Deciding victory or defeat.

[major bill]

Historians seem to decide who won and who lost a battles. So what is the proper criteria for deciding who won and who lost? In some battles the winner is obvious, in some battles, not so obvious.

How important is it which side suffered the most casualties? A general could suffer the most caustics but still dive the enemy from the filed. A general could suffer fewer casualties but not accomplish any of the goals they were attempting to achieve.

How important are the goals of each side. What if one side accomplished most or all of its goals, but suffers huge losses?

How important is it to hold the battlefield at the end of the battle? Did Hood win at the Battle of Franklin because he held the battlefield after the Union retreated?

I have read some historian's accounts of battles and not been sure why they think one side won and one side lost. Sometimes it seems to come down to other historians for 100 years claiming one side won a battle, so the next historian simply agrees. I think is some cases both side won, while in other cases, both sides lost.

 

[Tailor Pete]

Great question @major bill, I've often wondered the same thing.

After all, who decided the winner of Antietam? Face it, the Union HAD the Confederate battle plan at their disposal, and failed to trounce Lee. THAT was their only objective. The ANV had embarked on their strategy in hopes of achieving three goals... 1) Mask Jackson's Corps so that he could successfully take Harpers Ferry and strip it of much needed military supplies... <CHECK> 2) Force the Federal Army out of the Shenandoah Valley in time for fall harvest... <CHECK> 3) Gain the support of Maryland through either an influx of new volunteers, OR her outright secession. <Sorry, but a mere handful of new recruits does hardly an army make.>

Scorecard: Federal Army, 0 for 1... Confederate Army 2 for 3. ADDED BONUS: The CSA, thanks to the tenacity of General Issac Trimble, also managed to obtain a wealth of railroad equipment from his former employer (the B&O Railroad) including the Harpers Ferry turntable, all of which was carted OVERLAND to the nearest Confederate railhead at Winchester, VA

Folks, who really met their objectives here?

I also counter that Grant and the Union Army, despite their horrific losses, were the true winners of Cold Harbor. How, you might say? Well, in the aftermath of the June 3rd assault which resulted in a grand Union bloodletting, Grant decided to cut-off press access to the telegraph lines back to Washington City. Reluctant to leave an active battlefield (Grant and Lee would face each other in trench warfare for nine more days) most of the press corps remained, only filing their stories after Grant once again moved to the left of Lee's lines and on toward Richmond.

Grant deadened the media criticism of his tactics, and proved that the military censorship of the press was not only possible, but sometimes a requirement if the Army was to move on to victory under stable leadership. Had Grant not performed this seemingly unconstitutional act, it is quite possible the Union Army would have been looking for direction from yet another untested commander, a situation Lee would have certainly taken full advantage of.

Just my two cents.

 

[Saint Jude]

It seems that a common thread in almost all historians' battle accounts is to consider the side holding the contested ground the winner. However, they temper that conclusion by distinguishing between tactical and strategical victories, the number of casualties on each side, and other such considerations.

 

[Carronade]

As Pete said, the key question is the mission or goal of the two sides. What were they trying to accomplish and did they or did they not accomplish it?

In some cases, one side's goal may be no more than preventing the other side from achieving its goal.

People often use casualties as a criterion, but can we cite any examples where one side accomplished its mission but is considered to have lost due to the casualties suffered? Even the last word in "Pyrrhic victory" is still "victory".

 

[Bruce Vail]

Great question @major bill, I've often wondered the same thing.

After all, who decided the winner of Antietam? Face it, the Union HAD the Confederate battle plan at their disposal, and failed to trounce Lee. THAT was their only objective. The ANV had embarked on their strategy in hopes of achieving three goals... 1) Mask Jackson's Corps so that he could successfully take Harpers Ferry and strip it of much needed military supplies... <CHECK> 2) Force the Federal Army out of the Shenandoah Valley in time for fall harvest... <CHECK> 3) Gain the support of Maryland through either an influx of new volunteers, OR her outright secession. <Sorry, but a mere handful of new recruits does hardly an army make.>

Scorecard: Federal Army, 0 for 1... Confederate Army 2 for 3. ADDED BONUS: The CSA, thanks to the tenacity of General Issac Trimble, also managed to obtain a wealth of railroad equipment from his former employer (the B&O Railroad) including the Harpers Ferry turntable, all of which was carted OVERLAND to the nearest Confederate railhead at Winchester, VA

Folks, who really met their objectives here?

I also counter that Grant and the Union Army, despite their horrific losses, were the true winners of Cold Harbor. How, you might say? Well, in the aftermath of the June 3rd assault which resulted in a grand Union bloodletting, Grant decided to cut-off press access to the telegraph lines back to Washington City. Reluctant to leave an active battlefield (Grant and Lee would face each other in trench warfare for nine more days) most of the press corps remained, only filing their stories after Grant once again moved to the left of Lee's lines and on toward Richmond.

Grant deadened the media criticism of his tactics, and proved that the military censorship of the press was not only possible, but sometimes a requirement if the Army was to move on to victory under stable leadership. Had Grant not performed this seemingly unconstitutional act, it is quite possible the Union Army would have been looking for direction from yet another untested commander, a situation Lee would have certainly taken full advantage of.

Just my two cents.

On Antietam, your points are well taken, but your perspective is skewed. The goal of Gen. McClellan was to drive the Rebs out of Maryland and to damage the ANV as much as possible in the process. He did well in this regard.

 

[USS ALASKA]

In some cases, one side's goal may be no more than preventing the other side from achieving its goal.

Ma'ams / Sirs - This often happens in Naval battles...

The Battle of Jutland - the Imperial German Navy's High Seas Fleet fought the Royal Navy Grand Fleet. German strategic objective was to break the British Blockade. RN goal - stop them. The German Navy sank more ships and killed more men but at the end of the day, the British Blockade still stood. I think a New York newspaper had a headline about the prisoners assaulting their jailer but still ended up back in their cells...

RN / SMS
6,094 killed / 2,551 killed
674 wounded / 507 wounded
177 captured / 1 battlecruiser sunk
3 battlecruisers sunk / 1 pre-dreadnought sunk
3 armoured cruisers sunk / 4 light cruisers sunk
8 destroyers sunk / 5 torpedo-boat sunk
(113,300 tons sunk) / (62,300 tons sunk)

The Battle of the Coral Sea - the Imperial Japanese Navy fought the USN. Japanese strategic objective was to invade and occupy Port Moresby. USN goal - stop them. Japanese sank and damaged a greater tonnage of ships but failed to take their objective. Also, damage to 1 fleet carrier and loss of aircrews caused 2 fleet carriers from participating in the Battle of Midway were they might have turned the tide. The USN repaired her fleet carrier and Yorktown was able to make the Battle of Midway.

USN / IJN
1 fleet carrier scuttled / 1 light carrier sunk
1 destroyer sunk / 1 destroyer sunk
1 oiler sunk / 3 small warships sunk
1 fleet carrier damaged / 1 fleet carrier damaged
69 aircraft destroyed / 1 destroyer damaged
656 killed / 1 smaller warship damaged
XXXXX / 1 transport damaged
XXXXX / 92 aircraft destroyed
XXXXX / 966 killed

The Battle of Savo Island - the Imperial Japanese Navy fought the USN. Japanese strategic objective was to repulse American invasion of Guadalcanal and sink the unloading transports. USN goal - stop them. Japanese inflicted one of the worse defeats upon the USN it has ever suffered but failed to complete their objective.

USN / IJN
3 heavy cruisers sunk / 3 cruisers lightly damaged
1 heavy cruiser heavily damaged (later scuttled) / XXXX
2 destroyers damaged / XXXX
1,077 killed / 129 killed

All 3 were tactical victories but operational and strategic defeats.
64

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[1950lemans]

On Antietam, your points are well taken, but your perspective is skewed. The goal of Gen. McClellan was to drive the Rebs out of Maryland and to damage the ANV as much as possible in the process. He did well in this regard.

The OP is very broad but immediately it narrowed down to Antietam. So lets use this as an example of what historians think. Right off there seems to be differences in objectives and objectives obtained. Whose right or more right?
Those who are Antietam experts have undoubtedly read many battle histories. What's the consensus of the historians? What criteria did they use to determine a Federal "victory"?

 

[retexan599]

It seems to me that an awful lot of ACW battles were draws. Nobody really 'won', nobody really 'lost'. Just a lot of people killed and maimed.

 

[Tailor Pete]

On Antietam, your points are well taken, but your perspective is skewed. The goal of Gen. McClellan was to drive the Rebs out of Maryland and to damage the ANV as much as possible in the process. He did well in this regard.

If Little Mac had any degree of success, Lee wouldn't have been able to sustain his military campaign for another 20 months...

 

[LSBusch]

A big part of the book I'm trying to finish is about the battle at Pleasant Hill, Lousiana. The rebels fled at the end of the day, but General Banks ordered his own troops to retreat in the middle of the night, leaving the Union dead and wounded on the battlefield. In my research, I've found northern sources that say the North won and southern ones that say the south won. Needless to say, all the reports and letters written by Union soldiers and officers at the time expressed fury at Banks.

 

[19thGeorgia]

How important are the goals of each side. What if one side accomplished most or all of its goals, but suffers huge losses?

How important is it to hold the battlefield at the end of the battle? Did Hood win at the Battle of Franklin because he held the battlefield after the Union retreated?

It seems that a common thread in almost all historians' battle accounts is to consider the side holding the contested ground the winner. However, they temper that conclusion by distinguishing between tactical and strategical victories, the number of casualties on each side, and other such considerations.

Hood suffered the most casualties at Franklin but his strategic goal was Nashville. He was there the next day.

 

[major bill]

I am not sure most authors believe Hood won a victory at Franklin.

 

[Lampasas Bill]

At Franklin, Hood's objective was to crush Schofield's force and prevent it from joining Thomas's army in Nashville, which he failed to do. Schofield's objective was to avoid those conditions, which he accomplished, in addition to crippling Hood's army. A clear Union victory.

 

[leftyhunter]

It seems to me that an awful lot of ACW battles were draws. Nobody really 'won', nobody really 'lost'. Just a lot of people killed and maimed.

Maybe not. The Confederacy can not replace its losses . The Confederacy can not attract overseas immigrants willing to fight for the stars and bars. The Confederacy can not utilize black troops although they tried way to little and way to late to do so. The Confederacy unlike the Union can not recruit any sizable amount of Union defectors.
So no there are no draws since the Confederacy can not replace their losses. The Confederacy in no year of the war could avoid losing territory and rarely recover territory.
In conventional warfare the side that can best replace their losses most likely will win.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

The OP is very broad but immediately it narrowed down to Antietam. So lets use this as an example of what historians think. Right off there seems to be differences in objectives and objectives obtained. Whose right or more right?
Those who are Antietam experts have undoubtedly read many battle histories. What's the consensus of the historians? What criteria did they use to determine a Federal "victory"?

It seems clear that Antietam was a Union victory. If the Confederacy can not win on the offensive it can't win the war. Maryland is the staging point for the Union to attack Virginia. A smaller defensive army can not afford to continuously give a larger army multiple chances to conduct offensive operations.
By driving the Confederate Army out of Maryland; McCellen gave Lincoln the political cover to enact the Emancipation Proclamation. The EP exposed the great weakness of the Confederacy that could never be rectified.
Leftyhunter

 

[major bill]

Should we consider the political consequences caused by a battle as part of the evaluation of who won the battle?

When the officers of the current US Army plans a mission, they use the mnemonic "METT-TC" to analogize and plan for the successful outcome of the mission. The "C" in "METT-TC" standing for Civilian Considerations. An officer at any level is expected to include all the "METT-TC" concerns.

I understand that Civil War officers may have not used the mnemonic "METT-TC", nor studied it in depth, but still they needed to consider all aspects "METT-TC" when planning a mission. There are Civilian Considerations associated to every mission, be it a small mission or a major battle.

 

[1950lemans]

It seems clear that Antietam was a Union victory. If the Confederacy can not win on the offensive it can't win the war. Maryland is the staging point for the Union to attack Virginia. A smaller defensive army can not afford to continuously give a larger army multiple chances to conduct offensive operations.
By driving the Confederate Army out of Maryland; McCellen gave Lincoln the political cover to enact the Emancipation Proclamation. The EP exposed the great weakness of the Confederacy that could never be rectified.
Leftyhunter

So why is this battle, as an example, perpetually debated. A victory is a victory is a victory. Let it rest then.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

It seems to me that an awful lot of ACW battles were draws. Nobody really 'won', nobody really 'lost'. Just a lot of people killed and maimed.

I have to disagree with that, retexan. Skirmishes were many times a 'draw,' but battles were either won or lost, with whichever criteria one chooses. I think we should try to put ourselves in the shoes of the participants (not the historians, who all too often have their own bias), and if a battle was a "victory" for them, then it was a victory. I'm not criticizing, but over-simplifying to the point of saying that 'a lot of people killed,' is obvious in any war. As said, "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."--hope I got that right.

 

[leftyhunter]

So why is this battle, as an example, perpetually debated. A victory is a victory is a victory. Let it rest then.

Where's the fun in that?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Should we consider the political consequences caused by a battle as part of the evaluation of who won the battle?

When the officers of the current US Army plans a mission, they use the mnemonic "METT-TC" to analogize and plan for the successful outcome of the mission. The "C" in "METT-TC" standing for Civilian Considerations. An officer at any level is expected to include all the "METT-TC" concerns.

I understand that Civil War officers may have not used the mnemonic "METT-TC", nor studied it in depth, but still they needed to consider all aspects "METT-TC" when planning a mission. There are Civilian Considerations associated to every mission, be it a small mission or a major battle.

Based on that metric then Antietam is a clear Union victory. Antietam gave Lincoln the political cover to enact the Emancipation Proclamation. The Confederacy had no counter to the EP and it virtually assured no political recognition for the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter