"The Confederacy’s Most Modern General: James Longstreet" Topic

… and the American Civil War

"The Civil War is often called the first "modern war." Sandwiched between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I, the Civil War spawned a host of "firsts" and is often looked upon as a precursor to the larger and more deadly 20th century conflicts. Confederate General James Longstreet made some of the most profound modern contributions to the art of war. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Harold M. Knudsen explains what he did and how he did it in The Confederacy's Most Modern General: James Longstreet and the American Civil War.

Initially, commanders on both sides extensively utilized Napoleonic tactics that were obsolete because of the advent of the rifled musket and better artillery. Some professional army officers, like Union Generals U. S. Grant and William T. Sherman, worked to improve tactics, operations, and strategies. On the Confederate side, a careful comparison of Longstreet's body of work in the field to modern military doctrine reveals several large-scale innovations. He understood early that the tactical defense was generally dominant over the offense, which was something few grasped in 1862. His thinking demonstrated a clear evolution beginning on the field at First Manassas in July 1861. It developed through the bloody fighting of 1862, and culminated in the brilliant defensive victory at Fredericksburg that December. The lethality with which his riflemen mowed down repeated Union assaults hinted at what was to come in World War I. Longstreet's ability to launch and control powerful offensives was on display at Second Manassas in August 1862, and his offensive plan at Chickamauga in Georgia the following September was similar, if not the forerunner to, World War II tactical-level German armored tactics. Other areas show progressive applications with artillery, staff work, force projection, and operational-level thinking…"

Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

I have to disagree with several items from the blurb. Chickamauga was a well thought out attack, but was also an accident as he hit a gap in the Union line. He dawdled at 2nd Manassas and had he moved quicker could have made a devastating attack the first day. Had Pope not ignored his intelligence he could have blunted Longstreet's attack. The blurb also ignores his two independent commands, both of which were complete failures, (Suffolk and Knoxville).

Dn Jackson, have you read the book? Your criticisms of Longstreet seem reasonable, but don't appear to be directly related to the points in the book mentioned by Armand.

Does the author address the points that you mention? Is there any reason that you both cannot be correct?

At first glance I don't see anything that excludes that possibility.

Agree.

Amicalement
Armand

Longstreet did do poorly as an independent commander. But I read, yars ago (and wish I could find it again) a list of the ten most devasting attacks (by either side) in the war. Four of the ten were commanded by Longstreet: 2nd Manassas; Chickamauga; 2nd day Gettysburg; and Wilderness. He was either very very good or very lucky.

Of the four you list;
2nd Manassas would not have done so well had Pope not ignored the fact that Longstreet was there

As I wrote above, Chickamauga hit a gap in the Federal line by pure accident

There's a strong argument that had he moved with more alacrity at Gettysburg he could have destroyed the AoP units that were there

Wilderness was an aggressive, well conducted attack that blunted the Federal advance

Haven't read the book, as I said I was going by the blub above. By itself the statement, "Longstreet's ability to launch and control powerful offensives was on display at Second Manassas in August 1862, and his offensive plan at Chickamauga in Georgia the following September was similar, if not the forerunner to, World War II tactical-level German armored tactics." tells me the author is full of it and I doubt it's worth buying. An infantry centric force supported by direct fire muzzle loading cannon is nothing like a mechanized/armored force supported by indirect artillery and aircraft.

So… who were good enought…?

Amicalement
Armand

Longstreet was a very good subordinate general under Lee, (under Bragg he quickly became involved in the internal politics of the AoT). On his own he was mediocre at best.

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand