4 ms·

I don't have time to go into much detail but this >>But that war pioneered two interesting logistical elements: first, it was the first war to permit rapid mov

I don't have time to go into much detail but this >>But that war pioneered two interesting logistical elements: first, it was the first war to permit rapid movement of material via rail (a surprising amount of rail was constructed during the war). Second is that it was the first economy vs economy war. By and large the Europeans ignored the lesson, because they figured the details of what was going on in the US just weren't that interesting (big mistake). Is basically all wrong. The Crimean war was fought before the American civil war and contained all these modern elements and was in many ways the first WW1 style war. Before WW1 two majors wars were fought in Europe, the Austro-Prussian war and the Franco-Prussian war which pretty much set the stage for WW1.

gumby 10y ago
The crimean war was indeed quite an industrialized war, used rail, and was a siege war; but personally I don't see it of the same magnitude as the us civil war (but there's no need to have a long argument about in in the HN comments!). I'll just say that the magnitude was _significantly_ lower than USCW and WWI; certainly it was not total war economy-vs-economy -- if best it was one of the first modern technology-vs-technology wars (I assume that was also a factor in the iron/bronze age, and in the colonial wars too). But to paraphrase Stalin, magnitude has a quality all its own. Which is why I don't consider the brief Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars, while of incredible political significance, to be of great significance in the discussion I raised. Neither mobilized an entire economy much less both sides'. (Big exception to what I just wrote: they did prove the value of the Prussian General Staff model). Disclaimer: I do have a degree in European military history, but my scholarship, for what little it might be worth, is over 30 years out of date.
- emptyfile 10y ago
  I really don't have time to discuss with you, but I just have to ask, magnitude of what? Magnitude of economy? How do you measure that? How could you possibly compare the total, unprecedented industrialized warfare of WW1 with the American civil war? It bears no resemblance whatsoever.

gumby 10y ago

The crimean war was indeed quite an industrialized war, used rail, and was a siege war; but personally I don't see it of the same magnitude as the us civil war (but there's no need to have a long argument about in in the HN comments!). I'll just say that the magnitude was _significantly_ lower than USCW and WWI; certainly it was not total war economy-vs-economy -- if best it was one of the first modern technology-vs-technology wars (I assume that was also a factor in the iron/bronze age, and in the colonial wars too). But to paraphrase Stalin, magnitude has a quality all its own. Which is why I don't consider the brief Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars, while of incredible political significance, to be of great significance in the discussion I raised. Neither mobilized an entire economy much less both sides'. (Big exception to what I just wrote: they did prove the value of the Prussian General Staff model). Disclaimer: I do have a degree in European military history, but my scholarship, for what little it might be worth, is over 30 years out of date.

emptyfile 10y ago
I really don't have time to discuss with you, but I just have to ask, magnitude of what? Magnitude of economy? How do you measure that? How could you possibly compare the total, unprecedented industrialized warfare of WW1 with the American civil war? It bears no resemblance whatsoever.