By what metric can we determine if the Confederate Army is the best?

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Has we all know me and my best friend CSA today go back and forth on how effective the Confederate States Army ( although in a different context CSA can mean Confederate States of America) is. CSA Today claims they are supermen for holding out for four years against an army that outnumbered it two to one or per McPhearson's estimate in "Battle Cry of freedom two and 1/2 to one.
How does one come up with an objective metric that the CSA was really the best army their ever was? best compared to what? Did the all the soldiers of the CSA stay loyal to it/ Did the CSA achieve a remarkable feat by not surrendering after four years or they did about has well has any other military of that time in a more or less similar situation?
Years ago I read a book about the Israeli Army that did give metrics on how one Israeli soldier was worth x amount of Arab soldiers. I forgot the methodology how the author did so .How can we do so for CW era soldiers I have no idea.
Thanks
Leftyhunter
 
To ask whether one army was better than another is too broad of a question. Also, it depends on whether you're speaking of the Confederate States Army as a whole or actual field armies such as the ANV or AoT. One could argue that the Federal Army of the Tennessee or Army of the Cumberland had better army commanders or corps commanders than the CS AoT, but its just too broad of a question to say one whole army was better or worse. Each army is made up of thousands of individuals, some good at their job, some bad at their job and others in between.


I'd say the army and corps commanders of the ANV were better than those of the AoT, but the brigade commanders and the troops were about equal. But of course that's even very generalized; each army had its better and worse commanders. One must also take in to account the armies they faced and who commanded those armies, the ground they had to fight over, and what they had to fight the war with in terms of equipment and supplies.
I think your right. My good buddy CSA Today claims that the CSA was composed of supermen since they delayed the Union victory for so long. he is entitled to his opinions. I am looking for something close to a scientific answer. I agree their are a whole lot of variables to consider. Their is a modern military organization that one can argue is man for man better then its opponents but I am not sure if the Mods would want me to discuss them.
Leftyhunter
 
Vote Here:
The real question is which army was better, the Federal Army of the Tennessee or the Confederate army of Northern Virginia?

An interesting hypothetical. They'd never have met on each other's "home turf"...

I think that's the right comparison ( I'd go even more specific with both armies circa April 1863). Location might be an issue, but to be fair, the Army of the Tennessee never really fought on 'home turf' as they operated almost exclusively in enemy territory, so maybe home field advantage doesn't matter for the Army of the Tennessee.
 
Vote Here:
I think your right. My good buddy CSA Today claims that the CSA was composed of supermen since they delayed the Union victory for so long. he is entitled to his opinions. I am looking for something close to a scientific answer. I agree their are a whole lot of variables to consider. Their is a modern military organization that one can argue is man for man better then its opponents but I am not sure if the Mods would want me to discuss them.
Leftyhunter
I definitely think the ANV or AoT gave it their all and fought a hard fight, but they weren't any more 'super' than the Northern armies and men they faced. Sure, they delayed the Union victory for so long, but look at some of the arguably poor Union commanders they faced in the East, the high casualty percentage the ANV suffered in a number of battles, or the high desertion rate.

One could compare armies, divisions, brigades, regiments, etc., in terms of quality of command, drill, experience, whatever, but there are definitely a lot of variables to consider before it can be said one was "the best." I think the most realistic answer you'll get is one that is not so generalized.
 
Vote Here:
To somehow compare the CSA Army as the greatest of all time identifies an absolute ignorance of military history outside of North America. How doe Lee and the ANV compare against Scipio, Caesar, Vespasian, Titus of Rome or a Subadai, Ghenghis, Jebe of the Mongol Empire... they don't hold a candle to them. In every single case I have mentioned those generals were not only outnumbered but grossly outnumbered by their foe, working in enemy territory and doing so for long periods of time. So compared to the ancients Lee and the ANV look like a batch of amatuers and they were, how does one compare amatuers to professionals? By their victories and the odds stacked against them... once again Lee and his ANV come up short.

The ANV was never much more than 100 miles from it's base of operations... the armies of antiquity were normally hundreds & in some cases thousands of miles away and under most circumstances dealing w/ far harsher climates and enemies who weren't real interested in taking prisoners.

To look at discipline and desertions... by 1864 desertion was a serious problem for Lee and the entire CS military. Compare that to the Mongol Army of the 1240's... desertion yeah, no.

Looking to numbers in comparisson to accomplishments... Lee & the ANV held off the US Army for 3 years; he did so with some supply issues and while being outnumbered 1.5-2 to 1. Subadai won every engagement he fought for 60 years and on almost no occasions did he ever actually outnumber his foe... and his Tumans ranged from the Korean Penninsula to the Danube. What is to compare there, really?

To put things in a perspective of the 19th century how about Lee vs a more "modern" general & army; say Wellington, Napolean... There is no need to look very hard there either. Napolean fought battles from Spain to Moscow, in some cases he was outnumbered and in some he wasn't. His win-loss record was nothing to sneeze at. Then there is Wellington... he fought from India to the channel. Sorry but when comparing Lee to Napolean or Wellington there is no comparison.

Ok how about those that came after in the 20th? Even if you take the technology out of it the US Army pushed through fortress Europe from Normandy to Berlin in less than a year against what many claim to have been the best Army & General staff in the 20th century.

So what does that make Lee & his ANV? An army that did rather well on their home turf but when it came time to fight in enemy territory... not so much. To see a more wide ranging Army of the ACW both of the AoT's need to be looked at. The US AoT had units that marched from St Paul to Fargo then to DC via Mississippi, Georgia, SC, NC, Virginia... the AoT CS had a losing record almost from the start being plagued w/ the likes of Bragg and Hood but they kept showing up to put on a good show regardless of the odds and regardless of knowing they were viewed as the red headed step child by the politicos & staybehinders who claimed their service as their own.

But to be honest NO American, or European army for that matter, holds a candle to the professional winners of antiquity. The Roman army was typically more disciplined, better trained and better led than any American or European Army of the 19th Century ( & I include those of Napolean & Wellington in that analysis) as they counquered and maintained an Empire that would set the bar. Since the time of Rome few armies have been able to compare to the Roman Legions and IMO only one has wholly surpassed them. The Mongol armies that would ravage the world from the Pacific to the Baltic & the arctic circle to the Indian ocean.

But to understand that one has to understand there is more to the world than Europe, America and the chair they're sitting in.
 
Vote Here:
Americans tend to be entirely too focused on our own history, very badly educated in it [to say nothing of world history], and very poorly traveled. This is probably a function of being largely protected behind our two oceans until the 20th Century.

The contemporary European observers of the American Civil War considered it a conflict between two ill-trained, uniformed, incompetent mobs from which there was almost nothing to be learned.

Two of the great European military thinkers of the 20th Century -- B. H. Liddell Hart and J. F. C. Fuller [they are credited with largely developing the theory of armored warfare] -- favored Scipio Africanus and Sherman [Hart]; and Grant,. Alexander the Great, and Julius Caeser [Fuller]. Fuller regarded Lee as being a good tactial commander but an extremely poor strategic commander, an evaluation which is entirely correct.

The primary foreign competitor to the American Generals of the Civil War was Helmuth Graf von Moltke [the elder], chief of the Prussian General Staff. He crushed the Danes in 1864; the Austro-Hungarian Empire in seven weeks in 1866; and the French in 1870, despite being out-numbered by the Austrians and the French. At the time the Austro-Hungarians and the French were two of the world's four great powers, along with the British and the Russians. Von Moltke made the Germans the fifth great world power. At the time, the French leader Napoleon III was generally regarded -- particularly by the Americans -- as a military genius. There is a reason why the U.S. Army patterned itself on the Prussian Army after 1870, to include putting spikes on the top of its dress helmets.

Regards,
Don Dixon
 
Vote Here:
Another thing that has to be remembered is that in Civil (Domestic) Wars the nations military strength is weakened because it is divided between the two factions (however, unequally).

What do we think of the Armies of 1861-1865 against those of other purely domestic civil war armies? Not many 19th Century comparisions unless my memory is fading.
 
Vote Here:
To somehow compare the CSA Army as the greatest of all time identifies an absolute ignorance of military history outside of North America. How doe Lee and the ANV compare against Scipio, Caesar, Vespasian, Titus of Rome or a Subadai, Ghenghis, Jebe of the Mongol Empire... they don't hold a candle to them. In every single case I have mentioned those generals were not only outnumbered but grossly outnumbered by their foe, working in enemy territory and doing so for long periods of time. So compared to the ancients Lee and the ANV look like a batch of amatuers and they were, how does one compare amatuers to professionals? By their victories and the odds stacked against them... once again Lee and his ANV come up short.

The ANV was never much more than 100 miles from it's base of operations... the armies of antiquity were normally hundreds & in some cases thousands of miles away and under most circumstances dealing w/ far harsher climates and enemies who weren't real interested in taking prisoners.

To look at discipline and desertions... by 1864 desertion was a serious problem for Lee and the entire CS military. Compare that to the Mongol Army of the 1240's... desertion yeah, no.

Looking to numbers in comparisson to accomplishments... Lee & the ANV held off the US Army for 3 years; he did so with some supply issues and while being outnumbered 1.5-2 to 1. Subadai won every engagement he fought for 60 years and on almost no occasions did he ever actually outnumber his foe... and his Tumans ranged from the Korean Penninsula to the Danube. What is to compare there, really?

To put things in a perspective of the 19th century how about Lee vs a more "modern" general & army; say Wellington, Napolean... There is no need to look very hard there either. Napolean fought battles from Spain to Moscow, in some cases he was outnumbered and in some he wasn't. His win-loss record was nothing to sneeze at. Then there is Wellington... he fought from India to the channel. Sorry but when comparing Lee to Napolean or Wellington there is no comparison.

Ok how about those that came after in the 20th? Even if you take the technology out of it the US Army pushed through fortress Europe from Normandy to Berlin in less than a year against what many claim to have been the best Army & General staff in the 20th century.

So what does that make Lee & his ANV? An army that did rather well on their home turf but when it came time to fight in enemy territory... not so much. To see a more wide ranging Army of the ACW both of the AoT's need to be looked at. The US AoT had units that marched from St Paul to Fargo then to DC via Mississippi, Georgia, SC, NC, Virginia... the AoT CS had a losing record almost from the start being plagued w/ the likes of Bragg and Hood but they kept showing up to put on a good show regardless of the odds and regardless of knowing they were viewed as the red headed step child by the politicos & staybehinders who claimed their service as their own.

But to be honest NO American, or European army for that matter, holds a candle to the professional winners of antiquity. The Roman army was typically more disciplined, better trained and better led than any American or European Army of the 19th Century ( & I include those of Napolean & Wellington in that analysis) as they counquered and maintained an Empire that would set the bar. Since the time of Rome few armies have been able to compare to the Roman Legions and IMO only one has wholly surpassed them. The Mongol armies that would ravage the world from the Pacific to the Baltic & the arctic circle to the Indian ocean.

But to understand that one has to understand there is more to the world than Europe, America and the chair they're sitting in.
Hi JS,
Has I stated in my thread intro my favorite poster and yours (maybe?) CSA Today claims the CSA was composed of supermen due to their wonderful accomplishments. I just wanted to see is their a metric that could scientifically determine how much better the CSA is compared to the Union Army or any other contemporary army of that period. I did tell our friend to join in but so far its a case of you can lead a horse to water deal.
Leftyhunter
 
Vote Here:
Hi JS,
Has I stated in my thread intro my favorite poster and yours (maybe?) CSA Today claims the CSA was composed of supermen due to their wonderful accomplishments. I just wanted to see is their a metric that could scientifically determine how much better the CSA is compared to the Union Army or any other contemporary army of that period. I did tell our friend to join in but so far its a case of you can lead a horse to water deal.
Leftyhunter
I will never pass up the opportunity to offer him a vinager and water. It is a drink designed for men like him.
 
Vote Here:
Off-topic, sorry...What about the British pilots vs. Germany in WWII? Inferior planes, superior resolve.

Interesting thought but what aircraft were inferior? In the Battle of Britain once again Hitler made a bad tactical decision and instead of continuing to destroy the Airfields of the RAF he started bombing London
 
Vote Here:
Interesting thought but what aircraft were inferior? In the Battle of Britain once again Hitler made a bad tactical decision and instead of continuing to destroy the Airfields of the RAF he started bombing London

Small Arms: Kar 98 vs M1 Garand... M1 Garand hands down. MP-40 vs Thompson or M3... I'll take the M3. MG-42 vs M1919 or BAR... ok I admit it the MG-42 is sexy w/ that insane cyclic rate. STG44 vs... well there wasn't really anything to compare it to but once again they didn't have enough to make a difference. Luger vs M1911... snicker, are we serious?

Arty... US wins hands down on all occasions. US Arty turned the tides of battles and saved lives. It was accurate, if not more so than any gun the Germans possesed. What about the infamous 88... nice flat trajectory AAA gun converted into a ground role but I'll take that battery of 105's or Long Toms over a battery of 88's.

Tiger n Panther vs the world... nice but it isn't hard to remember those excellent Panthers being swept aside by hordes of cheaply manufactured T-34's. The Germans had a lot of excellent tanks... supported by horse drawn carts because they didn't have the fuel for trucks to get the fuel where it was needed.

Aircraft: Spitfire vs ME-109... Spitfire. P-47 vs ME-109... P47. P-51 vs anything the Germans could field... P-51. etc. People go all agog about the ME-262, there just weren't enough to make a difference and when they had them they didn't have the fuel to put them in the air.

Hitler picked a fight w/ western Europe and pretty much won, then he opted to pick a fight with BOTH the Soviet Union & the US. The thousand year reich lasted another 3 years.

History is not written & wars are not won by the "what if" but by the what was.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top