Evaluate Articel Modern War Essay

Phillip Gervase is a Principal Lecturer in History at Manchester Metropolitan University. He authored The Anglo-Scots struggles 1513 1550. (33) In his article, Was the Ameri shadow cultivated state of war the first gear Modern War?, he refutes the commonly held belief that the American obliging War was the first modern struggle. After the Second earth War, umpteen military historians concluded that the Confederacys crushing defeat at the hands of the Union foretold the future of war. Phillips argues that the civilian war was more worry the wars of the 19th century than those that followed it. By the beginning of the war, the extend could be blast as rapidly as a musket. Many historians have apply this observation to prove that the rifle reassignd the way battles were fought.Artillery was now step up ranged by infantry fire forcing gun crews to search for cover in the field. (29) This subscriber line for the rifle is dismissed by Phillips when he cites the research o f paddy Griffith and Brent Nosworthy. These historians conclude that the rifle did not make an important change in war methodology since many battle were fought at the pixilated range of previous musket battles. The entrenched fighting style, which many have compared to World War I, was also discussed as not cosmos an earmark of a modern war. Phillips notes that in 1815 Andrew Jackson defended New Orleans with this method.The technique was taught at West Point Military Academy where both Union and attendant Generals were educated. Phillips contends that the generals would use this technique to give their mostly volunteer force a sense of security on the battle field. (30)The fact that the horse was relied on more than the train is another draw back to the conclusion that this was a modern war. When Phillips compares the American Civil War to the Crimean War, the American Civil War lacks innovation. The real change from previous wars is in the apparent adoption of a new ism of c onflict the total war.(28) The American Civil War, Phillips decides , can be considered a total war because of the major changes in American society caused by its return. The first leg of his argument is that the technological advances of the old age did not have a significant impact on the American Civil War. He begins with a sermon of the rifle. He points out that the rifle could be loaded and fired more much than the musket and the rifle bevy men out of the formation style fighting and into trenches. He galvanic pile plays this change in battlefield behavior by pointing out that the firefights were often at close range and the American soldiers were unlikely to take openhearted to the rigid, coercive discipline that underpinned the close order tactics of European conscripts.(29)He uses the example of the second battle of Bull Run, where the opposing forces came within 20 meters of each other, to substantiate this fact. When he notes that the soldiers of this war were differe nt from past conflicts in that they were mostly volunteers, he dismisses the importance of this new battle technique. Yet the discussion of these elements shows that the American Civil War was fought in a different look from previous wars. Phillips briefly acknowledges the use of the railroad for moving troops during the American Civil War, solely points out that horses were more important. Again surmising that this makes the American Civil War less of a modern war. He then goes on to mention the ironclads, the Virginia and the Monitor. Since neither was a great warship, they couldnt go off the beaten track(predicate) from the coast, Phillips asserts they didnt revolutionize naval combat. Next, he mentions the submarine C.S.S. Hunley which, even though it sunk an enemy ship, is deemed an unimportant technological advance.Finally, he mentions the use of a single machine gun used to guard a fortress in Charleston. Phillips dismiss the notion of the American Civil War being the firs t modern war because the use of these advances pales in comparison to those of the Crimean War. Phillips contends that the American Civil War is not a modern war at all. Although it may be true that the American Civil War was not known for its use of these technological innovations, they did exist, they were used, and they did have an impact on the outcome of the war. The fact that U.S. Navy went on to improve armored ships and submarines shows that the vessels used during the American Civil War were thought to be important and useful. The second one-half of the article labels the American Civil War a arrive War. A total war is an unrestrained form of conflict . and the enemys frugal resources are targeted as readily as the military ones. (28) The argument is based on the Unions war strategy. The Union shifted its submersion from the defeat of the rebel armies to the annihilation of the economic resources supporting the Southern war effort. President Lincoln demanded the uncondit ional surrender of the Southern forces. Union Generals concord and Sherman threatened to slay Southern obligingians. General Shermans infamous exhibit to the sea cut a sixty mile wide alley of destruction through the South. However, Phillips weakens his argument by cataloging ways in which the American Civil War was not quite a total war. He writes that enemies have always tried to cause each other economic hardships. President Lincolns demand for surrender was not as unconditional as presumed. The article makes the case that Lincoln was willing to carry off nearly every issue except the continuation of the nation as a union. The strangest argument he makes is that the American Civil War was more cruel than other contemporary wars, but it is not as cruel when it is compared with later wars. Phillips cites Arthur Marwicks idea that a total war acts as an agent of social change which the American Civil War decidedly was. It enlarged the federal government allowing it to create national income tax, institute the draft, watch the economy and suppress civil liberties.(33) Many 20th century historians considered the American Civil War to be the first modern war. Phillips disagrees and argues that the Civil War was not a modern war. He admits that it foreshadowed future war methods but he maintains that it did not make use of technological advances. Phillips writes that the debate whether the civil war is modern should focus on the technology of the period and the philosophy of the war.The technology was not as significant to the outcome of the war. The philosophy of Total War changed the way the war was fought. He states that the rifle, the railroad and the naval achievements of the time were ineffectual in changing the outcome of the war. Although he concedes that labeling of the American Civil War as a Total War is a find out from past conflicts.