- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Location
- New Jersey
He won. He was hands on when needed. He delegated when needed. Meade was effective.
He won. He was hands on when needed. He delegated when needed. Meade was effective.
Haha. I’m rather concise and blunt.Short, sweet, and to the point. I love it.
Haha. I’m rather concise and blunt.
Tom. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Not only Napoleon but Jackson would have continued the battle by driving the enemy into submission especially if the forces were available to him. I say this since Jackson was an avid reader of Napoleon's Maxims. David.Meade was capable and efficient, but still ceded the initiative entirely to his opponent. A young Napoleon might have used the entire Sixth Corps like the Old Guard to counterattack after the Confederate assault failed on July 3, and split the enemy army into two parts to achieve a decisive victory.
Tom. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Not only Napoleon but Jackson would have continued the battle by driving the enemy into submission especially if the forces were available to him. I say this since Jackson was an avid reader of Napoleon's Maxims. David.
You brought all your forces into action at the right time and place, which no commander of the Army of the Potomac has done before.
Thanks for the information. David.This rarely happened during the Civil War. In the vast majority of battles the loser retreated more or less intact. This applies to both sides.
Thanks for the information. David.
Tom. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Not only Napoleon but Jackson would have continued the battle by driving the enemy into submission especially if the forces were available to him.
I think you make a good point. However, in my opinion I think Wade Hampton and certainly Jeb Stuart were fine examples of effective offensive cavalry leaders. The artillery materials used by the Confederates were not of the best quality especially their fuses. On the other hand, Union artillery was of very good quality and provided effective ranges for their various artillery units. Also, as the war endured, arms manufacturers, such as Colt and Remington, made better and more accurate rifles and small arms with better effective fire power. Just a thought. David.I have to believe that the ability to pursue and destroy a defeated enemy army was much more limited during the Civil War than it had been during the Napoleonic Wars. The lack of effective offensive cavalry may have played a part as did the use of longer range long arms and longer range cannons and guns.
Irishtom29. I apologize for misusing the word "submission." I think a better word would be "confusion." When I made the correlating statement about Jackson and Napoleon I was thinking specifically about Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign and specifically the First Battle of Winchester (May 25, 1862) in which Jackson's forces defeated Nathaniel Bank's troops and drove them back across the Potomac River into Maryland and away from Richmond. Jackson employed the Prussian military doctrine of "force concentration" during this battle. David.Easier said than done.
Major Bill. I am sorry and I certainly respect your civil war knowledge but I cannot believe that during any civil war battle that an offensive force would allow an enemy force to retreat more or less intact without levying any damages to that force. Could you educate me further on this point? David.This rarely happened during the Civil War. In the vast majority of battles the loser retreated more or less intact. This applies to both sides.
Bee. I am not an expert on this particular battle or campaign. However, I will try to answer your questions: regarding the first question, I would say the battlefield at First Winchester was smaller than the Battlefield(s) of Gettysburg. I must admit that I have never visited this particular battlefield. Your second question: When Jackson employed the force concentration doctrine he had to disperse his forces. Force concentration is a Prussian military theory in which a concentrating and overwhelming military force is used against an enemy's position so that the disparity between the two forces acts as a "force multiplier" in favor of the concentrated force. In other words, selecting a weak position of the enemy's forces and concentrating an overwhelming force against that position in order to overwhelm the enemy and force a possible retreat. As a result, Bank's forces ended up retreating back across the Potomac River. On the other hand, Meade's forces were certainly concentrated on Cemetery Hill and employed another Prussian military theory of interior lines which enables a commander to disperse troops rather quickly from one position in the line to another in order to foil any attack on the flanks or the center. I hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily. If not, perhaps the real civil war experts on the forum can help or supplement my poor answers. David.Hi David. I ask these questions partly out of curiosity, partly out of ignorance.
1. Was the battlefield of Jackson's day smaller than the encompassing battlefield(s) of Gettysburg?
2. Were Jackson's troops more dispersed, or more concentrated than Meade's army?
You what? It is quite clear that Yorktown was a strong defensive position and that McClellan broke through it.The result of the Siege of Yorktown, unlike that of the Battle of Gettysburg that was a Union victory, was inconclusive...
Meade's son recounts an episode like this in his account of the battle. Meade drew his sword and he and his staff were going to "throw themselves into the breech" before reinforcements arrived. Newton then handed Meade his flask and they had something of a celebratory drink as the reinforcements went into action.Help with an anecdote about Meade at Gettysburg, please.
While skimming a source, which I do not remember, for something, which I also do not remember, I saw a statement that on July 2, while surveying the surge against Cemetery Ridge, General Meade either drew his pistol or was in the act of drawing it when his attention was diverted to some US troops advancing to meet the threat. Later, when it sunk in that the commander of the Army of the Potomac was allegedly about to enter combat, I could not find that reference again. Has anyone else ever run across that allegation? If so where?
Thanking you in advance.