Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Technology
The Civil War was the first war in American history where the implementation of modern technology was utilized. The railroad, the telegraph and many other technologies were used in order to get fast information and move people and ideas around allot faster then they had been done in the past. Is that what made this war so bloody? Or was it the fact that family members were up against each other. Americans against Americans?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From my understanding of the civil war two reasons had a significant impact on the casualty count of the war. One is that the south had to fight a defensive war, they did not want to invade the north and gain territory, meaning they only had to hold off Union forces long enough to maintain their position. Another reason is that the method of charging in battle, when your opponent has automatic weapons, inevitably leads to lines of soldiers being gunned down and another simply running up behind them, being killed and so on. These are two of many reasons why this war would be devastating in terms of losses on both sides.
ReplyDeleteIn agreement with Corey's point, technological innovation seems to often preclude military strategic innovations. A learning curve perhaps? War technology functions towards serving greater casualties with fewer skills needed for the application in combat.
ReplyDeleteI think other technologies had a large part in it as well, such as the railroad for moving northern troops and supplies greater distances in faster times, or the telegraph's important role in enabling faster communication between generals.
It is quite true that in many respects the civil war was fought with modern weapons (including communications and transport) and medieval tactics, which helps account for its casualty rates. On the other hand, most historians discount the claim that the repeating rifle, Gattling gun, and other recently invented "automatic" weapons were anything like a decisive factor -- there were simply not enough of them. Had there been, the results might have been even worse.
ReplyDelete