End of an era

[John Paul]

I know it's not exactly an age of sail fact per se, but it is nautical all the same!! :hatsoff:

On March 8, 1862 the C.S.S. Virginia left her moorings on her maiden voyage to engage the Union Blockade Squadron and other vessels then anchored in Hampton Roads. After sinking, destroying, or running aground most of the Union Squadron she returned to Norfolk, VA. that evening planning to return the next day to finish the task her and her crew had begun that fateful day.

On March 9, 1862, after an early morning fog had lifted she again got underway to complete her mission only to find the U.S.S. Monitor waiting for her arrival. After a long hard fought engagement the two ironclads, as the tide began to fall, and the sun began to drop on the western horizon broke off their engagement. The Virginia returned to Norfolk, and the Monitor moored along side Fort Monroe each believing they had driven their opponent off.

Thus as the sun went down that evening the end of the era of the wooden hulled warship gave rise to the beginning of the age of iron and steel! :salute:

[Naharaht]

The inexorable advance of technology. :surrender:

[Nightmoss]

Thanks! I just finished reading an alternate history novel by Harry Harrison (Stars and Stripes Forever [not his best work]), which featured this battle as part of the narrative. It really was the end of an era.

[bakblast]

OK I acknowledge that I am being anal here and quite off topic, but there is no is such thing as "alternate history". While I have read a few books in the genre and by and large I find them entertaining the word "history" should not be included in the description. Imagine if a seventh grader doing a report on Gettysburg unwittingly used Newt Gingrich's "alternate history" as a source thinking Newts credentials validated it's use. Say no more...but I will.

An alternate history is a Soviet history of Barbarosa, or a French account of Waterloo. In otherwords an historical event from a different perspective, but the outcomes remain essentialy the same. This is not the case in many of these books, outcomes often change drasticaly.

It is not historical fiction, for that genre takes actual events with actual people and historical outcomes and places the protagonist in contact with the historical figures at the events and sometimes even resposible for said event; example Richard Sharpe destroying the fortress of Almeida.

Nor is it fantasy because unlike common fiction this type of literature uses make believe characters, events and places that have no connection with any reality.

But what is "alternate history" as a literary form? A genre that uses historical characters, in historical places in a time setting of great historical significance with outcomes of pure fantasy. Should it then be called historical fantasy? No that's an oxymoron, perhaps "alternate fantasy" is a more apt label. Entertaining and exciting? Yes. History? No. There is no alternate to history.

[Diamondback]

Perhaps "Speculative Fiction" would be a better term... as in "What MIGHT Have Been IF..."

[bakblast]

I like that, at least the word "history" isn't in there to confuse things.

I'm so easily confused.

[7eat51]

Thanks, Paul.


I'm so easily confused.

So are historians and readers of history.

Too often during the past year have I read differing historical accounts of military events. I often feel like I need to place some type of disclaimer when discussing such events.

[Пилот]

In war, truth is the first casualty.
Aeschylus, Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC)

[csadn]

Perhaps "Speculative Fiction" would be a better term... as in "What MIGHT Have Been IF..."

"Counterfactual" is also used.

That said: I have no particular problem with "alternate", in the sense of "vs. primary" (primary being "what actually happened").

[bakblast]

I like counterfactual, I only have the problem when the word "history" is included. There are people that believe the 'National Enquirer' or the 'Star', you put the word "history" in front of them and it's written in stone.

Suppose when the dust settles three thousand years from now and some archialogist pulls out one of these "alternate history's", will he consider it a "primary" source?

Three cheers for mountains from molehills!

[csadn]

Suppose when the dust settles three thousand years from now and some archialogist pulls out one of these "alternate history's", will he consider it a "primary" source?

<snort> I'm a Historian by training -- I can tell you there are historians doing that *right now*....

We call these people "embarrassments".

(Of course, given how many "primary sources" are borderline-if-not-outright hagiography for one faction or another....)

[fredmiracle]

Suppose when the dust settles three thousand years from now and some archialogist pulls out one of these "alternate history's", will he consider it a "primary" source?

Everything can be a source, if you ask the right questions of it. If you ask the wrong questions, that's where you embarrass yourself...

[John Paul]

I feel responsible for starting this tempest in a teapot!! :shock:

Of course, not really!! :wink:

I'm not a fan of the alternate history either!!

[bakblast]

OK I confess.

I am the thread pirate in this case.

To quote John Lennon "I said what I said, now it's all this".

I'm just not a fan of the term.

[Wargamer]

Well, frankly John, the only ones who matter in a discussion of what the books or stories are called as a collective phrase, are the buyers and publishers. If you don't buy them or publish them, then your opinion does not matter.

[bakblast]

Well, frankly John, the only ones who matter in a discussion of what the books or stories are called as a collective phrase, are the buyers and publishers. If you don't buy them or publish them, then your opinion does not matter.

What ever Al.

Caveat emptor, anything for a buck.

I usually wait until I'm out of arguments to play the "opinion" card.

I know I should have started a separate thread, but alas it's too late, the subject has run it's course.

[David Manley]

Thus as the sun went down that evening the end of the era of the wooden hulled warship gave rise to the beginning of the age of iron and steel! :salute:

It was a sunset that began in the mid 1850s with the first deployment of "modern" ironclad ships in the Crimea and the Baltic (of course the Koreans had fielded the Turtle Ships much earlier), and the first warship with an armoured turret in 1860 (HMS Trusty). But its worth noting that wooden ships actually stood up to modern gunfire rather better than some observers claimed. The destruction of the Turkish squadron at Sinope in 1853 is often cited an an example of explosiev shells wreaking havoc with wooden ships but most of the significant damage was probably caised by shot rather than shell and the rate at which the Turks were despatched wasn't overly surprising. Good PR on the part of the shell gun designers, since trials were showing a very high dud rate for shells against wooden ships due to the infancy of fuse design and the "plugging" effect of hits on wooden structure. Several British ships in the Crimea and the Baltic were hit by dozens of shells without appreciable damage. And in 1866 one of the most battleworthy ships in the whole battle was the Austrian wooden ship of the line, Kaiser, which stood up to shellfire rather well.

Of course the really interesting (and long-lived) developments as far as the naval side of the Civil War were concerned were developments in mining and WBIEDs (far more efefctive than those deployed in the Baltic six years previously), submarines (first operational and successful use) and naval aviation (the world's first "aircraft carrier" - OK, it was a balloon but it was a craft that travelled in the air). I was asked last year by an eminent historian why I, as a Brit, was so interested in the naval side of the Civil War (and why I'd written a very successful set of wargaming rules for the period) - and its because of aspects such as this, as well as some of the truly weird and wonderful designs that the period threw out.

[David Manley]

We call these people "embarrassments".

Or the media :)

[David Manley]

I'm not a fan of the alternate history either!!

I like it if its well done. A lot of it isn't. Often badly researched and with only a passing nod to the realities of the period covered (the Harry Harrison series mentioned above being a classic example - i can only think he wrote it as a bet to see how truly awful a series of books he could get published, or that he was having a REALLY BAD day).

Any views on dramatised history novels? My youngster has been reading a number of novels set in various historical eras (mainly Romans - he loves Romans). Some are pure fiction, but others are dramatised accounts of the lives of famous people such as Caesar (and, in the case of a series of books my daughter read, Wellington and Napoleon). They may not be ideal but they have spurred both of my children into far wider historical reading around the subjects.

And getting slightly more back on track, historical fiction with literary characters whose lives and situations borrow heavily from historical events - such as Aubrey and Sharpe? Any thoughts on these?

[Berthier]

Any views on dramatised history novels? My youngster has been reading a number of novels set in various historical eras (mainly Romans - he loves Romans). Some are pure fiction, but others are dramatised accounts of the lives of famous people such as Caesar (and, in the case of a series of books my daughter read, Wellington and Napoleon). They may not be ideal but they have spurred both of my children into far wider historical reading around the subjects.

And getting slightly more back on track, historical fiction with literary characters whose lives and situations borrow heavily from historical events - such as Aubrey and Sharpe? Any thoughts on these?

Are they the Simon Scarrow books David? They are actually pretty easy to read, the Napoleonic series sticks reasonably closely to known events (lot of quotes worked into the dialogue). The Roman series is entertaining but I'm no expert on the period so cant vouch for the authenticity. However the books by Robert Harris set in Rome are brilliant (Pompeii, Imperium, Lustrum).

Sharpe novels tend to be a little looser with history, Aubrey the opposite to the point of dryness at times, just my opinion mind you :wink:

[Nightmoss]

I like it if its well done. A lot of it isn't. Often badly researched and with only a passing nod to the realities of the period covered (the Harry Harrison series mentioned above being a classic example - i can only think he wrote it as a bet to see how truly awful a series of books he could get published, or that he was having a REALLY BAD day).

Any views on dramatised history novels? My youngster has been reading a number of novels set in various historical eras (mainly Romans - he loves Romans). Some are pure fiction, but others are dramatised accounts of the lives of famous people such as Caesar (and, in the case of a series of books my daughter read, Wellington and Napoleon). They may not be ideal but they have spurred both of my children into far wider historical reading around the subjects.

And getting slightly more back on track, historical fiction with literary characters whose lives and situations borrow heavily from historical events - such as Aubrey and Sharpe? Any thoughts on these?

The Harrison book referred to above was bad. Certainly not up to the level of his earlier works. If your son likes anything to do with Romans and their Empire he might like the series by Kirk Mitchell? While it's been many years since I read the series I do recall them being entertaining.


The Germanicus trilogy is a collection of books following the adventures of Roman Emperor Germanicus Julius Agricola Aztecus Caesar in an alternate universe where Rome never fell.
Procurator (novel) (1984)
The New Barbarians (1986)
Cry Republic (1989)

[DeRuyter]

Any views on dramatised history novels? My youngster has been reading a number of novels set in various historical eras (mainly Romans - he loves Romans). Some are pure fiction, but others are dramatised accounts of the lives of famous people such as Caesar (and, in the case of a series of books my daughter read, Wellington and Napoleon). They may not be ideal but they have spurred both of my children into far wider historical reading around the subjects.

And getting slightly more back on track, historical fiction with literary characters whose lives and situations borrow heavily from historical events - such as Aubrey and Sharpe? Any thoughts on these?

I wouldn't view historical fiction as bad if it is creating an interest for the study of history in your children!! :thumbsup: The fact that they are not only reading books, but books about history is excellent in this day and age! I say good on you mate! Now if I could only get my son away from his hockey and football (UK version) scores......

[csadn]

Of course the really interesting (and long-lived) developments as far as the naval side of the Civil War were concerned were developments in mining and WBIEDs (far more efefctive than those deployed in the Baltic six years previously), submarines (first operational and successful use) and naval aviation (the world's first "aircraft carrier" - OK, it was a balloon but it was a craft that travelled in the air). I was asked last year by an eminent historian why I, as a Brit, was so interested in the naval side of the Civil War (and why I'd written a very successful set of wargaming rules for the period) - and its because of aspects such as this, as well as some of the truly weird and wonderful designs that the period threw out.

I'm noting how many of the naval battles the South won outright, to the tune of one: Galveston 1/1/63 -- and that one was a straight-up gunfight with none of the "trick" stuff the Rebels developed involved (unless one counts "using cotton bales as armor").

It's surprising how much airtime Rebel ironclads gets, considering only one of them ever managed to score so much as a draw against the US Navy -- CSS _Albemarle_ vs. USS _Sassacus_ (sunk) and _Miami_. _Virginia_, _Manassas_, _Atlanta_ -- none of these succeeded in their designed tasks; most were too slow to be effective against anything with steam up, and too vulnerable to critical hits (see _Tennessee_ at Mobile Bay), and in many cases sucked up too many resources from other, far more necessary, projects (the Rebels practically destroyed their rail network to get armor for the ironclads -- which meant they couldn't get troops or supplies to the field effectively). Their only actual service was in terrifying a bunch of tired, sick, old men in the nation's capitol who were hopelessly ignorant of the real game, and not smart enough to understand what they did know. The Rebels would have been better-off building large numbers of lightly-armored small boats (like what the Union used to eventually sink _Albemarle_) and/or "cottonclads" like those seen at Galveston, and "fuzzy-wuzzied" (in the gaming sense) the US Navy to death (I've tried it on the gaming board -- it's worked so far).

Submarines -- pretty-much the same as the ironclads: A futuristic notion defeated by the realities of the time. How many crews did _Hunley_ go through in order to sink *one* ship (to include the poor blighters killed in its one successful attack)? And did that attack delay the end of the war by so much as a minute? Of course not.

Mines -- yes, one famously eliminated USS _Tecumseh_ at Mobile Bay; now what about the couple-dozen other ships following it? (And _Tecumseh_ might have avoided its demise, but the captain didn't follow directions.) Again: For all the airtime it gets, it did not slow the inexorable march of the Union forces by so much as a moment.

Yes, the Rebels were inventive -- but most of what they had was "not ready for prime-time", and wouldn't be until long after the ACW had been settled. (The Rebels would have been better off designing and building a revolver-based repeating rifle -- they needed more firepower from their ground forces to make up the manpower deficit.)

[David Manley]

The Harrison book referred to above was bad. Certainly not up to the level of his earlier works. If your son likes anything to do with Romans and their Empire he might like the series by Kirk Mitchell? While it's been many years since I read the series I do recall them being entertaining.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll see if I can find some copies.

[David Manley]

Yes, the Rebels were inventive -- but most of what they had was "not ready for prime-time", and wouldn't be until long after the ACW had been settled. (The Rebels would have been better off designing and building a revolver-based repeating rifle -- they needed more firepower from their ground forces to make up the manpower deficit.)

They might well have been. The Maury gunboats and Davids provide a good example of what would in hindsight (and to some, clear vision at the time) would have been an ideal centrepiece to a small craft dominated coastal and riverine defensive strategy. But the Confederacy was too fragmented and in some cases to wedded to the idea of the large ironclad to make this a reality. The ironclads did however serve two useful purposes. as Chris says they scared the hell out of the Staff in Washington with the result that the USN poured massive amounts of money and resources into a monitor fleet that was excessive, could also have been more usefully put into other shipping and which was, post war, ultimately useless. And they performed the "fleet in being" role quite well, limiting the USN's ability to manoeuvre and slowing the rate at which the Southern coastline was blockaded. Without that effect the Anaconda Plan would have succeeded rather sooner than it did, probably by sometime in 1863.

btw, the idea that the Confederates tore up their railroad system to build ironclads was discounted some time back. Most of the iron referred to in confederat armour schemes is described as "railroad iron", but in the vast majority of cases was defective iron that had already been removed for scrap, or was material destined for construction that didn't happen. I'm sure in a few cases some was pinched from the active network, but the effect on the railroad network was more in preventing development than stripping the lines in service.

Anyway, I guess Chris won't be buying in to any ACW development of Sails of Glory :happy:

[Craig]

Any views on dramatised history novels? My youngster has been reading a number of novels set in various historical eras (mainly Romans - he loves Romans). Some are pure fiction, but others are dramatised accounts of the lives of famous people such as Caesar (and, in the case of a series of books my daughter read, Wellington and Napoleon). They may not be ideal but they have spurred both of my children into far wider historical reading around the subjects.

And getting slightly more back on track, historical fiction with literary characters whose lives and situations borrow heavily from historical events - such as Aubrey and Sharpe? Any thoughts on these?

Just while we're on the topic of book recommendations: Lindsay Davis' Falco novels are a series of extremely fun noir-ish detective novels set in Rome during the reign of Vespasian. The character's behaviour is somewhat modernised in order to work with the pulp detective fiction tropes, but the background detail appears well researched.

And for anyone after some seriously alternate pseudo-historical fiction, see Mary Gentle's Ash: A Secret History. To quote from the back cover blurb, "Mary Gentle is an author who knows her history, and isn't afraid to mess with it". Fantastically good character writing and a mind-bendingly awesome plot (I could rant for ages, but not without spoilers, so you'll just have to trust me). Seriously, one of the best bits of fantastic fiction that I've ever read.

--
Craig

[csadn]

The Maury gunboats and Davids provide a good example of what would in hindsight (and to some, clear vision at the time) would have been an ideal centrepiece to a small craft dominated coastal and riverine defensive strategy. But the Confederacy was too fragmented and in some cases to wedded to the idea of the large ironclad to make this a reality.

The real problem was: The Southern "aristos"* had no understanding of Naval Power, or indeed much of anything. Trying to explain to one of them the realities of where the iron for ironclads came from was like trying to explain the airplane to a Stone-Age tribesman.

[*: The large plantation owners who had the spare time and cash to get into politics. Remember, the only "mass media" was newspapers; so the only way for a prospective pol to get his name and face recognized was to hit the road -- and if he had a business, that meant either hiring someone to work the place while he was away, which cost money; or closing up shop, which meant No Income.]


The ironclads did however serve two useful purposes. as Chris says they scared the hell out of the Staff in Washington with the result that the USN poured massive amounts of money and resources into a monitor fleet that was excessive, could also have been more usefully put into other shipping and which was, post war, ultimately useless.

Unless the US wanted to start building windjammers (basically clipper-ships with steel hulls and masts) a generation early, there really wasn't anything else they could have done with the production capacity which went into the monitors. And since the Rebels never had a navy proper (despite Sec. Mallory's best efforts), pretty-much any deep-water navy would have been a waste of effort; building more forces like Ellet's Marine Brigade would have accomplished as much.

(Not to mention: An ACW naval fight which is nothing but light, fast small boats and torpedo-launches makes for one hell of a game -- fast, and *very* bloody*.)


And they performed the "fleet in being" role quite well, limiting the USN's ability to manoeuvre and slowing the rate at which the Southern coastline was blockaded. Without that effect the Anaconda Plan would have succeeded rather sooner than it did, probably by sometime in 1863.

Not the case. As noted above: The Rebels never had a navy proper, so if the US had wanted to close down the ports at the outset, the only factor slowing them was how fast they could build transports -- note how quickly after the war started the Union was able to create footholds in the Carolinas.

The real problem was the tired, sick, and *stupid*, old men in DC running the war, whose stupidity can be summarized in three words heard with nauseating frequency during the War: "ON TO RICHMOND" -- the belief that "if we take the national capitol, we win", which worked so well in the War of 1812 -- oh wait... well, it worked in the American Revolution -- oh, wait... well, it worked for Napoleon in Russia -- oh, wait.... (The taking of a national capitol and the end of a war are shining examples of "correlation does not equal causation".) To this end, resources which could have been put to closing down the ports, and the rail lines connecting them to each other and the fronts, were instead squandered on futile attempts to bulldoze through terrain which could not have been better designed to defend a fixed location if the generals had been able to build it themselves. It is a testament to the incompetence and stupidity of the "OTR" crowd that, had Lee been able to hold but a month longer, Sherman would have been able to come into Virginia and take Richmond from the west. (Never mind that everywhere else in the South, the war was all over bar the treaties -- the Mississippi had been retaken, and the West neutralized; Thomas had destroyed the Rebel's army in Tennessee; and there was no stretch of Rebel land where Union armies could not arch with impunity, as Sherman demonstrated).


btw, the idea that the Confederates tore up their railroad system to build ironclads was discounted some time back. Most of the iron referred to in confederat armour schemes is described as "railroad iron", but in the vast majority of cases was defective iron that had already been removed for scrap, or was material destined for construction that didn't happen. I'm sure in a few cases some was pinched from the active network, but the effect on the railroad network was more in preventing development than stripping the lines in service.

By stripping away the ability to repair what rail they had (which wasn't much -- the March 2011 edition of _Trains_ has a useful map showing what rail was where, and at what gauge), they did in fact "tear up" their rail system -- "robbing Peter to pay Paul" works just as well as trashing what's there. "So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view." :) )


Anyway, I guess Chris won't be buying in to any ACW development of Sails of Glory :happy:

Oh, I'd love to, if it allows me to do what I usually end up doing with ACW naval-warfare games -- let the Rebels have a somewhat-better understanding of what Mahan would write about, and build a proper inshore navy, with the emphasis on "small, fast, and expendable". (One of my favorite fights to re-enact is Ellet's Brigade at Memphis -- " demolition derby with steamboats". >:) )

[John Paul]

OK I confess.

I am the thread pirate in this case.

To quote John Lennon "I said what I said, now it's all this".

I'm just not a fan of the term.

No worries John!! :happy: One just never knows what course a conversation may follow once it sets sail!!

[Mahan]

Just an interesting note here - The USS Monitor was constructed by the Swedish Engineer John Ericson, the one and same man who invented the propeller. So I guess we Swedes can take some of the credit, or blame for that matter, leaving the sailing era to the books of history.

[David Manley]

"Swedish Engineer John Ericson, the one and same man who invented the propeller"Not quite.....http://www.irvineayrshire.org/propeller.htm

[Mahan]

:surrender:

Ok, I was perhaps not chrystal clear, I admit that! Ericsson invented the two screw design, first rejected by the Admiralty, and later led Ericsson to be employed by the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson

[7eat51]

I finally played my first ACW naval mini war-game this past weekend. It was a blast.

I'm looking forward to catching up on learning about ACW naval history, ships, armament, etc.

Enjoyable thread, thus far.

[David Manley]

I finally played my first ACW naval mini war-game this past weekend. It was a blast.

I'm looking forward to catching up on learning about ACW naval history, ships, armament, etc.

Enjoyable thread, thus far.

Excellent, have fun :happy: