Hey everyone, this is for a research paper and I'm struggling a little bit. My assigned topic is the Russo-Japanese War, and the argument I'm making is why this war can be considered the first modern war, as was suggested by my teacher. So far I was thinking that a couple reasons could be that (1) there were a lot of new advancements in technology, (2) it had a worldwide impact that changed how the world viewed the East, and (3) it was the first widely spectated and documented war. If I could get some assistance, maybe with revising my points and / or leading me in the right direction that would be extremely helpful, thank you! :)
If I were absolutely forced to argue that somehow, someway, the Russo-Japanese War was the first modern war, I would focus first on the naval war where I could argue that it was the first war where armored, coal fired, screw driven warships with a recognizably modern configuration of big guns mounded in turrets on the ship's center line were both engaged and decisive. The problem with this argument is that the Russo-Japanese might be unique in this sense, at least with respect to the reliance on big guns.
Here, you must read Alfred Thayer Mahan's Influence of Sea Power Upon History, and the associated Wiki entry.
I might also observe that it was a global war where a European power engaged an Asian power over very long distances. The problem with this argument is that one is implicitly defining a "modern war" as a war between a European power and a roughly equal non-European power.
I scanned the Wiki entry on the Russo-Japanese War and I disagree with the suggestion that the tactics and technology represented any kind of breakthrough. The tactics and technology might have been more refined than in 1861-65 or 1871-72 but they were essentially the same tactics and technology. I fail to see how Japanese mass assaults differed from those routinely delivered in the Crimean War, The American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War.