WCF

History, politics, and culture articles and forum discussions.

military history

- By

Most historically-significant battle

What is the single military battle with the most far-reaching effects and consequences? What battle, if it had come out differently, would have had the most profound change on the march of history?

No brainer for me: Teutoburg Forest.

This ended Roman excursions into Germania. From then on, Europe was divided into to camps: Romantic and Germanic.

The ramifications of this were incomprehensible after the fall of the empire and rise of smaller, competing kingdoms and the ensuing conflict between the two cultures.

- By

Is Robert E. Lee overrated as a military leader?

Robert Edward Lee
Robert E. Lee (1807-1870)
No one denies that Lee was courageous, resourceful, and daring, both as a junior officer in Mexico and commander of the Army of Northern Virginia.  And no one denies that his string of victories is impressive with the Seven Days, Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville.  But one must also look at his opponents.

Seven Days was against McClellan, who, while a brilliant trainer and organizer was something far short of competent as a combat commander.  John Pope was simply arrogant and overly-impressed with himself after his solid performance in the strategically important but relatively minor engagement at Island No. 10.  Joseph Hooker was a strong corps commander, both before and after Chancellorsville, but himself admitted that he lost his nerve.  And finally Ambrose Burnside, while a solid if unspectacular corps commander, was completely overwhelmed by Fredericksburg, which could have been a brilliant Union victory if the pontoon boats had arrived on time.

Now lets look at Lee’s other battles.  Antietam was a draw and it would have been a Confederate disaster if not for McClellan’s absolute incompetence.  Gettysburg was a defeat, mostly due to Lee’s absolute belief in the invincibility of himself and his army, because of his record, as evidenced by Pickett’s Charge, a fiasco right up there with Fredericksburg.

The surrender of General Robert E. Lee.

You may ask “What about the Wilderness Campaign where he consistently inflicted huge casualties?”  In those battles, he was completely on the defensive in terrain that was made for defense, fighting within a tactical mindset that gave the defense the advantage (short range tactics vs. long range weapons), and working on interior lines.  Also, he lost every one and was forced back into static defensive positions, which is exactly what Grant intended all along.  Grant’s strategy was to tie down Lee while Sherman destroyed the economic base of the Confederacy.

I’m not saying that Lee wasn’t a great general.  His tactics were daring, sometimes foolish, and often successful, but he was not the god-of-war that his worshipers would like to portray him as.  He also had a very dangerous and effective secret weapon that the other side couldn’t even come close to matching – Thomas J. Jackson – as cold, brutal, ruthless, and daring an Old Testament Warrior as the world has ever seen.

- By

Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy

A very good book for any aspiring student of Roman warfare.

The explanations of Rome’s military structure are laid out very clearly. A lot of the battles are described in good detail and many were accompanied by diagrams.

Goldsworthy describes the reasons for defeat and victory and he is exceptional when explaining the reasons for the change in the military of Rome during the Late Republic. The author goes into depth (although not too much) about many of the military leaders more so than a general book on Roman history. He clearly describes the consequences of certain battles and defeats as well as achievements accomplished, and one thing I really liked about the book was that the author goes on to explain the leadership and militaries of the non-Romans (the reader receives a good introduction on Germanic and Celtic tribes).

One negative thing about the book (something that gets on my nerves) is that it is not cited well. The chapter notes only provide primary sources and rarely does the author mention any secondary sources. All he uses are phrases like “many” or “some” scholars. He does present various sides of issues, but I wish he would reference these scholars more thoroughly.  Other than that, this is a very good book for a student or anyone interested in Roman warfare, imperialism, attitudes, and conquest. It is detailed, but not too much for a beginner student to understand. It is helpful for the reader to have at least a basic knowledge of Roman culture and politics, but it is not necessary.

WCF