Game Balance & Historical Accuracy

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: von Beanie
I don't buy the argument that southern leaders were significantly better. Both sides' principal leaders were trained in the Mexican war, fighting side by side.

Right. And while Lee was on the command staff earning praise from the expeditionary commander as the best soldier in the Army, the plodding Sam Grant was playing quartermaster with mule trains.

Perfectly comparable. Right.

[Steely Glint]

The pro-Union bias around here is simply amazing. If the Union leadership was what you think it was, the force disparities would have resulted in the war being over in 1862, perhaps 1863 at the latest. Grab some books, guys. Bias is no substitute for knowledge.

The argument about competent Union generalship in a war that dragged on until 1865 reminds me of the sarcasm in Townes van Zandt's "Pancho and Lefty":

"All the federales say
They could have had him any day.
They only let him hang around
Out of kindness I suppose."

[Twotribes]

The pompous prattlings of the Southern "fan" boys is whats amazing. I clearly remember a conversation I once had with a "southern" boy in the Marine Corps. After losing every bit of his arguement he resorted to the final "truth". According to him, the North CHEATED. Yup they won cause they had the AUDACITY to use their assets to win. He INSISTED that the South won and that the North cheated them out of the victory.

There is NO doubt the South had the better Generals initially and more of the Officers that could grasp the new realities of a changed battle field. But to prattle on here that the North had none is patently ridiculous.

The arguement being that in the West the North had the good fortune to have early on reasonably competent Officers and to have them in the right commands and the counter arguement being the North had a bunch of buffoons and just got lucky with sheer numbers. I know which is true and which is wishful thinking.

[Steely Glint]

A problem for the reader to ponder:

Force A and Force B are suddenly at war. Force A is a continuation of an existing, successful, military organization. It has entire regular units available. Force B is still being organized.

Force A is guaranteed to have markedly superior weapons, sufficient ammunition, sufficient food and clothing, quality horseflesh for cavalry, and an average force advantage of 2:1 in combat in battles in this region.

Force B is armed with a motley collection of weapons, and has chronic problems with supplies. Sometimes its combat troops will be barefoot and forced to eat such things as green corn.

Force A will have control of the rivers and the sea. Force B will suffer the effects of a blockade. Force A has a quality railroad system. Force B's railroad system is something of a joke.

The capitals for A and B are about one hundred miles apart. The area between is, at the start of the war, essentially unfortified. Roads connect the two capitals. The capital of B is also vulnerable to an amphibious flanking attack.

Explain how it could possibly take four years for Force A to advance those one hundred miles without referencing a leadership differential.

[Steely Glint]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
According to him, the North CHEATED.

In a way, the North did. It abandoned the accepted rules of war and all principles of civilized warfare and made war against civilians on an unprecedented scale (Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley, Sherman in the March To The Sea). Doing so was low, vile, dishonorable, disgraceful, and wrong. It has been argued that these were acts of desperation due to an inability to compete on anything remotely resembling a level playing field.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
But to prattle on here that the North had none is patently ridiculous.

No one said that. Argue about what was actually written, not straw man arguments.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
I know which is true and which is wishful thinking.

Sorry, but it's rather obvious that you don't. See the problem I posted above.

[Twotribes]

Lets have a little history added to the above...

The exsisting Army had all of 16000 men in it before the war.

The exsisting Army lost a large number of its most capable Officers to the other side before the conflict began.

The tactics of war drasticly changed from what these Officers had been taught to what actually worked.

It took over a year before an effective blockade could be imposed ( and some claim it was never completely effective)

The intial "army" consisted of militia activated for JUST 90 days. poorly trained with untrained officers and NCO's

The Army commanders for the first 2 years ( in the east) either refused to engage the enemy or were unwilling and unable to change plans as battles unfolded.

The "overwhelming" technology edge took several years to be felt. For the first year at least most units were still armed with a hodge podge of weaponry.

Until Grant assumed command in 64 the Eastern armys would simply pack up and go home if beaten by a smaller inferior force, hurting morale of said army. And in the East with a few notable exceptions the battles were all offensive for the North and defensive for the South. The South operated in its own territory mostly while the North had to "invade"

There is more of course.... but that should be enough for now.

[Twotribes]

And the most telling reply.... we are talking about the WEST not Virginia....

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And the most telling reply.... we are talking about the WEST not Virginia....

Forget it! He's a "dyed-in-the-cotton" believer in Southern Mythology and nothing will change his mind. Just keep repeating "But the Union Won! That bunch of 'Clowns and Morons' you keep talking about beat the crap out of the Glorious South!".

[ezzler]

It's astonishing.  Most of what SG writes is true. The force disparity,the economics,the industry etc. Evryone knows the CSA faced almost certain defeat.
 
yet this 'Generals and leadership' as the ONLY reason the war lasted so long is absurd.
 
As a 'Britisher' myself I have no bias... North or South. Lee or Grant ? who cares Wellington would beat both.
 
But I have never read anything that leads me to believe LEADERSHIP was the ONLY important factor in prolonging the war.
 
 
 

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ezz

It's astonishing.  Most of what SG writes is true. The force disparity,the economics,the industry etc. Evryone knows the CSA faced almost certain defeat.

yet this 'Generals and leadership' as the ONLY reason the war lasted so long is absurd. He convieiently ignores the enormous logistical problems involved in siezing and occupying a large part of a continent

As a 'Britisher' myself I have no bias... North or South. Lee or Grant ? who cares Wellington would beat both. But in 1861 the "Iron Duke" was dead..., and the gang you sent to the Crimea don't arouse much confidence....

But I have never read anything that leads me to believe LEADERSHIP was the ONLY important factor in prolonging the war.

[dude]

My favorite quote lately still sums it up:

"Ifs beat the Confederates..." U.S. Grant

You won't be able to convince those that have bought into the Southern Myth of anything but the surpremecy of the Southern Generals. 

Grant explained away the myth of the Confederates being outnumber at places like Shiloh by pointing out the way both sides counted troops.  The South only counted active fighting men in the engagement on the line... the North counted every last person collecting pay... the band, the cooks, the supply personel... etc...  Grant points out that if you counted only active fighting personel like the south did... HE was outnumber at Shiloh! 

It's no different today: how strong is a modern infantry division... depends on who you ask and what troops they count... Are you talking the front line guys or all the support personel required too?

Force A and Force B are suddenly at war. Force A is a continuation of an existing, successful, military organization. It has entire regular units available. Force B is still being organized.

The problem with this was that the Union force at the start of the war was NOT a continuation of an existing organization.  Almost all the units were newly mustered and raised at the start... lacking decent equipment and any kind of training.  The "professional" Union army was actaully left out for the most part at the start(don't have my books handy to quote the passages.)  It was one of the major drawbacks to the Union force...  the North did not integrate experienced troops with the new volunteer units.   This was a major stumbling block and why the South had major success to start with... troop quality. 

Read Grant's memiors on his intial troubles with the rabble he had to convert into fighting men out west.  Then read Grant admit that he and his men were inexperienced when the were caught off guard at Shiloh.  But what made him a great commander was how he was able to recover in a situation like this.

The pro-Union bias around here is simply amazing. If the Union leadership was what you think it was, the force disparities would have resulted in the war being over in 1862, perhaps 1863 at the latest. Grab some books, guys. Bias is no substitute for knowledge.

Read some books on just how poorly trained the Union forces where... It's not numbers alone that will win you the war... otherwise the Western block was in great peril vs the Soviets...  You can have an very large force but if it does not have the will or training to fight a smaller force can and will defeat it.  Hence part of the problem in the Eastern campaings early on.  At least in the west... each battle Grant and others fought got them more experience and training... and since the forces were intially nearly equal in size, and the confederats where on the home turf, and the training lacked for the Union troops... It must stand to reason that the leadership exbited by the field commanders (not necessarily the rear commanders like Halleck) played a part in thier victories.

One last point by Grant... he points out that up until Shiloh he and many others felt it would be a short war and the South would lay down their arms soon... After Shiloh he wrote that he came to the realization that that was wrong and a lot more bloodshed would be needed to get the South to surrender.  I think that infected the entire Union force... they were just not "into" it like the South was for some time.  This equated into a lack of initiative by some commanders to attack... why some troops broke and ran so soon... etc...

Dude

[captskillet]

As a 'Britisher' myself I have no bias... North or South. Lee or Grant ? who cares Wellington would beat both.

I guess kinda like Lord Cornwallis, etc. did to that motley band of rebels during the Revolution!!!! [;)]

[ravinhood]

**And no Union general in the West (or anywhere else) could hold a candle to Nathan Bedford Forrest.**
 
  You mean the one that was related to "Run Forrest Run" lol

[moses]

One last point by Grant... he points out that up until Shiloh he and many others felt it would be a short war and the South would lay down their arms soon... After Shiloh he wrote that he came to the realization that that was wrong and a lot more bloodshed would be needed to get the South to surrender. I think that infected the entire Union force... they were just not "into" it like the South was for some time. This equated into a lack of initiative by some commanders to attack... why some troops broke and ran so soon... etc...

This just seems a key point. The grinding attritional style of warfare that eventually proved essential was just inconcievable early in the war. Allowing such butchery would have been proof of a generals incompotance and he would have been quickly sacked in favor of more "Napolionic" generals who might promise quick clean victories. Only after repeated failures could the ultimate winning methods be tolerated.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: moses
The grinding attritional style of warfare that eventually proved essential was just inconceivable early in the war. Allowing such butchery would have been proof of a general's incompetance and he would have been quickly sacked in favor of more "Napoleonic" generals who might promise quick clean victories. Only after repeated failures could the ultimate winning methods be tolerated.

Good point. I'm not sure that I've seen it mentioned before.

I wonder what parents throughout the North were thinking.

"We spent a lot of time and money bringing up our sons, we loved them and had high hopes for them, and they've been used as cannon fodder to bring the southern states back into the Union. Now they're dead. Did it really matter that much whether the South had one government or another?"

But probably that's modern thinking and people at the time wouldn't have thought like that.

[ezzler]

Of course I am not serious.
Raglan was a combination of the worst qualities of Banks,Freemont and Pillow.
Grant or Lee would give the Iron Duke a serious problem.
Cornwallis is our own McClellan..and you could add Elphinstone,Percival,Gort,Ironside,Chelmsford and Lots more.

And since Garnet Woolsey there is a lack of dash in our commanders. Good solid corps commanders but no great generals.

Montgomery is our version of Meade so i admit my comment was just stiring the debate
{ plus plain envy for some truly talented commanders, which is after all one of the main reasons why this conflict is so interesting to study}[;)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: moses
The grinding attritional style of warfare that eventually proved essential was just inconceivable early in the war. Allowing such butchery would have been proof of a general's incompetance and he would have been quickly sacked in favor of more "Napoleonic" generals who might promise quick clean victories. Only after repeated failures could the ultimate winning methods be tolerated.

Good point. I'm not sure that I've seen it mentioned before. Actually Grant's real strength was a "bulldog tenacity"..., once he set his teeth into something he just wouldn't let go. Union losses at Shiloh itself were higher than those of the Rebels, but during the campaign leading to it he'd also taken Forts Henry and Donaldson, so the overall losses were in his favor. Same thing with the Vicksburg and Chattanooga Campaigns. Overall his losses were less, and he never gave up the ground he'd taken. Even in 1864, when his losses against Lee were definately higher, the campaign ended with Lee's surrender. Comparing that to all the Union's previous Eastern Efforts from Bull Run through Gettysburg (where large losses were taken with no advance to show for it), Grant's losses at least led to the end of the war. In the end, "Grant the Butcher" may well have been the most economical of all the Civil War Commanders because he didn't take losses for no gain, and he always gained the goal he was after.

I wonder what parents throughout the North were thinking. Probably the same thing they think today. "Please God. let my Son (or Husband, or Father) come back safe to me." I don't think that ever changes.

"We spent a lot of time and money bringing up our sons, we loved them and had high hopes for them, and they've been used as cannon fodder to bring the southern states back into the Union. Now they're dead. Did it really matter that much whether the South had one government or another?"

But probably that's modern thinking and people at the time wouldn't have thought like that.

[Conhugeco]

Yes, it really should have been a cakewalk to suppress 770,425 square miles of rebellious territory with a 2/1 or 2.5/1 force ratio. A week or two should have been sufficient. [8|]

DickH

[Director]

The shock for the North was that Shiloh produced more casualties than the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War and the Indian Wars to date... COMBINED. That was why Grant received so much bad press ('butcher', 'drunkard' - neither strictly true) and lost command of the army for so long.

In the East you had a small area and a high force-to-area co-efficient, plus good commanders on the Confederate side. The terrain is suited for defense. In the West you had wide spaces and room for manuever versus the need for large armies of occupation against guerillas. In the East the Confederates had commanders who knew how to fight and win; in the West the Union developed commanders who knew how to fight and win. Overall, the Union wound up with better commanders and won the great majority of the important battles.

As the Union penetrated into the South, the loss of resources began to tell (Tennessee iron, saltpeter, lead and locomotive shops, New Orleans population, wealth, machine shops, etc). Plus, as territory was lost the Southern armies began to have high absentee/desertion rates; by the end of the war the soldiers were voting with their feet and going home to their families.

It was no small thing to occupy (or defend) a territory roughly the size of western Europe. It is farther from St Louis MO to New Orleans (680 mi) than from Paris to Berlin (545 mi) and almost as far from Memphis to Richmond (850 mi) as Berlin to Moscow (1000 mi). As a previous poster pointed out, that's a lot of area to secure.

[histgamer]

Just so you know, the north could have won without a war of attrition, simply whip the rebel army on the field and drive them back.

The north had advantages, which should have made it possible, but they failed in that.

Note: The US probably wouldn’t have had to conquer the whole of the CSA had they won early in 1861 and defeated the rebel armies in detail, had they done this the CSA probably would have come apart however 3 years of hard fighting, hero’s being publicized an such rightfully so made the CSA feel they were actually a nation and attributed to the length of the war.   Yes the north won   No the north didn’t cheat   No the north’s generals were not better.   No Grant was not the north’s best general, no he was not better than Lee, Longstreet or Jackson (on a battlefield) though he was a better strategist than all of them.   The north’s best battlefield generals were Sherman, Hancock, Reynolds, Thomas   Sherman was the north’s best because he managed a war of maneuver and defeated the southern army he faced with far fewer losses than Grant.   Sherman’s march on Atlanta was an amazing military feat, yes Joseph Johnston couldn’t hold a candle to Lee overall, however he was equally as good on the defensive, seeing as the post Wilderness campaign was very similar to the campaign that Sherman fought in getting to Atlanta Sherman did far better.   That said Sherman wouldn’t have done as good against Lee, though he wouldn’t have done as poor as Grant.