The Great War witnessed a significant departure from the Napoleonic tactics and technology familiar to contemporary European military thinkers. Although the defining factor remains ambiguous, there is a tacit acceptance that the First World War epitomises the 'modern war.' It was a conflict of mass armies waged with highly efficient weaponry, which, coupled with the absolute pursuit of victory, eroded the pseudo-chivilaric concepts which are widely associated with the Napoleonic era of warfare. Lying chronologically between the First World War and those of the renowned Corsican general though, there is a deal of historiographical contention as to which category the American Civil War of the 1860's properly belongs to.

It is an indisputable verity that the industrial revolution had, as is implicit in the title, effected a great change in the developed world, in domestic and commercial fields at least. Advocates of thae case that the American Civil War was a pre-cursor to the conflict of 1914 (such as Farmer and Hagerman), base their arguments largely around the development of new technologies since the turn of the nineteenth century. Battlefield tactics during

the Napoleonic era were largely necessitated by the inaccuracy (in ranges beyond 100 yards) of the ubiquitous smooth-bore musket. The inability of firepower alone to whittle down enemy formations resulted in the greater precedence given to the tactical offensive, which characterises Napoleonic conflict.

Another factor cited in evidence of the wars 'moderness' is the scale of the conflict; which was made possible by the development of rail travel and telegraph. The considerable railway network developed in peace time, allowed troops to be quickly transported where they were needed and for supplies to be sent to maintain them. As no Napoleonic conflict had been fought upon such a scale a new form of military hierarchy was required to co-ordinate the efforts of the armies. Armies at the turn of the eighteenth century had generally had the individual commander at the head of command, while this was forced upon the armies by the inadequacies of communications, it was also suitable as campaigns were being fought with smaller numbers, in familiar (well mapped) territory with established communities providing sustenance for armies locally. The commanders in the Civil war had few of these luxuries and so there was a need to try and co-ordinate efforts. In the Union army the High Command formed a somewhat informal system with staff cohesively planning a grand strategy not dissimilar to the French staff system in conceptual terms alone. The Confederate forces also managed to fashion some semblance of modern command. Yet only the Union in the East successfully achieved in?tegration between all the layers of bureaucracy, through high command, to bureaus and operation command and, crucially, command in the field. Communications grew so vital in the Civil War that it was the first conflict in which a specifically designated signal corps, with its own officers, was developed. Ostensibly, even Griffiths accepts that logistical improvements, ushered in by railways and telegraphs made the war far more akin to the First World War.

According to historians, such as Farmer, the introduction of the rifle-musket was the most significant technological development of the Civil War. The Union Springfield and Confederate Enfield rifles, could fire accurately up to 250 yards and, unlike their predecessors, were reliable even in inclement weather owing to the replacement of the tradiational flint lock with a percussion hammer. By 1863 the new weapons were extensively used by both sides, substantiating Farmer's claim that the latter half of the conflict was more akin to a modern war. Cavalry, once the proud shock troops of war, were forced to dismount their steeds; which now served only to make them larger and more inviting targets to enemy infantry (although Griffiths refutes this, observing that cavalry were used to great effect as late as 1

Some common words found in the essay are:
Civil War, World War, Furthermore Farmer, Confederate Enfield, Lou Armstead, Unlike Napoleonic, Farmer Hagerman, Hart Mahan, Hagerman Americans, West Moreover, civil war, american civil war, american civil, world war, napoleonic era, modern war, 'modern war', view farmer concede, primarily responsible, responsible stagnation, machine gun ordnance, war seldom, confederate forces, 'modern war' view, war' view farmer,
Approximate Word count = 1921
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)