|
Post by conz on Aug 14, 2008 18:29:33 GMT -6
Again, y'all talk like "undisciplined" is a bad thing.
If you could EVER describe an officer's, or a Soldier's, character as being "disciplined," then he could never be called a Hussar.
Hussars are, by definition, "undisciplined." They take initiative every chance they get, without orders. It isn't only Custer that says things like "I'll cut away from my boss first chance I get..." It is a time-honored feeling throughout the ages of military history by some of the very best warriors and leaders there were. Yet can you see Col or Gen'l Buford exclaiming this?!
Discipline is also a good thing, and MOST of your officers and Soldiers should be disciplined, to some degree (not too much, by today's way of thinking). But every army NEEDS a group of "undisciplined" officers and Soldiers, especially if they are very talented ones.
An army full of "Bufords" is not going to win many battles, I'm afraid. Neither is an army full of Custers. On balance, most armies in most situations need more Bufords than Custers, but woe to the force that lacks each.
A Custer in charge the first day of Gettysburg would do just fine, especially if he has two Bufords as his brigade commanders.
And Buford would have done just fine there if Custer had been one of his brigade commanders.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 14, 2008 19:56:59 GMT -6
RCH: Phew!! Loan me that crystal ball of yours. Then the first thing I would do is see what would have happened if we wouldn't of gotten into this Iraq mess.
Conz: Agree with you so far as cavalry serves multiple functions. Buford and Custer were good at their separate functions and capabilities. Vice versa they may not have been so good.
How do you consider Grierson and his raid into Louisiana? Was he a hussar? Would Custer and/or Buford been a good choice for that mission? I suspect Custer would have and Buford I don't know welll enough to say.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 15, 2008 10:55:56 GMT -6
I'm no expert, so squelch me if I'm wrong, but I've always understood Jeb Stuart to be something more of the "hussar" type -- and wasn't it his decision to do his own thing, rather than what Lee had ordered him to do, that enabled Lee to be surprised at Gettysburg? Equally, Buford was acting "without orders" in bringing the Confederates to battle there. He simply saw an opportunity, and seized it. Maybe it's that extra streak of discipline that enables some commanders to act spontaneously but within the bigger picture, while others, without it, get led astray by the promise of immediate gratification? (Or maybe it all depends on the outcome: independent action that works is military genius, independent action that doesn't is indiscipline!) But I'd have thought -- again, from a position of non-expertise -- that the ideal cavalry leader would be one who had discipline and initiative in equal balance. Pretty much like Buford, basically ... Eric -- delighted to see you've put Andrew Alexander on your blog. Most grateful for the info. I'd known something of his later Civil War career, but not of the earlier exploits that had taken him so far up the brevet ladder; thanks to you, I can now see why he made it all the way to Brigadier General. (He wrote a beautiful obituary for Keogh in the Army & Navy Journal, but I won't mess this discussion up by posting it here.) The relevant blog page, for those interested, is: civilwarcavalry.com/?p=820
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 15, 2008 12:45:59 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
I actually had been working on that profile of Alexander for a while, as he's of particular interest to me, and has been for a long time. He and Buford were born a stone's throw apart, although the 7-year-old Buford moved to Rock Island, IL about the time that Alexander was born. Second, he interests me because of the connection with Buford's death bed promotion. Third, although I didn't go into it in the blog post, he led a scouting mission of 40 or so Regulars that brought him onto the battlefield at Hanover, PA on June 30, 1863 that I discovered, and which we addressed in Plenty of Blame to Go Around: Jeb Stuart's Controversial Ride to Gettysburg for the first time ever. Finally, his close friendship with Keogh is also of interest.
Since you're an admirer of Alexander, you might be interested to know that most of the information that's in that post came from a single book you should track down. Here's the full bibliographic cite for it: James Harrison Wilson, The Life and Services of Brevet Brigadier-General Andrew Jonathan Alexander, United States Army (New York: privately published, 1887). It was published shortly after Alexander's death as a tribute to Alexander. I've owned a copy for years. I think I saw it on either Google Books or on the Microsoft Live Book Search site last year. Hopefully, it was on Google Books and not the MS site, as MS, in its infinite wisdom, took down its site and all of the scanned books and, of course, in true MS fashion, didn't make all of that material available elsewhere. Is it any wonder why I hate Microsoft with a deep and abiding passion?
Regarding Buford at Gettysburg: I'm not sure I agree that he had no orders. There's no doubt that he showed initiative in selecting positions without orders, but he was clearly there pursuant to orders, and did precisely what I would have expected him to do once he saw that good ground.
Eric
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 15, 2008 12:49:17 GMT -6
He wrote a beautiful obituary for Keogh in the Army & Navy JournalThis is something I would very much like to see, Elisabeth. Perhaps you could post it here elsewhere? Eric
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 15, 2008 12:57:13 GMT -6
How do you consider Grierson and his raid into Louisiana? Was he a hussar? Would Custer and/or Buford been a good choice for that mission? I suspect Custer would have and Buford I don't know welll enough to say. I rate Grierson as having a style between Buford and Custer's in terms of aggressiveness and taking chances. I think he showed in the few tactical actions I've studied of his during the Civil War, that he was more aggressive than Buford would have been. But Buford was never in one of the big raids as most other officers have been, and that is a different kind of operation, making it difficult to compare styles. Raids, by their very nature, engender more risk-taking than conventional operations around your army do. I do criticize Grierson for not taking the chance and turning back to Grant during his famous raid...very akin to Stoneman not turning back to join with Hooker at Chancellorsville, or Sheridan not turning back to Grant after Yellow Tavern. I believe that Buford, in both cases, would have returned to be of more service to the army, and I respect that. Note that Grierson was not a professional Soldier at this time, so it makes close comparison difficult. And Custer was a young buck with no experience. We can only try to make assumptions as to what kind of cavalry officer Grierson would have been with more military experience and training, or how different Custer would have been from Buford with a dozen more years of experience under his belt. Clair
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 15, 2008 13:18:02 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
I just checked, and Wilson's book about Alexander is available on Google Book Search. You can get it for free there. It's a 1.7MB download.
Eric
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 15, 2008 18:39:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 15, 2008 21:43:55 GMT -6
Thanks Clair. I live a few miles from the Camp in KS named for Grierson. Do a fair amount of research in the area there where the Santa Fe Trail crosses the Little Arkansas River.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 16, 2008 1:20:46 GMT -6
Eric, thanks for the info. That's great news.
|
|
|
Post by ericwittenberg on Aug 16, 2008 8:44:18 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
You're very welcome.
Eric
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 16, 2008 13:29:22 GMT -6
Attempt to rate the initiative/impetuosity/aggressiveness of tactical decisions, just for fun...
I'll use this scale: timid - desultory - cautious - assumptive - aggressive - reckless
Buford's first day's stand: assumptive (he was ordered to do what he did, but a more timid commander would have pulled back in the face of enemy infantry, and been correct to do so)
Custer's move north off Reno's trail at LBH: aggressive (it was part of his normal plan, and not particularly reckless for what he knew)
Grierson's decision to continue south at Vicksburg, rather than turn to find Grant: cautious (he had orders to do either, as he saw fit)
Benteen's decision to stop his flank mission and return to Custer: desultory (having decided he was done, his mission is to return as quickly as possible to Custer, even without orders)
Kilpatrick's order to Weber to charge the Falling Waters rearguard: aggressive (it actually has a basis in tactics as an extreme measure that Hussars often pull off)
Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava: reckless (it was not tactically sound and risk was not worth the reward)
On this standard, I'm wont to find any tactical decision of Buford's that I can rate higher than "assumptive." He simply wasn't an aggressive commander. He was often cautious. I don't think Kilpatrick made a "cautious" decision in his life, even when he should have.
Custer has a range of decisions, in a quick survey, from desultory through aggressive...I'd have to look harder to see if any could ever be called "reckless," that is, one where there was no tactical justification and the reward did not merit the risk.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by rch on Aug 17, 2008 15:38:33 GMT -6
bc
Re: Iraq - Let's leave the mayhem to PMs.
Re: Crystal Balls
I think there's considerably less Crystal Ball gazing in my scenario than in some others. Aside from the basic premise, which in itself takes Torbert out of the picture, there are only three other assumptions. One is that Buford would do well enough in the Valley so that Sheridan would take him to Grant's lines in March 1865.
Another is that Grant would still want Sheridan to command tha cavalry even if Buford was alive in the Spring of 1864. I think that's a reasonable position.
Finally that Keogh might have been made a colonel of a cavlry regiment late in the War like Pennington, Hull, Randol, and Coppinger from Custer's 3rd Division.
The rest is as it would be if Buford was alive.
Eric,
I'm sorry. When the word "Custerphile" is thrown around, I respond to it in the same spirit in which it is written by those who have affection for Freddy (he has the cutest little baby face) Benteen. The term Benteenphile was not meant for you.
I don't see that Buford's commission as a Maj is significant. He was made a Maj in the Inspector General's Department of the Regular Army. He went from a staff position to command of a cavalry brigade. I don't think he ever commanded a regiment.
I don't think it's self-evident that Buford would have been given the Cavalry Corps, or that any of the AOP's infantry corps commanders were in a danger of being sacked.
What were Grant's thoughts on the uses of cavalry? Perhaps Grant's was interested is first establishing saddle supremacy.
Clair,
I think it's usually said of Buford that he recognized that the terrain around Gettysburg was a good place to make a fight, so it's not just a matter of conducting the fight. Custer was said to have a good eye for terrain and my have made the same commection, but he wouldn't need two Bufords. Gamble and Devin would do, and what is more they, like Alexander, were future 8th Cavalrymen. That has to be weighed in their favor. Honor and Courage.
rch
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 18, 2008 7:42:28 GMT -6
I think it's usually said of Buford that he recognized that the terrain around Gettysburg was a good place to make a fight, so it's not just a matter of conducting the fight. Custer was said to have a good eye for terrain and my have made the same commection, but he wouldn't need two Bufords. Gamble and Devin would do, and what is more they, like Alexander, were future 8th Cavalrymen. That has to be weighed in their favor. Honor and Courage. Fully agree. The American army (armies, here), had to learn how to use "battle cavalry" during our Civil War. The Mexican War wasn't really big enough to practice this, although we saw good examples of it with the Mexican cavalry, who DID know how to do this. None of the major army commanders of either side used their cavalry properly during the Civil War. Sheridan came the closest to this, whether by circumstances or insight I can't tell. But the ONLY commander to ever use cavalry in the traditional European method was Sheridan, and from that early example we developed our cavalry and armor doctrines of today. Clair
|
|
|
Post by KarlKoz on Aug 18, 2008 8:10:11 GMT -6
|
|