By Paddy Griffith Battle Tactics of the Civil War (2nd Second Edition) [Paperback]

by Paddy Griffith

In Battle Tactics of the Civil War, Paddy Griffith argues that, far from being the first 'modern' war, it was the last 'Napoleonic' war, and that none of the innovations of industrialized warfare had any significant effect on the outcome.

Genres: American Civil War, History, Civil War, Military History, Military Fiction, Nonfiction, American History

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 1989

About the author

Paddy Griffith was a senior lecturer in war studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst for 16 years. He is the author of numerous articles and books on the history of warfare, including Battle Tactics of the Western Front, 1916-18 and The Art of War of Revolutionary France, 1789-1802.

Reviews

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although titled Battle Tactics of the Civil War this book also takes some time to compare the American Civil War with Napoleonic battles and World War I. Many have said the American Civil War was the first modern war, but Mr. Griffith would beg to differ. He reviews individual leadership, command and control, intelligence & signals, both Eastern and Western fronts, drill / formations, artillery, cavalry and infantry weapons comparing and contrasting to past and future wars. What he discovers are interesting insights and ultimately that the American Civil War battles were more like those fought by during the age of Napoleon than those of World War I albeit there were significant differences between the battles in Europe and in North America. Overall a great introductory read into the conduct of battle during the American Civil War.

[Chuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

Actually the version I just finished was a paperback printed by Yale.

Paddy Griffith wrote this book nigh on 25 years ago as a revisionist history of the tactics employed in the American Civil War. The orthodoxy at the time held that the Civil War the first of the modern/20th Century Wars, rather than the last of the 18th Century ones. This was said to be due to the increased range of the rifled musket, amongst other causes.

Mr Griffith demonstrated that no mater how theoretically effective, the actual usage of the rifled musket was little changed from the smoothbore. All in all, a very imgainative book for it's time. And the predecessor to books like Nostworthy's as well as many others. (See my read list for two later and more in depth books.)

However, Mr Griffith does show his European biases. He argues that both sides lacked adequate cavalry in general, and shock/heavy cavalry in particular. Although he notes the difficulty in supplying and maintaining them. He poo-poos the idea that the distances, terrain, and lack of cities, roads, and supply depots made campaigning more difficult in the US. And, despite his denials, this reader got the feeling that he in the end does suscribe to Helmuth von Moltke's alleged statement the U.S. Civil War was an affair in which two armed mobs chased each other around the country and from which no lessons could be learned.

Definitely worth the read. And a good example of how yesterday's revisionism is today's orthodoxy.

[Sean Chick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would quibble with a few details but all around this book is accurate and incisive. Griffith is also a fine writer who cuts through a lot of nonsense with verve.

[Martin Koenigsberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

With this book, Paddy Griffith, the Sr. Professor at Sandhurst, takes on the great American cataclysm, the American Civil War. He's taking issue with those who call it the first Modern war. And he's got a lot of good arguments, even though the ACW did feature, trenches, the telegraph, electric fuzes, mines, submarines, ironclad ships, and observation balloons. Griffith goes beyond all the new weapons and technologies to the mentality of the commanders, arguing that the ACW is instead the last of the Napoleonic style wars- as officers still looked to Clausewitz and Jomini for ideas and believed in mass and shock- not yet accepting fire as being the dominant factor. He points out that the artillery is almost all still direct fire with direct observation- the howitzer and the mortar only beginning to gain adherents at the end of the conflict. I wasn't totally won over by his arguments- a war can be two things at once - but they are well written and well thought out- and totally worth the reading. It's a good way for any reader to understand how America's bloodiest war was actually fought.

The mental part of this Napoleonic outlook is actually really important. Especially as the last war any of the American officers had fought was the Mexican American war- fought almost exclusively with muskets. So the Musket style of warfare- aimed ranges only 150 meters of less- advance to contact- fire one or two volleys- then try to use shock was what everyone was familiar with. The fact that these rifles could now fire two or three times as far- chewing up most sorts of massed battalion attacks - took a few battles- and a few thousand young men casualties to fully grasp. All too many ACW commanders were weak tacticians at the best of times- so many appointments were political, it really held back both sides' command development. Even when great generals rose from the mire- like Grant and Sherman, they were looking to achieve Napoleonic victories- why so many ACW battles can be inconclusive. It's a good read- and well worth a look for any reader looking to understand the War better.

Only a few adult themes and those handled well, and little actual casualty description, so this is a fine book for the Junior Reader over 12/13 years. For the Gamer/Modeler/Military enthusiast, its a mixed pot. The gamer does not get that much scenario help, but there is a tonne of stuff to help get your head around the statistics rules are based on. For those developing their own rules- a great resource to stay true to the fell of the period. The Modeler does not get much, except for a great feel for the period. The Military Enthusiast gets a lot of foreground and background information on the period- especially how people thought about tactics. I think this is one of those books you can give the Fantasy/RPG player who wants to get in on a Black Powder Campaign- and have them up to speed in no time. A strong recommendation from me on this one.

[Cropredy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book whilst touring Civil War battlefields in the Western Theatre (TN-GA-MS). It is one thing to read narratives of campaigns or battles, but these leave questions about how combat was conducted and specifically, how could lines of infantry slug it out with each other over the course of hours,including routing and re-forming, and participating in multi-day conflicts without totally breaking.

Did this book answer these questions? In part, yes, or at least provided some statistics and analysis.

The statistic that caught my attention was because of the inaccuracy of the weapons of the time, an infantry regiment might suffer only 1-2 casualties per minute (that is, if not confronted by canister). While over the course of an hour, this is pretty severe, especially for a regiment of 300-400 men, it is not at all like being mowed down by machine guns at the Somme.

There are chapters on leadership, command and control, rifles, infantry, cavalry, artillery, entrenchments and the like. Unlike a battle or campaign history, the book contains numerical tables based on culling of available sources.

Griffith makes a good case that despite the advent of the railroad and telegraph, the Civil War was not the advent of 'modern warfare' but rather the last throes of Napoleonic-style warfare

Anything to dislike?

The writing style can occasionally get a bit opinionated such as off-handedly referring to the "sinister Stanton".

The book was written in 1987 (pre-Internet age) and one wonders if there is more modern scholarship based on access to more resources.

[James Levy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book that began life as heretical, yet its conclusions are now considered humdrum by most experts in the field. A great deal of follow-up research has clarified and strengthened the main contention, that the rifled musket was never the game-changer that so many Civil War historians simply assumed it to be, and that the high (although by European historical comparison not excessively high) casualties suffered by the armies in the war had their roots in other issues. For one, the willingness of the soldiers to stick it out in the firefights, more than the weapons themselves, generated high casualties. You see the same dynamic at battles like Malplaquet, Zorndorf or Borodino where both sides were in "do-or-die" mode. Although Griffith could have done a better job of making his case, the hostility this book generated when it was published showed how vitally important it was among American Civil War aficionados to retain its "special" character. Therefore, the myth of the rifled musket has died hard.

[Rick Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a student of the Civil War, I enjoyed the book, but there were times when my attention faded with statistics. In the end though, I liked Griffith's analysis of the Civil War compared to the Napoleonic wars and how many similarities there were in spite of technological advances such as railroads, steam engines, and the telegraph. Although Griffith did not use the term human factors, he certainly highlighted the concept throughout the book.

[William Guerrant · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author brings his expertise in European military history to a careful analysis of Civil War tactics, enabling him to challenge and arguably refute longstanding and widely held beliefs, such as the claim that rifled weapons radically changed tactics and that the Civil War was the first "modern war." This book will be interesting to those with an interest in both tactical military history and the Civil War, but probably not to anyone else.

[Matthew Stienberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great single volume review on the battle tactics of the American Civil War. Though it lacks the depth I might desire, battle to battle comparisons in tactics or general tactical strategies, it is a good primer on anyone seeking to get a general understanding of the Civil War battlefield and the mindset of the men on it.

[Kevin Postlewaite · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. The author presents and supports his hypothesis that the American Civil War was the last Napoleonic war. Through detailed and well-supported arguments he makes his case, and in so doing conveys an excellent understanding of how the war was fought, as well as how the combatants viewed the tactics they used and why.

[Edward Allen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book. But very tedious at times. I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys tactics.

[Andrew W. · Rating 4 out of 5]

was an interesting read. Quite contrary to Buell's assessments in "The Warrior Generals," Griffith holds that the Civil War was very much a Napoleonic conflict with similar tactics and engagements.

[R.E. Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paddy Griffith's thesis is that the Civil War was, instead of being the first modern war, was in fact the last Napoleonic style conflict. Griffith makes many excellent points along the way, but overall his work reminded me of a doctoral dissertation. Rather than being a truly objective study, he takes a more or less controversial opinion and argues it subjectively, which is what a lot of PhD candidates must do in order to get anywhere with what they are doing.

The single most glaring weakness of this book is his statement that mass rifled musketry was not the tactical revolution that the conventional wisdom says it was. To a certain extent he is right, for in the early war years the Springfield or Enfield rifled muskets were not widely available. However, he overstates - indeed, deliberately obfuscates his case. When Griffith makes his point about accuracy, marksmanship, and normal combat ranges, he never brings up that even though most combat took place at a range 100 yards or less, the rifled musket was still dramatically more accurate than the Brown Bess or any other smoothbore. If a regiment armed with Brown Besses fires a volley at a barn at a range of 75 yards, most of those shots are going to miss. If the same regiment fires Enfields at the same barn, most of them will hit. This difference was proven over and over again in ballistics tests made both in the period AND in the modern era, yet Griffith conveniently ignores them in order to make it seem as if nothing had happened to merit a change from Napoleonic infantry assualt tactics.

He is at his strongest when dealing with cavalry. His point that cavalry achieved great results when operating as its own self-contained all-arms component draws a great deal of attention to the Civil War as being fought as mostly an infantry-only affair. The artillery supported and the cavalry made an appearance for the newspapers, but that was about it. All the most effective military forces in history have been effective all-arms formations; two infantry-only forces of similar quality is a recipe for attrition. Yet ironically, that runs contrary to his point. All it did was remind me of an equally infantry-dominated affair, namely the First World War.

There is much food for thought in this book, and Griffith makes many excellent points. Just remember to bring your salt.

[Peter Goodman · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Battle Tactics of the Civil War,” by Paddy Griffith (Crowood Press, 1987; Yale Nota Bene, 2001). Fascinating. Griffith examines in gritty detail the tactical level of the fighting, to determine whether the Civil War was the first modern war or the last Napoleonic war. Why were the battles so indecisive---there were almost no routs, nowhere were the enemy forces destroyed. He talks about how the two armies, completely unprepared, gradually learned how to fight; command and control systems; the rifle; drill; the battlefield and fortifications; the infantry firefight; artillery; cavalry. Despite the apparent superiority of the rifled musket, he determines that most fighting was at very close range; the much of the shooting was very inaccurate; that artillery could be very effective if left to its own devices, but was too often used by infantry officers who did not understand it; that cavalty was almost never used in the European style, as shock troops or to exploit openings, but mostly to scout. He is very interesting in his candid analysis of the actual competence and incompetence of the generals, who were learning on the job and often were just not very good. They had no staffs; there were almost no trained officers, and no one with experience handling large bodies of troops. Both sides tried to use the tactics taught by the French after the Napoleonic wars, but were not able to adapt them to American conditions. American terrain made it very hard to use European methods. Toward the end of the war, he says, the American armies were becoming the equal of the Europeans. Very helpful to see the fighting from an outsider’s perspective.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/bo...

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

From the very first, this book is a contrarian examination of the Civil War, trying to make the point that the American Civil War was not, as it is sometimes called, the first modern war, but instead the last old-fashioned one.
While Griffith makes some interesting points, he also has the annoying habit of setting up straw men, and then setting them on fire, while using the light of the flames to read his next point.
For example, his attack on the Civil War use of cavalry is entirely based on his premise that there were no decisive uses of cavalry during the war [totally ignoring many tactical fights of significance], and that using cavalry as a raiding force is a waste of its potential. Of course, he also seemed to think that the armies of the Civil War should have used armored cuirassiers to make mounted charges. While it was possible to armor a man's torso in such a way that most bullets, even from a rifle, would bounce off, you could not similarly armor the HORSE. Also, some of the bullets would ricochet off the chest armor into the wearer's arms, also not a desired outcome.
Similarly, he assumes that the late-war reticence on both sides to charge headlong against fortifications was a bad thing, showing poor morale, when it could just as easily show that the men no longer trusted the tactic as having a likelihood of success. A man will dare much more when he's convinced he can win by being daring.
Still, he does make good points about how the fighting rarely utilized the technological advances in rifles and artillery, and that the armies on both sides were poorly-trained in actual combat skills, even late in the war.
Thus, the book is not great, but still worth reading.

[Marcus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok, first of the bat - if you don't know your American Civil War, THIS IS NOT THE BOOK TO START WITH. Instead, find McPherson's 'Battle Cry For Freedom' or Shelby's superb three volume narrative of the conflict.

This little volume deals with something very specific - it's an attempt to answer the ever raging (trust me, in certain circles, this is not an uderstatement) question wheter American Civil War was the last war of Napoleonic times or first of modern wars? All main aspects of armed combat during ACW are examined and evaluated on their own and a final analysis of the conflict is presented in the last part of the book. It is up to each and every reader to agree or disagree with author's conclusions (chances are they will make your blood rush faster, if you don't), but the entire book is very well thought out and author's ideas cannot be dismissed out of hand.

The thing is though that, regardless of author's apparent knowledge, his ideas don't feel 'fleshed out' - the book is simply too short to be able to convincingly tackle the topic. Those who know the topic of discussion will understand Griffith's logic without any problems, but then they will also already be familiar with the argument he's making. Those who are new to the topic of this book, will propably be left with more questions than answers after reading this book. Also, I can't help but feel that Nosworthy's 'Crucible of Courage', which attempts to achieve exactly same thing as Griffith in this volume, is much better spent time if you're genuinly interested in deeper understanding of American Civil War from more "technical" perspective.

[Angela · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fine book for the advanced student of the Civil War. Griffith's thesis is that the American Civil War was not, as many suggest, the technological and tactical harbinger of the First World War, but rather "the last Napoleonic war"; even if the reader is not interested in that particular argument, however, Griffith offers an excellent analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Civil War battle doctrine. That alone makes the book worth reading for any serious student of the war or military history more generally. It is, however, an advanced text. Though Griffith's style is clear (if a bit dry), he divides his analysis by technology (a chapter on artillery, a chapter on drill formation, etc.) rather than by battle, and he assumes on the part of the reader a fair bit of knowledge of both the Civil War and the First World War. Griffith's work is certainly not light reading, but it is extremely informative. If you're looking for a light read on the war, this is not it, but it is an excellent book if you're after a deeper understanding on how the war was fought and mis-fought.

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really liked the focus of this author on the very neglected topic. Think that the author being British detracted much in the way too oft compared Napoleonic tactics and theories. Seemed a little overzealous (overacademic) of proving his theory that Civil War was last Napoleonic War instead of first "Modern, industrial war" that' is popularly applied by other studies. Griffith bludgeons this point that could be decently struck and still be effective. Still a good resource since so few other books go down to this level in their topics.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book describing the form of warfare used throughout the Civil War and comparing the tactics with those of the Napoleonic wars and WWI. If you're interested in Civil War and its battles, than this would be an interesting read for you.

[Christian Ovsenik · Rating 2 out of 5]

Griffith takes Sherman to task for wrecking Georgia and leaving all the totally innocent Secessionists homeless but mentions slavery only once. Gives Lee a pass on Pickett's Charge.

Has some useful insight and great quotes but the tone and obvious dislike of Americans is tiring.

[Tom Darrow · Rating 2 out of 5]

I would not suggest reading this book unless you are VERY interested in military tactics. Both the editing and writing style make this book rather dense and difficult to read.

[Steven Raszewski · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm a BIG civil war buff. This is one of the best books I've read on the civil war.