Waterloo (couldn't have won if I wanted to)

[markpeters]

Allan,

I agree that nobody but Lee could have achieved what he did. You have no arguments from me there, although I would have liked to see what Beauregard could have achieved with a 'fairer crack of the whip'.

The point that I was attempting to make was ALL Generals were capable of making mistakes and had off-days. Lee had a 'shocker' at Gettysburg and Grant at Cold Harbour. Napoleon was poor at Waterloo. This was a continuation of my previous assertion that it is very difficult to look at a military record of a general, in hindsight, and say that a particular battle was a "win on paper". Especially, when much of their record was built on beating sub-standard opposition.

Best wishes,

Mark
_________________
"History must not be written with bias, and both sides must be given, even if there is only one side." JOHN BETJEMAN

[markpeters]

Sorry Allan,

One more point on Lee. Whilst he did wonders keeping the AoNV in the best possible shape, mainly at the expense of those in the West, he also performed badly in Carolina, The Seven Days (Malvern Hill in particular), the Maryland Campaign (Antietam in particular) and the Gettysburg Campaign (Gettysburg in particular). Remember, he wasn't a particularly popular choice for command, in the first place! Basically, these were the battles that he was on the attack, although he seemed to operate on home turf (in defence) much better.

There again, Grant 'screwed up' Shiloh, as well as those battles you mentioned earlier. It just goes to show that no battle was a foregone conclusion, despite who was in charge. I can't think of a senior long-term Civil War General who didn't have a bad battle or campaign at some time. 'Gloomy Pete' included! :salute:

Best wishes,

Mark
_________________
"History must not be written with bias, and both sides must be given, even if there is only one side." JOHN BETJEMAN

[James_Longstreet]

Carolina???? by all means - enlighten me!

The 7-Days is definitely a nice by-product of Jackson's messing up HIS OWN time-table and Hill's over-zealousness. But, like it or not - the danger of losing the War right there and then is averted: Mac runs with a tail between his legs.
On a same token - Sharpsburg was a good chance for AoP to destroy ANV, which did not happen. Lee held his own and, considering the more than plausible what-if practically won that Battle. Yes, he had to abandon the Campaign, but who wouldn't in his situation?
And there is nothing wrong with Gettysburg Campaign, save the Battle of Gettysburg itself. On that - I agree: he messed it up and messed it up BAD!!

As far as Pete - I've already posted here in other Section that, IMHO, Pete operates exactly the same way as Grant does. The difference is that he is not given a full chance to prove that his tactics work. 2 times when he is truly allowed to do so (2nd Manassas and Chicamauga, well - even a possible 3rd - Wilderness) - he delivers much more than could be asked for!
_________________
I Remain
Your Ob't Servant
Allan
Time sets all things right. Error lives but a day. Truth is eternal.
A Great Civilization is not Conquered from Without until It has Destroyed Itself from Within

[markpeters]

Allan,

On 2nd November 1861, Lee was assigned command of a newly created the Department of South Carolina, Georgia, and East Florida. This was in order to stabilise the situation along the South Atlantic Coast. He failed and was recalled to Richmond!

I take your point about the overall achievements of the 7 Days, and put the Yankees on the defensive. I also agree with your comment about Jackson's performance, and illustrates the fact that all have off-days/weeks. That still doesn't excuse Malvern Hill, and Lee's reckless attack. Interesting that this was the first time of excusing the attacks by claiming that they were not "properly co-ordinated" and not knowing why.

I think Lee's judgement was questionable during the Maryland Campaign, splitting the forces in the way he did and giving the Yankees a 'sniff of victory'. His forced withdrawal after Antietam was a tactical loss, and cost him too many troops.

Lee's performance at Gettysburg has been well covered here. I still believe that Lee's lack of intelligence gathering showed an extremely poor use of his cavalry and lead him into a battle not of his chosing.

Best wishes,

Mark
_________________
"History must not be written with bias, and both sides must be given, even if there is only one side." JOHN BETJEMAN

[PatrickDunn]

Ok guys, I've beat this drumb too long for this topic. I will end with this
though, it's a passage that say's it better than I can.

Both the English and French historians agree that the postponment of the
Battle of Waterloo because of ground conditions caused by thunderstorms
of the previous day and night proved to be fatal for Napoleon. British
historian D.G. Chandler wrote "the postponement of the opening battle
until late in the forenoon because of sodden ground proved the most fatal
one of the day for the French". Had even an inadequately supported
infantry attack been launched against Wellington in the morning the French
would shurely have won. French scholor H. Houssaye wrote " had the
battle begun towards 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning the English army
would have been routed before the arrival of the Prussians...the state of
the ground compelled the Emperor to alter his orders...and this delay
saved the English Army.

Therefore I rest my case. I will refrain from saying that the July heat
in Gettysburg had a similar effect on Hoods men thus effecting the
outcome ( although they would have arrived at LRT before any Federal
troops ) on day 2.

but.. I have a question for you guys - I have a series of pictures that I
took from the BRT side of South Confederate Avenue looking west - and
my notes say I took these shots from the 5th NY Infantry, Btty E marker
off the road in the woods. I can not find this marker on any map ( Trail
head graphics Monument map ) 0r in the Official History book from the
Gettysburg Park Commission. Any info on this marker, it's placemment
and the story behind a Union Artillery battery placed in that location would
be nice and a lot less debatable ? lol... If you guys are up for this

With deep respect,

Jeff

PS - I'm reading an interesting book at the moment _ Lee's Gettysburg
and it makes the case for Lee being stubborn not only at Gettysburg but
battles before that. His insistance to fight at Fredericksburg...etc.

[markpeters]

Jeff,

Hopefully, I put the artillery argument to bed earlier. Napoleon's artillery were effective once they were engaged in covering the French retreat, but did not have the ability to shoot through slopes.

I agree that the weather affected the battle, but the logic you use is one-sided. Whilst the weather undoubtedly affected the French options for battle, the same wet conditions hampered the oncoming Prussian advance. The obvious logic is that the wet conditions would have affected Blucher much more as he had just lost a battle, at Ligny, and had much further to travel than Napoleon's troops. As such, the weather was certainly not the deciding factor! Only the most ardent Napoleonophile, or French Nationalist, could argue that he lost Waterloo because of some rain.

A simple analysis shows that three critical elements went wrong for Napoleon, and one's that he himself were responsible for. Hence my assertion that he was out-generalled, and not a cruel victim of fate.
1) Communication.
2) Leadership.
3) Judgement.
You'll be pleased to know that I won't bore you with a blow by blow analysis of how I reach that conclusion, but would be happy to do so, privately, if you so wish. :bom:

Finally, I must say that Dave Chandler is a fine military historian. I have a number of his books. However, if he says that Napoleon launched his first infantry attack in the afternoon he is plain wrong. The first infantry attack was launched at 11.30am, several hours before what is suggested. I won't even comment on what the jolly Frenchman reputedly wrote, because he completely ignores the problems that Blucher would have encountered in his advance on Waterloo. And he is considered a "scholar"? Maybe by the :kermit: !

Best wishes,

Mark

PS. Thanks for being a 'good sport' and keeping this going to the 'bitter end'.
_________________
"History must not be written with bias, and both sides must be given, even if there is only one side." JOHN BETJEMAN

[James_Longstreet]

[PatrickDunn]

Gettysburg National Miliyary Park

Civil War Battlefield Series

Trailhead Graphics

A complete listing of the 439 monuments and 414 markers and tablets
which commemorate the July 1863 Civil War Battle


The Above is the source of my confusion in that I have a picture taken
from the spot of a "marker" that is not on this map. I have a shot of
a cleared area looking west across the South Confederate Avenue of
the bottom field area -south of the Slyder farm. There is a small
tablet marker on the side of the road and I believe I took this shot
from up a slight incline in the newly cleared woods on the right side of
the road. My notes said I took it from the 5th NY battery E marker.
I will be back down there in the spring and will most likely look for this
spot but I was wondering if you guys could clear this up for me ?

Sorry to confuse you but it beats the heck out of me too. I have
tried to find a 5th NY btty E online and come up with nothing. What
prompted my search for this unit in that area was why I had never
seen a Federal artillery position placed in that area before.

The only thing that It could be in error ( my error ) is that I took that
shot from another marker - Cav. Corps 3rd Div in that general area
and wrote it down in my notes as something else. I do know that this
marker / stone was not visible from the road before that area was
cleared out.

Thanks and sorry for any confusion caused.

Jeff

[PatrickDunn]

I may have found my error - there is a battery marker could be the one
I am trying to establish as the one from which my pictures were taken.
I found a marked in the Official History book GNMPC and it's NOT the 5th
NY but seems to be the First Brigade Horse Artillery - Battery E Fourth
US Artillery. 4 3" Rifles under the command of Lt. Elder. Arrived on the
field on July 3rd and engaged under Farnsworth that afternoon.

I was not aware that ANY Federal Artillery had advanced with Farnsworth
that afternoon. I can't wait to return to that area next year and see for
myself the position of that marker in relation to where the "D" shaped
field is. I do not recall ever seeing or reading about this unit and it's
advanve to that side of the hill ( for me ) is an amazing discovery as
it adds to my perception of the day's events.

Looking foreward to any comments!!!

Jeff

[Lt_Stewart]

Please give me the number of the marker that is in question. I will go look at it thie weekend.

I'll try to report back on Monday.

[The General]

Jeff,

Elder's battery was placed atop Bushman's Hill, where Kilpatrick had his HQ. The 5th NY Cavalry was held in reserve, and stayed with Elder's guns. These four guns--and it had to have been a tight squeeze to fit them all up there--were supposed to support the fighting by Kil's troopers along the Confederate flank. The problem with the position held by Elder's guns was that there were too many tree tops in the way for them to be terribly effective. Consequently, they played little role in the dismounting fighting that occurred before the charge, or in the charge itself. They did not actually advance, or charge, with Farnsworth, and spent the afternoon in position atop Bushman's Hill.

If you follow the trail to the monument to the 5th NY Cavalry, you will find the monument to Battery E, 4th US Artillery also. It stands just a few feet away, on the crest of Bushman's Hill. There used to be a 3-inch ordnance rifle atop Bushman's Hill, where the monument stands. However, a couple of years ago, NPS, in its infinite wisdom, removed it. Presumably, it didn't get enough visitors up there. It's a shame, because I always liked having it there when I would interpret the events leading up to Farnsworth's Charge while atop Bushman's Hill.

As for the D-shaped field, I saw it Labor Day weekend, while they were still actively engaged in cutting down the trees, and it was a real revelation. Because of the lay of the land while the trees were still there, there was no way of knowing that there is actually a military crest just behind the position of the 1st Vermont Cavalry monument, meaning that it's now easy to see why the presence of the Alabamans was unknown to Farnsworth or his men until they popped up and fired a volley at point blank range. I was absolutely blown away by that revelation, and I thought I knew pretty much everything that there is to know about Farnsworth's Charge. This just goes to show you that you NEVER know everything.....

Eric
_________________
"If you want to have some fun, jine the cav'ry!"

[JnoWFairfax]

Our esteemed Genl Longstreet has pointed out to me, privately, as well as here, how apt the comparison of Gettysburg 3rd Day to Waterloo is, in a sense.

IF Marse Robt truly, truly wanted to have a smashing blow given to the center of the Union line at The Burg on Day 3, he should have had the entire ANV ready to support the attack on the Copse of Trees, IMHO, and also that of Genl Longstreet.

Important to note too is the recent discovery of the faultiness of the fuses used by the ANV in the Gettysburg Campaign (the SC made fuses burned slower than those from Richmond Arsenal of which the ANV arty was more familiar with).

So, could Gettysburg be properly termed the Waterloo of the Confederacy? It might be a radical thought, given the fact that the War did not end until almost two years later............
_________________
Your Humble Servant,
Jno. Walter Fairfax,
Asst. Adj. & Insp. General,
I (Longstreet's) Corps,
Army of No. Va.

"This is a hard fight, and we had better all die than lose it."
-- Genl. Longstreet to Genl. Pryor, September 17, 1862

[James_Longstreet]