690 reputation
26
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 years
seen Apr 2 at 19:37

Mar
29
awarded  Yearling
Mar
17
awarded  Enlightened
Mar
17
awarded  Nice Answer
Mar
14
answered In WWII, why did people not run away from executions?
Feb
6
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
@PieterGeerkens Please read my comments and relate them back to your answer. The point of the comments section is to improve your answer or raise criticism. What purpose is there for me to reiterate what you said, particularly if I don't think it properly answers the question? The short version: The question asks for things that were invented during the Civil War and influenced warfare afterwards, and you listed three things that were all invented and implemented decades earlier, not during the Civil War. They are interesting points, but they don't answer the original question.
Feb
6
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
@PieterGeerkens The first point I agree with, cover was more important in the Civil War. However, taking cover was still common practice in the armies of Revolutionary France, so it wasn't an entirely new idea, and there are good reasons to not take cover: loading is faster, discipline is easier, denser formations are safer against cavalry, and cover helps less against hundreds of inaccurate muskets firing less than 80 yards away. The reason cover became significant is because the weapons and the battlefield changed to make it more advantageous, and your answer didn't quite explain that.
Feb
6
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
@PieterGeerkens Your points are correct, but the original question was asking about things that were invented during the Civil War that influenced warfare after it. Mass conscription was not. Cavalry used as scouting and pursuit was the norm before the Civil War, though the Civil War certainly contributed to the death of whatever shock cavalry was left so I partially agree on that.
Feb
5
answered Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
Feb
5
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
The points you make are good, the dates however are wrong. All three of your major innovations were used first and used extensively by the armies of revolutionary France. The French used huge clouds of skirmishers, it's a defining feature of their armies, and skirmishing tactics were known before even that, not to mention there are valid reasons not to take cover, which is why the alternative existed. Most cavalry was used as recon, shock cavalry in the age of gunpowder was typically the exception. Finally, mass conscription, also known as Leveé en masse, originated in Revolutionary France.
Feb
5
comment Has the American Civil War led to any significant innovations in 19th-century warfare?
For this to be complete you'd need to include railroads, the most important long-term impact of the Civil War by far. The technological changes were certainly significant, but most battles are won and lost by supply and maneuver, and railroads completely revolutionized both.
Dec
5
comment (War Guilt Methodology) Was Germany solely to blame for WWI?
You are correct in your assertions, but you're missing a lot of mitigating factors that are crucial to the understanding of the whole event. France had been giving Russia money and military support specifically to deal with Germany at some point in the future, and the French were just looking for an excuse to go to war. The Tsar promised mobilization only in the regions next to Austria-Hungary, but in reality mobilized the entire Russian army. It's a complex issue and there are other factors, but against that backdrop I can't agree with the assertion that Germany is the "most guilty" party.
Dec
5
comment Has there ever been a truly multi-sided war?
The answers below fit the question better, but I thought I'd mention the Holy Roman Empire, or the ancient Greek City States. Both are good examples of numerous factions that were perpetually fighting each other, however those involve a lot more shifting alliances and attacks of opportunity rather than a persistent state of war.
Dec
5
comment How do war elephants fight?
@Sardathrion Cavalry can be point and charge but it's also capable of flanking, baiting, skirmishing, withdrawing, and a host of other complicated maneuvers. Cavalry was also a common element in most armies, war elephants were always a novelty, that was part of their power. The answer is pretty solid but given that "War Elephants == Big Cavalry" is an extremely common misconception I think more emphasis needs to be put on their unique role and varying utilization rather than conflating them with cavalry.
Dec
5
comment How do war elephants fight?
Because Elephants were much harder to control, they really weren't used "as cavalry would have been". They're more of a blunt instrument, point them at a target of opportunity and charge, once the chaos of battle got to them they'd be impossible to control, unlike horses.
Aug
27
comment What role did War elephants play in the battle of Thermopylae?
Fascinating, I'd never heard of that battle before. Based on the battle account, however, it sounds like the elephants were deployed at a wider part of the pass, and not used in the actual fighting.
Aug
23
answered What role did War elephants play in the battle of Thermopylae?
Aug
23
comment Why did the Germans wait until it was too late to reinstate their unrestricted submarine warfare in WWI?
Starving out the enemy wasn't a practical strategy for Germany at that stage. France and America couldn't be beaten that way, and England had Germany under a full blockade for the entire war. If it came down to that, Germany would starve first. Indeed, over 400K deaths were attributed directly to the blockade, deaths that starvation/malnutrition and the blockade indirectly contributed to were probably twice that. Germany's only hope at that stage was a military victory that would give them a better bargaining position in peace talks.
Jun
5
answered How historically accurate is Les Miserables?
May
21
comment U.S. Marine Corps and Why does the Navy’s army need its own air force?
@Drux The Marines are the oldest branch, however it has shrunk and nearly disappeared at several points. The history of the Corps is one of significant reinvention, continually evolving their capabilities to fit a role no other branch does. The modern version is focused on speed and flexibility that makes them the best suited for fighting the asymmetric wars the US has been facing recently. (Also, as to the F-35, this isn't the first time a 'one plane' solution has been tried and it always fails expensively because it's really not a good idea at its core)
May
7
comment What were Rommel's views on the Nazi crimes?
Please take the time to review your sources and construct an answer rather than simply posting links. While the second source is interesting it doesn't apply to the question asked, it's just describing how Hitler might have exploited Rommel's victories to expand the Holocaust, not how Rommel himself felt about it.