Civil War Tactics were not very Napoleonic

[HangarFlying]

Hello everyone,

Don't know if this page has been mentioned before or not, but I found it an interesting read. I'm sure there could be some arguments made on a few issues, but I think that overall, the writer has some strong and valid points.

http://www.johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html

James

[bAcK88]

Re: Civil War Tactics were not very Napoleonic

It seems just to be a rehashing of Brent Nosworthy's "Bloody Crucible of War". I highly recommend that you read it.

[HangarFlying]

Re: Civil War Tactics were not very Napoleonic

Do you happen to mean "The Bloody Crucible of Courage"? I'll definately have to pick it up. I looked through the author's list of sources and this book was listed as one of them.

[Pennvolunteer]

Re: Civil War Tactics were not very Napoleonic

This is a very good article and makes some great points. I think one aspect that he missed is that of the strategic thinking, for what there was of it, was shaped by Jomini's work for almost all the senior leaders of the Civil War armies. Halleck had been considered one of the most important shapers of strategy before the war, and he and Lee were both taught and influenced by Jomini's "Art of War" based on Jomini's experiences as a senior staff officer for both Napoleon and Ney, and for the Czar. It was the text for most instruction at West Point on such matters. While I wouldn't dispute the author's argument about the non-Napoleonic application of infantry, artillery or the use of combined arms operations at the tactical level, we have to acknowledge that Jomini's version of Napoleonic strategic thought, principles like interior/exterior lines, shaped the senior leaders' strategic thinking. John Shy who used to teach at the University of Michigan called Jomini the father of modern strategy, and I think makes a good case. Also, I think reading Russell Weigley's "American Way of War" is an important factor in understanding the evolution of strategy. Unfortunately, no one had been reading Clausewitz in that era, althought Grant was very "clausewitzian" I would argue, deducing the same principles that Clausewitz developed.
I also have to wonder, the Henry was immensely superior technology to the needle gun and the Chassepot, and if Ripley hadn't been so obtuse and had equipped Federal forces, how this article would be talking about the Henry as opposed to the needle gun and Chassepot, which still used paper cartridges. But, that is all conjecture, and "what if" history, which is, fiction...