A few questions regarding infantry battle

[mikeck]

I think Jackson was an above average general. He understood the value of speed and concentration but had many flaws including his failure to advise his staff and generals as to his intentions. I'm not sure running circles around McDowell, Banks and Fremont is any type of measuring stick. He was certainly more competent than any of the union generals in the valley.

[B7B Southern]

The Shenandoah Valley campaign conducted by Maj. Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley in the spring of 1862
is considered one of the most brilliant in United States, if not world, military history. Vastly outnumbered, and at times, facing three Union armies,
Jackson managed in less than three months to march his Army of the Valley hundreds of miles and fight a series of engagements (including five pitched battles)
in a masterpiece of military art that ultimately created a grand diversion which tied up thousands of Union troops threatening Richmond.

http://www.nps.gov/cebe/historycultu...y-campaign.htm

[hellboy30]

Originally Posted by B7B Southern

http://www.nps.gov/cebe/historycultu...y-campaign.htm

Strategically, yes. Tactically, no. Nowhere in that glowing review do they refer to his tactics-they are talking about the campaign & that means strategy. We have said that his strategy was great time & time again.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by hellboy30

Strategically, yes. Tactically, no. Nowhere in that glowing review do they refer to his tactics-they are talking about the campaign & that means strategy. We have said that his strategy was great time & time again.

His tactics put Jackson where he was supposed to be. You can't have one without the other.

I guess there are such things as bad tactics and still win the battles!

[hellboy30]

Originally Posted by B7B Southern

His tactics put Jackson where he was supposed to be. You can't have one without the other.

I guess there are such things as bad tactics and still win the battles!

Well.....yes. There are such things as bad tactics & still winning battles. Noone here speaks of Grant's amazing tactics. Tactically, he screwed up several times & yet STILL won the battles.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by hellboy30

Well.....yes. There are such things as bad tactics & still winning battles. Noone here speaks of Grant's amazing tactics. Tactically, he screwed up several times & yet STILL won the battles.

I just don't think being critical of tactics is useful
if the Battle is one. That seems to me like it
is used to muddy the win.

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by B7B Southern

His tactics put Jackson where he was supposed to be. You can't have one without the other.

I guess there are such things as bad tactics and still win the battles!

Actually no. As Scott Bowden eloquently put it:

Sometimes, the tenacity of the troops and leadership of subordinate commanders overcame Jackson's shortcomings---both on the offensive and defensive---were many times paid with a steep price.

.

To illustrate this, the Battle of Cedar Mountain (which you and I have discussed before), A.P. Hill's initiative overcomes Jackson's piecemeal deployment and turns the tide in the Confederate favor.

Jackson's strength, as stated above, was in strategy and not tactics.

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by B7B Southern

I just don't think being critical of tactics is useful
if the Battle is one. That seems to me like it
is used to muddy the win.

Again, no. It is valid to criticize Jackson where he actually had shortcomings, in the realm of arranging and deploying troops in combat. It is wrong (and historically inaccurate) to make Jackson into a tactical genius when he wasn't.

Jackson won those battles largely because of the operational arrangements which ensured local superiority or equality over his less than competent opponents. This isn't to muddy Jackson, but rather to give honest and fair appraisal to a man of which historians have long been too afraid to seriously criticize. It doesn't help that Jackson and his supporters and put forward nothing less than hagiography in his support.

I will reiterate that Jackson held strategical and operational talent. This does not automatically translate into tactical ability.

[B7B Southern]

Originally Posted by semperpietas

Again, no. It is valid to criticize Jackson where he actually had shortcomings, in the realm of arranging and deploying troops in combat. It is wrong (and historically inaccurate) to make Jackson into a tactical genius when he wasn't.

Jackson won those battles largely because of the operational arrangements which ensured local superiority or equality over his less than competent opponents. This isn't to muddy Jackson, but rather to give honest and fair appraisal to a man of which historians have long been too afraid to seriously criticize. It doesn't help that Jackson and his supporters and put forward nothing less than hagiography in his support.

I will reiterate that Jackson held strategical and operational talent. This does automatically translate into tactical ability.

There has to be tactics for strategy to be successful any way one cuts it.
Men can be successful arguing their thoughts and opinions but that has not
changed the over all outcome. Historically, Jackson's performance is a
study still being taught good or bad.

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by B7B Southern

There has to be tactics for strategy to be successful any way one cuts it.
Men can be successful arguing their thoughts and opinions but that has not
changed the over all outcome. Historically, Jackson's performance is a
study still being taught good or bad.

But it doesn't mean the tactics are always good. There a number of variables for success or defeat in battle. While tactics are important, there are other variables such (but not limited to) as morale, supply, numbers of combat effective units, experience and competence of opponents, and terrain.

And there are times when Jackson's bad tactical handling hampered Confederate efforts and made Confederate victories less complete. For instance, while he won at Second Manassas his poor tactical effort at Brawner's Farm prevented the possible destruction of what would be the isolated Iron Brigade and elements of its division.

You will also note what is studied is Jackson's operational elements and strategy, not his tactics.