One of the most central conflicts of Killer Angels is the disagreements and miscommunication between the two main Confederate officers, Lee and Longstreet. Because their views of the situation differ so greatly, they have trouble managing the army successfully. Longstreet believes in defensive tactics and protecting his men, while Lee fights in a more traditional, Napoleonic manner. In many ways, this conflict reflects how the progression into modern warfare affected the Civil War itself.
As technology advanced and distance weapons became more accurate, infantry slowly became obsolete. Pickett’s Charge, at Gettysburg, was the last great infantry charge—and it was a failure. The Union forces were too strong, and they had the advantage. The North simply sat and fired cannons and rifles as the South advanced right into the shots.
Though Lee is clearly a brilliant military strategist, he is also outdated. He thinks in terms of old-style warfare, but those tactics are ineffective against newer technology. The Napoleonic tactics also give him a sense of pride; this pride is the root of his ‘downfall’ at Pickett’s Charge. Longstreet, on the other hand, believes in defensive tactics and preserving his men as best as possible. The differences between the two are striking, but in the end Lee’s superiority in position means that his plan will be the one they use—to the detriment of the Confederate forces.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I like how you compare the two leaders and talk about how as the style of warfare changes, the leaders must change as well. Lee, as you say, is stuck in the past, while Longstreet is the leader who is closer to understanding the best strategies to fight. Perhaps this is a problem in the US military system. To become someone who calls the shots like Lee, it is necessary that you have the experience, however, sometimes, as you state, experience can become outdated. Maybe it is necessary to vary the ages within the ranks.
It is interesting how you explain Lee's military strategy. I think you correctly defined Lee as a leader. While his experience is valued, it is indeed outdated. Longstreet does have less experience but still holds the upper hand because of technological advances. It seems their is a clear distinction between Lee and Longstreet's tactics and unfortunately for the Confederacy, Lee's outdated tactics prevail.
I feel like either Lee or Longstreet would not have strayed from their ideas or their actions. They were both too tightly bound by the traditions they were taught. In the second paragraph where you state that infantry slowly became obsolete seems a little troubling to me. They certainly aren't obsolete as infantry have been the tip of the spear for every major conflict/war the US has been in. I think that the way they were used was obsolete and that more modern warfare such as Longstreet's defensive tactics would have been most beneficial.
As i read the post and some of the comments, i pondered whether if we didnt know the outcome of the situation which commander we would rather follow into battle. The experienced and revered commander who might be a little outdated, or a younger leader with a defense first mentality. Personally I would follow the experienced leader due to the fact that he is a proven leader. But think about it who would you follow into battle?
In my opinion, it almost seems like Lee would have been better suited as a lower ranking general rather than Commander-in-Chief of the entire army. Lee is clearly the type of man that demands respect and can inspire his men, something that could be very useful for an officer. However, his strategies are quite clearly outdated and flawed and as a result, the Confederates suffer catastrophic defeats. The role of Commander-in-Chief may have been better suited for someone like Longstreet, a sensible leader that has the ability to see the big picture and put his own ego aside. Lee's ego often gets in the way of his commanding and is another reason that "General of all Generals" might not be the best position for him.
If Robert E. Lee had "updated" his battle tactics, especially during the advancement of technology, then I feel that they would have won at Gettysburg. I view Longstreet at the New school guy who wears good shorts and a jersey; on the contrary, Lee is the guy who wears too short shorts and a head band. Its hard to teach an old man new tricks (not quite the saying but I know.) This is a HUGE stretch but you can kind of view Lee as Achilles in a way. Lee and Achilles are too caught up in their pride to do what is best for the team. Unlike Longstreet and Odysseus who are masterminds and care about their army as a whole; they do not care about superficial things.
I really like how you relate technology into the war that Lee and Longstreet lead. Even in modern times, weapons are so advanced that war has become incredibly impersonal. I think if you could have tied that in a little bit, your blog would have been stellar.
Tess, good comparison to the evolution of tactics in warfare. You have to blame false information for Pickett's Charge. I believe that Lee would have been smarter than just to send his troops on a death mission. Lee had great success before Gettysburg and for the first day and a half. I believe Lee understood that with the enormous numbers of troops at Gettysburg that the person who was able to raise their flag in that town would eventually win the war. If you think about it the Union was using Longstreet's tactics throughout the whole battle. Yes it worked, but Lee would not have just waited around all day waiting for something to happen. He is an aggressive leader and if he wants something he was willing to do anything to get it and for that it was the eventual down fall for the Confederacy.
I agree with Will. Infantry aren't obsolete, but the way they were used was simply wrong. It can't be a good idea to charge at men with muskets and have them pick you off. Lee's tactics just weren't what they needed. Sadly he didn't want to accept the opinions of others when it came to his decision making.
Tess, the point you make about the outdatedness of Lee's tactics is intriguing and true. Had he been able to adjust and recognize the reality of the situation, the world could very well be so different today
i agree completely. lee really is outdated. his tactics are outdated, and honestly his manner is rather outdated. the whole "gentleman" in warfare attitude. Reminds me of the Illiad when people would go to the enemy's camp and just chill with the other leaders (Priam and Achilles). Other leaders seem to realize they're at war. Lee doesn't like spies for instance, but Longstreet knows they're a necessary evil
Post a Comment