Bull Run to Boer War: How the American Civil War Changed the British Army

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
Bull Run to Boer War: How the American Civil War Changed the British Army
by Michael Somerville
Helion and Company (2019)

Author interview on Civil War Talk Radio: http://cdn.voiceamerica.com/voice/201034/prokopowicz052522.mp3 (warning: he's got a heavy accent)

It sounds like a pretty interesting book, especially because it includes a look at how many British Army officers were observers during the war (it wasn't just Freemantle) and also looks at the historiography with a reassessment of Liddell Hart and J.F.C. Fuller.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148

Somerville directly tackles the issue of author Jay Luvaas’ influence on the historiography of European interpretations of the American Civil War experience. The opening pages of Bull Run to Boer War address the American historian Jay Luvaas’ thesis that British military professionals initially expressed interest in military developments in the United States in the 1860s, but quickly switched focus to the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars that led to the establishment of modern Germany. Luvaas did note that one significant British military theorist, G.F.R. Henderson did study the civil war, and exert influence over a generation of British officers training at the Staff College in the late nineteenth century. Henderson’s efforts, Luvaas contended, while extensive gave too much weight to the operations of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in the eastern theater and thus did not cover organizational, doctrinal, or operational developments in a comprehensive manner. Moreover, student officers did not make a systematic study of Henderson’s work, but rather absorbed only enough to pass competitive examinations for Staff College matriculation
...
By analyzing Luvaas’ correspondence with Liddell Hart, Somerville determined that Liddell Hart greatly influenced Luvaas’ assumptions and research about how the British Army considered the Civil War, the conclusions drawn and the impact of those conclusions on British military thought. Somerville’s own research illustrates that British neither shunned study of the American Civil War nor misunderstood the lessons its lessons. Rather, they looked at the war in a broader context of the defense needs of Britain’s Imperial Empire, observations gleaned from the wars of continental European powers, and the rapidly evolving technological landscape of the late 19th century. Somerville paints a picture of a thoughtful, professional officer corps who viewed the Civil War with an eye to trying to discern trends that would influence the future of warfare. He concludes with the observation that British officers learned a great deal regarding the development of tactics, doctrine, and material from a study of the Civil War but missed the larger strategic concepts governing how to fight a large, prolonged land war. He attributes this lapse to 19th century Britain’s strategic position that focused on naval supremacy for home defense, short overseas expeditions to maintain the Imperial Empire and a focus on diplomacy to maintain the balance of power in Europe.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
It is sighted that this war...

It was a concern noted at the time in Britain, where politician John Bright described warfare as becoming “a mere mechanical mode of slaughtering your fellow-men.”https://militaryhistorynow.com/2020/02/23/lessons-from-the-u-s-civil-war-what-the-victorian-era-british-army-learned-by-observing-the-fighting-in-america/#_edn1 But the war that triggered this comment was the Franco-Austrian War in Italy (1859), not the American war. The military were very aware that the latest “weapons of precision” as the rifled artillery and muskets were termed, had the power to kill from much greater distances than before, and theorized on how this would change tactics. One of the main reasons that the British sent observers to the Civil War was to see the new technology in action.


During the war, Prussia had also mobilised 132,000 men in 1859 but never joined the fighting. The weaknesses laid bare during the mobilisation caused the Prussian Army to initiate military reforms,[9] which were the base for its superiority and rapid victories against Austria in 1866 and France in 1870-71, which led to a united Germany under Prussian dominance.[10]


Combining such technical innovations as railroads and rifled firearms with Napoleonic-era tactics, French Emperor Napoleon III's short but bloody bid for glory even left the French emperor sickened, but it laid the foundation for a united Italy--and the International Red Cross.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here a site that compares America civil war cavalry tactics with European cavalry tactics... WE had men and guns... @rittmeister it seems the Germans had issues... @diane it praises your Forrest...


Originally conforming to European cavalry traditions, the Americans soon realised that, owing to the vastness of the country and the diverse nature of the climate and terrain, it was impractical to continue to follow the style of cavalry tactics employed by European armies. Also, with the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, it soon became apparent that to train masses of recruits in the art of using the lance and sabre, while manoeuvring in squadron and regimental close packed ranks, would not be viable. The American cavalry commanders also saw that, with the introduction of the breech-loading rifle, all of these tactics would prove to be an exercise in pure madness, a lesson that the armies of Europe would take many more years to learn. [2]

 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,185
Reaction score
3,438
Here a site that compares America civil war cavalry tactics with European cavalry tactics... WE had men and guns... @rittmeister it seems the Germans had issues... @diane it praises your Forrest...


Originally conforming to European cavalry traditions, the Americans soon realised that, owing to the vastness of the country and the diverse nature of the climate and terrain, it was impractical to continue to follow the style of cavalry tactics employed by European armies. Also, with the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, it soon became apparent that to train masses of recruits in the art of using the lance and sabre, while manoeuvring in squadron and regimental close packed ranks, would not be viable. The American cavalry commanders also saw that, with the introduction of the breech-loading rifle, all of these tactics would prove to be an exercise in pure madness, a lesson that the armies of Europe would take many more years to learn. [2]

at first glace: yet another proponet of the first modern war but in my book it was the last napoleon style war

simple question: why would two old fashioned armies come up with modern cav tactics? how many breech loading rifles were in the field in let's say 1861? the two wars that brought breechloaders to the fore were 1866 (prussia vs austria) and 1870/71 (franco-prussian war). the latter showing that the better rifle (chassepot) is not all that relevant if the enemy has the way better artillery - after 1871 european cavalry tactics were obsolete, 90% of regiments should have been transferred to mounted infantry (jäger zu pferde). world war I cav attacks against machineguns were butchery plain and simple.

praising americans for modern cav tactics is an ex post view and a silly one as there simply was no reason to develop new tactics as stated. i will consede that fighting natives americans standard cav tactics make no sense at all. there are simply no infantry squares to be broken or artillery emplacements to be stormed - but they didn't have that many breech loading rifles either.
 
Top