Just Finished Reading
I remember reading about or being taught about the epic 1862
battle between the Union ship Monitor and the Confederate ship Merrimac (AKA Virginia Atlantic over 200
years after the even the historical significance was clear. On that March day
the world’s military fleets became effectively obsolete.
I think that most people know the story. As Union forces
withdrew from territory they could not readily defend they left behind the
ruins of Norfolk Virginia
A delight to read from cover to cover, this book was a
mixture of a familiar story peppered with unfamiliar detail. I was singularly
unfamiliar with much of the background to the Monitor’s designer who was
apparently loathed by the US Navy Department. I was unfamiliar with the tale of
the Monitors near destruction on the eve of the battle as well as the political
and financial manoeuvres in the months up to its commissioning which nearly
derailed the whole project. At almost every stage it appeared that the cards
had been heavily stacked against the Monitor ever meeting its adversary on the
battlefield of the Hampton Roads. If any one of a number of things had occurred
and the Union ship had failed to make its debut on the world stage its possible
(if unlikely in my mind – though not exactly being a Civil War expert I far from
sure) that the fortunes of the Confederacy might have been much different. It
is easy to imagine that, after breaking through the Union blockade, the CSS
Virginia might have sailed north to shell Boston
or New York
4 comments:
I had no idea that the battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac was studied outside the US! ...somehow I figured Europe had its own first ironclad battle that we in the US were oblivious to.
Quick question -- does the American Civil War come up in early elementary education? If so, I'm wondering how it is presented, since Britain and France both extended partial support to the secessionists.
I too remember being taught about this battle and a little bit about the background of the building of the ships. My teachers get into too much detail though, so I'm sure I could learn a lot from this book. Do you know, or did the book say if the U.S. subs were the first invented or whether Europeans were also working on subs of their own? I ask this because the German subs (U-boats) were so successful during WWI.
sc said: I had no idea that the battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac was studied outside the US!
Indeed it is - though I'm dragging up memories from over 40 years ago so even I'm taking it with a pinch of salt... [grin]
sc said: somehow I figured Europe had its own first ironclad battle that we in the US were oblivious to.
You know I'm not sure [thinks] I know there was a huge naval battle in the Med against (I think) the Ottoman Empire. They had Galley's and 'we' had more modern ships. Unsurprisingly we kicked their assess..... As to iron ships I don't think that the Great Powers fought each other @ sea until the First World War.
sc said: does the American Civil War come up in early elementary education? If so, I'm wondering how it is presented, since Britain and France both extended partial support to the secessionists.
Again I can only answer from memory. It's been a very long time since I was in compulsorily, never mind elementary, education....
Our history classes were, I remember, mostly British history or European. 1066, Tudors, Spanish Armada, Napoleon, WW1, Russian Revolution, Origins of WW2... that sort of thing. I have strong memories of doing the English Civil War(s) as well as some memory of the American Civil War too - probably concentrating on Slavery I'm guessing.... It was definitely pro-Union though (with reference to Britain initially backing the Confederacy because of cotton imports - which we subsequently moved to India of course).
v v said: Do you know, or did the book say if the U.S. subs were the first invented or whether Europeans were also working on subs of their own? I ask this because the German subs (U-boats) were so successful during WWI.
The book mentioned torpedoes (not actually used as they were a bit ahead of their time) but not submarines. I understand that the Confederacy was experimenting with submersibles - again the break the Union blockade - but never built anything game changing.
The German subs were only moderately successful in WW1 and were basically negated by the convoy system. They were much mote successful in WW2 because of advances in technology but again were successfully countered - eventually - by convoys, radar and the use of air-power. Although on the face of it a good idea (and arguably almost a war winner) subs are very vulnerable once you figure out how to kill them.
True, once you figure them out, they're easy to destroy. Did you ever learn about the Spanish-American War? Now that was an awesome battle. I think the US wiped out the Spanish in a matter of hours. That's the fun of a modern navy up against an antiquated one.
Post a Comment