On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:19:41 -0800 (PST), ChugachMtnBlues wrote:
> On Jan 23, 5:30 am, 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.
>
I know, I was agreeing with you.
>>> 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:
Not really because they did something.
> The BSC was mostly concerned with *hospital* sanitation, not
> field sanitation.
>
There was no medical knowledge that the American sanitation committee in
the Civil War had that the British sanitation committee did not have.
Clearly, the British knew it had applications outside of hospitals.
>
>> 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]
Doctors? If you check Dr Semmelweis above, they were not that impressed
with his theories. Without a germ theory, it's not convincing to them.
However, the sanitation committee in the Civil War clearly was, although I
do not know how much weight, they had. Still, the British sanitation
committee showed something could do something. Now if they had some senior
American generals behind them, as you suggest, then something could happen.
>
>>> So, obvious result: Union wins faster. But 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.
I am not sure if there was much difference in diseases between the two.
Plus in a battle the North has roughly about as many losses as the South.
It was attrition on the South that eventually led to its defeat. What this
POD is doing is decreasing the attrition.
> 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.
Malaria is a plus to the South but the North had better food and clothing
for the troops. If the North start to pay more attention to this, then it
would make a difference.
However I am not sure what you are getting here about "There's no way this
is to Confederate advantage". In any case North could and did afford the
malaria losses.
>
>> 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.
The whole country would adopt sanitation almost immediately as the doctors
and soldiers came home.
|
