A historical question

[rayen020]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World

That article describes what are believed to be the most important battles in all of known history up to the battle of Waterloo and napoleon's incarceration. Several historians have gone on to try and add other historically important battles. Some added gettysburg to the list. This was an important battle to American history sure, it marked what many consider the turning point in the American civil war.

however Looking back how important was the American civil war to the rest of the world? Can Gettysburg truly be considered if the ACW was a strictly internal affair. Only relatively few technological advancements in warfare strategy and technology were made and only a handful of the participants went on to take part in any other wars (Native American Engagements not withstanding).

So Does anyone know of any effects the American Civil War had on other countries in the world or link me to an article about it?

*please note this isn't for a project or anything i'm just curious.

 

[Tanis]

Think of it this way:
If the North had not won the ACW, America may not look anything like it is today.

Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

 

[LobsterFeng]

All I know is that the American Civil War is considered the first modern war ever.

 

[Hungry Donner]

I was about to complain about several omissions and then I realized the book was published in 1851 which explains nearly all of them. (But no Battle of Ain Jalut? Tsk.)

A strictly internal war can certainly have world-wide repercussions. I'll admit I generally don't consider the Civil War terribly important (relative to other conflicts) but I can't deny that world history would have unfolded very differently if the South had won.

 

[Gamblerjoe]

The battle of Gettysburg to me would not rank in the top 15 or even 20. The battle itself did not contribute much to anything in the long run. It was in fact a turning point, but for one thing, the tide or the war was changing, no matter how that battle went. On top of that, there were several advantages the Union had that made the battle difficult to lose.

Had the battle been the Union's only hope of winning the war, I would put it in the top 5. If you start breaking up the U.S. it loses a lot of synergy, and never becomes a global superpower. There would also likely have been further wars between the two countries if the south had successfully seceded.

Its hard to say what we would have missed out on if the U.S. was not a superpower. Most things would have just been delayed, i.e. discovered by someone else at a later point. We might still have gotten blood transfusions and telephones at the same time, but we most likely wouldnt have discovered antibiotics; wouldnt have developed engines light and powerful enough to run a helicopter; wouldnt have landed on the moon in 1969; wouldnt have invented computers or the internet, etc.

As far as the war itself, much was contributed to military technology, though that doesnt have anything to do with the battle of Gettysburg itself. We essentially went from unrifled breachloading muskets, to rifles and cartridges by the time the war was over. Cannons underwent a similar metamorphosis. As far as tactics go, a lot of contributions were made to the use of cavalry, and the rifles they used. Weapons where out-pacing fortifications in the arms race, so mobile warfare began its infancy. Battles started being fought in tactical locations, rather than big open fields. Firing from cover, outflanking, outmaneuvering, and out-thinking your opponent where all integral parts of the war. Things that did not apply to quite the same degree in the Franco-Prussian war, or even the early stages of WWI.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Had the battle been the Union's only hope of winning the war, I would put it in the top 5. If you start breaking up the U.S. it loses a lot of synergy, and never becomes a global superpower. There would also likely have been further wars between the two countries if the south had successfully seceded.

I would say this. Modern America has had a massive international affect on how the world is today, politically, technologically, culturally and spiritually. The American Civil War, had it been won by the South, would have changed America to be a very different country than what it is today, but the Battle of Gettysburg was not a decisive victory that secured 100% the war for the North, or doomed the South, it was just a point that visibly marked the Norths superiority. If they had lost Gettysburg, they still could have won the war.

I think they should leave that list alone. Start a new one of a similar name, to depict the different timeframe "The 10 modern battles that changed the world" Start your own darn list, stop riding on the coattails of others notoriety.

It's interesting to see the list of people that added to the list, all using it as an excuse to add their own nations victories into the list,
"In 1930 Texas historian Clarence Wharton published San Jacinto: The Sixteenth Decisive Battle, in which he made the case for adding the final battle of the Texas Revolution to Creasy's list" Why he doesn't sound biased at all!

 

[Veylon]

I find that trying to pin down X important battles kind of misses the point. There's a kind of implied determinist view that if a certain nation had a lost a battle, whatever it invented or did later could never have happened, but that the rest of history would be exactly the same.

Take that Battle of Marathon. No doubt there were any number of epic battles that, had the Persians lost them, would've taken this slot as the one that turned the tide. There's also the issue that great empires picked up and lost territory all the time back then. Even had the Greeks been subjugated, they would've had any number of chances to rise up when the Great King was distracted by civil war, plague, or any of his other borders. Then we'd be talking about the Great Greek Rebellion and how, had it been crushed, it would've doomed democracy.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

Think of it this way:
If the North had not won the ACW, America may not look anything like it is today.

Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

All I know is that the American Civil War is considered the first modern war ever.

For these two reasons. The American Civil War both unified America, which had major lasting affects in the following years (for obvious reasons), but was also integral in introducing new weaponry such as ironclad battleships (unless I am mistaken.) And since Gettysburg was the most important battle of the ACW, its sort of a transitive property kind of thing. Also, I think some European minds involved in financing and defense were swayed after Gettysburg.

 

[theonlyblaze2]

I think I remember learning that because of the war, Britain stopped buying cotton from the South and transferred a large number of the crop fields in India into cotton fields. So....there's that.

 

[ThongBonerstorm]

Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

For WWI they didn't show up until the war was over, and WWII probably wasn't influenced all that much by them. I wonder how the post war era would have turned out with only one superpower, no cold war and unchecked communist expansion?

 

[Tanis]

Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

For WWI they didn't show up until the war was over, and WWII probably wasn't influenced all that much by them. I wonder how the post war era would have turned out with only one superpower, no cold war and unchecked communist expansion?

Your ignorance is showing HARD.

In both case directly and indirectly the USA helped to win both world wars.

 

[WrongSprite]

Think of it this way:
If the North had not won the ACW, America may not look anything like it is today.

Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

All I know is that the American Civil War is considered the first modern war ever.

For these two reasons. The American Civil War both unified America, which had major lasting affects in the following years (for obvious reasons), but was also integral in introducing new weaponry such as ironclad battleships (unless I am mistaken.) And since Gettysburg was the most important battle of the ACW, its sort of a transitive property kind of thing. Also, I think some European minds involved in financing and defense were swayed after Gettysburg.

Ironclads first saw service in the Crimean, used by the British and French, so they were invented long before the civil war I'm afraid. I must admit, I'm studying History, and this is the first time I've heard the Civil War called "the first modern war".

 

[ThongBonerstorm]

Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

For WWI they didn't show up until the war was over, and WWII probably wasn't influenced all that much by them. I wonder how the post war era would have turned out with only one superpower, no cold war and unchecked communist expansion?

Your ignorance is showing HARD.

In both case directly and indirectly the USA helped to win both world wars.

very little, especially in the first war. Also, Uncle Woody failed to convince the brits and frenchies to go easy on the germans, which is what played a huge part is causing the second war.

They played a bigger part in the second war, mostly through supplying, where do you think all the steel to make the Panzers came from?

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

Think of it this way:
If the North had not won the ACW, America may not look anything like it is today.

Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

All I know is that the American Civil War is considered the first modern war ever.

For these two reasons. The American Civil War both unified America, which had major lasting affects in the following years (for obvious reasons), but was also integral in introducing new weaponry such as ironclad battleships (unless I am mistaken.) And since Gettysburg was the most important battle of the ACW, its sort of a transitive property kind of thing. Also, I think some European minds involved in financing and defense were swayed after Gettysburg.

Ironclads first saw service in the Crimean, used by the British and French, so they were invented long before the civil war I'm afraid. I must admit, I'm studying History, and this is the first time I've heard the Civil War called "the first modern war".

Really? Then was it the first time Americans used said ships? For some reason, I'm starting to remember the South buying ironclad ships from the British, but I have no idea if that's true...

 

[Tanis]

quote="tanis1lionheart" post="18.284985.11229035"]Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

For WWI they didn't show up until the war was over, and WWII probably wasn't influenced all that much by them. I wonder how the post war era would have turned out with only one superpower, no cold war and unchecked communist expansion?

Your ignorance is showing HARD. In both case directly and indirectly the USA helped to win both world wars.

very little, especially in the first war. Also, Uncle Woody failed to convince the brits and frenchies to go easy on the germans, which is what played a huge part is causing the second war. They played a bigger part in the second war, mostly through supplying, where do you think all the steel to make the Panzers came from?[/quote]
Because the whole African and Italian and Normandy and Battle of the Bulge...ect, NEVER HAPPENED.

Let me guess, you work for the Iranian section of Fox News.

 

[WrongSprite]

Think of it this way:
If the North had not won the ACW, America may not look anything like it is today.

Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

All I know is that the American Civil War is considered the first modern war ever.

For these two reasons. The American Civil War both unified America, which had major lasting affects in the following years (for obvious reasons), but was also integral in introducing new weaponry such as ironclad battleships (unless I am mistaken.) And since Gettysburg was the most important battle of the ACW, its sort of a transitive property kind of thing. Also, I think some European minds involved in financing and defense were swayed after Gettysburg.

Ironclads first saw service in the Crimean, used by the British and French, so they were invented long before the civil war I'm afraid. I must admit, I'm studying History, and this is the first time I've heard the Civil War called "the first modern war".

Really? Then was it the first time Americans used said ships? For some reason, I'm starting to remember the South buying ironclad ships from the British, but I have no idea if that's true...

I'm not quite so sure there! I only know the Crimean end well to be honest, you could well be right on both counts.

 

[ThongBonerstorm]

quote="tanis1lionheart" post="18.284985.11229035"]Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

For WWI they didn't show up until the war was over, and WWII probably wasn't influenced all that much by them. I wonder how the post war era would have turned out with only one superpower, no cold war and unchecked communist expansion?

Your ignorance is showing HARD. In both case directly and indirectly the USA helped to win both world wars.

very little, especially in the first war. Also, Uncle Woody failed to convince the brits and frenchies to go easy on the germans, which is what played a huge part is causing the second war. They played a bigger part in the second war, mostly through supplying, where do you think all the steel to make the Panzers came from?

Because the whole African and Italian and Normandy and Battle of the Bulge...ect, NEVER HAPPENED.

Let me guess, you work for the Iranian section of Fox News.

[/quote]

...And what exactly do those have to really do with anything? Take a broader look sometime, maybe pick up a book or two.

 

[Megahedron]

Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

For WWI they didn't show up until the war was over, and WWII probably wasn't influenced all that much by them. I wonder how the post war era would have turned out with only one superpower, no cold war and unchecked communist expansion?

Your ignorance is showing HARD.

In both case directly and indirectly the USA helped to win both world wars.

very little, especially in the first war. Also, Uncle Woody failed to convince the brits and frenchies to go easy on the germans, which is what played a huge part is causing the second war.

They played a bigger part in the second war, mostly through supplying, where do you think all the steel to make the Panzers came from?

Screw it, I'll bite.

Say the Soviets managed to get enough rifles to stand up to Germany. The Red Wall marches to Berlin, burns it down, the UK manages to retake France while the Germans retreat to defend the Eastern Front (and note, this example is 100x more likely than the UK managing an invasion of anything except maybe the Italian Peninsula). After Europe is back to... Well everything East of the Rhine is Soviet, what happens to Asia? Neither the UK or USSR want to go to war with the by now enormous Japanese Empire, some treaty is signed, the Allies technically lose WWII due to the absorption of a quarter of the globe by Japan. So yeah, as long as you don't count the millions of Asian people who are now under the thumb of the Japanese Empire, "very little help."

Whoo! Should have taken a breath in there somewhere.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Hell, even if each side signed a 'ceasefire' sort of deal (think N/S Korea) I doubt either Americas would have had the strength/power to help in WW1/2.

For WWI they didn't show up until the war was over, and WWII probably wasn't influenced all that much by them. I wonder how the post war era would have turned out with only one superpower, no cold war and unchecked communist expansion?

Your ignorance is showing HARD.

In both case directly and indirectly the USA helped to win both world wars.

While America usually does take far too much credit for its actions in both those wars, they did play a very important role. They provided much needed supplies to the British and French during WWI and helped with the final push, providing fresh recruits that were sorely needed. And they did much the same in WWII, the pacific war was entirely US fought. The Victory in Europe has to be awarded to the Russians though, the other allies did fairly well on the second front but honestly, we only faced about 10% or the german army in France and Germany.


OT: The battle of Gettysburg was an important battle in American history, but lets be honest, at that time they were baically a backwater involved in their own internal struggle, the rest of the world barely noticed. Because lets face it, the British were busy forcing Opium on China with their military, the French were invading Mexico (seriously), the Italians finally unified and the Japanese were at the Dawn of the Meiji restoration. Everyone else had other stuff on their mind.

And thats only a few of the players on the world stage who were doing more important geo-political things. (granted the French invasion of mexico was fairly minor)

 

[RoBi3.0]

The American Civil War was the most important war in History had Lincoln and the Union not defeated the Vampire back Confederacy the world as a whole would be a much darker place.