Help support TMP


POLL: Technology in the ACW


342 votes were cast.


Back to POLLS home page


DJCoaltrain writes:

Gwydion 22 Mar 2012 1:21 p.m. PST

Mr Coaltrain
Mea culpa. I confess to regarding this as an essentially ephemeral medium, but it is of course written nonetheless and no doubt preserved for some sort of posterity.

*NJH: Oh well, if they save Jersey Shore episodes, I guess this can't be far behind.

So- a gross libel.
I am sure Paddy never willfully falsified anything as your Latin legal principle suggests.

*NJH: I never said he willfully falsified anything. However, not doing due diligence in one's research creates opportunities for errors to creep into the study.

If Paddy undersold the nature of his work I suspect it was modesty rather than egregious neglect of rigour that caused him to do it. Is it his 'snippeting' approach you think is an admission of lack of rigour? Because it wasn't.

*NJH: I give him credit for honesty.

I don't prefer Hess over Griffith. Hess is not all original research but includes a synthesis of secondary sources as well.

I am very happy to include him alongside Griffith however, as his work backs up Paddy's analysis particularly in relation to the lack of significant impact of rifles and the similarity between European and American casualty rates in battle, as far back as Blenheim.

*NJH: At the time of the ACW, Americans were barely NOT Europeans. I'm not entirely sold on either thesis advanced by Hess or Griffith. I'm still undecided.

Hindisght may say the technology was changing the face of battle but it obviously wasn't very apparent to anyone, European, American or Asian in the fifty years before the First World War, otherwise they may have anticipated the infiltration tactics that took nearly four years of European deaths to develop.

*NJH: The Boers?

If you think the Mexican American War was a trial between a European model and an American model of warfare and the American Model won good for you.

*NJH: I use it as an example of a failed European Model in the Americas. For examples elsewhere, I could also point to the Crimea and Solferino.

I still don't see any evidence of a unique, more efficient killing machine in action in the ACW. Nascent perhaps but not effectively in action. And I'm happy to take Hess's word if you don't like Griffith because they say much the same thing.


*NJH: Fredericksburg and Gettysburg. Defensive tactics at their best. Especially General Hunt's use/placement of field artillery ay Gettysburg.


Back to the Homepage



1,927 hits since 18 Mar 2012
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

VOTING RESULTS
AnswerVotes%Chart
10
25
7%
bar of chart
9
18
5%
bar of chart
8
96
28%
bar of chart
7
74
22%
bar of chart
6
32
9%
bar of chart
5
30
9%
bar of chart
4
21
6%
bar of chart
3
15
4%
bar of chart
2
8
2%
bar of chart
1
1
0%
bar of chart
zero
3
1%
bar of chart
no opinion
19
6%
bar of chart
POLL IS CLOSED
POLL DESCRIPTION

Writing in Battlegames magazine, John Drewienkiewicz discusses the effect of new technologies on the American Civil War and concludes...

Possibly, the only real innovation was the introduction of tinned rations...

On a scale of 0 (none) to 10 (absolute), in your opinion, what influence did new technology have on the American Civil War?