Which war is more interesting to study from a military and historical standpoint: the American Civil War or World War I?

More interesting War to study?

  • WW1

    Votes: 18 69.2%
  • American Civil War

    Votes: 8 30.8%

  • Total voters
Nov 2019
United States


New York
Missouri (had soldiers who fought on both sides)

The Mississippi (African-American Monument)

The Minnesota (Gopher)


The Kentucky (had soldiers on both sides)

Kansas and Indiana need to step up their game ... pretty small.
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist


Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
I was quite surprised at the number of monuments at Vicksburg , it seems like there was some bragging rights by all the Western states
the city is now cut off from the Mississippi
on top of the ridges some of the guns make me wonder at the wisdom of running the fleet past

The American Civil War is very important from a military history point of view ,
a lot of the Napoleonic mindset was brushed aside
stepped trenches , barbed wire ( telephonic wire in fact ) , mass rifles fire , guns with magazines , telegraphic coordination of far flung theaters ,
and above all railroads allowing for the transfer and supply of armies above one hundred thousand

The first world war also saw military advances but its importance is more historical than military
Dec 2017
I've read more books about WW1 than any other subject I've read about. I studied the Russian Revolution very much in depth. Own books on virtually every individual Western campaign, excluding many on the Middle East (though I've read and own three on Galliopoli). Actually have one that I found quite interesting about the War in Eastern Africa. I've done lectures on WW1, and I guess I am ready to move on ... maybe ... until I find the next book that is something I haven't read about .... probably the Middle East. Did read a good book on Kut. Probably ought to read more about the Caucauses, Serbian and Macedonian campaigns. So I am not saying I'm obsessed with it, but maybe I am. I'll be happy when I know everything there is to know (tautologically impossible).

My Civil War interest is funded by interest in Lincoln initially, but as I grew older, and discovered more about my own family history, and that of my wife's family, my interest spread. We went to Vicksburg together, and discovered both our family's history there. My family fought in the Illinois divisions, my wife's family was from Texas, and her Great-Great-Grandfather was the Commander of Moore's Brigade; General John Creed Moore. There was is a bust of him at the National Battlefield Memorial at Vicksburg.

It's intriguing when you realize that both of our families were on opposite sides of that field of battle, even more interesting when we discovered that her father's family fought in the same division that my family fought with from Illinois. I have actually found one of my own Great-Great-Grandfather's record from his recovery from wounds at Antietam.

The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East

I just got this and haven't read it yet but I hear it's quite good.

And with all these Civil War pictures...here comes the metaphorical eye-rolling :lol::lol::lol::lol:


Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
Both wars are very interesting... hard to say...I prefer WW1... but I think War between States also is very thrilling..

WW1 was important both in military as in history... Air Force, Tanks, Aircraft-carriers etc begun in WW1 (not in WW2)...and Seccesion War was perhaps the most important war (due to its consequences in the twentieth century) of the nineteenth century.


Jan 2018
San Antonio
I was quite surprised at the number of monuments at Vicksburg , it seems like there was some bragging rights by all the Western states
The Federal army there, the Army of the Tennessee, was one of two Midwestern armies, the other being the Army of the Cumberland that operated on the central line from Louisville through Nashville and then Chattanooga. The Army of the Tennessee at Vicksburg had three corps, the 13th (Ord) 15th (Sherman) and 17th (McPherson). The eastern troops were from the 9th Corps (Parke) who were sent as reinforcements after the siege was in place; the corps was used to help hold an outer line facing east to hold off any Confederate move from Jackson to relieve the city. Which never happened as the Confederate department commander, Joe Johnston, was a noted lollygagger.

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
I have a mild interest in both.
ive plumped for the ACW as it’s part of the period I’m most interested, despite having no connection to it.
wW1 interests me mostly as I have great grandparents who fought in it. Though both take a backseat to my main interests ...Napoleonics, 18th-19th century warfare and armies, the 2nd Boer War and Anglo Saxons.
Oct 2017
South Australia
From a military history perspective I would definitely have to say the Civil War as it has so many great set-piece field battles and was largely a war of maneuver, whereas WW1 has too much static trench warfare to be of much interest to me. As others have said it is fascinating because it is situated at a major turning point in military history as the end of not only Napoleonic style warfare but also more generally the traditional, romanticized perception of war as a glorious thing which dated back to the beginning of civilization. The Civil War saw the early emergence of total war and preceded the grim modern wars of the 20th century.