Random History Discussion

[Dizzyphil]

I think it was a little of both, but I’m guessing he said that because the job market doesn’t have a demand for history majors.

Of course if his intention is to teach that’s a different story.

Regardless, it’s good to have someone with his background to go to.

He's currently teaching - yes....

Goal is to be Executive Museum Director here in Nashville.

 

[calvegas04]

He's currently teaching - yes....

Goal is to be Executive Museum Director here in Nashville.

Booorrring.....





Think he could get me and my family in when we visit?

 

[NDVirginia19]

I went into my undergrad with the position that my major didn't really matter much and to study whatever I wanted, since I was going into the Navy and that experience would matter much more, but I do kick myself sometimes for not majoring in Engineering and doing Poly Sci instead.

 

[burmafrd1944]

what was the size of the Prussian army in 1862 and how was it armed?
but going to 1870 just shows what a total tool you are

 

[burmafrd1944]

The Prussians sent observers to watch the Union Army; and they patterned their logistics system on it. Moltke admitted it.
what the Union army did that had not been done before was keep large armies in the field well supplied and reinforced for long campaigns using railroads
The Prussians were rebuilding and reworking their military all through the 1860's and it reached its peak in the Franco German war of 1870 when they pretty much rolled the French.

 

[BilboBaggins]

The Prussians sent observers to watch the Union Army; and they patterned their logistics system on it. Moltke admitted it.
what the Union army did that had not been done before was keep large armies in the field well supplied and reinforced for long campaigns using railroads
The Prussians were rebuilding and reworking their military all through the 1860's and it reached its peak in the Franco German war of 1870 when they pretty much rolled the French.

My understanding is that Moltke also thought the Union/Confederate armies were basically just armed mobs. In his view, their tactics were outdated, the men were woefully untrained, and the armies were incomplete and incapable of delivering a knock out blow like a European army of its day.

I think he was generally correct.

You often see Springfields listed as being able to hit a man at 600 yards. Yeah, if the soldier knew what they were doing. Most Civil War engagements were at 90-100 yards.

The lack of heavy cavalry is pretty understated. When an opponent broke and ran, there was no ability to inflict horrific damage and destroy the army. They were fleeing away at the same speed the marching army could move. They could typically regroup and fight another day.

The end result is armies that didnt know how to use their rifles, fought like they had Napoleonic weapons, and were basically armed mobs bruising each other over and over again.

 

[BilboBaggins]

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?

I mean the Crimean War was just a few years before the Civil War. A group of American generals tried to go over and be observers, and failed to make it in time. McClellan was one of them IIRC.

 

[BilboBaggins]

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.

I dont think the Union armies, Sherman's or Grant's, would stand much of a chance against a French or Prussian army if all other factors were equal. That of course means you plopped both armies in a 100x100 mile hypothetical battlefield.

 

[BilboBaggins]

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.

I dont agree with this. The North still had to bring the fight to the enemy. That takes political will. I am more of a western theater nerd, but the South successfully dragged the war on for years despite not winning many battles.

1861: war starts, Union recruits an army
1862: Shiloh is nearly a disaster for the Union. Union takes its time moving to Corinth. CSA invades Kentucky and stalls progress.
1863: Union sits on its thumb, then excels in Tennessee and *narrowly* avoids complete defeat at Chickamauga.
1864: CSA has decent success limiting Sherman's gains until Hood is placed in command and spends his men like the fool that he was.

The first instances that I think genuinely could have ended the war was Chickamauga/Chattanooga. If Gen Thomas isnt a badass motherfucker, the Confederates could have annihilated the union armies in retreat and taken Chattanooga. If the Union lose 50,000 men as POWs... im not sure there isn't a widespread revolt calling for peace. Is there enough political will to rebuild a fighting force and retake Chattanooga (and then Atlanta)? Im not sure there is.

The second is in 1864, everyone and their brother knows the Union has to have a breakthrough to secure the election (and the war). In August, Lincoln has meetings with Frederick Douglas asking him to immediately form an organization using his abolitionist contacts to go into the South and remove as many freed slaves as they possibly can, because after November's loss there wont be much he can do. That's how convinced Lincoln was that he would lose. The final retreat out of Atlanta changed history. If the Confederates stuck with Johnston, they may have held out 8 more weeks. Hood was an aggressive idiot and was not the man for the job.

 

[BilboBaggins]

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.

This is a Civil War myth. The armies were largely untrained on using their rifles at distance. While there were sharpshooter units, the general infantry was not effective at anywhere near 500 yards. Most Civil War engagements were at less than 100 yards.

This guy's channel is exceptional:

 

[Dizzyphil]

This is a Civil War myth. The armies were largely untrained on using their rifles at distance. While there were sharpshooter units, the general infantry was not effective at anywhere near 500 yards. Most Civil War engagements were at less than 100 yards.

This guy's channel is exceptional:

Try 200 yards - at best... the barrels of the guns were smooth bore and the black powder used was mediocre at best. I'm not 'banging' on your post - just facts. Snipers had the Wetworth? (sic) ... can't remember the name........... and they were good for over 500 yards. But the snipers had the best black powder and their ammo was custom made to be 'true-shot'..

 

[burmafrd1944]

My understanding is that Moltke also thought the Union/Confederate armies were basically just armed mobs. In his view, their tactics were outdated, the men were woefully untrained, and the armies were incomplete and incapable of delivering a knock out blow like a European army of its day.

I think he was generally correct.

You often see Springfields listed as being able to hit a man at 600 yards. Yeah, if the soldier knew what they were doing. Most Civil War engagements were at 90-100 yards.

The lack of heavy cavalry is pretty understated. When an opponent broke and ran, there was no ability to inflict horrific damage and destroy the army. They were fleeing away at the same speed the marching army could move. They could typically regroup and fight another day.

The end result is armies that didnt know how to use their rifles, fought like they had Napoleonic weapons, and were basically armed mobs bruising each other over and over again.

wow armed mobs
Funny how no one else said that
Not the British or French or Austro-Hungarian observers

 

[burmafrd1944]

Try 200 yards - at best... the barrels of the guns were smooth bore and the black powder used was mediocre at best. I'm not 'banging' on your post - just facts. Snipers had the Wetworth? (sic) ... can't remember the name........... and they were good for over 500 yards. But the snipers had the best black powder and their ammo was custom made to be 'true-shot'..

There were virtually NO smoothbores in the civil
Smoothbores were gone by the mexican war
1861 Springfield was rifled
You are such a fool

 

[burmafrd1944]

You might want to check what range the battles were in Europe during that same time frame

Now as regards training, the Prussians did take that to extremes. That was noticed in the Revolutionary war
The British thought they were doing it too much

 

[burmafrd1944]

Tell me how armed mobs made the charges at Fredricksburg and Gettysburg
Would really like to hear that

 

[BilboBaggins]

There were virtually NO smoothbores in the civil
Smoothbores were gone by the mexican war
1861 Springfield was rifled
You are such a fool

At the start of the war, both sides were grabbing any weapon they could get their hands on. You don't just manufacture a million 1861 Springfield rifles overnight. There were definitely smoothbore muskets used in the Civil War.

 

[BilboBaggins]

wow armed mobs
Funny how no one else said that
Not the British or French or Austro-Hungarian observers

Plenty of European observers recognized the amateur aspect of the Union and Confederate armies. They were essentially militias, numbering over a million, and had very little marksmanship training. This is just a fact. The English guy depicted in Gettysburg, a real person, wrote about this.

I study the 14th and 100th Ohio, for example. Both of these regiments were largely a bunch of volunteer farmers handed guns and put on a train the next day to be bodies plugging holes in Kentucky. Only after their arrival did they drill on movements... and no target practice.

Whether they were called a mob or a militia depends on how much of an ass someone is. It's not even confirmed that Moltke said it, his view were probably in line with the other Europeans (that the American armies lacked the capabilities of the professional European armies).

 

[BilboBaggins]

Tell me how armed mobs made the charges at Fredricksburg and Gettysburg
Would really like to hear that

I'm more familiar with Gettysburg so I'll comment on that. The use of direct frontal assaults was one of the most common European criticisms of American tactics. The fact that Lee ordered and followed through with Pickett's Charge would probably *support* the European view that Americans were amateurs, i.e. armed mobs.

 

[Punky]

I'm more familiar with Gettysburg so I'll comment on that. The use of direct frontal assaults was one of the most common European criticisms of American tactics. The fact that Lee ordered and followed through with Pickett's Charge would probably *support* the European view that Americans were amateurs, i.e. armed mobs.

And yet just 50 years later, you have Verdun and the Somme. Apparently the Europeans didn't learn much from their observations.........

 

[Bantry19]

The Prussians sent observers to watch the Union Army; and they patterned their logistics system on it. Moltke admitted it.
what the Union army did that had not been done before was keep large armies in the field well supplied and reinforced for long campaigns using railroads
The Prussians were rebuilding and reworking their military all through the 1860's and it reached its peak in the Franco German war of 1870 when they pretty much rolled the French.

The Crimean War and Grand Crimean Central Railway, built by the UK, predate the Civil War.

 

[BilboBaggins]

And yet just 50 years later, you have Verdun and the Somme. Apparently the Europeans didn't learn much from their observations.........

Trying to compared 1914-1918 with 1862-65? Seems a literal foolish. Honestly seems that you're defensive about the idea of USA not being #1 in the middle of the 19th century..

 

[Punky]

Trying to compared 1914-1918 with 1862-65? Seems a literal foolish. Honestly seems that you're defensive about the idea of USA not being #1 in the middle of the 19th century..

You response is absurd. How do you get that from my statement? Merely pointing out that the Europeans had an inflated sense of martial supremacy. Multiple European nations had observers witness Civil War battles and saw the effects of cannister and grape shot against massed formations, yet a generation later insisted that elan would carry the field against vastly superior artillery and the Maxim gun. And would continue the same tactics for 4 years. Not exactly cutting edge thought from the 'professional' European generals. The Union, and the US in both World Wars did what we always do, get caught unprepared, then throw our ingenuity and overwhelming industrial capacity into overdrive and out produce the opponent.

 

[Dizzyphil]

There were virtually NO smoothbores in the civil
Smoothbores were gone by the mexican war
1861 Springfield was rifled
You are such a fool

wow - name caller... history showed that although many of the newer rifles were used by the North did indeed have grooves and were more advanced, the South relied on a lot Militia (hence the TN Volunteers) that had older non-grooved rifles.

I don't mind being corrected or arguing... it's fun and you learn ...

But since you decided to call me a name instead of being civil...

Go eat a dick