|
Page 2 of 3
(Page:
1
2
3
)
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Rosecrans converted to Catholicism : that’s interesting.
A man who might be characterised as “ thinking outside the box “ , and he opts to follow a religion that doesn’t cope well with dissent.
He retained composure when his cherished aide, Gareche, was decapitated by an artillery round at Stones River : after the battle he gave vent to his grief, and removed the buttons from his bloodstained coat, sealed them up in an envelope, and wrote on it that “ these were the buttons I was wearing when Gareche was killed”.
His own private reliquary.
He made an impact on his troops through his humanity and his courage : he was an imposing figure, physically as well as by virtue of his conduct.
It would be revealing to see if the addresses he made to his soldiers indicate how he viewed them, and how they reciprocated.
After the battle of Corinth he gave an account of their achievement which might be worth a second look.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Phil,
Yeah, that’s great info on Rosecrans. That’s what I mean if we use subjective evaluation we have to dig deep & appreciate the man in his own time and experience and not try to impose our present day judgements & values. Rosecrans was a sensitive guy, so we need to understand his “delay” after Tullahoma as he was really trying to move prudently & avoid blundering that would cost lives.
thanks Phil.
Mike_C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3154
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
I get the impression that Rosecrans biggest enemy wasn´t Bragg but Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. 
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
|
Posts: 1160
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Mike C,
With respect Grant got his commission in the militia in 1861 as commander of a regiment. At 1st Bull Run Jackson, Longstreet and Sherman commanded brigades. Sherman commanded a brigade at Shiloh. At Stones River Sheridan commanded a brigade. In 1861 the belief was that the brigade would be the main unit and armies would be 25,000 to 40,000.
The Indian Wars and Mexico were relevant because they gave a chance to lead men into battle and experience the kaios of battle. To get experience of the sights, sounds and smell of battle and at least some of the stress and responsibility of leading men into battle. They all had to start someplace none of them went from civilian life to army command.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
|
Posts: 1160
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Trevor,
Maybe not Stanton but Grant, Rawlins and Halleck.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
John
I think we have different conceptions, you may be right. But I will pick on Jackson cause I think he was generally pretty effective. Jackson had a good Mex war record and resigned with 5 years service as 1st lt. after ten years out of the army he was appointed Colonel jumping 3 grades. Then june ’61 BG and Oct ’61 MG. all with 5 years service as an artillery 1st lt as experience. And 1862 Lt. gen in command 30k inf and arty. From 1st lt to lt gen in 18 mos. Yes it was common because they were desperate for commanders. And as you did say they saw the elephant and experience of the sights, sounds and smell of battle and at least some of the stress and responsibility of leading men into battle.
Only Americans with anything close to experience were Scott, Worth, Twiggs, Taylor, Wool, and A.S. Johnston in command of Mormon expedition. None of whom play much part in ACW – well Johnston until killed. Lee and J. Johnston with 30 yrs. expr only achieved full colonel in 1861. And only at Vera Cruz and Mex city did Scott command more than 10k men.
Actually McClellan Did become MG direct from civilian life at 35yrs with 10 yrs exp highest grade Capt. General lack of experience made most battle and campaigns indecisive IMHO, no not all.
Mike_C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
|
Posts: 1160
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Mike C,
When you have a small standing army promotion is at a snails pace and there are very few billets at each rank. Tends to make good officers resign for civilian oppertunity with the hope they will stay active in the militia.
Little Mac was commissioned a Major General of Volunteers or in other words a militia rank not a regular army rank to command the Ohio militia.
Jackson was a brevet major as his highest rank before Confederate service.
A S Johnston had what 2,200-2,500 troops under him on the Mormon Expedition.
Joe Johnston was a Brg General as the Quartermaster General of the Army when he resigned. Its what started the feud with Davis, that Davis viewed it as a "staff" rank and Johnston resigned early, want to say 36/37 and came back in after 2 plus years so technically he only had 29 years of service.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
|
Quote:
Its what started the feud with Davis, that Davis viewed it as a "staff" rank and Johnston resigned early, want to say 36/37 and came back in after 2 plus years so technically he only had 29 years of service.
John,
Didn't Davis and Johnston fall out as youngsters because they were both chasing the same bit of skirt ?
I find myself reflecting on the comparison between the US Army in 1861 and the British Army in 1914 : in both cases, the professional soldiers had been - at least, many of them - forged in fire fifteen years beforehand : the Mexican War of 1846, and the South African ( Boer) War of 1899.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
|
Quote: Steve, Phil,
I often think about the responsibility/stress of commanding 120k men & the power to order the deaths of 10-15k any moment.
Mike_C.
At the risk of being a bit picky, Mike, the actual number of deaths on the battlefield itself never reached that scale : although there were engagements in which thousands - sometimes several thousand - men were killed.
It was the huge numbers of the wounded, outnumbering the killed by four or five - or even six to one - that imparted the true bloodiness to the fighting. And, of course, many of those wounded were bound to die.
The fate of the wounded was something that became a justifiable obsession with the commanders. Bragg, despite being notorious for his antagonistic conduct and harsh discipline, was distraught at the prospect of abandoning his wounded at Murfreesboro. When Rosecrans abandoned the field at Chickamauga, he was leaving thousands of wounded to a dismal fate. I wonder if he ever alluded to that : a mea culpa would have been in order, bearing in mind his faith.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
John and Phil & Group
“When you have a small standing army promotion is at a snails pace and there are very few billets at each rank. Tends to make good officers resign for civilian opportunity with the hope they will stay active in the militia.” Yes service limited to garrison, post building and fighting small Indian bands. Rarely more than 2-3 companies acting together. (somewhere I read that the life of American soldier was mainly chopping wood, haying, building log houses punctuated by occasional patrol and rarely any fighting)
Yeah, guilty of imprecise generalization in lumping KIA/WIA together but from 155 years perspective we need to remember the reaction of people including generals of that time – even 1000 dead was appalling in the beginning and did affect many commanders.
“huge numbers of the wounded, outnumbering the killed by four or five - or even six to one that imparted the true bloodiness to the fighting” - that’s right.
I think my points are sustained – largely (if sloppily made by me).
Commanders had no like experience to ACW and no qualification to command large formations 10k & up.
Yes, I was only referencing actual functional rank – not brevet.
Mike_C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Mike,
The numbers of wounded still look shocking. By Livermore's reckoning, Bragg lost 14,674 in wounded alone at Chickamauga. I'm trying to assess that against the population of the local towns and cities at the time.
About fifty per cent more than the residents of Atlanta in 1860 ?
All that bloodshed, for a victory that wasn't exploited.
What does he fight battles for ?
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Phil,
Yes I agree. And when new photography was seen in papers public was sickened and long casualty lists having names of sons, Nephews, cousins. Is what I want to get across. the cold history & exciting battles leave out much of the cruel reality of the day.
Group,
Sorry for self-promotion but I have two articles published on this site. FYI
“Origin of the Movement Around Pope's Army of Virginia, August 1862”
“Was the Civil War Modern? – No.”
From 2008-2011 published six articles on CIVIL WAR DISPATCH, my own site. (now defunct)
By your leave,
Mike_C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Mike,
And there was I, wishing you the heartiest of welcomes....and you've been pitching first rate stuff all those years ago !
The parochial nature of American society in those days made the bloodshed and death all the harder to endure : as you say, sets of twins, menfolk from little communities, swept away on a bad day.
People knew each other : kinship and family honour....things that enhanced the martial fervour, and also ensured that the impact was all the crueller. Given that the population of the nation was only one tenth of what it is today, it's hard to comprehend the shock of twenty five thousand wounded in a single battle.
Rosecrans made an interesting observation on the actual nature of battle casualties. After Stones River, he commented that only five per cent of all the Confederates who were killed or wounded in the battle were victims of artillery fire. Considering that the repulse of the rebel attack on the final day of the battle was largely attributable to massed yankee artillery, I find that difficult to understand.
The weird limestone landscape that configured so much of that battlefield would, I should have thought, rendered artillery fire all the more deadly on account of the nasty fragments of rock flying around.
The official Confederate return for the battle posted nearly eight thousand wounded ; only thirteen hundred were reported as killed in action, although, according to Larry J. Daniel, two thousand rebel dead were interred in mass graves there.
I get the impression that Bragg had administrative abilities that tended to afford decent care for his wounded ; the retirement of his army after the battle must have compromised this, and Bragg was profoundly upset about the fate of the men he abandoned at Murfreesboro.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Phil
Yes, exactly. We need to see generals, soldiers, civilians as people. Deeply affected by events at a personal level. My grandpa David served in Armistead’s Brig. While gone his first born William 16 ran off with older uncles/cousins to army. On peninsula got measles. Died after 30 days service. Grandpa had no idea until returned home 6 mos later. A major blow. (Williams mother had died years before)
Regarding artillery; saw GETTYSBURG with a friend, a Ancients wargamer. While watching movie he said “were artillery guns really so small?” (4.62in) except for canister, Artillery less effective than we may expect unless troops target very packed and stationary.
Thanks kindly,
Mike_C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Group,
Circling back to topic of Rosecrans as commander
Rosecrans' TACTICAL RECORD AND PERFORMANCE
Battle Attacker Winner Union Loss Confed Loss
Iuka C U 4500 790 3179 1516
Cornith C U 21147 2520 22000 4233
Stones river C U 43400 14289 37712 10266
Chickamauga C C 58222 16170 66236 18454
Total(4) - - 127269 33796 129127 34429
Rosecrans' TACTICAL PERFORMANCE
Commander Number %enemy men %enemy loss Efficiency Index Enemy Eff. Index
Rosecrans 4 99 98 271 262
Above system by Hattaway & jones in appendix How the North Won: A Military History of the Civil War 1991 (data Livermore) hit by 1000 index from Livermore is Efficiency index from Hattaway/jones friendly strength/casualties vs enemy strength/casualties
My modified ranking for Rosecrans
Born MA GDRK %TILE YRS EVAL NUM %VIC F/EIDX %SUPR RATE %SCORE
Rosecrans 1819 ’42 5/56 0.91 12 3 4 0.75 1.03 0.00 1.78 0.52
Puts Rosecrans at level 3. (2.58) Thomas & Sherman rate 3/5. Beauregard, Longstreet rate 3 too.
2’s are Banks, Burnside, McClellan, J. Johnston, Bragg.
Rate = 0.75 + 1.03 + 0.0 = 1.78 assign Lee’s top score 0.9 and proportion
%Score = 0.52
MA = Milt Acad Grad yrs; GDRK = Grad rank; %TILE = Grad percentile;
EVAL = Command Evaluation; NUM = Number battles;
%VIC = % won; F/EIDX = friendly/enemyhit index; %SPR = % surprise; RATE = Tot rating; %SCORE = normalized performance score, high; 3.45= 0.9
EVAL = RATE / 0.69; example 3.45/ 0.69 = 5 ; 0.93 / 0.69 = 1.34 = 1; to near whole number
distribution = 1x5, 1x4, 5x3, 5x2, 1x1, 1x0
we might characterize as 0=poor; 1 = mediocre; 2 = average; 3= good; 4 = very good; 5 = outstanding
Grant, Hood rate 1/5.
I know many will see red to see Grant so low, but hey it’s a quantitative approach that’s the data. UNDERLINE tactical performance.
The distribution of values also tends to confirm the validity of the process. Superior command performance is clearly a somewhat unusual characteristic. The distribution here shows only one really superior rating, one poor rating, and the majority in the mid-range. Distribution = 1x5; 1x4; 5x3; 5x2; 1x1; 1x0; very roughly mimicking a normal distribution. Lee, 5; Jackson 4.
respectfully,
Mike_C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
group,
Oops sorry tables hard to read in this format.
so sorry Mike_C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3154
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
|
Quote:
Group,
“Was the Civil War Modern? – No.”
By your leave,
Mike_C.
An excellent article I enjoyed.
Thanks
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
|
Posts: 1160
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Phil,
The evidence I've seen says no. Davis was married to Zach Taylors daughter in 35 and it was a long hard courtship because Taylor was against the match because he knew the hardship army life brought to jr officers and their family. Its why Davis resigned but she died soon after. There is some evidence of some problem between the two back at West Point, maybe the Eggnog Riot, but Davis wasn't an enemy when Sec of War. Everything points to the seniority list along with the different iideas on strategy and Johnston blaming Davis for leaks of tactical intel. Johnston took it as a personal insult to his reputation and there was no higher wrong per the code of honor.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
|
Posts: 1160
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Mike C,
But pick a site for camp and making sure wood is provided for heat and cooking fires and hay for fodder for the mounts and wagon teams was part of the job. Plus my point was with a small army you are going to have a small officer corps with very little upward mobility. Lee and Johnston were brevet Col in Mexico and as such commanded regimental sized forces or larger in the field. Johnston was wounded three times I believe.
Phil made a statement about the Boar War and WWI with the officer corps but maybe it should be arty indirect fire and the advent of the machine gun and the flying battery and rifled barrels. Add the advance of technology and the increase in population and the number of troops engaged and casualties has to skyrocket. What I think you are forgetting is that throughout history warfare has been a learn on the job experience and still is today.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
John,
Brevet rank did not apply to regular duty in parent unit. a capt Bvt major function as a capt. only applied to duty outside parent unit, like courts martial etal.
J. Johnston wounded 5 times in mexico, 3 BVT ,Hell of a soldier, but not so much as Army commander. Zachary Taylor said A. S. Johnston was the best soldier he ever saw but its pretty hard for us to see it from our perspective 155 years later. yes? Lee and Johnston did not command in mexico, Lee staff engr, I think Johnston too (maybe wrong) but often give special assignments. Yes, Lee learned many important lessons in fighting & campaigning. Brevet was an honorary title. recognition for good performance.
But I cant agree that command is a learn on the job & hope not. better not be IMHO. Pretty bad way to spend troops lives. Every level modern professional train and train and train and prepare for the day they face combat. plus we dont want to be constantly fighting. A quartermaster tries to learn supply, a transport officer how to keep vehicles and troops moving, etc. Why our Military budget so high.
And I am glad training save lives & reduces needless losses so somebody wont do a Custer, little bighorn.
repectfully,
Mike_C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
|
Quote: group,
Oops sorry tables hard to read in this format.
so sorry Mike_C.
Thanks all the same, Mike ! And for the family anecdotes, too.
Some of those studies have been distorted by sleight of hand : especially those that seek to demonstrate Grant’s success .....but it would be silly of me to refute things hastily.
I note the figures cited for Corinth and Iuka, and they raise the topic of how keen Rosecrans was to get a statistical grip on the outcome of battle. I’ll make a few more detailed comments later.
Why, I wonder, did Rosecrans make that allusion to the ratio of artillery casualties inflicted at Stones River ?
Did he have an “ agenda” here ?
Was he trying to downplay the role of artillery ?
Perhaps he saw that the maintenance of a large number of fieldpieces was bad for the flexibility and manoeuvrability that he sought - and achieved - in his Tullahoma campaign .....he saw in Wilder the chance to deploy firepower and movement more effectively. Old fashioned generals liked to line up cannons ; the modern general wants something more fluid. That’s grossly oversimplified, and I’ve got no grounds for suggesting this other than guesswork and surmise on my part.
John : thanks for telling me about the provenance of the toxicity between Davis and Johnston.
Regarding Mexico/Civil War and Boer War/Great War, there is another parallel that grabs my attention . The Civil War cost the contending armies rather more than one hundred times as many combat fatalities as the US suffered in the Mexican War. Likewise, the fighting of 1914-18 cost the British armies one hundred times as many battle deaths as the Boer War.
I stipulate battle deaths : both Mexico and South Africa cost the respective armies disproportionately high disease deaths which I have not allowed for.
That brings me to another point regarding Rosecrans and his generalship : how well did he uphold the health of his troops ? Corinth was a distinctly unhealthy place ; Stones River was a bitterly cold, wet and bleak place for a bivouac , let alone for one of the severest battles of the war.
More to come,
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Mike,
Your comments about AS Johnston catch my eye.
One of the finest soldiers ?
The more I read about wars, and this war especially, the more the conviction grows in me that it’s people skills that matter. Maybe that’s what Zak Taylor discerned in Johnston . The ability to get a bunch of testy subordinates to act as a team.
What was it about the Western theatre that produced such toxicity ?
The lack of a Lee ? Perhaps AS Johnston had some of his attributes.
Herein lies the true measure of Lee’s greatness, in my mind.
As to how Rosecrans stacks up in this respect , he seems to have a good relationship with those he commanded, but a testy one with his superiors.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
|
Posts: 1160
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Mike C,
It is real easy to see what kind of soldier AS Johnston was you just have to read more than of his few months in Confederate service. Try starting when he served under Andrew Jackson.
Lee and Johnston were put in command of troops on those special assignments.
MacArthur was at most a Brigade commander in WWI, Patton a Reg and Ike was Mac's secretary as late as 1937 and didn't see combat in WWI. Westy commanded a battery in WWII and a Bat in Korea, Abrhms a Bat in WWII and a Reg Korea. Swarztkoff a company in Vietnam.
With respect Custer was a brg Gen commanding a brgade of over 2,000 men in the Civil War he was a Lt Col with 6 companies of 240 some men at the Little Bighorn.
My cousin recently retired from the Army wth 16 years service and 5 combat tours and told me a story that the best garrison and training offcer he ever saw fell apart the first day when a sniper killed his radioman and the blood started squirting on him.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Another word, if I may, on the way Rosecrans assessed the outcomes of Iuka and Corinth.
According to Cozzens, who wrote THE DARKEST DAYS OF THE WAR, The Battles of Iuka and Corinth, Rosecrans himself inspected the field after Iuka and … said 162 dead rebels were found laid out for burial behind the Methodist Church and that he counted another 99 on the battlefield. Extrapolating from that, he estimated Price to have lost 385 killed or dead from wounds, 692 wounded, and 361 captured.
Iuka, by the standards of that war, was a small battle ; but it was an extremely intense fight that shocked those who witnessed it. The small scale of the affair allowed Rosecrans the chance to survey the field and make what looks like a cogent and first hand assessment. His count was endorsed by the Federal provost marshal, Capt. William Wiles, who certified that 265 confederate corpses were found on the field and buried by Union troops. Note that Rosecrans reckoned on an additional 124 rebels who would die from wounds : evidence, to my mind, that he was a man who was keenly aware of the mortality that was bound to take its toll after the fighting had ceased. This looks like hard headed accounting, but I think it speaks of humanity that made a commanding officer keenly aware of what soldiers had to endure.
The remarkable thing is how this compares with the official Confederate return for the battle : 86 killed in action ; 408 wounded ; 199 missing : a total of 693.
The same disparities are apparent for Corinth : the official Southern report indicates some 500 killed, 2,000 or so wounded and more than 2,000 missing. Rosecrans addressed his troops after the fighting and spoke of how his men …. killed and buried one thousand four hundred and twenty-four officers and men.... Their wounded, at the usual rate, must exceed five thousand. You took two thousand two hundred and sixty -eight prisoners....
Talk about consistency in disparities !
In both cases, Rosecrans enumerates enemy loss that more than doubles the total disclosed by official confederate reports.
It's a challenging task, trying to decide what to believe.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3154
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
|
Quote:
The choice of Banks was also interesting to me....not someone that I ever paid a lot of attention to...but Banks was held responsible for the Red River fiasco, couldn't take Port Hudson and was chased around by Stonewall in the "Valley" in '62. Not a great track record. And frankly, a pretty extensive portfolio of failure....
s.c.
Nathanial P. Banks - I believe the term "political general" was coined to describe him. A dubious, slimy politician, deemed one of the first "career politicians" and a useless general who slid his way out of any responsibility for his incompetence.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3154
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
|
Quote: It’s fashionable to ascribe present day mental health “ issues” to discussions on the generals of this and other wars. Was Bragg autistic ? We’ve just been discussing Sherman as a candidate for bi-polar depression.
How about Rosecrans being a victim of PTSD ?
Regards, Phil
We discussed this about Bragg a couple of years ago.
My belief is, as then, that Bragg suffered what is refered to by us family therapists as "chronic excessive sibling rivalry".
Bragg came from a big family. He had a hell of a lot of brothers and sisters. The parents were exceedingly ambitous and obsessed with social mobility and status ( how social mobility can be measured ) . The parents pass it on, forcing the children to compete for acceptance and recognision. Healthy concurrence becomes pathological rivalry. Destroyed many a family business and some famous ones. One can see the pattern in Bragg´s life - Attacking and undermining superiors ( older brothers ) while wary and distrustful of , stomping on, subordinates (younger brothers). Didn´t help that his wife was batshit crazy feeding his demons.
Trevor
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Thanks, Trevor.
Yes, I do remember this discussion about Bragg, an IIRC, John gave an interesting rendition about Bragg’s background : the Dad was a carpenter who made money but might have been disdained ( or felt that he was being disdained) by people in high ranking society.
I can’t escape the impression that, despite his reputation as a cluster frack, there was a hardcore of real ability in Bragg that didn’t come to fruition because of the toxic environment of the Western theatre of war.
There is that striking letter from Joe Johnston to Senator Wigfall (?) reminding him of the success of Bragg at meting out unique damage to the enemy at Murfreesboro .
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3154
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Phil,
The ability was probably there but Bragg was one of the main culprits creating the toxcity.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
No wonder there was a civil war in America.
They were such difficult people !
To be a general in any war must be something of a poisoned chalice : but in this conflict, the cup was running over.
I’ve often stated this, and I reiterate it in the most heartfelt way : the men who exercised high command in the American Civil War had one of the toughest assignments in military history.....the perils of the old fashioned battlefield combined with the socio-political pressures of the modern era.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre
PA USA
|
Posts: 1160
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Phil,
"I’ve often stated this, and I reiterate it in the most heartfelt way : the men who exercised high command in the American Civil War had one of the toughest assignments in military history.....the perils of the old fashioned battlefield combined with the socio-political pressures of the modern era."
Not sure the Soviet, Nazi or Japanese generals of WWII would agree. I think maybe we who study the War between the States with such passion are part of the problem.
----------------------------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
|
Quote: Phil,
"I’ve often stated this, and I reiterate it in the most heartfelt way : the men who exercised high command in the American Civil War had one of the toughest assignments in military history.....the perils of the old fashioned battlefield combined with the socio-political pressures of the modern era."
Not sure the Soviet, Nazi or Japanese generals of WWII would agree. I think maybe we who study the War between the States with such passion are part of the problem.
Those generals of the totalitarian regimes of WW2 knew where they stood.
Execution or suicide was to be their fate if they failed.
Likewise for those under their command.
The generals of the ACW were adrift in a world that spanned modern democracy and the Ancient Regime: neither fish nor fowl.
But , yes, of course, John..your point is well made and well taken . Let me be the first to admit that I’m susceptible to a passionate and subjective view of too much in history.😁
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Clements
Toronto
ON Canada
|
Posts: 895
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Hi Phil,
Quote:The more I read about wars, and this war especially, the more the conviction grows in me that it’s people skills that matter. Maybe that’s what Zak Taylor discerned in Johnston . The ability to get a bunch of testy subordinates to act as a team.
What was it about the Western theatre that produced such toxicity ?
I think that in any large organization, people skills are critical...at least for those that are meant to "lead"....perhaps more so for the CW vs. more modern wars, given that demonstrations of physical courage by officers was often necessary, right up to the division and Corps level ... no leading from the rear allowed, even when it was the wise and prudent thing to do-:) I mean, Reynolds got snuffed by (in one author's words) "doing the work of a colonel".
I am not saying anything original here, but a leader does not have to be loved (interestingly, Grant was almost never 'cheered' by his men, in contrast to little "Mac"), but he or she has gotta be 'respected'. And I think that a leader MUST have a 'the buck stops here' attitude. Hooker might have still been in command of the AoP at Gettysburg, if he hadn't been in such a rush to foist blame on a number of his subordinates.
My own bias is that the Eastern and Western theatres had an equal share of 'hard to manage' types (I am talking the Confederates here), but a key difference was that the ANV had a Lee at the helm, and once AS Johnston was killed, the west did not.
As an example, I think that it is interesting to note the difference in Longstreet's performance, between when he served under Lee, and when he served at Chattanooga and Knoxville. Frankly, at both Chattanooga and Knoxville, his performance was bad enough, IMO, to make a top ten list of worst Confederate generals...-:)
s.c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Clements
Toronto
ON Canada
|
Posts: 895
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Phil,
Quote:As to how Rosecrans stacks up in this respect , he seems to have a good relationship with those he commanded, but a testy one with his superiors
Well, Grant didn't like him...but I wouldn't hold that against Rosecrans-:)
Washington struggled with the delay in his Chattanooga campaign in the summer of '63. But I think that both Washington and Richmond struggled in terms of understanding the difficulties involved in campaigning in the Western theatres...the area between Nashville and Chattanooga, let alone northern Georgia, was not exactly a favourable place for "campaigning". The modern driving distance between N. & C. is over 200 km....the problems in terms of logistics, in moving a CW army that distance - and we are not talking a landscape that looks like Iowa -:) - would be immense.
s.c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Steve,
I agree re East, Lee, Longstreet. In the west Longstreet was guilty (IMHO) of insubordination that helped open the cracker line to relive Chattanooga. But I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6059
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Happy VE Day to all ! The weather’s beautiful here today.
The thing that drives my comments about the role of generalship in the Civil War is the question of the relationship between coercion and consent.
This was still a black powder muzzle loading affair - the exceptions , such as Wilder, notwithstanding - and the drill and discipline for battlefield deployment was not that different from the conduct of operations under Wellington, or Buonaparte.
But whereas Wellington could legitimately expect coercion to apply, the men who led soldiers at Chickamauga had to reconcile to command of a more consensual nature.
This, along with the exposure to close quarters combat, lent a rather unenviable dimension to the exercise of high command in a war of remarkable intensity.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Phil
Yes, Phil. One criticism of Jackson was that he was a harsh and difficult commander but given what we know about the typical petty behavior of the majority of even senior Confederate officers it was necessary. At one point Polk wrote to Hardee (I believe) that Bragg was more dangerous than Rosecrans. Davis’ refusal or inability to enforce discipline in the top ranks of The army of Tennessee was maybe the decisive factor in losing in the west.
Mike_C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Clements
Toronto
ON Canada
|
Posts: 895
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
|
Quote: But whereas Wellington could legitimately expect coercion to apply, the men who led soldiers at Chickamauga had to reconcile to command of a more consensual nature.
Pretty good point Phil.
Certainly read enough about CW officers that were disliked (hated) by their men....and the negative impact that this had on a unit's performance.
One aspect that I would like to learn more about is the system of voting for your own officers. Not sure how widespread this practice was...or what percentage of regimental officers would have had to "campaign" to get their position....but this strikes me as being more than a little unique in the annals of modern (?) warfare.
s.c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Clements
Toronto
ON Canada
|
Posts: 895
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
|
Quote: Davis’ refusal or inability to enforce discipline in the top ranks of The army of Tennessee was maybe the decisive factor in losing in the west.
Mike,
I find it interesting to contrast the fact that Davis chose to leave Bragg in command (thinking of Davis' visit to Missionary Ridge prior to Longstreet being sent to Knoxville), despite essentially all of Bragg's senior officers publicly stating that they had lost confidence in Bragg,, with what happened to Hooker after Chancellorsville.
In short, although Lincoln was reluctant to throw away a weapon (Hooker) just because it had misfired once, in the end, he concluded that it was necessary to replace Hooker, primarily because Lincoln had been made aware that Hooker's corps commanders no longer supported him....and Lincoln rightly concluded that no plan of Hooker's could result in Victory, if Hooker's immediate reports did not have confidence in him and his plans.
Of course, the missing variable here is that, although Bragg could miraculously somehow get along with Davis, Davis could not get along with almost any of the other western senior generals...
See Stephen Sears essay on the Revolt of the Generals in "Controversies and Commanders", for a discussion of Hooker's downfall.
Quote:Yes, Phil. One criticism of Jackson was that he was a harsh and difficult commander but given what we know about the typical petty behavior of the majority of even senior Confederate officers it was necessary.
I personally think that Jackson was a bit of a butt-hole....too secretive for his own good...and two quick to arrest a subordinate for the most minor of infractions, often as the result of confusion about how to follow an order etc. Hard on his men, but the "men in the trenches" would support Jackson, cuz he won.
s.c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mikecmaps
CAMARILLO
CA USA
|
Posts: 191
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
Steve
"I personally think that Jackson was a bit of a butt-hole....too secretive for his own good...and two quick to arrest a subordinate for the most minor of infractions, often as the result of confusion about how to follow an order etc. Hard on his men, but the "men in the trenches" would support Jackson, cuz he won."
Yes that’s what I am talking about. Jackson as commander was very effective in spite of, but really perhaps, because he was butthole, harsh, difficult. I took two, Jackson and the another petty officer played the other part. & remember Jackson had experience of subordinate going behind his back to Davis (Bath & Romney) so had good reason to put screws to petty belly ackers. Remember the commander does not have to justify himself to subordinates they are expected to follow orders. But this same behavior carried forward from the old army. Since most service was boring and mundane much time was spend in petty disputes for rank & status. And these petty disputes that actually effected operations were frequent in all Confederate commands.
Mile_C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3154
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Rosecrans
|
|
Quote: This was still a black powder muzzle loading affair - the exceptions , such as Wilder, notwithstanding - and the drill and discipline for battlefield deployment was not that different from the conduct of operations under Wellington, or Buonaparte.
But whereas Wellington could legitimately expect coercion to apply, the men who led soldiers at Chickamauga had to reconcile to command of a more consensual nature. Regards, Phil
I am reminded of an incident when AP Hill complained about Wright to Lee during the Seven Days. Lee answered " But General - they are all volunteers !"
Phil,
Disagree with Buonaparte. What the future Emperor had grasped was that his hungry, ragged,outnumbered troops of the Army of Italy were volunteers fighting to defend "their" revolution and inspired and led by "one of them" they would completely sweep away the paid mercenaries of the Austrians. It is often forgotten how many of Napoleon´s generals had never intended to become soldiers.
It was how Frederick the Great could inpire his Prussian generals and troops to such feats against sometimes unbelievable odds. He wasn´t just some king, he was " our Fritz" , sharing our dangers and sufferering, defending our homes and families against the ravages of the Russians, French and Austrians.
As for Bragg, I think he might have shone in an 18th C mercenary Army - Clear hierarchy, rigid rules and discipline. In a citizen army ? No.
As for election of officiers, I don´t think either Johnny Reb or Billy Yank is going to change his atitude much to his former neighbour just because the guy has now got officier´s stripes on his shoulder.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
