The American Civil War

[Valmy]

People don't cut him enough slack for realizing how incompetent he was. He kept protesting against getting promoted and people just didn't listen.

I find that hilarious myself.  He is the American Duke of Medina-Sidonia.

[alfred russel]

He did perform well in north carolina early in the war and was competent at antietam.

I don't know enough to assess Burnside or contribute much here, but isn't there some controversy whether Burnside was competent at Antietam or grossly incompetent?

The confederate point of view seemed to be that the way he tried to take the bridge his bridge was grossly incompetent as the river was really a stream that could be forded basically anywhere he wanted, and having visited the battlefield I find it hard to disagree.

[Caliga]

  I've been there too, and whether or not you personally agree that's certainly how the situation is portrayed there.

[Valmy]

Yeah him allowing his entire Corps be held up by 400 Confederates when he had a chance to destroy the Confederate Army (and he still nearly did were it not for AP Hill's division) was ridiculous.  He needed to go all in right there...sort of like he did when he shouldn't have at Fredericksburg a few months later.

And yes I am been to the famous bridge and stream as well.

[alfred russel]

Well besides the fact that both armies were full of terrible generals and the Federal Army more so for the reasons mentioned the Federals simply had a much more difficult task militarily.  They had to invade and destroy the South while the Confederate commanders merely had to keep their cause going.  Even a decently competent general was going to have a hard time in those conditions.

On the other hand even a subpar general like Braxton Bragg could kinda sorta keep it together for the South.

But does that explain the eastern theater? In the roughly contemporary wars taking place in Europe, the Prussians were able to rout enemies on their territory. I think Paris is a bit further from the German border than DC is Richmond. The Danes, Austrians, and French were all defeated in short order.

[Valmy]

But does that explain the eastern theater? In the roughly contemporary wars taking place in Europe, the Prussians were able to rout enemies on their territory.

Sure.  Lee lost every major battle he fought invading the North and the North has similar troubles in the Virginia.  I mean Grant was as good as they come and he failed to win decisively either.  Eventually they just had to slog it out.

The Prussians...well if the North had been able to instantly mobilize a massive reserve army and rush them to the front in a few days and march on Richmond they would have won almost immediately also.  If the Prussians had had to build an army and equip it and staff it from scratch I think the wars against Austria and France would have been just as difficult and protracted.  The massive speed of the Prussian mobilization was their key to victory.

Well that and France's plan to try to attack the Germans immediately which was suicidal given the superiority of German numbers plus the previously mentioned speed of Prussian mobilization.

[jimmy olsen]

Well besides the fact that both armies were full of terrible generals and the Federal Army more so for the reasons mentioned the Federals simply had a much more difficult task militarily.  They had to invade and destroy the South while the Confederate commanders merely had to keep their cause going.  Even a decently competent general was going to have a hard time in those conditions.

On the other hand even a subpar general like Braxton Bragg could kinda sorta keep it together for the South.

But does that explain the eastern theater? In the roughly contemporary wars taking place in Europe, the Prussians were able to rout enemies on their territory. I think Paris is a bit further from the German border than DC is Richmond. The Danes, Austrians, and French were all defeated in short order.

The Prussian army was run by professional officers and the men who fought were professionals and well trained reservists. The situation was not comparable.

[alfred russel]

But does that explain the eastern theater? In the roughly contemporary wars taking place in Europe, the Prussians were able to rout enemies on their territory.

Sure.  Lee lost every major battle he fought invading the North and the North has similar troubles in the Virginia.  I mean Grant was as good as they come and he failed to win decisively either.  Eventually they just had to slog it out.

The Prussians...well if the North had been able to instantly mobilize a massive reserve army and rush them to the front in a few days and march on Richmond they would have won almost immediately also.  If the Prussians had had to build an army and equip it and staff it from scratch I think the war against Austria and France would have been just as difficult and protracted.

I think the last census showed that the North had 27 million people, the South had 9 million. Something like 4 million of those were slaves. So the relevant military population was around 27 million to 5 million. Plus the North inherited the navy, the basics of the army, and was the wealthier portion of the country.

France and Prussia were roughly at parity, the North was dramatically superior. 4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

[alfred russel]

The Prussian army was run by professional officers and the men who fought were professionals and well trained reservists. The situation was not comparable.

So consider the first Bull Run campaign as a gimme. By 1862, after a year of war, the North should have had a well trained and experienced army as well. It took over 4 years to take Richmond, a lack of training at the start doesn't seem an adequate explanation.

[Valmy]

I think the last census showed that the North had 27 million people, the South had 9 million. Something like 4 million of those were slaves. So the relevant military population was around 27 million to 5 million. Plus the North inherited the navy, the basics of the army, and was the wealthier portion of the country.

France and Prussia were roughly at parity, the North was dramatically superior. 4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Army?  What army?  There were something like 15,000 men in the US Army before the war.  Again if it was easy then Grant should have won easily since he clearly had no problem driving hundreds of miles in the West.

And France and Prussia were not on parity.  The Prussians and their allies were able to mobilize their men so well they heavily outnumbered the French in every victory they won.  Certainly no more than the Federals typically outnumbered the Confederates in the battles they fought.

[jimmy olsen]

I think the last census showed that the North had 27 million people, the South had 9 million. Something like 4 million of those were slaves. So the relevant military population was around 27 million to 5 million. Plus the North inherited the navy, the basics of the army, and was the wealthier portion of the country.

France and Prussia were roughly at parity, the North was dramatically superior. 4 and a half years to make it 100 or so miles to Richmond is not something I would have expected.

Confederacy had 9.1 million people, 3.5 million of them slaves. Union had 22.3 million.

2.1 million served in the Union military during the war, roughly 900k in the Confederate.

[Viking]

Yeah him allowing his entire Corps be held up by 400 Confederates when he had a chance to destroy the Confederate Army (and he still nearly did were it not for AP Hill's division) was ridiculous.  He needed to go all in right there...sort of like he did when he shouldn't have at Fredericksburg a few months later.

And yes I am been to the famous bridge and stream as well.

To the best of my knowledge It was Maclellan that committed  his army piecemeal at antietam. I merely point out that Burnside was competent, rather than incompetent. You can still be competent and have a poor performance.

I'm not claiming that Burnside was a good general, I merely agree with his own assessment that corps command was his level of competence.

[Valmy]

2.1 million served in the Union military during the war, roughly 900k in the Confederate.

Is that everybody or just the regular army?  I know the Union had tons of local reserve troops in the border states that would only be used if fighting occured in their area.

[jimmy olsen]

2.1 million served in the Union military during the war, roughly 900k in the Confederate.

Is that everybody or just the regular army?  I know the Union had tons of local reserve troops in the border states that would only be used if fighting occured in their area.

I don't think it counts non-federalized state militias, but I could be wrong.

[Valmy]

To the best of my knowledge It was Maclellan that committed  his army piecemeal at antietam. I merely point out that Burnside was competent, rather than incompetent. You can still be competent and have a poor performance.

I'm not claiming that Burnside was a good general, I merely agree with his own assessment that corps command was his level of competence.

I was only addressing that particular effort by Burnside.  Ultimately the story of Antietam was that McClellan had his chance at eternal glory and fumbled the ball.  The North would never have a better chance to win the war in one battle.