Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Which were the better fighters? ...
Skills: It has been said that Southerners had better horse riding and shooting skills than those in the North. That may have been true in th East, but not in the West.
...
One thing to remember here is a comment that I saw many years ago. Generally speaking, Southern men rode horses for personal travel. Northern men tended to drive wagons or buggies. This tended to be particularly true as you went further north and east.
As a result, most cavalry regiments in the East had more than enough trouble just staying on their horses in formation and movement when the war started. This is often given as one of the reasons they fought so much dismounted.
European military professionals thought it took 2 years to turn a raw recruit into a cavalry trooper (longer for lancers). If you look, the first real evidence that Union volunteer cavalry in the East is starting to improve is in the work of Pope's cavalry in August of 1862 and Buford's charge at 2nd Manassas (15-16 months in from the start of the war). The first evidence that they can handle independent missions and mix it up with the Rebel cavalry is at Chancellorsville, Brandy Station and the actions up to and through the Gettysburg Campaign (24-26 months in)
From that point on, it looks like they are heading towards even, and when they get good leadership (Sheridan at the top and a new crop coming up from below), they can pressure and beat the Confederates. By that point, though, Rebel units were severely limited by weak horses/lack of forage/etc. Even at the very end of the war, anything like equal numbers of ANV and AoP cavalry was a tough fight. (see Custer's attempt to pursue and one of the Lee's delaying action after Five Forks, 1865, for an example.)
I'd have to agree that the AoP decreased somewhat toward the end. I think that was largely a function of the 3 year vets going home. So a good a general as Grant was, he has less, qualitywise, to work with as he had in the West.
My other thought is how the Rebs were so persistently fierce in spite of their relative disadvantage in material. Seemed at times they fought better barefoot than the Yanks in their brogans. ???
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
The Southern soldiers were better suited to a rugged life: more motivated: better led.
Cap'n. I can somewhat agree with more motivated and I will give you better led with reservations. However, "better suited to a rugged life;"? You'll have to persuade me on that.
Quote:
The North won the War because of two things: a better Navy: and verwhelmingly better overall material resources. Like a mediocre heavyweight beating a top welterweight.
How about a good heavyweight beating a top middleweight. Yours is a bit extreme.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The Southern soldiers were better suited to a rugged life: more motivated: better led.
The North won the War because of two things: a better Navy: and overwhelmingly better overall material resources.
Like a mediocre heavyweight beating a top welterweight.
Capt. Coxetter
I can't agree w/ that at all... AoP maybe... but the War wasn't won by the AoP but by the western Armies and in thta neck of the woods there is no doubt as to the toughness and determination of both sides. The CS AoT sufered setback after setback and kept fighting and fighting well. They certainly had some of the poorest top leadership in the S yet they continued.
The US AoT... Nothing but Victory, often ill fed and ill equiped and generally thought of as second to the AoP. They proved their worth by winning over and over again against a superb foe.
One side better than the other? It's purely subjective.
THe idea that Southerners were better hunters, tougher because they knew more hardship is very subjective and almost steryotypical. Would a boatman from New Orleans be a better soldier than a farmboy from Iowa? No more so than when comparing a Longshoreman from Chicago w/ a country boy from Tennessee.
The majority of men from both armies were hardscrabble farmers. While NY raised the most Union Regiments; most were not fom NYC but from the countryside.
IMHO there are too many factors to easily decide which side fielded the better soldier.
IMHO western troops on both sides of the aisle were typically the best soldiers.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
I would agree that the Western Union troops seemed to do better than the AoP, however the ANV IMO was the top Confederate force.
As far as the AoP is concerned, its got to get some kudos for absorbing such terrible defeats 61-63, without losing heart. The moral and psychological resilence of the Army of the Potomac, its "rise and fight again" spirit should count for something.
The "old" AOP was resilient, but that changed in 64. The entire officer corps was gutted and the veterans were either killed off or their enlistments expired to a large extent. The AOP in the summer of 64 was not in good shape.
Respectfully
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
The "old" AOP was resilient, but that changed in 64. The entire officer corps was gutted and the veterans were either killed off or their enlistments expired to a large extent. The AOP in the summer of 64 was not in good shape.
Respectfully
Very true, the same is true of the Army of Northern Virginia by that time.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
