
was the previous significant war, and didn't find any there.
American Civil War: Thermopylae, Barkan, and Leipzig.



I suppose, to be more precise, I could ask:

  • 2



  • 1
  • 1
    @Drux. The only multiday battle in the Crimean War that is not a siege is the Battle of Suomenlinna. The question is not about naval bombardments; it's about land battles. "American exceptionalism" is a term coined by Stalin, ironically, that refers to the characteristics that prevent the US from becoming communist. If you can connect that to the conduct of Civil War generals, please do. – Razie Mah Feb 17 '14 at 13:42










  • This seems to me a good answer. I hesitate to add further thoughts without having time to cite umpteen sources as some people on this site are pedantic about that, but I believe a little reading does bear out that the increased firepower of infantry and artillery due e.g. inventions such as the minie ball ammunition, increased the advantage of the defence. Consequently, it was harder for one side to completely overwhelm or rout the other by infantry and cavalry charges. Hence, even an army that took a battering on the 1st day could often stay on the field and fight off further attacks the next – Timothy Sep 1 '16 at 21:33


Also the Battle of Leipzig, October 16-19, 1813, was fought over four days, longer than any (non-siege) battles that I know of in the American Civil War.


The main criterion for having multi day battles is having an army left after an initial engagement. In the Civil War generals often defended against assaults and then remained stationary or only drove off their opponents until they reached there own defensive positions. To take the first and second days of Gettysburg as an exapmple : The confederates attacked, were repulsed but were able to reform their lines and such fight on the next day. The devellopment of the minie ball and artillery made defending much easyer then attacking. Why did ancient battles never last longer then a day (and often not much longer then a few hours) is mostly because when the infantry would dissengage (like for example Hood's men at the peach orchard) they would be immediatly run down by heavy cavalry and routed. The Civil War saw very little routs compared to other wars.

Both parties always got away with a large part of their force. This caused the war to drag on this long. The goal of the generals on both sides was to 'destroy' the enemy,which they failed at on both sides.

Lastly there is the following to take into account. Pitched battles. The civil war saw no pitched battles, they were always engagements by maneuver, of one side trying to achieve a strategic objective. But in old times there often simply was this : two armies would march toward another to a field, encamp for the night and fight it out at first light. They would engage not always on the best ground (In the english civil war there is a battle where on side actually came down from the high ground so that the other side would fight) In these scenario's of 'all or nothing' with things like schivalry involved, chances are that one army will simply run for their lives if the assault fails.





Your Answer
