Should Lee have entrenched?

[MHB1862]

Positions changed because they were over run, which is what entrenchment might have prevented. If Lee wasnt forced to shift units all of the battlefield because he was holding his ground he would have been thrilled.

If you look at the initial positions in the morning on the left, it just begs for entrechment. There was absolutely no value for the Rebs in repeatedly storming the cornfield, and the casualties in some of the best Confederate units were appalling. If Lees men could have stood in their trenches and cut Hooker down like Cold Harbor, Lee would have secured his left and had ample fresh units to consider a counter attack. A stand up fight served no purpose other than displaying their bravery, which was expensive in blood.

I take your point but given the rolling nature of the ground on the Confederate left and the just in time nature of troop arrival from The Harper's Ferry operation, where would field works have been erected and how would they have been manned if built? I've been walking the ground for 30 years and cannot for the life of me see what else Lee could have done. The fight was completely unlike any in the Overland Campaign including Cold Harbor. There was not the time, the manpower nor the favorable ground to achieve converging fields of fire on the expected line of the Union advance as was the case at Cold Harbor.

 

[MHB1862]

In the ORs, Sumner just mentions that the divisions were formed in 3 lines. He doesn't mention whose idea the formation was but my guess is that it was his own.

Ryan

Thanks. Saves me from digging out the OR. Makes sense that if he reports it it was his deployment order. From everything I know about Bull he was not a man to cast blame on others and what you found seems to confirms that.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Outside of using fences and walls for defense, most soldiers hadn't gotten to the point where digging in was a priority. Even at Gettysburg, outside of Culp's Hill, any defenses that the men put up were barricades made of fence rails. It wasn't until 1864 when real field entrenchments became the norm.

Ryan

This is the common narrative on this point, but it is one which I think is largely untrue. There is some truth to it in that throwing up works became something of second nature as the war went on, but fieldworks and breast works were commonly and frequently utilized over the course of the war.

 

[east_beast]

While a small amount of entrenching/field fortifications had been done by this time of the war, it was the troops who increasingly saw the value of them and by 1864 when they were in the vicinity of the enemy; they would start preparing field fortifications as soon as they stopped. It has always amazed me the amount of dirt that the soldiers of that time could move using nothing but bayonets, mess plates and bare hands.

I imagine the desire to thwart oncoming bullets would be quite a powerful motivator.

 

[rpkennedy]

This is the common narrative on this point, but it is one which I think is largely untrue. There is some truth to it in that throwing up works became something of second nature as the war went on, but fieldworks and breast works were commonly and frequently utilized over the course of the war.

That I agree with. Ad hoc breastworks were created on occasion, especially by 1863 (there was some use of breastworks at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg).

I suppose my argument is based on the definition of "entrenched". To my mind, that term is describing extensive defensive works, reminiscent of trenches and bomb shelters which begin to become more common late in the war as troops stayed in position longer and had more time to build those kinds of works. For me, piling a few logs, rocks, and dirt in front of one's position is not "entrenching".

Ryan

 

[RedRover]

Lots of cover at Antietam, even without taking to a shovel etc.

Some other notices:

....

At the West Woods;

.....

The Confederates evidently threw up breastworks of rails behind the ledges etc. in the West Woods:

At the Burnside Bridge;

 

[R. Porter]

It is my understanding that the Romans built fortifications every night while on the march during a campaign. I would think that this practice would have been mentioned during lessons at a military school like the USMA. Granted, warfare was a bit different back in the Roman Empire, but general principles should not have been all that different. Did they not know of the Roman practice of making fortifications around their camps back before the Civil War? Was there a, "that was then, this is now" mentality operating at the beginning of the Civil War? Was it a case that the armies were composed mostly of volunteers who "didn't join up to dig ditches and didn't intend to start now?"

Why did they ignore 400 or more years of erecting field fortifications at the end of a march, especially when in close proximity to the enemy? Should both sides have learned something from the battle of Shiloh? (Besides always have gunboats to cover your flanks?)

 

[RedRover]

It is my understanding that the Romans built fortifications every night while on the march during a campaign. I would think that this practice would have been mentioned during lessons at a military school like the USMA. Granted, warfare was a bit different back in the Roman Empire, but general principles should not have been all that different. Did they not know of the Roman practice of making fortifications around their camps back before the Civil War? Was there a, "that was then, this is now" mentality operating at the beginning of the Civil War? Was it a case that the armies were composed mostly of volunteers who "didn't join up to dig ditches and didn't intend to start now?"

Why did they ignore 400 or more years of erecting field fortifications at the end of a march, especially when in close proximity to the enemy? Should both sides have learned something from the battle of Shiloh? (Besides always have gunboats to cover your flanks?)

Field fortifications were constructed among the ancients, where natural cover was lacking in battle positions. Their intrenched camps, like the Romans, were generally employed when operating in the enemy's countryside. No particular change by the 1860s.


Mahan's treatise on field fortification, 1852:

The Roman troops marching on the frontiers fortified every night, particularly in the enemy's country. US Troops in the 1800s frequently did the same (battle of Tippecanoe, etc.), on the Indian frontiers. And the armies in the 1860s frequently did too, where they had to. Otherwise made use of natural positions, including ravines, defilades, reverse slopes of hills and ridges, etc. just like the ancients too, but with greater emphasis on protecting against bullets and artillery:

Mahan suggests intrenching in the manner of an intrenched camp on a battlefield, is not always for the best where it might embarrass the movements of the troops... but again, are excellent for operating in a hostile countryside to prevent surprise attacks:

Mahan:

A treatise on field fortification

www.google.com

 

[Nathan Towne]

That I agree with. Ad hoc breastworks were created on occasion, especially by 1863 (there was some use of breastworks at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg).

I suppose my argument is based on the definition of "entrenched". To my mind, that term is describing extensive defensive works, reminiscent of trenches and bomb shelters which begin to become more common late in the war as troops stayed in position longer and had more time to build those kinds of works. For me, piling a few logs, rocks, and dirt in front of one's position is not "entrenching".

Ryan

There was a massive amount of entrenching and utilization of works on the Peninsula. Or in West Virginia. We could go on and on on that. This point is sometimes overstated, not by you per se, but generally, is all that I am saying that way.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Did they not know of the Roman practice of making fortifications around their camps back before the Civil War?

The romans where trained for it and carried their tools and needed palisades with them.
None of that was the case with civil war soldiers.

Also note that the romans made fortified camps... so the troops can sleep safely and to have a safe place to fall back to if battle goes badly.
But where not usually building field fortifications for use on the actual battlefield.

So two very different used for the fortifications.

Also field fortifications makes any offensive action much harder to do. And if you want a decisive battle, digging in is rarely a good idea, since it makes it less likely that the enemy will attack you.


The first patented entrenching tool was "invented" in the late 1860ties by a danish officer based on his experience in 1864 facing prussian breechloaded rifles.