Leadership

It is a well known fact that on the average pound for pound the Confederate soldier was better then his Yankee counterpart...

I'd say that the boys from the Iron Brigade might take issue with you.

...Or the boys from the Irish Brigade

...Or the boys from the 20th Maine

…Or the 1st Minnesota

...or the 12th Iowa, or the 14th Iowa, and on and on.

Pound for pound, I seriously doubt there's an ounce of difference between any of them.
 
You are are all ....

in the affections of your (adopted/adopting) General. :)

:sabre:
[Salutes the CWT Corps - Wolf's Division]

M. E. Wolf
 
I'd say that the boys from the Iron Brigade might take issue with you.

...Or the boys from the Irish Brigade

...Or the boys from the 20th Maine

…Or the 1st Minnesota

...or the 12th Iowa, or the 14th Iowa, and on and on.

Pound for pound, I seriously doubt there's an ounce of difference between any of them.

It might also be ripe to point out the fact many Confederate units also behaved poorly. And in defense of both groups, many of those events of poor showing came from generals who failed to properly prepare their defenses and allowed themselves to be surprised. Such as at Shiloh.

But just for one example of bad Confederate troops, I point to the mass desertions suffered by Hindman's army after its battle with Blunt at Cane Hill. the battle itself resulted in almost equal casualty rates of about 10% of the total force. But the march back across Arkansas resulted in a desertion rate of another 50%. They don't seem all that committed to the cause.
 
It might also be ripe to point out the fact many Confederate units also behaved poorly. And in defense of both groups, many of those events of poor showing came from generals who failed to properly prepare their defenses and allowed themselves to be surprised. Such as at Shiloh.

But just for one example of bad Confederate troops, I point to the mass desertions suffered by Hindman's army after its battle with Blunt at Cane Hill. the battle itself resulted in almost equal casualty rates of about 10% of the total force. But the march back across Arkansas resulted in a desertion rate of another 50%. They don't seem all that committed to the cause.

In fairness to the Arkansas boys, the desertions you talk of after the Battle of Prairie Grove (though your numbers are high) came among men who had been conscripted at gunpoint... many of them Union-loyal "mountain feds." One entire regiment, albeit a small one, deserted during the battle and later enlisted in the Union Army almost to the man.
 
In fairness to the Arkansas boys, the desertions you talk of after the Battle of Prairie Grove (though your numbers are high) came among men who had been conscripted at gunpoint... many of them Union-loyal "mountain feds." One entire regiment, albeit a small one, deserted during the battle and later enlisted in the Union Army almost to the man.

My statistics are right out of Foote's account. total effective force 11,500. Casualties 1300. Desertions of about 6200 on the subsequent retreat leaving him with a force of 4,000. I believe that makes my numbers a bit low and not high. Although admittedly, I didn't try to verify from another source.

I'm sure you are right about many of them having been Union leaning in the first place. And yes, they were a quickly raised army of green troops.
 
Can we stick to the topic?

It's leadership, not the relative merits of miscellaneous privates.

Ole
 
My statistics are right out of Foote's account. total effective force 11,500. Casualties 1300. Desertions of about 6200 on the subsequent retreat leaving him with a force of 4,000. I believe that makes my numbers a bit low and not high. Although admittedly, I didn't try to verify from another source.

I'm sure you are right about many of them having been Union leaning in the first place. And yes, they were a quickly raised army of green troops.

Foote's account of the Prarie Grove campaign and its aftermath is filled with error, but as Ole suggests that's a subject for another place.
 
Can we stick to the topic?

It's leadership, not the relative merits of miscellaneous privates.

Ole

Aww gee willikers Ole, we was just responding to them other guys talk about 'pound for pound'. After all, didn't I blame it partly on bad leadership?

Wally and the Beaver :laugh1:
 
Aww gee willikers Ole, we was just responding to them other guys talk about 'pound for pound'. After all, didn't I blame it partly on bad leadership?

Wally and the Beaver :laugh1:

"Wally, Ole is much older and wiser than we are. He's always right."

Eddie Haskell:laugh1:
 
Now you've confused me. We're the Confederate soldiers the best soldiers "pound for pound" or a "rag tag militia?"

They started out as one, became the other. They also started as the other and became the one. Kinda depends on where, when and on whom you're focused.
 
Those nut cases in the Marine Corps that jump out of perfectly good airplanes are not called Paratroopers, they are Recon Marines, trained in scuba training as well. I would have to say that every fighting force in the world has is really really good units. A lot depends on it's leadership. I believe the Army of Tenessee given better leadership could of been historical. Look what those magnificant bastards did.

Pinckney
 
Look at the Union numbers in troops it took to defeat the Confederate rag tag militia.... the joke is more likely the Union Army. :p

101combatvet,

More personal opinion does not equate to proof.

The last guy standing is the guy that gets the bragging rights to any war, if that is what the poor bas***d is even thinking about.

Now, you mentioned something about Combat Studies. Do you, or do you not, have ANY evidence, real evidence that proves your claim that "pound for pound" the Confederate soldier was better than the Union soldier.

Either you do, or you don't. Which is it?

I am more inclined to go with Larry's view that most Union soldiers started out as militia, same attitudes and same mistakes any green troops would make.

But then I would be inclined to agree the southern Army of Tenneessee suffered far more defeats in the West at Union hands, so, are we saying "pound for pound" a Union soldier from Midwest was better than a Confederate soldier West of Virginia? Let's get real, shall we?

Bragging rights and scoring points is one thing, facts are another.

Produce them and if you're correct, I'll state so on this thread.

If you can't, say so.

Unionblue
 
Those nut cases in the Marine Corps that jump out of perfectly good airplanes are not called Paratroopers, they are Recon Marines, trained in scuba training as well. I would have to say that every fighting force in the world has is really really good units. A lot depends on it's leadership. I believe the Army of Tenessee given better leadership could of been historical. Look what those magnificant bastards did.

Pinckney

I'd have to say I agree with you. Just about every Army or Navy -- even the ones we think of as bad -- has some troops that can be admired.

Even the Italians of WWII have units (like the Alpini or the Bersaglieri) that were admired by their foes; the equally reviled Italian Navy had some small units of stunning bravery (such as the frogmen that rode into Alexandria harbor on 2-man torpedo chariots and sank the battleships HMS Valiant and Queen Elizabeth).

Tim
 
You like to waste bandwidth don't you. Go back and read the posts again. The information is out there.... I'm sure you can find it.

101combatvet,

More personal opinion does not equate to proof.

The last guy standing is the guy that gets the bragging rights to any war, if that is what the poor bas***d is even thinking about.

Now, you mentioned something about Combat Studies. Do you, or do you not, have ANY evidence, real evidence that proves your claim that "pound for pound" the Confederate soldier was better than the Union soldier.

Either you do, or you don't. Which is it?

I am more inclined to go with Larry's view that most Union soldiers started out as militia, same attitudes and same mistakes any green troops would make.

But then I would be inclined to agree the southern Army of Tenneessee suffered far more defeats in the West at Union hands, so, are we saying "pound for pound" a Union soldier from Midwest was better than a Confederate soldier West of Virginia? Let's get real, shall we?

Bragging rights and scoring points is one thing, facts are another.

Produce them and if you're correct, I'll state so on this thread.

If you can't, say so.

Unionblue
 
If you have information to prove that Southerners or Virginians or whoever consistently did better, please provide it. It is not supported by the historical works the rest of us are familiar with.
 
Locking the Thread

Dear List Members;

Having taken this way off topic about AMERICAN CIVIL WAR LEADERSHIP and has made it more like a modern military toe to toe gripe about who is better than whom;

The "Look" didn't give you a hint that this competition started, is not acceptable.

Need a board with nails on both sides at the chow table for some of you fellows.

Time to put you all on forced "Stand down."

M. E. Wolf
POSTED IN THE CAPACITY OF MODERATOR
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top