I doubt a cite will be found.
That said it is common practice when in military school and learning tactics and strategy to study previously fought battles (for instance I doubt you could find a general in any military anywhere who couldn’t tell you about the Battle of Cannae in 286 BC). There is no reason to neglect to study US Civil War battles. There were some brilliant battles in there well worth learning for aspiring military commanders.
Bad memory…missed edit window.
216 BC is the correct date.
Wack-a-mole,
I agree that it is common for militaries to study the action of other militaries, I don’t believe that point is in dispute.
My hope was to find if the statement in Micheal Korda’s book that I quoted in my OP had a basis in fact or not. Focusing narrowly on that point, the preponderance of evidence suggests that it’s not factual.
It must be emphasized that new evidence comes to light very frequently and must be weighed and considered when examining any event. Historical events have frequently looked different after previously unavailable information came to light.
People are entitled to believe what they want, but a reasonable person should weigh as many data points as they can get. A data point that does not agree with the majority of data points available, is still valuable. I think most folk would recognize that there are many different interpretations or accounts of various events. These different interpretations / accounts are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
It’s clear to me that the times where I can claim to be reasonable are more sparse than I care to admit.
Thanks For the reply, please understand that I am venting to a large extent.
I don’t wish to reprise the discussion between Pantastic and myself, at this point as it can’t lead to any fruitful result.
Zuer-coli
I’d have trouble believing a cite wouldn’t exist somewhere, more has been written about the WW2 generals like Guderian than any other military leaders in history (with the possible exception of some ancient generals like Caesar and Alexander). I’d have real trouble believing that if he studied Stonewall Jackson no evidence exists for it.
Also, how well studied were the US Civil War Battles in the Europe military prior to WW1? Isn’t saying they must have been studied a case of 20-20 hindsight. Now we know that the US went on to be the pre-eminent military power, and that the tactics of the civil war were a foreshadowing of modern industrial warfare. But in 1907 that would they (especially to a proud Prussian officer corp) be considered anything other than an unpleasant civil war that happened decades ago on the other side of the globe?
I think a lot of military people studied the American Civil War in the years before WWI because there had been a relative dearth of wars to study. After the Napoleonic wars, if you eliminate political struggles and wars against “natives”, you’re left with the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Prussian Wars, the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, and the American Civil War.
I doubt the minutiae of what Guderian studied in school is worth recording for the future. I think it would only be mentioned that he studied Jackson if Jackson’s tactic/strategies were prominent in forming how he approached battle tactics. If they are not prominent that does not mean the lessons to be learned are unimportant to him, just not of particular note.
Here is a link to what Wikipedia has to say.
It appears that I principally remembered the Von Moltke quote. The Wikipedia article strongly suggests the quote is spurious.
So. To Pantastic if you are still following this thread. I was wrong about the extent the Prussians / Imperial Germany studied the U.S. Civil War. I apologize for my intransigence in that regard.
Zuer-coli.
Cite? I doubt it. Until the neo-confederates and apologists started making up crap about that 3rd rate general, due solely as a “dog whistle” for their fellow KKK sympathizers, few had heard of him.
While there is a citation in the following I have not been able to verify the source. So, FWIW:
Well, I read the oxford History of the Civil war, so I can assume they werent Neo-Confederates. NBF was mentioned, once, in a list of three great cavalry raiders. Which, indeed he was - a damn good cavalry raider. Terrible general when in charge of a army, but very good when allowed to go off on his own and raid.
I’m not quite certain I understand your attitude towards Forrest.
Leaving aside social, political, or moral questions, he was an extremely good tactician. I don’t think I’ve seen even a single reputable historian who didn’t acknowledge his top-flight, and self-taught, ability in the field. Further, the man was never in charge of an army, or even a corps as far as I could find. He racked up one of the winning-est records in command, although not without controversy and scandal. Today, Forrest tends to be remembered for racism and the Fort Pillow Massacre, or failing that for his raids (which legitimately changed the course of campaigns). But even in the purely military field then he utterly demolished multiple Union commands larger and better-equipped than his own.
No. He was not.
When he was the commander of a mixed force, trying to do something strategic, he was, in general, a failure.
He did win:
but that was a minor skirmish (he outnumbered the Union 2500 to 600), and a massacre, where NBF ordered him men to kill all the Black soldiers, and personally killed at least one.
But yes, when given the chance to do a cavalry raid, he did very well.
Most historians ignore NBF except as a raider.