Depois de vinte dias com o site parado (compreendam, meus queridos oito leitores, que a correria tem sido grande nos últimos dias), segue artigo muito interessante, encaminhado pelo meu caríssimo amigo Alexandre A. Rocha, sobre as mudanças nas práticas de guerra no século XIX, com análise a partir de uma batalha da Guerra Civil americana. É muito ilustrativo para quem se interessa pelas mudanças na guerra ao longo do século XIX e pelas diferenças entre os conflitos pré-napoleônicos e aqueles sob a égide da Revolução Industrial e com o envolvimento da sociedade.
Destaco a percepção do autor sobre a pouca efetividade das batalhas campais para a guerra moderna. E lembro, ainda, que este ano a batalha de Gettysburg completa 150 anos… Recomendo leitura!
Winning the Field, but Not the War
One hundred and fifty years ago this week, more than 133,000 Union soldiers squared off against more than 60,000 Confederates in the Battle of Chancellorsville. Though the battle swung back and forth for several days, it ended with a decisive Southern victory. And yet the war ground on, for another two years. The war only ended when the devastation spilled off the battlefield, as Sherman and his army took the conflict to the farmland and cities of the South.
It is important to understand the change this pattern marked in military history. Victory in pitched battle was not enough to end the Civil War — and that was an ominous sign for the wars of the future. Pitched battles like Chancellorsville or Gettysburg are terrifying events for the soldiers who participate in them. But for society at large they are a blessing: they confine the horror of war to a single field, ideally for a single day. Strange though it may sound, a pitched battle functions as a kind of orderly legal procedure. It is a formal trial by combat, and when it works, it puts a quick and tidy end to conflict. The verdict of battle settles a war before it spins out of control. Continuar lendo
Frumentarius 