Stuart's Performance At Brandy Station May Have Influenced His Actions At Gettysburg?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a sec.

Modern military experience is relevant in that it gives someone a perspective on things about the military that haven't changed. True, they didn't have radios or mechanized vehicles in the Civil War, which are used today; however, they had a chain of command, orders, and a doctrine. They had a military organization with commanding officers, subordinate leaders, and followers. While I disagree with @marinegrunt 's viewpoint on this particular issue, his experience is in no way irrelevant. While a number of things have changed, a number of things have not changed, and the perspective of having dealt with those things brings a valuable insight that shouldn't be dismissed because we disagree with his conclusions. Having said that, I think Eric laid out his case quite well in his book, Plenty of Blame to Go Around. I found it more than just persuasive. I don't think he needs to reproduce that here, but I also think it's incumbent on those who disagree with him to deal with that book and to try to rebut what he says in the book. He doesn't let JEB Stuart off the hook entirely as some might think, but he does show that Stuart does not shoulder all the blame.
This is something that has been lost in my posts; I don't exclusively blame Stuart, and I've said so. If Lee wanted wagons he should have said to go get him wagons without qualification instead of ordering communication be maintained with Ewell. Militarily speaking, that was more important; wagons could be found elsewhere. Handing the man five brigades of cavalry and expecting raids and foraging along Hooker's rear AND cover for Ewell was too much, in my opinion. That's a corps sized assignment, in Civil War troop numbers. However, I think Stuart made that ride around Hooker just to say he did it. He was a vain man, he was out for glory (as most generals were, Union and Confederate), and he made a bad strategic and tactical call, ***edited*** by jgoodguy for inappropriate content.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a sec.

Modern military experience is relevant in that it gives someone a perspective on things about the military that haven't changed. True, they didn't have radios or mechanized vehicles in the Civil War, which are used today; however, they had a chain of command, orders, and a doctrine. They had a military organization with commanding officers, subordinate leaders, and followers. While I disagree with @marinegrunt 's viewpoint on this particular issue, his experience is in no way irrelevant. While a number of things have changed, a number of things have not changed, and the perspective of having dealt with those things brings a valuable insight that shouldn't be dismissed because we disagree with his conclusions. Having said that, I think Eric laid out his case quite well in his book, Plenty of Blame to Go Around. I found it more than just persuasive. I don't think he needs to reproduce that here, but I also think it's incumbent on those who disagree with him to deal with that book and to try to rebut what he says in the book. He doesn't let JEB Stuart off the hook entirely as some might think, but he does show that Stuart does not shoulder all the blame.
His conclusions are based on fantasy, due to his expectation of modern logistical abilities on a 19th century mission.
 
As I said, not relevant to the logistical conditions Stuart operated under

Actually, there is relevance. Horses and mules, like today's vehicles, travel faster than a man on foot and can cover more territory in a day than a man on foot. Today's vehicles use one type of fuel. Horses and mules used another type of fuel. Take away that fuel and the same thing happens. You don't go anywhere. The difference is that you can get more fuel and get going again today. You'll most likely have to get yourself another horse or mule to get going again in the Civil War.
 
Actually, there is relevance. Horses and mules, like today's vehicles, travel faster than a man on foot and can cover more territory in a day than a man on foot. Today's vehicles use one type of fuel. Horses and mules used another type of fuel. Take away that fuel and the same thing happens. You don't go anywhere. The difference is that you can get more fuel and get going again today. You'll most likely have to get yourself another horse or mule to get going again in the Civil War.
It loses relevance when one expects a horse and a jeep to perform the same over the same distance. Or communicate with radios in the 19th century. These expectations are not realistic.
 
His conclusions are based on fantasy, due to his expectation of modern logistical abilities on a 19th century mission.

The concepts are, if not exactly the same at least similar enough, even if the capabilities are different. Again, I don't think it should be just dismissed.
 
It loses relevance when one expects a horse and a jeep to perform the same over the same distance. Or communicate with radios in the 19th century. These expectations are not realistic.

I don't see how he expected communication with radios or expected a horse to perform the same as a jeep.

For example, he said that Stuart didn't stay in touch with Lee. Now, we know that was mighty difficult when using couriers, especially when Stuart was on the other side of the Union army. But his point is that he thought Stuart shouldn't have been on the other side of the Union army, and had Stuart been west of the Federals it would have been much easier for him to keep in touch with Lee.

This is not to say I agree with his position, but I'm trying to understand it.
 
It loses relevance when one expects a horse and a jeep to perform the same over the same distance. Or communicate with radios in the 19th century. These expectations are not realistic.
Nobody said that, and you know it. The point, and this point is clear to anyone who isn't grasping at straws like you are, is that comm and logistics must be attended to, in whatever form they exist in depending on technology. Stuart was expected and should have maintained communications with his commander. He failed to do so.
 
Look at this, folks. I rest my case.
Look at what? Communications of the day included couriers, supply wagons and signal stations. Major battles turned on these same things. Cavalry was expected to maintain communication with their commander, using the methods of the day.
 
I don't see how he expected communication with radios or expected a horse to perform the same as a jeep.

For example, he said that Stuart didn't stay in touch with Lee. Now, we know that was mighty difficult when using couriers, especially when Stuart was on the other side of the Union army. But his point is that he thought Stuart shouldn't have been on the other side of the Union army, and had Stuart been west of the Federals it would have been much easier for him to keep in touch with Lee.

This is not to say I agree with his position, but I'm trying to understand it.
Not hard to understand. If you are your commander's intelligence asset, you cannot run off and leave him blind. This is what Stuart did. That Lee gave him the option to do so (provided he could maintain communication with the army) is not the issue; he should have known better than to do it.
 
Not hard to understand. If you are your commander's intelligence asset, you cannot run off and leave him blind. This is what Stuart did. That Lee gave him the option to do so (provided he could maintain communication with the army) is not the issue; he should have known better than to do it.

Stuart, though, wasn't his only intelligence asset. Stuart left behind cavalry under Grumble Jones and Beverly Robertson. In addition, cavalry under John Imboden and Elijah White were with Lee.
 
Nobody said that, and you know it. The point, and this point is clear to anyone who isn't grasping at straws like you are, is that comm and logistics must be attended to, in whatever form they exist in depending on technology. Stuart was expected and should have maintained communications with his commander. He failed to do so.
Your expectations are not realistic.
 
Stuart, though, wasn't his only intelligence asset. Stuart left behind cavalry under Grumble Jones and Beverly Robertson. In addition, cavalry under John Imboden and Elijah White were with Lee.
Jones and Robertson weren't with Lee; they were assigned rear guard duties. Jones wasn't across the Potomac until July 1. I have to check on what Robertson ended up doing, but I was just in Gettysburg three weeks ago and I got that from a licensed battlefield guide. he did indeed have Imboden and White, but I don't see that as being enough to screen your lead elements or keep them informed of what the other guy is up to.
 
Stuart, though, wasn't his only intelligence asset. Stuart left behind cavalry under Grumble Jones and Beverly Robertson. In addition, cavalry under John Imboden and Elijah White were with Lee.

That was pointed out several pages ago by me and ignored completely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top