Why the US Civil War Wasn't the First Modern War
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Get Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/r...
Watch Red Atoms on Nebula: go.nebula.tv/r...
The question about the first modern war has caused lively debates among historians and RUclips comment sections alike. In this video we take a look at a few candidates and some arguments why they are or aren't modern wars.
» SUPPORT US
/ realtimehistory
nebula.tv/real...
» THANK YOU TO OUR CO-PRODUCERS
Jeremy K Jones, Murray Godfrey, John Ozment, Stephen Parker, Mavrides, Kristina Colburn, Stefan Jackowski, Cardboard, William Kincade, William Wallace, Daniel L Garza, Chris Daley, Malcolm Swan, Christoph Wolf, Simen Røste, Jim F Barlow, Taylor Allen, Adam Smith, James Giliberto, Albert B. Knapp MD, Tobias Wildenblanck, Richard L Benkin, Marco Kuhnert, Matt Barnes, Ramon Rijkhoek, Jan, Scott Deederly, gsporie, Kekoa, Bruce G. Hearns, Hans Broberg, Fogeltje
» SOURCES
Mitchell, Reid. “Review: The First Modern War, R.I.P.” Reviews in American History Vol. 17, No. 4 (Dec., 1989), pp. 552-558
Virginia Museum of History and Culture. “The First Modern War?” virginiahistor...
English, Robert. Modern War: A Very Short Introduction. 2013.
Townshend, Charles, ed. The Oxford HIstory of Modern War. 2005.
Drévillon, Hervé, dir. Mondes en guerre. Tome II. L’Age classique XVe-XIXe siècle. 2019.
Steinberg, John. “Was the Russo-Japanese War World War Zero?” The Russian Review vol 67 (Jan 2008): 1-7.
Suciu, Peter. “The First Modern War: the US Civil War?” nationalintere...
Daudin, Pascal. “The Thirty Years’ War: the First Modern War?” blogs.icrc.org...
Hammond, Joseph. “The World’s First Modern WarTook Place in Ethiopia” mwi.usma.edu/w...
»CREDITS
Presented by: Jesse Alexander
Written by: Jesse Alexander, Mark Newton
Director: Toni Steller & Florian Wittig
Director of Photography: Toni Steller
Editing: Toni Steller
Motion Design: Toni Steller
Mixing, Mastering & Sound Design: above-zero.com
Research by: Jesse Alexander, Mark Newton
Fact checking: Jesse Alexander, Mark Newton
Channel Design: Simon Buckmaster
Contains licensed material by getty images
Maps: MapTiler/OpenStreetMap Contributors & GEOlayers3
All rights reserved - Real Time History GmbH 2023
Get Nebula with 40% off annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory
Watch Red Atoms on Nebula: go.nebula.tv/redatoms
Hi. I´m Indy Neidell, and the heir to the Österreich Throne has just been shot by a Serbian nationalist. This is modern war!
The first world War. The industrial nature of the war, the mass introduced of repeating rifles, machine guns, planes, mass artillery, some tanks, is pretty much still on the battle field.
The civil war had nothing to do with ending slavery and it didnt! The civil war was a war of enslavement! Too down Federal rule by D.C. dictates was what the civil war made. Lincoln was a tyrant terrorist! The south legally voted to secede, they voted to join right?! They can vote to leave and they were attacked for it!!!!
I have Nebula! Sometimes the videos I want to see are more easily found on the Real Time History You Tube channel though.
Indy, June 2014: "THIS is Modern War!"
Jesse, May 2023: "This is modern war?"
Best closing quote of an episode yet.
Episode of?
@@jlvfr The Great War
What show is that?
@@itsblitz4437 it's kind of a related RUclips channel called"The Great War". I think Jesse used to be a part of that channel.
@@kingjoe3rd I host both channels.
This is modern war
hey Junior, you find the Holy Grail yet?
@@imnotyourfriendbuddy1883 in 1938
This was also my first thought: just quote Indy Neidell and call it a day
The others were for their time
But does it change?
I would say that Modern Warfare began with the end of the pitched battle: The classic single-day engagements that, in combination with long marches with little enemy contact, would more or less form the campaign. In modern warfare, the conflicting powers find themselves almost continuously in contact, and with troops dispersed across the entire width of the frontage between the opposing nations, albeit with greater or lesser concentrations of troops in certain sectors.
@jerry coob,
A little more than a year ago, I would have agreed with you. The huge problem your analysis now is that the Russo-Ukrainian war has seen quite a bit of pitched battle in places like Vuhledar.
Then where do multi-month sieges come in? Or, similarly, multi-month or year campaigns that conclude with a single-day battle? This argument, as with Jessie's, seems to rely mainly on the available numbers of troops involved - and thus depend almost entirely on the growth of human populations worldwide. A quick google and I found a chart suggesting that there were only a billion people in 1804; is this sufficient to support modern war?
@@peaceraybob Multi-month sieges go back thousands of years though. Look up Tyre in 332 BCE for instance.
In the American Civil War the Army of the Potomac and Army of Northern Virginia were in constant contact from the start of the Overland Campaign to the conclusion of the war approximately a year later.
@@mackenzieblair8135 The American Civil War does begin many aspects of "Modern Warfare", but we Americans don't like to think of it that way, and the political aspects of the war required much of it to be fought in Napoleonic style. We Americans like to think of the Civil War as being the 20th Maine charging down Little Round Top, not blowing up mine-shafts at the Battle of the Crater.
For me, the first world war is the Seven Years/French and Indian War. This was fought on four different continents with just about every type of weapon available.
I do not think you could point at one war and say "this is the change." I think it is a period starting with the Crimean War, through the Sepoy Rebellion and the ending with the U.S. Civil War.
Why Not the 30 years war or even The Crusades, with religion as the center of the conflict (so ideology)
@@e.l.b6435 I lean more towards technological advancements over ideology. Ideological us vs them has always been around.
Steven White I agree with you that the Seven Years War was the first global war.
@@e.l.b6435 Because they were basically confined to Europe and the Mediterranean.
@@stevenwhite7763 I agree. Motivation has very little to do with whether a war is modern or not.
For me, the first modern war is the Russo-Japanese War, as it was the first war in which more people died from the fighting than just disease or starvation
This is the war for me as well. First war where people got mowed down in large numbers really quickly without having any chance of doing damage themselves.
@@bluesteel8376napoleonic soldiers looking at incoming cannon balls 👁️👄👁️
@@imjennasidel6703 me and the boys at Wagram watching our battalion cease to exist before we got with in musket range of the Austrians on the plateau
@@imjennasidel6703 still more soldiers died from disease and starvation during napoleon
Not only is that an ignorant and cynical definition, you also need to replace the word 'people' with 'combat troops' .
The majority of troops in any war never are directly involved in combat, and the majority of people suffering from war and dying due to it are civilians.
War kills in many ways, battle has always been just a small part of it.
Napoleonic could be as wars before it were very much about conquering fortresses and areas rather than destroying the opposing army capabilities, just how Napoleon always did himself
Nope. If you define it that way, you have to go back to at least the Romans.
Dumbest thing I’ve heard
@@thomasjamison2050 Castles really became a thing during medieval times sir.
I would argue that 'conquering fortresses' as a method of warfare was ended with the wide use of the cannon (centuries before the French Revolution). This led to first the cavalry (and then, following this, the pike and shot) paradigm shifts during the rennaissance. By the time Napoleon was about, conquering fortresses had long ago been discarded. Frederick the Great, Aleksandr Suvorov, the Duke of Marlborough, Henri Turenne, Eugene of Savoy and Gustavas Adolphus are all evidence of what I am saying.
@@economicerudite4924 Nah. Sure, artillery made the job easier, but the French still built the Maginot Line and the Germans never wanted to seriously assault it. Sure, methods of construction changed, but not the principle of building fortifications and of using them for defensive purposes.
The Russo-Japanese War was the first War of the Contemporary Machine Age.
Imo the Civil War can be viewed as a transitionary war, one which had the decisive, closed order battles of earlier eras, but as the war stretched on, battle fronts expanded, war effort and cause expanded. Where the war began with armies moving in small fronts to take specific targets and defeat an equally concentrated foe, it ended with mass assaults on miles-long trench lines, with armies marching in loose order, decimating enemy infrastructure as they went. It was one of the first examples of total war, with the north truly dedicating itself wholly to ending the war. Tactics and strategy evolved from earlier napoleonic style ideas to the earliest forms of large scale modern war.
Every single war is transitionary.
As we progress further into the 21st century, the definition of a modern war grows ever distorted. For some, the first modern war might be the Crimean War due to the prevalence of artillery, rail, and firearms. However, amidst the Crimean War, one might have claimed that the first modern war had occurred in the 18th century. This just goes to show that as history progresses and our definition of a modern war expands, older historical events that were once proclaimed the first modern war find themselves superseded by a future even. For myself, I would state that the first modern wars have occurred since at least the 16th - 17th centuries. These centuries witnessed the old chivalric art of war being superseded with firearms, artillery, and gunpowder. Moreover, by the mid 17th century, France’s Marshal Vauban had mastered siegecraft which would go on to define the following centuries of warfare. And while warfare today resembles very little of the warfare of the 16th - 17th centuries, firearms and artillery remain an integral part of modern warfare and will continue to do so for centuries.
Furthermore, as we look to the Napoleonic Wars, Great Britain and France began engaging in what is known today as economic warfare. Economic warfare is a type of warfare in which one nation seeks to cripple and devastate the economic and social affluence of another. From naval blockades to economic sanctions, economic warfare has played an integral role in the trajectory of this planet for upwards of 200 years. In World War 1, we can see the devastating affects which this type of warfare had on the German home front.
William T. Sherman was considered by Civil War historian Shelby Foote as the first modern general, because he recognized that an army in the field depended on rear-echelon morale and materiel, and his March to the Sea (and his 1865 march through the Carolinas) were planned to cut the heart out of the Confederacy.
Many a medieval prince burned the homes and fields of the vassals of his rival in war. Braddock and Montclair both burned out villages of native supporters...often done by their native supporters who took scalps and captives.
The Tennessee Volunteers crossed Ditto Landing in Huntsville in Sept 1813 to burn out the villages and crops of the Red Sticks before they could be harvested...and before that the Red Sticks had spent a month in South Alabama burning out settlements, raising homes, farms and burning ferries between Mims (Aug) and the Holy Ground (Dec 1813).
Often histories are painted by poets that cherry pick to write a Homeric Epic.
@@STho205 Yeah I never understood why people always say. I guess he destroyed alot of Railroads pretty the Mongols and Romans never did that
Yeah, but Shelby is a US civil war historian so he has a bias towards civil war generals.
It's true that Sherman was one of the first generals of the modern era to recognise that war is total war. That anyone and anything that contributed to the enemy's ability to fight could and should be targeted. But in that, he was reacting to an attitude of his times that was a historical anomaly. Namely that war had rules. That it should be decided between gentlemen on the "field of honour".
Of course this was a throwback to medieval concepts of chivalry which, in the medieval period were actually seldom adhered to. A member of the nobility might expect to be captured and then ransomed because his family could pay and war costs money. The common soldier however, had better know when the battle was lost and take to his heels because to the winning side it was less trouble to kill him than leave him alive. The idea that you would house, feed and guard large numbers of prisoners is a modern one and already going out of fashion it seems.
As others have pointed out, there was a great deal of looting and pillaging in most eras of war. Partly because, if done in the enemy's country it weakened his fighting power, but also because soldiers were often left unpaid and primitive logistics meant that they only way they could eat was to steal food. I think the first modern general to adopt it as a deliberate policy was Napoleon with his maxim "let war pay for war". But it can be argued that he was only making a virtue out of necessity. He could not have fed and paid his armies out of French resources even if he'd wanted to.
You folks are missing the most vital fact that MUST make the beloved, world famous, genius, hansom, and honourable William Tecumseh Sherman not only the first modern general, but also the greatest of all time, the most tactically gifted, and (probably true this one) most beloved by his soldiers.
It makes the people of South Carolina SO MAD... even today :) when you praise General Sherman. My old folks lived in SC for a few decades.... NOTHING is funnier to do in South Carolina than talk about General Sherman.
please don't take this away from us.... we ALL have to come to an agreement that we will keep the secret that it maybe wasn't Sherman who was the first modern general. Sherman's thinking was probably more in line with a modern general than his colleagues in those days.... but that dont count because he still relied on forage and 'borrowing' from civilians maybe?
My only argument in favor of Sherman taking the claim would be his explicit goals of economic warfare by physical means. Not just a blockade or burnings (buhbye Atlanta:).... but destroying the very connections between the army and the people they fight for.
On the 21th of September 1792 the famous german poet and novellist Goethe visited the area around the french village of Valmy one day after a battle took place there. He visited both the prussian army of the first coalition and the french revolutionary army. He had no glue to military tactics or weapons but he identified the different characters of the two armies. The prussian soldiers were mercenaries who fought for money and their king but the french soldiers described themselves as armed citizens who fought for their country and the republic. This impressed Goethe so he said to some officers: "Here and now starts a new era of world's history and you can say you'd been around." So we can describe the war of the first coalition as the first modern war.
You could say the same thing about the Battle of Trenton. Patriotic Americans fighting Hessians (who were basically German peasants kidnapped by the Prince and rented out to foreign governments).
@@stanleyrogouskithat wasnt mass conscription based on patriotism
Just because Goethe said a thing does not make it true. He was just a man with an opinion.
You could say the exact same thing for the war of the spanish succession since similar conscription system were in place.
@@cpp3221 no, they didnt have a total mobilisation of 1 million men lmao.
For me is the War of Sixth Coalition. If you look the troops movements and battlespaces looks like WW1
You are right although the Weapon system used and the numbers were no where near the resemblance of WW1
@@franzxaverjosephconradgraf6850 Of course not, but Leipzig was still the largest battle ever fought in Europe before WWI.
I am willing to say the American Civil War of the 1860s marked the transition from Napoleonic to modern warfare in regards to weapons and tactics. Do not forget the battles fought in 1864 had different tactics as did the Prussians fighting the Second Schelswig War that same year. Not to mention the German Unification Wars of the same decade saw the first use of a modern general staff.
I'd agree with that. The war looked very different at the beginning, than it did at the end.
Paraguayan war: am i a joke to you
Slavery wars
@@realdragao6367 Given half the soldiers in that war wee using flintlocks muskets of a standard and design more archaic than those used on the Grand Armée 50 years earlier, yes, it doesn't count and added nothing to the advancements of the art of war.
@@SStupendous 70% of a entire ethnicity being wiped out whilst also showing the world how obsolete early 1800 tactics became + Like in the Schleswig and American Civil war they also had a small deployment of trenches which would be fully adopted during WW1.
I am tempted to say that while the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815) *opened the door* to the advent of Modern War (via mass mobilization and ideological formation), but it was the great power wars of the mid-19th Century that actually walked through it: It was these wars, as Jesse notes at @17:15, that first leveraged the technological power of the Industrial Revolution. I think this would make the *Crimean War* the first Modern War (barely), followed rapidly by the Italian Wars of Unification, the Civil War, the Austro-Prussian War, and the Franco-Prussian War.
The French Revolution introduced massed national armies and conscript armies. The Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars postdated the USCW though.
@@Conn30Mtenor That is true. But the Crimean War predated the US Civil War.
@@richardmalcolm1457but that was a small war
@@mrbrainbob5320Which war? The Crimean War? It's a pretty big war (esp. for the 19th Century) if you have 1.5 million military personnel engaged, and total KIA of 600K!
@@richardmalcolm1457 no 110k KIA 500 Killed in non combative roles.
I had heard that the Crimean War was the first modern war.
It was , many think the American Civil War is regarded the first modern war with the argument it contained all the elements that make a modern war, but neglect to understand Al those elements plus more happened earlier in the Crimean.
I look at logistics. Here, railways made a icredible difference. The first war, when this was fully used was the Franco-Prussian War.
You forgot about the American Civil War.
@@sfdeliveries76 MadZin Moo must be European. Europeans are ignorant of the ACW.
President Grant sent Phil Sheridan to Europe on the eve of the Franco-Prussian War. Sheridan saw the war from the French side and the Prussian side. He reported back to Grant that the Americans had nothing to learn from the Europeans. Everything the Europeans did, the Americans had done in the Civil War and done on a larger scale and faster and better.
@@sfdeliveries76 Franco-Prussian war was a war that revolved around this concept. Civil war had it but so did several other earlier wars in Europe Italian wars, Hungarian War, but the scale and impact of Franco Prussian was everything
13:50 The irony is that though this is how today's wars are described, the wars are usually over the interests of the "kings" instead of the interests of the people, but refusing to fight or disagreeing with the declaration of war can get you into massive trouble.
Tens of millions of Americans protested Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. There will be massive unrest over whatever the next conflict the US gets involved in.
I'd argue that is always the case. War, war never changes.
There are many different kinds of courage. Physical courage is easily the most common. Moral and ethical courage is far, FAR rarer.
As for France's fate with it's levee en masse, by 1815 800,000 of those men were dead or crippled, having been pissed away in nameless graves from Lisbon to Moscow by Napoleon's pursuit of glory. Just precisely now different THAT is from dying in the name of a king really does elude me.
@carlhicksjr8401 it's different because those men were motivated by nationalism. The logic to why they fought, for nation and shared understanding of France. That's a very big difference
@@Penguin-lc3eg The problem with that is that you end up just as dead because a Corsican midget told you that your country and his glory were the same thing.
So tell me why that lie was 'better' than Henry II [Plantagenet] truth?
I think WW1 sort of ticks all the boxes. It of course has the nation-state and the patriotic identity that at goes with it. It has the industrial scale aspect, where a combatant's ability to maximize the industrial capacity of their economy plays a major role. And then of course it takes place in "many dimensions". Land, air, sea and undersea; though space assets aren't around and there is no cyber domain. But the fact it greatly expanded the dimensions of warfare is the important part. It also introduced WMD on an industrial scale. After WW1, chemical, biological and eventually nuclear weapons would be part of a nation's arsenal, even if they weren't always used.
I just think WW1 checks off nearly all the boxes for what we view as modern war; and the boxes it doesn't check off, were all set up during thr conflict.
I like the characterization of the American Civil War as "the last of the old wars, the first of the new."
Gettysburg was the last Napoleonic Battle. The Overland Campaign and Sheridan in the Shenendoah Valley were the first modern campaign.
@@stanleyrogouski hogwash. There was nothing new in any of them, especially not Sheridans campaign. Going true enemy territory and destroying stuff is as old as warfare it self.
Also, civil war armies where not even able to use Napoleonic tactics. They fought more like mid 18th century armies. In slow moving lines.
Not in Fast moving columns like all Napoleonic armies did by 1815. (yes even the British used the column when on the offensive)
@@stanleyrogouski Even more broadly, I'd call Lee the last Napoleonic general and Grant the first modern general. I think it says a lot that both attended West Point when the military curriculum was dominated by Clausewitz: Lee was top of his class, while Grant admitted he never actually read Clausewitz, which I think is why he was able to adapt and react to the war as it unfolded in front of him in a way Lee didn't.
@@thomasbaagaard
"Not in Fast moving columns like all Napoleonic armies did by 1815"
Jacksons "foot cavalry."
@@erraticonteuse A strange statement, given that Clausewitz himself stresses that his analyses cannot be a strict operational advice for generals. Clausewitz' treatise was descriptive, not proscriptive.
WW1 was the first war to use every weapon short of nukes that we have available to us today. Subs, tanks, artillary, aircraft, nerve gas, landmines, armoured ships, machine guns, bombing cities from aircraft etc. They may have been cruder versions of the more technically advanced ones we have today but they were used none the less.
Aren't you ignoring "a few" systems? Cyberwarfare? Long range tactical missiles (like Tomahawk - that do not use nuclear warheads regularly)?
@@chrismath149 Arguably the Paris gun was a proto-missile en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun#
@@secretsfullofsaucers A missile is a self propelled projectile. Afaik that is not correct for the Paris Gun.
And even if correct, the prevelance of cyberwarfare is something that was still not seen in world war 1 (intercepting message was done - as was interrupting communication with other nations - the British cut the undersea cable between Germany and the US for example). But those examples aren't quite in the same league - nowadays you can cause active damage by hacking into systems.
@@chrismath149I would say that cutting or listening into telegraph cables was an early form of cyber warfare. It had many of the same effects a hacking attack would have on a modern military.
@@Grimmtoof If you manage to get into the control system of a nuclear power plant or a damn you can create Tchernobyl 2.0 or flood an entire valley. Or you switch off the energy production facility of the entire country you are fighting if your opponent is too reliant on a single programm.
It is in no relation to temporarily disturb the communication of your opponent.
You should make a video covering the War of the Pacific (1879-1884), some historians also claim it to be the first modern war and it is a very interesting conflict.
Only historians in Chile or Peru claim the War of the Pacific was the first modern war. But I grant you that it was an interesting war. More interesting to me was the Chaco War.
The Paraguayan War, or War of the Triple Alliance preceded it.
@@San_Vito Accounts of the Paraguayan War are few, and each one is biased. The first account I read was in Portuguese (from Brazil). The second was in Spanish (from Argentina). The third was in Spanish (from Paraguay). Have not found an account from Uruguay. I have seen two English language accounts and both were short summaries.
The Paraguayan War was more notable for its impact on post-war Paraguay than for any military action. Plus the fact that the war created the Brazilian and Argentine military.
Given the dearth of accounts in English I think Jesse and Flo will pass on this war.
The civil war was the first to introduce industrial scale arms, a rapid change of unit tactics that impacted the entire world, and the first one to be photographed and widely reported with out the embellishments that painted scenes would show. That's why it should be cconsidered the first modern war
I DO think that modern warfare began with the American Civil War. Before this armies moved at the speed they could march or could be carried by [sailing] ship or could march, and beacons, semaphores and carrier pigeons notwithstanding generals were incommunicado with their government or each other. Wars were in reality just a sequence of battles. In the American Civil War, for the first time soldiers could be quickly conveyed and supplied over long distances by rail, and the electric telegraph meant commanders could communicate near instantly with their capital and each other allowing multiple armies to take to the field and fight simultaneously. True both of these features, and organised treatment of the wounded, were first used during the Crimean War, but were built to be employed in its furtherance, rather than already existing and being used routinely. The Union Army was AFAIK also the first to use aircraft (balloons) for surveillance.
You are correct regarding the differences in how fast armies could mobilize. However, I'd like to point out that armies maintaining communications with the government and with each other wasn't particularly new by the time of the ACW. As far back as the 17th-18th century, French marechals had to keep in constant correspondence with the king and his ministers. This costed crucial days, even weeks, however. At times, the desires of the government were also counterintuitive to what needed to actually be done due to developing situations on the front (in fact, even Lincoln often faced this latter issue and, by the end, largely allowed Grant more freedom and jurisdiction regarding the course of his campaigns).
I've always thought of the Marian Reforms in the Roman Republic to be the first "modern" army.
Probably. The UK did not get a standing army until Cromwell. Both however did not fight modern wars, although Roman roads did permit faster army movement and communication within their empire.
I would say the Franco-Prussian war is the first modern war as it saw the first application of the sociocultural, logistics, and tactics of modern warfare all together.
Once soldiers replace warriors is when modern war began. I don't mean that as an insult, but as a point of differentiation. Warriors use to be a class one dedicated their lives to and others invested in which was necessary for success on the battlefield. Once firearms become prevalent, any person from any class can be successful on the battlefield for a fraction of the cost. This in my opinion makes the wars of the 16th century far more similar to 20th century wars than they are to even just 15th century conflicts.
I think that the American Civil and Crimean Wars were Proto -modern wars not quite there but having some aspects. I think bolt action rifles, machine guns or perhaps the introduction of using cars for supplies would be a great jumping off point.
The first sentence - problem is that you can say the exact same things about Ww1.
I would say (my own amateurish interpretation):
The last old style pre modern war: Napoleonic Wars
The first true modern war: Russo-Japanese War
Development from old style pre modern war to modern: 1815 - 1904
First war that was more moderen then pre modern: Crimean War or American Civil War
A fascinating thought exercise. Like all of you at Real Time History, I've not sure what modern war is anymore. I used to think the first modern war was World War 1 but I don't know anymore.
Yup, a tricky one.
I see the US Civil War as the beginning of modern war, and the end of the Napoleonic wars. So it was a little bit of both.
One grisly point to put in the US Civil War's column as a 'modern' war is how well the US dealt with its dead during the Great War. Apparently, the European powers were shocked at how organized the US was when it came to gathering the hundreds or thousands of dead from the battlefield and then processing them for either burial or repatriation to the US. Unlike the European powers who used a haphazard system if they used a system at all. When asked how they came up with such a system, the US Army replied that they'd dusted off the manuals explaining how they did it during the Civil War.
"US Civil War"
I'm not going to argue the Romans were fighting modern wars but it is interesting to think about how important "citizen soldiers" seem to be to this concept and you can see some of the same elements all the way back in the Roman Republic (and sometimes even refined in the Roman Empire)
I recently made a similar argument in comments on Brandon F channel, but I was questioning if the French veterans from that were influenced by the US idea of fighting for the nation and whether the ideas of how to use citizens en masse as soldiers were actually developed in AWI, Brandon's special subject, not the French Revolutionary War.
It's an interesting idea, but I don't buy it. The American War of Independence didn't carry out a national conscription, and heck didn't feature a single nation. Americans like to project backwards some kind of 13 Colonies nationalism, but that didn't exist. The Continental Congress was an alliance, more like the EU. People thought of themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers, etc., not Americans. Even the elements of the Continental Army were always organized by the various states.
I give it to the civil war on the simple premise that I believe that is when the first machine powered fully automatic drive by took place on a train at the battle of bull run. Something silly yet very modern sounding
I know it might sound like a long shot, but I feel like you could make a case, at least for beginnings/roots, for wars like the war of the Spanish Succession or the 7 years war because they were wars about the “balance of power” or national goals more than religion. The 7 years war especially because it had a global scale, was driven by nations’ goals, saw alliance systems, and had a bureaucratic end/peacemaking (like WW1). I also feel like these wars had their roots all the way back in the 30 years war. Of course, I feel that the first “completely modern” war occurred sometime in the 19th or 20th century.
The wars you mention were driven by states' and dynatsties' interests, more than nations. That is an important difference.
@@jessealexander2695 but the King's in the age of absolutism were the nation and so the King's interests were the national interests.
@@t.wcharles2171 There was no conept of nation at that time, as we know it now.
@@jessealexander2695 it was really the Proto-Nation from which ideas of what a nation was first began to develop however as you said the state of the nation its psyche was entirely distinct from the modern concept of the nation.
@@t.wcharles2171 Yes, there were some proto-nation ideas in the 18th century, esp among some groups. Cheers, I'm off to the pub!
I think the most unique characteristic of "current" war is camouflage. It used to not be a thing at all, you needed to be visible on the battlefield to be ordered around but firepower increased so massively from 1840s to 1890s you went from sort range muskets shooting 2.5 rounds per minute to long range rifles shooting 25 rounds per minute. Then by the middle of the next century it was hundreds of rounds per minute.
When so many shots can be fired so quickly over such a long range, this causes so called "napoleonic tactics" to become completely useless.
By the way, Napoleonic era tactics should be considered "modern" as it coincides with the modern era.
I'd call this, Industrial War. It is industry that created such firepower
The 'asymmetrical battlespace' of current conflicts is regarded by many as exceptional compared to the two World Wars, however if you look at conflict throughout history such a state has been the norm. If anything 'symmetrical' warfare with specific battlelines has been more the exception than the rule historically.
The Romans invented modern warfare in 465 B.C. when they started issuing their legionnaires little electric fans to help keep themselves cool on those long summer days battling the Gauls..
If by a modern war we mean a conflict where both the populations and the governments are informed of the events on the battlefield in a rapid manner and their opinions influence the decisions of the commanders on the terrain then its the Crimean war.
I'd love an in depth docu-series on the US Civil War like you guys have done with the Franco-Prussian war. I'm sure you guys would do it justice
The Napoleonic conflict still largely employed military doctrine, tactics, and technology that had been relatively stable for an extremely long time. Smooth bore, short-range infantry small arms, and direct fire artillery with solid projectiles, resulted in battles that would have made sense to a soldier from the late 15th century, although that soldier would have been mightily impressed by the size of the armies. The transition to long range rifles and indirect artillery fire with explosive projectiles seems like the biggest quantum jump in military technology ever, arguably excluding nuclear weapons. I think you've kind of made the case for the Crimean War.
I recon the term your looking for is not 'modern war', but Industrialized Warfare, in which the tools, implements of destruction & manpower can be procured on a far greater industrial scale.
The line in the sand i think of is the use of smokeless powder. There are many other forms of technology that are determinants such as use of industrial produced firearms with interchangeable parts self contained cartridges etc but they all happen at the time of smokeless powder. You can't really consider a war modern, if they use black powder. Mauser bolt action rifles are an example. Theres no way you can say a conflict that employed Mausers was anything but modern. So somewhere between the Franco-Prussian war and the 2nd Boer war. By the time of the American Spanish war, wars were definitely modern. Sometimes in the middle of the 1880s, approximately when repeating bolt action Mauser rifles came into use.
How about the First Franco-Dahomean War? It was the first use of smokeless powder.
An interesting idea that came to my mind for what a modern war is, is the effect of disease. The First World War, was the first war where more people died from fighting than from disease, also it's the first war where cavalry played an insignificant part. This means that the First World War is the first modern war, where only humans and modern human technology, is the only important part in the war.
And you can even apply this criteria to other wars, if people are more effected by disease or animals (cavalry) then that is not a modern war.
Modern war is a purely human event.
Nah that's not true. In 1812 more French troops lost there lives from sickness when Napoleon invaded Russia. In fact sickness has always caused more casualties in war then the actual war itself. Especially back then when they had no antibiotics and other modern medicines.
Also in world war 2 the Germans had way more horses than tanks and vehicles. 600000 in fact .
Required Spam comment: modern war is defined by canned meat.
Informative and entertaining history documentary as always, thank you!
The American Civil War was not the first modern war, rather it was the Last Ancient War.
The American Civil War lasted about 4 years, consumed about 650,000 people, including the President, and was devastating to numerous major cities, and millions of people were effected. It resulted in the emancipation of the slaves, their acquisition of citizenship, and enfranchisement. The losers in the conflict were occupied forever more. Advances in weapons and tactics were absolutely present. Most of the war surrounding political changes, rather than mere conquest or invasion. It was by far the bloodiest war the United States has yet to experience as of 2023. Technological advancements undenialble with the Gatling Gun, the Ironclads, the use of telegraph to communicate. The use of rifles and revolvers vs smooth bore, single shot muskets. The use of the Minié ball. Medicines, and pain killers. Let's not forget photography, ambulances, torpedoes and mines, submarines, aerial reconnaissance balloons, and mechanized, electrified devices like railroads. The industrial scale of war production. Military contracts for war supplies. Canned food for troops. The parole, and mass imprisonment of POWs, as well as prisoner exchange. The presence of international observers. Embedded journalists. Dailey casualty lists published in the newspapers. Economic war measures and embargoes. The use of snipers. The employment of a mass naval blockade.
The political use of propaganda. The ideological argument of a noble crudade, Legislation, voluntary conscription en mass.
Nothing modern to see here.
Shut up!
What about the american Civil War
We discuss it in the video.
I am surprised I am not seeing any comments pointing out that "modern" is a moving target that cannot be pinned down. The "first modern war" will always change as warfare does the same.
I disagree that the Civil War didn't feature well-coordinated military action.
The telegraph enabled Ulysses S. Grant to essentially invent the army group.
In his Overland Campaign, Grant directly supervised the operations of the Army of the Potomac while simultaneously directing the operations of the Army of the Shenandoah, the Army of the James, the Army of the Ohio, and the Army of the Tennessee, which were all spread out over hundreds of miles.
Fully agreed. The Federal army's ability and willingness to coordinate forces, under Grant's overall command, made a big difference late in the war.
I think the definitive change that made war "modern" is when armies became so large -- itself a function of the scale of industrial production -- that armies could form a "front line." Before that, war was about finding the other army and using maneuver to outflank the enemy if you decided to have a battle. Once the armies had entrenched from Switzerland to the North Sea in 1914, finding the enemy was no longer an issue. The enemy was in front of you.
As a result, Grant's 1864 Overland Campaign was only partly modern because neither side had enough troops to either block or encircle their adversary. Even at Petersburg, Grant never encircled the entire city, but he did eventually block every railroad to the south or west.
Despite being you're guys little cousin I must disagree with my war being removed from it's title. The mass draft for one matters a lot, and I would argue against Mitchell, looking at the west we can see big battles with breakthroughs like that of Wilson's Creek early in the war, but the depth of conflict had changed, especially when you look at the west you can see a modern war, Sherman's battles against Johnston in Atlanta follow a continuous skirmish based conflict, the wandering bands in my home state of Missouri. Against the crimean war it was still fought for standard reasons between kingdoms, while the technology and way of war was more modern its causes and politics and economics wasn't, just my thoughts.
I think Crimean war,But the Austrian-Prussian war introduced many new elements as well.
Boer War is commonly thought of as the true beginning of modern war style tactics. The British empire even interned their enemies (basically threatening to genocide the Boer families if they didn't surrender) first concentration camps nearly.
He forgot the first "successful" use of a submarine during the American Civil War. And the continued technical evolution of that weapon. Of course, some say the Crimean War was the "first modern war". Albeit it was the first to be photographed. I could not provide enough definition to call it "modern". DUMB! Yes. But aren't all wars?
Okay, you got me. I starting watching the video to dispute your assertion that the US Civil War was not a Modern War. (We will throw out the "First" bit for now.) But you clearly and excellently point out that what is or is not a Modern War depends entirely on your definition of Modern War. And there are many different definitions to choose from. The History of the Military Art taught at West Point in 1978 listed the Dawn of Modern Warfare as Gustavus Adolphus because of his use of Combined Arms Warfare. Ideology, administration, and industrialization were not part of the definition or criteria. (I'm not sure what is taught there now.) Total War was a separate thing, not connected to Modern War. A war could be either one, both, or neither. Total War tends to be thought of as beginning with the Napoleonic Wars. The US Civil War tends to be thought of as the first Industrial or Technological War because of the use of rifled muskets, telegraph, railroads, balloon observation, breech loaders, etc. (You get the idea.) Although you might make the observation that this was the first AMERICAN Industrial War.
You forgot the Mexican Revolution of 1910 that war had modern weapons, trenches, troop transportation through railroads, khaki uniforms, etc.
Rome (Alexander, then Persia): tactical unit organization, logistics, tactical and strategic intelligence, diplomacy, artillery, standardized weapons, adaptation to diverse enemies, standard discipline and pay. What have I left out they didn't invent? Perfected by Napoleonic divisions, propaganda and artillery standardization. Everything since: death per square yard increased, better hardware and comms, nerds.
The American civil war the end of Napoleon war tactics since most at West Point studied the art and later proved futile. They got by with in Mexican War. The Springfield or Enfield a rifled firearm far more accurate and improved artillery added the high casualties. Pickett's charge at Gettysburg was the doorway between modern and combat of old. Toward the end breastworks and trenches solved that why both sides of WWI were common features. West Point, Pruussian military school and British had studied tactics of Thomas Stonewall Jackson and N B Forrest the primary means of moving troops fast to overwhelm
Minor nitpick, but it’s Simon Bolívar, not Simon De Bolivar. Also thanks for bringing him up, I wish there was more content about him since he liberated many countries from Spanish rule and was a military and political genius.
I wonder how the presenter and many posters missed a very significant difference between the US and Europe's modern war makers.
That is, even in World War I, the US relied on state militias [a.k.a. the National Guard] rather than on a large standing army. This is why mobilization in the US resembled the Russian model more than the more modern Western Europeans. It is true that when war was expected soon [WWI and more WW II] the US took more time to mobilize and train. The French professionals were not impressed by the training and ability of the first Americans to arrive for WW I. Defended as we are by two oceans, and with a large land area with strong local governments, the US had the luxury of not always being ready for war. We seem to have eventually learned from past mistakes, because that is definitely not true today. It is equally true that each state continues to field national guard units, and today they are well trained and actually are sent into battle overseas together with regulars.
The first modern war was when my mom found my dad's Playboy magazines in the basement where I lived. I was only 26 years old at the time and their divorce shook my world. Gave me PTSD being a child from a broken home.
You have added arbitrary aspects to the definition of modern war that have nothing to do with the established concept of modern war. Political, social and ideological motivations have nothing to do with the way any particular battle is waged, nor does genocide or nationalism. At best, they merely manifest themselves in specific strategic objectives that are tertiary to actually winning the war. Most historians consider the idea of a modern war as that juxtaposed to the Napoleonic Wars. The Napoleonic Wars certainly contained characteristics of what would eventually become essential to modern war, such as the levee en masse. But what distinguishes a modern war from these earlier wars has to do with the immediate and existential need to change battle tactics due to the challenges brought about by applying the technological advances from the Industrial Revolution. When one looks at the development of the battlefield tactics from the beginning of the Civil War until its end, one can clearly see the evolution of the modern war. The first battles had men marching in rigid columns against each other, reminiscent of Napoleonic era battles, but the end of the Civil War had seen iron clads, airborne observations against enemy positions, mass movement of troops via the railroads, imposition of the draft, extensive defensive trench works and anti-trench techniques, repeating rifles, Gatling guns, total war against civilian infrastructure and further development of the massing of artillery to reduce enemy positions and break sieges. One may also argue that the German Wars of Unification were the first modern wars, but the first real break on a large scale from Napoleonic era battlefield tactics was quite apparent by the end of the American Civil War, which occurred just prior.
Revising history from the comforts of electricity, air conditioning, and your eternal green zone safety silver spoon connections. I see what you're doing there... Awful.
I’d say WW1 was the first modern war. It has literally been the basis, in terms of armament that we all use. We had tanks, aircraft, artillery, submarines (u-boats), steel ships, machine guns, city bombings e.t.c.
WW1 first modern war. Introduced tanks, machineguns massed air power, poison gas, submarines, industrial warfare on a worldwide scale never seen before . Transition from old style warfare to the modern age, which is still being used as of 2023.
...and the highest casualty rate to-date, also. The generals' thinking took time to catch up to battlefield reality.
I am an expert in none of these fields, but it occurs to me that our difficulty defining the first modern war may have more to do with ambiguity of the word "modern" than the subject matter itself. What we are lacking in the word is a clearly defined and achievable objective. The number and definition of elements contained under the umbrella of "modern" are simply too subjective and arbitrary to lead to any conclusion that can lead to consensus. It may be more instructive to deconstruct the term into its various components, identify the points where trends and ideas combined and assign these smaller segments of time definitions descriptive of the changes they denote.
Put simply, the question of what is modern warfare and when it started may be impossible to answer because the question is effectively undefined.
The Industrial Revolution was already well under way in Britain at the time of the French Revolution.
Britain had the wherewithal to sustain a generational struggle against France, and the financial power to subsidize continental allies.
Napoleon was correct when he said that Britain was his deadliest foe.
Aside from the obligatory "nationalism and war crimes", the Balkan Wars were an example of a modern war with a number of firsts and technical innovations - the first radio survailance and jamming, the first strategic aerial bombing attack, the invention of the aerial bomb.
Because only the war of Schleswig-Holstein can be considered the first modern war
I would say the entire last half to third of the 19th century was transitory. Warfare just followed the pace of technology.
The modern era begins with industrialisation. I think the steam engine best represents the First Industrial Revolution. One is no longer constrained by wind or the river-fed water wheels. We're looking at steamships and locomotives. The first use of locomotives to move troops, artillery pieces, and supplies was by Prussia during the 1846 Polish Uprising. But, does an uprising meet the definition of a war? Up to you to decide.
The Crimean War featured steamships, steam gunboats, and British engineers built railways from Balaclava to the frontlines. Further, the telegraph was also used not only on the battlefield but a submarine cable was laid between Balaclava and Varna that linked British and French commanders to their respective capitals. We see tinned food, uniforms and boots made by industrial machines in whole or part (a machine capable of stitching the sole to the boot's upper [Blake] wasn't invented until after the Crimean War, but the upper was stitched by a sewing machine). Kerosene was already used for lighting this time, and I find no evidence of kerosene lamps used during the war, but I would be unsurprised if they were. Synthetic dyes were invented after the war. The British considered a proposal to use cacodyl cyanide shells and rejected it.
Crimean War is the first.
I'd bet that there isn't one single modern war as much as a transition period in which warfare moved from pre-industrial to industrial organisation and the weapons used increased in destruction potential, but not every change came at the same time, some were triggered before in some countries due to cultural differences whereas in other countries some other changes in war mentality came about first
I’ve always considered the Civil War as a transitional war. An amalgamation of old and new.
The paintings makes me want to get some plein air landscape and urban painting in soon. Minus the soldiers and burning
For fully mechanized warfare, if it's true that the American Civil War was a testing ground for machine guns, I'd put the cutline during WW1.
In design modernism is roughly the period between 1880-1940. It includes movements like Bauhaus, Art Deco, Surrealism etc. The mid century modern movement persisted till the mid 60’s and Scandinavian Modern is still around.
World War One was the first Modern war truly. Firstly it had tanks, next more proper bombing campaigns and airplanes became fighter aircraft. But the true reason is that it brought about combined arms warfare.
In german military history or weapons magazines the US civil war ( 1861/1865) , the ( second) Boers War 1899/1901 and the Russo/Japanese war are seen as most important forerunners of wwl, while the German/ French war of 1870/71 is seen in Germany as last large old stlyle war. In many aspects war started 1914 as it ended in 1871.
Before finishing this video, I am going to post my perception of when the modern Era of war was... the invention of auto/semi-auto or machine guns.
When the war machine moved past cannons and muskets.
Which I believe was around the 1800s.
And that ended the musket/cannon bombardier reign. Before that was siege. Before that was range and armor without much chemistry.
So I suppose whenever there was a significant new technology that changed how war is fought by steam rolling the enemy.
Nuclear was a time. Then internet, now global networking.
And that's if we don't consider economical, political, or theocratic.
As we grow as a race time speeds up. Which is why the eras span longer periods the further in time you go.
I also believe the motorized time was the start of a new Era.
Three British wars against the zulus and the Sudanese rebels fit your description.
I would wager that every era thought of themselves as "more advanced".
We foolishly think of ourselves as a cut above.
That kind of thinking about being more advanced only started about 400-500 years ago, that is why it used as a useful part of defining the modern period. Medievals did not think they were more advanced than previous times, for example.
@@jessealexander2695 People living in feudal castles, with high stone walls, and a powerful religion that ruled kings didn't think themselves superior to the dark ages?
Rome didn't consider themselves superior to the Greeks before them?
I respectfully disagree.
@@billthompson2468 Well, most of the historical evidence says they didn't (for the medievals anyway).
Better to talk about the evolution of war from one era to another rather than "modern" war as an isolated event. This video does this very well.
The Second Boer war changed the way the British fought and was the first iteration of the "Concentration camp"
You did it Soap, you really are the modern warfare.
The widespread use of copper and brass cartridges in the civil war was a real revolution for an army. And the breechloading rifles that used them showed how increased firepower could be so effective.
What happened to the second US Civil War?
With cyber attacks, drones, upcoming AI advances, robotics in warfare. What name definition should it be called. Digital war?
This is a fantastic piece of work. Thank you.
It should be the First Modern Warfare😅
In my opinion the first modern was The Great War where almost all facets of what makes a current war was born. Modern communication brought organizational structure in the form of HQ's forward bases to squads all operating mostly cohesive, motorization of troops and supplies as well as utilizing rail, politics and general staff motivations and approach to war. Each were done before The Great War but it all seemed to have been utilized by then by both sides along with new modern inventions like tanks and airplanes.
DTRY1Q
I actually would say that the first Modern War were the Italian Wars. In this time span of 1494-1559 we saw the transformation from Medieval doctrine to Modern doctrine, with the implementation of guns in mass quantities, new ranking structure to accomodate the larger military, a glimpse at combined arms, with infantry, cavalry and artillery working together. They led to the formation of the Tercio, and by consequence the profession of the soldier, not just a warrior who followed a lord, or a mercenary that served for money.
I actually would say the first Modern War was the conflict between Homo Sapiens with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans. Modern man finally supplanted the archaic hominids and became the only human species on the planet.
COD 4 was clearly the first modern warfare 😏
A thought jumped out at me at the end, when were balloons first used in a warfare capacity? I know they were used as artillery and troop movement spotters during the US Civil War.
French revolutionary wars.
My Humble opinion is that the process stars to take shape in the Crimean War and accelerates from there.
Modern War is the product of a series of Revolutions in Military Affairs dating back to the end of the 30 Years War. Where you draw the line where modern war begins is somewhat arbitrary but I think it points to the Union Campaigns of 1864-5. I reason as follows.
The first revolution was the professionalization of war in the wake the destructive 30 Years War which was the last war the relied on mercenary armies.
The second revolution was the nationalization of war that occurred in the French Revolutionary period.
The third revolution was industrialization of war that occurred in American Civil War.
The fourth revolution was the mechanization of war that occurred during WWI.
Each RMA was a step required for 20th Century War but by the end of the US Civil War the prerequisites for modern war had been met.
Technology really does not change the nature of war, organization does at least until the introduction of nuclear weapons which created a new kind of cabinet war. I consider nuclear weapons to have created a counterrevolution in military affairs.
Well apart from Putin and the Wagner group in Ukraine...
Is there an Arabic translation on the platform?
American civil war
Train✅
Ironclad ship✅
Telegraph✅
Early machine gun✅
Balloon observation✅
War financing ✅
Mine warfare✅