The Civil War was NOT the First Modern War | Crimean War Tech | History Matters 

Finally! A proper American history buff not living in a vacuum!

While the Crimean War was going, the British built forts around Australia. They had not done this for the French. There are still old Crimean War forts in Australia around the coast, that were used and updated up until WWII. That makes the Crimean War a World War. If you know history, it's not the first.

People keep forgetting this war existed. It was relatively small and indecisive, but it was transformative and extremely significant. It was the first war between major European powers since Napoleon. While Europeans did observe the American Civil War, American officers also observed Crimea!

There is a more recent book, The Ottoman Crimean War by Candem Badem, its quite good. As the title suggests the author used the Ottoman archival documents.

I agree with your assessment that the Crimean War was the first modern war. As a student of the American Civil War, I have diverted away from the conventional assessments of CW general George McClellan. I think we can explain him through the lens of the Crimean War. McClellan was at the long siege at Sevastopol. He watched daily hundreds of cannon battered down fortifications that had to be redug before the next day’s bombardment. Soldiers manned the trenches night after night through harsh winters. Sorties led to hand to hand fighting along the entrenchments. The Russians developed the art of sniping from the “rifle pits” dug in no man’s land. The Crimean - style of warfare would foreshadow the type of war fought in the Civil War. How could he not internalize the horrors he saw at Sevastopol without it effecting him and his style of fighting. He’s been accused of having “the slows.” Historians have failed to consider that he was an engineer, which, by nature of the profession are usually methodical and conservative in their approaches to things.

I think the idea of a "modern war" is a bit silly. I always say I focus on the "modernizing period" of war, and define that as roughly 1754 until 1918 as when warfare really modernized, at an increasingly accelerated pace.

A great video, Lord Rivers. Your videos on the Crimean war have all been top notch. Another channel called The History Chap has done some very informative videos on the events and people in the war, like the Battle of Inkermann and various VC winners. I recommend checking it out if you have not already.

Love the video! Keep up the great work!

Great video and thank you very much

I give Civil War generals a pass on the grounds that virtually none of them were even experienced Regimental commanders, let alone Army commanders.

Excellent video, and very well told! Thank you! Regards from Canada 🇨🇦

Where are our guns sir?

Modern warfare did indeed begin in Crimea. It may end there too.

Superb! Insightful! Thought provoking! Bravo!

Thank you so much! I did not find out about the Crimean War until I was in my forties and most of the time when I ask people about it, they tell me I "don't need to know about that". Nothing makes me more curious than being told NOT to investigate something. I noticed when I researched it that a lot of what I was told happened first in WWI, happened in the Crimean War. When I brought those things up, people just looked at me like, "So?" So if it was so amazing when you thought it occurred in the WWI, why is it not amazing, if it happened in the Crimean War?

well not just the crimea, there were a couple of rather successful cavalry charges against artillery over open terrain in the frist world war. the Charge at Huj and beersheba being a couple of examples.

This is a superb video! It is well presented and done with great insight, along with a very pertinent reminder that history needs to be examined in a world-wide context. (Although English, I am something of an American Civil Ware enthusiast, and had detected a myopic approach to the ACW, as though events and developments there were the first of their kind.) Very well done. Your standards are top notch, and I look forward to more. Subscribed.

I think WWI is the first modern war because it had planes, tanks, and wireless communication which is what we have today. The other previous wars had some of the pieces but not all.

one thing that is intresting about the crimean war was the fact that florence nightingale was not the most effective medical expert the british had, that was doctor James Barry a rather intresting person, not least becuase he was in a woman disguised as man and nobody knew until he/she died. he/she had a extremely succesful survial rate for soldiers in corfu and florence nightingale had a rather serious dispute over the treatment conditions in the crimea.

Re glimpse of Hunley's cigar, Bushnell's /Turtle/ would like a word.

Great Viddeo! The crimean War is often overlooked in my opinion. I also like the videos of your visits of military museums and i too enjoyed your videos about historical monuments and fortress and battleifieds. Based on your description, you mainly focused around Victorian Britain & the American Civil War. I am sure you would enjoy military museums in France, Belqium, Germany, Austria, Serbia and Malta. Some military museums you have heard of course before, others maybe not. Propaply would be diffocult to understand as in not every musuem english translation is available for the info description tablets, but nevertheless, please look all up. Just for the military stuff, artillery from 18th adn 19th century, etc. Long list now. Musée de l'Armée in Paris, Artillery Museum in Draguignan, Waterloo Museum in Waterloo, Battlemonument of the Nations in Leipzig, Kastorbrunnen in Koblenz because of the small funny story, Wehrtechnische Studiensammlung in Koblenz, Festung Ehrenbreitstein in Koblenz, Festung Königstein in Saxony, Militärhistorisches Museum Bundeswehr in Dresden, Kanonen Schloss Waldeck Eersee, Victory Column in Berlin, Berlin Peace Column, Prussian National Monument for the Liberation Wars in Berlin, Waterloosäule Munic, Waterloo Waterloo Monument in Wiesbaden, just to name some few. Marceau-Denkmal in Koblenz. Hall of Liberation in Kehlheim. Zitadelle Spandau in Berlin, Militärhistorisches Museum Wien, Belgrade Fortress and Fort Rinella in Malata. Napier of Magdala Battery in Gibraltar. You can also look for List of the largest cannon by caliber. Possibly i forgot or missed some other museums and places.

Excellent work young sir. Finely illustrated. Just as this widens the view of the ACW one should look at Crimea in the context of fighting taking place also in the Caucasus, Balkan and Baltic campaigns at the same time. The need for strategic mobility then driving the building of the Siberian railways cutting troop movements and supplies from months to days. Pedantic minuscule trivia but the Tunisian army, whilst under Ottoman command, remained independent so was a combatant nation in it’s own right in Crimea. I was honoured to briefly represent our brave Ottoman and French allies in the Crimean reenactment in Alberta with you a few years ago. I don’t doubt that my Bulgarian great grandfather made good money from trading with the allies in Varna down the road from him in Jamboli.

the ironclad was really only truly dveloped in the late 1850s when the french launched le glorie close followed by the british hms warrior. the armoured batteriers were more a precursor to the ironclad.

as I have been arguing for years, I have yet to read a definition of "modern war" that don't result in a later war... or an earlier war. (as early as wars in the 18th century or WWII)

I profoundly dispute your claims about the rifled musket, Mylord !!! This weapon failed at Solferino, failed at Koeniggraetz, failed consistently and in continuity in the war of northern agression, although southern Gentlemen had some success with it here and there, but Good Lord, must I say it ? Don´t we distinguished gentlemen agree ? It´s too good for them !!!!!!!!!! And let us not dwell too long at the Crimea : The jocks of the 93rd used the rifled musket to great effect, but the Stiff Upper Lip carried the day. How could your Lordship miss this point in particular ? Crimea river about logistics ? Hardly ! To be cold and miserable and riddled with disease, is the fate of the common soldier, be it sword, bullet or Cholera, he died for her Majesty and that´s the best he could have hoped for. We all certainly appreciate and admire your philantropic musings Mylord, but we pressgan.....recruit in the Eastend after all Sir !!!!

9:49 At the battle of Isted in July 1850 80% of the (German) rebels infantry where armed with rifle-muskets. And about 25% of the "Danish" government infantry the same. Iam in no way arguing that the 1st sleswig war was a modern war. But the large increase in the number of rifles on the battlefield. (and they where no longer flintlock rifle shooting patched roundball, but percussion rifle muskets) was noted by the officers and did influence tactics. The use of (800-1000man) battalion attack columns was stopped (but 200-250 man companies still did it a lot) and horse artillery learned the hard way that they could no longer just drive up to a infantry battalion, unlimber and fire cannister. Too many infantry men had rifles for this to be done "safe"

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

one could argue that the first modern wars occured in the 1830s when the french developed the minie bullet/mini ball and shell shot. one could argue the french used trench warfare during the belgian revolution during the siege of antwerp in 1832.

12:58 "the various American navies." Wait, was that a reference to a certain Scottish Lithuanian?

One might even suggest that the first war to use modern technology was the first schleswig holstein war.

The only beef I have with this is your line about military leaders still relying on the bayonet. The fact is while rifles had devastating accuracy, it still took 60 seconds to load your next shot, for a well disciplined and drilled infantry force, that is still plenty of time to close with the opposing force. Part of what made the Civil War so horrific in terms of men KIA- for example with confederate attacks at Gettysburg- was men halting to return fire when they came under fire, instead of pressing the attack and forcing the defenders to fight hand to hand. With the improved accuracy of rifled barrels it made it even more important to get in close ASAP instead of trading lead, especially when armies still had to rely on drawn up battle lines.

Yes.But they didn't have Robert E Lee or Stonewall Jackson.

🦑❤️🦑

Really like the video but, I have to somewhat disagree. At 4:01 you state that the Crimean War was the true precursor to WW1 style fighting yet you use sieges as an example. I don’t really think this can be counted as sieges had devolved into trench warfare consistently for hundreds of years prior to the Crimean War and wasn’t so much a new style of fighting as it was a doctrine nearly as old as ranged warfare itself. The Civil War is often pointed to as the precursor to WW1 style trench fighting not because of battles such as the Siege of Vicksburg or the Siege of Petersburg, which themselves were more akin to the early modern sieges such as Vienna than they were WW1, but because of open pitched battles which took place outside the pretense of sieges which involved both sides heavily digging in and slugging it out with trench raids and frontal assaults akin to WW1. These battles largely took place towards the end of the Civil War and evolved out of the increasing prevalence of the rifle musket as well as armies staying on top of each other and engaged for months at a time, such as the Atlanta Campaign or the Overland Campaign, this style of prolonged fighting and persisting battles was employed by the Union to take advantage of their manpower and turn the war into one of attrition. This style of fighting and the doctrine surrounding it was only first seen on a large scale in the Civil War and can truly be seen as a sort of foreshadowing of WW1.

Well, we still won! Twice! Checkmate, Victorians!

Three civil war innovations were rail mounted artillery, Iron clad warships, and small steam powered landing boats.

Muskets in modern warfare doesn’t seem right I think the Franco Prussian War was the 1st modern war

Franco-Prussian War

I agree and disagree with you. Every war is the next modern-day war but premier and war does not resemble anything close to what we had today. The civil war was one of the first wars to use trenches to protect troops from fire and to fire from. This strategy changed the way we fight wars in the Crimean war they stole marched in units blocks. Now the civil war had more things out there The machine gun which would have been called a Gatling gun was not around during the Crimean war. But it was around during the civil war. But we sit there and go well it's really close to world war I yeah but in world war 1 we had planes we had tanks those things are still useful for today The civil war and the Crimean war had horses. And you said well then world war I was the first modern war yeah I would probably say so would probably a better example since a lot of the techniques and equipment is still being used today. I doubt in the Crimean war that they had cartridge rifles majority of them would still be using a ball and that is loaded through the barrel. And if there was any cartridges there were fire and few between because if they did then the civil war would be completely different because they would have been implemented then. On a much larger scale.