With the recent idea of playing the strategic military board game of risk in class (which I believe was a great idea) I cannot help but consider the military strategy that is involved in our text the Killer Angels. In my previous post I went over the differences between the two highest commanders for the confederate forces and stated that a conflict was bound to erupt. In this post, I will be looking at the two characters from strictly a military strategic standpoint and try and determine which commander is best fit for ruling the confederate forces.
First, looking at Lee, we know that he has the complete respect from all of his men. However, we also know that Lee is willing to sacrifice the lives of his men because he knows he has an excess of men at his disposal. We also found out that Lee often made decisions through his religion rather than through the information that was available to him at the time of the decision.
Next, looking at Longstreet, we know that he was quite different than Lee in his regard for the lives of his men. Longstreet does not feel that it is right to sacrifice his men, he feels connected to them and responsible for them. As for his decision-making process, he unlike Lee used all available information and based his decisions around the concept of modern warfare.
Looking at these two commanders, they both clearly display different attributes that make them great leaders. If I had to choose between these two commanders which to follow into battle it most likely would be Longstreet. While Longstreet does show a sense of uneasiness in loosing his men, he also makes decisions based on the information that is available to him and does not allow religion to impair his judgment. The best case scenario would be to combine Longstreet’s judgment in making decisions with Lee’s realization that men under his command are bound to die.
10 comments:
Longstreet appears to be the better leader from the stance of a common soldier. We cannot ignore the fact that Lee believes his offensive tactics are appropriate for this war. Longstreet may have the more realistic military strategy, but Lee displays undying passion and love for the confederate army. If leadership is based on success than Lee can be considered a bad leader, but I believe his worth is much more. The entire confederate army revered Lee as a heroic figure. He inspired his men to believe they could win a war and in his heart truly believed the South would be victorious. His military judgment may have been skewed, but his heart was in the right place.
I think it's interesting the way you build almost an ideal leader by combining the two in charge. My question is, why couldn't that happen? Why couldn't Lee and Longstreet have worked together to really understand other views, balancing out their good/bad qualities to make the best possible decisions.
I would follow Longstreet as well. Even though the idea that Longstreet tries to protect his men at all costs may seem like a weak proposition, that is what the Confederacy needed-- specifically at the Battle of Gettysburg. Preservation of soldier probably would have won them the battle if they had used Longstreet's tactics and intelligence. I do think the passion and beliefs Lee exhibits are admirable but it did not help him win the war. And, who knows? Maybe Lonstreet would have been the same way had Lee listened to him, we just never saw that side of Longstreet in Killer Angels.
I agree with Michael that a combination of the two commanders would have been most beneficial. But some interesting questions arise from their previous decisions: Why couldn't Lee compromise even when he knew the Confederates were being slaughtered at Gettysburg? Why didn't Longstreet push his defensive tactics enough to Lee? Simply put, they both respect tradition. Lee respects his religion and his teachings at West Point while Longstreet respects the chain of command and the lives of his men. If either of the leaders were more like Chamberlain, the Confederacy would have had a better though out plan and a better chance at Gettysburg (although they probably would still have lost).
Going off of what Michael was saying, I believe that the two leaders were incapable of working together. While I agree that if they were able to somehow balance out their good/bad qualities they would create a great leader.
I feel that Lee would not be able to work well together with Longstreet on an even level of command because Lee was accustomed to being highest in command of the forces. Also I dont believe that they would be able to agree on decisions due to their conflicting ideals.
i agree with you--if i had a choice between commanders, and i were a soldier, i'd go with Longstreet any day. He really does seem to care about his men, a quality Lee is kind of lacking.
i agree with what others have been saying: they should have worked together to lead more effectively, but they couldn't. Their military ideals were too distinct, and their loyalty to their own traditions was too great.
Longstreet would definitely be considered the better leader from the eyes of a soldier. A soldier would rather choose the option that lessens his chance of dying for sure. Perhaps Lee's tactics might have worked when men still used swords but it's kind of hard to play offensively when your enemy is a mile off shooting at you.
In your last paragraph you said the ultimate general is the two men combined. You just described Chamberlain in a nut shell. He has the ability to think things through, but he also understands that men are going to die in war. When he used his brother as a cork he ran the risk that he might die, but he also thought that putting his brother there was the best thing for his men. While the Confederacy is torn between two different men, the Union is able to stand strong with a combination of both men's qualities.
I don't think these attributes make Lee a great leader, maybe Longsteet though. I do agree with you I would definitely follow behind Longstreet in a battle because he values my life and not reckless about giving mine up. Lee views his men as just a number, kind of like a video game and does not care about who dies, just how many. Longstreet's fear and cautiousness makes him wiser. Sometimes old leadership styles and military strategy needs to be changed. Old isn't always good
i'd probably choose longstreet too, but back then the confeds were fighting for a cause (or at least they thought they were), and their idea of tactics was shoot the blue guy before they shoot you. Lee was probably much more respected than longstreet b/c he gave them what they wanted, an outlet for their anger and rage. now we say we'd rather follow longstreet, but had we lived and been confeds back then it might very well have been different
Post a Comment