Communications cock ups (can I use this term?) - charge of the light brigade (1 Viewer)

My simplistic interpretation is that if it came to war the North was too powerful in any war of attrition.

My test would be to swap the generals, would Lee have won if he had been Grant and would Grant done half so well if he was in Lee's position. What if....
 
We'll never know. Winfield Scott offered Robert E. Lee the post of commander and chief of the Union army, but he chose his loyalty to the State of Virginia over his oath of service as an officer in the United States Army. I am afraid I cannot respect that choice. I doubt that the Confederates would have been likely to offer Grant the job. One thing I will say. Grant and Sherman understood modern warfare. Lee never did. In my opinion Lee was the last great general of Napoleonic tactics. I think the only Confederate general who fully understood modern warfare tactics (the preeminence of defense in the era of the rifle) was James Longstreet. Lee's failure to follow his advice at Gettysburg doomed the Confederate cause.
 
Louis,

Be careful in referencing James Longstreet's advice to General Lee at Gettysburg. If my memory serves me correctly (and at my age, I can never be certain of the accuracy of my memory), there were at least two parts of Longstreet's advice. The first part was simply not to continue the fight at Gettysburg. The Union forces were well entrenched on ground of their choosing and would not be dislodged - in short, the Confederate forces would be defeated and, perhaps worst of all, the Army of Northern Virginia would be destroyed. In my opinion, this part of Longstreet's advice was quite sound.

The second element in his advice was to circle around the Army of the Potomic and insert the Army of Northern Virginia between the Union forces and Washington. The obvious merit to this suggestion is that Lee could choose his own battleground and enjoy the advantages of defending it. In my opinion, this portion of Longstreet's advice was not sound. To do as Longstreet suggested would have created extremely hazardous conditions in reference to Lee's lines of communication and allow Union forces to cut off any potential lines retreat. If Lee's Army became isolated, then, most certainly, his forces would be destroyed.

For whatever it might be worth to the military historians on this forum, I do not consider the Battle of Gettysburg to be the most significant battle that marked the beginning of the end for the Confederacy. In my opinion, the loss of Vicksburg was far more significant. After all, Lee was able to retain his fighting force after Gettysburg. The loss of Vicksburg included the loss of a large Confederate Army and placed the Mississippi River under the total control of the Union. The loss of the Mississippi River and the loss to the Confederacy of Pemberton's forces was far more significant than Lee's retreat from Gettysburg. It has been a source of continuing interest to me that Lee's retreat and Pemberton's surrender occurred on the same day - yet most historians cite Gettysburg as the more significant loss. Further, the loss of Vicksburg resulted in more attention being placed on General Grant and freeing him for more expanded duty and responsibility.

Warm regards,

Pat
 
Pat,

Your memory serves you correctly about Longstreet's advice. However, I wholly disagree with your interpretation of the second portion of his advice. Remember, Washington was the Union Capital, and if the confederates had followed Longstreet's plan and moved towards Washington (which was, coincidentally, the entire reason the Battle of Gettysburg occurred, Lee was marching to invest Washington) the Union forces would have had no option politically or millitarily but to follow and engage them on ground of the rebels' choosing. As is evidenced by the post-Gettysburg actions of the Union forces, the Union command wholly lacked he gumption to threaten the retreat of the Confederate forces, out of fear of Lee's reputation. I believe that the only chance the South ever had in the Civil War was Lee following Longstreet's advice. I believe that had the Union forces attacked the confederates on grounds of Lee or Longstreet's choosing, the Union would inevitably have suffered a resounding defeat (as virtually every attacking force would under those facts and conditions) and either Washington would have been invested, forcing a negotiated peace, or the disaster, rather than victory at Gettysburg would have swayed the election against Lincoln and in favor of McClellen, who openly advocated a negotiated peace with the South in his platform. At least that's my reading of the situation. I could be wrong.

Louis
 
Last edited:
Louis,

I knew better than to enter this discussion with you. I knew better! I knew better! I knew better! But I did it anyway. The American Civil War is a subject near and dear to my heart and I just could not resist opening my big mouth! I knew my statements would prompt an intelligent, informed, and knowledgeble response from you. Now my debating battle blood is up and I must exercise good judgement or I will rise to your bait and began to debate the projected outcomes of imaginary events and "what if" scenarios. Neither one of us can really know whose reading of the situation is the more correct one.

Therefore, let me remain in the battleground of my own choosing and ask you if you can accept my original premise, that for Lee to insert the Army of Northern Virginia between the Army of the Potomic and Washington would have been extremely hazardous for the reasons I have cited? If so, then it seems to me there is reason to question the soundness of Longstreet's advice.

I will not take this discussion one step farther! I will not take this discussion one step farther! I will not take this discussion one step farther!

But,...

It is okay with me if others want to debate this topic. I will read the remarks with the greatest of interest!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat
 
Pat,

Any action in the midst of war is hazardous. The other side has guns you know. But when you are fighting a more numerous enemy with almost unlimited resources, your resources are markedly limited, and you have an opportunity to force the enemy to engage you on ground of your choosing where you can assume a defensive posture, under these technological and tactical conditions (rifled muskets against massed advancing infantry), and you have the advantage of better quality officers, better cavalry and more experienced and battle hardened troops, a calculated risk of this sort may be the only chance you have for victory. Giving the more numerous and logistically advantaged enemy the additional advantages of assuming the defensive posture and choice of ground leaves you with far poorer odds. The south lost Lee's way. They at least had a chance not to loose Longstreet's way.

I also have nothing but the highest personal regards for your opinion on the subject,

Louis
 
Last edited:
Louis,

You are too much of a gentleman to do anything less that respect the opinions of others. But, I appreciate your saying so nonetheless.

As I said in my previous posting, I will not take my comments one step farther and enter into additional debate on the projected outcomes of events which never happened, even if it is fun to do so. I will say no more! I will keep my big mouth shut! I will respect the rights of others to formulate their own opinions! But,...

Longstreet had his chance to demonstrate his command abilities in the Western Theater and we all know the outcome of that adventure!

Darn it! I did it again! I opened my big mouth! I promise I won't do it again! I won't do it again! No! Never!

Suffice it to say, the North won the greater contest and the South came in second place! At least, I hope we can agree on that point!

It's been fun!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat
 
Dear Pat,

I certainly agree that the Union won the war, but are you sure the South didn't win the peace? After all our president was the governor of Texas, our last president was the governor of Arkansas, and it seems like, at least in my lifetime (starting with LBJ) the South has had a lot more control of the country than the North.

Regards,

Lousi
 
wadepat said:
Longstreet had his chance to demonstrate his command abilities in the Western Theater and we all know the outcome of that adventure!


Pat


Actually i have no idea but i would be interested in finding out. I really liked the character of Longstreet in the movie Gettysburg ( which is pretty much the sum total of my knowledge on the subject unless you count Gone with the Wind)

So what happened to Longstreet in the West?
 
Eazy,

One of the reasons I am determined to decline participating in historical debates is the fact that details escape my memory, forcing me to dig into references to be certain of what I am saying. By the time I have found the information I want to use to support my position, the discussion has long since progressed beyond the point I want to make. So, at the risk of providing less than complete or accurate information, I will try to give you some sense of what my reference to Longstreet's adventure in the West was all about. Keep in mind, I am working from memory and someone like Louis, who's knowledge I highly respect, can correct or suppliment my comments.

First of all, Longstreet is a very interesting person to study. While he was glorified in the movie, Gettysburg, and while he did, in fact, provide advice to General Lee, some of which I think was sound, he was not noted for any special tactical talent. He almost always favored a defensive position, which can be seen in his advice to Lee when he advised Lee to circle around the Army of the Potomic, insert the Army of Northern Virginia between the Federals and Washington, and choose ground favorable to the Confederate defense.

After Gettysburg, Longstreet was detached from the service of the Army of Northern Virginia and sent to join Braxton Bragg in the Western theater. Longstreet arrived in time to participate in the Battle of Chicamauga and played a very important role in exploiting a break in the Federal lines. Unfortunately for the South, Longstreet and Bragg simply did not get along with each other (very few, if any, got along well with Bragg.)

After the seige of Chattanooga was lifted, Longstreet proposed a movement into Middle Tennessee to attack Grant's supply bases and to prevent Burnside from delivering reinforcements to Grant. Longstreet argued that such a movement would either result in the defeat of Burnside's forces or force Grant to detach units from his forces at Chattanooga to come to Burnside's aid. To this end, Longstreet's two infantry divisions, two artillery battalions, and Joe Wheeler's two small cavalry divisions were detached from the Army of Tennessee.

The resulting battle around Knoxville was an absolute Confederate debacle. If you are interested in the details of this event, I recommend reading about it. Longstreet's hardheadness, his failure to listen to good intelligence, and his lack of decisive action resulted in the nickname "Peter the Slow."

Longstreet is not very highly appreciated by many Southerns as he almost always blamed others for his shortcomings. Further, after the Civil War, Longstreet joined the Republican Party (the Party of Lincoln), which did little to endear him to the South. He was criticized frequently by surviving Confederate Generals and he waited until almost all of them had died before publishing his responses to their criticisms - thereby not allowing others to answer his criticisms of them.

Interestly enough, to the best of my knowledge, no large monuments exist to honor Longstreet and his name appears absolutely nowhere in the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond. He is, indeed, an interesting figure.

Now, having said all of the above, remember, I am responding to your question from memory. Listen to Louis or others who might have a clearer memory of these events.

Warm regards,

Pat
 
Last edited:
That was very interesting. Thanks for that.

Having read it I wonder why the makers of the film decided to make Longstreet the most sympathetic character in the film with the exception of Joshua Chamberlain?

It's a great film but I suppose like all historical epics it suffers because we know what is going to happen. Thus when Longstreet offers his advice to withdraw to ground of Lee's choosing we are all thinking "yes that's good advice. Do it."

So Longstreet seems sensible while Lee seems stubborn and stuck in his ways.
 
Hi All,

Being a military man and a historian on top of it I have noticed over the years that there seems to be this sort of glorification of the Confederacy and her leaders. I will say that I find this disturbing and don't support it one bit. When I look at the Civil War I generally focus on the battles and how they developed and we're managed or mismanaged by a particular set of generals. I will freely admit that there were a larger percentage of hacks on the Northern side but we eventually had the cream come to the surface in fellows like US Grant, WT Sherman, and Wilson and one of the better southern gentelmen to stay true to their oaths to support and defend the Constitution of The United States General Thomas who amoung other things rallyed the forces and saved the day at Chickamaugua and kept the North from a total rout and endured long and dispicable treatment from his family and friends because he choose the moral high ground and stayed true to the Union. My personal feelings are that the Confederate Commanders, although gifted in many cases, were first and foremost traitors to the country and should be viewed accordingly. I am sure there are some who see this as a harsh viewpoint well thats fine thats why we are here to discuss history and our collections.

Dave
 
Pat's recollection of Longstreet's campaign in the West is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Longstreet's talents did not lend themselves to overall command, he was best as an advisor to Lee (when Lee acted on his advice).

One thing that Pat did not mention, however, is that Longstreet wrote a book on tactics on the modern battlefield, in which he stressed the ascendency of the defense in the face of rifled, repeating carbines. This book predicted that the advance of massed troops against a dug in enemy with repeating weapons would be all but impossible. I (frankly) don't give a rat's butt what his Confederate fellows thought of Longstreet after the war, the fact of the matter is that Longstreet was right.

If Douglas Haig, Joffre, or those other geniouses in charge of the British and French forces in WWI had bothered to read Longstreet's assessment, literally hundreds of thousands of lives would not have been wasted in places like the Somme or Paschendale "going over the top". This remained true until the invention of the tank changed the technoloigical balance in WWI, and the doctrine of combined arms putting the tank, dive bomber, mobile artillery and mechanized infantry together in a single advancing force (a la Lidell Hart's theory and Guderian's execution) changed the technology and tactics, neutralizing the advantage of repeating rifles and machine guns, and allowing for the ascendency of mobile tactics in WWII.

The list of modern devices and tactics first implemented during the Civil War which were still in use general at the time of WWI is staggering:

Trains to transport troops and logistical supplies;
Barbed Wire;
trenches;
Telegraphs to send messages;
Ironclad Naval Vessels;
repeating carbines;
early forms of the machine gun (Gattling Gun and one other whose name escapes me);
Balloons for recon;
land mines;
the submarine (just to name a few).

In his own way Longstreet's ideas were as important to the tactics underlying late 19th early 20th Century warfare as Lidell Hart's were to the WWII era combat. Unfortunately, like Lidell-Hart, few people in the position to implement these doctrines paid any attention to his ideas.
 
Louis,

Good Points and I have read Longstreets work he did make a lot of sense to us but his ideas would have seemed totally outlandish to the fellows you mentioned. I will also point out that Sir Basil was not the only one that Guderian took cues from, MG JFC Fuller who among other things fathered the idea of what we consider modern air land battle doctrine with his idea for a massed combined arms tank force attack at Cambrai. The battle also included over 300 aircraft working in a close air support role.

This is a topic I would love to discuss especially if we could get a German perspective on this from one of our overseas contributers.

Dave
 
Louis Badolato said:
Pat's recollection of Longstreet's campaign in the West is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Longstreet's talents did not lend themselves to overall command, he was best as an advisor to Lee (when Lee acted on his advice).

One thing that Pat did not mention, however, is that Longstreet wrote a book on tactics on the modern battlefield, in which he stressed the ascendency of the defense in the face of rifled, repeating carbines. This book predicted that the advance of massed troops against a dug in enemy with repeating weapons would be all but impossible. I (frankly) don't give a rat's butt what his Confederate fellows thought of Longstreet after the war, the fact of the matter is that Longstreet was right.

If Douglas Haig, Joffre, or those other geniouses in charge of the British and French forces in WWI had bothered to read Longstreet's assessment, literally hundreds of thousands of lives would not have been wasted in places like the Somme or Paschendale "going over the top". This remained true until the invention of the tank changed the technoloigical balance in WWI, and the doctrine of combined arms putting the tank, dive bomber, mobile artillery and mechanized infantry together in a single advancing force (a la Lidell Hart's theory and Guderian's execution) changed the technology and tactics, neutralizing the advantage of repeating rifles and machine guns, and allowing for the ascendency of mobile tactics in WWII.

The list of modern devices and tactics first implemented during the Civil War which were still in use general at the time of WWI is staggering:

Trains to transport troops and logistical supplies;
Barbed Wire;
trenches;
Telegraphs to send messages;
Ironclad Naval Vessels;
repeating carbines;
early forms of the machine gun (Gattling Gun and one other whose name escapes me);
Balloons for recon;
land mines;
the submarine (just to name a few).

In his own way Longstreet's ideas were as important to the tactics underlying late 19th early 20th Century warfare as Lidell Hart's were to the WWII era combat. Unfortunately, like Lidell-Hart, few people in the position to implement these doctrines paid any attention to his ideas.

Loius

Completely agree that the ACW was the warning and professional soldiers should have read it. To be fair the Brits did innovate and develop artillery bombardments without pre-registration, mixed forces attacks like you say during WW1, but facing repeating rifles and machine guns, so expertly deployed by the British against the Germans at Mons for example in 1914, should have been learned and understood. The British did exactly this to the fuzzies in the Empire. They should have learned about fighting a more sophisticated enemy from the Boer war never mind reading about the ACW. So why did they still saunter up the Somme in 1916???:confused: As for the French, charging machine guns in Napoleonic Uniform - 2-300,000 casulties in the first few weeks of the war!

There is something about the arogance of refusing intercontinental learning and 'it can't happen here' perhaps. Everyone has done it at some time.

It still beggars belief even now. Because of the 'pals' system, keeping friends together, whole villages and towns were effectively devastated - Accrington in Lancashire is always quoted on the Somme. All because Haig and his cronies were £$%^&*()

Haig was close to the King according to Lynn MacDonald, so he shafted his boss - Sir John French who conducted a superb retreat in the face of the enemy and then the defence at first Ypres - to take command - allegedly. Sounds like the sort of guy Hitler could have used in 1933. I don't know any Brits that miss him - any Brits disagree? Is there a US equivalent?

Kevin
 
Eazy said:
Having read it I wonder why the makers of the film decided to make Longstreet the most sympathetic character in the film with the exception of Joshua Chamberlain?

I have always been amazed at number of toy soldier companies and collectors who have gotten excited about Chamberlain? The figure from Britains has always sold well - better than Lee!

He's a great example of how Hollywood can make a legacy for someone who didn't really have much of one on his own.
 
Hi All,

BG Chamberlain was a gifted field commander and did get wounded several times and received the Medal of Honor but I suspect his real legacy is with the folks of Maine as Governor and the President of Bowdoin College. Because he wasnt that famous even if he did get the honor of receiving the surrender of the Confederate Army at Appomattox. Funny what hollywood can do for you 100+ years after the fact.

Dave
 
Kevin,

The United States equivalent of Haig is U.S. Grant. The parallels are:

They both continued to use massed infantry tactics against dug in defenders with modern weapons in the face of enormous butchers bills, and never abandoned these ridiculously costly tactics;

They both were credited with victory in a war they basically won purely by attrition;

They are both given far more credit in their native coutries than in the view of outsiders. In fact, Grant was elected president, while the statute of Haig stands next to statues of Slim and (ironically) Montgomery, who also shares this characteristic.

Regards,

Louis
 
DMNamiot said:
Hi All,

BG Chamberlain was a gifted field commander and did get wounded several times and received the Medal of Honor but I suspect his real legacy is with the folks of Maine as Governor and the President of Bowdoin College. Because he wasnt that famous even if he did get the honor of receiving the surrender of the Confederate Army at Appomattox. Funny what hollywood can do for you 100+ years after the fact.

Dave

That moment in the film where he orders a bayonet charge down Little Round Top

That's the moment that cemented his place in history.

I don't know if that event occured in reality or not but it certainly made the hairs on my arm stand up.
 
Louis Badolato said:
Kevin,

The United States equivalent of Haig is U.S. Grant. The parallels are:

They both continued to use massed infantry tactics against dug in defenders with modern weapons in the face of enormous butchers bills, and never abandoned these ridiculously costly tactics;

They both were credited with victory in a war they basically won purely by attrition;

They are both given far more credit in their native coutries than in the view of outsiders. In fact, Grant was elected president, while the statute of Haig stands next to statues of Slim and (ironically) Montgomery, who also shares this characteristic.

Regards,

Louis

Dear Louis

I'm not letting you get away with that one :) Beautifully slipped in little snipe at Monty. The British establishment may have liked him (Haig) but don't think anyone else did. :eek:

As for Monty - he was a junior officer in WW! and also despised Haig et al. But he was later respected as never needlessly wasting the lives of his men - even the Aussies thought so - are you there OzDigger, help me out here:D

His main problem was to upset some Americans in the bragging stakes? Patton ands co. weren't the only ones - I've mentioned somewhere else on here 'as quick as a ferret and about as likeable' was one of his appraisals and he was insufferable as a subordinate by all accounts - but he didn't waste his men's lives and generally fought war in a professional manner, unlike the previous amateur performances, especially in the desert. I'll take your word on Grant.;) Looking forward to the 'bar chats'. Best wishes,

Kevin
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top