Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: The Orbats at Antietam
Actually Tom C wrote those comments... I am simply in agreement.
Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers
To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even
on one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the
Union, a passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from
the Almighty God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: The Orbats at Antietam
> Orbat is modern jargon. don't see it used much in ACW terms.
> The thing that strikes me most about the ANV up to this time is
> that it had
> a very informal structure, more akin to pre-Napoleonic armies
> than to 19th
> Century forces, where columns were got up as needed or for
> certain missions,
> etc. Lee used a very informal command structure in the Seven
> Days, for example,
> with some divisions subordinated to others for certain things,
> but only on an
> ad-hoc basis.
> DH Hill led the reinforcing column north from Richmond by dint
> of Seniority,
> IIRC, and joined the ANV after 2nd Bull Run. Sometimes the
> troops that came
> north with him are referred to as his "wing" (which includes
> forces like
> those under McLaws that were once Magruder's) but even that
> goes out the window
> by September 17th.
> I think Lee himself found all this unsatisfactory, as evidenced
> by his
> decision to promote Jackson and Longstreet in Oct 1862, reorg
> the arty, etc.
> Dave Powell
> In a message dated 2/5/2009 3:52:20 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> gerry1952@... writes:
> The idea of the ANV at Antietam divided into three wings with
> senior commanders is unfounded and unprovable. No doubt D.H.
> Hill exercised his seniority to issue orders to other
> but it is a mistake to confuse that with creating "wings."
> McLaws and Anderson arrived just at dawn and were placed and
> ordered into the batle directly by Lee. There is no extant
> placing D.H. Hill in authority over either of these two
> commanders. Lee's Order of Battle, and I must admit it took me
> while to figure out that is what you mean by "orbat," was a
> fluid and loose structure. Attempts to prove otherwise will,
> fear, prove futile. Also I'd beware of imposing a modern
> conception of tight command structures upon an era of poor
> communication and loose battlefield control. My contention is
> that the structure was deliberately vague, and senior
> despite any presumed structure, exercised a fair amount of
> control over any troops in their immediate tactical area.
> My two cents worth.
> Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
> Professor of History
> Hagerstown Community College
> **************Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises
> of all time on
> AOL Music.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Jackson has some real problems as a tactical commander, and he keeps making
the same mistakes, which suggests that he wasn't very introspective about
developing those skills. None of his battles really display a flair for tactics,
even Chancellorsville, where his choices of divisions in line instead of
column greatly complicated his own attack.
That said, he was quite effective at what we today would call the
In a message dated 2/11/2009 3:21:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Gary Echelbarger is also a great source on the Valley Campaign of
1862. Mildly said, Jackson got very lucky in the Valley in 1862..
the only Federal commander to beat him, and do so pretty soundly,
was James Shields. (Even there, actual field commander was Nathan
Kimball.) That said, Jackson had, after Shields, mediocre Federal
commanders to contend with....
Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers
**************Nothing says I love you like flowers! Find a florist near you
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]