I have not read the Neely's book, though I will search it
out after reading Prof. Citino's review. I gather that it's
about the brutality of war (only American war?), but think
that Prof. Citino may be conflating two issues in his
comments that are and should remain separate -- the brutality
of a war and the lasting impact of the same war. I cannot say
with certainty that that was the intention, but his use of
his students' comments as counterpoint makes it seems so.

Counting bodies is a peculiar, and ineffective, way of
measuring the importance of a war. (Reminds one of the body
counts of Vietnam, which were condemned by many for various
reasons, not the least of which is their use as a measure of
effectiveness in achievement of a strategic goal.) Wars are
not fought to produce casualties anymore than a farmer
plowing a field has as his "goal" the destruction of weeds.
(And, yes, I remember Verdun, etc, but battles aren't wars.)
Presumably, the farmer is trying to raise a crop; killing
weeds is a byproduct, arguably necessary at some times not at
others. Perhaps in their ignorance, Prof Citino's students
believe that historical outcomes correlate more accurately
with the importance of any given war than the number of
people killed.

Take the two battles mentioned. Gettysburg, accurately or
not, is called the high point of the war. Accepting that
assertion means that it sealed the fate of the South; it also
affirmed the preservation of the Union and ensured that there
would be on the North American continent one, not two,
significant states. It allowed that single power to turn its
energies to opening the continent rather than to maintaining
armies and guarding frontiers. The industries that grew in
the last decades of the 19th century allowed the United
States to fund and supply the English and French in their
fight against the German state that was founded with the
victory at Königgrätz. Both were momentous--not for the dead
produced but for the collision they brought about twice in
the 20th century.

Which was more important? In terms of producing civil war
dead, I'm going to guess without looking that the Russian and
Chinese civil wars were worse. They had the advantage of more
modern killing tools and an ideology that openly accepted
killing as a tool in stamping out competing ideas and in
transforming society. The American Civil War may have been
small potatoes when all the dead are stacked like cordwood,
but as the students ask, so what? Except as a narrow study of
weapon effectiveness or technological change or similar, what
has the number of dead to do with lasting importance? Or am I
missing the point, too?

Can I appeal to the 300 at Thermopylae?

Larry A. Grant Naval Historian, j.g.
Larry A. Grant <grant.198@osu.edu>
-----
For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/
To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war
-----

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS