On Jan 23, 5:30=A0am, SolomonW wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:54:01 -0800 (PST), ChugachMtnBlues wrote:
> > The two biggest things that would have helped Billy Yank and
> > Johnny Reb in practice: antiseptic procedures,
>
> Without a germ theory it was hard to take this seriously, please read up
> about Dr Semmelweishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
>
I'm familiar; by saying "modern medicine in the Civil War," I was
implying that germ theory would be in place, with antisepsis as the
practical fruit.
> > and modern field
> > sanitation.
>
> Billy Yank had much of modern field sanitation already noted by the
> sanitation committee in the Civil War.
>
> http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/august/sold...
>
Good find! It looks like the basics of field sanitation was known by
the beginning of the war; a quick scan doesn't show anything
outrageously wrong, and it seems to cover all the major points.
Interesting.
> Much can also be said of the British sanitation commission in the Crimean
> war.
Nit: The BSC was mostly concerned with *hospital* sanitation, not
field sanitation.
> I think the problem was that it was not done.
>
I guess one point that could be raised is, prior to the rise of modern
medicine, field sanitation was figured out empirically. If doctors in
the 1850s really understand the vectors of disease, then the prewar
U.S. medical corps could do a better job of promulgating the
importance of field sanitation to line officers.
[snip]
> > So, obvious result: Union wins faster. =A0But are there any *other*
> > major impacts?
>
> However, let usume what you say is correct, the North has plenty of
> troops. They do not need so much their troops repaired. It's the
> Confederates, who need it. What your POD might do is prolong the war?
I'm not seeing it. Lincoln was keen on swift victory, not only for
its own sake but because he knew that disease killed more men than
bullets A single, very bloody battle that destroyed Confederate
armies in the field would ultimately save lives (on both sides)
because camp life was so deadly. Grant was the first field-army level
commander who figured this out. With fewer deaths to disease, Grant
can be *even more aggressive* in his war of attrition; the
Confederates simply cannot replace battle losses at the same rate the
Union can. Their one advantage OTL was they didn't die as frequently
of malaria, because it was a childhood disease in the South but not
the North. This will be erased ATL. There's no way this is to
Confederate advantage.
> What
> it would also do is change US post-civil war history dramatically as what
> the armies has learnt will quickly spread.-
Say more; tell how. |
