Napoleonic Decisive Battle Analysis
It took the USA 4 years to win the Civil War because of the changing nature of warfare. This meant that Napoleonic decisive battle could no longer be applied and so their strategy had to change. The changing nature of warfare was the most important factor in the war going on for as long as it did, making it more significant than the poor initial US strategy, the contributions of Lee, and the strengths of the CSA at the beginning of the war. The changing nature of warfare was the most important reason for the North not beating the South sooner, because it meant that a new style of warfare, total war or war of attrition, had to be implemented into the North’s strategic system. This was because Napoleonic decisive battle was no longer relevant,
…show more content…
These strengths included the Southern military tradition, the lack of urbanisation in the South and the physical vastness of the Confederacy. The Southern military tradition meant that the Confederate army had many professional officers, as well as the Southern militias providing many well-trained men. The lack of urbanisation in the South caused Richmond and New Orleans to be the two main targets. This was advantageous for the Confederacy because New Orleans was on the southern coast, leading to the physical vastness of the CSA aiding its defences. This links to the changing nature of warfare, because the strengths of the CSA were better fitted to the old style of warfare of decisive battle and so the North took four years to win whilst they had not turned to the strategy of war of attrition under Grant. This factor is the least important out of the four, because the strengths of the USA outweighed the strengths of the CSA. In conclusion, the changing nature of warfare was the most important factor in why it took the North four years to win the American Civil War because the USA had to completely change their strategy, which involved going against what they had been taught militarily. This made it more significant than the initially poor strategy of the USA, the contributions of Lee and the strengths of the CSA because of the extent of its
These strengths included the Southern military tradition, the lack of urbanisation in the South and the physical vastness of the Confederacy. The Southern military tradition meant that the Confederate army had many professional officers, as well as the Southern militias providing many well-trained men. The lack of urbanisation in the South caused Richmond and New Orleans to be the two main targets. This was advantageous for the Confederacy because New Orleans was on the southern coast, leading to the physical vastness of the CSA aiding its defences. This links to the changing nature of warfare, because the strengths of the CSA were better fitted to the old style of warfare of decisive battle and so the North took four years to win whilst they had not turned to the strategy of war of attrition under Grant. This factor is the least important out of the four, because the strengths of the USA outweighed the strengths of the CSA. In conclusion, the changing nature of warfare was the most important factor in why it took the North four years to win the American Civil War because the USA had to completely change their strategy, which involved going against what they had been taught militarily. This made it more significant than the initially poor strategy of the USA, the contributions of Lee and the strengths of the CSA because of the extent of its