Random History Discussion

[calvegas04]

Saw this fun post on Twitter today and the comments are on fire. Curious what you all think about either the US (Union) and the Confederate military if they went up against the top European countries of the same time.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Why would Japan or Germany not count?

As for the claim about the Confederate army rolling any contemporary European army, it's debatable. They had the best set of generals in the world in the early 1860s and their soldiers were as skilled and motivated as any, but their logistics were awful. They could probably roll any contemporary European army in a single battle, but not a protracted war.

 

[GowerND11]

Why would Japan or Germany not count?

As for the claim about the Confederate army rolling any contemporary European army, it's debatable. They had the best set of generals in the world in the early 1860s and their soldiers were as skilled and motivated as any, but their logistics were awful. They could probably roll any contemporary European army in a single battle, but not a protracted war.

Japan's zenith, I'd argue was prior to Pearl Harbor. The whole reason Pearl Harbor happened was as an extreme risk due to understanding they did not have the bandwidth to match the USA, which they knew was getting close to being involved. The US embargoed Japan. They couldn't get oil from us, which was desperately needed. We froze assets here in the US. Japan couldn't keep fighting on a large scale, long enough to beat us.

Germany, in both World Wars was fighting a MASSIVE two front war. Hell, you could argue a three front war in WWI due to the ineptitudes of Austria-Hungary and, to a lesser extent (in terms of mattering to Germany) the Ottomans. I'd also argue that the German army in WWI was superior to that of WWII, and was possible the greatest, or at least top 3 greatest of modern times. Germany in WWII was never fought by the US in full strength. Obviously, the US was fighting on two fronts as well, but German strength was absolutely more so in the Eastern Front, than the Western Front.

 

[calvegas04]

Why would Japan or Germany not count?

As for the claim about the Confederate army rolling any contemporary European army, it's debatable. They had the best set of generals in the world in the early 1860s and their soldiers were as skilled and motivated as any, but their logistics were awful. They could probably roll any contemporary European army in a single battle, but not a protracted war.

The south had some great generals, hard to say they were the best in the world or not. I'm not super familiar with European conflicts in the 1800s if they didn't involve the US or the Zulu.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

 

[phillyirish]

By the 1860s neither the US, nor major European powers were capable of projecting enough power across the Atlantic to be able to defeat each-other on foreign soil. There was just no capacity to be able to sustain a force of 200k across logistics like that. So a victory on foreign soil was out of the question for either side.

As far as the militaries go, both the North and South were primarily using muzzle loaded rifled muskets. The field armies of Europe had already adapted to bolt action firearms that provide a much higher rate of fire. In addition, breech loaded artillery was starting to be introduced, first to the Austrians in the mid 1860s, then followed by the Prussians. The North/South/Combined United States army would be severely outgunned, and even outmanned. Gettysburg was the largest battle of the Civil War, with about 175,000 troops total (both sides combined), where as the Prussians were easily able to concentrate 200k troops against Austrians, and later the French in single engagements.

As far as the "best generals in the world at the time", that's just straight Southern Pride. I think modern narrative is that both sides suffered from poor leadership throughout the Civil War, with the Northern Generals being on par or even better then the South, and neither could compare to Von Moltke's revolutionary changing General staff of the Prussians at the time. And before you try to counter this with the Southern Cult of Lee, the man fought pyrrhic victory after pyrrhic victory. He averaged a 20.2% casualty rate for battles in his career, whilst inflicting only 15.4. That is an awful strategy for a side that is already at a heavy manpower disadvantage.

 

[GowerND11]

By the 1860s neither the US, nor major European powers were capable of projecting enough power across the Atlantic to be able to defeat each-other on foreign soil. There was just no capacity to be able to sustain a force of 200k across logistics like that. So a victory on foreign soil was out of the question for either side.

As far as the militaries go, both the North and South were primarily using muzzle loaded rifled muskets. The field armies of Europe had already adapted to bolt action firearms that provide a much higher rate of fire. In addition, breech loaded artillery was starting to be introduced, first to the Austrians in the mid 1860s, then followed by the Prussians. The North/South/Combined United States army would be severely outgunned, and even outmanned. Gettysburg was the largest battle of the Civil War, with about 175,000 troops total (both sides combined), where as the Prussians were easily able to concentrate 200k troops against Austrians, and later the French in single engagements.

As far as the "best generals in the world at the time", that's just straight Southern Pride. I think modern narrative is that both sides suffered from poor leadership throughout the Civil War, with the Northern Generals being on par or even better then the South, and neither could compare to Von Moltke's revolutionary changing General staff of the Prussians at the time. And before you try to counter this with the Southern Cult of Lee, the man fought pyrrhic victory after pyrrhic victory. He averaged a 20.2% casualty rate for battles in his career, whilst inflicting only 15.4. That is an awful strategy for a side that is already at a heavy manpower disadvantage.

I completely agree with all of this.

Also, nevermind the fact that, while the South won May battles early on, they were not knocking the Union out of the war anytime soon, especially from a military strength standpoint. It was all a matter of time until the Union’s superior forces, production, navy, and competent Generals (Grant and Sherman for example) overwhelmed the South.

 

[BleedingGold]

From past conversations I expected this to just be a southern bashing jaunt. I’m glad to see it’s been an attempt to truly examine the situation.

I agree:
The South lacked the manpower to be a formidable opponent for a sizable country state of Europe. Especially one they’d have to wage war on away from their supply lines.

The US, in whole, was yet to be an advanced military development force in the world, Technology certainly moved ahead greatly over the course of the war, but much of the equipment and tactics were quickly becoming obsolete.

Both sides had some stellar leaders and worthless leaders. It’s important to not only look at statistics to judge that, but utilization of available resources. I’d argue even Grant’s approach was unique to the advantages he had and wouldn’t be acceptable against an equally manned army.

In the end this is purely a hypothetical, but in a defensive war the Europeans would likely not have been able to over run the South without the aid of a continuous border and the South’s best chance would have been similar to the actual war, a 24 to 36 month engagement.

 

[GowerND11]

From past conversations I expected this to just be a southern bashing jaunt. I’m glad to see it’s been an attempt to truly examine the situation.

I agree:
The South lacked the manpower to be a formidable opponent for a sizable country state of Europe. Especially one they’d have to wage war on away from their supply lines.

The US, in whole, was yet to be an advanced military development force in the world, Technology certainly moved ahead greatly over the course of the war, but much of the equipment and tactics were quickly becoming obsolete.

Both sides had some stellar leaders and worthless leaders. It’s important to not only look at statistics to judge that, but utilization of available resources. I’d argue even Grant’s approach was unique to the advantages he had and wouldn’t be acceptable against an equally manned army.

In the end this is purely a hypothetical, but in a defensive war the Europeans would likely not have been able to over run the South without the aid of a continuous border and the South’s best chance would have been similar to the actual war, a 24 to 36 month engagement.

Don’t get me wrong, I love a good bashing of the South and their cause, but yeah.

 

[BleedingGold]

Don’t get me wrong, I love a good bashing of the South and their cause, but yeah.

I didn’t even mention the fact that most likely the South would find themselves better supported in the scenario.

A strong support for the South in southern Illinois, southern Indiana, Missouri, Maryland, Tennessee, and Kentucky would have turned from a drip to a flood as the retribution for doing so was no longer a threat.

And before anyone says Tennessee was a confederate state, large pockets, like Knoxville were damn near forced into military control to keep them from aiding the northern aggressors (giggles).

 

[rtrn2glory]

This might literally be the first non-football related topic that I can be interested in reading LOL

 

[Irish#1]

While I have no connection to the south, I think Lee is one of the great military generals of all time. He recognized early on the disadvantages he was facing along with the ineptitude of the northern generals and did a remarkable job of keeping the war going as long as he could. It wasn't until Lincoln turned the job over to Grant that the tide turned. Grant wasn't afraid to fail and had no political ambitions like many of the northern generals who were afraid losing a battle would hurt their political career. Unlike his numerous predecessors, Grant knew he had superior forces/supplies and used them to his advantage. At that point Lee knew the end was near. I've always felt that if Lee had led the Union army, the Civil War would have been over much sooner.

I still find it ironic that McLean moved his family after the first Battle of Bull Run/Manassas was fought on his land to avoid the war only to have Lee surrender in McLeans house in Appomattox.

Comparing NFL teams from the 70's to todays teams is almost impossible. I think the same could be said for comparing European armies. European armies may have had larger armies and better equipment, but don't forget what that guy named George did to what was at the time considered to be the greatest army in the world.

 

[GowerND11]

While I have no connection to the south, I think Lee is one of the great military generals of all time. He recognized early on the disadvantages he was facing along with the ineptitude of the northern generals and did a remarkable job of keeping the war going as long as he could. It wasn't until Lincoln turned the job over to Grant that the tide turned. Grant wasn't afraid to fail and had no political ambitions like many of the northern generals who were afraid losing a battle would hurt their political career. Unlike his numerous predecessors, Grant knew he had superior forces/supplies and used them to his advantage. At that point Lee knew the end was near. I've always felt that if Lee had led the Union army, the Civil War would have been over much sooner.

I still find it ironic that McLean moved his family after the first Battle of Bull Run/Manassas was fought on his land to avoid the war only to have Lee surrender in McLeans house in Appomattox.

Comparing NFL teams from the 70's to todays teams is almost impossible. I think the same could be said for comparing European armies. European armies may have had larger armies and better equipment, but don't forget what that guy named George did to what was at the time considered to be the greatest army in the world.

Granted that guy named George won after securing alliances with France, Spain, and the Dutch. Also, he won similarly (but not mirrored) to how the wars of the last 50 years have been “won” by the opponents of the US. The British never fully committed to the war.

But I do get your point.

 

[phillyirish]

“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined….. with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.” - Abraham Lincoln in his address to the assembly at Lyceum, 1838.

I think this holds true, and even just looking at the South isolated alone, would be able to successfully defend itself from any European invasion. The size alone would be overwhelming, the CSA was larger than all of Western Europe combined (modern day Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Italy). There was no capacity to even occupy a portion of that.

The problem with leadership in this era is, and this isn’t just a Civil war issue, but also the European wars of the time like the Italian unification wars and the Crimea war, was that every General tried to emulate Napoleon. All the tactics remained the same, in an attempt to win a spectacular tactical victory. But there’s a huge flaw in this for two reasons: 1. Advances in weaponry, almost all weapons, muskets included, were rifled by this time greatly increasing their range and accuracy. This lead to far more casualties as the lines lined up, and made bayonet charges near suicidal as the effective firing ranges went up from 80 yards to 500.
2. As seen by the later years of Napoleon’s career, as battle sizes swelled, it became apparently difficult effectively manage such huge mass of men over massive battle fields. Battles went from a few dozen thousand over a few miles, to hundreds of thousands across dozens of miles. There was just no way for one man to effectively communicate across his lines, by the time orders reach the far side flanks, the situation could have changed drastically.

As a result, casualties skyrocketed for both sides in these engagements, and clear definitive victories became increasingly rare.

 

[calvegas04]

Also interested in the use of trenches towards the end of the CW. That has to be the first wide use of trenches in any war right?

 

[Bishop2b5]

Also interested in the use of trenches towards the end of the CW. That has to be the first wide use of trenches in any war right?

Actually, rather common, though not exactly like their use in the CW or WWI of course. I had to Google this to learn, but...

Trench warfare and the use of defensive ditches were common in antiquity and throughout history before the 1800s, serving as key tactical tools in sieges and field fortifications. While not identical to the extensive, static, machine-gun-heavy systems of World War I, trenches were used for protection against ranged weapons (arrows, early cannons) and to secure positions.
Key examples before the 1800s include:

• Antiquity: The Romans frequently dug entrenched camps nightly when on the move, and, for example, Julius Caesar used trenches surrounding fortifications. The 413 BC Siege of Syracuse involved digging trenches.
• Early Middle Ages: The Battle of the Trench (627 AD) involved digging a trench to defend Medina.
• 17th Century: Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban, a French engineer, formalized the use of "sapping" and siege trenches (or "zig-zagging" trenches) to allow attackers to approach fortress walls.
• Pre-1800s Defensive Tactics: Trenches were used during the Piedmontese Civil War (1640) and to strengthen positions in the American Civil War.

While used for thousands of years, these trenches were generally used to either protect a temporary camp, defend a fortress, or approach a fortress in a siege rather than forming hundreds of miles of static, permanent, and continuous front lines as seen in WWI.

 

[jpachuta33]

Why would Japan or Germany not count?

As for the claim about the Confederate army rolling any contemporary European army, it's debatable. They had the best set of generals in the world in the early 1860s and their soldiers were as skilled and motivated as any, but their logistics were awful. They could probably roll any contemporary European army in a single battle, but not a protracted war.

Did someone say, Germans?

 

[thekid33]

I don't think the South was industrialized enough to have been able to defeat any of the major European armies. It would have essentially been the same scenario as them fighting against the Union. The Confederate generals (especially while Jackson was alive) would have given them a tactical edge in single battle (or even a short war). But, as long as the opponent could prolong the war long enough the South would have begun to suffer due not being able to produce as many weapons/ammo (and the inferior nature of those products as the war went on). Not to mention they would have had a manpower issue.

I like the idea behind this thread though! I'd love to see it get momentum as a place to discuss history and history what if scenarios.

 

[Irish#1]

Granted that guy named George won after securing alliances with France, Spain, and the Dutch. Also, he won similarly (but not mirrored) to how the wars of the last 50 years have been “won” by the opponents of the US. The British never fully committed to the war.

But I do get your point.

No they didn't. They underestimated Washington and the commitment of the people. If they had committed, it would probably had been similar to when Grant took over.

 

[calvegas04]

Actually, rather common, though not exactly like their use in the CW or WWI of course. I had to Google this to learn, but...

Trench warfare and the use of defensive ditches were common in antiquity and throughout history before the 1800s, serving as key tactical tools in sieges and field fortifications. While not identical to the extensive, static, machine-gun-heavy systems of World War I, trenches were used for protection against ranged weapons (arrows, early cannons) and to secure positions.
Key examples before the 1800s include:

• Antiquity: The Romans frequently dug entrenched camps nightly when on the move, and, for example, Julius Caesar used trenches surrounding fortifications. The 413 BC Siege of Syracuse involved digging trenches.
• Early Middle Ages: The Battle of the Trench (627 AD) involved digging a trench to defend Medina.
• 17th Century: Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban, a French engineer, formalized the use of "sapping" and siege trenches (or "zig-zagging" trenches) to allow attackers to approach fortress walls.
• Pre-1800s Defensive Tactics: Trenches were used during the Piedmontese Civil War (1640) and to strengthen positions in the American Civil War.

While used for thousands of years, these trenches were generally used to either protect a temporary camp, defend a fortress, or approach a fortress in a siege rather than forming hundreds of miles of static, permanent, and continuous front lines as seen in WWI.

I know they were used in history by the Roman's and such, even in the movies Gladiator and The Eagle you can see them used.

It seems like the end of the CW set up the battlefield for WW1 strategy

 

[NorthDakota]

Not sure on how people would about for logistics and all that. But Google AI (lol) is telling me that at the time the South surrendered, the Union Army was at its peak manpower. About a million men. Not sure how many could be put into the field or whatever but that's a lot of dudes.

Guessing by the end they were pretty good. Four years of lessons to draw from.

 

[jerseyborn1971]

"Historians" that don't even realize the US wasn't a military power at the beginning of WWII. We had to essentially build it on the go. Not counting Japan? WTF? Does Germany not count? Jeez, they had taken most of Europe. Had they not peaked yet?

 

[dublinirish]

 

[MPClinton22]

 

[Irish#1]

"Historians" that don't even realize the US wasn't a military power at the beginning of WWII. We had to essentially build it on the go. Not counting Japan? WTF? Does Germany not count? Jeez, they had taken most of Europe. Had they not peaked yet?

I don't think many people today actually realize or appreciate what it took to get there so quickly. The commitment of the civilian population is unparalleled. Ladies working in the factories, factories running 24/7/365, households donating pots, pans, bikes, pretty much any metal they could spare, families rationing their food so we could feed the troops. The collective effort that was made by this country is mindboggling.

 

[GowerND11]

"Historians" that don't even realize the US wasn't a military power at the beginning of WWII. We had to essentially build it on the go. Not counting Japan? WTF? Does Germany not count? Jeez, they had taken most of Europe. Had they not peaked yet?

See my post above. They can definitely not count for many reasons.

And of course we hadn’t peaked prior to WWII, we weren’t run by a military industrial complex. The US military was dismantled after WWI because the government did not believe in having a large standing military because they actually had some principles.

 

[Katzenboyer]

Nothing to add here except that the South weren't beating the Prussians or French armies at that time. Not a chance.

 

[thekid33]

I don't think many people today actually realize or appreciate what it took to get there so quickly. The commitment of the civilian population is unparalleled. Ladies working in the factories, factories running 24/7/365, households donating pots, pans, bikes, pretty much any metal they could spare, families rationing their food so we could feed the troops. The collective effort that was made by this country is mindboggling.

We are so divided today that I don't know that we could ever achieve that again. I'd like to think we could, but I have doubts.

Also, what if I told you that the failure to properly humble and punish the South after the Civil War led directly to the hyper-aggressive SEC elitist attitude we see today? Thank you for attending my TED Talk.

 

[jerseyborn1971]

We are so divided today that I don't know that we could ever achieve that again. I'd like to think we could, but I have doubts.

Also, what if I told you that the failure to properly humble and punish the South after the Civil War led directly to the hyper-aggressive SEC elitist attitude we see today? Thank you for attending my TED Talk.

We could do it today. Corporations would find a way not only to do it, but at record breaking profits. They'd tank other industries to get people laid off so they could use them for cheap labor.

 

[thekid33]

We could do it today. Corporations would find a way not only to do it, but at record breaking profits. They'd tank other industries to get people laid off so they could use them for cheap labor.

Probably accurate.