|
Page 4 of 5
(Page:
1
2
3
4
5
)
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6390
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Morris,
You sold a good story, or maybe I’ve just interpreted things in a fanciful way !
There’s Longstreet, wearing carpet slippers, holding the reins of the battery horses while he deploys his staff officers to assist the gun teams, undergoing a Damascene moment as he sees the centre crumbling…..
That army was fighting in extremis, and the tactical achievement of just surviving to fight another day should , IMHO, be acknowledged as something special.
In my mind’s eye, Lee resembled a man running the circus act with plates spinning on poles : the plates wobbled and tilted, but didn’t fall. He kept the act going.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
|
Posts: 3294
Joined: 2007
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Phil, with the likes of Latrobe, Manning, Goree, Sorrels, I think an argument could be made that Longstreet`s staff was one of the best on either side. I am pretty sure they won the "gun-crew challenge" outright at Sharpsburg.
Throw in the cryptologist-observationist-engineer-artillerist of EP Alexander, Longstreet had depth.
I have no idea what happened to Longstreet at Ft. Sanders. I have suspicions, but even Alexander could not account for it. A good thing my relations had been selected for transfer out of the 24th Ga, and into the ss battalion, with all the casualties and dead stacked up in the mote....I might not be here!
Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 214
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
group,
10012022
Sorry don’t mean to prolong this thread but it may be a good spot for this comment?? Sorry?
A common critique of civil war battles and commanders is they didn’t generally win decisive battles and/or didn’t make effective pursuits.
One possible factor was the use or non-use of reserves. And many a commander was criticised
for not committing all of his troops. Actually an important principle of 19th century warfare was the
use of the tactical reserve. In Frederick’s day reserves were not thought to be so important.
By the 19th century (Napoleon) strong reserves held back to the decisive moment became an important principle.
So our typical civil war commander well versed in 19th century warfare would properly feel the importance of the reserve,
and reconstituting a new reserve if the first reserve was committed.
So McClellan keeping 1/3 of the army as a tactical reserve was actually sound practice by the
standard of that day. Unfortunately present days critics
tend to judge not by contemporary principles but want to impose our own current ideas on
past periods which is very poor history.
So complaining that McClellan didn’t use 1/3 of the army is off, but must be understood
according to his own time. Also the principle is highlighted by the fortuitous application by
Lee by sending in A P Hill’s division at the right time and place. Yes very fortunate timing
but none-the- less a spot on example of why in the 19th century was seen as important.
19th century practice made the last blow the decisive chance to win the battle.
Whether using reserve to cap a decisive victory or making a destructive pursuit of a
defeated enemy the principle of the reserve was an acknowledged factor for
19th century generals. The practice by civil war generals to commit all the troops and
holding no reserve made decisive battles and pursuits a rarity.
Thanks, Mike_C.
mikecmaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6390
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Morris,
Your observations about the quality and “depth “ of Longstreet’s staff make a big impact on me.
One of the best contributions I’ve seen on MHO.
An edit as an afterthought:
Morris, you pitched your post perfectly.
You addressed the legendary vignette I cited about Longstreet’s personal behaviour at the crisis of the battle, and made a very discerning comment about the quality and quantity of Longstreet’s staff. This intrigues me, because I’d long suspected that there was a certain professionalism in the exercise of leadership in Longstreet’s command that was lacking elsewhere amongst Lee’s Lieutenants. This is controversial, because Longstreet himself was susceptible to sulking and not everyone shares the widespread admiration that inspired the depiction in that novel The Killer Angels and the ensuing movie. How far was this cadre of staff officers his salvation, and how far were they evidence of his own perceptive selection and inspirational leadership ?
Your final reference to your forebears was an exquisite reminder that you have skin in the game !
Thanks.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Sorry to be so late but have been on vacation and am just now browsing this topic.
Not to put too fine a point on it but the idea that there was a 19th Century Clausewitzian definition of win and lose on the battlefield is not supported by any evidence. It certainly was not the case in the American military of the ACW. I doubt that more than a few officers, North or South, knew much of him and those few would have had to have been German speakers (another rarity in the American-born officer corps). The first, rather poor, translation of Clausewitz Vom Kriege was in 1873 and gained little currency until that edition was reprinted in 1908 with added commentary by F. N. Maude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
It was well accepted by the military that he who leaves the battlefield first, is the loser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote: It was well accepted by the military that he who leaves the battlefield first, is the loser.
I thought you said it was a Clausewitzian or 19th century "rule"? Is it now only a truism? So which "military" accepts this and where can this acceptance be found?
BTW, what edition of Clausewitz are you using for your quotations? What Book and Chapter is "Clausewitz, “ln combats aimed at the destruction of the enemy’s army, the retreat from the battle field is not always to be regarded as a relinquishment of this aim” in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
yes...either Clausewitz or a military truism, as I stated. It's been a military concept from the Middle Ages. Gettysburg is another example. Bull Run...1st and 2nd.
“ln combats aimed at the destruction of the enemy’s army, the retreat from the battle field is not always to be regarded as a relinquishment of this aim” ...Makes my point, since the doctrine of the time was that the army that leaves the field is the loser.
Now, with he changes in warfare in the late 19th century, not all concepts can be followed into the 20th century because of advancements in logistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote: yes...either Clausewitz or a military truism, as I stated. It's been a military concept from the Middle Ages. Gettysburg is another example. Bull Run...1st and 2nd.
Okay, then let me try again. Who has expressed this "military truism" as a "military concept"? Where can I read about it?
And what was the Book and Chapter your Clausewitzian quote was from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
It's a common military truism.
As far as the Clausewitz quote, I am just reading what Clausewitz wrote.."not always " is indicative of the fact that in most cases, the retreat indicates the loser. Same book and chapter that you are quoting.
Understand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote: Here are a couple of assessments by military historians which I'll cite to give my suggestions a bit more weight :
Dupuy&Dupuy, The Compact History of the Civil War, (1960), page 164 :
Who won at Antietam ?
Tactically, Lee did. McClellan, repulsed in his assault, had dared make no further attack, as the Southerners contemptuously held their positions on September 18. Strategically, since Lee's invasion of the North had been ended , and the Army of Northern Virginia then retired from the field, it was a Union victory, with far- reaching effects.
I confess to smiling at seeing you quote Earnest and Trevor's Civil War history. I had great fun working with Trevor in 1992 when we edited it for reprint by Harper Collins. Turned out that not much needed changing; we simply updated the strength and loss figures to the latest scholarship.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Quote:Quote: yes...either Clausewitz or a military truism, as I stated. It's been a military concept from the Middle Ages. Gettysburg is another example. Bull Run...1st and 2nd.
Okay, then let me try again. Who has expressed this "military truism" as a "military concept"? Where can I read about it? And what was the Book and Chapter your Clausewitzian quote was from?
Battles will be and always have been about one thing. Staying on the field the longest.
The first army to leave the battlefield or surrender is always reckoned to be the loser even if he achieved strategic goals.
Cheers, NYGiant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote: It's a common military truism.
As far as the Clausewitz quote, I am just reading what Clausewitz wrote.."not always " is indicative of the fact that in most cases, the retreat indicates the loser. Same book and chapter that you are quoting.
Understand?
We seem to be suffering from a failure to communicate. Yes, I understand what you're saying, I'm simply curious what the source for your statements are. Without an actual source they are your opinion rather than anyone's "truism".
Anyway, if it is a "common military truism" you should be able to name any number of common military writers who said so. However, so far you've only come up with Clausewitz as a common military writer saying something you interpret to be the same as what you say. And yet you seem oddly incapable of saying from just where in Clausewitz your quoted passage came from. It's really very simple, when you were reading Clausewitz and copied the passage you reproduced here in quotes as "ln combats aimed at the destruction of the enemy’s army, the retreat from the battle field is not always to be regarded as a relinquishment of this aim” what edition, book, chapter, and/or page were you reading it on?
I'm beginning to suspect this is similar to the case of the "common military truism" known almost universally as the "three-to-one rule".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
If you understand what I am writing, there there is a pretty good line of communication...right?
I'm using the same quote from Clausewitz that you are.
You want to discuss he 3:1 rule now?
Cheers, NYGiant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote: If you understand what I am writing, there there is a pretty good line of communication...right?
I'm using the same quote from Clausewitz that you are.
That is because the quote I am using is the one you wrote. Oddly enough though I am having trouble finding where Clausewitz said that or anything even similar to that. Since you wrote it as a quote you must have been reading it from somewhere. Where? It's really a simple question. Where did you find that quoted sentence in Clausewitz.
Quote:You want to discuss he 3:1 rule now?
Cheers, NYGiant
Why? It is nonsense too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Must be from Clausewitz. I found it in in On War, by Clausewitz.
You brought up 3:1, I didn't. Why did you bring it up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote: Must be from Clausewitz. I found it in in On War, by Clausewitz.
I'm beginning to think I might have a more profitable conversation with the wall.
I kind of suspected you found it in On War when you said 9/26/2022 8:55:25 AM "Clausewitz, “ln combats aimed at the destruction of the enemy’s army, the retreat from the battle field is
not always to be regarded as a relinquishment of this aim.”'
Given you put it in quotes I assumed you had copied it, as you said, from Clausewitz's. From that I was curiously able to infer that you meant his only published work On War.
I am simply asking you where you found it in On War, which is a fairly large work consisting of eight books and 125 chapters.
The problem is I can't find it or anything in Clausewitz that resembles it. So I'm curious where in On War you found it.
Is that too difficult to understand?
Quote:You brought up 3:1, I didn't. Why did you bring it up?
I brought up the supposed "three-to-one" "rule" because it too is about as substantial a reality as apparently your "quote" from Clausewitz's On War is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
I suggest you do what I did,...just read the chapters in On War and find the quote. I suspect using the words retreat , Clausewitz and lost battle, may have directed me to that quote
Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
I've mostly read about the 3:1 rule in my Civil War books, which discuss the benefits of field fortifications during the Civil War.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6390
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Quote:Quote: Here are a couple of assessments by military historians which I'll cite to give my suggestions a bit more weight :
Dupuy&Dupuy, The Compact History of the Civil War, (1960), page 164 :
Who won at Antietam ?
Tactically, Lee did. McClellan, repulsed in his assault, had dared make no further attack, as the Southerners contemptuously held their positions on September 18. Strategically, since Lee's invasion of the North had been ended , and the Army of Northern Virginia then retired from the field, it was a Union victory, with far- reaching effects.
I confess to smiling at seeing you quote Earnest and Trevor's Civil War history. I had great fun working with Trevor in 1992 when we edited it for reprint by Harper Collins. Turned out that not much needed changing; we simply updated the strength and loss figures to the latest scholarship. Cheers!
That’s a gratifying anecdote, Rich !
I always thought that the Dupuy duo might have taken some inspiration from Livermore’s analysis of civil war casualty figures, and adapted his formulaic approach, refining it with their own modern algorithms.
On my shelves somewhere I’ve got a slim paperback dealing with their predictions for US casualties attendant upon an imminent war with Iraq. If memory serves me, they arrived at a guess of about 8,500 killed or wounded, including more than two thousand fatalities. Mercifully, these were to prove colossal exaggerations for the immediate fighting following the invasion, but, as we now sadly acknowledge, the cost of the insurgents’ activities were to exceed those predictions by a significant margin.
I must try and find that book, and see if I’m recollecting correctly.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote:
I suggest you do what I did,...just read the chapters in On War and find the quote. I suspect using the words retreat , Clausewitz and lost battle, may have directed me to that quote
Oddly enough that combination of search terms and any other you can derive from your supposed "quote" yields bupkis.
Quote:Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
Not at all. If you cannot reference the source of the quote then it is quite easy to understand that you made the "quote" up.
Quote:
I've mostly read about the 3:1 rule in my Civil War books, which discuss the benefits of field fortifications during the Civil War.
Sigh... http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2016/07/11/trevor-dupuy-and-the-3-1-rule/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538771
While the three-to-one rule may be easily read about there is simply no evidence that it exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 214
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
11182022
Phil, RichTO90, NYGiant, Group
Hi sorry, so, hadn’t been monitoring the thread. Because RichTO90 asked chap & verse for
some clausewitz quotes I guess I should chime in again since I think some are mine.
First, I think I agree with RichTO90 about 80-90%.
I am not great Clausewitz fan.
But in a post
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
NYGiant
Polo Grounds NY USA Posts: 504
Joined: 2021
9/22/2022 10:55:13 AM
I learned it from Clausewitz, On War.
Which had been in response to Phil;
What particular point of reference decreed that being the
first to abandon the field necessarily entailed tactical defeat ?
As said by RichTO90, a text search does not find the quote. But more its wholly
un-Clausewitz to say anything so simple or direct, he just doesn’t and wouldn’t,
which made me a bit skeptical.
So, I found an online version, which did search on. I found the quotes I gave,
9/25/2022 top page 3
Clausewitz, “ln combats aimed at the destruction of the enemy’s army, the retreat from the battle field is not always to be regarded as a relinquishment of this aim” (victory)
And again, defeat “is not quite identical with quitting the field of battle.”
Also “In combat the loss of moral force is the chief cause of the decision” (defeat)
above Clausewitz quotes from online version Vol 1 book 4 chap 4 & 5 p246 & 251; 1908; pubs Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co (retrieved 09252022)
NYGiant
9262022 8:55 am
Clausewitz, “ln combats aimed at the destruction of the enemy’s army, the retreat from the battle field is not always to be regarded as a relinquishment of this aim” (victory)
Then NYGiant 9262022
Well, the way I read this, ...Clausewitz does admit that in some instances, retreat does not mean defeat.
What about the other instances?....What Clausewitz is saying , it that most of the time, a retreat means defeat. Sometimes it doesn't.
Basically, Clausewitz backs my position.”
but in his previous post he said ;
NYGiant; 9262022 8:01 am
“The first army to leave the battlefield or surrender is
always reckoned to be the loser even if he achieved strategic goals.”
so NYGiant first concedes then equivocates to attempt to buck up an unsupported statement.
NYGiant also starts saying
“Pyrrhic victory.” Pyrrhic being a modifier for a specific class of victory – but a victory (“of sorts”) a concession that it was a (tactical) victory, if a pyrrhic one.
So, clarifying my contributions to the thread. With some context to other posts.
IMHO Lee tactical victory.
thanks, Mike_C.
mikecmaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
IMHO, a Union victory which allows Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation which takes any thoughts that GB will enter the conflict, right off the table.
Cheers, NYGiant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Others have found the quote...I found the quote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote:
9/25/2022 top page 3
Clausewitz, “ln combats aimed at the destruction of the enemy’s army, the retreat from the battle field is not always to be regarded as a relinquishment of this aim” (victory)
And again, defeat “is not quite identical with quitting the field of battle.”
Also “In combat the loss of moral force is the chief cause of the decision” (defeat)
above Clausewitz quotes from online version Vol 1 book 4 chap 4 & 5 p246 & 251; 1908; pubs Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co (retrieved 09252022)
Thanks Mike that helped clarify things.
I see part of the problem was that I was searching the original Graham translation rather than the later revised translation with introduction by Maude. It also didn't help that I was searching the The two translations are actually different. The 1873 Graham full text for the paragraph is:
"But now the giving up the general object is not quite identical with the quitting the field of battle, even when the battle has been very obstinate and long kept up; no one says of advanced posts, when they retire after an obstinate combat, that they have given up their object; even in combats aimed at the destruction of the enemy's army, the retreat from the battle-field is not always to be regarded as a relinquishment of this aim, as for instance, in retreats planned beforehand, in which the ground is disputed foot by foot; all this belongs to that part of our subject where we shall speak of the separate object of the combat; here we only wish to draw attention to the fact that in most cases the giving up the object is very difficult to distinguish from the retirement from the battle-field, and that the impression produced by the latter, both in and out of the army, is not to be treated lightly."
Whereas the later Maude translation is:
"But renouncement of the general object is not quite identical with quitting the field of battle, even when the battle has been very obstinate and long kept up; no one says of advanced posts, when they retire after an obstinate combat, that they have given up their object; even in combats aimed at the destruction of the enemy’s Army, the retreat from the battlefield is not always to be regarded as a relinquishment of this aim, as for instance, in retreats planned beforehand, in which the ground is disputed foot by foot; all this belongs to that part of our subject where we shall speak of the separate object of the combat; here we only wish to draw attention to the fact that in most cases the giving up of the object is very difficult to distinguish from the retirement from the battlefield, and that the impression produced by the latter, both in and out of the Army, is not to be treated lightly."
Both are piss poor translations. They take the German "Absicht" in the original and translate its as "object". It isn't, it is "intention". A better translation from the original is:
"But giving up the intention is not exactly identical with withdrawing from the battlefield, even where the struggle has been stubbornly and persistently fought; no one will say of outposts which, after obstinate resistance, withdraw, that they have given up their intention; even in battles intended to annihilate the enemy's armed forces, withdrawal from the battlefield cannot always be regarded as a relinquishment of this intention, for example, in previously intended retreats, in which land is contested foot for foot. All this belongs where we are going to speak of the special purpose of the battles, here we only want to draw attention to the fact that in most cases giving up the intention is difficult to distinguish from withdrawal from the battlefield, and that the impression which that gives in and outside of the army is not to be underestimated."
Note to that in taking the quote out of context, especially in eliminating the word "even" and capitalizing "in" as if it were the start of the sentence, the overall meaning shifts quite dramatically. Lee indeed did not give up his intention, which was to attack the Union Army on 18 September, until quite late in the day after walking the ground and consulting with Longstreet, Jackson, and Hood. His withdrawal that evening was not a relinquishment of his intent but an acknowledgement that it was outside his means at that time.
Anyway a careful reading of the text, especially in better translation, there is no sense that "quitting the field of battle" is seen as some "rule" that always defines the victor in Clausewitz's view. Instead, Clausewitz rightly sees victory as a complex thing that cannot always be determined from simple rules. Two paragraphs earlier he states:
"If we now take a look at the overall concept of victory, we find three elements in it:
1. the opponent's greater loss of physical strength,
2. in moral [strength],
3. the public confession of it by giving up his intention."
At Antietam, Lee's army suffered a much greater loss of physical strength than did the Union army. However, to a great extent its "moral" (really "morale") strength remained intact and by staying on the battlefield throughout the 18th Lee demonstrated how unwilling he was to give up his intent. And, indeed, repeated it again in the late spring of 1863.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Fact is, from the Middle Ages on, the 1st to leave the battlefield was considered to be the loser of the Battle.
What does it mean to retreat in a battle?
1. : movement by soldiers away from an enemy because the enemy is winning or has won a battle.
Lee left first,..he was the loser.
Last I checked, Lee lost again in 1863.
Cheers,
NYGIant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote: Fact is, from the Middle Ages on, the 1st to leave the battlefield was considered to be the loser of the Battle.
Who considered that? Certainly that is not what Clausewitz said.
Quote:What does it mean to retreat in a battle?
1. : movement by soldiers away from an enemy because the enemy is winning or has won a battle.
That may be so but it isn't what Clausewitz said.
Quote:Lee left first,..he was the loser.
Lee certainly lost the campaign but it is less certain he lost the battle. He had fought McClellan to a standstill to the extent he was able to occupy the battlefield the whol of 18 September while seeking a means of attacking the Union forces and only retreated when convinced by Jackson and Longstreet that it wasn't possible.
Quote:Last I checked, Lee lost again in 1863.
Well, won and lost is probably more accurate. However, what that has to do with supposed "rules" expressed by Clausewitz and mysterious chroniclers of the Middle Ages is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 214
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
11192022
Thanks much , RichTO90
Point taken that better to follow the punctuation better “; even . . .”.
But felt as you did, would mean dragging in whole paragraph.
And discussion of the source and various editions translations
far beyond the point of the tread and of little value to that discussion IMHO.
Later in same paragraph he restates
“here we only want to draw attention to the fact that in most cases giving up the intention is
difficult to distinguish from withdrawal from the battlefield,
and that the impression which that gives in and outside of the army is not to be underestimated."
“difficult to distinguish from” == “can not always be”
“withdrawal from the battlefield” == “regarded as a relinquishment of this intention”
Again not wanting to get into significant discussion of the source,
but major point that he rarely if ever makes any simple direct statement
like “retreating first means losing the battle” it would be massively unClausewitz
and therefore cant be relied on to carry the discussion of Lee’s tactical win at Antietam.
Lower down; book 4 chap 11 pg 291; he says, “no rule without an exception.”
But in another edition(Howard Paret) “there is an exception to every rule”.
Which is a point made before that any rule is only as good as the application.
Yes these are out of context only to focus on the main point that basing
an argument only on a simplistic dogmatic rule (and uncredited) hardly carries much weight.
and your 9:11 am post shows someone (not you) not making forthright discussion
but apparently more interested in convincing himself.
by equivocation and arguing in ignorance the weakness of the “rule” is shown.
the so called authority disavows the "rule" and states clearly that any such "rule" cannot be applied
without exception.
Lee won the tactical victory after noon sep 17 when union troops retreated first after failing in their direct assaults rebs held the line.
IMHO.
Thanks, Mike_C
mikecmaps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6390
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote:
Lee won the tactical victory after noon sep 17 when union troops retreated first after failing in their direct assaults rebs held the line.
mikecmaps
Yes, that paragraph carries the day, I reckon.
No wonder Lee was so proud of this battle.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Quote:Quote:
Lee won the tactical victory after noon sep 17 when union troops retreated first after failing in their direct assaults rebs held the line.
mikecmaps
Yes, that paragraph carries the day, I reckon. No wonder Lee was so proud of this battle. Regards, Phil
Yeah...except of course that never happened. The Union assaults on the Confederate line went on into early evening of 17 September, until around 630 PM, before dying down as night fell. The "rebs" had not "held the line"; they had barely managed to keep the entire line from collapsing. Lee's left and center had been hammered, Jackson's Wing was essentially combat ineffective and only hanging on by a thread with the support of Stuart's cavalry. D.H. Hill's, Hood's, and Jackson's divisions were basically destroyed and only parts of Ewell's Division were effective. The center had been forced back 200 yards even by Lee's admission and the loss of the Sunken Road nearly compromised the entire southern position. Longstreet's Wing was not in much better shape than Jackson's and was only the arrival of an estimated 6,000 stragglers on 18 September that kept the Confederate Army even close to combat effective. The artillery was also a mess having suffered substantial losses holding the line where the infantry had been weak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6390
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Quote:Quote: Quote:
Lee won the tactical victory after noon sep 17 when union troops retreated first after failing in their direct assaults rebs held the line.
mikecmaps
Yes, that paragraph carries the day, I reckon. No wonder Lee was so proud of this battle. Regards, Phil Yeah...except of course that never happened. The Union assaults on the Confederate line went on into early evening of 17 September, until around 630 PM, before dying down as night fell. The "rebs" had not "held the line"; they had barely managed to keep the entire line from collapsing. Lee's left and center had been hammered, Jackson's Wing was essentially combat ineffective and only hanging on by a thread with the support of Stuart's cavalry. D.H. Hill's, Hood's, and Jackson's divisions were basically destroyed and only parts of Ewell's Division were effective. The center had been forced back 200 yards even by Lee's admission and the loss of the Sunken Road nearly compromised the entire southern position. Longstreet's Wing was not in much better shape than Jackson's and was only the arrival of an estimated 6,000 stragglers on 18 September that kept the Confederate Army even close to combat effective. The artillery was also a mess having suffered substantial losses holding the line where the infantry had been weak.
If we limit the remit to the dawn to dusk fighting that day, might we not credit Lee with a tactical victory “ of sorts “ ?
Dupuy and Sears would certainly advocate that assessment.
I’m convinced that the honours of the day should be bestowed on Lee and his army, although the campaign was lost for the South.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Quote:
Last I checked, Lee lost again in 1863.
Well, won and lost is probably more accurate. However, what that has to do with supposed "rules" expressed by Clausewitz and mysterious chroniclers of the Middle Ages is beyond me.
Best to be accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Quote:Quote:
Lee won the tactical victory after noon sep 17 when union troops retreated first after failing in their direct assaults rebs held the line.
mikecmaps
Yes, that paragraph carries the day, I reckon. No wonder Lee was so proud of this battle. Regards, Phil
Actually, Lee was more proud of Chancellorsville.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
f we limit the remit to the dawn to dusk fighting that day, might we not credit Lee with a tactical victory “ of sorts “ ?
I don't think that is criteria for deciding who won or lost.
Do you have a citation for this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6390
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Quote:Quote: Quote:
Lee won the tactical victory after noon sep 17 when union troops retreated first after failing in their direct assaults rebs held the line.
mikecmaps
Yes, that paragraph carries the day, I reckon. No wonder Lee was so proud of this battle. Regards, Phil Actually, Lee was more proud of Chancellorsville.
That might be so.
Please cite your source.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote:
If we limit the remit to the dawn to dusk fighting that day, might we not credit Lee with a tactical victory “ of sorts “ ?
Dupuy and Sears would certainly advocate that assessment.
I’m convinced that the honours of the day should be bestowed on Lee and his army, although the campaign was lost for the South.
Regards, Phil
No. Lee achieved a tactical draw and at great cost to his army. However, even that draw was a barren "victory" in that he had finally lost the operational campaign that he began a month earlier with a string of crushing victories and worse had suffered a strategic loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6390
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Quote:Quote:
If we limit the remit to the dawn to dusk fighting that day, might we not credit Lee with a tactical victory “ of sorts “ ?
Dupuy and Sears would certainly advocate that assessment.
I’m convinced that the honours of the day should be bestowed on Lee and his army, although the campaign was lost for the South.
Regards, Phil
No. Lee achieved a tactical draw and at great cost to his army. However, even that draw was a barren "victory" in that he had finally lost the operational campaign that he began a month earlier with a string of crushing victories and worse had suffered a strategic loss.
That “tactical draw “ was an achievement, given the odds arrayed against him. I wonder what possessed him to take that outrageous risk in making his stand there.
You’re an authority on the artillery battle.
How did Lee’s gunners stack up, in terms of quantity and quality of ordnance and munitions, in comparison with their foe ?
Which of the two armies enjoyed the better terrain in terms of deployment for their guns ?
Was the ratio of rifled pieces in the Federals’ favour?
Did the rebels lose the artillery v artillery battle, but retain the effectiveness of their arm as a means of striking the advancing enemy infantry ?
Is it true that Hooker unleashed a murderous cannonade from dozens of field pieces against confederate infantry massed in The Cornfield, killing hundreds in a few moments ?
Was this a battle in which artillery was far more effective in unleashing carnage than was normal in that war ?
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Quote:Quote: Quote: Quote:
Lee won the tactical victory after noon sep 17 when union troops retreated first after failing in their direct assaults rebs held the line.
mikecmaps
Yes, that paragraph carries the day, I reckon. No wonder Lee was so proud of this battle. Regards, Phil Actually, Lee was more proud of Chancellorsville. That might be so. Please cite your source. Regards, Phil
Me, Lee and plenty of historians!! Lee said of Chancellorsville that it was “another victory” for his cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote: That “tactical draw “ was an achievement, given the odds arrayed against him. I wonder what possessed him to take that outrageous risk in making his stand there.
What did it "achieve" other than bizarre bragging rights? "Yep, ol' Bobby Lee lost his mind and got over 10,000 of us kilt, wounded, and skedaddled, when he could have retreated across the Potomac and dared McClellan to come after him but it was a really kool stand!"
Quote:You’re an authority on the artillery battle.
Nice of you to say but Curt had quite a bit to do with it too.
Quote:How did Lee’s gunners stack up, in terms of quantity and quality of ordnance and munitions, in comparison with their foe ?
Gunners were equal, from the same tradition, tactical practices, and training. Union Ordnance, munitions, and equipment overall was better overall, more modern and uniform. Confederate artillery organization was much better and probably made the difference.
Quote:Which of the two armies enjoyed the better terrain in terms of deployment for their guns ?
About the same.
Quote:Was the ratio of rifled pieces in the Federals’ favour?
Of 293 Union pieces on the field, 171 were rifled. Of 246 Confederate pieces, 84 were known to be rifled. Only 219-241 pieces were on the field, probably including all the rifles.
Quote:Did the rebels lose the artillery v artillery battle, but retain the effectiveness of their arm as a means of striking the advancing enemy infantry ?
They never really tried to fight an artillery versus artillery battle and reserved their effectiveness for engaging the advancing Union infantry.
Quote:Is it true that Hooker unleashed a murderous cannonade from dozens of field pieces against confederate infantry massed in The Cornfield, killing hundreds in a few moments ?
If Hooker said it then of course it must be true.
Quote:Was this a battle in which artillery was far more effective in unleashing carnage than was normal in that war ?
I doubt it. However, of the 4,409 Confederate artillerymen on the field, 424 were casualties, while of the 6,441 Union artillerymen only 212 were casualties. It's why S.D. Lee referred to it as "Artillery Hell"...for the Confederate artillery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
|
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
|
Quote:
Me, Lee and plenty of historians!! Lee said of Chancellorsville that it was “another victory” for his cause.
You seem to be confused between what is your opinion and what is a citation. Your opinion, no matter how vociferously or rudely you express it, remains your opinion. You may be aware of the old expression about opinions? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
If "plenty of historians" have expressed the same as your opinion, which is that "Lee was more proud of Chancellorsville [than Sharpsburg]", then you should find it easy to say just what historians said so and when.
You are correct that Lee said Chancellorsville was "another victory"; you will find that statement in Henry Heth to J. William Jones, June 1877, in Southern Historical Society Papers 52 vols. (1876-1959; reprint, Millwood, NY, 1977), 4: 153-54. That is a citation.
Mind you though, he says nothing about his "pride" in "another victory" at Chancellorsville, which would be an odd thing for Lee to have said, since he rarely expressed such self-pride and likely would have considered it vulgar of himself as a gentleman to have done any such thing.
Then again, we also run into the issue of context. Yes, Lee said Chancellorsville was "another victory" but in context what he actually said was quite different from any prideful crowing about victory after victory by the army he commanded. What he actually said that Heth recorded was "At Fredericksburg we gained a battle, inflicting very severe loss on the enemy in men and material; our people were greatly elated—I was much depressed. We had really accomplished nothing; we had not gained a foot of ground, and I knew the enemy could easily replace the men he had lost.... At Chancellorsville we gained another victory; our people were wild with delight—I, on the contrary, was more depressed than after Fredericksburg."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NYGiant
home
USA
|
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
|
|
|
|
Antietam : some reflections and comparisons
|
Thanks for verifying my comment!
..and not what was transcribed by Heth.
Nice try though.
Cheers, NYGiant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
