Why did North America have the devastating ACW, and Europe no comparable thing?

Maoistic

Banned
If the US had armies trained & equipped on the Continental scale prior to the Civil War then, provided the troops remain loyal to the Union, the rebellion is probably crushed in a matter of weeks.
The South were not mere rebels, they were secessionists with a large territory bigger than Spain and Portugal combined and with their own organised military. You talk of the Confederates as if they were some kind of Communist anti-colonial guerrilla.
 
If the US had armies trained & equipped on the Continental scale prior to the Civil War then, provided the troops remain loyal to the Union, the rebellion is probably crushed in a matter of weeks.

Even if the army is split, most likely we'd see the war following the lines of most contemporary European conflicts, viz. both sides gather their forces as quickly as possible to attack the enemy, there are one or two big battles, the loser sues for peace. Maybe things would drag on for longer due to the higher stakes involved, but as the Franco-Prussian War showed, it was really difficult to build an army capable of matching a well-trained modern military on the fly.
 
The South were not mere rebels, they were secessionists with a large territory bigger than Spain and Portugal combined and with their own organised military. You talk of the Confederates as if they were some kind of Communist anti-colonial guerrilla.

Their organised military was a few thousand, if that, at the start of the war. If the Union had had a European-scale army to play with at the start of the war, they'd have taken Richmond before the Confederates could train enough men to oppose them.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Their organised military was a few thousand, if that, at the start of the war. If the Union had had a European-scale army to play with at the start of the war, they'd have taken Richmond before the Confederates could train enough men to oppose them.
The person I was originally answering who cited the "better warfare" argument was referring to better training and professionalism, not army sizes. Still, I think it's unjustified of characterising the Confederacy as some kind of small guerrilla even at the beginning.
 
The person I was originally answering who cited the "better warfare" argument was referring to better training and professionalism, not army sizes.

Both training and size made a difference. For example, if the forces at Bull Run had been trained to European standards, the Confederates would have been able to maintain their cohesion and push on to Washington with very little standing in their way. Alternatively, if the US army had been larger before the war, Lincoln could have used them as a training cadre, enabling him to raise battle-ready units more quickly than the Confederates could.

Still, I think it's unjustified of characterising the Confederacy as some kind of small guerrilla even at the beginning.

The pre-war US army was around 16,000 men, most of whom stayed with the Union. Nobody's said that the Confederacy was a small guerrilla movement, but they didn't have much in the way of an army, either.
 
The person I was originally answering who cited the "better warfare" argument was referring to better training and professionalism, not army sizes. Still, I think it's unjustified of characterising the Confederacy as some kind of small guerrilla even at the beginning.
They're essentially the same in this case; the small size of the prewar army directly results in the poor experience and professionalism of the ACW army, as there just aren't enough experienced officers and NCOs to pull from the prewar establishment.
 
Last edited:
Top