Armchair Generals

[major bill]

This forum seems to have a great many 'Armchair Generals'. They would have done this or that and somehow won the battle or won the war. Being a great general from a rocking chair is much easier than being a great general on a battlefield.

This makes me wonder how many Division, Brigade or even Battalion commanders we have on the forum. Do we have any forum members who have commanded anything bigger than a company in any combat zone? Do we have anyone who commanded a Battalion, Brigade or Division even in peace time?

 

[ivanj05]

I don't need to have been a Brigadier General to have a reasonably informed opinion about military history anymore than I need to have been a gourmet chef to have an informed opinion about food or an NFL quarterback to have an informed opinion about football. What you are making is an appeal to authority, one of the classical logical fallacies.

Suffice it to say, if you disagree with the position a person takes, then disagree with it on the merits. I think we're all big enough here to not have to fall back on attacking the credentials, or lack thereof, of a poster here when it is not germane to the argument at hand. And, for the record, it is rarely germane to the argument.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Does a large collection of military miniatures count? (Just kidding)

 

[Horace Porter]

This forum seems to have a great many 'Armchair Generals'. They would have done this or that and somehow won the battle or won the war. Being a great general from a rocking chair is much easier than being a great general on a battlefield.

This makes me wonder how many Division, Brigade or even Battalion commanders we have on the forum. Do we have any forum members who have commanded anything bigger than a company in any combat zone? Do we have anyone who commanded a Battalion, Brigade or Division even in peace time?

I commend the spirit of the observation, but I'd point out that exercising command at those levels today is much different than exercising it at that time. Nor do I think we have any regimental, brigade, division, corps, or army commanders from the American Civil War here.

That said, armchair generals sitting on their hindquarters are masters of hindsight.

 

[major bill]

I always believed I would make a poor Civil War General. One of the basic requirements was West Point education. I took Latin and was a poor student, ditto for French and Greek.

 

[War Horse]

It seems to be a great CW commander required Excellent logistical skills, Audacity and a willingness to charge headlong into battle regardless the numerical advantage or rather disadvantage. All the great ones shared these traits. Gant, Lee, Jackson. They shared the hardships with their troops, they refused to allow subordinates to get in their way. They pushed their men to and beyond what the men themselves felt were their limits. In the end they won the admiration of their men who would do anything they asked.

 

[major bill]

I still believe I would have had difficulties graduating from West Point ca. 1830s-1850s.

 

[photoman475]

Major Bill, I respectfully differ about "One of the basic requirements was West Point education." Perhaps for the highest level of command it was necessary to have that education, but a quite a few brigade and division commanders weren't West Pointers. Some corps commanders weren't, either. John McClernand comes to mind as one corps commander, and I don't believe Ben Butler went there either. John Gordon and N.B. Forrest weren't students at the Point either. Some, like J.L. Chamberlain and Strong Vincent, graduated from other colleges.

I would suggest these men were promoted for other, more important abilities than their educations. While neither you nor I may have made a good Civil War general on the field of battle, surely Montgomery Meigs has not been given the recognition he deserves as a quartermaster, even with a West Point education? Overall, he did keep the Union Army supplied.

 

[major bill]

To be fair I did not say I could not be a Civil War general. I said I would make a poor Civil War general. I also am not an accomplished horseman. Kind of hard to be a Civil War general and walk everywhere. I suppose I could learn better horse skills if I truly needed to, but in the modern world I never had the need to ride a horse so did not try to learn how.

 

[ole]

Armchair General seems to be dirty words. Are we not all armchair genenerals?

 

[MRB1863]

Armchair General seems to be dirty words. Are we not all armchair genenerals?

Yes, we probably all are at one time or another! IMHO, one of the single most important things we must remember when criticizing the actions of CW generals is the lack of communication. Compared to today, definitely the dark ages! When studying history of any kind, attempt to "put yourself back into that era" to better understand the challenges of the day.

 

[johan_steele]

My definition of an armchair general is a man or the occasional woman who believes they could do better in another mans shoes. But they wouldn't know a Girl Scout from a Marine and couldn't make it from their easy chair to the fridge without breaking a sweat.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I've read Clausewitz and Jomini (both in English translation, of course), which is more than the vast majority of Civil War generals could say. (Not that Clausewitz was as widely-appreciated then as he was later.)

But I would consider myself an analyst, rather than a general. To investigate, to understand, to weigh alternatives and speculate on their outcomes-- those are my fascinations.

 

[Specster]

I think it is a reasonable question. As to the difference in time, we can look back at the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War for a written record how they felt the war should be fought (for the Union anyway). They collected copious notes over their tenure many of which have been helpful to historians over the years. It spite if their resources, they were often criticized as being misguided and ill informed. They often leaked information which made its way to the newspapers - intentionally and unintentionally. They had political bents that shaped their recommendations, but so did battlefield generals of that day and probably today as well.

They pressed Lincoln for the removal of McClellan early, although he did not act immediately on their recommendation. I think they did some good things, like looking into corruption, trade and prisoner treatment. That was their realm and they should have stuck to it.

As for the average Joe who comes to this site a few hours a week, myself included, I think many of us are fooling ourselves if we think we would have acted differently or could have done better than these Generals and commanders. What we know, and what actually happened, I think are two very different things. Being in the moment, with all that smoke and confusion, and limited communications, and carnage is quite another matter. After 1st Bull Run, few congressmen ventured near the battlefields. Witnessing carnage in itself can make someones mind go into a tail spin.

There is a reason we have the term Monday Morning Quarterback. It is silly to think because we watched a football game we could have done better. Its fine to make observations on a game or a war, but to think we could have done better without ever being in anything akin to that situation, is kind of silly.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I think there is a distinct difference between saying, "If Lew Wallace had taken this road instead of that road, his troops might have made it to the battlefield in time to materially change the first day of Shiloh," and saying, "If I had been in Lew Wallace's place, I would have taken the right road." The first is analysis; the second is Monday-morning quarterbacking.

 

[Frito]

I,m more of a recliner general myself.

 

[major bill]

Not to mention the physical stress. Even I make fair decisions when I am well rested. Try making the same wise decisions after going three or more days without sleeping or eating.

 

[DR_Hanna]

I had a foreign friend relate his opinion that one of the unique qualities of the average American is the propensity to pontificate at great length about subjects of which they have almost no knowledge. Now imagine how it is when they have a smattering of familiarity with the subject. Of course, I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[7th Texas Mounted Rifles]

I'd point out that exercising command at those levels today is much different than exercising it at that time.

Yes sir.
To think that the two are even remotely comparable is a dead-on indicator of a 100% authentic 'armchair general'.

It is also important to remember that:

A.) No commander has ever won a war.
-and-
B.) A commander is only as effective as the counsel he keeps.

The ONLY subject that commanders throughout the history of warfare can relate with each other on would be the resentment of lives lost under their command - regardless of whether they emerged the victor that day on the battlefield.

 

[theoldman]

A few years ago I commented on a regular basis on a message board that discussed a certain NFL team. There were a few members of that discussion that actually thought you could not criticize the HC or the QB, for example, unless you had been an HC or had played QB.

I think our forum would be very empty if a requirement to comment was previous experience. Having said that, I also think that it is fair for those with the experience to point out deficiencies in arguments made by those without, in a respectful way of course.