Best All-Around Performance By Both Sides?

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

War is a mess, especially with the benefit of hindsight. Generals operate in the fog of war with incomplete and inaccurate information. Good plans go awry with bad execution. Battles can turn on a key mistake. Armies fight hard, but break under exhaustion. Even when many things go right, something inevitably still goes wrong. Sometimes it seems the winner is the side that makes the fewest mistakes.

For example, I don't think anybody faults the quality of fighting done by either side. However, the Union tried to hold an over-extended line on Day 1 and Sickles did what he did on Day 2. On the Confederate side, there are a variety of well-known issues in the high command and the issues with the Day 3 artillery bombardment.

What battle of the American Civil War do you think had the best all around performance by both sides, at all levels? Was there any battle where everyone gave a Grade-A performance, with no serious mistakes by either side, and if not what came closest?

 

[Pat Answer]

That's a good question but I think tough to answer "at all levels" because your first paragraph hits the nail on the head so squarely. I can't think of any battle where the bulk of the rank and file did not put in a grade-A performance nor any which leaders set out to lose. On the other hand, anything (or more accurately combination of things) could be a potential 'mistake' when the opponent, by plan or luck, is in position to exploit it (e.g. Chickamauga). And while the 'perfect' chess game might be a draw, war as you said is not so cut and dry. (Some say Antietam was a draw that shouldn't have been...)

So maybe Shiloh actually "came closest" to being an 'all-in' slugfest fought as well as green troops and inexperienced commanders allowed with weight deciding each day's outcome? A thought anyway.

Good question.

 

[Will Carry]

I think the side that made the fewest mistakes usually wins. Sherman took fewer chances and made fewer mistakes. Forest won many battles by audacity and bravado (or was it?).

 

[Tennessee_Mountainman]

Confederacy- Battle of Brice's Crossroads (Nathan B Forrest) & the Battle of Johnsonville (Nathan B Forrest)

Union- Siege of Vicksburg (U.S. Grant) & and the overall naval operations in the MS river (Farragut, Porter, and Foote)

These are what I can think as of now, there were other great feats but these are some of the best of the best IMO.

 

[bdtex]

What battle of the American Civil War do you think had the best all around performance by both sides, at all levels?

Great question. It makes me wanna get to the short stack of books I have on The Wilderness. From my limited knowledge of it,it strikes me as that kind of battle.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I'm inclined to say First Bull Run should be in consideration. Both sides fought fairly well, especially for green troops, and the battle was won largely out of exhaustion and reinforcements rather than a mistake by the Union.

I think Shiloh comes close. While the Union camps were not properly screened, they organized quickly and fought well. Confederate plans didn't work out quitecas intended and they may have spent too much time on the Hornets Nest, but for the most part they did all they could on Day 1. On Day 2, the Confederates put up a solid defense but simply couldn't stand against the numbers of fresh troops. Lew Wallace's odyssey is the biggest strike against it as a near-perfect battle.

Union- Siege of Vicksburg (U.S. Grant) & and the overall naval operations in the MS river (Farragut, Porter, and Foote)

Chickisaw Bluffs seems a serious blunder by the Union as were the two failed assaults on Vicksburg. Pemberton retreating into Vicksburg and Johnston failing to attempt any relief were also serious mistakes.

Great question. It makes me wanna get to the short stack of books I have on The Wilderness. From my limited knowledge of it,it strikes me as that kind of battle.

I don't think the Union troops fought very well at Wilderness, especially on the north half of the battle. But it's definitely in contention.

 

[Pat Answer]

I think the side that made the fewest mistakes usually wins. Sherman took fewer chances and made fewer mistakes. Forest won many battles by audacity and bravado (or was it?).

Forrest won with audacity and bravado and good intelligence / keen sense of what the other side was trying to do. (As did Lee.) Brice's Crossroads was a masterpiece however you slice it (and if I remember correctly Forrest called it beforehand). I don't know enough about Sturgis to call him incompetent; he may have been very able indeed, but Forrest just had that ability - and opportunities - to make an opponent look stupid.
And to the point of the OP, the quality of the opposition is a factor here. I agree that it almost always comes down to that last mistake - but also on the other guy being able to slap you with it.

 

[sailorruss]

Forrest on the West Tennessee Raid.

 

[Yankeedave]

Not to incite a riot but let me add Sharpsburg. Both sides gave the best they had. At the end of the day both armies were still toe to toe. All gave some, some gave all.

 

[Yankeedave]

Great question. It makes me wanna get to the short stack of books I have on The Wilderness. From my limited knowledge of it,it strikes me as that kind of battle.

The north end was a wicked fight. Crossing open ground against a dug in foe. The Yanks were able to gain ground, about a mile, but got over extended and flanked. See saw action. Good call on the Wilderness fight.

 

[AUG]

Also thought of the Wilderness, though particularly the action along the Orange Plank Road on the southern side. That was by all means a slugfest between infantry. Both sides fought stubbornly but neither side really got anywhere, of course largely due to the terrain. On the second day, Hancock routed A.P. Hill's Corps but Longstreet came marching up and drove Hancock back in turn.


Also, a small battle, but what about Monocacy? Jubal Early won a tactical victory, though Lew Wallace successfully delayed his advance on Washington. IIRC, just about everyone fought well, on all levels.

 

[OpnCoronet]

What battle of the American Civil War do you think had the best all around performance by both sides, at all levels? Was there any battle where everyone gave a Grade-A performance, with no serious mistakes by either side, and if not what came closest?

I have no immediate memory of any such battles, if, you mean a single battle in which both sides(men and leaders) performed almost equally well.

There were, IMO, two almost perfect campaigns. Lee's Second Manassas and Grant's Vicksburg Campaign, from the the passing of Vicksburg's guns by Union gunboats,



P.S. Bragg's invasion of Kt in 1862, was almost perfect, until he lost sight of the strategic realities(destruction of Buell's Army, First) at the very end.

 

[Pat Answer]

Second Manassas and Vicksburg were great campaigns, but one also has to note how out of depth Pope and Pemberton proved to be respectively.

Bragg (I always get in trouble giving him the benefit of the doubt, but here goes... ) was in a bit of a hard spot. He can't stay in Kentucky unless he is joined by those thousands of recruits he brings weapons in for - and he can't convince those recruits to join if they know he can't sustain his force there indefinitely and will eventually have to retreat, bringing them essentially into exile. His raid was successful overall: get in, capture some garrisons and supplies, and get out relatively intact before Buell figures out his true numerical advantage. It just didn't cut it in the newspapers...

 

[bdtex]

What battle of the American Civil War do you think had the best all around performance by both sides, at all levels?

I'm kinda going from memory here. It has been 6-7 months since I've done any in-depth reading on the Trans-Mississippi Theater. I'm thinking the Battle Of Pleasant Hill would be that kinda battle too.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Not to incite a riot but let me add Sharpsburg. Both sides gave the best they had. At the end of the day both armies were still toe to toe. All gave some, some gave all.

An entire Union corps got carelessly flanked and routed in the West Woods, the Sunked Road was attacked repeatedly head on, and the Burnside Bridge situation was bungled by somebody. So no, I don't think it's a contender. Great performance by the ANV all around though.

 

[Yankeedave]

An entire Union Corps? Which one? You mean Segdewick's division. What he lost was regained.
Sunken Road attacked an taken.
Along with most ground held by ANV.

 

[jackt62]

I'm not sure of this one, but Cedar Creek could be a contender. The initial assault by Jubal Early was a success, but so was the ultimate counter assault by Sheridan. Needless to say, there were serious errors on each side.

 

[Lt R. Blackwell 4th Texas]

Cool question. Maybe Murfreesboro? Bragg seizes the initiative, the initial dawn attack by Hardee, the resilience of Rosecrans, excellent individual performances by various brigade and division commanders, really hard fighting by troops on both sides. The only major blunder I can think of is Bragg's wasteful attack on Jan. 2.

 

[jackt62]

Cool question. Maybe Murfreesboro? Bragg seizes the initiative, the initial dawn attack by Hardee, the resilience of Rosecrans, excellent individual performances by various brigade and division commanders, really hard fighting by troops on both sides. The only major blunder I can think of is Bragg's wasteful attack on Jan. 2.

I would agree with this one. Plus the fact that from the federal side, Rosecrans put up a spirited defense and did not abandon the field after December 31st.

 

[Yankeedave]

I would agree with this one. Plus the fact that from the federal side, Rosecrans put up a spirited defense and did not abandon the field after December 31st.

Never understood why Bragg attacked across that river on Jan. 2. imho he shoulda kept sidling around Rosecrans right like he started to on Dec. 31. I'm no pro on this fight. Just always made me wonder...