...“Wars and warfare changed very little in response to the Atlantic Revolutions and the Industrial Revolution” In response to the Atlantic Revolutions and the Industrial Revolution, wars and warfare have changed significantly. Each revolution changed not only how war and warfare was conducted but had a remarkable impact on the character of war itself. Both of the Atlantic Revolutions and the Industrial Revolutions shaped warfare by instigating the implementation of a sense of nationalism, advanced technology, and tactics. The Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, and the Crimean War are very good examples of how the Atlantic Revolutions and the Industrial revolutions influenced wars and warfare. Nationalism, an emerging movement, became increasingly noteworthy throughout the Napoleonic Wars, which was derived from the Atlantic Revolutions. The industrialization period prominently impacted on the American Civil War by bringing about vast improvements in technology and transportation, which deemed to have a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the time. Enhanced technology and the evolution from pre modern warfare tactics are evident in Russia’s defeat by the British in the Crimean War. This again shows a direct correlation on how each revolution had a significant impact on how warfare is conducted. Throughout the Napoleonic period there was an immense surge in the numbers that armies were yielding. The growth in armies is parallel to the sense...
Words: 1562 - Pages: 7
...TACTICS AND STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS IN WAR. The American civil war was one of the toughest and deadliest wars in American history. This was where the Confederate States of America fought for their independence. It took place from 1861 when the war broke out till April 9th 1865 when confederate commander Robert E. Lee surrendered at the McLean House in the village of Appomattox Court House. It was one of the earliest true industrial wars. Industrial knowledge was used to produce weapons in mass-production. Steamships and railroads were used to supply troops and the telegraph which was relatively new was used in communication. Practices of total war were being used in the civil war. This shows that this was a tough war that needed the best of the best to survive. Being a general in such a war would therefore be demanding and one would have to have very fine and effectual tactics and strategies of success in war. (Woodworth.) During war one of the most crucial things for an army is for them to have a quick and efficient supply stream for their war supplies such as materiel and food for the soldiers. These have to been replenished swiftly for an army to operate well. If these supply line were to be cut, these would render the army useless. They would be like dogs without teeth. This is one of the strategies that I would use as a general. Specifically I would use the Anaconda Plan. Then Anaconda plan was a plan suggested to President Lincoln by Union General-in-chief Winfield...
Words: 966 - Pages: 4
...Prof. Timothy Orr 3 March 2015 Attack and Die Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage This was a intriguing book, the authors offer a different version of the severe loss of life suffered by the Confederacy States of American during the Civil War. The authors pull social and cultural elements together with military history to create their central thesis: the Southern military leadership failed to recognize new tactics and technological advances and willingly threw away men’s lives due to their Celtic heritage. If the South had adopted a more defensive posture, it very well could have weathered the storm of assaults by the Union, but the leadership of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee prevented this because they desired to wage an aggressive war. The book is broken down into different sections, the book begins by comparing Union and Southern losses in battles which major assaults took place and field works. The numbers are very telling, as Southern forces time and again take heavy losses by waging an aggressive war. Union commanders more easily recognized the change in warfare due to technology and more readily adapted; which leads into the part of the book, which discusses at length the reasons for the belief in aggressive tactics. The Mexican war had a profound effect on the thinking of the soldiers who fought in it, and these lessons were remembered and reinforced in the period leading up to the Civil War. The final chapters of the book discuss the cultural...
Words: 1845 - Pages: 8
...There were over 237 battles in the Civil War, with close to one thousand generals on each side. Although there were many generals in the Civil War, two battle for the title of greatest general, Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. These two stand out because of their success, with fighting style, military experiences before the war, and victories in battle. Lee's success at the beginning of the war helped boost the southern morale, while Grant's success down the stretch helped the north pull off the victory. These two men were completely opposites in their experience before the war. Robert E. Lee graduated at the top of the class, whereas Grant graduated twenty-first out of thirty-nine in his class. After graduating, both men went into service during the Mexican-American War. Grant got to the rank of captain, under the command of Zachary Taylor. On the other hand, Lee was only an advisor to General Winfield Scott on battle strategies. Lee's reputation for battle strategies carried over into the Civil War. Both men started out the Civil War under commanding officers; however Lee would be the first to become the General-In-Chief in 1861. Grant would not take up this post until 1864, the last year of the war. This shows the strategic masterpieces of both generals. Both men were...
Words: 599 - Pages: 3
...American Civil Rights Background Timeline of events / Personalities 1860: Abraham Lincoln elected US president. * Made the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, a law which would see the release of all slaves in America. * Belief that the slaves should be freed was a key factor in sparking the American civil war. 1861: The American Civil War begins at fort Sumter. * Fought between the United States of America, who opposed slavery, and the Confederate States of America, a new nation established by seven slave states in the south. * Not the only reason for the civil war, slavery was a key issue being fought over. 1865: The 13th amendment is passed, permanently outlawing slavery. * Shortly after the surrender of all confederate forces, ending the civil war. 1866: The civil rights act is passed by Congress. * The first to define US citizenship as well as state that all citizens were protected by the law. * It is expected that the act was passed, despite being vetoed repeatedly by President Andrew Johnson, in order to protect the rights of African-Americans. 1870: The 15th amendment is passed, giving the black man the right to vote. 1875: A bi-racial senate and House of Representatives passes the civil rights act. * Designed to protect all Americans in their access to accommodations and facilities such as restaurants. * Never enforced and was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme court in 1883 1896: The Supreme Court introduces...
Words: 1518 - Pages: 7
...During the Civil War, many military positions existed, and each person who held them had their own take on the war itself. The generals of the Civil War were constantly stressed and harrowed, for they controlled the direction of the war, and their actions, views, and opinions influenced not only the soldiers around them in battle, but the superintendence of this country. Their tactics and strategies set up the next battle ahead of them and decided if their side, The North or The South, was winning the Civil War. It was their perspectives that influenced the majority of American citizens. Without generals, the Civil War could not have been fought. For generals, the war was especially stressful. It was their responsibility to ensure that their regiment of soldiers knew what they were supposed to do. There was a great deal of responsibility for generals. At times, generals were responsible for the lives of hundreds or even thousands of men. In a way, they were also responsible for the lives of every person in America. They didn’t know when the war was going to end. With communication being extremely delayed, the war could have ended at any minute, and they would not have known. It could take days, weeks, or even months for information to reach them,...
Words: 902 - Pages: 4
...Union generals during a Civil War, known for his “total war” tactics. He began to knit the all-out war that was a prominent strategic theory in the time and carried it out. He secured the strategic town (Savannah) and supplies (the raw cotton which has been harvested) well for the northern part while destroying Georgia thoroughly and not only brought meaningless destruction - he destroyed it with a strategy in mind. On the other hand, he made war a more miserable one while the sweep round of each miserable Indian tribe after the Civil War was being included in the career as his officer, and proving the correctness of his military strategy theory. William T Sherman wouldn’t take from army’s things because he used two groups of troops to take supplies from residents. They took supplies form civilians. No army could have carried along sufficient food and forage for a march of three hundred miles. The Union Forces lead by Sheman left Atlanta with food for 20 days with 62,000 soldiers and he was divided into the right and left farm team and go to the Savannah. Whenever there was it at an opportunity, during this march, the Sheman burned down a building and plunders necessary supplies such as the food. He reduced the morale of the Confederate Army. If he fought in Europe, his requisitions from the local population would most likely have been met with strong opposition from magistrates or civil authorities. However, given the fact that during the Civil War country was sparsely settled...
Words: 416 - Pages: 2
...Outcomes of the Civil War | How could the outcome of the Civil War been changed? | The Civil War was won by the Union but what would have happened if the Confederates would have won? What would have happened if the Union had won earlier? What would the outcome have been if new technologies had been implemented? These are questions that are not easy to answer. These questions demand speculation and assumptions that are not provable. The best guesses of different outcomes are all we have to work with. The first question, what if the Confederates had won, has many different outcomes. The most likely outcome of this is that the United States would have become five different countries. The Union and the Confederates are obvious but Texas and California would have pushed to become sovereign countries. Utah would have become the fifth country by becoming a Church State. The northwest States probably would have rejoined the Union in the 1930’s due to the Great Depression. Abraham Lincoln may not have been assassinated since John Wilkes Booth did not have a motive for the killing. Lincoln would have finished his career as a senator after twenty years. He would have written his memoirs after the war with many thousands of copies sold mainly in the south. Robert E. Lee would have become Confederate President Jefferson Davis's special envoy to the United States. But the strain of the job, and trying to maintain friendly relations with a former enemy, would have...
Words: 1517 - Pages: 7
...1861 to 1865, the Civil War was in full spring. Tales of brother against brother, father against son, and friends against friends were not obscure in these five long years of bloodshed that negatively impacted both sides from major war exhaustion. In this war, there were more casualties of American heritage than any other war the United States of America has been through in its fairly small timespan combined, including the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War. The Union and the Confederacy fought against each other in many bloody, grim battles, large-scale and small-scale alike. Because of the large variety of these scuffles amongst these two nations, a difference in military tactics between them was sure to appear. Therefore, two historians, Perry Jamieson...
Words: 781 - Pages: 4
...the most crucial and most important turning points of the Civil War. The Union failed to capture Richmond from the Confederacy, so went to Petersburg as their last chance to make the Confederates surrender. The forces, the fighting tactic, and the casualties of the siege mark the surrender of Robert E. Lee to the Union forces and eventually ended the war at Appomattox Court House. The Union and the Confederacy both put their best forces including the army and leaders into the siege of Petersburg. The Union general, Ulysses S. Grant, had a showdown with the Confederate general, Robert E. Lee, throughout the course of the siege from June 9, 1864 to March 25, 1865. The troops on the Union’s side outnumbered the Confederacy with approximately 100,000 soldiers in comparison with only 52,000 soldiers in the Confederacy. The tactic of fighting from the North was the most well-known factor of the siege....
Words: 560 - Pages: 3
...University Of Phoenix Civil War Paper By Shane Iverson 12/23/2012 HIS/115 The Civil war was a huge war fought over territories and freedom. Over 600,000 Americans lost their lives in this war, with the North having been more effected. The North had no regrets about the war. They were satisfied that the slaves were free, and the Union was preserved. The South began to glorify what they called “the lost cause”. The generals from the south became mythic heroes. As they looked back at the war they almost regretted surrendering. Historian Shelby Foote left us with this note. “Any understanding of this nation has to be based . . . on an understanding of the Civil War. . . . The Civil War defined us as what we are, and it opened us to being what we became, good and bad things. It is very necessary if you’re going to understand the American character in the 20th century to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the mid-19th century. It was the crossroads of our being”. What does this tell us about the United States? What did Foote mean when he spoke these words? We may also think to ourselves. Why didn’t the South win? There leaders were supposedly brilliant and they lost fewer men then the North, right? What did Historian Shelby Foote mean in his quote above? He is saying that it is necessary to learn about this huge catastrophe that happened in...
Words: 735 - Pages: 3
...During the period of 1861-1865 that is commonly known as the Civil War, both the northern and the confederate states exhibited variegated forms of what it means to be civilized. At the bottom of it, the Civil War exhibited the most bloodshed on American soil at a singular point in time. For this reason it must be stated that both The Union and The Confederates both acted out bloodthirsty and carnal impulses. The difference that was displayed was that the liberalism and regard for expanded civil rights that was the basis for The Union’s war stance was countered by a stalwart reactionary ideological platform that The Confederacy clung to. Essentially, civility was at an all-time low during the bloodshed of the Civil war. Over 500,000 lives were claimed, however the etiquette and ideological platforms of both sides proved to be The old world charm of the South was encapsulated by John Mosby and his revenge against a Union trooper killing a young child in front of the child’s mother. Mosby exclaimed that revenge was not a primary, or even a secondary motivation. He honestly believed that he had to kill in order to stop the killing (Civil War Times, 31). This etiquette and honor displayed during the bloodshed was in contradistinction to the crass and needless killing committed by the Union soldier. This shows how oftentimes ideologies can mask the deeper, truer feelings and...
Words: 3276 - Pages: 14
...nearly 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, African Americans in Southern states still inhabited a strictly unequal world of segregation and other various forms of oppression, which included race-inspired violence towards them. “Jim Crow” laws at the local and state levels stop them from entering classrooms and bathrooms, theaters and train cars, and juries.The civil rights movement centered in the southern states of america. That was where the African American population was the most concentrated and where racial inequality in education, economic opportunity, and the political and legal processes was most prominent. Beginning in the late 19th century, state and local governments passed segregation laws, known as Jim Crow laws; they...
Words: 2003 - Pages: 9
...Within the last century, the scale of war has made necessary a different type of leader. We no longer fight for our farms, villages, and hunting lands. Our interests have shifted from straits and mountain passes. In our current world, as a result of technological revolutions and ever growing political instability, we live in the threat of a global war. Actions have the potential to resonate in many continents subsequently influencing the economies, policies, and war strategies of nations worldwide. For these reasons, leaders must study the past and integrate history's lessons learned with the new challenges of leading within a heightened threat. Military leaders must maintain their grasp and focus on the technical mastery of warfighting, personal courage, and the ability to inspire men to fight for a common cause. Victory will lend itself to the commander who can master the terrain and find new or creative ways to employ his weapons and men. Leaders must be technically proficient with the arms they use to wage war. In a broad example, the Spartans studied the natural tendency of phalanx formations to shift right and employed special tactics to break off part of their formation and bring it upon the flank of their enemy. Even here with similar weapons and tactics, the Spartans pursued the mastery of their warfighting system and stood victorious on the field of battle. For a more detailed analysis, in 480 BC, during the Greco-Persian wars, a Spartan leader named Leonidas used...
Words: 2008 - Pages: 9
...Civil War Tressa Caudell HIS/115 U.S. History to 1865 March 31, 2012 Marek McKenna Civil War The Civil War was one of the biggest “black eyes” in American history. This war put Americans on each side of a line and forced them to try and outwit each other. The Civil War lasted for four long years. “The Civil War proved to be the costliest war ever fought on American soil, with some 620,000 soldiers killed, millions more injured, and the population and territory of the South devastated.” (American Civil War, 2012). The United States is the country that it is today because of the Civil War. We are after all considered to be the “Land of the Free.” the United States is free because the North won the war and slavery was abolished. I believe that Foote was trying to convey that in order to understand how the United States became what it is, we first need to understand where we started. To understand how the United States became considered the “Land of the Free” we must acknowledge the steps that were taken that led to the American Civil War. I believe that the first step taken on our way to civil war was in 1820 with the passing of the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 set a boundary between the North and South that stated any states or territories north of this boundary would remain free and any south of the boundary could maintain slavery. (Schultz, 2012, pg. 174). I believe that by setting a specific boundary between the North and South the government...
Words: 856 - Pages: 4
