First Modern War?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
Arguably the Napoleonic Wars. It was first instance in the history of warfare that you had battles fought by armies of 500,000 men and up. It was the first war to be fought on every single continent, expect Antarctica, and in all major oceans and it definitely affected all subsequent wars, not to mention global politics for a hundred years.
Id say the American civil war. It is the first modern war because it was, I believe, the first time the concept of total war was employed. The war was explicily waged against the enemy's civilians (not just to be brutal or to punish) but in explicit strategy to deprive the enemy of the the material needed to win.
stirlingdraka
Donor
From what I know I would say it was the American Civil War. It seemed to be the first total war at least for the North who knew how to fight such a war.
I don't know too much about the Crimean war or the Franco-Prussian war.
I don't know too much about the Crimean war or the Franco-Prussian war.
TFSmith121
Banned
Various elements of what I'd call "modern warfare" had appeared before
Various elements of what I'd call "modern warfare" had appeared before (certainly war has been waged against civilian populations since Day 1), but the US Civil War was the first where mass mobilization, an industralized economy, rifled small arms and artillery, steam power (shipping and railroads), and communications significantly faster than mounted messengers or sailing vessels all came together in one conflict.
Some of this had appeared earlier, but not all at once, and given that the Civil War was fought on a continental scale and lasted for four years made it clear how vastly things had changed since the early part of the Nineteenth Century...
Best,
Various elements of what I'd call "modern warfare" had appeared before (certainly war has been waged against civilian populations since Day 1), but the US Civil War was the first where mass mobilization, an industralized economy, rifled small arms and artillery, steam power (shipping and railroads), and communications significantly faster than mounted messengers or sailing vessels all came together in one conflict.
Some of this had appeared earlier, but not all at once, and given that the Civil War was fought on a continental scale and lasted for four years made it clear how vastly things had changed since the early part of the Nineteenth Century...
Best,
- I agree, because it also saw army tactics completely change throughout the war
- Armies moved from slow cumbersome forces into fast mobile ones
- It was most definitely a total war, see Russia where the Russians burned Moscow down just to beat Napoleon
- It also featured some of the heaviest guerrilla warfare from Calabria to Spain
- You saw governments completely overthrown and new regimes rise and fall
- Empires were made and empires were destroyed throughout the war
- And one thing that makes any war is the final treaty where France lost everything it had gained plus some more
TFSmith121
Banned
It's a push, but if you're looking for widespread use of non-animal motive power,
It's a push, but if you're looking for widespread use of non-animal motive power, on land and water, and at least the beginnings of systematic military aviation with non-visual communications (telegraph), the US Civil War qualifies.
Flamethrowers and chemical weapons, though, you got me.
Best,
It's a push, but if you're looking for widespread use of non-animal motive power, on land and water, and at least the beginnings of systematic military aviation with non-visual communications (telegraph), the US Civil War qualifies.
Flamethrowers and chemical weapons, though, you got me.
Best,
Umm.....I'm not so sure of that, TBH. For one, Australia(and even Oceania as a whole) hadn't even been settled all that much (by Europeans) yet. Secondly, does the War of 1812 even *remotely* count as an extension of that? As far as I can see, France had no real involvement in that conflict, and it was pretty much exclusively between us "Yanks" and the Brits. And then there's the matter of South America, most areas of which were still Spanish(or, in the case of Brazil, Portuguese) colonies. So I'm afraid that doesn't count, if we're using that particular standard.
(P.S.-Bolding is mine, btw)
No, the French were not directly involved in the War of 1812, but the Americans had promised to stop trading with either Britain or France if the other country promised to respect the neutrality of American ships. The French agreed to this, so the Americans stopped trading with Britain, plus there was the issue of the British stopping and searching American ships, ostensibly looking for deserters, but they were really arbitrarily empressing people into the Royal Navy because they needed live bodies for the war effort. So yes, you can argue that the causes of the War of 1812 can be directly linked back to the Napoleonic Wars. If you to call it a Napoleonic proxy war for lack of a better term, as opposed to a proper Napoleonic front, then sure, but they are related to each other.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Another example of forward thinking from the Civil War is John Gordon's assault on Fort Stedman in March of 1865, which he utilized what we would today call infiltration tactics.
Delta Force
Banned
Horses and other animals played a vital role in both world wars. Units weren't even widely motorized until the second half of World War II, and didn't become heavily mechanized until the Cold War period.
I think that the posters supporting the ACW have very good points. For many aspects, the Crimean War qualifies, but it was a much shorter and more limited conflict where many "modern warfare" (maybe "industrial warfare" would be a better wording?) features didn'y display fully.
I would argue that the sheer intensity of the ACW compared to anything you would see in Europe in the same timeframe is quite a good indicator.
In a stricter sense of the notion of "modern warfare" though, maybe the Russo-Japanese war would be a serious contender.
I would argue that the sheer intensity of the ACW compared to anything you would see in Europe in the same timeframe is quite a good indicator.
In a stricter sense of the notion of "modern warfare" though, maybe the Russo-Japanese war would be a serious contender.
Hence my argument for the Napoleonic Wars. When you consider the technology used to fight them in comparison to their sheer scope, and the very shadow that they cast over the 19th Century, it seems clear to me that they are definitely a watershed moment in the history of warfare.
Delta Force
Banned
Naval combat hadn't really become what it would in World War I and later though. The Russo-Japanese War had torpedo boats as the primary means of torpedo attack, not submarines. It also saw the last surrender of ships to an enemy, while in later wars ships would either sink, scuttle, or be destroyed. Commerce attacks still used the old cruiser rules too, whereas in World War I and later conflicts the attack without warning doctrine was at least occasionally used.