150 yrs ago today, the Birth of Modern War and the End of Chivalry

a reply to: Asktheanimals

But see you are swinging back to a singular war to provide a single example of soldiers practicing restraint against their enemies, but again I bring up that the Civil War was a war unlike most before it where it was a nation of Americans fighting a nation that had splintered off of Americans. Everyone understood that win or lose, everyone involved were Americans. It makes sense that many didn't partake of the normal spoils of war that come along with victory. After all many Americans were fighting their own family members or friends.

a reply to: buddah6

The side of right is that which is defending their own homes, imo. I see no dishonor in anyone fighting to protect their own country. I believe had your son been fighting someone who had actually invaded the US he might feel differently. May I ask if he has feelings of guilt or what more precisely is the source of his PTSD? Forgive me if this is too intrusive a question but I think it has great bearing on what we're discussing here.

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: mikegrouchy
The elite exists and they use people and laws as their armor.
The Hollywood bank robbers portrayed in the movie Heat starring Val Kilmer didn't have armor protecting their heads. JFK was shot in the head.

Are we _sure_ that the West Hollywood Bank robbers didn't have head protection?


Mike Grouchy

Thanks for the thread, OP, this provides a lovely reason to jump on-board the ATS Train. I'm a resident of Central Virginia, and so I've grown up right in the heart of the War, so to speak.

I would certainly agree the American Civil War was a transitional war; I don't know if we can pin that transition to a single point, however. All the points mentioned before stand true (advances in weaponry and so on), but I do want to mention fortifications specifically. If you want to view the ACW as a war of transition, it's the natural in-between of Napoleonic tactics and the trenches of WW1.

The Battle of Shiloh was a near-disaster for the Union because no fortifications were dug to defend the Army of the Tennessee's encampment. The decision to fight the Battle of Antietam by Lee was nearly a suicidal action: even with the Army of Northern Virginia on the defensive, the Army of the Potomac had a 2-to-1 advantage, and had it a less cautious commander than McClellan the Confederate army might have been destroyed utterly.

Both of those battles were in 1862. By the next year, you had both Union and Confederate armies digging basic earthworks at Chancellorsville, making Lee's spectacular victory over Hooker more costly than needed.

In the 1864 Overland Campaign, the grand showdown between Lee and Grant, things had progressed even further. Lee's army no longer had the strength to make grand maneuvers like the previous two years, but his engineering background provided him an astonishing talent at defense (refer to the near-disaster at North Anna for a shining example).The earthworks at Cold Harbor are remarkable even today, and when you consider such things were not in use even two years before!

Attached are a few reference photos, taken by myself.

First, Confederate earthworks (Ewell's lines) taken at the Wilderness Battlefield.



The earthworks at Cold Harbor (less impressive in pictures, I'm afraid), with some signs for guidance.











The idea of chivalry as it relates to the ACW is a fascinating subject in itself, but I've worn myself out just typing this. If my post doesn't kill this thread (which I've been known to do), I've definitely got some things to say about Lee in regards to his sense of honor and chivalry.

For now, though, a simple image. On the Chancellorsville battlefield, a boulder was raised to mark the spot where "Stonewall" Jackson fell to friendly fire. A large obelisk-type monument was erected later. On the anniversary of his wounding, people will leave tokens to his memory upon the stone. This was the stone last year.



Whether this sentiment is misplaced or not, there are certainly those who would agree in the idea of antebellum chivalry.

a reply to: headingforthelight

Welcome to ATS headingforthelight! I live within a mile of earthworks erected to defend Lynchburg,VA. You have an obviously deep knowledge of the war that I'm sure will add much. I've been to those same works you took pictures of and even found a pile of bear droppings at Cold Harbor of all places. Cedar creek is about the only battlefield park in VA I have yet to visit. I lived in Richmond for 15 years and got to do some work and research in the Museum of the Confederacy. Harold Howard was also my high school history teacher so I got an excellent introduction to the war in school.

I find myself deeply troubled by the way both modern education and media portray the antebellum South and the causes precipitating the war. I don't mean to begin a discussion on that here but suffice to say back around '96 or so there was a big ruckus over simply hanging a portrait of Lee on the floodwall in downtown Richmond as part of larger display. To think they actually took it down due to political pressure was ludicrous. Why can we not simply examine history without having to impose today's standards on people who lived in a much different world?

Despite the overblown attitudes in movies like Gone with the Wind, chivalry and honor still had meaning to many who fought in the ACW. Indeed, it was a part of the Anglo-Saxon/Christian heritage that carried over.

I feel confident you have much to share and teach of that I have no doubt. Thanks for the reply and again we're glad you joined ATS!

Cheers,
ATA

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: buddah6

The side of right is that which is defending their own homes, imo. I see no dishonor in anyone fighting to protect their own country. I believe had your son been fighting someone who had actually invaded the US he might feel differently. May I ask if he has feelings of guilt or what more precisely is the source of his PTSD? Forgive me if this is too intrusive a question but I think it has great bearing on what we're discussing here.

His source of PTSD is being in two IED explosions where his battle buddy lost both legs and the other he was blown over a stone wall. I am absolutely sure you would have the same emotion if you were there. PTSD is the result of having to do and experience the horrors of war. He has no guilt associated with his service and he still stays in touch with his friends who he served with.

BTW, he was fighting people who supported and planned an attack on the US that killed 3000 Americans. Some times the place where you protect your home is not down on the corner but in a cesspool like Afghanistan.

My advise to him when he was considering service in the military was to get a skill that would be useful in the civilian world. He was wanting the adventure of being in the infantry and I was unable to change his mind. I had served two tours in Vietnam and I was hoping I could dissuade him from having my experience. If any one feels guilty it's me for failing him.

Coming out of my experience, I feel that no war is noble or honorable but it seems like no one listens. I guess it takes people having to experience shooting a man and watching his head explode for them to get my message. War is ugly and dirty. It's not who or where we fight it's that we do! It is too easy for these politicians to sent troops to fight. Maybe, if they had to sent their children in first or to go themselves they would be more responsible in waging war.

Thanks for the thread.
A good source of learning about the general population's reactions to the Civil War is to read journals and diaries of the time. Not just of military folk but also of ordinary people. Journals from the Shaker Village in southwestern Kentucky give insight to the daily reminders of the war even though Kentucky was "neutral" territory.
My husband's family have journals from family members living in Atlanta during that time.
My great-grandfather was at the battle of Shiloh and lived to come home and tell about it. He lost the use of one arm in the battle and was declared unfit for duty in June. He had no boots since his had disappeared when he was moved from one hospital to another so he wrapped his feet in rags and began walking north to Kentucky.
Another great-grandfather refused to vacate his farm on the Tennessee River when the Rebels wanted his bluff property for a fort to replace Fort Henry, an engineering failure doomed to flood. Three days after his refusal the family awoke in the middle of the night to find the house and all farm buildings on fire. They escaped the fire with only their nightclothes, the family Bible, and a couple of shotguns.

War is killing people... In the civil war, people lined up 25 yards apart and shot at each other with weapons that could kill at 600 yards. The tactics were from an age of muskets carried out with rifles.

It was bloody hell To me that sums up war.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

A little known fact.

50,000 British Volunteers fought in The American Civil War.

I don't think there were ever such a thing, some societies that were in close relations with each other may have had some cultural rule about how to conduct warfare,that's until someone changed the rules, the Mfecane in Southern Africa with the rise of the Zulu Empire of the 18th century is an example, introduction of new weapons will result in the same forcing opponents to take desperate measures or Asymmetrical warfare ,this was done by the revolutionary irregular troops who ducked and cover fighting native American style while the Brits marched calmly into cannon and musket fire, a lesson soon forgotten by the time the civil war broke out.
Rape and pillage was constant from ancient days till now, only made a war crime in a limited fashion today.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Asktheanimals

A little known fact.

50,000 British Volunteers fought in The American Civil War.

What motivated them to join in the fight? A misguided sense of adventure or political motivations like ending slavery?

a reply to: Asktheanimals
Your wrong chivalry never ended. Mostly because of one fact, it never really existed to begin with, it was all just fancyfull flufery, even in the age that supposedly gave its name, it was more akin to something you would see in an episode of game of thrones then anything else. Merely veneer and drapes.

So in essence nothing much has changed since then but the times and technology involved. You know how it goes, the more things change the more they stay the same.

The colonists pretty much won the revolution because they used guerilla warfare while the brits wore red and marched in straight lines. So I'm not so sure about this claim.
Also why did tactics change at the end of the war? Appomattox was for all intents and purposes the battle that ended the war.Lee surrendered shortly after at Appomatoc court house.
I'm sort of a civil war buff.
The civil war began in May of 1860 at Fort Sumpter in South Carolina with the famous shot heard around the world.
If we're really talking about the beginning of the war that was 155 years ago next month.


On further reading I see that you were referring to the ceremony of surrender.
The civil war also initiated the American custom of repairation. It was a more refined time.
Still the number of men and boys who died was a grave blow to the entire nation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is true. It led to a peculiar practice amongst the troops that in between battles the north played baseball against the south. Only Americans huh?

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Why do you say that? Manners determined what class you were from and were an extremely important part of culture and society. As far as what was in any ones heart how could you possibly know if what they felt and thought was genuine? I'm getting a weird vibe from what you wrote as if you think anyone exhibiting manners is a phoney. That's not true is it?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: mikegrouchy

At the beginning of the war they sold more than a few suits of body armor to soldiers joining the war but they quickly found it very heavy, very hot and not very effective. You are correct though, personal armor was going the way of the dinosaur by 1861. However, advances in technology have once again improved it to the point where nearly every cop wears it as do many men in infantry.

God bless the inventor of Kevlar.

a reply to: Kram09

I think what they are saying is that the colonists had fought from behind trees and rocks and dressed in drab colors to blend with the environment. This they had learned from nearly two hundred years of fighting with and observing the native americans.
The redcoats were easy to pick off in retrospect. George Carlin even made a joke about it.
The rules of engagement were our men wear brown and hide behind trees while your guys wear red and march in straight lines.

Breech loading and rifling along with the minie ball had some big role in change from Napoleanic era tactics. But you also had revolver pistols and the development of sealed brass cartridges allowing for use of repeating rifles like the Henry. Open formation tactics weren't any good anymore, trying to rush a position from a distance would only get you shot, thus soldiers ended up fighting from under cover of improvised barriers. Later on, this type of fighting is what developed into trench warfare in WWI. (However mechanized warfare broke those tactics in WWII, so battlefield strategy had to be rethought again vs. things like the Blitzkrieg.)

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Drifting OT a bit yes, the colonists did wear the British down using guerilla tactics learned from the Native Americans but nearly all the important battles were won using the tried and true tactics of massed infantry (King's Mountain being an outstanding exception).

The original intent of the thread was to highlight a moment of sublime respect for a vanquished foe. I cannot find anything in the annals of warfare that match that moment in grace and dignity which is why I thought it truly fit the transition to modern and impersonal warfare. Had not Grant offered the lenient terms of surrender he did there may have broken out another rebellion within a generation. His treatment of the ANV veterans set the tone for the re-uniting of a Nation. Sadly, many politicians and citizens were of a mind to further punish the South and the killing of Lincoln opened the floodgates of retribution.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I realized that too late and edited my post to acknowledge that.
There is still a lot of pomp and ritual in today's military. Every time a ship comes into port the sailors on board line the bulwark stern to bow. However you won't find a ceremony of surrender like that any more. The behaviour was born in the days of castles and kings.
America may be a melting pot but we still have deep British roots.
I like this kind of historic thread. Thanks for bringing it.