Thursday, October 24, 2019
Evaluate Articel Modern War Essay
Phillip Gervase is a Principal Lecturer in History at Manchester Metropolitan University. He authored  The Anglo-Scots Wars 1513 – 1550. (33) In his article, Was the American Civil War the first Modern War?, he refutes the commonly held belief that the American Civil War was the first modern war. After the Second World War, many military historians concluded that the Confederacy’s crushing defeat at the hands of the Union foretold the future of war. Phillips argues that the Civil war was more like the wars of the 19th century than those that followed it. By the beginning of the war, the rifle could be fired as rapidly as a musket. Many historians have used this observation to prove that the rifle changed the way battles were fought. Artillery was now out ranged by infantry fire forcing gun crews to search for cover in the field. (29) This argument for the rifle is dismissed by Phillips when he cites the research of Paddy Griffith and Brent Nosworthy. These historians conclude that the rifle did not make an important change in war methodology since many battle were fought at the close range of previous musket battles. The entrenched fighting style, which many have compared to World War I, was also discussed as not being an earmark of a modern war. Phillips notes that in 1815 Andrew Jackson defended New Orleans with this method. The technique was taught at West Point Military Academy where both Union and Confederate Generals were educated. Phillips contends that the generals would use this technique to give their mostly volunteer force a sense of security on the battle field. (30) The fact that the horse was relied on more than the train is another draw back to the conclusion that this was a modern war. When Phillips compares the American Civil War to the Crimean War, the American Civil War lacks innovation. The real change from previous wars is in the â€Å"apparent adoption of a new philosophy of conflict†the total war.(28) The American Civil War, Phillips decides , can be considered a total war because of the major changes in American society caused by its outcome.            The first leg of his argument is that the technological advances of the age did not have a significant impact on the American Civil War. He begins with a discussion of the rifle. He points out that the rifle could be loaded and fired more often than the musket and the rifle drove men out of the formation style fighting and into trenches. He down plays this change in battlefield behavior by pointing out that the firefights were often at close range and the American soldiers were â€Å"unlikely to take kindly to the rigid, coercive discipline that underpinned the close order tactics of European conscripts.†(29) He uses the example of the second battle of Bull Run, where the opposing forces came within 20 meters of each other, to substantiate this fact. When he notes that the soldiers of this war were different from past conflicts in that they were mostly volunteers, he dismisses the importance of this new battle technique. Yet the discussion of these elements shows that the American Civil War was fought in a different manner from previous wars.            Phillips briefly acknowledges the use of the railroad for moving troops during the American Civil War, but points out that horses were more important. Again surmising that this makes the American Civil War less of a modern war. He then goes on to mention the ironclads, the Virginia and the Monitor. Since neither was a great warship, they couldn’t go far from the coast, Phillips asserts they didn’t revolutionize naval combat. Next, he mentions the submarine C.S.S. Hunley which, even though it sunk an enemy ship, is deemed an unimportant technological advance. Finally, he mentions the use of a single machine gun used to guard a fort in Charleston. Phillips dismiss the notion of the American Civil War being the first modern war because the use of these advances pales in comparison to those of the Crimean War. Phillips contends that the American Civil War is not a modern war at all. Although it may be true that the American Civil War was not known for its use of these technological innovations, they did exist, they were used, and they did have an impact on the outcome of the war. The fact that U.S. Navy went on to improve armored ships and submarines shows that the vessels used during the American Civil War were thought to be important and useful.            The second half of the article labels the American Civil War a Total War. A total war is â€Å"an unrestrained form of conflict †¦. and the enemy’s economic resources are targeted as readily as the military ones.†(28) The argument is based on the Union’s war strategy. The Union shifted its concentration from the defeat of the rebel armies to the annihilation of the economic resources supporting the Southern war effort. President Lincoln demanded the unconditional surrender of the Southern forces. Union Generals Grant and Sherman threatened to slay Southern civilians.  General Sherman’s infamous march to the sea cut a sixty mile wide path of destruction through the South. However, Phillips weakens his argument by cataloging ways in which the American Civil War was not quite a total war. He writes that enemies have always tried to cause each other economic hardships. President Lincoln’s demand for surrender was not as unconditional as presumed. The article makes the case that Lincoln was willing to negotiate nearly every issue except the continuation of the nation as a union. The strangest argument he makes is that the American Civil War was more cruel than other contemporary wars, but it is not as brutal when it is compared with later wars.            Phillips cites Arthur Marwick’s idea that a total war acts as an agent of social change which the American Civil War definitely was. It enlarged the federal government; allowing it to create national income tax, institute the draft, regulate the economy and suppress civil liberties.(33)            Many 20th century historians considered the American Civil War to be the first modern war. Phillips disagrees and argues that the Civil War was not a modern war. He admits that it foreshadowed future war methods but he maintains that it did not make use of technological advances. Phillips writes that the debate whether the civil war is modern should focus on the technology of the time and the philosophy of the war. The technology was not as significant to the outcome of the war. The philosophy of â€Å"Total War†changed the way the war was fought.  He states that the rifle, the railroad and the naval achievements of the time were ineffectual in changing the outcome of the war. Although he concedes that labeling of the American Civil War as a â€Å"Total War†is a break from past conflicts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.