Was Prussia the first country to use railways for military usage?

[J. Edgar]

Thought some of you'd like to see some additional research I've come up with:

 

 

 great work     

[FJ and G]

Thought some of you'd like to see some additional research I've come up with:

 

By the 1840s, thousands of miles of track had been laid in Europe and America. The United States’ war with Mexico (1846-’48) involved steamships more than steam locomotives. The Quartermaster's Department used steamboats to transport troops and supplies southward on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. Sailing ships and steam vessels brought supplies down the Atlantic seaboard to Texas as well. Also, light-draft steamboats were run up the Rio Grande as far as Camargo. For these reasons, the Mexican War has been called "the first steamboat war."

Gen. Jesup urged construction of a military railroad for the supply of Gen. Taylor's Army from the Gulf coast, 9 miles inland to Point Isabel, Texas. Although the Topographical Engineers did not disapproving his recommendation, they had no funds for the project.

Railways likely played a small part in the Mexican War, insofar as transporting troops mobilized for war. Also, some of the participants in the conflict, most notably the engineers, would play a larger role in railways during the Civil War.

As an aside, acquisition of land from Mexico, along with territory purchased under terms of the Gadsden Treaty with Mexico in 1853 would enable the buildings of transcontinental railways and help to subdue the various Indian tribes, thereby fulfilling the expansionist dream of Manifest Destiny.

The Europeans became the first to use their railways in warfare when Prussian troops were transported by rail to Denmark’s Schleswig-Holstein provinces, during the First Schleswig War (1848-’50) between Prussia and Denmark, after Danish ships effectively blockaded north German coastal ports.
 

xxxxxxxxxxx

 

The first military railway photo ever taken was by Mr. Fenton, of the rail yard at Balaclava, near Sevastapol, on Apr 2, 1855. A bit hard to see, unfortunately. This is during the height of the Crimean War

 

[J. Edgar]

 prior to 1840ish most things you mention....machinery.cannon et al. would be built near the port anyway....ports and navies were around a coupla years before the RR's im thinkin.......as industry grew (with the help of and because of RR growth) and factories moved farther inland well.....there ya go 

Hmm, my thinking was just the opposite.  AFAIK most British foundries were inland, near supplies of timber and coal, or far from the naval ports, which were mostly on the South and East of England.  Agricultural produce, of course, also had to be shipped from inland.  So as railroads became available, it would seem that the British navy would have taken advantage.

 well i dunno....i do know the first rolled iron rails were rolled at the Bedlington Iron Works Northumberland England in 1820 which had a port or two..........with the fact that steam traction on flanged wheels as we know it started in England as early as 1812 to work collierys...maybe they needed more coal for their war effort?.. i would find it hard to believe someone somewhere didnt see the significance of the early steam carriges....i have found reference to"wagons" of Dutch State Railways being stenciled "men 40, horses 8" as early as 1846

I did some more research.  Early nineteenth century Royal Navy cannon were manufactured at the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich (where the famous Arsenal Football Club was founded) near the London docks.  Still, the movement of armaments would have been infrequent relative to the daily needs to provision its fleet.  It would be much harder to say with conviction that the Royal Navy didn't make even indirect use of railroads early in the nineteenth century as they greatly expanded markets for manufactured goods, agricultural produce, and seafood.

 the Middleton Colliery received 2 steam driven locomotives on flanged wheels from Matthew Murrary and John Blenkinsop in 1812....to haul coal from the mine to wharf....for shipment to London and elsewhere....seems during 1812 (war years) the increased demand for coal ( because of so many new steam engines on land and sea) that this colliery as well as others needed something faster then horses...the Surrey Iron Railway was built in 1803 to haul iron ore from the mines to Wandsworth Wharf using horses to pull wagons on flanged wheels.....so realy in a direct indirect way the War of 1812 both stimulated RR use/growth and was "exploited" by the armed forces of the day.....IMHO

[J. Edgar]

....i have found reference to"wagons" of Dutch State Railways being stenciled "men 40, horses 8" as early as 1846

Are you certain? As far as I know the State Railways (actually a private company leasing state owned track, MESS, Maatschappij tot Exploitatie van Staatsspoorwegen, commonly shortened to SS) did not exist at that point in time. We had the Holland Iron Railway (HIJSM, Hollandse IJzeren Spoorwegmaatschappij, the first) and, I think, the Dutch Rhenish Railway (NRS, Nederlandse Rijnspoorwegmaatschappij) at that time.

If you come across that reference please inform me.

greetings,

Marc Immeker

The "men 40, horses 8" stencil rings a bell though. I think it was a common "load" for the 4-wheel boxcars of the time and long after

 reference is in "The Pictorial History of Railways" by Hamilton Lewis published 1968 Middlesex England....this tome is a "readers digest" of rail history leaning heavily on England but seems to give a well researched look at early railroading world wide...and i was mistaken upon rechecking....the date would be 1896 on a picture showing men and horses loading a line a wagons at a small country station

[eastside]

 prior to 1840ish most things you mention....machinery.cannon et al. would be built near the port anyway....ports and navies were around a coupla years before the RR's im thinkin.......as industry grew (with the help of and because of RR growth) and factories moved farther inland well.....there ya go 

Hmm, my thinking was just the opposite.  AFAIK most British foundries were inland, near supplies of timber and coal, or far from the naval ports, which were mostly on the South and East of England.  Agricultural produce, of course, also had to be shipped from inland.  So as railroads became available, it would seem that the British navy would have taken advantage.

 well i dunno....i do know the first rolled iron rails were rolled at the Bedlington Iron Works Northumberland England in 1820 which had a port or two..........with the fact that steam traction on flanged wheels as we know it started in England as early as 1812 to work collierys...maybe they needed more coal for their war effort?.. i would find it hard to believe someone somewhere didnt see the significance of the early steam carriges....i have found reference to"wagons" of Dutch State Railways being stenciled "men 40, horses 8" as early as 1846

I did some more research.  Early nineteenth century Royal Navy cannon were manufactured at the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich (where the famous Arsenal Football Club was founded) near the London docks.  Still, the movement of armaments would have been infrequent relative to the daily needs to provision its fleet.  It would be much harder to say with conviction that the Royal Navy didn't make even indirect use of railroads early in the nineteenth century as they greatly expanded markets for manufactured goods, agricultural produce, and seafood.

[TimChgo9]

The "hommes 40, Chevaux 8" was stenciled on French railway cars.  I don't know if that was European standard or not, or if it was a specific to the French railway wagons.

I do know that as early as the 1840's or so, (it was in 1852 that Krupp delivered his first cast steel cannon to the Prussian Army's Saarn Arsenal) Krupp was trying to get his "seamless railroad tire" patented in Prussia. But, thanks to one August von der Heydte, his patent was not recognized in Prussia, and other European railways were buying more of his tires in a month the the Preussen Staats Eisenbahn bought in an entire year.

[FJ and G]

I don't know about Holland, but Belgium of all places, developed a great rail system that was the envy of the Prussians and later Germany. Unfortunately for Belgium, the Germans made good use of Belgian railways. This tidbit I got from "The Rise of Rail-Power in War and Conquest" by Edwin A. Pratt, 1916.

[MStLfan]

....i have found reference to"wagons" of Dutch State Railways being stenciled "men 40, horses 8" as early as 1846

Are you certain? As far as I know the State Railways (actually a private company leasing state owned track, MESS, Maatschappij tot Exploitatie van Staatsspoorwegen, commonly shortened to SS) did not exist at that point in time. We had the Holland Iron Railway (HIJSM, Hollandse IJzeren Spoorwegmaatschappij, the first) and, I think, the Dutch Rhenish Railway (NRS, Nederlandse Rijnspoorwegmaatschappij) at that time.

If you come across that reference please inform me.

greetings,

Marc Immeker

The "men 40, horses 8" stencil rings a bell though. I think it was a common "load" for the 4-wheel boxcars of the time and long after

[J. Edgar]

 prior to 1840ish most things you mention....machinery.cannon et al. would be built near the port anyway....ports and navies were around a coupla years before the RR's im thinkin.......as industry grew (with the help of and because of RR growth) and factories moved farther inland well.....there ya go 

Hmm, my thinking was just the opposite.  AFAIK most British foundries were inland, near supplies of timber and coal, or far from the naval ports, which were mostly on the South and East of England.  Agricultural produce, of course, also had to be shipped from inland.  So as railroads became available, it would seem that the British navy would have taken advantage.

 well i dunno....i do know the first rolled iron rails were rolled at the Bedlington Iron Works Northumberland England in 1820 which had a port or two..........with the fact that steam traction on flanged wheels as we know it started in England as early as 1812 to work collierys...maybe they needed more coal for their war effort?.. i would find it hard to believe someone somewhere didnt see the significance of the early steam carriges....i have found reference to"wagons" of Dutch State Railways being stenciled "men 40, horses 8" as early as 1846

[Anonymous]

For those interested in how geology influenced the Battle of Gettysburg, see:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/education/es5/es5.pdf

Dave

[FJ and G]

Thanks eastside, these are exciting finds. I was aware of rut roads but not this specific case and the West Point is a new one to me.

[eastside]

Eastside,

Not just active campaigns, but military usage, direct and indirect. I'm btw including ports and roads in such a way as well to show that railways were part of a larger network, but I'm not going to dwell on them or get sidetracked too much. Same with economics. Sometimes hard to separate economics and military usage. Just one of the challenges in writing this, but makes it more interesting as well.

Well, then it may be that the ancient Greeks (600 B.C.) were the first to use a railroad for military purposes as a shortcut around the Peloponnesian Peninsula. Article

West Point, well known for its cannon foundry, also had a connection to early railroading in the U.S. Article

 

[eastside]

 prior to 1840ish most things you mention....machinery.cannon et al. would be built near the port anyway....ports and navies were around a coupla years before the RR's im thinkin.......as industry grew (with the help of and because of RR growth) and factories moved farther inland well.....there ya go 

Hmm, my thinking was just the opposite.  AFAIK most British foundries were inland, near supplies of timber and coal, or far from the naval ports, which were mostly on the South and East of England.  Agricultural produce, of course, also had to be shipped from inland.  So as railroads became available, it would seem that the British navy would have taken advantage.

[FJ and G]

Eastside,

Not just active campaigns, but military usage, direct and indirect. I'm btw including ports and roads in such a way as well to show that railways were part of a larger network, but I'm not going to dwell on them or get sidetracked too much. Same with economics. Sometimes hard to separate economics and military usage. Just one of the challenges in writing this, but makes it more interesting as well.

 

Thanks, Marc and others who privided valuable input.

 

Colonial railways, like you mention of the Dutch, definitely exploited natural resources for economic (and I suppose one could say military) gain.

 

The railways of Cuba, some of them at least, were built by the Spanish before the Spanish even built their own country's railways. Not just for sugar. They were interconnected with forts and were used by the Spanish to wrest control of the country (they actually couldn't control all parts of the country so they controlled the areas around the forts and railroads).

 

I'm reading some stuff by Moltke (German strategist) right now and his early writings seem to dovetail nicely with Friederich List's.

 

I've ordered the book you mention on the Prussian campaign, btw. It appears that was the first war in which railways played a major, defining role.

 

I'll keep you posted on what I find. Thanks for your input. 

[MStLfan]

In 1846, Prussia was first to take military advantage of the railway, using it to move an army corps with horses and guns to Cracow

 

Incidentally, a short incline railway was instrumental in securing victory for Britain and her allies in the Crimean War of 1855-6 (?). A stationary steam engine pulled cars up the incline and horses pulled the trains from there. It connected a port near Sevastopol with the troops on a plateau about 500 feet up. Ordinary wagons were mired in mud and proved useless.

You can forget about the Netherlands. In 1831 the southern Netherlands (aka todays Belgium)seceeded from the northern Netherlands (stil the Netherlands today). 1839 we recognized the Belgians. No railroad in the north until 1839 and in the south only in 1835 IIRC. Next was for the Netherlands is some colonial squabbles in the East Indies (now Indonesia). Specifically, unrest and rebellion in Atjeh (aceh), the northern tip of the island Sumatra. In 1890 or thereabouts a budding narrow gauge railroad, the Atjeh tram, was used and expanded by the Dutch colonial military to suppress Atjeh.

As for the Crimean war of 1854-1856. There is a book about the railway used in that war: The Grand Crimean Central Railway, the railway that won the war by Brian Cooke. First published in 1990, I have the substantiously revised and expanded second edition of 1997.  ISBN 0-9515889-1-5 publisher isCavalier House, 35 Sandiway, Knutsford, Cheshire WA16 8BU United Kingdom.  The book has engravings, drawings and photographs of the war and some of the railway used. There is also a sketch of the incline that was used.

ISBN-13/EAN: 9780951588918
ISBN-10: 0951588915

I bought this book via Midland Counties publications in the UK a couple of years ago.

http://www.bookweb.co.uk/customers/midland/ or their superstore: http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=254

As of e few moments ago it was still listed on their site for 7.99 pounds. 

The port you refer to is Balaklava, a fjord like harbour. The railway was used to supply the allied forces that were laying siege to Sevastopol (and not doing terribly well too) on the other side of the Khersone peninsula.

greetings,

Marc Immeker

[J. Edgar]

It's hard to imagine that the British navy didn't use the railroads to move machinery, cannon, victuals, personnel, and other supplies to naval yards, supply depots, and ports prior to 1846.  Possibly that would also include the French and the U.S. navies.  That to me would qualify as military use.  Or are you speaking of active military campaigns?

 prior to 1840ish most things you mention....machinery.cannon et al. would be built near the port anyway....ports and navies were around a coupla years before the RR's im thinkin.......as industry grew (with the help of and because of RR growth) and factories moved farther inland well.....there ya go 

 

 and i think its generally excepted that the US Civil War was the first war that RR's played a MAJOR and DECISIVE role in......if the Confederate states had more RR miles at the start things mighta turned out different.....

[eastside]

It's hard to imagine that the British navy didn't use the railroads to move machinery, cannon, victuals, personnel, and other supplies to naval yards, supply depots, and ports prior to 1846.  Possibly that would also include the French and the U.S. navies.  That to me would qualify as military use.  Or are you speaking of active military campaigns?

[FJ and G]

The Semmering line, first mountain railroad in Europe, was built with distinct military use in mind. You could more easily move troops to the Italian provinces where political agitation was against the Habsburgs and for national unification. 

 

Martin,

 

I think you just hit upon the very first usage of railways in a military campaign (somewhat of a campaign).  I read somewhere about that movement to the Italian provinces but have been unable to get further details. This preceeds even the 1846 usage I mentioned earlier 

 

Beau,

 

Good update! 

[beaulieu]

beaulieu,

 

Very cool map! no predominate direction except in all directions

 

yougottawanna,

 

Thanks, I'll keep in mind. I'm sure by time reach Civil War there will be a wealth of stuff like this. Good anecdote 

 

One thing to remember in this time period "Prussia" was not Germany, It was a Federation of independent Kingdoms, Principalities, and such. The Prussians dominated most of this group, but controlled completely only Prussia proper. So Saxony centered around Dresden and Liepzig, Wurttemburg centered on Stuttgart, and especially Bavaria centered on Munich, had a lot of independence and controlled their own railways. Most of Prussia (Preussen in German) is now  part of Poland, and the Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia. The country of Poland was physically shifted west following WW2. Eastern Poland (pre-WW2) was added to Belarus and the Ukraine, and the Poles were given part of Eastern Germany to compensate (Ethnic Poles had constituted a large minority in these areas).

[martin.knoepfel]

Slightly off topic. I read once narrow-gauge-railways in the former Austro-Hungarian empire were by law compelled to have a 760 millimeter gauge (Bosnian gauge, a little bit less than half standard-gauge) to facilitate swap of rolling-stock in case of war.

The Semmering line, first mountain railroad in Europe, was built with distinct military use in mind. You could more easily move troops to the Italian provinces where political agitation was against the Habsburgs and for national unification. 

[FJ and G]

beaulieu,

 

Very cool map! no predominate direction except in all directions

 

yougottawanna,

 

Thanks, I'll keep in mind. I'm sure by time reach Civil War there will be a wealth of stuff like this. Good anecdote 

[yougottawanta]

Also of interest you might want to read "The Grey Ghost" a book about confederate Colonel John Mosby. Very fascinating story. He was a succesful early "special forces" operating behind Union Lines with as many as four hundred men at times . Of  some interest he almost attacked the train carrying Grant to meet Linclon,He attacked the union and train at one location who was not succesful in driving the confederates away but a nest of yellow jackets caused a quick confederate retreat. The tiny bee stings did more damage yankee lead. To read a first hand account from Mosbys perspective is very humerous.Mosby was VERY SUCCESFUL in destroying locamative and supply wagons. I have read that he destroyed/wrecked 70+ union trains

Also preceding the battle of second manassas or bull run , depending on what side your loyalties lie, The train was again used very effectively. If the Union had had a general that wasnt a total boob at this point they could have stopped Lee cold and possible defeated him some miles to the west at Thorough fare gap.Where an enterprising junior officer plugged the gap and raced to the top of the mtn on either side of the railroad and for a short time held Lees 30000 men at bay with only some cannon and a few thousand men.He pleaded for help but could not get any and was finally routed when confederat cavalry used a gap further north and attacked from the rear. At which point Lees train of men and war material continue to Manassas.And the rest is history.

[beaulieu]

FJG you might find this map of German Railway development interesting in it shows year by year the development of the railways in Germany pre- Franco Prussian war

 

Germany Interactive Map 

[FJ and G]

thanks for feedback.

There are 2 other instances of railways for military usage (albeit indirectly) that I'm aware of that I forgot to mention. The Liverpool and Manchester is said to have moved 2 regiments by rail in 1830, not in a combat situation, of course.  And, as early as about the 1500s in central Europe and England, waggonways (wood rails and flanged wheel'ed carts pulled by humans or mules) were used to extract coal.

Extracting coal is not in and of itself "military." However, think for a moment what the coal was used for: extracting gass for lighting, cooking and heating for troops. It also was used to make weaponry and accouterments of warfare, sort of. Actually charcoal was used (made from wood), but later, coal was changed to coke and used in the smelting process.

 

I'm still researching early usage (Civil War is actually much later but as someone correctly said, that is where it was used in a big way). By early usage, I'm referring to pre-Civil War and pre-Franco-Prussian War, which is covered extensively in historical documents.

 

Back to hitting the books; and awaiting my interlibrary loans.

 

I'll post more info as I get it. Nice sharing with a bunch of good folk like you. 

[railroadyoshi]

The discussion of the civil war in terms of the railroad usage is definitely an interesting topic. The Union had significantly more operating railroad at the time, providing a distinct advantage. At the moment, and I just put the book down before coming back to this topic, I had been reading The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, a fantastic novel detailing the Battle of Gettysburg. An item that came up many times was the unfinished railway through town. It would be interesting to see how the railroad might have affected the battle, as apparently a key issue early on was the concentration of forces and moving the troops in as fast as possible to provide support to weakening shadow brigades. On the other hand, at the time Confederate troops were moving along the route used by the portion of the line west of Gettsyburg, so perhaps there would have been benefit to them as well in terms of moving instruments of war or disrupting Union efforts to do the same.

[MJChittick]

From everything I've read, the first significant military application of railways came during the American Civil War.  By 1861 the US rail network had grown to the point that it could provide a very useful means for moving men and material over long distances in a relatively short period of time.  By the time the war ended in 1865, the Union had created the massive US Military Railway (USMR).  This operation was studied extensively by European military leaders.  The Prussians evidently learned the most, based on their efficient use of railways during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

[jimrice4449]

Minor quible.  Mehmed II was an Ottoman Turk.   The Seljuks were top dogs around the time of the Crusades, supplanted by the Ottomans.

The First Battle of Bull Run was decided by Confederate troops moved via rail in June 1861 from the Shenandoah Valley to Manassas (sp???)  I don't believe Prussia was involved in any wars between 1815 and 1864, when they beat up on Denmark.

[railroadyoshi]

TimChgo9, what in the world am I thinking? Prussians had it for perhaps half a century, but after that, Napoleon's power ousts them. I guess I need to brush up a bit. However, I would not go so far as to say that France had the power during the entire 1800's. Your remarks on the might of the Prussians and the declining Austrian Hopsburgs is definitely on the money. Perhaps the strategic sense in Prussia descended from Frederick continued in the army's core? I'd also be interested to see what aspects of the Napoleon entered the Prussian military system. I'm sorry to go a bit off topic here, as any discussion of history fires my boiler. Unfortunately, as a high school sophomore entering US History, my knowledge of European history is thorough up to the Congress of Vienna in 1814 and from World War II onwards. In between is somewhat of a gap, so I'll be of little use deducing the application of railroads in european warfare between those two periods.

[TimChgo9]

Actually, the Prussians did study General Sherman's use of railroad during the American Civil War.  I am not sure if they were the first nation to use them, but they did lay out their railways with rapid mobilizaition in mind.

Kriegsminister General Graf Theodor Albrecht Emil von Roon, along with General Count Helmuth von Moltke were instrumental in developing the rail system, or Eisenbahn with the rapid mobilization, and movement of troops, horses, and guns to the battlefront in mind. In 1870 at the onset of war with France, the rapid mobilization, and movement afforded the Prussians by the railroads allowed the Prussians (along with their Krupp cannon) to crush the French.  The Prussian mobilization was pretty impressive for it's time. The French, figuring to crush the upstart Prussians, were not interested in such things as telegraphs, railroads, or other "modern"(for their time) innovations. In fact, in French depots guns, horses, and weapons were piling up faster than men. By the 14th day of mobilization, only 53 percent of the French troops had arrived at their mobilization points.  Napoleon had barely completed mobilization when the Germans struck first, at Worth (Froschwiller), followed by Metz, and the final reckoning at Sedan. Paris fell shortly thereafter. And, in a huge ceremony in Versailles, the final surrender of France was accepted, as well as what would be known as the birth of the Second German Reich under Kaiser Wilhelm I. 

Up until the war with France in 1870, the Prussians were regarded as barely a cut above the Austrians, at least in a military sense.  The Austrians were pretty much the buffoons of the Continent back in the 1800's.  The French were the masters of the Continent.  About the only place the French were not dominant was the sea, that was ruled by the British.

Now that I think of it, it may have been at Koniggratz (Sadowa) in 1866, that the Prussians were able to assemble an army large enough to defeat the Austrians by using their railroads. I will have to look into that some more. 

Hope this helps.