Evaluate Articel Modern War Essay

Phillip Gervase is a Principal Lecturer in History at Manchester Metropolitan University.  He authored  The Anglo-Scots state of contends 1513 1550. (33)  In his article, Was the Ameri flock elegant state of war the scratch Modern War?, he refutes the commonly held belief that the American well-behaved War was the first modern war.  After the Second valet de chambre War, some military historians concluded that the Confederacys crushing defeat at the hands of the Union  foretold the future of war. Phillips argues that the genteel war was more corresponding the wars of the 19th century than those that followed it.  By the beginning of the war, the run low could be fire as rapidly as a musket.  Many historians have utilise this observation to  prove that the rifle qualifyd the way battles were fought.Artillery was now come forward ranged by infantry fire forcing gun crews to search for  cover in the field. (29) This pipeline for the rifle is dismissed by Phillips when he cites the research of paddy field Griffith and Brent Nosworthy.  These historians conclude that the rifle did non make an important change in war methodology  since many battle were fought at the finale 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 collaborator 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 in novation.  The real change from previous wars is in the apparent adoption of a new school of thought of conflict 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 terminus.            The first leg of his argument is that the technological advances of the progress did not have a significant impact on the American Civil War.  He begins with a discussion of the rifle. He points out that the rifle could be loaded and fired more a great deal than the musket and the rifle swarm men out of the formation style fighting and into trenches. He worst 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 philanthropic 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 different 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 appearance from previous wars.            Phillips briefly acknowledges the use of the railroad for moving troops during the American Civil War, except 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 faraway 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 fort up in Charleston. Phillips dismiss the notion of the American Civil War being the first 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 fractional of the article labels the American Civil War a nitty-gritty War. A total war is an unrestrained form of conflict . and the enemys sparing 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 unconditional surrender of the Southern forces.  Union Generals return and Sherman threatened to slay Southern civilizedians.  General Shermans infamous edge to the sea cut a sixty mile wide data track 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 negociate nearly every issue except the continuation of the nation as a union. The strangest argument he mak es is that the American Civil War was more cruel than other contemporary wars, but it is not as merciless 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 emphatically was.  It enlarged the federal government allowing it to create national income tax, institute the draft, amaze 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 magazine 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 prepare from past conflicts.