. (I'm pretty sure that was at Chickamunga; but I don't have his book handy for reference at the moment.)

This was also the area of my favorite anecdote from the book. One of the Confederate brigadiers during this period, before Fremantle arrived later (because he heard the story from several sources afterward), was doing a forward recon for placing some arriving regiments in cover in the area toward dusk, and as the most recently placed regiment arrived he was rather aggravated to see another regiment already in cover ahead of him open up on them. Riding over to stop the friendly fire before the new arrivals took any serious casualties, he quickly discovered that this was a Union company! At the time their uniforms weren't too different, so he brazened it out and demanded they stop shooting at their fellow troops. (It was when they answered that they were sure those were rebs, that he himself realized his mistake.) After bluffing the federals sufficiently, he casually rode away expecting to feel a minie ball in the back at any moment. But he made it back to his brigade alive; whereupon he mustered some available regiments to go clear out that thicket promptly -- saying afterward he never saw a union force destroyed so utterly as that one!
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: Cyrano on June 29, 2019, 04:52:09 PM
Wait, who cares about the Napoleonic Wars?  :whistle:

 :'(
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: mike0liver on December 22, 2019, 07:55:47 AM
As we just passed the bicentennial of the Peninsular War and the rest of the Napoleonic conflicts, interest in this period in Europe reached a sort of peak. Spain made quite a big thing of it (it was, after all, their War of Independence) with many re-enactments in which British contingents took part. In the UK, the Napoleonic re-enactment groups are fairly popular and the period has always been a favourite of miniatures gamers (funnily enough, less so of recent years). Maybe it's because it was the first European war that was close to global and that used firearms in huge numbers but still boasted "pretty" uniforms.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: bayonetbrant on December 22, 2019, 02:13:35 PM
Was the ACW the last 'old' war or the first 'modern' war?


https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/CivilWar/CivilWarModern (https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/CivilWar/CivilWarModern)


Quote
After the Second World War, many American Civil War historians came to argue that the Civil War was the first modern/total war. As summarized by Mark Grimsley, in The American Civil War: a Handbook of Literature and Research this theme includes a number of contentions. Troops armed with breech-loading infantry arms and artillery, primitive machine guns, and ironclad ships, early balloons, and trench warfare in the Civil War are cited as evidence. The use of railroads, steam ships and riverboats, and telegraph are said to have affected strategy. New mass armies of volunteers and emphasis on industrial capacity influenced battles and campaigns. The status of civilians as legitimate targets of armies and strategy may be the most significant aspect making the American Civil War the first modern and total of the new period of war, so the argument goes.[1]
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: bob48 on December 22, 2019, 02:32:12 PM
You could say the the Franco-Prussian War, 1870-71 was a transition between the 'Old'and the 'New' - maybe even go to the Russo-Japanese War 1904-05. You still had massed infantry and cavalry, but also machine guns and more lethal breech loading rifles and artillery.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: ojsdad on December 22, 2019, 04:06:59 PM
Perhaps the ACW was the first of the transitional wars.  New technology and industrialization with old style tactics.  The two things that seemed to be missing were non-muzzle loading rifles and the heavy artillery seen in WWI.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: bob48 on December 22, 2019, 04:28:35 PM
There were some instances of breech loaders in service in the ACW, such as the Whitworth, and obviously, a few examples of breech loading rifles and carbines.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: JasonPratt on December 23, 2019, 12:06:38 AM
The ACW did have breech-loading rifles (and shotguns for that matter). They were just expensive to produce and not very numerous; and tended to show up later than earlier of course. OBVIOUSLY there were cartridge breech-loading guns: there were pistols and gatlings. Eventually.

I don't know of any fights where breech-loading rifles (unsure if there were any breech-mustkets) were used for action on the line, or in a major way during siege assaults/defenses. (I wouldn't be too surprised to learn they existed, I've just never heard of any, and I would expect them to be later than sooner of course.) But I bet there were skirmisher fights that had some significant numbers (relative to the time period).
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: JasonPratt on December 23, 2019, 12:10:32 AM
Soooo, yeah, first of the "transitional wars", that sounds right, feels right.

Now, let's see.... first war with industrial level indirect artillery? Not the ACW of course, even 600 cannons (by the Confeds at Gettysburg iirc) were meant more as direct-fire shelling not as indirect fire with spotters and preplanned arcs or whatever shooting for miles.

Eh.... .....I do seem to think that's WW1, but maybe not? WW1 was where the re-emergence of something like Nappy's artillery cities came as a shock beyond all expectations. Anything earlier obviously didn't make enough of an impact to create expectations from experience.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: besilarius on December 23, 2019, 07:43:12 AM
Many years back, there was an article in one of the men's magazines (Esquire?  Odyssey?) that indicated Berdan's sharpshooters at Gettysburg  seriously delayed Law's Alabama brigade.  They used Sharp's breechloading rifles.
Can't say if more recent research backs this up.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: ojsdad on December 23, 2019, 08:32:58 AM
Why breech loaders weren't used much in the Civil War. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wolfe_Ripley

Quote
With the outbreak of the Civil War in early 1861, Ripley was promoted to colonel (April) and brigadier general (August) and appointed as the 5th Chief of Ordnance of the United States Army. As the Federal forces then had no heavy rifled cannon, he immediately ordered the conversion of old smoothbores and the manufacture of Parrott guns. He also ordered the sale of 5,000 old Hall's carbine rifles, which were later resold at a tremendous profit to John C. Frémont, much to Ripley's consternation.[3]

At the same time, Ripley refused to authorize the purchase of additional stocks of rifle-muskets for infantry use. The decision was based on the large existing stocks of smoothbore muskets in U.S. arsenals, which he argued could be re-rifled in the same manner as the Parrott guns (an assertion which proved incorrect). He also adamantly opposed the introduction of breech-loading repeating rifles, on the basis that they would encourage poor fire discipline and waste ammunition.

Many historians have since decried this decision, arguing the lack of modern arms on the Union side, at a time when the Confederates were buying them in large numbers from France and the United Kingdom, lengthened the conflict by as much as two years. Others, however, counter that given the poor logistics of the Union armies at the outbreak of the war, the increased supply train needed to maintain the improved rates of fire would have bogged down the armies and made maneuver impossible (a situation which did indeed later contribute to the development of trench warfare in World War I). It is also argued that fouling due to black powder residue would have made it impossible to maintain such high rates of fire under field conditions with the rifles of the time. Individual units later purchased such weapons privately, and they were used to considerable effect, but did indeed present problems in extended firefights; these units are not known to have had any trouble maintaining their ammunition supplies. Ripley was replaced as head of the Ordnance Department on September 15, 1863 principally because of his continuing opposition to the introduction of breech loading rifles.[1][4]
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: panzerde on December 23, 2019, 11:50:07 AM

The Prussians at Sedan in 1870 (indeed throughout the entire first part of the Franco-Prussian War) largely prefigured the use of artillery during WWI. They might not have had as many guns as were eventually on the Western Front by 1916, but their artillery at Sedan looks and acts a lot like early WWI artillery. On the other side the French Chassepot rilfes also demonstrate a level of firepower significant enough that it changed French shock tactics and, under better commanders, would have probably completely offset the Prussian artillery advantage.


Both side also made significant use of railroads for logistics and troop movement. Prussian infantry tactics had changed to small(er) unit advancing in open order and firing prone. The Franco-Prussian War really looks much more like WWI than it does the ACW, despite being only six years later. The French even make use of early machine guns.


The Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913 were likewise a "dress rehearsal" for WWI, particularly as it was fought on the Eastern Front. These wars saw some use of automotive transport, machine guns, modern artillery, and even aircraft for scouting.


WWI was undoubtedly the largest and most definite transition from Napoleonic to modern warfare. There are many "firsts" in WWI that never happened in prior wars. Having said that there isn't the sharp discontinuity between the Napoleonic tactics of the ACW and the tactics of WWI that many people suppose. The period from 1965 to 1915 saw a pretty constant evolution of the technology and doctrines employed in European armies that culminated in the massive conflict of WWI.
 

Soooo, yeah, first of the "transitional wars", that sounds right, feels right.

Now, let's see.... first war with industrial level indirect artillery? Not the ACW of course, even 600 cannons (by the Confeds at Gettysburg iirc) were meant more as direct-fire shelling not as indirect fire with spotters and preplanned arcs or whatever shooting for miles.

Eh.... .....I do seem to think that's WW1, but maybe not? WW1 was where the re-emergence of something like Nappy's artillery cities came as a shock beyond all expectations. Anything earlier obviously didn't make enough of an impact to create expectations from experience.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: ojsdad on December 23, 2019, 01:07:23 PM

The period from 1965 to 1915 saw a pretty constant evolution of the technology and doctrines employed in European armies that culminated in the massive conflict of WWI.
 

Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: panzerde on December 23, 2019, 03:52:49 PM

The period from 1965 to 1915 saw a pretty constant evolution of the technology and doctrines employed in European armies that culminated in the massive conflict of WWI.
 




We all know that drugs were rampant in the Army in the '60s.

Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: JohnPJones1775 on December 27, 2019, 08:18:23 PM
i would like to reverse the question here.

why so little love for the spanish american war, at that time frame?

personally i think it's fascinating. i'd say it was a truly modern war, even if tanks and aircraft weren't involved.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: JohnPJones1775 on December 27, 2019, 08:23:39 PM
Was the ACW the last 'old' war or the first 'modern' war?


https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/CivilWar/CivilWarModern (https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/CivilWar/CivilWarModern)


Quote
After the Second World War, many American Civil War historians came to argue that the Civil War was the first modern/total war. As summarized by Mark Grimsley, in The American Civil War: a Handbook of Literature and Research this theme includes a number of contentions. Troops armed with breech-loading infantry arms and artillery, primitive machine guns, and ironclad ships, early balloons, and trench warfare in the Civil War are cited as evidence. The use of railroads, steam ships and riverboats, and telegraph are said to have affected strategy. New mass armies of volunteers and emphasis on industrial capacity influenced battles and campaigns. The status of civilians as legitimate targets of armies and strategy may be the most significant aspect making the American Civil War the first modern and total of the new period of war, so the argument goes.[1]
i'd say the last old war. they still fought mostly in linear formations, and balloons in warfare weren't anything new or revolutionary during the ACW.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: panzerde on December 27, 2019, 09:06:39 PM
i would like to reverse the question here.

why so little love for the spanish american war, at that time frame?

personally i think it's fascinating. i'd say it was a truly modern war, even if tanks and aircraft weren't involved.


I agree that it was a very modern war, particularly on the naval front. While the geographic scope of the war was huge (another argument for it being modern), I suspect the small size of the land engagements coupled with the general haplessness of the Spanish tend to lead people to dismiss it. Nonetheless it had major geopolitical implications.


The Americans were very lucky, at least in terms of the land war. From what I understand (and that’s not as strong an understanding as I’d like), if the Spanish had been on a level with any other European power in terms of training, I think Cuba would have been ugly.


It’s an interesting little war. I’m not sure what lessons can be drawn from it.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: JohnPJones1775 on December 27, 2019, 10:01:22 PM
i would like to reverse the question here.

why so little love for the spanish american war, at that time frame?

personally i think it's fascinating. i'd say it was a truly modern war, even if tanks and aircraft weren't involved.


I agree that it was a very modern war, particularly on the naval front. While the geographic scope of the war was huge (another argument for it being modern), I suspect the small size of the land engagements coupled with the general haplessness of the Spanish tend to lead people to dismiss it. Nonetheless it had major geopolitical implications.


The Americans were very lucky, at least in terms of the land war. From what I understand (and that’s not as strong an understanding as I’d like), if the Spanish had been on a level with any other European power in terms of training, I think Cuba would have been ugly.


It’s an interesting little war. I’m not sure what lessons can be drawn from it.
im not too familiar with the ground war myself, but it Spain had been as good as the rest of the European powers (if they were all that much better) may not have had an insurrection to destabilize them before the war either lol.

But I do think it’s a fascinating time. Not only were hand cranked rotary guns in use but so were actual machine guns if I’m not mistaken.
It is likely overlooked because of how quickly it ended.
It was a precursor of things to come honestly it was about as big of an upset as the Russo-Japanese war. Whether anyone should have been surprised Spain lost or not is another subject all together, but Europe was shocked.

But I’d also include the 1st Boer wariness that as welll.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: Staggerwing on December 27, 2019, 10:51:51 PM


But I’d also include the 1st Boer wariness that as welll.

The Boer wars are not to be overlooked as a blend of old and new. They introduced wireless comms during combat (though mostly naval), modern high velocity jacketed bullets and mauser-style rifles, and the Boers' successful use of small-unit cover-fire tactics against traditional close formations of British troopers using volume fire.  Among those impressed by that last innovation were the Imperial German Jagers and shock troops of WW1 and a certain German officer serving on the Italian front who a quarter century later created a wee bit of a stir in North Africa.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: besilarius on December 28, 2019, 07:47:28 AM
JPJ there is a book with excellent discussion of both the Spanish American War and the Boer War.
William McElwee's Art of War, Waterloo to Mons.  He was a lecturer at Sandhurst and this book is based on his course.
He also covers the ACW, the Wars of von Moltke and the Russo-Turkish War in depth and illustrates the mistakes both sides made.  I think you would enjoy it if you're at all interested in the Nineteenth Century.
It's been out of print for a long time, but there are used copies on Amazon for less than $10.

I'm also rather affectionate toward the author because he had actual experience in battle.  Major McElwee, Company B Second  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, fought a SS panzergrenadier battalion to a bloody draw At the Odon River in Normandy during Operation Epsom.
Title: Re: But, but.... why?!
Post by: JohnPJones1775 on December 28, 2019, 05:16:20 PM
JPJ there is a book with excellent discussion of both the Spanish American War and the Boer War.
William McElwee's Art of War, Waterloo to Mons.  He was a lecturer at Sandhurst and this book is based on his course.
He also covers the ACW, the Wars of von Moltke and the Russo-Turkish War in depth and illustrates the mistakes both sides made.  I think you would enjoy it if you're at all interested in the Nineteenth Century.
It's been out of print for a long time, but there are used copies on Amazon for less than $10.

I'm also rather affectionate toward the author because he had actual experience in battle.  Major McElwee, Company B Second  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, fought a SS panzergrenadier battalion to a bloody draw At the Odon River in Normandy during Operation Epsom.
cool, thanks for the info.