Morality And Killing

[Virgil61]

It's certainly not airtight in my view, though it is an interesting way of looking at things. It of course ignores cultural factors in ancient/medieval times which were what largely determined the prominece of certain troop types.

 

...

There's just too much variation in ancient/medieval to draw a general theory like this I think, except that missile heavy armies were generally poor performers, their being mitigating factors in the successes of for example, the Huns and English.

 

Let me clear up that Jones is a historian, so--thankfully--it's not an exlcusive 'systems' approach, it integrates political and cultural factors as well as can be expected. More complementary to the historical/cultural/political factors in its thesis. Jones brings to the table--and this is his strength--a background in history and a more professional knowledge of military operations and strategy often lacking in some military historians. Of course the fact that he spent a large part of his life teaching history at CGSC (US Army Command and General Staff College) probably helped.

 

Take a look at CGSC's Combat Studies Institute publications. It contains some decent writings on past US military ops and theory in general including a fascinating AAR (after-action report) by Joshua Chamberlain of the engagement at Little Round Top during the Battle of Gettysburg. I'm not sure of the awareness of the War Between the States, or the 'War of Northern Aggression' as some of my friends in North Carolina would call it, is among Brits.

[Virgil61]

Not exactly...

 

Column was used by the revolutionaries because their men could not manoeuvre at all in line (though sometimes two revolutionary columns would be supported by an ancien regime regiment in line).

...

But if you meant that column was the only real option for conscripts then, yes I agree (though their screen of skirmishers was crucial.).

 

I remember reading Paddy Griffith's--who wrote a bit on the French Revolutionary Wars--approach to the US Civil War years ago. He had quite a lot to say, some of it not so accurate and some of it really quite insightful. He correctly, in my opinion, saw the war as much the last of the Napoleonic approaches to operations as it contained--almost striking--aspects of modern warfare as well.

[Furius Venator]

it integrates political and cultural factors as well as can be expected

 

That is not my recollection (but I don't have it to hand). Though to be fair, I'm not a fan of the idea of an 'arms' race between the various arms so I'm probably biased. I see the general idea but I think there's too many exceptions to it.

 

For instance it was more likely a decline in the quality of Roman infantry coupled with a rising number of cavalry dominant foes that causes the Late Roman/Dark Age 'rise of cavalry' rather than an actual improvement in the abilities or equipment of the cavalry. Further, regional exceptions are rife.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Furius Venator

[Pertinax]

Again I was going to put down a marker on "epochs" -is the American Civil War the first "modern(machine) era" war where The North ,in essence, mobilised the industrial capacity of the state to fight whatever length of war was needed, that Grant's campaigns were a precursor of the idea of "total war" ?

The Franco -Prussian War looks to be a bad throwback to a mid Georgian conflict crossed with a romantic ignorance of modern firepower and tactical doctrine.

The ancients were well aware that money and the weight of the apparatus of state were needed to achieve victories , but the radical technological changes would seem to argue for battlefield supremacy via factory production.

[Furius Venator]

I'm not so sure. Napoleon used mass conscription and the French state was geared toward war production at various times during his reign. I see there being more of a 'slide' towards 'total war' rather than there being a precise point at which we have a definite switch, though there's no doubt that the more industrialised the country, the more 'total war' is waged by it.

[Virgil61]

Again I was going to put down a marker on "epochs" -is the American Civil War the first "modern(machine) era" war where The North ,in essence, mobilised the industrial capacity of the state to fight whatever length of war was needed, that Grant's campaigns were a precursor of the idea of "total war" ?

...

 

I think that's the conventional wisdom. The North contained a fairly robust industrial economy entering the war and come out of it with a even more advanced version, fueled by government contracts, that set the groundwork for the Second Industrial Revolution.

 

I think Sherman's drive to Atlanta and then up through Virginia, destroying railroads, factories and crops was a damn close version to total war.

[Kosmo]

In US Civil War they still used the line in open field? I think the prussian-austrian war of 1866 was the first one in which they fired from ground position.

[Spurius]

In US Civil War they still used the line in open field? I think the prussian-austrian war of 1866 was the first one in which they fired from ground position.

 

When equipment permitted, there were rifle pits and dug in positions. Trouble was, a lot of the rifles in the ACW were muzzle loaders. Those units with repeaters or bolt action weapons used the prone position.

[Pertinax]

so if we refer way back to the start of the thread, those who stood on the battlefield effecting multiple loading of muskets were doubly unlucky in having to expose themselves to fire : at least later in the conflict a man could take a more defensible position.Or am I mistaken and this is a reference to dragoon units or those armed with carbines?

Edited April 7, 2006 by Pertinax

[Furius Venator]

In fact muzzle loaders could be loaded from the prone posttion, British riflemen in the Peninsula occasionally did so, lying on their backs and holding the stock between theri feet. It was hardly commonplace though and as a general rule, yes, muzzle loaders were reloaded standing. Breech loaders became more common as the war went on, and these were often used by cavalry units (who tended to dismount and act like mounted infantry, though of course they would still sometimes charge). Given that breech loaders were qute often repeaters, a unit lying down in open order could (in theory) still put out a considerable number of rounds whether they actually did or not brings us back to the 'gutful men'/command control issues for small units.

 

But yes, as the conflict went on, trench systems began to proliferate.

[Kosmo]

It is easier to hide somewhere today where you'll be out of sight for enemy and officers then to not fight with gladius when a big barbarian it's hiting you with a sword or when a line of soldiers fire their muskets at you.

In WW1 not to fire was the problem but to go "over the top" against machine gun fire.

[Furius Venator]

Well, as I said before:

 

There was an objection above that a man in close combat could not 'sham fight' which is an excellent point. Yet there is a huge difference between trying to stay alive and trying to kill tour opponent. Aggressive fighting at close quarters leaves you more susceptible to getting hurt. Also conside the fact that if 75% of those engaged are not too keen on getting to grips, there is an excellent chance that one's opponent is merely trying to stay alive also.