Gen. Robert Emmett Rodes

One of the more interesting exercises connected with scenario design is the characterization of leaders. This is generally a requirement of rules’ sets, and if the scenario is “historic,” getting the characterizations right is important. Of course, the process is complicated by the fact that most historic leaders had their good days and their bad days (that is, splendid and not so much – think of “the” Stonewall Jackson of the Seven Days for a couple inexplicably bad days by a military colossus). Then too, there were others who were truly great at lower command levels but ineffective or worse at higher levels (for example, John Bell Hood – the epitome of the Peter Principle). Colonel, later Gen. Robert E. Rodes is an example of an enigmatic historic leader. As he figures in several of the scenarios I’ve been working up, I had to get a handle on him. Following is a list of biographical references for Rodes. I’ve only seen the first, which I consider sufficient, but I expect I’ll get around to the others.

Collins, Darrell L. Major General Robert E. Rodes of the Army of Northern Virginia: A Biography. New York: Savas Beatie, 2008.

Newton, Steven H., William Garrett Piston, Keith Poulter, Steven E. Woodworth, and Gregory J. W. Urwin. 2009. “Overrated Generals.” North & South : The Official Magazine of the Civil War Society. 11, no. 6: 14-22.

Covers: Philip Henry Sheridan; John Brown Gordon; James Birdseye McPherson; Joseph Wheeler; James Harrison Wilson; William Joseph Hardee; Joseph Hooker; Joseph E. Johnston; George Gordon Meade; Nathan Bedford Forrest; George Henry Thomas; John Singleton Mosby (not a general, of course); George Crook; Wesley Merritt; G. T. Beauregard; John Hunt Morgan; Franz Sigel; Robert Emmett Rodes; Winfield Scott Hancock; George A. Custer; John Alexander Logan

Swisher, James K. Warrior in Gray: General Robert Rodes of Lee's Army. Shippensburg, Pa.: White Mane Books, 2000.

Fabian Tactics

Gen. Nathanael Greene (July 27, 1742-June 19, 1786)

Like many American soldiers who rose to improbable greatness, Greene was a native genius. Readings in military history appear to have provided his entire background in military affairs. Perhaps it was his reading of the campaigns of the great Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus, who defended Rome against the Carthaginian general Hannibal, that inspired his employment of Fabian tactics against the British in the southern campaigns of the American Revolution.

“Fabian tactics – A type of warfare in which combat is avoided and instead a policy of delay and harassment is directed at the enemy.” - Dupuy, Trevor N., Curt Johnson, and Grace P. Hayes. Dictionary of Military Terms: A Guide to the Language of Warfare and Military Institutions. New York: H.W. Wilson Co, 1986.

Greene described his operational-tactical method in a letter to his friend Jeremiah Wadsworth:

“Our army has been frequently beaten and like a Stock Fish grows the better for it. Lord Cornwallis, who is the modern Hannibal, has rambled through [a] great part of the Southern States, and his Tour has [sacrificed] a great number of Men without reaping any solid Advantages from it, except that of distressing the poor Inhabitants.”

“…[T]here are few Generals that [have] run oftener, or more lustily, than I have done. But I have taken care not to run too far; and commonly have run as fast forward as backward, to convince our Enemy that we were like a Crab that could run either way.”

Sometimes, of course, it was necessary to fight, but as Greene noted in a letter to the chevalier de La Luzerne:

“We fight, get beat, rise and fight again.”

Brig. Gen. Thomas Fenwick Drayton

Much of my time lately has been taken up with research and analysis for a series of scenarios. The focus has been on various units and formations involved in the Second Manassas-Antietam campaign of 1862. As usual, my concerns have been strengths, casualties, characterization of leaders, and indices of combat effectiveness. I've returned to these questions time and again over the years. One of the formations that has intrigued me over time has been the brigade General Drayton, which, under the apparently feckless leadership of its commander (depicted above, with his brother, whom he faced in battle at Port Royal) was virtually destroyed in its sojourn of less than a month with the Army of Northern Virginia.

Brig. Gen. Thomas Fenwick Drayton (1808-1891) was a classmate of Confederate Pres. Jefferson Davis at West Point, and the two were friends. A South Carolinian, he had led Confederate land forces in the unsuccessful defense of Port Royal Sound (Nov. 7, 1861). His brother, Capt. Percival Drayton, commanded a gunboat in the attacking Union squadron. At the end of July 1862, Drayton’s Brigade, together with that of “Shanks” Evans, moved north from the Department of South Carolina and Georgia to reinforce Lee’s army in Virginia. In the Army of Northern Virginia, Drayton led his brigade at Second Manassas, South Mountain, and Antietam. The brigade found little employment in the Second Manassas campaign but was nearly wrecked at South Mountain. How much of this was Drayton’s fault is debatable. At Antietam, the remnants of the brigade resisted Burnside’s advance briefly before breaking for the rear. Documentation of Drayton’s command performance is scarce. It seems he was considered “inefficient” by superiors. In addition, he was criticized in press reports that originated among stringers in his brigade. Following the Antietam campaign, he was relieved, his brigade was broken-up, and he was shunted off to administrative duties and minor commands in backwater districts. In truth, he was probably better suited to desk work than field command.

Gettysburg Sources: Collective Biography

Tagg, Larry. The Generals of Gettysburg: The Leaders of America's Greatest Battle. Campbell, Calif.: Savas Pub. Co., 1998.

Larry Tagg introduces his book with a quote from Heraclitus: “character is destiny.” This epigram of the Greek philosopher informs the author’s approach, which provides well-written biographies of the leaders at Gettysburg, concentrating on their character attributes, backgrounds, personalities, and battlefield performance. In this he succeeds admirably. The book is organized according to the orders of battle of the armies (Federal first), proceeding through the various corps in numerical order, with commanders of divisions and brigades discussed under corps’ heads. Where colonels commanded brigades, they are included. Officers who succeeded to the command of formations during the battle –- for example Fry for Archer -- are not discussed.

Tagg provides strength data for the various units and formations that is drawn from the authoritative work of Busey and Martin (1982 ed.). I’ll probably discuss this book in a future post. Each entry is supplemented by appropriate bibliographical references. There are also nine maps by John Heiser. The one thing the book lacks is an index, so even those familiar with the orders of battle may find themselves thumbing back-and-forth to find a particular entry.

All in all, I think this is a book that belongs on your Civil War bookshelf, more particularly if you’re a Gettysburg junkie.

Huger’s (and Lee’s) Presence at Oak Grove

Above: Part of a map showing the "Position of Troops, Morning of June 25, 1862." Huger’s Division’s position is shown at left center toward the top of the legend. This map was probably the principal source for Sears’ map of Oak Grove in To the Gates of Richmond. Source: Library of Congress. Geography & Map Division. Landers, Howard Lee, and Donald E. Windham. [Seven Days' Battles, Virginia, June 25-July 1, 1862]. S.l: s.n.], 1929.

Earlier I mentioned the fact that Lee had informed President Davis that Huger was not at his post when McClellan’s offensive of June 25, 1862, hit Huger’s Division along the axis of the Williamsburg Road. This attack was of the greatest concern to Lee, since McClellan hit hard at the weakest sector of the Confederate line just a day before Lee himself launched his great offensive against the weak Federal right flank (at Mechanicsville). McClellan, by dumb luck struck the Army of Northern Virginia where it was most vulnerable and threatened to derange all of Lee’s plans for his own offensive.

Huger’s absence at the outset of the Federal attack was unforgivable. The pertinent sequence of events is best followed not in the Official Records, nor in the secondary literature, but rather in the following source:

Lee, Robert E., and Clifford Dowdey. The Wartime Papers of R.E. Lee. Boston: Little, Brown, 1961.

Huger’s mission on the 25^th was outlined in Lee’s G.O. No. 75 (June 24), which was his mission order to his army for the first phase of the Seven Days’ offensive (doc. 210 in the above).

I have previously quoted from Lee’s Dispatches the evidence that Huger was not at his post. Lee’s actions subsequent to this discovery are outlined in a letter to Davis (doc. 211, which appears to be misdated June 24) and doc. 212, Lee to his wife, dtd. June 25.

In doc. 211, Lee states that he was “called to the Williamsburg road” by the fighting on Huger’s front and that the “affair on the whole was not well managed.” Nonetheless, he was determined to stick to his overall offensive plan. He states that he ordered Huger to hold his lines “at all hazards.” So, it is apparent that Huger did join his division during the fighting and that Lee firmly reiterated his orders and expectations to him.

In doc. 212, Lee gives the time of his arrival and other facts that indicate his preoccupation with events on Huger’s front.

Knowledge of the entirety of the documentation of events that day (such as it is) will definitely help to improve the Oak Grove scenario I’m designing for TCHAE. Also, the time spent in working through these events has rather tempered my sympathy for Huger for his shabby treatment by Longstreet and Johnston after Fair Oaks.

West Point “gave us some dummies”

South Carolina’s John Cheves Haskell, who fought throughout the Civil War, losing an arm at Gaines’ Mill along the way, and married not only Wade Hampton’s daughter but also the daughter of Hampton’s brother Frank, left a memoir in which he mused that the first crop of major generals (division commanders) of what became the Army of Northern Virginia gave credence to “the charge, frequently made then and now, that we were handicapped by West Point.” The charge of course was an absurdity, but looking at it in Haskell’s context, where the army was reorganized into divisions commanded by G. W. Smith, Longstreet, Jackson, Holmes, Huger, and Kirby Smith, one is inclined to agree that, “The Academy certainly gave us some great soldiers, but it also gave us some dummies, who were grievous stumbling-blocks in our way.” And among those named, Haskell excepted Longstreet, Jackson, and “perhaps” Kirby Smith.

Regardless of how things turned out, when these fellows were appointed, they were conceivably among the best available, based upon objective criteria. Indeed Huger, who is currently under the microscope here, was so valuable to Robert E. Lee just prior to his fall from grace that Lee refused South Carolina’s governor’s entreaties that Huger be sent to Charleston to command the state’s defenses. Huger, Lee stated, was too valuable where he was: “He has always been regarded as an officer of great merit, especially as an artillerist.” But Huger was basely scapegoated for the Confederate failure at Seven Pines and his actions subsequently appeared to confirm the initial calumny – that he was too slow, not where he was supposed to be, not with his command, etc.

Which brings us to Oak Grove. Although Huger wrote a report of his division’s combat at Oak Grove, there is no indication that he was actually present at the events he described. In fact, on the very day of the attack, General Lee informed President Davis that Huger “was absent…Not at his qrs” and that he “had sent him an order to take his position with his troops & to remain with them.” However, having read Sears’ narrative of the battle (which appears to be the most complete account in the secondary literature) and other modern sources, only one mentions Huger’s absence (Dowdey’s The Seven Days), although the evidence for it is hiding in plain sight in the primary literature.

Now Huger’s absence from his command, particularly on the eve of a major offensive, would have been damning in Lee’s eyes. And both Sears and Dowdey report Lee going forward to the Oak Grove sector during the fighting. Curiously, Rhoades’ biography of Huger (see above) mentions neither Huger’s absence, nor Lee’s presence on the battlefield. It is possible that Huger was present later in the day (in response to Lee’s orders?). At least Sears indicates this, but it is practically impossible to link this fact to Sears’ footnotes the way they’re arranged, and I’m still awaiting the one source that I hope will confirm Sears’ narrative on this point.

Worst Confederate General?

Above: Gen. Roswell Sabine Ripley, C.S.A.

The website of Gatehouse Press (publishers of, inter alia, The Gettysburg Magazine and Morningside Books) provides an online newsletter that is well worth visiting on a frequent basis. I’m a big fan of historian Robert K. (“Bob”) Krick, not only for his unique take on the Civil War but also for his entertaining writing style. His two-part profile here http://www.gatehouse-press.com/ of General Ripley may provide a ready answer to the question posed in the header.

Colonels in Blue

Hunt, Roger D. Colonels in Blue: Union Army Colonels of the Civil War : The Mid-Atlantic States : Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Mechanicsburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 2007.

This volume is one of three related collective biographies produced by the author. A companion volume, recently printed, is listed below. In addition, there is an earlier work, apparently comprehensive, also listed below. I haven't seen either of the works listed below, so my comments apply only to the volume cited above. I found this book quite useful as a ready reference on the men profiled. It is thoroughly researched and provides readable, well-organized biographical sketches of its subjects, most of which are accompanied by photographs or other images. Mr. Hunt is also co-author of a book titled Brevet Brigadier Generals in Blue. See also: Hunt, Roger D. Colonels in Blue: Union Army Colonels of the Civil War. Atglen, Pa.: Schiffer, 2001, and Hunt, Roger D. Colonels in Blue: Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia : A Civil War Biographical Dictionary. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2011.

Contents of Mosby's Confederacy

Rather a busy day here and expecting a snowstorm or just a mess tomorrow (we generally get our first snowfall in early December), so not much free time to devote to the blog. I thought it best to post the table of contents of Mosby's Confederacy to give an idea of the book's organization and ... contents. The various tours listed can each be accomplished in the space of day, provided one has a reliable guide, such as the book or a knowledgeable individual.

Mosby's Confederacy

Evans, Thomas J., and James M. Moyer. Mosby's Confederacy: A Guide to the Roads and Sites of Colonel John Singleton Mosby. Shippensburg, Pa.: White Mane Pub. Co, 1991.

From the book’s dust-jacket: “As Mosby said after reading the Life of Marion, ‘I remember how I shouted when I read aloud…the way the great partisan hid in the swamp and outwitted the British.’ As an old veteran, he explained his war tactics to an interested small boy named George S. Patton, Jr. In between, Col. John Singleton Mosby earned a reputation as the Civil War’s greatest guerrilla leader. He so dominated his chosen battleground, centering in Northern Virginia, close to the seat of the Union government, that it became known as Mosby’s Confederacy.”

This wonderful book is relatively hard to come by, yet it is essential reading for anyone contemplating day-trips into Mosby’s Confederacy. It was written by many of the stalwarts of the Stuart-Mosby Historical Society, some of whom I’ve known and many I regret that I did not know. Several of these men and women fall into the category of those we call “old-timers,” in that they knew or knew someone who knew some of Mosby’s men. So, much of what is found here is based upon oral history or rather obscure written sources. Even if you never chance to enter Mosby’s Confederacy, you may be fascinated by the places and events described  in this book and the people who inhabited them not so long ago.

Military Greats: Great Generals (2)

Above: Maurits van Nassau

Here is the second ten:

Subotai (c. 1172-1245)
Edward I (1239-1307)
Edward III (1312-1377)
Tamerlane (1336-1405)
Mohammed II (1432-1481)
Gonsalvo de Córdoba (1453-1515)
Babur (1483-1530)
Maurice of Nassau (1567-1625)
Akbar (1542-1605)
Gustav II Adolf (1594-1632)

Military Greats: Great Generals (1)

Above: Genghis Khan and Three of His Four Sons (BNF)

Many years ago, my colleagues and I put together lists of military greats in several categories, e.g., great generals, great land battles, great developments in military technology, etc. We eventually had 14 such lists, varying in length from 15-60 entries. I recently rediscovered my copy of the draft lists (all save one), so I thought I'd present some of them here, starting with the first 10 of the 50 great (land warfare) generals. The list is chronological from earliest times to more recent. Please note: The list is of greats, not "the 50 greatest."

Alexander III the Great (356-323 B.C.)
Hannibal Barca (247-183B.C.)
Scipio Africanus (c. 236-184 B.C.)
Marius, Gaius (157-86 B.C.)
Sulla, Lucius Cornelius (138-78 B.C.)
Caesar, Gaius Julius (100-44 B.C.)
Belisarius (c. 505-565)
Heraclius (c. 575-641)
Khalid ibn al-Walid (592-642)
Genghis Khan (1162-1227)

Contents of Turenne et l'Art Militaire

Among the contributions, I most appreciated Humbert's on Turenne in Italy and Foerster's on Turenne and Montecuccoli. There is quite a lot here, though, and if you're interested in the military epoch and comfortable with the language, you may wish to make the effort to obtain the book.

Turenne

Colloque international sur Turenne et l'art militaire, and Fernand Louis Gambiez. Actes du Colloque international sur Turenne et l'art militaire: tenu à Paris, École militaire, Amphithéâtre des Vallières, les 2 et 3 octobre 1975. [Paris]: Les Belles lettres, 1978.

Napoleon famously said: “The principles of warfare are those which guided the great captains whose high deeds history has transmitted to us—Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus, Turenne, Eugene of Savoy, Frederick the Great….The history of their eighty-three campaigns would constitute a complete treatise on the art of war; the principles that must be followed in defensive and offensive warfare would flow from it as from a common source.”

My current reading includes this scarce volume, which is a collection of essays delivered in Paris by eminent military scholars to mark the 300th anniversary of the death in battle at Sasbach, Germany, of the great marshal-general. Although like all such collective works the quality of the many contributions vary, there is much here that I've found useful, new (to me), even provocative. And, I am not unfamiliar with the literature on Turenne, which is rather extensive. But, this is the first opportunity that I've had to read this volume, and I'll share my observations in coming posts.

Leaders of the Lost Cause (2)

Returning to this interesting book, I thought that I’d mention an interesting approach that editors Gary W. Gallagher and Joseph T. Glatthaar took to the selection and assignment of authors to subjects. Essays were assigned to authors who had never previously written on the particular subject. Although this could not be followed completely, the essays largely do provide fresh views on the subjects and are free from the crippling hagiography and “amen chorus” aspects so often encountered in similar collective biographies. In addition, the authors were asked to look closely at the pre-war careers of their subjects -- an aspect of biography that often suffers in popular works.

Leaders of the Lost Cause

This handy volume provides biographical and interpretive essays on eight Confederate general officers who attained the rank of full general (equivalent to four-star) during the course of the U.S. Civil War. These men were: Robert E. Lee, P. G. T. Beauregard, Braxton Bragg, Samuel Cooper, Albert Sidney Johnston, Joseph E. Johnston, Edmund Kirby Smith, and John Bell Hood. In addition, the editors, in their Introduction, profile Confederate President Jefferson Davis, “the common thread among these officers, to whom they were beholden for their appointment.” This in itself is an important and essential essay that knits the others together in a useful fashion.