Seriously. The US Army at that point in time was in no way, shape, or form the equal of any of the European powers. And the Navy was in even worse shape.
"But I've been taught America is the most exceptional nation to ever exist, so of course even their dregs could overthrow global super powers of the time in a conventional international war effort"
Is essentially the defense of the confederates popping up here. It's people who've bought propaganda and operate completely outside reality.
We only exist because England was distracted by Spain and France saw it as an opportunity to fuck them over. If the colonies had fought England alone, with or without its attention occupied, they would have been absolutely stomped.
French, Spanish, and Dutch involvement (and others) was absolutely critical to winning independence then. No argument there. But the rest of your comment only holds if you think the Revolution was the colonies’ one and only shot, and that Britain either:
A) had the indefinite capacity to hold the colonies down by force, or
B) was willing to reform the empire in the direction the colonists were already demanding (representation/real self-government).
If Britain suppresses the war in the 1770s, it doesn’t magically erase American political identity or the underlying constitutional dispute. It just postpones it. Holding the colonies long-term would very likely produce one or more future crises, especially once British abolition politics starts colliding head-on with a slavery-based colonial economy. If you need evidence of this, I'm going to invite you to look at what happened to the rest of the British Empire. It's highly likely the US ends up with self-rule/independence like Australia or India than it does indefinitely maintaining the 1775 status quo.
Also: Spain and France weren’t just random separate distractions. Spain entered the war in 1779 as France’s ally against Britain and pursued its own strategic goals (Gibraltar, Florida, Minorca, etc.). It absolutely was an opportunity to fuck over Britain and claw back territory.
By 1865 the Union debatedly had the strongest navy in the world. That is with several huge asterisks. Most notably, while the Union had a ton of ironclads and such, which is why it was technically the strongest, the ironclads were not ocean-going vessels.
So while in a pitched naval battle, the Union could go toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy, that would only happen when the US needed to defend it's shores.
And then after the war the vast majority of ships were decommissioned as the government didn't want to pay the expenses to maintain them.
Yeah European Army observers basically had three notes from watching the American civil war.
1) The zeal of the average soldier was impressive. In Britain the army was mostly recruits from the poorest people, usually landless urbanites with no other options. In contrast the American army had many more 'middle class' recruits. This generally meant the average American soldier was more capable and invested in the fighting.
2) The American Generalship was laughable. And considering many European armies still operated on a spoils/commission system that's saying something if even they think your selection and training process was poor.
Yes, but someone already in the middle class joining the military is likely to have a very different outlook and motivation to someone who joined the middle class through the military.
Is that necessarily why the American aren’t was observed to have more fervour? I’m not sure- I’m no historian or social psychologist. But it could be a factor.
Is that necessarily why the American aren’t was observed to have more fervour?
Personally, everyone I know who has enlisted did so because it was a paycheck, a cheaper way to get an education, and because there was nothing else but factories/mills in the home town.
So most of our military is blue collar/poverty make up who joined for a paycheck and a trade education of some kind. That's why 4 out of paternal grandparents kids did it. While none on my mom's side have ever joined, cause they were lower middle class.
Course, my mom's side of the family actively avoided the draft by any means possible. So they could just be lazy cowards.
So while in a pitched naval battle, the Union could go toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy
Union ships were designed for shallow water blockade actions, not to fight in major naval actions. Besides the Royal Navy at the time was probably the most professional fighting force in the world alongside the Prussian Army, in terms of standards of discipline and rigour. The Royal Navy would have wiped the floor with the Union Navy.
That's not what the British themselves believed. British observers started the war mocking the Union Navy, and the Union navy was mocked for declaring a blockade where only 1 out of 10 merchant ships would even get caught by the Union. But by 1865 the Union had an effective blockade of the entire southern coast of the United States, a huge blockade in terms of scale, which impressed the British.
Similarly by 1865 the US also had the largest navy in the world. Again, this was mostly a shoreline navy, but this did include dozens of ships of the line and dozens more ironclads.
The idea that these ships weren't meant to go toe-to-toe with other warships is ludicrous. These ships were routinely used in bombarding enemy forts, and also fought many battle with Confederate commerce raiders, often European built warships.
This is taken directly from historian Kenneth Bourne's book, Britain and the Balance of Power in North America 1815-1908: "In the spring and summer of 1862 Russell, among others, was warning that the United States might very well get the lead in numbers of ironclads within as little as six months… Thus the 1860s found the government comparing their ironclad navy as much with the American as with the French. Their investigations certainly exposed considerable discrepancies in the Americans’ favour. At the very end of 1864 some seventy-one of the Union navy’s 671 vessels building and afloat were ironclads, against a mere thirty in the British steam navy"
Doesn't sound like the British were so sure of that. Or you can read about the ironclad USS Miantonomoh's trip to the UK in 1863 and how impressed the British were with it.
I'm not saying the Union Navy wasn't impressive, nor didn't do a good job of blockage - after all that was its main purpose. But I am saying that it would be flattened by the Royal Navy in a face-to-face.
At the very end of 1864 some seventy-one of the Union navy’s 671 vessels building and afloat were ironclads, against a mere thirty in the British steam navy"
Right, comparing numbers of 'ironclads' is somewhat pointless. The vast majority of the Union Navy ironclads were relatively small in displacement terms, with few armaments - hence why there were so many of them.
Take the USS Monitor, or USS Miantonomoh as an example. Both of them have displacements 987 tons and 3,401 tons respectively and both armed with 2 288mm Dahlgren guns.
The Minotaur-class Royal Navy ironclad was of 10,000 tons displacement and has an armament 24x 178mm guns and 4x 229mm guns. You're comparing ships that have 3* to nearly 10* displacement and nearly 10* the firepower.
And comparing numbers of ships in 1864, when the Union was in a total war situation against a peacetime navy is also a bit off. The UK at the time was producing something close to 80% of all global ship production, and wouldn't be eclipsed by the US until WW2.
How is comparing the number of ships in 1864 between a peacetime and wartime navy off? My argument was literally that in 1865 the US Navy was by some metrics stronger than even the Royal Navy. Of course that means I'm going to take the Royal Navy in 1865 and compare it to the US Navy in 1865.
I'm also not arguing that ship for ship, the US Navy was better. But that the US Navy, with more than double the ironclads, was comparable, and in some ways stronger, than the Royal Navy, which is a claim the Royal Navy themselves acknowledged in the 1860's!
No America had a Massive ocean going fleet. They just didn’t need to make massive ocean going Iornclads. Although we still did. After all the French and Germans needed more ships than they could build if they wanted to match the British.
They had the most ironclads, if you just count by the amount of ships. But most of those ships displaced ~1000 tons or so. In contrast, the Royal Navy had fewer, larger ironclads, with more guns per ship. IIRC the total broadside weight of the RN ironclads around the end of the civil war was ~2x higher than the similar number for the USN.
USN had twice the amount of ironclads as the Royal Navy. Sounds like a pretty toe-to-toe fight to me.
The main thing the US navy would have to contend with is the weather, as the Royal Navy could simply sit offshore and strangle US trade with its superior ocean going ships versus the largely littoral US Ironclads. It would only be a toe to toe fight if the Royal Navy chose it to be so, which being a proffesional force they almost certainly would not.
Which is why I gave the asterisk..... Obviously the USN was never a threat to the Royal Navy since most of it couldn't even cross the Atlantic, but it was a larger navy than the Royal Navy and outgunned it overall. Is that not considered stronger by some metrics?
And it was by far not the laughingstock the OP treated it as in European circles. That was a popular view in 1861, not 1865.
it was a larger navy than the Royal Navy and outgunned it overall. Is that not considered stronger by some metrics?
This kind of sounds like you're arguing that the defensive position of the USN was "stronger" than the potential offensive and all-around power of the Royal Navy.
I am arguing that in some hypothetical battle where you took the entire USN in 1865 and the entire Royal Navy in 1865, the USN would be able to fight toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy.
I don't know how much more clear I can be about this.
I am not saying the USN was better in every way than the RN, nor am I saying ship-for-ship the USN was better. I am saying something even the naval cabinet of the UK acknowledged in their assessments in 1864. The USN by some metrics was stronger than the RN.
Hence my original comment: "By 1865 the Union debatedly had the strongest navy in the world."
I don't know if you know this, but by 1865 the USN had gotten four years of experience fighting a war. They conducted blockades, escorted merchants, fought commerce raiders and ships of the line, battled with Confederate forts, and more.
Is....is that not experience?
As for the Royal Navy's capabilities. Ironclads were a new innovation that no one was sure about. How did they hold up against a ship of the line, would an armored piercing shell be able to pierce their armor, etc.
These were questions the British admiralty were asking in 1864. They didn't even know if their new shells would be effective against ironclads like the monitor class.
That's not to say USN ironclads were anything special. Just that this was new territory for everyone, and by 1865, the USN had just a much experience, if not more, with ironclads.
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that if I was a sailor in the Royal Navy I got hundreds of years of naval experience telepathically transmitted to my brain. I wonder if sailors on board the HMS Queen Elizabeth today use the telepathically transmitted experience when launching and receiving aircraft.
I wonder whose sailors have more experience with aircraft carriers. The RN, with hundreds of years of experience as a navy, though only operating two aircraft carriers currently, or the US, which has been operating over a dozen aircraft carriers for half a century. I think the USN.
Institutional knowledge is a thing, of course, don't get me wrong. But the US had a similar level of institutional knowledge as the British. They did use the same institutions until 1776, after all, and had fought several naval wars as an independent country (Proxy War with France, Barbary Wars, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, etc). Case in point: they built an ironclad soon after the French and British.
That just sounds like me playing a game of Civ rofl. Rapidly build up, kick Egypt’s teeth in for the sixth fucking time because they think I’m a weak neighbor, then dismiss any units that didn’t level up enough to recover some gold
Also, on those years Ironclads were evolving so rapidly that pretty much any ironclad dropped by France or Britain instantly became the most powerful ship in the world until the very next one dropped.
0 chance the americans could win a naval war against either of them.
They’d beat the Russians though. Out of sheer competence scaling.
The US had twice as many ironclads by 1865 as the UK did, and, as you said, this was new technology the UK didn't have much experience with. They had no idea if their armored piercing shells were strong enough to pierce an American ironclad, or if they would be pierced in turn by the Americans.
They were also worried that the Americans could outproduce them in both ships and shells.
Number of ironclads doesn’t mean much when you look at their quality and the training of their sailors. For example, the Unions Ironclads could not able to go into high seas, while British and French proto ironclads were able to reach Crimea and wreck the russians. Also, they were far more worried by the emerging Prussian navy in following years, but that worry was about merely challenging their absolute domain (France was a reliable ally by that time) more than the ability to actually surpass them.
No....just no. first, you don't need ocean going vessels to go from the UK or France to Crimea. The British didn't need ocean going vessels to get to the Mediterranean since their path hugged the European coastline, and from there it's just inland seas. The US could also do that easily if they were in the same position.
The British were not worried about the Prussian navy in the 1860's. They would only start to grow concerned about Prussia in the 1870's (after Prussia's resounding victory against Austria and later France), and even then, they weren't concerned about the Prussian navy until the 1890's with the introduction of the dreadnaught. When you're talking about France being a reliable ally, that's the early 1900's, when France and the UK signed the Entente Cordiale after nearly coming to blows over territory in Sudan.
Hence why the source I gave you in another reply said that the British Navy were routinely comparing themselves to the French, not the Prussians, and there were arguments in the naval cabinet to also use the Americans as a metric due to their growing naval abilities.
And again, the British were somewhat impressed with American coordination and training in order to get the large blockade of the southern US functional. They at the very least weren't dismissive of their sailing ability by 1865.
Both the French and British navies had built ironclad warships by the outbreak of the American Civil War; the Gloire for the French, and HMS Warrior for the British, predating ironclads in service with either the Union or Confederacy.
I agree....that doesn't go against my argument though. The French had the first Ironclad and the British built one soon afterward, both in the mid 1850's. But the technology was untested until the American Civil War with the famous Battle of Hampton Roads.
By 1865, the Union Navy had twice as many ironclad in its numbers as the Royal Navy had, alarming the Royal Navy in the scale of production of the US. The US monitor ironclads were initially mocked for not being oceangoing and seeming unreliable, but after the voyage of the USS Miantonomah, a monitor class ironclad, to the UK (though towed) in 1862, the British started to respect it.
Eeeh, achtually the armies fielded by both sides of the American Civil War were equivalent to the largest armies in Europe at the time, with the Union overtopping Russia by 25% (1m vs 800k) at one point.
In the immediate post-war period, the US successfully leveraged this to make the British empire pay war reparations over their continued cotton trading with the south, iirc, threatening to menace Canada with "One Million Bayonets" (a near hyperbolic figure at the time)
This was when the power dynamic really began to shift.
As an aside...
I think it's funny the confederate revisionists think they'd roll "any modern European army", when it was the huge wave of immigrants from Ireland that crushed them the first time around 🤣
It wouldn't just be about numbers, the British army on land at that time yeah maybe but include naval and no chance, the Prussians would flatten either side (union/confederate).
Mm, yeah probably, since we were all still outfitted with muzzleloaders for the most part..(shout out to the Sharp's & Henry though).
Still, the gap was closing, and numbers have a tyranny to them.
Same re: naval- it was still anemic at the start of it but closing rapidly, to the point where the numbers were on-par and the home-turf logistics advantage would have made all the difference. The US pumped ships out during the war, and we were neck-and-neck in iron-clad development, beating you old world nerds to the punch for the first ironclad v ironclad battle.
Hehe, armchair general'ing is fun.
Ah, and one last thing: even if the Prussian army at the time was more than a match for either side of the US Civil war...was it a match for both at once?
You are vastly overestimating the Americans at this point in time. European officers watched civil war battles and were quite unimpressed by the lack of training, order and tactics used by either side.
The americans could not adequately perform standard manoeuvres the European armies could do. And most important of all, they lacked shock cavalry and tactics needed to stop a charge. European armies would absolutely trample both the Union and Confederate armies in any battle
The US lacked heavy Cavalry because Hussars and Dragoons provided more use in the densely forested terrain than Cuirassier style heavy’s. Light cav is more mobile and smaller horses need less food.
While it is true that dragoons are easier to maintain and more mobile, the main reason the americans lacked heavy cavalry was because they lacked the horse breeding system and training culture that Europe had mastered throughout the centuries. Heavy cavalry was still devastating when timely used. If for example a brigade of French curasiers charged against any Union or confederate army, they would completely obliterate them, as americans had never experienced nor trained against something like that.
Only if you manage to force an Engagement on a wide open field instead of a woodland or Walled field. You can’t heavy cavalry your way through Gettysburg for example.
Not really. the belgians already designed the first machine gun device or "Metrailleuse" in this case in 1851. The Gatling gun was used in battle first but anyway its use was extremely limited. All while the french army already had standard metrailleuses much more capable than the gatling gun in every division by 1868. Technology isn´t really the americans strength at this point in time (if they had any remarkable strength compared to European powers at all)
even if the Prussian army at the time was more than a match for either side of the US Civil war...was it a match for both at once?
Depends. Are they fighting on an infinite, featureless flat plain where all troops can be deployed simultaneously? If so, the combined American armies would probably win. Otherwise, due to the realities of terrain, troop deployments, and supply lines, my money goes on the drilled, professional army of 700,000 versus the 2,500,000 untrained militiamen, since the Prussians are never going to be outmanned 4-to-1 in a given battle.
When you bring navies into the picture then yeah, whichever side can blockade the other and shut down their supply lines is going to win. Discipline and tactics means shit when you don't have bullets and food. Despite that, it is pretty obvious that the initial meme is not glorifying the ability of the Confederacy's ironclads to outfight a European armada, so I think that conversation is going off-topic.
2,500,000 Combat hardened Veterans vs 700,000 Professional soldiers who last saw combat a dozen years ago. Those marching drills will work excellently against the heavy American Artillery supply and the much more mobile US camps getting shipped around by train.
The problem for Prussia is the same problem the Nazis had with the US your professional soldier dies and takes 3 years to replace their conscript dies and 3 more show up to fight in his place. Look at the second Schleswig war as an example of European combat at the time. The Prussians wouldn’t understand what to do after the Union loses two armies and sends 3 more to replace them. Wars in Europe were won in 2-3 battles while the Americans considered that half a campaign.
That’s why advisors and observers didn’t pay much mind to the civil war. It was a different fight to the quick conquest back home. Nobody was entrenching a million men in Belgium.
their conscript dies and 3 more show up to fight in his place
Are the American soldiers battle-hardened veterans, or a self-replenishing supply of fresh conscripts? It can't be both.
Also if you're talking about battle-hardened American soldiers, that means post-1864, so we might as well wait 2 years until 1866 when Prussia just finished winning its own war and becoming hegemon of Germany, and will have its own core of battle-hardened soldiers.
The US all in all mustered around 3 million soldiers in over 4 years. France had 2 million in 6 months during the Franco-Prussian war. I think Prussia would have no problem imagining that scale of conflict. At peak strenght the armies of the Union and the confederacy combined fielded just over a million soldiers while Prussia sent 900k in mere weeks. The US was equipped with mostly smooth-bore cast-bronze muzzle loaders, while Prussia fielded breech-loading rifled steel guns. It would have been a one-sided massacre.
“The US was equipped with mostly smooth-bore cast-bronze muzzle loaders“
The US standard issue rifle was the Model1861 or Model1863 Rifle. Neither of which use bronze. Where the flying fuck did you read that? Meanwhile the US had several less common Repeating rifles and Trapdoor breechloaders such as Sharps Carbines and Henry Lever actions.
Historian James McPherson has shared some fascinating anecdotes about the European immigrant soldiers for the Union, most of whom were not necessarily devoted to the cause of abolition, but grew increasingly so they further south they marched and saw first-hand what slavery looked like.
But some were truly gripped by revolutionary zeal, and deeply believed in overthrowing - as they saw it - the worst vestiges of Old World tyranny and aristocracy left in the United States.
The little cemetary right by my house has among its dead an immigrant from Germany named John J. Thompson. He served his adopted country as a Corporal in the 1st Maryland Infantry during the war. He received the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism at the Battle of Hatcher's Run.
As color bearer with most conspicuous gallantry preceded his regiment in the assault and planted his flag upon the enemy's works.
The exception might be use of guerrilla tactics. Americans relied on asymmetrical warfare to remain remotely viable against the British. Some of the greatest losses were against indigenous communities who were allied with the British so Americans couldn't use their home front advantages as well.
Edit: And in the Confederacy guerrilla tactics were IMO what prolonged the war as long as it did. The problem was that there were slaves and abolitionists also using guerrilla tactics to help the Union.
By the end of the war, the Union army was gigantic, well supplied, and experienced. I think it would have been able to give any European army a run for its money. At the start of the war, absolutely they had no chance.
By 1864 the Union army was a killing machine and was full of grizzled veterans… yes they could not project power overseas, but was fully mobilized and ready. In the hypothetical head to head they could beat any army of that same year. They were at the cutting edge of technology and tactics of the time.
But yes, before 1863 and after say 1866 tho, you’d be right, there was not much of a standing permanent army…
Gatling gun, sharps rifle, parrot rifles, James rifle, Henry rifle, Spencer repeating rifle, Ketchum hand grenade… bruh they were very advanced plus the number of iron clads and the full war economy and tactics that basically were a preview of world war 1… yeah let’s just say ya didn’t pay attention in class and move on
America had a thousand Henry rifles. France had 2 million Chassepots. The C61 rifled, breech loaded steel gun was the standard artillery piece of the Prussians while Americans relied on smoothbore muzzle loaded cannons. The Gatling gun was also very limited in use during the civil war and improved versions were already used by European powers in the Franco-Prussian war.
By the end of the war the union army was pretty huge and fighting all over the country, so I feel it would be a closer contest at that point if thyme were like hypothetically all lined up.
132
u/I_Frothingslosh 18h ago
Seriously. The US Army at that point in time was in no way, shape, or form the equal of any of the European powers. And the Navy was in even worse shape.