Apparent complete absence of tactics during Civil War.

[Guest Madmatt]

Why? Because murderers that are tried in a constitutionaly mandated court of law by a jury composed of citenzenry peers who are are given a death penalty for their crimes is quite a bit different than one nation assasinating the leader of another soveriegn nation.

I would reccomend that you study up a little on Geopolitics and International Law...

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex

Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing

[Steve Clark]

You guys are good! The discussion centered on the strategies and tactics of the RW, ACW and such shows a very good understanding. To the tactical booklist, I would add Stephen Sears "Landscape Turned Red", an in-depth, yet readable account of Antietam, a comprehensive one-day battle.

Now if I can only translate my 20 years of studying RW and ACW military history to WW2, maybe I will be able understand some of what you guys are talking about in the other threads.

[Guest Pillar]

Matt,

I would recommend you study about the difference between the concept of law and the law itself.

[tss]

If an enemy leader is assasinated, the most probable response is that his successor will try to assasinate the leaders of the country who authorized the attack. Thus, placing the decision makers directly at risk. No politician wants that. They prefer to give patriotic speeches while soldiers are doing the dirty work.

- Tommi

[Jadayne]

damn, got here too late. Anyway, Listen to what Ahbrams wannabe says. It's 100% spot on. Put two gurilla fighters behind rocks facing each other with muzzle loading muskets and they'll miss each other for centuries. the only way to assure some degree of accuracy is to fire a massed volley at the enemy. You can't do that if everyone is spread out over the landscape, taking cover behind rocks and trees. What's more, when the enemy does eventually charge, your COC is useless and your forces panic. Better to take the casualties on the field -and give them back. The better trained army eventually prevails.

P.S. look for Sid Meiers "GettysBurg" from Firaxis for a more entertaining look at how 18-19 century maneuvers work.

[Soliloquy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jadayne:

P.S. look for Sid Meiers "GettysBurg" from Firaxis for a more entertaining look at how 18-19 century maneuvers work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second that recommendation. Great gameplay in that title. Not perfect, but alot of fun.

[Guest Madmatt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

Matt,

I would recommend you study about the difference between the concept of law and the law itself.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see what your point is at all friend. I don't need to study it any more than the 4 years I had of International Affairs and International Law in college.

You seem to be trying to show a similarity or justification between a nation that holds a Death Penalty for murder among its citizens with one nation killing the leader of another it sees committing some atrocity.

There simply is NO comparison. One action is based upon an internal legal and judiciary system ratified via constitutional powers and the other is an example of a breach of International Law regarding political assassination.

One act is between state and citizen of the state. The other act is between two International Organizations, namely two governments or regimes.

I guess what you are trying to say is the moral underpinnings which allow for the institution of the Death Penalty internally should also allow a given nation the right to extend its inherent legal procedures to execute another sovereign nations leader without due process of law. This, seemingly according to you, would be allowed because the CONCEPT of what the internal law dictates, that of punishing a convicted murderer with death, is applicable to a citizen of another nation because he (she) too committed murder but this assassination can also be carried out without any apparent regard to due process, which I hasten to add the citizen/murderer is allowed...

Hmmm, interesting theory but I think flawed at a very base level. I will grant you this, it would make diplomacy much simpler, well I suppose faster as all diplomacy would cease to exist after the first assassination and the tanks began to roll... Hmm sounds familiar though... Sarajevo perhaps...June 28, 1914?

Madmatt...

See I know a few BIG WORDS TOO!

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex

Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 07-12-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

Matt,

You're pretty much bang on. Glad I didn't have to explain much

The ethics that determine domestic law should be extended to the international level. Individual rights, no matter what the geopolitical area, should be upheld universally by the UN. Instead of waging war against a nation, the dictators should be treated like the criminals they are and overthrown.

I concede that there is an issue of practicality to be aware of. There is certainly no point in risking a nation's welfare to subdue a foreign dictator in the name of freedom.

One must find a balance between the ethics of law on the international scene and one's own national defense.

With Vietnam however, the war was already started, the threat was there. Why not? How many US soldiers had to die?

Destroying the enemy army obviously was the wrong idea.

Good post.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 07-12-2000).]

[Steve Clark]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jadayne:

P.S. look for Sid Meiers "GettysBurg" from Firaxis for a more entertaining look at how 18-19 century maneuvers work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely not! That title is no more of a wargame than chess. It is an abstracted strategy game not a wargame. To get a much better feel for troop maneuvers, gotta go with the ACW titles from Talonsoft. I know TS is much maligned here for the WW2 titles, but I think the ACW and Napolean titles from them are the best ever done for the PC.

[Durruti]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Absolutely not! That title is no more of a wargame than chess. It is an abstracted strategy game not a wargame. To get a much better feel for troop maneuvers, gotta go with the ACW titles from Talonsoft. I know TS is much maligned here for the WW2 titles, but I think the ACW and Napolean titles from them are the best ever done for the PC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hahahaha, well we all have our personal tastes I suppose...At least in chess you only get to move one unit per turn - in those oh so realistic UGO-IGO Talonsoft games you can move your whole army while the enemy stand like statues. So much more convenient. Definitely no 'gamey' tactics possible there. And hex grids are so like real life don't you think?

[Guest Pillar]

Matt:

This pretty much sums up my view on foreign policy.

Q: "Do you support the US's involvement in Kosovo, the Middle East, etc.? I am asking because in the past many people with similar pro-business views were isolationists, and isolationism has proven to be impractical as well as dangerous (imagine the US deciding not to get involved against Hitler. The US would have ended up having to deal with a two-front war on American ground)."

A: "Isolationist" is a smear term, used against countries who don't wish to interfere in other countries. If the country does interfere it is called "Imperialist". Either way the country--America--is condemned.

Whether America sends its young boys to die off in other countries, or not, should be solely based on America's own selfish interest--and the interests of those who are risking their lives.

In the Middle East America has a selfish interest: oil. In Kosovo, it has no interest. America does have the moral right to overthrow the present government of Bosnia as it is not a sovereign nation, as its citizens are not sovereign, i.e., their rights are violated by their own government. However, America has no obligation to overthrow such governments. (As for your views on Hitler, a good argument can be made that America should have let the Nazis and the Soviets go at it, so that the two great slave states of the 20th century would wipe each other out, or at least the victor of this war between Germany and Russia would be so weak as to be easily defeated by the U.S.).

In terms, of making the situation in countries like Bosnia better, that is primarily a philosophical issue (those countries need a culture founded on individualism, and not collectivism/racism). In this regards America has been bankrupt, as the only ideas it sent ends to export to other countries tend to be anti-American Leftist ones, i.e., racist ones that lead to global balkanization such as mutliculturism.

For the record, I'm not an American.

[Jadayne]

wait a minute steve, while I haven't played TS's games, I gather from Durruti's post that it's just another move your army, click "done" and the AI moves it's army. Pillar was looking for how maneuvering works on an 18th or 19th century battlefield. "Gettysburg" and (although less fun) "Anteitam" are the only two games I know of that give you an almost real time feel for how you move those kinds of formations on the field. If I'm wrong, then I stand corrected, but anyway, I like them. Pillar, when you're done debating american foreign and domestic policy, you might want to check them out. The demo is downloadable at the firaxis site. (oh crap, a shameless plug)

[Guest Pillar]

I downloaded the Antietam demo. While from the game interface makes it hard to determine how terrain is used, manouver is portrayed quite clearly.

I've been trying to constantly flank the enemy force, usually on both sides and occasionally on the rear (complete box).

The computer doesn't do too good a job of preventing this at the lower difficulty levels, but I'm still learning the game so that's where I have it set

What makes the original Gettysburg a funner game than Antietam?

Thanks for the advice.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 07-12-2000).]

[Mike Oberly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Hahahaha, well we all have our personal tastes I suppose...At least in chess you only get to move one

unit per turn - in those oh so realistic UGO-IGO Talonsoft games you can move your whole army while

the enemy stand like statues. So much more convenient. Definitely no 'gamey' tactics possible there.

And hex grids are so like real life don't you think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just another abstraction,the like of which are in any and every game.The best simulations of 19th century combat are still boardgames,and they use abstractions like the ones you mock to great effect.Personally,I find realtime games to be the more laughable.

Mike

[Jadayne]

The difference in the games comes from the gameplay. For some reason, I got a better sense of the maneuvering in Gettysburg than I did from Antietem. I've only played the demos of both games (I live in Eastern Europe and can't find the games here anywhere), but maybe my enjoyment of Gettysburg comes from my better knowledge of the ins and outs of that battle than Antietem.

The fact is, I know the games are abstract. I know that they leave out mountains of detail. But they are fun and easy to play and if you're looking for a good chess game -which in the end all wargames are -you might enjoy giving these a try.

[Stephen Smith]

1) Many of the responses here don't really address the original question (i.e. Why did warfare TACTICS of old involve lining up in two lines and firing at each other?). Much of the discussion addresses strategy and even operational maneuver rather than tactics. I have always wondered the same thing about line warfare, and though I'm not sure, I have some ideas.

Imagine if an army DID fight with WWII/guerrilla tactics-i.e. hide behind rocks and stones, or spread out more, or operate in groups of 10 (squads) rather than in groups of 400 (battalions? companies? I don't even know), while the other army operates with traditional line tactics. Picture it on a map or even a wargame battlefield. One army would have a long, sparsely populated line. Say an army of 1000, with one squad (10 men every 100 yards)-thus the whole line is 10,000 yards. The other army, using traditional tactics, has 100 men every 100 yards, for a total battle line of 1,000 yards. Again, picture it on a map. The traditionally organized army can attack 1/10th of the WWII/guerrilla force at a time-in essence, whereever it chooses to fight, there will be 1000 soldiers fighting against 100 opponents. By trading fire, one side will put out 10X the lead that the other will each time it fires, thus incurring more casualties. If one or the other side decides to charge, the traditional army will have 10x the number of soldiers available for hand to hand combat. The WWII army will inevitably lose. If that army tried to reinforce the main battle area (presumably, with the battle occuring in 1/10th of its line, with 9/10th of its soldiers left out of the fight, that army would want to do SOMETHING), it would reinforce at the same low density of soldiers-each time new reinforcements arrived in the battle area, they would be defeated by the high volume of fire.

My guess is that what defeated those old tactics was not the higher accuracy of weapons, but the higher rate of fire. If the soldier in the WWII army above can fire once before the traditional army closes to bayonet range, the traditional army will win (one volley between the two sides, then charge with hand to hand at 10:1 odds). But if the WWII army can fire twenty or fifty or 100 times before that traditional army can close to bayonet range (i.e. a machine gun), it pays off to hide behind rocks, spread out, and use WWII tactics-those ten guys can put out enough lead to defeat the 100 guys in close order drill.

2) Assassinating leaders: What does international law say about assassination of leaders during wartime? Legal or illegal? If it is illegal, how is that defensible? It would imply that it is perfectly ok to try to kill privates in the army, but it is illegal to kill generals or presidents (i.e. commanders in chief) in the army. RHIP?

Steve

[Jadayne]

g,morning.

you know, the worst part about living in Eastern Europe is waiting for all you guys to wake up to answer any posts I write in the morning (it's 5pm here now).

Anyway, we'll never know for sure whether it was improved accuracy or higher rates of fire that was the death of line tactics, because they were both developed at the same time. It was most likely both. All ideas discussed are true to some extent.

At the beginning of the civil war, the rifle was not developed enough to change the way battles had been fought for the last hundred years. And, by the end of the war, when the rifle, the repeating carbine, and the gatling gun had been tested on the field, generals knew that a MAJOR change was necessary if armies were going to be effective in the future. Thus the horrendous casualties and the seeming stupidity of soldiers standing in lines in the movies.

by the way, as far as assassinating leaders: the winners write the history books, and if the history books say the assassination was justified, then it was. If the history books say it was terrorism, then it was.

Until someone else writes the book, that is. Hehe.

[Soliloquy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jadayne:

Anyway, we'll never know for sure whether it was improved accuracy or higher rates of fire that was the death of line tactics, because they were both developed at the same time. It was most likely both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would tend to agree with the "both" idea. Rifles were around during the Nappy era, but had a much lower rate of fire than the smoothbore muskets. The bullet for the early rifles fit VERY tightly into the barrel, and it took quite a pounding to get it seated properly, slowly the firing rate to an unacceptable degree (for Regular troops). The Minie ball, developed sometime (I'm not quite sure when) after the American Revolution, circumvented this difficulty by having a flared rear section which would expand upon firing and grip the rifling of the barrel. So the Minie ball itself could be small enough to slide quickly down the barrel and the firing rate was identical to smoothbore muskets.

It was this combination of increased accuracy and sufficient firing rate which initiated the shift from late 18th Century formal line tactics.

That's my take, anyway.

[Bobbaro]

I shall throw in another chunk into this pot of stew. Frontier warfare in North America pitting European style warefare against the Amerindian braves yielded a surprising high percentage, if not a majority of victories for the home team. Taking the battles in total, the Amerindan tactics tended to prevail until European tactics adjusted. There always seemed to be a new boy coming to the neighborhood to repeat the stu--- ah, shall we say inappropriate practices of their contenental roots and get a lot of guys scalped as a result, saying nothing of having to ignominously come slinking back to civilization to admit and rationalize defeat.

General Braddock's example is probably the best known. He did not have to explain his defeat. But there are plenty of others lead by both colonials and professionals.

Even as late as frontier Texas, using frontier trained Rangers and ad hoc militia, found these guys on the short end of victory. Here, tactics were more simular with the difference, being that Commanches had the best of the firepower. Their rate of fire using bows and arrows far exceeded what the folks of European stock could muster. The difference was eventualy made up by encased ammunition fired from repeating pistols and rifles. After these became available, the drift of victory shifted. But, not as rapidly as one might suppose as the Amerindian practices were adjusted and it took the removal of their food base and finally their mobility to completely subdue them.

That the *last* battles were won by the Europeans seems to me to be due to these victories being characterized by one or more

circumstances which proved decisive: decimating the warrior base; demoralizing the warriors; devistating the home village(s)and their stores and often their civil population. The Amerindian victories did not really touch the resource base of the Europeans, only temporary setback the frontier zone. Often the most effective agent of Amerindian defeat was biological, like smallpox. But a big but, the Amerindians probably won a majority of the armed confrontations out in the open and often by large and bloody margins.

These battles were often sizable and pitched. They often represented supurb command and controll exerted by the Amerindian leaders using the means at hand. The litney of defeat upon repeated defeat for the Europeans read in concentrated sessions is almost unbearable as one army after another is led into the same trap. It is painful to see the approaching holicost as inevitable as the seasons. And along with that, the inevitable ultimate defeat of their Amerindian foes whose technology and resources will in the end find the European response gethering sufficient strength and leadership to win one for the "Gipper". As previously noted, these tended to be either finally decisive or sufficiently so as to significantly advance the European position.

The situation to the south proved altogether different- until the Spanish met the Appaches and Commanches; oh, and not forgetting the Pueblo uprising.

---------------------------------------------

Warning - large digression follows.

We of European stock here in the States of later immigrant status love to wear sack cloth and pour ashes upon our heads about how selfish, greedy and immoral our forefathers were in their treatment of the peoples, who decended from earlier Asian immigrations, in comparison to the perfect society of tribes that were so badly mauled at European hands to the extent that the guilt *rightfully* is passed from generation to generation. While this view has some facts to recommend it, it overlooks that very often these tribal peoples treated each other no better. Their relationships were often no different from their counterparts across the Big Water to the east. Not too many European nations sought total genocide from the losers in a dispute, but the Iroquoi Nation did exact such punishment upon one of their fellow Native American brothers.

Morally, the transgressions of one's victim do not justify additional transgressions at one's own hands. However, I am not inclined to specially demonize the role of one people at the expense of another, who often acted equally badly at some point. Adolf was not the first to seek the extermination of some group. And he was not the first to succeed as well as he did. In fact I seem to recall a Middle Eastern people, as written in some rather old books concerning their history recording themsleves as having been admonished to exact that same sort of judgement upon the folks inhabitating lands

they would soon be occupying.

I heard a Nigerian citizen state say about a factional discussion in his native state, that it was a mistake not to kill all those members of the opposition including women and children, when the other party prevailed. He declaired that he knew his countrymen. They would hold a grudge and given the chance would exact retrubution. Loyalties were to the families and their associtions. So much absolutely so, that not to kill them off was to invite simular treatment to one's own in the future.

The greatest shame of the European Colonials was what was done to those Amerindians, who were either assimilating or had assimilated into the European way of living, even to the point of adopting European religion and otherwise completely integrating into the civil life of the new nation. The combination of covetiousness and racial and cultural hatred (aided and abetted by the viciousness of frontier conflict)was too much for the veneer of the Christian ethic, so easily dropped by men of all ages and lands. There always seemed to be some faction able to apply their hatreds across the board to all alike. They did so with a lot of hand wringing after the fact by their more ethical fellows. But, as always these things seem to be enabled by the effective silence of "good people" at the points in time, when action might effect some deterence.

Tragedy in life imatates the theater. The fatal flaw seems to be very simple; being human. It is something we all seem to share and not hold any exclusive rights upon. Excessive breast beating and excessive blame just falls into place with a lot of other excesses. Human excesses. Have mercy on us all. And give some. No cures just pallatives. Seems the best we can mangage for now.

What is done is done. Living with these inheritances in the present makes for no easy solutions. General human practice is unashamedly to regard any opinion holding that restitution is in order, is straight from Bedlam. And where restitution of sorts have been implemented or at least attempted, most often just sees the tragedy enlarged. There are current examples of that.

The horns of delimma are sharp indeed.

Much of European history seems to be so pirced. And beyond Europe. Consider redrawing the political lines and demographic lines in just Europe, so as to restore some mythical state of just allocation of lands to peoples. The human answer seems to be for some one to just pick up the sword and cut the mythical knot, adding another layer of injustice upon all the old. The knot is restored even as the sword is removed from the cut.

[Guest Pillar]

I think the first step is recognizing that "the sins of the father" are NOT "the sins of the son".

I think we need to stop viewing ourselves as collectives, be it racial collectives, national collectives, or herditary collectives.

The mistakes made in the past by *individuals*, be they Native American or Colonial in origin, are not our mistakes.

We may learn from history, as history is practical experience. But we must first realize that what has happened is not our fault, and recongize that the route of the problem is collectivism in whatever form it rears it's ugly head.

Enforcing a geneologic form of collectivism and hereditary guilt will only worsen the problems. Bill Clintons "appology" to all blacks on hehalf of white americans is an outrage. Likewise, the teaching in school of the evils of "The White Man" as if they are some sort of burden for todays youth to carry is innappropriate.

Instead of looking at cultures and using group analysis, we should look at people as individuals and judge them as such. There evil people in any culture who will commit attrocities under many different guises.

[Dragoon44]

HOLY SMOKE!!! I have to say I sure as hell learned some stuff here!!! Somebody let me know about the War of the Hats and other Scandanavian Military history resources, that stuff sounds pretty wild.

To get back to Pillars original question the lack of tactics,,,not a lack once you put it into the context of the time,,,Im my humble opinion (yeah yeah everyone has opinions and assholes too,,, )the idea as someone said, was to point your muskets, blast away and close with the enemy and put the bayonet to them,,,the musket essentially being a very high tech spear for the times.

There were a small quantity of rifles around, the Royal American Rifles which became the 95th Foot (Im probably wrong on that) but they were nicknamed the Green Jackets (UK Royal Army) but were used as skirmishers mostly.

Agreement in the fullest on the advance of technology by the time of the Civil War, LOADS OF RIFLES FIRING BIG ASS BULLETS, but the idea then and some would say still is,,,blast away at the other guy, keep his noggin down, close with him and stick him.

Again, as always,,,thanks for letting me rave!

[DrD]

A few additional thoughts on this one of my favorite topics:

Another important reason for relatively tight lines was the low rate of fire. Each man could fire only 3 shots per minute and there were no automatic weapons. So if you had a loose line of say 1 man per 20 yards it would be easy to break because unless the ground was very open an attacking column would come under fire from only 10-20 muskets each firing only 3 times/minute. Then as now you really don't want the enemy sending columns through your line. As rates of fire improved men could spread out more. As usual the change in tactics lagged behind the technology. By the end of the war Lee held a line dozens of miles long around Petersburg with only about 60,000. They were all dug in trenches by then of course. This was probably the limit given the low rates of fire and poor communication (making it more difficult to quickly bring reserves to a threatened part of the line. However they didn't even realize how far they could spread the men until it was forced on them, rather they pretty much continued to use formation densities that were needed in the days of smooth-bore, innaccurate muskets. By WWI automatic weapons and rifles with much higher rates of fire combined with much larger armies due to a late century surge in population allowed the front line to be so long it stretched from the channel to Switzerland. For the first time in warfare there was no flank! That's why their tactics were simply to attack frontally. The advent of mechanized warfare brought manuever warfare back.

Also, it can be hard to understand why CW troops charged and got so close. This is also a leftover from the days of smooth-bore muskets. Accuracy was only about 60-80 yards when troops used smooth-bore muskets (prior to CW). Hence "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." A line of infantry moving at the double-quick could cover that distance in about 30-40 seconds so given 3 volleys/minute a charging line of troops would receive about 2 aimed volleys. Not too bad, well trained troops could take that and then fight hand-hand. In a terrible coincidence the minie ball (see previous posts) was invented right before the CW and troops were quickly given these new rifles which were accurate to about 200 yards. Unfortunately but not surprisingly tactics didn't change right away so men still tried to close with the enemy. Now however they would suffer 9 or 10 aimed volleys! Ouch!

Finally, men were able to fight in lines for the reasons discussed in previous posts and also because the officers could and did shoot anyone who tried to run! This almost never happened in the CW but the threat was there. Frederick the Great is known for having said "in order for men to fight they must be more afraid of their own officers than of the enemy."

Well I could go on and on but I gotta go.

[This message has been edited by DrD (edited 07-15-2000).]

[Jadayne]

yeah, if you want to talk about seemingly ridiculous tactics, look at WW1.

did you know, for instance, that the Poles still had a regimant of lancers? lasted about 1 battle.

little wonder there aren't many games available about that conflict -it would be almost impossible to play

[Disaster]

I've just finished a book that would probably go far toward educating us all on why men stood in lines and blasted each other with muskets at close range (something which the excerable Patriot fails to explain at all). I highly recommend reading Rory Muir's "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon".

One thought which I haven't yet seen seen expressed is that compressing fire into volleys has a shock effect, whereas seeing men randomly drop from sharpshooters isn't so morale degrading. The metaphor might be: getting splashed in the face by a bucket of water vs being drizzled on for five minutes the same amount of water. Which is more surprising? Since morale was so important, as was pointed out in previous posts, facing such a fury of fire, smoke and comrades dropping all in the same instant must have been totally frightening, especially to raw recruits.

Rory Muir writes that there is evidence that in a standing fight, the average number of controlled volleys was two, as men's psychology took over and each sought to fire and reload as fast as possible without waiting for the order. At this stage it would have been difficult for any officer to maintain control.

Also, it should be added that (unlike the Patriot), melees were not common. Rather, the most cohesive force after the exchange of gunfire and the one with the better timing, would scatter its opponent who would rather flee rather than fight hand to hand. The bayonet was primarily a psychological threat as no man likes the idea of being skewered by a length of steel even though a bullet would have taken you down just as easily and left a much nastier wound even if you survived to be carried off the field. In that regards, having men in formation provided the same advantage over guerilla tactics as it has over the ages. Charge them and then let numbers and fortitude decide who left the field.

I've read that Braddock would have won over the French, Canadian and Indians if he had only charged with most of his men. Instead, he provided little direction and his men were picked off from the woods. If he had simply chosen a direction and kept his men together, the 'guerillas' would have only been a relative irratance.

[Disaster]

I read in an earlier post:

"Clausewitz formalized what good generals have always known: the key to victory is the destruction of the enemy's forces. Destroying their "will to fight" is part of the process."

I would reply with a quote from another gentleman on war:

" To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" - Sun Tzu

This is what Sherman understood when he made the major contribution toward ending the ACW. Sherman's war against the South's industry and soft belly won the war as much as the destruction of Lee's corps at Gettysburg. His gains were strategic rather than tactical. By destroying the south in their homes, he made more desperate their situation in other theatres. It could be argued that Lee might never have committed to Gettysburg if his army hadn't sorely needed the supplies in that town, supplies he might have had already if the South was not so sorely pressed in its industrial disadvantage. Thus, Sherman 'subdued the enemy' without 'fighting'.

Even in the time of Napoleon, which was when Clausewitz wrote, a younger Napoleon himself understood what it was to win campaigns without risking everything in a battle just to destroy his enemy. His Italian campaigns against Austria were brilliant lessons in strategic maneuver. He split his forces, took towns in the enemy's rear, flank, each time forcing his opponents to withdraw from key positions not because Napoleon defeated them in battle (though he did many times), but because of his maneuvers.

It was a much older Napoleon who became much more wasteful with his armies, seeking pitched battles against opponents who had learned his tactics in earlier campaigns. Waterloo, for example, was his bid to smash his way to Brussels when he could have extended his 100 days by falling back on his depth. The famous victories of Napoleon were more the capping of weeks or months of marching, forcing the enemy themselves to meet him at a place of his own choosing. Waterloo was picked by the allies.

How many more wars were won through better strategy, rather than simply bleeding more of theirs than ours?