"Lee’s Lieutenants: Leadership Lessons from the..." Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleA Civil War boardgame is adapted to miniature wargaming.
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 08 May 2017 10:32 p.m. PST |
… Civil War for the Battlefield and the Boardroom. "In the summer of 1862, the Army of Northern Virginia went into battle for the first time under its new commander, Robert E. Lee. In volume one of Lee's Lieutenants, Douglas Southall Freeman provides a short and almost off-hand account of two of the actors in the drama that was unfolding. As the Confederates approached Union positions, two Confederate commanders rode their horses to the front of their attacking units. The first commander "rode along the front, and when the men cheered him he raised his hat. ‘Boys,' he cried as he pointed toward the enemy's position, ‘you can take it!'" The second commander is quoted as saying to his soldiers— "Drop your knapsacks and blankets, we are going to take that line. I am going to lead you.'" Freeman provides a simple recounting of those moments, using them to give detail that enriches the scene and its participants. What is truly interesting about this small vignette, however, is that it can inspire a reflection on a matter of enormous significance to the idea of leadership. With the addition of two questions, this vignette can serve as a powerful tool for developing leaders. Here is the first question: As a result of what each commander said, which unit do you think performed better on the battlefield? There are three possible responses…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
rmaker | 09 May 2017 9:17 a.m. PST |
Sorry, Douglas Southall Freeman is little more than a Lost Cause hagiographer. Battles and Leaders is better history. |
Trajanus | 09 May 2017 1:29 p.m. PST |
Possibly a tad harsh but Battles and Leaders should be "better history" in terms of the fact it was written by people who were actually there and Freeman certainly wasn't. However, its not always obvious to newcomers that a lot of the "history" in Battles and Leaders is from counter perspectives of those doing the writing, sometimes with sizeable axes to grind toward to other contributors to the series. The war didn't end at Appomattox a lot of people carried it on against people on their own side for many years afterwards. One of the good things about Freeman is his cataloguing in the text of the coming and goings of commander in the ANV. Not saying he is 100% correct on all instances and timings but it certainly gives a true feeling of how the Confederates lost by running out of a top line officer cadre. |
Bill N | 09 May 2017 2:45 p.m. PST |
I've probably read Lee's Lieutenants four times. After reading the article Armand posted I wonder if I read the same books that Mr. Hennelly did. I'd also argue that Lee's Lieutenants isn't a history of the ACW, so if that is what you are looking for then B&L would be better. (So would a number of other works.) It is a study of the ANV command structure during the war. And far from being a hagiography I would argue that Freeman doesn't shy away from exposing faults. |
John Miller | 10 May 2017 7:04 p.m. PST |
Loved Lee Lieutenants forty years ago, love it today. Agree with Trajanus above. Although I enjoy it, I always approach Battles & Leaders with some caution. In my opinion a lot of reputations were at stake there. John Miller |
Trajanus | 11 May 2017 2:14 a.m. PST |
True John. People forget the origins of Battles & Leaders was in regular "gentlemen's magazine" publishing where former generals honed their literary skills on writing their recollections of their war time experiences. It was only later drawn together as a compendium. Feathers were ruffled and contrary views expressed. Not a major problem when more than one view of the same battle is presented (apart from trying to find out whose view is more widely supported) but a bit harder when you read a single report and then a long time later realise you have just read an alternative interpretation to Battles & Leaders. Something it's often difficult to do as there's so much in it! :o) |
donlowry | 12 May 2017 9:04 a.m. PST |
I think Freeman was happy to criticize any Confederate except Lee. |
Trajanus | 13 May 2017 1:28 a.m. PST |
Ah, now that might be true. :o) |
Old Pete | 16 May 2017 8:11 a.m. PST |
Freeman hated Longstreet and Lee was always right. Have read this book which though flawed was of its time. Worth a read but always remember how slanted towards the "Lost Cause" view of the war was the authors writing. |
|