Page 1 of 2

First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-03 09:16pm
by LadyTevar
150th Anniversary of the Battle of Philippi
Charleston Gazette wrote: PHILIPPI, W.Va. -- When the first shot of the first land battle of the Civil War was fired 150 years ago today, neither a Union nor a Confederate soldier pulled the trigger.

A middle-aged Barbour County woman named Matilda Humphreys set the Battle of Philippi in motion on June 3, 1861, when she fired a pistol at a group of federal troops who forced her 12-year-old son, Oliver, off the family horse and onto the ground.

Oliver's older brother, Lorenzo, was among nearly 750 Confederate soldiers camped in town. He had enlisted in the Barbour Grays, later Company H of the 31st Virginia Infantry, two weeks earlier,

When Matilda Humphreys saw Union troops marching past her home on the outskirts of Philippi, she sent Oliver to warn his brother of their arrival.

The Union troops who forced Oliver Humphreys off his horse were part of a federal force of nearly 3,000 men. They had marched through the night in a driving rain to reach Philippi, a small town with large secessionist sympathies.

At the Barbour County Courthouse in the center of town, a palmetto tree flag had flown since February to show support for South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union.

Col. Ebenezer Dumont, an Indiana lawyer and Mexican-American War veteran, was in charge of the column of Ohio and Indiana soldiers who marched past the Humphreys home. Col. Benjamin Franklin Kelley of Philadelphia, a freight agent in Wheeling for the B&O Railroad several years earlier, led the second column. It included the 1st Virginia (U.S.) Infantry, comprised mainly of recruits from the Northern Panhandle, as well as companies from regiments formed in Ohio and Indiana.

Departing from Grafton on June 2, 1861, Dumont's soldiers rode a train about four miles south, to the small community of Webster. They disembarked and began a soggy, nightlong march to Philippi, about 11 miles away.

Kelley and his troops were dropped off at a siding at Thornton, six miles east of Grafton, where they marched over back roads to approach Philippi from the rear.

The Civil War's first march to combat was under way, following the world's first use of the railroad to deploy multiple forces in attacking an enemy objective.

The battle

The plan was for both Union forces, each consisting of about 1,500 men, to arrive at opposite ends of Philippi at 4 a.m. on June 3, to surprise and trap the Confederate force camped there.

"It was not a bad-looking plan on paper, but in reality, it ended up being much more difficult to pull off than anyone anticipated," said Danny Franke, a theology professor at Alderson-Broaddus College and a coordinator of Civil War history events around Philippi.

Among the Confederate troops in Philippi was a squad led by Col. William J. Willey, who had burned two wooden trestle bridges on the B&O line between Mannington and Farmington on May 25. (Although a Confederate officer, Willey was the half-brother of Waitman Willey, a Morgantown lawyer who voted against secession as a delegate to the Virginia Convention, and later became a U.S. senator representing the Restored State of Virginia.)

Upon learning of the May 25 raid, Union Gen. Winfield Scott ordered Gen. George McClellan, then stationed in Ohio, to move troops into western Virginia to protect the vital east-west rail line. That set in motion the attack on Philippi, where a Confederate force led by Col. George Porterfield, a Berkeley County native and another Mexican-American War veteran, was camped.

On the eve of the Union attack, Porterfield knew that a federal force was approaching Philippi, but decided no army would march in such a driving rain, according to Hunter Lesser, author of "Rebels at the Gate: Lee and McClellan on the Front Line of a Nation Divided."

Porterfield waited to send a scouting party to pinpoint the Union force's position until the following morning.

Dumont's column, led by Col. Frederick Lander, a former explorer and surveyor in the western United States, arrived on Talbott Hill overlooking Philippi -- at the present-day site of Alderson-Broaddus College -- before the planned 4 a.m. attack time.

Lander's soldiers readied two six-pounder cannons from the 1st Ohio Light Artillery on the hill, and waited for Kelley's force to announce its arrival with a single gunshot.

As daylight broke, though, Kelley had yet to signal his arrival. Lander and the artillerymen on Talbott Hill could see Confederate soldiers stir around Philippi's homes, tents and the covered bridge over the Tygart Valley River, where they had spent the rainy night.

"Lander was anxious to open up before the Confederates were aware they were about to be attacked," said Lesser.

When Matilda Humphreys' pistol shot sounded, Lander might have thought it was Kelley's signal -- or he might have thought it a good-enough reason to begin the attack and maintain the element of surprise.

The first artillery volley struck near a small group of tents used by the Confederates, while Dumont's column, led by Lander in a galloping downhill ride, stormed down Talbott Hill toward the covered bridge. The other Union column, led by Kelley, could be seen closing in on the town from the east.

The Confederate force was taken completely by surprise.

Instead of blocking the Confederate soldiers' retreat, though, both Union columns charged into Philippi, allowing Porterfield's panicked troops to flee.

After the artillery volley from the heights above Philippi, Porterfield saddled his horse and rode toward a group of men at the north end of town -- only to discover they were federal troops. He reversed his course and tried to organize an orderly withdrawal of his panic-stricken, untrained force.

Union troops stormed across the covered bridge and into town. Kelley rode into town at a gallop, shooting at fleeing Confederate soldiers, one of whom shot him in the chest.

The wound was thought to be fatal, and newspaper accounts of the battle described Kelley as being mortally wounded, but Kelley recovered, and was eventually promoted to brigadier general.

The attack, skirmish and retreat were over within about 30 minutes, giving the battle the nickname the "Philippi Races."

The Union soldiers, exhausted and hungry after their nightlong march, did not pursue the fleeing Confederates, who regrouped southeast of town and began an orderly withdrawal to Beverly, in Randolph County.

Lost of Limb

As Union soldiers gathered up left-behind Confederate supplies, tore up two secessionist flags and rounded up five prisoners of war, they came across perhaps the battle's unluckiest participant.

Eighteen-year-old James E. Hanger of Churchville, Va., had arrived in Philippi two days before, in a wagon train bringing supplies to members of the Churchville Cavalry, which included two of his brothers.

Hanger, an engineering student at Washington College in Lexington, Va., enlisted in the Churchville unit on June 2 -- the day before the battle -- and was sleeping in a stable when one of a dozen cannonballs fired during the battle bounced off a support beam and shattered his left leg.

Union troops found Hanger bleeding in a hayloft. He was carried to the Methodist Episcopal Church, where James Robison, a surgeon attached to an Ohio infantry regiment, removed the remnants of his leg seven inches below the hip -- without benefit of anesthesia.

Hanger became the first of nearly 50,000 soldiers to lose limbs during the Civil War. (The second was Confederate Capt. Fauntleroy Daingerfield, whose knee was shattered by a musket ball at Philippi. A Confederate surgeon amputated Daingerfield's lower leg on June 4 in Beverly.)

After recuperating for several days at a Philippi-area farm, Hanger was sent to Camp Chase, in Ohio. He was later exchanged for a Union prisoner of war and sent home to Virginia, where he fashioned a hinged prosthetic leg from barrel staves.

The device worked so well, he was commissioned by the Virginia legislature to manufacture the "Hanger Limb" for other wounded veterans. When the war ended, he patented his artificial leg and sold it worldwide.

Today, Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics operates more than 600 patient care centers.

The Battle of Philippi might not have had much importance as a strategic military operation, "but it rallied a lot of citizens from northwestern Virginia to the Union," just one week before the Second Wheeling Convention was set to begin, Lesser said.

Most citizens in the region favored the Union cause, and "their faith has been strengthened" by the federal victory, wrote Cincinnati Daily Gazette reporter Whitelaw Reid, who followed the Union troops into action.

"A single success of the rebel army would have fanned to an instant flame all the concealed sparks of disunion," Reid wrote. With the Union win at Philippi, "the doubtful have been confirmed and almost hopeless reprobates have been converted into loyal citizens since 'We met them at Philippi.'"

One of the five Confederate prisoners of war captured at Philippi was William Willey, who led the bridge-burning raid that prompted the Union attack on Philippi. Willey was found in a Philippi home, where he was recovering from typhoid fever.

According to Lesser, Willey tried to pass himself off as his anti-secession brother, Waitman Willey -- until Union troops found papers authorizing his commission as a Confederate officer, along with letters dealing with his bridge-burning activity.

Gen. McClellan described the short-lived battle with a measure of hyperbole, calling it "the most brilliant episode of the war thus far."

It also was the only battle of the war at that point. Its brilliance would fade considerably during the four years to follow.

For a timeline of West Virginia Civil War and statehood events and a gallery of West Virginia Civil War photos, visit West Virginia Archives and History's "Child of the Rebellion" online exhibit at http://www.wvculture.org/history/sesquicentennial.html.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-03 09:23pm
by LadyTevar
So, let's go hit the highlights here, folks.

1. The shot that started it was from a Civilian, thinking to protect her sucessionist-leaning son.
2. First documented use of Railroad to transport troops into the field. Note it was a pincher attack.
3. First loss of limb by a soldier, which lead to the first prosthetic leg, and the company is still in business today, over 140yrs later.


Not bad for a battle that lasted only 30min.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-04 04:58pm
by LaCroix
I was curious towards what happened to the lady firing the pistol and her sons, and found this...

Story

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-04 07:17pm
by Thanas
LadyTevar wrote:3. First loss of limb by a soldier, which lead to the first prosthetic leg, and the company is still in business today, over 140yrs later.
Actually, the early egyptians already used prosthetics (quite sophisticated ones too). A Roman general (allegedly) first used a replacement arm in battle, whereas replacement of limbs lost to musket/cannonballs was common even in the middle ages/renaissance. Google "Götz von Berlichingen hand" for details.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-04 07:50pm
by Terralthra
Thanas wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:3. First loss of limb by a soldier, which lead to the first prosthetic leg, and the company is still in business today, over 140yrs later.
Actually, the early egyptians already used prosthetics (quite sophisticated ones too). A Roman general (allegedly) first used a replacement arm in battle, whereas replacement of limbs lost to musket/cannonballs was common even in the middle ages/renaissance. Google "Götz von Berlichingen hand" for details.
None of those are legs.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-04 09:36pm
by LadyTevar
Terralthra wrote:
Thanas wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:3. First loss of limb by a soldier, which lead to the first prosthetic leg, and the company is still in business today, over 140yrs later.
Actually, the early egyptians already used prosthetics (quite sophisticated ones too). A Roman general (allegedly) first used a replacement arm in battle, whereas replacement of limbs lost to musket/cannonballs was common even in the middle ages/renaissance. Google "Götz von Berlichingen hand" for details.
None of those are legs.
Thank you, Terralthra :)

As for me, I found it interesting that the company is still in business. :)
I will be posting more of WV's Civil war history as the Anniversary goes on.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-05 03:07am
by Thanas
Terralthra wrote:None of those are legs.
LadyTevar wrote:Thank you, Terralthra :)

Are you two serious? Is that intended to be a valid rebuttal? :lol:


The earliest known prosthetic leg we have found (in archeology) is dated to 300 B.C., made out of wood with an iron core. The Romans of course had a lot of battlefield amputees, so they also used prosthetics. Here is a picture of that first leg Link. We know of earlier examples, but sadly we have found none in archeology so far.

The next advance is in the 15th century, when Ambroise Paré invented his iron leg. Paré of course was also the famed battlefield surgeon who first created standardized practices for amputation. This was the first prosthetic that also replaced knee joints.
Pare also devised an above knee artificial limb which was a kneeling peg leg and foot prosthesis, it had a fixed equinus position, an adjustable harness, control for locking the knee and other features still in use today.
Meanwhile in 1696, the first nonlocking prosthetic leg was invented by Pieter Verduyn. This is the basis for our modern joint devices of today, as it "showed a striking similarity to today’s knee joint with corset type prosthesis, like the present type of limb it had external hinges and a leather ‘cuff ‘ which bore the weight, the socket was lined with leather and had a copper shell and a wooden foot."

In 1800 James Potts designed a prosthetic leg which lifted toes when the knee was bended, via the use of artificial tendons. "Flexion of the knee caused the foot to dorsiflex and extension of the knee caused the foot to plantar flex".

After various improvements this leg was then introduced to the US by William Selpho in 1839, where an anterior spring was added by Benjamin Palmer in 1843.

It is this device which Hangar then modified, by "replacing the then used catgut tendons of the ‘American Leg’ with rubber bumpers to control plantar and dorsiflexion, [Hangar] also used a ‘plug fit’ wooden socket".

So in short, not such a miraculous thing as it is made out to be, nor the first prosthetic leg. "Merely" an improvement upon an existing design, of which the essential elements, especially the joints, had already been invented by the British building upon a Dutch design building upon a French design by a battlefield surgeon who also rediscovered the Roman methods for battlefield surgery.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-05 02:12pm
by Sea Skimmer
Common sense alone would make it absurd for such a basic, essential device to be invented as late as 1861 when people already had rather more complicated stuff like self regulating steam engines.

The article is also simply wrong on this being the first land battle of the US Civil War. Ignoring the fact that serious fighting went on before the war formally began and that last I checked, Fort Sumter counts as a battle, the first engagement on the ground between infantry troops was the Battle of Fairfax Court House took place on June 1st.

Philippi counts as the first large scale battle between infantry troops, but that’s it. It is not the first battle.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-21 06:22pm
by Spoonist
LadyTevar wrote:2. First documented use of Railroad to transport troops into the field.
Maybe I'm getting my dates wrong but isn't the crimean war before the US Civil war?
I seem to remember the siege of Sevastapol including a train that brings troops, guns, ammo and supplies which determines the outcome???
Maybe there is a caveat that I'm not aware of?

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-21 09:27pm
by Sea Skimmer
Spoonist wrote: Maybe I'm getting my dates wrong but isn't the crimean war before the US Civil war?
I seem to remember the siege of Sevastapol including a train that brings troops, guns, ammo and supplies which determines the outcome???
Maybe there is a caveat that I'm not aware of?
No railroads existed in Russia at the time south of Moscow. Total Russian trackage was under a thousand miles. The allies did build a few very short bits of rail to move supplies for the siege as I recall but they had no locomotives and did not use them to transport troops. In fact the whole reason the war went so badly for Russia was because Russian troops and supplies all had to move by canal and river barges south, and then along the coast to reach Sevastopol, leaving them exposed to allied naval attacks and very SLOW. Supplies could reach the allies from London faster then they could reach the Russians from Moscow! So as a result the vast size of the Russian army meant nothing, it could not appear on the field of battle in strength.

Though... the allied logistic situation was absolutely horrible in its own right and among other absurdities, thousands of troops froze to death when nobody bothered to issue them with more then one blanket even after they'd lost the only one they had in battle. Generally it was a very horrible war for both sides.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-21 09:48pm
by Simon_Jester
Skimmer, I've always wondered just what the hell was wrong with the logistics during the Crimean War, on the Allied side? It seems so... so inexplicably stupid, bordering on deliberate sabotage of the Allied forces by their own quartermaster corps.

Why was the system so fucked up?

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-22 01:46am
by Sea Skimmer
Many factors compounded together. Can’t say it’s a war I’ve read a vast deal about but I can give a run down of the big factors. Tthe British, and I believe French army also, certainly the British, still sold commissions at the time; meaning any inbred idiot, noble or not, with money could become a high ranking officer with zero service time or training behind him. This was of course, stupid as shit, and its part of the reason why some British files on the conflict are still classified. Now US did a similar thing in the USCW, only instead of buying a commission you had to get men to sign up for service with you, and could become officer of the rank appropriate to command the number of guys you recruited. That tended to limit such officers to the rank of colonel commanding a single regiment of 1,000 men, thank god. Nobody I’ve heard of recruited enough men to become a general, though some came close.

Anyway the British army in particular had been run down for decades since the Napoleonic Wars and essentially just forgotten how to fight and supply large units. Its last really major combat had been the Afghan Wars which were hardly great showings of generalship and which involved forces fairly distinct from the home forces of the British Empire in any case. The French army meanwhile is just notorious for bad logistics, the French army in the Franco Prussian War almost starved on home territory at times, and Napoleon had left a legacy of living off the land. The Crimea was fairly barren and only sparsely populated in the area of the small allied lodgment, so it was impossible to pillage local resources to supply the besieging army as would be typical of sieges earlier in history. Disease was rampant from lack of shelter, lack of material to construct shelter with and bad food and bad medical care which were a part of any army of the era. The allied army was fairly large by the standards of the time but not so far that it could afford to roam across the Crimea looking for supplies and timber. It had to keep inside a limited area; as for the first part of the siege allied warships could not isolate the Crimea effectively from reinforcement (it was never fully isolated, nor even ever completely surrounded on land). Too many Russian forts and batteries were around, so the Russians strength increased and counter attack was a constant risk. That's why those ironclads first appeared, to help knock out the forts without using large land forces to besiege each one in turn.

Problems began early when someone made the decision to send out troops by the new and fast steamships, while all supplies went by sail. So troops arrived ahead of supplies, and the situation never really recovered from that. Men nearly starved in some instances waiting for food to arrive, and the Ottoman Empire was in no position to help with anything. The first winter was appalling because winter clothing in the required quantities simply had not yet arrived, not unlike the German situation in the winter of 1941, and then it wasn’t issued because of inept officers fanatically dedicated to following the letter of regulations meant to control costs. Warfare was absurdly expensive back then, even more so then it is now. Every war was a national effort.

The battle was far protracted then the allies expected; indeed the siege was so absurd that the Russians pushed out the defensive lines repeatedly until near the very end of the battle, when a brilliant French attack captured a key defensive position around the Malakoff tower when it was undefended (Russians changed the guard the same time every day, opps) and collapsed the defense.

This is also one of the first wars in which the news media, supplied with news quickly by telegraph lines running across the Balkans to Western Europe, played a major role in shaping political interference with military operations, which meanwhile had a goal of less then total victory. Also, IIRC the first major war to be photographed. That also helped spread the word of awful conditions, but the official reaction was to find people to blame and shuffle around paper not solve the problems. Doesn’t sound so unfamiler or unsurprising does it?

I’m not really sure the war is even as exceptionally bad as it’s made out to be, compared to earlier wars like say, Napoleons retreat from Russia. It was bad, but its also just it’s really one of the last of the old style of warfare when humans were nothing but death cattle, and was on the brink of modern warfare that would be greatly refined in the US Civil War and almost fully realized in the Franco Prussian War. So we hear about it a lot because it’s really not that old, only 156 years, and it was much better documented in popular history then conflicts not much older. Precisely because the war was so documented and so bad we began to see major changes in professional militaries, such as establishing serious medical services.

The Ottomans meanwhile are of course, the Ottomans, you just expect them to suck with a government and military system that had not more then remotely modernized over its glory days prior to 1571 at Lepanto when it looked like Muslim galley fleets might well capture the entire Mediterranean coastline. But such a country was the allied base of operations. Not good. Russia for its part was fighting the war with men who were still serfs.

I guess you could sum it up as the war was large enough to cause trouble and pack lots of men into a small area, and yet not large enough to be fought in its logical manner. So you get a crazy siege in bad terrain in winter which would have surely have killed thousands of men by disease anyway even if they'd had better supply lines. After all even in WW2 disease was a huge drain on manpower, it was just disease had ceased being such a major killer as opposed to incapacitating men. The Germans infamously had whole battalions of men with stomach diseases manning the Atlantic Wall who needed special liquid diets.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-22 02:44am
by Simon_Jester
Sea Skimmer wrote:Many factors compounded together. Can’t say it’s a war I’ve read a vast deal about but I can give a run down of the big factors. Tthe British, and I believe French army also, certainly the British, still sold commissions at the time; meaning any inbred idiot, noble or not, with money could become a high ranking officer with zero service time or training behind him. This was of course, stupid as shit, and its part of the reason why some British files on the conflict are still classified.
Wow. Still classified.

Any specific examples of this biting them on the ass come to mind? That might be below the level of detail that could be accessed without undue effort, though, so no pressure.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-22 08:18am
by Thanas
AFAIK the French did not sell promotions after the revolution anymore and might even have abandoned that practice beforehand. Continental armies seem to have stopped this system at ranks higher than colonel anyway, I cannot remember any general of the seven year's war who bought his rank.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-22 01:39pm
by Sea Skimmer
Simon_Jester wrote:Wow. Still classified.

Any specific examples of this biting them on the ass come to mind? That might be below the level of detail that could be accessed without undue effort, though, so no pressure.
Couldn't tell you, it’s just what I've heard, that some stuff is indefinitely classified, and other files were marked to be sealed for 200 years. Most stuff is public now, just poorly very indexed and organized and all paper only.
Thanas wrote:AFAIK the French did not sell promotions after the revolution anymore and might even have abandoned that practice beforehand. Continental armies seem to have stopped this system at ranks higher than colonel anyway, I cannot remember any general of the seven year's war who bought his rank.
While the revolutionary French abolished it for some years, Napoleon brought it back as his army expanded too rapidly for the supply of trained officers and he needed to shore up political support from the nobility anyway. I thought Napoleon III kept it going even while down scaling to a professional army, but I don’t really know.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-22 01:52pm
by Thanas
Sea Skimmer wrote:While the revolutionary French abolished it for some years, Napoleon brought it back as his army expanded too rapidly to stock with trained officers, and he needed to shore up political support from the nobility. I thought Napoleon III kept it going even while downscaling to a professional army, but I don’t really know.

Didn't Napoleon only allowed it in allied armies? As for France, I always thought what he did was allowing nobles to serve again, which is something the revolutionaries had not liked that much, even if it was never officially forbidden.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-23 01:40am
by ChaserGrey
Another problem related to this was that European countries, by and large, hadn't fought large wars since 1815 and had allowed some inefficient structures to grow up, as well as not reforming old ones that were past their prime. The situation I know in detail is the British, and it appears to have been designed by Rube Goldberg after a whiskey bender. Check this out:
  • There were two completely parallel chains of command for British combat arms. Infantry and Cavalry reported to the Commander-in-Chief of the Horse Guards, while artillery and engineers reported to the Master-General of the Ordnance. (This also meant that officers in the artillery and engineers could not purchase their commissions- they had to earn them at the Royal Military Academy, with subsequent promotion by seniority.
  • The Royal Navy answered to the Admiralty Board in London, which was another distinct office separate from both the entities mentioned above- there was no single ministry responsible for military affairs. As a result, Lord Raglan (the nominal CINC in the Crimea) could only request naval support for his operations, not issue orders.
  • Military equipment such as guns and ammunition was supplied by the Ordnance Department, which reported to the Master-General of the Ordnance but was staffed by civilians.
  • Other items such as food, wagons, and so forth was supplied by the Commissariat, which was a department of His Majesty's Treasury and did not answer to anyone in uniform.
Under the circumstances it's a bloody miracle they managed as much as they did...

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-24 03:40am
by Thanas
ChaserGrey wrote:Another problem related to this was that European countries, by and large, hadn't fought large wars since 1815
No. A lot of countries fought large wars. However, Britain and France had not, that is correct.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-24 04:30am
by Simon_Jester
Thanas wrote:
ChaserGrey wrote:Another problem related to this was that European countries, by and large, hadn't fought large wars since 1815
No. A lot of countries fought large wars. However, Britain and France had not, that is correct.
Probably due to time zones, my memory is blanking; what was there between 1815 and 1855 on anywhere near the scale of the Napoleonic Wars? Certainly there were wars, but hard-fought contests between really major powers... again, my memory is blanking. I'm sorry.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-24 07:28am
by Thanas
Simon_Jester wrote:
Thanas wrote:
ChaserGrey wrote:Another problem related to this was that European countries, by and large, hadn't fought large wars since 1815
No. A lot of countries fought large wars. However, Britain and France had not, that is correct.
Probably due to time zones, my memory is blanking; what was there between 1815 and 1855 on anywhere near the scale of the Napoleonic Wars? Certainly there were wars, but hard-fought contests between really major powers... again, my memory is blanking. I'm sorry.
Well, I would certainly consider Prussia and Danemark major powers for until the second schlesvig war. And no, nothing very largescale compared to the Napoleonic wars, though the first slesvig war and the Revolutions of 1848 involved tens of thousand of troops.

So I'll have to correct myself - protracted wars no, but logistical challenges and maneuvers/battles involving a lot of troops? Yes.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-24 10:23am
by Shawn
Now US did a similar thing in the USCW, only instead of buying a commission you had to get men to sign up for service with you, and could become officer of the rank appropriate to command the number of guys you recruited. That tended to limit such officers to the rank of colonel commanding a single regiment of 1,000 men, thank god. Nobody I’ve heard of recruited enough men to become a general, though some came close.
The one I can think of was Nathan Bedford Forrest. He enlisted as a private, quit and then raised a full brigade. Since he was quite rich from his days as a slave trader, he could afford to do so. Unfortunately for the Union he was also a supremely talented commander of cavalry.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-24 10:24am
by Simon_Jester
True. Thank you.

Though the Crimean War may well have added an extra layer of complexity- as always, maintaining your forces over sea lanes is much more complicated and difficult than maintaining them overland. The British and French weren't just sustaining a large force, they were doing it by sea (recall Skimmer's comment about steam-powered troopships and sail-powered provision ships). And the troops were far away from existing supply dumps, magazines, and fortresses that could help provide supplies to the troops, which I would think played a role in the Schlesvig Wars or the wars of 1848.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-24 12:05pm
by Thanas
^Yes, you are correct in that.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-25 01:55am
by Sea Skimmer
Logistics by sea are easy enough if no one is able to attack them, you have a port to unload at, and you have little in the way of heavy equipment except the actual barrels of siege guns, all of which was the case in the Crimea, the real issue is just the shear distances involved multiplied by the large scale of the troop deployment. Life is much harder from WW1 onward because you had way more big vehicles and big items of supporting equipment which began requiring stuff like harbor cranes, beaching craft ect.. that are a non issue in 1855. Moving stuff by land is a bitch and a half when you must rely on horse drawn wagons and limited mud road grids. The only advantage is you can loot and pillage to find some food for men and animal, but that simply wont work with the larger armies of the second half of the 19th century.

The Second Schleswig War involved fewer total troops then allied troops died in the Crimea IIRC, and it was right on the doorstep of both sides. Hard to fail at that one as much as people tried. One of the Danish forts gave a remarkable demonstration of the power of earthworks too, I forget its name but the place was barely more then a ditch and a parapet and held out against massive attacks and artillery barrages, which European generals happily ignored after the fact.

Re: First Land Battle of the US Civil War

Posted: 2011-06-25 05:38am
by Simon_Jester
Sea Skimmer wrote:Logistics by sea are easy enough if no one is able to attack them, you have a port to unload at, and you have little in the way of heavy equipment except the actual barrels of siege guns, all of which was the case in the Crimea, the real issue is just the shear distances involved multiplied by the large scale of the troop deployment.
Yeah- which was what i was getting at. Distance and scale, and the lack of local supply bases, make any logistics situation far more difficult than it would be otherwise. It's not complicated, but increases the vulnerability to random events that interrupt the supply chain, because if something is spoiled or lost, it will be a good long while before another batch can be sent from home. And it multiplies the effect of any incompetence or weakness in the supply chain- there are more things to screw up, and more points at which a bungling quartermaster can damage the system.*

It's not impossible, it's often the only way to supply an army at all, but it's still easier to get logistics disasters when you supply a campaign via a thousand mile sea route than via a forty mile land route.

*I do wonder what was going through the minds of some of those Crimean War British quartermasters and their excessive zeal. Did they simply not believe that all this stuff coming to their supply dumps was supposed to go forward to the troops? Did they believe that men did not need food or shelter to live? I... I just have trouble fathoming it.