Who are the great generals?

[John T. Fishel]

Peer competitors: I'm glad we agree that USA and CSA were "peers" in 61 and 62. Agree that the Yankees brought population and industry to bear by 63 and they were no longer "peers" - the Gettysburg campaign in the East and Vicksburg campaign in the West are, I think, indicative of that. My sense of "peer competitor" is really at the beginning of the conflict and to some extent the perception of the combatants but not entirely. For example, in 1845 the US and Mexico perceived each other as peer competitors - they weren't, it was just a misperception. But I do think that, as you said, in 61 and 62 the USA and CSA were.

Crimea as a "major" war: Yes, there were more theaters than just the central one in and around the Black Sea. But the Baltic theater was almost entirely limited naval action as was the Pacific coupled with a few amphibious raids. Nothing really decisive happened outside the Black Sea/Crimea theater. By contrast, the American Civil War had two major land theaters and an extraordinarily difficult supporting sea war - blockading the entire American East and Gulf Coasts (from the MD/VA border to TX). The Western theater involved cutting the Confederacy in two at the Mississippi River depriving the Confederate heartland of its Western food resources and LOC from Mexico. The eastern theater is more well known. But it was from the West that Sherman, with Grant's support and Lincoln's approval, launched his biltzkrieg from Atlanta to Savannah and then north through the Carolinas while Grant drove on Richmond all over the ground of the 62 Peninsula campaign in a giant strategic pincer.

Must be your old Tory ancestors trying to tweak this Yankee Doodle

Cheers

JohnT

[marct]

Hi John,

Peer competitors: I'm glad we agree that USA and CSA were "peers" in 61 and 62. Agree that the Yankees brought population and industry to bear by 63 and they were no longer "peers" - the Gettysburg campaign in the East and Vicksburg campaign in the West are, I think, indicative of that.

I'm shooting from my hip, here, since I'm not by any stretch of the imagination an expert on the US civil war, but I would argue that Gettysburg was the last campaign were you could see the USA and CSA as anything close to "peers" in the straight military realm.

My sense of "peer competitor" is really at the beginning of the conflict and to some extent the perception of the combatants but not entirely. For example, in 1845 the US and Mexico perceived each other as peer competitors - they weren't, it was just a misperception. But I do think that, as you said, in 61 and 62 the USA and CSA were.

This is where we part company in some ways. I've never liked the idea of looking at a comparison along a single dimension and at a single point in time, which is what I see the term being used for a lot. If we take 1861 - 62 as the "peer" time, at least at an overall gloss level, then it would probably be safe to say that in military experience, leadership, overall elan, general but not specific logistics (i.e. what was actually brought to bear vs. what might have been brought to bear), they were "peers" in the sense that the results were a +/- 15% either way. By the Gettysburg campaign, I would argue that the logistics and population recruitment base, plus infrastructure differences, had reduced the "peerness" to a dangerous point; basically, the leadership, experience and elan were still "peer", but the rest was rapidly dropping off. I have a suspicion that we would have seen a similar change in the Franco-Prussian War if it had lasted longer.

Crimea as a "major" war: Yes, there were more theaters than just the central one in and around the Black Sea. But the Baltic theater was almost entirely limited naval action as was the Pacific coupled with a few amphibious raids. Nothing really decisive happened outside the Black Sea/Crimea theater.

Agreed, but I think that that just highlights / foreshadows if you will, a lot of the characteristics of a peer / near-peer competition. The fact that the stalemated theatres were naval does have a major baring, IMO, as does the counterpart in the US Civil War were you had a massive common land border. Even in the US Civil War, you have a funneling effect into two main theatres, as you noted while, given the points of contact in the Crimean War, you really only had one major theatre - although the Caucus campaign was intersting .

Must be your old Tory ancestors trying to tweak this Yankee Doodle

But of course . Actually, if you wanted a better analog for what we are dealing with in the current operations, you should be looking at the War of 1812 - at least as far as the accidental guerrilla factor is concerned. Check out General Hull's invasion of July 13th, 1812 .

Cheers,

Marc