Lee's small staff - was it a problem?

[FZ11]

Try harder.

Dun explained it to you. I must ask what Lee's "advisor", riding along with Ewell, would have said when Ewell is Mauling the Federals, on Day 1. "General Lee's orders are not to bring on a general engagement." lol. Or maybe this on Day 2 "General Lee's orders are to attack up the Emmittsburg road." lol No, Ewell is the on-site commander, and Ewell knows better than Lee on Day 1. You continue to push your original bad idea. Couriers are what they used for the latest input from the Off-Site commander (Lee) in your example.

 

[Belfoured]

Dun explained it to you. I must ask what Lee's "advisor", riding along with Ewell, would have said when Ewell is Mauling the Federals, on Day 1. "General Lee's orders are not to bring on a general engagement." lol. Or maybe this on Day 2 "General Lee's orders are to attack up the Emmittsburg road." lol No, Ewell is the on-site commander, and Ewell knows better than Lee on Day 1. You continue to push your original bad idea. Couriers are what they used for the latest input from the Off-Site commander (Lee) in your example.

And around and around and around we go. "Ewell knows better than Lee on Day 1" only because Lee didn't ride over to Ewell and he could only send a courier instead of somebody who he could trust who knew his intent, assess the situation and advise Ewell in his stead.

"Dun" explained nothing - whoever "Dun" is ...

 

[FZ11]

I'm not pretending to answer all the questions in the OP but as a general rule I think Lee's staff was too small.

Everybody was on a learning curve with the novelty of much larger armies when the Civil War began. The tradition was extremely small staffs for much smaller armies. But as the War went on and experience showed the need for more and specialized staff, some army CO's - such as Grant - adapted. That's one area where Lee never really did. So his staff remained small and less specialized. Sending couriers back and forth wouldn't solve all that. Imagine, just for example, delegating a competent staff officer with authority to Ewell on July 1. I've made clear that I think Ewell objectively made the correct military decision but having a competent officer with authority present could have addressed the discretionary part of Lee's orders based on personal assessment of the situation.

I disagreed that Ewell is benefited by having a "Lee Whisperer" riding along with Ewell. The "Lee Whisperer" has no more current information than Ewell, and Ewell is in command. Lee's orders/instructions are based on "old" information: Ewell has current information and is in command in real time. A "Lee Whisperer", with Ewell, is superfluous. I gave examples of Lee's thoughts/instructions that are outdated/rendered incorrect by real time facts in front of Lee. The Courier system is the only means Lee has to update his original orders/instructions with later, but still, not real time information, because Less is not at the front. My observation is valid, net of your comments.

 

[Belfoured]

I disagreed that Ewell is benefited by having a "Lee Whisperer" riding along with Ewell. The "Lee Whisperer" has no more current information than Ewell, and Ewell is in command. Lee's orders/instructions are based on "old" information: Ewell has current information and is in command in real time. A "Lee Whisperer", with Ewell, is superfluous. I gave examples of Lee's thoughts/instructions that are outdated/rendered incorrect by real time facts in front of Lee. The Courier system is the only means Lee has to update his original orders/instructions with later, but still, not real time information, because Less is not at the front. My observation is valid, net of your comments.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Ewell has no authority to disobey or change Lee's orders - but Lee does, in person or through an officer he has authorized who can meet with Ewell, learn the current circumstances, and advise Ewell as to how the orders apply, and even if necessary change them. A courier is nothing more than a delivery service.

My observation is valid, net of your comments - whatever that means.

 

[FZ11]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Ewell has no authority to disobey or change Lee's orders - but Lee does, in person or through an officer he has authorized who can meet with Ewell, learn the current circumstances, and advise Ewell as to how the orders apply, and even if necessary change them. A courier is nothing more than a delivery service.

My observation is valid, net of your comments - whatever that means.

What! "If practicable" pretty much covers Ewell's authority to do what Ewell thinks best in the circumstance. As to your comment re: "updating and advising Ewell" those are the functions of Couriers! Case Closed.

 

[Belfoured]

What! "If practicable" pretty much covers Ewell's authority to do what Ewell thinks best in the circumstance. As to your comment re: "updating and advising Ewell" those are the functions of Couriers! Case Closed.

You think the job of a courier is to "advise" Ewell??? All righty then. I'll have what you're having ...

 

[CowCavalry]

I'm not pretending to answer all the questions in the OP but as a general rule I think Lee's staff was too small.

Everybody was on a learning curve with the novelty of much larger armies when the Civil War began. The tradition was extremely small staffs for much smaller armies. But as the War went on and experience showed the need for more and specialized staff, some army CO's - such as Grant - adapted. That's one area where Lee never really did. So his staff remained small and less specialized. Sending couriers back and forth wouldn't solve all that. Imagine, just for example, delegating a competent staff officer with authority to Ewell on July 1. I've made clear that I think Ewell objectively made the correct military decision but having a competent officer with authority present could have addressed the discretionary part of Lee's orders based on personal assessment of the situation.

EP Alexander certainly agreed that Lee's staff was too small.

 

[johncla]

Sorry to keep beating the drum, but maybe we can add to the list of oversights -- failing to guard the pontoon bridge at Falling Waters. Apparently there were troops in the area, but no one with significant authority had responsibility to secure the bridge with an appropriate force.

It just seems to me there were so many details to keep track of. No doubt Lee was exhausted and not at his best. He needed more administrative horsepower.

How important was it that the bridge at Falling Water was destroyed? I'm not sure. The outcome probably did not change, but for example they lost Gen. Pettigrew, a really good brigade commander, in the fighting at the bridgehead. Which fighting would not have occurred if...

 

[121st PA Vols]

Difficult answering that staff was too small, but not that Lee would have been better served had it been larger. Better communication (staff?) would have at least allowed for better coordination where we know it was lacking while not assuring as much.

It is a HUGE battlefield; 17,000 acres and 25 square miles (counts First Day). The length of Lee's line was at least 6 miles with the risks of being a courier on unfamiliar ground obvious. I don't mean to suggest "the more the merrier" but a few more couldn't hurt.
I always thought it sheer good luck Capt. Johnston and Maj. Clarke were not captured on their recon of Little Round Top.