...Strategies and tactics make a huge difference in a battle. People have lost a battle because of their bad strategies. They always have to make new strategies and tactics. The Union and Confederates made some strategies as well during the Civil War. They used black soldiers, guerilla attacks, and started targeting civilians. Firstly, the Union or the North started using black soldier regiments such as shown in Glory when they used the 54th Massachusetts Regiment. They used black soldiers for labor and not for battle. The Confederates or the South said the Civil War was a white man’s battle. The Union started to use the black soldiers for battle and the Confederates also used them for battle after they seen how they could turn the battlefield....
Words: 349 - Pages: 2
...There were over 237 battles in the Civil War, with close to one thousand generals on each side. Although there were many generals in the Civil War, two battle for the title of greatest general, Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. These two stand out because of their success, with fighting style, military experiences before the war, and victories in battle. Lee's success at the beginning of the war helped boost the southern morale, while Grant's success down the stretch helped the north pull off the victory. These two men were completely opposites in their experience before the war. Robert E. Lee graduated at the top of the class, whereas Grant graduated twenty-first out of thirty-nine in his class. After graduating, both men went into service during the Mexican-American War. Grant got to the rank of captain, under the command of Zachary Taylor. On the other hand, Lee was only an advisor to General Winfield Scott on battle strategies. Lee's reputation for battle strategies carried over into the Civil War. Both men started out the Civil War under commanding officers; however Lee would be the first to become the General-In-Chief in 1861. Grant would not take up this post until 1864, the last year of the war. This shows the strategic masterpieces of both generals. Both men were...
Words: 599 - Pages: 3
...The Chinese Civil War KMT vs. CCP The Chinese civil war of 1946-49, is considered one of the most brutal and bloody conflicts near the final stages of the Second World War, which took the lives of millions of soldiers and civilians. The war was fought between two parties, the Kuomintang (KMT or Nationalists) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP or Reds). The leaders of these parties respectively were Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong. The war between the KMT and CCP wasn’t a new struggle but a continuation that dates back more than a couple decades and resumes after the Japanese had surrendered in 1945. In 1949, the better armed KMT were ultimately defeated by the CCP. The reasons for the CCP’s decisive victory are due to the poor mismanagements of Chiang Kai-shek combined with the corruption of the KMT, the superior leadership and tactics of Mao Zedong and the communists, the positive support from the peasants, and the aid provided by the Soviet Union. Although Chiang and his Nationalists looked like they had all the advantages over the CCP at the end of the Japanese war, Chiang’s leadership and the corruption of officers in the KMT’s forces known as the “Nationalist Revolutionary Army” (NRA), would be a major cause in the KMT’s defeat. One of Chiang’s military goals was to be the head of a national army that would heed all of his orders which was never fully accomplished. Throughout the civil war, the armies he controlled were a mixed bag. There were...
Words: 1390 - Pages: 6
...during a Civil War, known for his “total war” tactics. He began to knit the all-out war that was a prominent strategic theory in the time and carried it out. He secured the strategic town (Savannah) and supplies (the raw cotton which has been harvested) well for the northern part while destroying Georgia thoroughly and not only brought meaningless destruction - he destroyed it with a strategy in mind. On the other hand, he made war a more miserable one while the sweep round of each miserable Indian tribe after the Civil War was being included in the career as his officer, and proving the correctness of his military strategy theory. William T Sherman wouldn’t take from army’s things because he used two groups of troops to take supplies from residents. They took supplies form civilians. No army could have carried along sufficient food and forage for a march of three hundred miles. The Union Forces lead by Sheman left Atlanta with food for 20 days with 62,000 soldiers and he was divided into the right and left farm team and go to the Savannah. Whenever there was it at an opportunity, during this march, the Sheman burned down a building and plunders necessary supplies such as the food. He reduced the morale of the Confederate Army. If he fought in Europe, his requisitions from the local population would most likely have been met with strong opposition from magistrates or civil authorities. However, given the fact that during the Civil War country was sparsely settled he used it to...
Words: 416 - Pages: 2
...1861 to 1865, the Civil War was in full spring. Tales of brother against brother, father against son, and friends against friends were not obscure in these five long years of bloodshed that negatively impacted both sides from major war exhaustion. In this war, there were more casualties of American heritage than any other war the United States of America has been through in its fairly small timespan combined, including the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War. The Union and the Confederacy fought against each other in many bloody, grim battles, large-scale and small-scale alike. Because of the large variety of these scuffles amongst these two nations, a difference in military tactics between them was sure to appear. Therefore, two historians, Perry Jamieson...
Words: 781 - Pages: 4
...Prof. Timothy Orr 3 March 2015 Attack and Die Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage This was a intriguing book, the authors offer a different version of the severe loss of life suffered by the Confederacy States of American during the Civil War. The authors pull social and cultural elements together with military history to create their central thesis: the Southern military leadership failed to recognize new tactics and technological advances and willingly threw away men’s lives due to their Celtic heritage. If the South had adopted a more defensive posture, it very well could have weathered the storm of assaults by the Union, but the leadership of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee prevented this because they desired to wage an aggressive war. The book is broken down into different sections, the book begins by comparing Union and Southern losses in battles which major assaults took place and field works. The numbers are very telling, as Southern forces time and again take heavy losses by waging an aggressive war. Union commanders more easily recognized the change in warfare due to technology and more readily adapted; which leads into the part of the book, which discusses at length the reasons for the belief in aggressive tactics. The Mexican war had a profound effect on the thinking of the soldiers who fought in it, and these lessons were remembered and reinforced in the period leading up to the Civil War. The final chapters of the book discuss the cultural...
Words: 1845 - Pages: 8
...How universal are the principles of war? Many military theorists throughout history had many different concepts, strategic thoughts, and theories within a multitude of principles of war. Throughout history many strategies and tactics were utilized that made a huge impact on defending and attacking armies. Within these concepts of these theorists, nine principles of war gradually became universally used by many countries militaries that are used in the field of battle during the Cotemporary Era and through modern day campaigns. These principle guidelines are universal in military strategies and could have been used in any era where conflicts took place however, one principle that would of brought ultimate success in the example campaigns specified throughout these times of war is to have provided a better directive on the basic principles of logistics that seem to have hindered and faltered the most effective warring armies during their eras of history. A few examples that relate throughout wars fought in times such as the Napoleonic Wars, World War II and the United States current ongoing War on Terror have many relative tactics and strategies used during battles fought in these conflicts. Napoleons armies during the beginning of their conquest would defeat an enemy city utilizing all aspects of their military might (Cavalry, Artillery, Infantry) while maintaining immediate logistical support ensuring reinforcements and munitions were readily available. Napoleon’s enormous...
Words: 1200 - Pages: 5
...“Wars and warfare changed very little in response to the Atlantic Revolutions and the Industrial Revolution” In response to the Atlantic Revolutions and the Industrial Revolution, wars and warfare have changed significantly. Each revolution changed not only how war and warfare was conducted but had a remarkable impact on the character of war itself. Both of the Atlantic Revolutions and the Industrial Revolutions shaped warfare by instigating the implementation of a sense of nationalism, advanced technology, and tactics. The Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, and the Crimean War are very good examples of how the Atlantic Revolutions and the Industrial revolutions influenced wars and warfare. Nationalism, an emerging movement, became increasingly noteworthy throughout the Napoleonic Wars, which was derived from the Atlantic Revolutions. The industrialization period prominently impacted on the American Civil War by bringing about vast improvements in technology and transportation, which deemed to have a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the time. Enhanced technology and the evolution from pre modern warfare tactics are evident in Russia’s defeat by the British in the Crimean War. This again shows a direct correlation on how each revolution had a significant impact on how warfare is conducted. Throughout the Napoleonic period there was an immense surge in the numbers that armies were yielding. The growth in armies is parallel to the sense...
Words: 1562 - Pages: 7
...Outcomes of the Civil War | How could the outcome of the Civil War been changed? | The Civil War was won by the Union but what would have happened if the Confederates would have won? What would have happened if the Union had won earlier? What would the outcome have been if new technologies had been implemented? These are questions that are not easy to answer. These questions demand speculation and assumptions that are not provable. The best guesses of different outcomes are all we have to work with. The first question, what if the Confederates had won, has many different outcomes. The most likely outcome of this is that the United States would have become five different countries. The Union and the Confederates are obvious but Texas and California would have pushed to become sovereign countries. Utah would have become the fifth country by becoming a Church State. The northwest States probably would have rejoined the Union in the 1930’s due to the Great Depression. Abraham Lincoln may not have been assassinated since John Wilkes Booth did not have a motive for the killing. Lincoln would have finished his career as a senator after twenty years. He would have written his memoirs after the war with many thousands of copies sold mainly in the south. Robert E. Lee would have become Confederate President Jefferson Davis's special envoy to the United States. But the strain of the job, and trying to maintain friendly relations with a former enemy, would have...
Words: 1517 - Pages: 7
...Over 620,000 people were killed in the Civil War that was supposed to unite the country, only to die for great division and violence amongst races and a disrespect for innocent lives. The Civil War was an unjust war because of the effects it left behind. To start the War, the North was not returning slaves which created unnecessary tension and betrayed the constitution. Furthermore, the war tactics used led to backlash during the Reconstruction period after the war. Firstly, the North was violating the Constitution by not returning renegade slaves. The Fugitive Slave Clause states “No person held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another, shall be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up.” Rather than returning these slaves, the North was, in some cases, helping them to escape. The Confederate states had no obligation to remain part of a country in which many of its states were going against the Constitution. Therefore, the Civil War from the very start was unjust because it was unnecessary from the start. Had the North followed through with returning slaves, slavery would have eventually died out through modernization, and South Carolina and...
Words: 667 - Pages: 3
...upmost hate with how they treated slaves during this time era. Even though it is a part of history, I do not take joy in discussing this issue because this topic gets me upset with the concept of slavery and how it dehumanizes others. Thesis: Sherman’s “March to the Sea” in 1864 is justifiable to his actions, because he executed his aspirations to shatter the Confederacy’s strategies, financial, and mental capacity for continuing war, thus concluding to an imminent victory for the Union of the Civil War. Introductory Paragraph: Sherman’s “March to Sea” was a pivotal campaign to help conclude the end of the Civil War. Atlanta was taken over from the forces of Sherman’s army in the beginning of 1864; Sherman committed to drive away the Confederate troops over the next couple of weeks in efforts to pursue them through Georgia in a crafty attempt to engage in battle. The Confederate's evaded Sherman from pursuit of combat, but Sherman adjusted and decisively refined to a different strategy by hindering the South’s financial aspect and framework of transportation. General Sherman also used other strategies to terrify civilians and stir more chaos in his march across Confederate territory....
Words: 472 - Pages: 2
...During the period of 1861-1865 that is commonly known as the Civil War, both the northern and the confederate states exhibited variegated forms of what it means to be civilized. At the bottom of it, the Civil War exhibited the most bloodshed on American soil at a singular point in time. For this reason it must be stated that both The Union and The Confederates both acted out bloodthirsty and carnal impulses. The difference that was displayed was that the liberalism and regard for expanded civil rights that was the basis for The Union’s war stance was countered by a stalwart reactionary ideological platform that The Confederacy clung to. Essentially, civility was at an all-time low during the bloodshed of the Civil war. Over 500,000 lives were claimed, however the etiquette and ideological platforms of both sides proved to be The old world charm of the South was encapsulated by John Mosby and his revenge against a Union trooper killing a young child in front of the child’s mother. Mosby exclaimed that revenge was not a primary, or even a secondary motivation. He honestly believed that he had to kill in order to stop the killing (Civil War Times, 31). This etiquette and honor displayed during the bloodshed was in contradistinction to the crass and needless killing committed by the Union soldier. This shows how oftentimes ideologies can mask the deeper, truer feelings and...
Words: 3276 - Pages: 14
...Northern Strategy in the Civil War: Tactics and techniques used by the Federal government that turned the tide of the war Jason McCawley Research Paper HIST 101 Spr 11 6 June 2011 -2- The Federal government of the United States was faced with an enormous challenge following the firing of rebel cannon upon Ft. Sumter, SC, in April of 1864. How would a still relatively new government respond to an internal revolt? The Union army (Federal government) used several different methods, known in today’s military as Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP’s). The Federal government was faced with the daunting choice of allowing the Confederate’s to simply leave the Union, or to try and re-unite the country by military force. Of course the Federal’s and President Lincoln could not simply let the country split into two. President Lincoln ordered his top military leaders to come up with a tactical plan to conquer the rebels and bring the Confederacy back into the Union. One of President Lincoln’s top military leaders, General Winfield Scott, proposed a plan, called the Anaconda Plan, based upon three primary missions (procedures). First, a naval blockade of the Southern seaports, second to gain complete control of the Mississippi river, and third, the capture and surrender of Richmond, Virginia, the capital of the Confederate States of America.1 By blockading the Confederate ports, President Lincoln and General Scott hoped to deprive the rebel government of their main income...
Words: 1596 - Pages: 7
...who participated in the first battle of Bull Run were state volunteers, they were armed with whatever the state government provided them. Many soldiers were issued smooth bore weapons at the beginning of the war. As it progressed, more and more soldiers were armed with rifled weapons, being more accurate and far superior to smooth bore rifles. For the past 150 years, the soldier’s weapon of choice was the .69 caliber smooth bore musket. These rifles were inaccurate and did not have an effective killing range (100-200 yards). A lot of luck went into the soldier’s marksmanship. In the days prior, Napoleonic tactics were commonplace on the battlefield. In this fashion, soldiers lined up side by side and fired a volley of lead into the enemy’s direction, each rank taking turns to reload while the other fired. This tactic was effective in its own right, causing high casualties to both sides. During the civil war however, good soldiers were hard to find, and advancements in technology allowed them to use tactics and weaponry that helped keep soldiers alive on the battlefield. Advancements in the weaponry used during the First battle of the Bull Run made a significant difference in many aspects of the battle. Rifles used in the battle looked identical to the ones previously used, but with one key change: rifling. Rifled weapons have groves cut inside the barrel that cause the projectile to spin as it leaves the muzzle of the weapon. This barrel groove allowed rifles to be much more accurate...
Words: 1446 - Pages: 6
...University Of Phoenix Civil War Paper By Shane Iverson 12/23/2012 HIS/115 The Civil war was a huge war fought over territories and freedom. Over 600,000 Americans lost their lives in this war, with the North having been more effected. The North had no regrets about the war. They were satisfied that the slaves were free, and the Union was preserved. The South began to glorify what they called “the lost cause”. The generals from the south became mythic heroes. As they looked back at the war they almost regretted surrendering. Historian Shelby Foote left us with this note. “Any understanding of this nation has to be based . . . on an understanding of the Civil War. . . . The Civil War defined us as what we are, and it opened us to being what we became, good and bad things. It is very necessary if you’re going to understand the American character in the 20th century to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the mid-19th century. It was the crossroads of our being”. What does this tell us about the United States? What did Foote mean when he spoke these words? We may also think to ourselves. Why didn’t the South win? There leaders were supposedly brilliant and they lost fewer men then the North, right? What did Historian Shelby Foote mean in his quote above? He is saying that it is necessary to learn about this huge catastrophe that happened in...
Words: 735 - Pages: 3
