Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After watching on Saturday night a great documentary by Ken Burns on the civil war and doing my own research I've come away with a question. I am aware that at the outset of the war there was some talk of the European powers intervening on behalf of one of the sides, this did not happen. My question is this, did the Civil War change how other powers perceived our military capacity. The way I look at the situation is this, if divided we could field several armies and mobilize so many men and produce such dynamic leaders then together I would think we would have already been considered a force to be reckoned with. After the war did the others powers think this way or were we still viewed as a young country still searching for a way to truly come together.
There could be a book on the subject but I'm not sure of it. There are over 40,000 Civil War Books. I believe all the major world powers had some interest in our civil war. Some were standing by to see who would win and some "just happen to be in the neighborhood" From what I have read the British were not impressed. They saw our military discipline to be lacking. Some confederate privates would threaten a duel with his superior officers rather than take orders. There was an international incident that almost started a war with Europe during the Civil war. James Horrock, an Englishman in the 8th USCI , said something that would bring disgrace upon an soldier in England was seen as a pretty smart thing to do in the Civil War.
After watching on Saturday night a great documentary by Ken Burns on the civil war and doing my own research I've come away with a question. I am aware that at the outset of the war there was some talk of the European powers intervening on behalf of one of the sides, this did not happen. My question is this, did the Civil War change how other powers perceived our military capacity. The way I look at the situation is this, if divided we could field several armies and mobilize so many men and produce such dynamic leaders then together I would think we would have already been considered a force to be reckoned with. After the war did the others powers think this way or were we still viewed as a young country still searching for a way to truly come together.
I think your last comment "young country still finding it's way" is more relevant to the viewpoint of most of Europe.
Now, Europe did observe the war closely in ways that go beyond it's interest to ensure the cotton trade would continue - they sent military observers (a british military observer was featured in the movie "Gettysburg") to learn the effects of modern weapons, particularly the rifle. But by and large, these observers, used to disciplined career troops and military leaders trained in state of the art napoleonic tactics, did not think too highly of these american yank civilians running around the battlefield. I forgot the quote, but one Prussian observer likened it to simply two armed mobs killing each other. Fielding large armies wasn't an issue - as European powers were able to conscript huge armies 50 years earlier in the napoleonic wars.
However, they must have learned something. As Europe was soon engaged in the Franco-Prussian war, and with that you saw the first use of small arm tactics (particularly on the Prussian side) - smaller squads used to manuaever and flank.
Formeost military thinker of the day, Helmut Moltke, referred to the U.S. Civil War as a conflict between "armed mobs" where nothing noteworthy could be learned.
U.K. dispatched military officers as observers. One,Garnet Wolseley, wrote similarly although he did mention the impressive elan of the Army of the Northern Virginia under Lee's command.
Continental european powers such as France and Germany would field armies that dwarfed the US/CSA effort in only a few years with the 1870 war. UK relied on naval and economic and naval power for influence not field army mobilization.
USA a rarity as a Republic among European monarchies. We were slighted as a bit uncouth by the Old World.
After the war did the others powers think this way or were we still viewed as a young country still searching for a way to truly come together.[/font]
I don't think that Europeans thought very much of the U.S. military up to and including WWII. As a military power in the 1860's without a significant navy and only the hint of a professional army I can't imagine any European power could have consider the U.S. a major military power.
If none of our great scholars come to the rescue and you are really interested in the topic, I found a book entitled "The American Civil War: An English View" written by Field Marshal Viscount Wolseley who was sent to Canada as a result of the Trent Affair who would later act as an observer with the Confederate Army. Wolseley is not to be confused with Sir Arthur Fremantle who was portrayed in the movie Gettysburg.
Unlike you I actually read about this topic. Garnet was a junior officer when serving as an observer. That is fact. Not a grandiose Field Marshal or Viscount as you implied.
I do not see the value in responding with Wikipedia.
Unlike you I actually read about this topic. Garnet was a junior officer when serving as an observer.
An astute reader would have noted that I didn't claim that "at the time" he was anything.
Quote:
I do not see the value in responding with Wikipedia.
Well it certainly has more value that responding with nothing in order to support an inane argument about the title and rank of book entitled "American Civil War: An English View: The Writings of Field Marshal Viscount Wolseley".
It is the correct and proper style to give the palmares earned by a personage at the time of publication. To reference Wolseley's rank at the time of service unnecessarily confuses the authorship or aid in the readers understanding of the authors credibility on the subject.
Yes, you did. In your second post with your Internet postings.
If you were truly familiar with the book rather than doing your usual Wikipedia trawl you would have noted he was a junior officer without the full range of knowledge of a senior staff officer befitting a Field Marshal.
I notice you post often without actually reading anything more than the Internet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
