Is Military History Important?
MSG Ronald Campbell
United States Army Sergeants Major Academy
Class # 35
SGM Faithette Foreman
August 15, 2009
Military History 2
Abstract
It’s important to know and understand history, whether it be family history or military history. By studying history we learn from triumphs and defeats. History has taught us that things done in the past will not always work in the future. Military leaders today, as well as in the past have learned this lesson. Soldiers should study history to better prepare themselves for future conflicts. This paper will show how military leaders during the American Civil War made mistakes in fighting tactics. It will show how weapons that were inadequate were used in battle and how soldiers had to endure long marches to reach the battlefields. One will see how military leaders learned from history and why it’s important for soldiers and leaders to study and understand history.
Military History 3
The American Civil War was one of the darkest periods in America’s history. The war affected the lives of millions, with the lost of industry and commerce. 620,000 lives were lost during the
Civil War. The fighting formations of the infantry during the Civil War were a major cause for the number of deaths and injuries. Fighting with soldiers shoulder to shoulder was like going hunting: this formation allowed for no defense or cover from enemy fire. Even the weapons used in battles were inadequate.
The smoothbore muskets were inaccurate and had a short range. (Mark Grimsley, 1997,
2006). Firing at a distance of 100 yards had little effect. The most numerous part of the Civil
War Army was the infantry. (Mark Grimsley, 1997, 2006). The infantry used the tactics of having soldiers shoulder to shoulder and having them move and shoot together. The problem with this type of fighting was that it allowed the enemy to shoot directly into a line of men waiting to be hit by musket balls.
The line formation operated in this way: Soldiers were put in lines of two. They would march straight toward the enemy in right shoulder arms. Once the line reached a distance of a few yards, the order was given for the front line to kneel. The kneeling line would take aim and fire, and then the kneeling line would immediately start to re-load. While the kneeling line re loaded the standing line fired and the process continued until the order of charge was given.
It’s easy to see how so many soldiers were killed or injured in the line formation. Was this an effective way of fighting? This method of combat seems to have had little concern for the welfare of the soldier.
Military History 4
It seems the leaders of the Civil War had one thing on their minds and that was to win battles- no matter what the cost. Do leaders think this way today? Is the battle more important than the welfare of the soldier? As stated earlier, some of the weapons used during the Civil War were inadequate. At the start of the Civil War the soldiers were using smoothbore muskets. The smoothbore musket was a long, heavy weapon. It weighed nine pounds and was between 56”
57.75” in length. The smoothbore musket was a muzzle-loaded weapon (which means it had to be loaded through the muzzle).
This was a nine step process: the weapon had to be loaded, by seizing the cartridge, next charging the cartridge (this was done by emptying powder into the barrel), then drawing the rammer, (this is used to ram the cartridge into the barrel), then ramming the cartridge and returning the rammer. Next the weapon was primed aimed and prepared to fire. Finally, “Fire the weapon!” This process took about one minute if done quickly. (Donald Vaughan, 2000, p.
172). One can see that the loading procedure for the smoothbore musket was a high risk factor.
In 1861 The Federal Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts started producing the most favored weapon of the Civil War, the model 1861 Springfield rifle musket.(Donald Vaughan,
2000 p. 169) There were 250,000 of this model made over a two year period. Other weapons were produced during the Civil War to kill or injure soldiers. They were the Rifle Musket with minie balls, the Henry Repeating Rifle and the Sharpe Carbine. All these weapons were designed to cancel the use of the line formation in battle. With the invention of these new weapons, soldiers were no longer required to face the enemy in a suicidal manner.
Transportation was another issue during the Civil War. Even though railroads were used to transport soldiers from battle to battle, the foot march was still the main way for soldiers to get Military History 5
to a battlefield. Soldiers would have to march for days to get to a location, sometimes in rain and snow. After reaching their destination, soldiers would sometimes have to go into battle without rest or food. During the time of the Civil War the mode of transportation was few. Wagon trains were used to transport wounded soldiers and supplies. When it rained wagon trains had a tendency to get stuck in the mud, so carrying soldiers into battle was not a good idea because it was time consuming to free the wagon from the mud. This would have been devastating for soldiers in battle waiting for re-enforcements.
Horses were used for the cavalry, but the burden put on horses during campaigns were killing horses by the thousands. Union armies required almost 500 new horses every day. (Ian
Drury & Tony Gibbons, 1993 p. 88). So due to the short life span of horses and the way wagon trains would become stuck during rain, it’s easy to see why soldiers had to march long distances.
Some military leaders during the Civil War were slow or unwilling to accept change in fighting formations with the advancement of weapons from muskets to repeating rifles.
It was easy to see that change had to be made, If leaders had made a change in fighting tactics in the early stage of the Civil War would more lives have been saved than loss?
This question could be debated but with change in technology came change in all forms of military operations in the Civil War.
It took some time but military commanders did come around. They realized that the old way of fighting battles was now a thing of the past. Leaders realized that with the development of new weapons, they were able to shoot farther and straighter. Soldiers no longer had to be in the open while firing and reloading their weapons. It wouldn’t take one to two minutes to load a weapon, which could only fire one shot before it would have to be reloaded. Soldiers were now Military History 6
using repeater rifles. This weapon allowed multiple rounds to be discharged before reloading. As far as transportation, technology in the 19th century only allowed for limited means of travel. So there was not much that could have been done about transporting troops. However, change was made by the time of World War One. Until then soldiers had to rely on the railroads and long foot marches.
Today we look back at past conflicts to see what can be learned. Should soldiers study military history? The answer is yes. By studying history one can see where mistakes were made and hopefully will not make the same mistakes. Military leaders today study history to make changes in military operations and decisions. Leaders knew that battles fought in Viet Nam could not be fought the same way in Iraq. This was learned by studying history. Civil War leaders realized that with the invention of repeating rifles, a new fighting tactic had to be developed to minimize soldiers being killed or injured. History will always play a big part in the military. Even today we look to history as we develop better weapons, uniforms, and equipment.
Soldiers of tomorrow will look back at decisions we make now, and they, too, will learn from history.
Military History 7
References
The Everything Civil War Book (2000)
Donald Vaughan
The Civil War Military Machine, Weapons And Tactics Of The Union And Confederate Forces
Ian Drury & Tony Gibbons (1993)
The Civil War Reenactors’ Encyclopedia (2002)
William C. Davis
How to Read a Civil War Battlefield: Mark Grimsley
http:// people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/tour/default.htm