Hi Dr Somerville, thank you for doing this AMA!

How many observers did the British send? What did they think about the capabilities of both of the Civil War armies?

Thank you for doing this AMA!

The title of your book makes me wonder about the nature of armies. Bull Run is known (perhaps wrongly?) as a big mess of a battle because both armies consisted of large recently raised levies with little training. The American Civil War continued to be a war of mass levies. The British army of the period saw itself as the opposite of that - a small but highly trained professional force. Did this factor into the British reception of the war?

Looks like a great book that I look forward to reading.

Can you speak to the role of the press or public pressure from reporting on the American Civil war that may have influence British military planners? Or how the British press covered the civil war vs their American counterparts?

I‘ve heard the press coverage of the Boer War factored into Imperial visions and policy, so I’m wondering if there are deeper antecedents that can be illuminated in the Civil War

Thank you for joining us!

In Gettysburg a British observer is one of the characters, and based on a real figure as I recall. How extensive was the observer presence during the war? How many there? Were they sent officially by the British, or there as private persons? How did the sympathies of the observers tend to lean, North or South? What did their reports back home generally tend to emphasize?

Thanks for doing the AMA!

My question is slightly incidental to your book, so no worries if you don't want to answer it! Around the time of the American Civil War there were several wars between more advanced militaries across Europe, such as the Crimean War (1853-6), War of 1859, 7 Weeks War (1866) and Franco-Prussian War (1870). How influential were these conflicts on British military doctrine compared to the American Civil War and if they were less influential, why?

Hi Dr Somerville!

What lessons did the British draw from the use of cavalry in the American Civil War? From my (rather limited) understanding of British cavalry doctrine at the start of WWI, there was a strong emphasis on the fluidity between mounted and dismounted action in its traditional roles of reconnaissance, screening and harassment. Was this inspired or informed in any way from cavalry action in the American Civil War, or only later on from the British Army's own experiences in the Boer War?

Good afternoon Dr Somerville, thank you for affording us your time.

My question is this: Did the British top brass of the time take anything much from American civil war handling of logistics, for example moving troops and keeping them well supplied, and how was this reflected in later British developments?

If I may be a tad cheeky and ask a second, you noted the extensive stationing of forces in Canada in case of war with the Union side. In brief, did the training and plans of these forces change with information about the development of the Northern forces? And if so, how?

One often hears about the Petersburg Campaign as a precursor to WWI-style trench warfare, but rarely of the Siege of Sevastopol. What “progress” in trench warfare, if any, had been made between the Crimean and American Civil Wars? Did American Civil War generals look to Sevastopol as a lesson when planning trench campaigns? My apologies if this is outside your area of expertise.

Thanks for your time, Dr Somerville.

I have two questions: Firstly, to what extent were commanders like Bobs Roberts or Garnet Wolseley consciously citing the US Civil War, and to the extent that they were, what commanders influenced them? By that I mean: who would they consider to be that most cliched of things, the model of the modern major general- Lee, Grant, Jackson, etc?

Secondly; When it came to the South African War, were comparisons made between the wider imperial contingents (Canadian, New Zealand, *Australian) and the Americans? That is, was there an idea that the 'New World' produced a particular type of soldier?

Armchair historians often repeat the (probably apocryphal) Moltke quote that the Civil War was "two armed mobs chasing each other around the countryside." Would you say this is incorrect? Did European military men perceive the war as something worth studying?

Thank you for this fascinating AMA Dr Somerville, your book looks fantastic.

The Civil War and the Boer War seem like they took place in two very different climates and settings. What kind of lessons could the British take from the Civil War to apply to fighting in South Africa in the first place? Would it mostly be more general logistics and organisational, or could they apply things on a 'ground' level as well?

Was there any influence used in WW1 to mine enemy lines that came from the Battle of the Crater, or did that happen independently?

Thanks to everyone for participating, some really great questions here that have really made me think. Having gone way over my original time slot I'll sign off now - apologies to anyone whose question(s) I may have missed, but I hope it has been of use and / or stimulated your interest in the subject.

Take care all.

After observing the Civil War, would the British Army stay caught up with American military changes? Would they have paid attention to developments during westward expansion and battles with Indigenous nations?

Hi Dr. Somerville, thanks for this thread!

The Boer War has a bit of a legacy here in Canada. Often considered on of the first real wars Canada joined the British in after becoming independent. It might be a bit tangential to your research, but did any of the things the British army learned from the Civil War or Boer war get passed along to the wider Commonwealth or Dominion forces? Would there have been much information sharing between the British Homeland and its colonies?

Hello Dr. Somerville,

​

As a battlefield tour guide, I found Paddy Griffith's Battle Tactics of the Civil War to be the most important book I'd ever read for that line of work. I think that Griffith's summation is that the American Civil War was the last Napoleonic war, one which demanded close combat despite rifled weapons because, it would appear, most soldiers could not or would not hit an enemy except by accident.

​

How has Griffith's book and analysis held up in subsequent decades and can you tell us about parts of his work that you question or disagree with? Thank you very much.

Dear Dr Sommerville,

Congratulations on such an accomplished a book. I hugely enjoyed it. I wanted to ask a fairly open question. I know your focus was on the impact of the Civil War on the development of the British Army. But as you were someone already an expert on the Civil War, what did this study do to teach you something new, or change and opinions you had, about the Civil War itself?

Hi Dr. Somerville, welcome to reddit!

What, if anything did Europeans make of say, Paul Quantrill and other irregulars?

Thank you.

You're awesome btw

If the south had (as unlikely as it would have been) opted to phase out slavery gradually and instituted a few additional rights for enslaved people early in the war, would Britain have sent them aid or broke the naval blockade to get their cotton?

Morbid curiosity I guess...

Dr. Somerville, this may be outside your purview, but what about naval matters? Naturally, the Monitor/Merrimack (AKA Virginia) duel rendered obsolete almost every other warship in the world, and the blockade and commerce raiding impacted Europe. But did the Royal Navy analyze the brown water battles to any degree?

In the 1850s the British participated in the Crimean War which day a decent amount of field fortifications. Field fortifications became increasingly popular as the US Civil War continued, especially in the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns. Did the British compare these two experiences? What was there thought on the Overland Campaigns in general since they had the increase in previously mentioned fortifications and, at least for the Overland Campaign, were near constant fighting?

Do you know whether the British military leadership had any opinions about Lincoln's leadership as Commander in Chief?

Fighting a domestic war that was not universally popular with a largely nonprofessional army there were a number of compromises he made.

A) the use of "political generals" - giving a serious command to people with little military experience because he needed the political support they could bring. These were usually not the most successful generals - McClernan in the Vicksburg campaign, Benjamin Butler and Franz Sigel in 1864.
B) keeping McClellan for as long as he did

C) his temporary assumption of the role himself despite his own lack of experience

D) the establishment of the Joint Committe on the Conduct of the War

Finally, did they have an opinion on the enormous casualties the war produced? This was obviously not solely Lincoln's responsibility.

Hi Dr Somerville,

What was the main lesson that the British failed to learn from the American Civil War that would have made an impact to the Army in the period following the Civil War?

Hello Dr. Somerville, thank you for giving us your time! I understand that your primary focus was the civil war but im curious as to how the American Indian wars were viewed by the British military. I can imagine it being seen as totally insignificant compared to British operations throughout their colonies or simply viewed as an overwhelmingly advanced force policing 'savages'. Unlike the Civil War, the American Indian wars were essentially a decades long counterinsurgency against a highly mobile enemy in unfavorable terrain which isn't all that different from the Boer Wars. Did the British Army study the American Indian wars at all? Furthermore did any other conflicts influence British doctrine at the time?

What are your thoughts on the Battle of the Crater and the Lochnagar Crater?

Hi Dr Somerville,

It’s my understanding that The American Civil war saw a lot of developments in American military technology such as the transition from muskets to rifles. Did the British draw from any technological advancements in the American civil war or was any change in this regard just reflective of a general global advancement?

In what way were some British observers biased toward the confederacy? Also, why did the British start fearing of a sudden invasion of their home island, considering their position at the time, wouldn’t that be impossible? What caused them to gain this fear?

Hello, Thank you for the AMA.

I enjoyed B.H. Liddell Hart's biography on Sherman, was this awareness of Sherman's strategic sensibility common in British military strategists after the civil war? I have heard certain British authors venerate Robert E Lee, Jackson and the army of northern Virginia for their fighting prowess, but what were the contemporary thoughts on the tactical and strategic decision making of the two sides?

​

Thank you

Thanks for taking the time to stop by! The American Civil War featured several medical advances (the Union Army's creation of an ambulance corps in 1862, the greater use of anesthesia for battlefield surgery, Howard's new treatment for lung wounds, the large scale charity of the United States Sanitary Commission, etc.)

Did these developments have any impact on British military medicine?

One of the most debilitating aspects of the British Army, until 1918 at least, was the culture of nepotism and factionalism.

Haldane's reforms imperfectly dealt with this issues revealed by the Boer War, and despite the experience the British Army was as poorly prepared as any other for trench warfare.

Did the US military, especially the Union forces, suffer this officer class factionalism and how were men of merit elevated?

What did the soldiers think of crossing the Atlantic sea?

In 1876 the battle of Little Bighorn took place, pitting U.S. army troops against a large group of Sioux warriors. The army troops were equipped with single shot trapdoor Springfield rifles while many of the Sioux warriors were equipped with Winchester repeaters. Famously, the army troops were slaughtered. Did the British take note of Little Bighorn, or have any contemporary discussion of the value of repeating rifles vs single shot?

Thanks for doing the AMA. It's a very interesting topic. I've missed the window, but I hope you can still answer my question.

How much did the British continue to learn from the Americans in the period after the Civil War?

(I'm thinking particularly of the Spanish-American war of 1898, which I would assume had more similarities with the kind of expeditionary / colonial / asymmetrical warfare typically engaged in by the British Army during the imperial age.)

Militarily and economically how strong would you say The Union was? Were they a top 3 power in the world at the peak of their strength? Or would they get chewed up by the first rate European countries of the time?

Did the British draw any political lessons from the war, such as questions of retaining the loyalty of officers and soldiers, or fighting a war with civilian government?

Good Day Doctor Somerville, I have but a short question. I had read that especially around the Napoleonic Era that the British army recruited from men who were convicted or especially poor. Do you know how long this practice lasted, and if other nations like America did this as well?

Did Douglas Haig in particular take any interest/lessons from the Civil War? I vaguely remember reading somewhere he studied cavalry actions.

At the end of the Union song, "The Fall of Charleston", there's a line that goes something like this:

"How are you neutral Johnny Bull... we'll settle next with you!"

How common was anti-British sentiment within the Union?

I am not Educated on this topic (the British monitoring he civil war and improving hele army) Can you or someone Else give a quck run through of What they changed in their army