Most Experienced Land Army in the Late 1800's

[Pips]

Just wondering which country you would consider to have the most experienced army in the late 1800's? Comments would be greatly appreciated.

Experience wise it's a real mixed bag. The US had gone through the bloody Civil War of 1861-1865, then fought a series of local campaigns against the various Indian tribes over the next 15 years.
The British last fought a major war when it clashed with Russia in the Crimean War, but for the next 40 years most conflicts were of fairly local intent putting down national uprising's over the world eg India, Khyber Pass, New Zealand Maori War's, Abyssinia, China, all over Africa (including the bloody Zulu War) and Sudan.
Prussia fought a series of major modern wars in which it was victorious eg Austro-Prussian War and the Franco-Prussian War; then settled down to the quiet life.
France was thoroughly beaten in the war against Prussia, but recovered in time and fought a number of small conflicts including Mexico, Korea, Tunisia, Ivory Coast, Madagascar and China.
Japan wars' were all internal, starting with Japan's civil war that led to the Meiji Restoration. After that it was a matter of putting down a number of rebellion's over the next 15 years.

[Felix C]

If considering 1875-1900 I would wager the British Army(also includes the Indian Army) I mean the amount of campaigning all over Africa, Indian frontier, then China is amazing.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Union Army of the USA,

In terms of number they fielded they were the biggest army and took the most casualties. Therefore it is agiven they had msot experienced soldiers of all armies in the 1800's, until the end.

Please argue some other army had the most Veterans in the 1800's.

[South]

Good morning Pips,

In my opinion the US Army was the most experienced in the late 1800s.

It's pre-mobilization size at the end of the US Civil War is notable placing it with an experience record like Napoleon's Grande Armee.

Long-haul rail operations was a valuable experience. Note that cold weather rail ops placed the US Army at the top of the list. It was a couple of generations later that the Dominion of Canada had its Canadian Pacific RR. Ditto re the Czar's TransSiberian RR. The logistics experience alone......independently viewed from the rail transport......was extensive.

Most important to me was the US Army's experience in joint land-sea operations with the US Navy. This experience from the US Civil War is key to modern warfare.

......

Note that the US Army fought the Indian campaigns prior to the US Civil War, during and after.


Warm regards,

Bob

[phylo_roadking]

Then again - I'd have to argue that the U.S. Army of the ACW was "mid" 1800s, hardly the "Late" 1800s.

Also - how far down and how fast did it draw after Appomattox??? By the time of the various Indian "wars", it was quite a small army IIRC...holed up in various dusty Western outposts. The majority of what experience had been gained mid-century was paid off long before the end of the century...

What state was it in on the eve of the Spanish-American War in 1898?

[Sheldrake]

US army was at war at the end of the C19th against the Spanish in Cuba and the Philippines.

The British were learning some serios lessons in 1899 and 1900 about the effects of C20th weapons, (Bolt action magazine rifles and quick firing guns) For sheer number of wars and battles the British or French might be hard to match.

The Russians had been waging war in asia and the Japanese had been fighting the Chinese in the mid 1890s

[South]

Good afternoon all,

First: I must correct my mistake of this morning.

My sentence 2 should read: "Its pre-DE-mobilization size at the end of the US Civil War..."

Good afternoon Phylo,

My initial post was addressing the "most experenced land army" and not large armies.

The much smaller US Army of the US Reconstruction era (1865-1877) had the institutional experience to expand concurrent with the use of modern military tools such as railroads, telegraphs, etc.

I was not addressing the the actual status of the late 1800s US Army and the War Department.

The US Army collected much experience in the Caribbean operations.....especially with a focus to digging a Nic.....er Panama Canal for a later 2 ocean navy. When war was declared against Spain (21 April 1898), public opinion changed (much opinion molding going on by the "journalists"). US national policy was imperialistic but a land force to support this national policy was not present. The US war with Spain established mastery of the Caribbean but it was the Philippines generating the larger operation(s). Here is where the relatively small US Army received US political support. Concurrent with the US crushing the Philippine resistence were the Open Door Notes 0f 1899 and 1900. Next came the US participation in the Boxer Rebellion of 1900. These late 19th century events allowed the US Army to expand. Much of this expansion, especially in the Philippines, was run by General Arthur MacArthur, later military Governor of the Philippines and US Observer during the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War.

The US was getting ready for something and the political establishment ....at least the sharpies.....anticipated something big.


Warm regards,

Bob

[LWD]

A lot would depend on how you define "experienced" and what do you mean by the Army being experienced? The US army post ACW was very small and most would have seen some combat either in the ACW or Indian wars or later in the Spanish American war but the British army likely had more soldiers with experience than the US did. I'm not sure what the turnover was in other armies. How many were short term for instance?

[DarthMaur]

Well, the last significant war was 1878 Russo-Ottoman war, so i guess either of them.

[South]

Good afternoon LWD,

Apology for the late reply; had missed it.

I define "experienced" as relating to the institution of the US Army, the related War Department and the related support services especially provided by industry.

The institutional experience was present well past Reconstruction (1865-1877). Even into the beginning 1900s, cililian railroad managers and workers sought veterans' benefits. Although mostly denied, the skills and experience allowed them to make the initial claim. Ditto the Secret Service agents, teamsters and some other categories.

I'm not sure that the British army.......not discussing the soldiers; the officer corps and NCO corps, but the "institution" London fielded matched the US Army. Our Civil War was like a combination of many Napoleonic campaigns.

The US Army, for example, was premier in the development of joint land-water operation with their US Navy cousins. See, for example, STRANGLING THE CONFEDERACY, Coastal Operations In The American Civil War, Kevin Dougherty, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-935149-24-8. This experience carried over - and was institutionalized - during the late 1800s when the US Army was involved (w/ USMC) in working the island assignments of the Caribbean (er....sometimes called having friendly governments in place so a canal could be dug and defended) and the follow-on Philippine events.

This is, at least, my view.

Warm regards,

Bob

[gambadier]

Up until about 1860 the term of enlistment for soldiers in the British Army was unlimited. After that it became a maximum of 22 years, and remains so. Officers were different. The British regimental system meant that for infantry one battalion of most two battalion regiments was pretty much always overseas. There were a lot of campaigns, but almost all could be described as 'low intensity' (if can call campaigns that where they very occasionally lost complete battalions).

One could also note the primary role of the Royal Navy was to safely move the Army (much as they might have dreamt about major fleet actions!).

Its interesting that the Royal Marines are celebrating this year as their 350 anniversary, they're actually stretching the truth a bit past breaking point (typical marines), for the first 50 years 'maritime regiments of foot' were just standard army battalions who had been order to serve afloat.

[Loïc]

The US Army, what? ... ...no, the calendar has changed, maybe it is the 1st April today or something like that perhaps...
seriously how an only 25 000men army, I would say less an army according to European standards than a military interior police scattered in frontier posts detachments, militarily speaking something more between the Mexican Rurales and the Royal Canadian MP future Gendarmerie, if not a kind of europeanized-American Belgian Congo Public Force in the Wild Far West, who did small operations against some poorly organised half-naked indians in their own country could be the most experienced land army? The military experience of the United States post-1865 seems to be more constabulary internal affairs than anything else

even the Dutch with ~40 000 men in their own East Indies current Indonesia were there at war in more campaigns during the whole XIXth century than the United States, both wars of "Jambi" in Sumatra and "Benjarmasin" in Bornéo started in 1858-1859 did not end before 1906-1907

the US Army of this period it was only a "great campaign" against the Sioux in 1876 so popularized by Buffalo Bill's worldwide circus, Hollywood, books and etc...about the others operations against the Modocs, the Nez-Percés and even the Apaches after their long war with Mexico and United States the few indians still at war played more at that time the "Last of Mohicans" or "The Fugitive" than "The longest Day" if I can sum that by a movie title
don't forget that the short Splendid Little War of 1898 as usually described and summarized by the United States and the dominant english-speaking view was actually for Spain and the Spanish Army the 3rd War of Cuba, 15 years of war since 1868, not counting others theaters Overseas or even in the Peninsula with the 3rd Carlist War

come on, allons! as could say the 11th US Cavalry Regiment, of course the Russian, French and British armies even with the Dutch KNIL and Spanish Army are most experienced land armies due to all the campaigns and wars in which they fought in the "late" XIXth century

[South]

Good morning Loic,

The question was "most experienced land army..."; not according to European standards. The Russians at Mukden, Harbin, Port Arthur, circa 1904, can amplify about European standards.

Land forces are not, ipso facto, a tally of troops on morning reports. It is the organizations and institutions within - and external to - the land army.

Actually, American Indians exhibited high-quality maneuver warfare. They just couldn't face Napoleran 12 pounders, the Gatling guns and the rest of an industrial base.

Please assign some significance to a land army skilled and experienced in:
rail transport
vet and medical services.....think of Yellow Fever, de Lesseps' renewed canal project and moving large troop organizations over long distances via joint commands
communications, especially the new inventions

It's difficult to compare the Dutch East Indies' campaigns with the US Army's. In the late 1800s, the US Army was throughout the Caribbean (with USMC) and present at the numerous US domestic labor disturbances.

I thought the "short Splendid Little War of 1898...Spain...Cuba" was about the Spanish Phillipines, Wake, Guam and US entry to China. The veterans of Mukden, Harbin and Port Arthur can explain.

The US copied the French product that Napoleon created, less our famous Mau....er....Springfield rifle.

Warm regards,

Bob