- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: George Meade took command of the Army of the Potomac on this day in 1863...
Posted on 6/30/26 at 2:31 pm to Champagne
Posted on 6/30/26 at 2:31 pm to Champagne
quote:
I have long believed that the US Civil War was waged in an exceedingly amateur fashion on both sides because neither side had anything other than amateur-level military leaders. For the most part, IMHO, none of these guys really knew what they were doing - they were most often "winging it", and the haphazard and disorganized manner in which most of these battles were fought bears this out.
I realize that these Leaders all went to West Point, but, West Point obviously did not create the kind of combat leaders needed for that period of military history. These Leaders were "professionals" by the standard of what West Point could produce, but, compared to what the military problems of the day presented to them, these Leaders acted the majority of the time as an amateur might.
I think this is way too harsh.
West Point's curriculum was heavy on engineering, mathematics, and small-unit tactics, not generalship at scale. And that's actually the rub: it trained company and battalion-level tactics for a Napoleonic-era army of fewer than 16,000 men, then turned these men loose commanding forces of 100,000 or more. The "haphazard" battles you're seeing are partly the predictable result of that scaling problem, not evidence nobody knew what they were doing. Irvin McDowell was a major in April 1861, a career staff officer with no command experience at all. By the end of May he was a brigadier general in charge of the largest army the United States had ever fielded up to that point. Obviously there is going to be a learning curve.
The "disorganization" itself is mostly a technology problem, not a competence problem. Rifled muskets had tripled effective infantry range, making the close-order assault tactics everyone was trained in suddenly suicidal. No army on earth had solved that yet and the same deadlock reappeared a half century later in the First World War with far less excuse. That's friction and fog of war, intrinsic to battle, not amateurism.
And "winging it" can't explain Grant's Vicksburg campaign, Jackson's Valley campaign, Lee's Chancellorsville campaign, or the leap from the shambles of First Bull Run to Grant coordinating multiple armies across a thousand-mile front by telegraph in 1864–65. That trajectory, from chaos to coordination, is what professionalization under fire looks like, not a flat line of incompetence.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 2:56 pm to RollTide1987
Your thoughts are worthy of consideration.
But, I think that the example of Gen McDowell is a very good one to support my point that these guys often seemed like amateurs because in a meaningful sense, they really were just amateurs when it came to warfare at this scale and level. West Point's curriculum at the time didn't train anybody to do these jobs. In a meaningful sense, they were forced to learn on the job, which some might call "winging it."
[link=(not a flat line of incompetence.)]LINK[/link]
I never attempted to articulate that conclusion. I say, they were doing "On The Job Training", and managed to make progress towards professionalism through this OTJ training.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:02 pm to Champagne
quote:
In a meaningful sense, they were forced to learn on the job, which some might call "winging it."
Granted.
However, I feel like your assertions are more in line with the state of affairs in 1861 than they were in 1862 or 1863. Those first battles in the summer and autumn of 1861 were disorganized, amateurish, and chaotic. Many of the men who fought at Bull Run were so green they didn't even know how to load their rifles.
But by 1862, these men had gone through vigorous training and were well-versed in the school of the soldier. By the end of 1864 I would argue that these men were a match for any army in Europe then in existence.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:10 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
By the end of 1864 I would argue that these men were a match for any army in Europe then in existence.
The USA and CSA military leaders, as a collective, improved their performances through on the job training, that is true, over the course of the war. But, in this thread, we are taking a close look at Lee's Gettysburg Campaign from its start until June 30th, 1863. When we isolate this particular thing for evaluation, IMHO, we would very much struggle to reach the conclusion that this was the work of an expert and professional mid-19th Century western army. The info that I've come across seems more like amateur work than real professional army commanders at work.
As for whether the American armies of 1864 were as good as the Prussian Army of 1864, or the Austrian Army of 1864, or the French or British Army of 1864, we'll never know. I can't disprove your conclusion that the American Armies were just as good. IMHO you may be right. I may be crazy.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:14 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
But by 1862, these men had gone through vigorous training and were well-versed in the school of the soldier.
Examples from the Chancellorsville Campaign and the Gettysburg Campaign indicate to me that no army in the East were always demonstrating that "they were well-versed in" the Art of War, and these campaigns were in 1863.
In other words, they were still doing on the job training.
But this is West Point's fault! West Point didn't train the Generals to an adequate standard. I'm not blaming the men themselves.
I've read Coddington's book on the Gettysburg Campaign and he addressed this question: Why didn't Lee marshal his forces in such a manner as to competently execute the strategy he explained to President Davis in May 1863, which was to Defeat the Army of the Potomac in Detail? Coddington's answer is simple: to do this was beyond the professional military capability of General Lee, his staff and his Corps commanders.
They did not possess the Means and Ways to accomplish that End - if we care to look at the problem from an "Ends, Ways and Means" analytical model.
It's fun to talk about this stuff and to have fun talking about it.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 7:09 pm to Champagne
The main reason why I would argue that the Western European Armies were probably better than the Union Army of 1864 is because the Military Schools for Training General Officers were better in Europe at that time than was West Point.
The Euro Generals had better training at better military command and staff schools than the West Point trained American Generals. That's a very good reason to surmise that the Euro Generals knew their Profession better than your West Point trained American General.
And it is an indisputable fact that the Euro Military Schools at that time were better at training Generals than was West Point.
The Euro Generals had better training at better military command and staff schools than the West Point trained American Generals. That's a very good reason to surmise that the Euro Generals knew their Profession better than your West Point trained American General.
And it is an indisputable fact that the Euro Military Schools at that time were better at training Generals than was West Point.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 9:12 am to Champagne
Is this going to be the traditional
July 1st, Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg thread?
July 1st, Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg thread?
Popular
Back to top

1




