In terms of the military stuff, for a revisionist argument that the ACW was more like Napoleon's musket wars than WWI, see Paddy Griffith's "Battle Tactics of the Civil War", and Earl Hess' three books ("Field Armies and Fortifications in the Civil War", "The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat", and "Civil War Infantry Tactics")

>>404224

How are you defining "revolutionary"?

>>404365
There's a bunch of pseudo-tanky "Two stage" revolutionism. But it's bloody schematic, and claims 1776 was a revolution, rather than 1648->1865

>>404359
>for a revisionist argument that the ACW was more like Napoleon's musket wars than WWI
but that's not even revisionist... that's just mainstream history - the ACW was distinctly jominian for most of it, at a time when the europeans were already shifting away from such a concept, and while it saw large scale use of various things like the railroad or earthworks, so have european conflicts of the mid 19th century, most of which were far "more like WW1" than the ACW, i.e. the crimean war or the italian conflicts

>>404402
>but that's not even revisionist... that's just mainstream history - the ACW was distinctly jominian for most of it

Oh? I've seen several writers depict the ACW as the "WWI that Europeans missed."

To quote a recent popular history, "Yet the Civil War proved more prophetic of the First World War than either of those clashes between European powers. Analysts failed to grasp the enhanced power of the defensive and the value of good field works. They also missed valuable lessons from cavalry serving as mounted infantry, a combination of mobility and firepower that proved so decisive in the Second World War"

On the contrary, that quote is what I consider to be the mainstream. Though in general, the "revolutionaryness" of the military part of the ACW is something that's worth pursuing for an essay, if one has the interest.

>>404434
well "popular history" is a completely different matter altogether obviously but i don't remember reading a decent history work that would propagate any such nonsense, and even conteporary european accounts seem to go with that line of thought
as for the quote that's, well, that's just pure bullshit -
>Yet the Civil War proved more prophetic of the First World War than either of those clashes between European powers
by mostly attempting napoleonic tactics of massed infantry with regiments of 1500 men being the smallest tactical unit at a time when european were moving towards loose chains of riflemen and using units as small as companies at their own initiative
>Analysts failed to grasp the enhanced power of the defensive and the value of good field works
yes, but only in some sort of an alternate universe where A) fieldworks were not used for centuries and B) the crimean war with its land riddled with trenches did not happen
>They also missed valuable lessons from cavalry serving as mounted infantry, a combination of mobility
this is perhaps the most subtly laughable part - it was the ACW which saw an absolute failure of cavalry use - they tried applying fairly napoleonic tactics, but without the decisive shock of cavalry which is key in such an approach, most of acw cavalry were dragoons, that is mounted infantry; incidentally something that was a thing in european armies as well, hell, they used them in that exact way *in ww1* (as well as ww2)

basically in terms of the battlefield, there was very little or possibly nothing the europeans could have learnt from the civil war that they have not already learned themselves

>>404434
>>404491
also "enhanced power of the defensive" smells to me like the usual 'pop history' bullshit about defense >>> offense in ww1, literally ignoring the facts that trench assaults were successful and worked all the time - and that it was not getting across to the other trenches, but the inevitable *counter*attack and holding ground that was the problem

>>404224

of course it was a revolution

>>404514
How so?

>>404527

Literally half of the USA split off from the union and formed an independent government.

That's no civil unrest or revolt, that's a full on revolution.

Yes, it was a revolution. One that was a long time coming.

The core issue of the early USA was this: it was a country founded on Puritan ideals, yet the basis of it's economy, textile exports, utilized nigger slave labor. This made yankee Puritans butthurt, because in their minds the only people fit to be slaves are catholics (and most blacks in the US were baptist).

Anyway, things like the Cotton Gin (1793) meant that less slaves were required to do the same amount of work. But regardless, the system was profitable and the south had nothing else, it was hugely underdeveloped compared to the industrialized north. A culture clash ensued and the south ultimately was locked out of most branches of the government as the north managed to expand faster than them.

The result was war. See Bleeding Kansas, that's a straight up revolution as neither side was able to come to an agreement and just started killing each other. A few years later, the tenability for the north and south to resolve their differences culminated in a nationwide war.

>>404869

>tenability

*inability