Hard War vs. Total War, American Civil War

Preface: I'm hoping to keep this a Monastery topic...so let's not get into a nationalistic flame fest that discussions of war types can easily degenerate to.

Topic: I've been reading more about some aspects of the American Civil War that I had not explored as deeply before. One of these is "Total War" as attributed to Sherman and Sheridan. I've long felt this was a misnomer. Recently I came across a book about the Vicksburg campaign that used the term "Hard War." I believe this is a better description and would be interested in some discussion about it. In political discussions I've noted many who seem to be Napoleonic European military history buffs have thrown the ACW "Total War" theme out as a way of condemning the U.S. I'll admit I'm not as well versed in Napoleonic traditions as I would like, however I can find instances where there is not that much difference.

When I hear "Total War," I have images of indiscriminant, or at least wholesale slaughter of civilians and defenders, as well as condoned rape and atrocities versus individuals. The sack of a city was an element of "Total War." Certainly, the pre and post ACW campaigns in the American West vs. the Native Americans would at times be "Total War." This however, was not how the American Civil War was conducted--except by guerrilla's/irregulars, who were executed when caught.

What makes "Hard War" different? Hard War is brutal but directed against property, rather than persons. Not to sugar coat this, citizens suffer immensely as a result, but indirectly: lack of shelter, starvation, displacement, etc. Hence the description Hard War. It is more than just a fight against the military or govt. Hard War is like a form of siege warfare, meant to deprive the enemy of any form of logistical support from the countryside. It is also meant to make the enemy citizenry weary of the war by depriving them of their property.

So what were the typical tactics of "Hard War?"

• Destroying or pillaging homes and other private structures
• Burning public property of any logistical, military, or even propaganda (press) value
• Looting, stripping away any valuables from residences and stores
• Aggressive foraging along a wide track, siezing or killing all livestock and food/grains
• Freeing slaves

In essence, it is a war on property. Deprive the enemy of any means of support. Starve them out and make a region desolate so that it could not participate in the war effort. You know us Americans...logistics, logistics, logistics.

How did this concept come about? Various regions that had hosted field armies for any length of time had been stripped through both compensated procurement...and uncompensated procurement (foraging.) In devastated areas like Northern Arkansas, and Knoxville, only a few troops could even be maintained--horses, mules and men were all starving. It was very difficult for the North to support forays into the South, simply due to logistics. No major thrusts into the South had been maintained more than ~30 miles from a major navigable waterway or port by mid-1863. While the Union was preparing logistical support that would allow deeper thrusts, it also needed to find ways to sustain its field armies without full supply. In areas yet untouched by war, an army could feed itself substantially with aggressive foraging as it moved. This allowed it to detach for a time from its supply lines.

Interestingly, throughout the Vicksburg and Atlanta campaigns, Grant and Sherman had issued many orders to try to halt wanton property destruction. However, the troops largely ignored these orders...at least in a number of regiments. After this, Sherman adopted the policy directly in his March to the Sea. Sheridan did the same in the Shenandoah, which had been the Army of Northern Virginia's breadbasket; and it had been a backdoor for CSA raids toward Washington D.C. Once stripped of resources, it was no longer a feasible launching point for such rebel diversionary attacks.

so to reference this to napoleonics, the russians conducted 'hard war' against napoleon during the russian campaign and the austrians conducted 'normal war' against him say during the austerlitz campaign?

and wwi was a 'hard war' while wwii was a 'total war?'

Quote:

---

When I hear "Total War," I have images of indiscrimant, or at least wholesale slaughter of civilians and defenders, as well as condoned rape and atrocities versus individuals.

---

Well if you include the concept of an economy totally geared towards a war effort, the above is what I understand by total war too.

But I don't get a clear image of hard war. It may sound a bit sarcastic, but what is the difference between hard war and a scorged earth strategy?

And how does it differ from medieval warfare? i.e. destroy supply routes to the enemy, and lay in the mud and hope that they die of starvation before you do?

Well, after the 40 years war it was more or less "hard war" save for incidents during the Napoleonic War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

Well if you include the concept of an economy totally geared towards a war effort, the above is what I understand by total war too.

But I don't get a clear image of hard war. It may sound a bit sarcastic, but what is the difference between hard war and a scorged earth strategy?

And how does it differ from medieval warfare? i.e. destroy supply routes to the enemy, and lay in the mud and hope that they die of starvation before you do?

---

The key difference in Total War and Hard War is the target: humans & property (Total War) vs. primarily property (Hard War.)

Hard War is a scorched earth policy, but it is more humane than Total War as it targets property, not persons. Note that scorched earth often carries a defensive connotation. Ghengis Khan practiced scorched earth in an offensive form, but it was combined with pillage against persons and property. It was Total War. When we say scorched earth, it doesn't necessarily mean elimination of the people, instead it refers to destruction of property. It *can* include people as the targets, but that is not the norm.

Medieval and Classical siege warfare is indeed very similar in concept. The difference is in extent. While in ACW's Hard War people might starve, or die of exposure, or pestilence, the populace would not be eradicated intentionally. In the ACW it wasn't wanton slaughter, or rape and pillage. Sieges ended with humane treatment of civilians and prisoners. The towns might be burned but private citizens and military personnel were respected/paroled/or imprisoned as was appropriate. Distinctions were made for those practicing real Total War--they were guerrilla's/partisans who were executed when caught.

When you think about it, what is wrong with attacking property in war? We have gone far beyond that in modern war (WWII), where populations were directly attacked as part of the assault on manufacturing/warmaking capacity. Eradication was not the intent of the victors in WWII although the targeting was brutal. The defeated foes, civilian and military were treated with proper humanity (perhaps not as much in Russian hands...I'm thinking more of the western allies.) Genocide or elimination/displacement was not the goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

so to reference this to napoleonics, the russians conducted 'hard war' against napoleon during the russian campaign and the austrians conducted 'normal war' against him say during the austerlitz campaign?

and wwi was a 'hard war' while wwii was a 'total war?'

---

I think in general that is correct, although with "total war" one must also consider "who." The allies engaged in something approaching Total War in various aspects (firebombing, nukes, and targeting industrial workers in cities), while I would say the Germans and Japanese certainly used Total War concepts throughout.

Allied treatment of the Germans and Japanese after defeat was quite reasonable. Indeed, the reconstruction was nearly unprecedented and certainly rose above what anyone could expect based on the ferocity of the conflict. The post war purges were aimed at the former regimes, not the populace. Both defeated nations contributed to this positive environment in acting with societal discipline in respecting their position, rather than seeking continued guerrilla conflict, etc.

I always considered total war as making the enemy populace suffer through deprivation/exhuastion/war fatiuge/whatever to the point where they no longer have the will to resist.

In the civil war terms I considered sherman's 'tactics' as total war and a shocking prediction of what was to come in future wars. AFAIK, his was the distinction of doing it before anyone else.

But given this new definition, perhaps hard war is a more apt definition.

With regard to native Indians and what not (I admit my knowledge is far from complete) I always considered that extermination/brutality and underhandedness.

RH, i like your definitions and agree to them. what is the term used to describe a 'normal' war then? i.e. a non-total, non-hard war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

RH, i like your definitions and agree to them. what is the term used to describe a 'normal' war then? i.e. a non-total, non-hard war?

---

I'm not sure what it would be called. It is a more limited style of war, using more Napoleonic conventions and avoiding civilian center targeting that was part of WWII.

One thing I will say about the Western Allied attacks in WWII is that the lack of precision and vulnerability in strategic bombing meant that strategic bombing was going to require attacking population centers. Another factor in it was that late in the war, production was actually being decentralized and scattered among the civilian areas; so to prevent a fighter from being built you would need to target neighborhoods where parts were being fabricated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W. T. Sherman

...When the provisions, forage, horses, mules, wagons, etc., are used by our enemy, it is clearly our duty and right to take them also, because otherwise they might be used against us. In like manner all houses left vacant by an inimical people are clearly our right, and as such are needed as storehouses, hospitals, and quarters.
But the question arises as to dwellings used by women, children, and non-combatants. So long as non-combatants remain in their houses and keep to their accustomed peaceful business, their opinions and prejudices can in no wise influence the war, and therefore should not be noticed; but if anyone comes out into the public streets and creates disorder, he or she should be punished, restrained, or banished to the rear or front, as the officer in command adjudges. If the people, or any of them, keep up a correspondence with parties in hostility, they are spies, and can be punished according to law...
-- Letter to Maj. R.M. Sawyer, 1864

---

Even Sherman, the modern "father" of total war, did not intend to leave nothing but devastation in his wake. The above indicates a harsh code, but the modern interpretation (no innocents, anybody or anything a legitimate target) was not the intention.

Seamus

There was total war during the Napoleonic Wars (Spain is a good example)