Crimean War: 1st Modern War?

[TRSjarmen]

I was looking over the wiki article on the Crimean War and I noticed that wiki says that it could be considered the first "modern".

Nonetheless, it is considered to be the first "modern" war as it "introduced technical changes which affected the future course of warfare," including the first tactical use of railways and the telegraph.[9] It is also famous for the work of Florence Nightingale, who pioneered modern nursing practices while caring for wounded British soldiers.[10]

The Crimean War was also the first to be extensively documented in photographs.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

So what does everyone think on just how "modern" the Crimean War was? The war had a good amount of firsts. Like the first use of the telegraph and rail for war purposes, but does that really make it modern? The use really was not that extensive. However it did in many ways advance war to what it would be known as by WWI an obviously modern war. There is also the big contender for the title of 1st modern which would be the American Civil War. It was a few years after the Crimean War and is often considered the 1st modern war.

[CBR]

The only modern element might be the media+telegraph and its effect on governments. Apart from that there is hardly anything modern about it from a military point of war.

[Mr. Scott]

Ehhh the american civil war is more often considered the first modern war as it practiced "total war", which would be seen throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

and the american civil war did occur after the crimean war and it used more modern weapons such as the machine gun (gatling gun)

Crimean war was big, but that was moreso due to disease.

[Viking Prince]

Both wars are a part of the new era of using railroads to supply and move troops. The mobility of troops and supplies by railroad allows commanders to concentrate quickly a larger force than was previously possible. Foraging for supplies is no longer feasible with the numbers involved.

At least I think this is what makes these wars more of the next era -- weapon changes are important, but never overlook a generational change in supply.

[CBR]

Ehhh the american civil war is more often considered the first modern war as it practiced "total war", which would be seen throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

Some historians might believe that, yes. The problem is what is Total War? The mobilization of men, resources and science for the cause, as seen in WW2, is just not there in the ACW.

Both wars are a part of the new era of using railroads to supply and move troops. The mobility of troops and supplies by railroad allows commanders to concentrate quickly a larger force than was previously possible. Foraging for supplies is no longer feasible with the numbers involved.

There is no doubt that railroads assisted in supplying armies and even enabled some campaigns to be fought that most likely could not have happened without railroads (Atlanta campaign)

OTOH the armies of the ACW were not out of the ordinary in size. If I'm not mistaken the maximum size of the Army of the Potomac reached something like 160,000 men. Interestingly enough that army spent most of the campaigning in the south getting supplies from naval transport and not a direct railroad back to the Northern States.

[Caelius]

The Crimean War really wasn't the 1st modern war as much as it was the last of the Classical Napoleonic-style Wars.

Charge of the Light Brigade anyone?

It's a shame that it took nearly a generation or more before the obvious realities and lessons of the Crimean War (and the American Civil War for that matter) were caught on by military strategists, theorists, and tacticians.

The problem is what is Total War?

The Burning of Atlanta?

The Savannah Campaign (aka the March to the Sea)?

William T. Sherman practically re-invented a dead concept of war not seen since the Mongols and applied it for purposes that have been repeated by other modern militaries ever since.

[Mangalore]

The Crimean War really wasn't the 1st modern war as much as it was the last of the Classical Napoleonic-style Wars.

Charge of the Light Brigade anyone?

It's a shame that it took nearly a generation or more before the obvious realities and lessons of the Crimean War (and the American Civil War for that matter) were caught on by military strategists, theorists, and tacticians.

Prussia waged three wars through the realities of those times and had no trouble doing so. This makes it rather strange to claim that strategists, etc. didn't catch on for a generation.

[Juvenal]

What we call "modern war" is characterised not by Total War (that originated with the French Revolutionary wars of the 1790's), but by "the empty battlefield" (a term coined by John Keegan in his book The Face of Battle).

I would say that modern war arrived when opposing armies could no longer stand and face each other in firing lines. This didn't occur until late 1914 after the German advance in France and Belgium ran out of steam.

Admittedly trenches and barbed wire had existed earlier, in the ACW for example, but armies still faced each other in pitched battles at that time. For example the siege of Petersburg was exactly that; a siege.

There is an earlier candidate for modern war, that being the fighting around Mukden during the Russo-Japanese war of 1905.

[CBR]

The Burning of Atlanta?

The Savannah Campaign (aka the March to the Sea)?

William T. Sherman practically re-invented a dead concept of war not seen since the Mongols and applied it for purposes that have been repeated by other modern militaries ever since.

The sack of Magdeburg? The total desolation of the Palatinate? Portugal and Spain in the Peninsular War? Contemporary Southerners might have found the March to the Sea as being horrible but it was hardly something new and still nothing compared to what had happened just a few decades or centuries earlier in Europe.

[konny]

Warfare in the Crimean War did not seriously differ from the Napoleonic periode.

[Boer]

It depends on your definition of modern.

I don't think that any of the wars that are usually considered the first modern war deserve that title any more, mostly because modern wars have changed. Even WWII does not seem modern compared to wars of today. If anything Vietnam of the Gulf War (maybe Grenada) should be the new first modern war and even they are starting to look more and more outdated.

[Ronojoy1917]

WW1 for sure. First use of aircraft, major use of telegram and railroads. It's the beginnings of chemical warfare and the idea of hitting the enemy hard with explosive things is taking shape. And of course, the machine gun.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Crimean War was the first! American Civil War was just some revolt! Nothing Important!

[Slaytaninc]

I think calling any war the "1st Modern War" is bound to fail.

[Cyreidel]

Crimean War was the first! American Civil War was just some revolt! Nothing Important!

Actually, it was pretty important, and on the long-term, quite important for the world as well.

[torongill]

Yeah, every first modern war is defined by its contemporaries. The vietnam war was the first on TV. AFAIK The Gulf war was the first "live on TV from the place that's being bombed to hell". For me, the first modern war was the one that used bows and slings for the first time.

[Ronojoy1917]

Forgot to mention, tanks came about from World War 1 also.

[chilon]

So what does everyone think on just how "modern" the Crimean War was? The war had a good amount of firsts. Like the first use of the telegraph and rail for war purposes, but does that really make it modern?

The first modern war was the US Civil War which had far more relevance to the future of warfare than the Crimean.

In fact, the short, casual nature of the Crimean was one of the biggest problems with how European powers missed how WWI would play out. They all believed it would be like the Crimean. The reality was that WWI was nothing like the Crimean and if Europe had paid more attention to the US Civil War f attrition they would have realized this.

[Spartacus the Irish]

The Crimean War was quite a limited war. The aim was (for the Allies), limited - remove Sevastopol and the Black Seas Fleet. The Russians objective was equally limited - stop this from happening. It was not nation against nation, with entire economies pitted against each other as military machines.

It began the evolution of modern warfare. It is rather naive to believe that there suddenly emerged a 'modern' war out of the blue.

[chilon]

It began the evolution of modern warfare. It is rather naive to believe that there suddenly emerged a 'modern' war out of the blue.

I dont think anyone is arguing it emerged out of the blue but technological advances in the 19th century really did make huge changes in warfare over a short amount of time relative to how long war remained relatively the same.

The US Civil War really represented many changes in the nature of warfare that would later play out in WWI in many ways the Crimean didn't foretell.

My takes btw come from the historian William McNeill and his book The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000