How is the winner determined?

[Elennsar]

I hate the idea of a draw.

[sorry - I edited my post after you responded to it].

No worries. I do that to my posts so often I can't fault someone else for it.

And well, sometimes the score is tied, and battles don't necessarily go into overtime to deal with that, as it were.

To respond to the Cross Keys part here: That was a case of trying to take the ground because Ewell was on it rather than because of any value of the ground independent of Ewell's occupation of it. I'd count that as a win for the Confederates.

 

[ole]

If one puts too fine a point on it, Hood won at Franklin and Lee won at Sharpsburg.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Is Force A trying to capture the location because Force B holds it, or for some other reason?

Great questions. So seems to me we need to have deeper understanding of objectives before we can judge.

I once had an extended debate about who won Iuka. Neither one of use changed our minds, so the debate was a draw.

I have also put forth the idea that Taylor won the battle of Irish Bend even though it is generally categorized as US victory.

I have at times considered the idea that Milroy/Schenck won the battle of McDowell.

 

[rob63]

How about this?

If one side clearly met its objective and the other side failed to do so, then we know who won.

If it is unclear whether either side met its objective more than the other side, then the side that was able to turn it into a strategic victory is the winner.

If it is unclear that either side met its objective and it is also unclear that either side won a strategic victory then the side that held the ground at the end of the fighting was the winner.

 

[chellers]

Can't say that I agree, somebody wanted to gain something, they either did or did not achieve it. IMHO counting casualties is never the way to determine success or failure.

I agree CW3O, but occasionally some folks are not willing to accept a draw or stalemate. In such cases, what is left but to quantify?

 

[CW3O]

Who won the 1st day at Gettysburg?

I would venture the opinion that the Union won Day 1. They set the objective of conducting a delaying action and establishing a favorable defensive position in the chosen terrain. It came at a very high cost, but got done.

 

[CW3O]

I agree CW3O, but occasionally some folks are not willing to accept a draw or stalemate. In such cases, what is left but to quantify?

Tactical draws or "inconclusive" results are accepted by NPS and several other sites. The folks that can't accept that outcome are more of the problem than setting some arbitrary criteria for victory or defeat.

 

[chellers]

The folks that can't accept that outcome are more of the problem than setting some arbitrary criteria for victory or defeat.

Agree.

 

[Drew]

Consider Antietam. My gut tells me that the Union won. Yet at the end of the fighting on the 17th Lee was still holding the ground and he waited a full day until withdrawing across the Potomac.

Contrast that with Cross Keyes. My gut tells me that the Confederates won -- at the end of the fighting Ewell held his position. But he withdrew the next morning, abandoning the ground quicker than Lee did at Antietam.

Great thread, Ned. But I knew this is where it was going. It's been said the Civil War was one of firsts. My gut tells me Antietam was the first battle ever "won" in a press office.

McClellan failed in his objective. The Confederates held the ground. They waited a day. Mac did not show up again and so they left. The Union press office in Washington declared victory. The newspapers regurgitated it enough to make it fact. Brilliant, and I mean that seriously. PR enters war for the first time....

 

[yankee blue]

My understanding is that who ever achieved there goal.

 

[rbasin]

I'd say that the "winner" of a battle depends on what the campaign was for. If, for example, Lee's Campaign in the summer of 1863 could be argued as a victory in that it gave Virginia a brief respite from fighting on its soil, then yes, it was a success, even if Gettysburg was a defeat. However, if you take into account that it didn't lessen Grant's hold on Vicksburg, then it wasn't much of a success. So I guess it comes down to how deep of a victory of a battle was. And as such, Was there a Confederate victory that actually settled anything? I don't think so.

On the other hand, I like Foote's discussion on Sherman that basically said in the Atlanta campaign that Sherman's strategy was working regardless of the battles, that is, Sherman kept moving towards Atlanta.

Sorry if I'm rambling, but I had way too much cola today, and am jumpy.

 

[Elennsar]

How about this?

If one side clearly met its objective and the other side failed to do so, then we know who won.

If it is unclear whether either side met its objective more than the other side, then the side that was able to turn it into a strategic victory is the winner.

If it is unclear that either side met its objective and it is also unclear that either side won a strategic victory then the side that held the ground at the end of the fighting was the winner.

This seems as good a generalization as we can get.

 

[major bill]

During the Napoleonic Wars when am army lost a battle, it was often destroyed as it attempted to retreat. So under nounal circumstances the side that held the field won the battle. This had changed by the Civil War and the retiring army usually made good its escape. But the view of who won because it held the field was still common in the Civil War despite the fact that the truth on the ground had changed.

In the Civil War battlefield victory was complicated. Deciding on if the battle help or hindered winning the campaign or the war was difficult to ascertain. Often both sides claimed they won the battle and the decision of who was the winner was based on short term success. An example would be Johnston believed Sherman was attempting to flank him and force him to fight an uneven battle and suffer large losses. Johnston slipped the noose and Sherman repeatedly failed to achieve his short term goals so Sherman lost one engagement after another. The problem with this is looking at it in short term and not the long term. Grant lost almost every battle during the Overland Campaign, but the Overland Campaign as a campaign was successful.

One must consider how a battle fit in to the over all campaign or even how it contributed to the war. Both sides could claim victory in the Gettysburg Campaign. For the Confederacy, Northern Virginia was spared battle for of much of 1863, any Union plans for 1863 were disrupted. The Union kept Washington D.C. and other Northern cities form being taken, The Union avoided any major defeat which might have had England or France intervene and the Army of Northern Virginia was damaged. I think we would have less of a problem deciding who won the Battle of Gettysburg, but even that was not clear in 1863.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Great thread, Ned. But I knew this is where it was going. ....

It wasnt my intent when I started it -- I had other battles in mind -- but in hindsight it seemed inevitable.

 

[JerseyBart]

I am of the opinion of whether advancing, attacking, assaulting, meeting or defending, if you flee, retreat or withdraw you lost. It may not be a big loss, but a loss.

 

[Elennsar]

I am of the opinion of whether advancing, attacking, assaulting, meeting or defending, if you flee, retreat or withdraw you lost.

Well, a question.

Say a given unit is fighting a rearguard action, with the intent of holding long enough for the rest of the army to strike a blow elsewhere.

If that unit holds long enough to do so and then withdraws, how is that a defeat on the part of the rearguard?

 

[JerseyBart]

Well, a question.

Say a given unit is fighting a rearguard action, with the intent of holding long enough for the rest of the army to strike a blow elsewhere.

If that unit holds long enough to do so and then withdraws, how is that a defeat on the part of the rearguard?

That sounds like it is part of an overall engagement. For example, I don't see the battle of Gettysburg as two wins and a loss for the union and vice versa for the confederate army. It was a battle win for the union.

Also losing battles with my opinion does not necessarily mean failure. Whatever anyone's opinion of the Overland Campaign individual battles win-loss records may be, it turned out to be a benefit and success for Grant.

 

[leftyhunter]

Can't say that I agree, somebody wanted to gain something, they either did or did not achieve it. IMHO counting casualties is never the way to determine success or failure.

Unless the goal of side A is to kill enough of the side B so that side B looses the political will to fight and thus looses by default. Obviously I can not give modern examples. In the CW it was thought by many in the CSA that the above would happen and in fact Lincoln himself thought so to the extent that he predicted in the summer of 1864 the American people would elect McClleen and then McClleen may indeed allow the wayward sisters to depart in peace. Of course Atlanta fell in September and soon after Mobile Bay so that gave a boost to Lincoln.
Leftyhunter

 

[Elennsar]

That sounds like it is part of an overall engagement. For example, I don't see the battle of Gettysburg as two wins and a loss for the union and vice versa for the confederate army. It was a battle win for the union.

Well, here's the scenario (Yes, I know its fictional. I picked it as an example of how the ground the defenders stood on was irrelevant to anyone's objectives.):

http://myth.bungie.org/legends/journal/images/1map/21_watcher.png

The Myth map has no scale, if it is even to scale, but the attack on the Watcher is not part of the same engagement as the rearguard's fight.

 

[leftyhunter]

Consider Antietam. My gut tells me that the Union won. Yet at the end of the fighting on the 17th Lee was still holding the ground and he waited a full day until withdrawing across the Potomac.

Contrast that with Cross Keyes. My gut tells me that the Confederates won -- at the end of the fighting Ewell held his position. But he withdrew the next morning, abandoning the ground quicker than Lee did at Antietam.

I would argue the CSA lost. Lee wanted to liberate Md and cause a pro Confederate uprising which did not happen. Lee lost a lot of men and Md was still a firm Union state .
Leftyhunter