Was Robert E. Lee a Great General?

[Jack Hays]

Starr is wrong. Buford didn't do anything new at Gettysburg.

The cavalry's mission existed and was being executed before Buford fought at Gettysburg.

U.S. Cavalry School: Cavalry History

I'm not going to debate this because you and I are not going to agree.

 

[apdst]

I'm not going to debate this because you and I are not going to agree.

There's nothing to debate. The facts are the facts.

 

[apdst]

Yes. But anyway, you have anything to say about Jackson yet? Or Lee? Or do you concede that I'm right?

You're not right. And, Wilder's mounted infantry was a midwar organization, that was formed when the Federals saw the effectiveness of the Confederate cavalry's ability to to fight dismounted, with the same force as light infantry.

Also, Wilder's men were never cavalry.

 

[Jack Hays]

There's nothing to debate. The facts are the facts.

Yes, they are.

Buford Hold the High Ground - Opinionator - The New York ...

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/.../buford-hold-the-high-ground...
Jun 29, 2013 - While stationed at Fort Crittenden, Buford studied cavalry theory and tactics, adopting the then-radical concept that cavalry could be better ...

". . . Buford served in Utah under Gen. Albert S. Johnston, during President Buchanan’s ill-advised campaign against the Mormons. While stationed at Fort Crittenden, Buford studied cavalry theory and tactics, adopting the then-radical concept that cavalry could be better served by fighting as mounted infantry. This approach to combat would serve him well six years in the future, when his small force confronted the Army of Northern Virginia outside the small town of Gettysburg, Pa. . . . "

". . . Using his two unsupported cavalry brigades as mounted infantry, Buford dismounted his men and stationed them along a ridge just a few miles from town, in the path of the oncoming rebels. One man in four stood to the rear holding the horses for the others. This effectively left him with only 2,200 men – stationed at wide intervals – to hold the high ground. The line was anything but formal, with Buford’s men taking cover as best they could, aiming their breech-loading Spencer carbines from behind trees, bushes and fence posts. Buford strategically placed his six cannon for maximum effect. Lt. John Calef, commanding the guns, aimed one cannon at a group of rebel officers nearly a mile distant, and fired. As Bruce Catton understates it, “The flash and the echoing report and the bursting shell notified the Confederates that they were expected.”. . . "

 

[LZRD WZRD]

You're not right. And, Wilder's mounted infantry was a midwar organization, that was formed when the Federals saw the effectiveness of the Confederate cavalry's ability to to fight dismounted, with the same force as light infantry.

Also, Wilder's men were never cavalry.

It doesn't take away from the fact that they were fitted with repeating rifles, which was their contribution to this advance in cavalry.

 

[apdst]

Yes, they are.

Buford Hold the High Ground - Opinionator - The New York ...

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/.../buford-hold-the-high-ground...
Jun 29, 2013 - While stationed at Fort Crittenden, Buford studied cavalry theory and tactics, adopting the then-radical concept that cavalry could be better ...

". . . Buford served in Utah under Gen. Albert S. Johnston, during President Buchanan’s ill-advised campaign against the Mormons. While stationed at Fort Crittenden, Buford studied cavalry theory and tactics, adopting the then-radical concept that cavalry could be better served by fighting as mounted infantry. This approach to combat would serve him well six years in the future, when his small force confronted the Army of Northern Virginia outside the small town of Gettysburg, Pa. . . . "

". . . Using his two unsupported cavalry brigades as mounted infantry, Buford dismounted his men and stationed them along a ridge just a few miles from town, in the path of the oncoming rebels. One man in four stood to the rear holding the horses for the others. This effectively left him with only 2,200 men – stationed at wide intervals – to hold the high ground. The line was anything but formal, with Buford’s men taking cover as best they could, aiming their breech-loading Spencer carbines from behind trees, bushes and fence posts. Buford strategically placed his six cannon for maximum effect. Lt. John Calef, commanding the guns, aimed one cannon at a group of rebel officers nearly a mile distant, and fired. As Bruce Catton understates it, “The flash and the echoing report and the bursting shell notified the Confederates that they were expected.”. . . "

Can you tell me specifically what part of this article supports your argument?

If you mean the passage about, "mounted infantry", I direct you to page 85, paragraph 295 of Cook's Cavalry Tactics and an explanation of, " skirmishing " i. e. fighting on foot is explained, in practice and purpose.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNE4wyVOpqjQdXGcMs2O_QB0NA8BRA

 

[apdst]

It doesn't take away from the fact that they were fitted with repeating rifles, which was their contribution to this advance in cavalry.

They were outfitted with Spencer rifles, before they received their mounts. When Wilder mounted his troops, it was a field modification.

Effective? Yes. Some new, mind blowing invention? No.

 

[Jack Hays]

Can you tell me specifically what part of this article supports your argument?

If you mean the passage about, "mounted infantry", I direct you to page 85, paragraph 295 of Cook's Cavalry Tactics and an explanation of, " skirmishing " i. e. fighting on foot is explained, in practice and purpose.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNE4wyVOpqjQdXGcMs2O_QB0NA8BRA

". . . . the then-radical concept that cavalry could be better served by fighting as mounted infantry. . . . "

I'll defer to the author's judgment.

---

Ron Soodalter is the author of “Hanging Captain Gordon: The Life and Trial of an American Slave Trader” and a co-author of “The Slave Next Door: Human Trafficking and Slavery in America Today.” He is a featured writer and columnist for America’s Civil War magazine and a frequent contributor to Civil War Times and Military History.

 

[LZRD WZRD]

They were outfitted with Spencer rifles, before they received their mounts. When Wilder mounted his troops, it was a field modification.

Effective? Yes. Some new, mind blowing invention? No.

They were mounted troops with repeating rifles. That's a pretty important advancement imo. But this discussion is really for another thread. Got anything to say about Lee?

 

[apdst]

". . . . the then-radical concept that cavalry could be better served by fighting as mounted infantry. . . . "

Buford didn't create that concept. Ben McCulloch's troops employed those tactics at Wilson's Creek, in 1861.

That being said, Buford's division was fighting as, "mounted infantry", at Gettysburg. Refer to Cook's manual, that I provided, and you will see an explanation of what Buford did and why. Even if you still don't agree, its fascinating stuff, check it out.

 

[apdst]

They were mounted troops with repeating rifles. That's a pretty important advancement imo. But this discussion is really for another thread. Got anything to say about Lee?

It wasn't an advancement, because Wilder was a long way from being the first commander to do so.

Lee wasn't a cavalryman. Let's talk about Stuart, Forrest, Custer, Parsons and Shelby. They were cavalry commanders.

 

[Jack Hays]

Buford didn't create that concept. Ben McCulloch's troops employed those tactics at Wilson's Creek, in 1861.

That being said, Buford's division was fighting as, "mounted infantry", at Gettysburg. Refer to Cook's manual, that I provided, and you will see an explanation of what Buford did and why. Even if you still don't agree, its fascinating stuff, check it out.

Since you agree that Buford's men fought as mounted infantry at Gettysburg I suggest we return to the topic of Lee. I'll take a look at the manual, thanks.

 

[LZRD WZRD]

It wasn't an advancement, because Wilder was a long way from being the first commander to do so.

Lee wasn't a cavalryman. Let's talk about Stuart, Forrest, Custer, Parsons and Shelby. They were cavalry commanders.

This is the Robert E Lee thread not the Civil War cavalry thread

 

[apdst]

This is the Robert E Lee thread not the Civil War cavalry thread

In case you didn't notice, this thread has evolved.

 

[apdst]

Since you agree that Buford's men fought as mounted infantry at Gettysburg I suggest we return to the topic of Lee. I'll take a look at the manual, thanks.

They didn't fight as mounted infantry. They fought as dismounted cavalry.

 

[Jack Hays]

They didn't fight as mounted infantry. They fought as dismounted cavalry.

That is not what you wrote in your #310. Also, I don't think your manual really applies because what Buford's command did at Gettysburg was not skirmishing.

 

[apdst]

That is not what you wrote in your #310. Also, I don't think your manual really applies because what Buford's command did at Gettysburg was not skirmishing.

Did you read the paragraph I pointed out? If you did, you saw Cook describe, almost in detail, what Buford did at Gettysburg.

 

[Jack Hays]

Did you read the paragraph I pointed out? If you did, you saw Cook describe, almost in detail, what Buford did at Gettysburg.

Actually Cook's description was not at all relevant. Buford's command was not skirmishing. They were fully committed in line of battle.

 

[apdst]

Actually Cook's description was not at all relevant. Buford's command was not skirmishing. They were fully committed in line of battle.

In a single rank, keeping the enemy at a distance, until Reynold's main body could relieve them. Buford was in a static position. A line of battle isn't a static formation.

 

[LZRD WZRD]

In case you didn't notice, this thread has evolved.

In case you didn't know, that's not how it works. Make a new thread if you want to talk about this.

 

[Jack Hays]

In a single rank, keeping the enemy at a distance, until Reynold's main body could relieve them. Buford was in a static position. A line of battle isn't a static formation.

They dismounted, formed a line, deployed their artillery, and went toe-to-toe with a superior infantry force.

 

[apdst]

They dismounted, formed a line, deployed their artillery, and went toe-to-toe with a superior infantry force.

They formed a skirmish line, in a defensive posture, firing at will, not firing by volley, by section, nor by file. Your own source says they used available cover, which means they weren't standing shoulder to shoulder, in a mobile line of battle.

Buford's trrops were cavalry, trained in cavalry tactics, using either Cook's manual, or Poinsett's manual and probably didn't know how to form a line of battle.

Most Federal infantry would have been trained by Hardee's infantry manual.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

[apdst]

In case you didn't know, that's not how it works. Make a new thread if you want to talk about this.

I think this conversation, while vigorous, has remained pleasant and fascinating. Don't you find the sources that have been posted to be interesting?

 

[Jack Hays]

They formed a skirmish line, in a defensive posture, firing at will, not firing by volley, by section, nor by file. Your own source says they used available cover, which means they weren't standing shoulder to shoulder, in a mobile line of battle.

Buford's trrops were cavalry, trained in cavalry tactics, using either Cook's manual, or Poinsett's manual and probably didn't know how to form a line of battle.

Most Federal infantry would have been trained by Hardee's infantry manual.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Too many reputable historians say otherwise. Buford, in particular, drew on lessons he had learned in the west.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

They dismounted, formed a line, deployed their artillery, and went toe-to-toe with a superior infantry force.

This is the first thing I've read in this thread and my mind is a strange beast. There's a sexual innuendo in there somewhere, I just can't quite nail it down.