Great topic! Consider elaborating on these points:
1. Beginning with Pickett's doomed offensive at Gettysburg, it demonstrated the futility of the massed charge as an offensive tactic.
2. Jackson's Valley campaign demonstrated that a greatly outnumbered force can defeat a larger force by cunning, daring maneuvering
3. The rifle/artillery technology had advanced to a point which would enable small units to impede the advance of a larger force.
Now, as to your question, it is only with hindsight that this could be called a modern war, as for the most part the Generals continued to use the proven strategies, which is why the casualties were so sinfully high. You can make a case for either thesis; have fun!
2007-01-03 16:40:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
One reference you can't miss is Ken Burns story of the Civil War. In that story, it is pointed out that the tactics were inferior to the weapons. The straight line advances toward manned positions like at Gettysburg was just murder because of the massed 51 caliber rifles which often killed a man without even hitting in a vital organ because of the lack of medical knowledge and the kick of the bullet which would tear the body up.
The soldier would die a slow death on the battlefield suffering from terrible pain and fear. It was just pitiful.
However in someways the American Civil War was very modern with introduction of new weapons and the use of the railroad for resupply and transport of troops during this war.
Also the introduction and the use of the telegraph, repeater rifles, submarine, armored ships and powerful new and huge canon probably qualifies the Civil War as a forerunner of modern warfare, also.
2007-01-04 00:38:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by zclifton2 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
It started out as old style euro war...stand shoulder to shoulder and march across open fields. But the rifled carbine ended all of that. As well as fused artillery. Accurate for the Union not so much for the less mechanized South. But by the end of the war we find the dreaded trench warfare and the laying of underground charges to explode under the opposing force. The only thing that was missing was the Maxim Gun. So I think it was both. Arcane in the beginning and then it evolved into the classic trench warfare of the first world war. Horse mounted cavalry charges were gone forever. (at least until we expend all petrol)
2007-01-04 00:30:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Joe Schmo from Kokomo 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
I would classify it as a modern war. We had already obtained our independence from Great Britain and we were going through growing pains. Before the Civil War, we were generally known as the federated states. It wasn't until after the war that we were generally known as the United States.
2007-01-04 00:23:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by PDY 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think this was a hybrid war. Most soldiers still fought with muskets and in formation, but new things came on the battlefield including the first purely iorn ships, the hot air balloon for seeing the battlefield, the repeating rifle, the telegraph for quick info, the railroad for quick supply, the camera for spying and propoganda. the revolver (pistol) and the gatling gun. When the Spanish American War came in 1898, that was the first modern war the U.S. fought.
2007-01-04 01:01:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by gregory_dittman 7
·
3⤊
0⤋