Not a GQ. A GD for a long time. Great generalship or pure luck? Or somewhere in between?
MHO, it was a matter of being forced into a position where he had only two alternatives: to retreat, which raised the specter of the entire Union line collapsing, or to use his remaining strength in a last-gasp counterattack.
One factor that seems to be glossed over is that many of the Confederate units were approaching exhaustion when the engagement started, in large part because (IIRC) they had to make a prolonged countermarch to stay out of sight when moving into position. Had Stuart been around to map the terrain, thus saving the troops’ energy, LRT may have gone down in history as “Chamberlain’s Folly.”
Disclaimer: I’m a Civil War dilettante, not an expert in any way. I’m sure that someone with more extensive knowledge could tear my observations to tatters.
“The best defense is a good offense”. There’s nothing novel about that. They had the element of surprise, they were attacking downhill, and the enemy was deployed for attack and not defense. Besides, the rebs had no idea what was happening - as far as they knew, the Union troops had just received reinforcements and were launching a counter-attack. Is it any surprise they broke?
That said, it wasn’t great generalship - Chamberlain was a lieutenant colonel at the time.
But it *was *some damned fine Coloneling.
Wrong Chamberlain, wrong little round top.
Very, very wrong.
This.
But goddamned, closing the gate from some textbook? It’s a piece of work from an amateur.
I assume you’re referring to this:
"On the final charge, knowing that his men were out of ammunition, that his numbers were being depleted, and further knowing that another charge could not be repulsed, Chamberlain ordered a maneuver that was considered unusual for the day: He ordered his left flank, which had been pulled back, to advance with bayonets in a “right-wheel forward” maneuver. As soon as they were in line with the rest of the regiment, the remainder of the regiment charged, akin to a door swinging shut. This simultaneous frontal assault and flanking maneuver halted and captured a good portion of the 15th Alabama."
What (presumably military) textbook are you referring to? And what made using the maneuver “amateur”*?
*not that “professionals” in the Union Army had been responsible for all that much glory before this.
Another dilettante, here. You want an expert ask my father.
I always thought that the single thing most defining about Chamberlain there was this:
He was in a position where his men didn’t have a lot left to give. But his position was critical (possibly) to turning the entire battle in one direction or another. At that point Chamberlain realized that and took steps whether he men had any fire in the belly left or not. It was an enormous gamble but it was the gamble that had to be made.
Realizing that reality and throwing the dice is what made Chamberlain a hero. Not every officer, especially as officers were appointed and promoted during the Civil War, would have had both the intelligence and the balls to make that call and potentially risk the entire loss of his unit. But he did, and they did, and we get to debate it.
Spam reported.
And Chamberlain’s success was all due to his bitchin stache.
Merneith, maybe that’s why the war in Afghanistan has run for 10 years with no firm resolution in sight – none of the NATO military leadership has cool facial hair.
By Jove, you might be on to something!
Another dilettante here. In his account of the battle of Gettysburg in his Army of the Potomac trilogy, Bruce Catton, without denigrating Chamberlain’s heroism, puts it in perspective by noting no fewer than a half-dozen instances where the Confederates nearly broke through the Union line during that long afternoon and evening of the second day of the battle. Chamberlain saved the day in one of those instances, but it would have been all for nothing if others elsewhere along the Union line hadn’t come to the rescue in the nick of time.
AFAICT, Chamberlain’s contemporary fame is largely due to Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels, which views the Union side of the battle largely through Chamberlain’s eyes, and which was adapted into the 1993 movie Gettysburg.
Exactly. A great revisionist history of Little Round Top in particular and Gettysburg historiography in general is These Honored Dead: How The Story Of Gettysburg Shaped American Memory by Thomas Desjardin.
IIRC, the book makes three points about Chamberlain (while still considering him a hero):
- Little Round Top wasn’t actually as important to the Union position as often thought
- The Confederate force facing the 20th ME wasn’t as superior in numbers as is often thought
- There is virtually no contemporary evidence for the fight as generally understood. The first account of Little Round Top was written by a 20th ME veteran, but it turns out he was hospitalized miles away at the time of the battle. Even Chamberlain’s official report of the battle as found in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion was written in the 1880s as the original was lost. Desjardin argues that most of the public image of the battle is the result of a Hearst magazine article on Chamberlain written for the 50th anniversary of the battle (and which later influenced Shaara’s account).
“Scratch a hero and you find a bum.”
Except in this case. Chamberlain was actually as good a man as he is made out to be*. Yes, with 20/20 hindsight we can see that his move wasn’t the be-all and end-all some would like it to be. But from his perspective at the time, it was an enormous gamble that was the only way to save the encounter.
And the moustache, of course.
*from Wiki: *Thus Chamberlain was responsible for one of the most poignant scenes of the Civil War. As the Confederate soldiers marched down the road to surrender their arms and colors, Chamberlain, on his own initiative, ordered his men to come to attention and “carry arms” as a show of respect. Chamberlain described what happened next:
Gordon, at the head of the marching column, outdoes us in courtesy. He was riding with downcast eyes and more than pensive look; but at this clatter of arms he raises his eyes and instantly catching the significance, wheels his horse with that superb grace of which he is master, drops the point of his sword to his stirrup, gives a command, at which the great Confederate ensign following him is dipped and his decimated brigades, as they reach our right, respond to the 'carry.' All the while on our part not a sound of trumpet or drum, not a cheer, nor a word nor motion of man, but awful stillness as if it were the passing of the dead.[11]
Chamberlain’s salute to the Confederate soldiers was unpopular with many in the North, but he defended his action in his memoirs, The Passing of the Armies. Many years later, Gordon, in his own memoirs, called Chamberlain “one of the knightliest soldiers of the Federal Army.” Gordon never mentioned the anecdote until after he read Chamberlain’s account, more than 40 years later.*
Shaara, IIRC, has Chamberlain studying a military text on his way to the battle. The maneuver was not amateur. The man was, though, having been a professor a year before. But he was many things: Joshua Chamberlain - Wikipedia
ETA: “Piece of work” is a compliment in this case. And it truly was a war-winning stache.
What would be truly amateur is studying such a text during the battle.
“Colonel, the Rebs are outflanking us! What do we do???”
“TIme to consult Rules of War, 2d Edition. Let’s see, I know it’s here in the index. ‘Flanking Maneuvers - Defending’, page 314. Wow, that’s a long chapter. Are there Cliff Notes?”
While the 'stache I am sure helped, I am pretty sure his success was due to his massive balls.
That’s practically what Henry Knox did, and it worked out well enough.
Agreed, Chamberlain succeeded because he didn’t panic, he correctly figured out what needed to be done, and he then did it. Not many West Pointers in the war could say the same.
Actually, I think most of them could say that. It goes “Oh. I’ve been shot. I guess I need to die. <croak>” 