Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Great Minds Might Not Always Think Alike
As we start our new book, The Killer Angels, we began to look at the Confederate's highest officials. The commander Robert E. Lee was a man that kept to himself. He never drank, chased women, smoked or gambled. He loved his state, Virginia and he kept his life in control. He was also a man who believed in traditional warfare. On the other hand, his second in command was Lieutenant General James Longstreet. Longstreet valued the lives of his men because in one winter he lost three of his kids due to a fever. Both Lee and Longstreet are smart men, but when it comes to their tactics they do not agree. Lee understands that he has men and a lot of them. He can afford to lose lives if it means victory. On the other hand Longstreet invented the defensive strategy of trenches which approve the chance of survival for his men. So with two men so close to each other is it beneficial for them to have different strategies on the field, or could it make the men choose what general to follow into battle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
There's more to it than just strategy here. A lot of the reason Lee fails to see the advancement in military strategy is because of his and many others' pride. They find shame in hiding behind trenches or trees firing guns at eachother, and see charging blindly at their enemy glorious. Although Longstreet's strategy might be better, the men at the time may not yet be ready to accept it.
I agree with Sam. Most of the highest ranking officers are graduates of West Point and hold strong to Napoleonic warfare. This causes them to try and act gloriously and fight "like a man should fight". Unfortunately, this mindset blinds Lee and most of the Confederate army from seeing the whole picture surrounding Gettysburg. This causes the Confederacy to take heavy casualties because they refuse to do anything but charge straight ahead to their deaths.
I think initially it is beneficial to have Lee and Longstreet together with strategic differences when it comes to fighting. As Jack's blog and comments infer, it could help the two see different approaches to the war. However, eventually, I think the two will have problems because of what Sam points out. Lee and his men have too much pride to see the logic in Longstreet's strategies. But even if the Lee had listened to Longstreet and fought using his methods, do you think the soldiers who fought under Lee and know his Napoleonic tactic would have successfully carried out Longstreet's plans?
It is very beneficial to have people with different ideologies working together, it provides diversity within an entity. Look at Barrack Obama's cabinet, he is trying to make it as diverse as possible. He wants to include both republicans and democrats in an attempt to create a cabinet that is open minded and can relate to people from all walks of life. The problem between Lee and Longstreet is not their conflicting ideologies but the fact that Lee ignores Longstreet. As his second in command, Longstreet is supposed to provide Lee with advice, which could be useful. However, Lee ignores Longstreet and in the end, suffers the consequences.
I forgot whose blog I wrote this on, but I talked about how in life, there has to be compromise. During war, there needs to be a plan, but numerous options should always be weighed before taking an ultimate stance on something. For Lee and Longstreet, the two could compromise to decide the best way to help the Confederate army.
However, like Sam said, ego is always an important part to this. At the end of the day, the army needs to move in one direction, so who will end up backing down? Who will swallow his pride and take orders from another leader? The real challenge is to be reasonable enough to answer to others, even if it makes you seem weak.
Of course you do not want to have two of your highest commanders in disagreement. Nothing good comes from Longstreet's not agreeing with Lee. His voice will not be heard anyways, but speaking out will turn Lee against him. In that case, he knows that Lee cannot be persuaded, so he should just keep to himself and pick the battles worth figthing. Unfortuantely as a soldier, you completely lose your voice, and must do as the highest commander says.
I find both of the confederate generals to be great leaders for the army. The contrasting styles of war can sometimes disrupt the organization and structure of the military, but Longstreet is quiet and respectful in his opinions. He understands that Lee is the head general and leader of the army and does not overstep his boundaries. I disagree with the point that these conflicting views are beneficial, because I feel an army should be on the page in terms of war tactics and strategy. Longstreet follows Lee's orders and commands, but does not truly believe they will work. If the confederate generals Lee and Longstreet communicated with one another and combined their strategies, the confederates would have been much more successful in the outcome of the war.
It is interesting that Lee knew that he had so many men and followed the idea that he could afford to lose/sacrifice some of them. What is the most interesting part of this strategy is that his men still admire him even though they knew he could be sending them knowingly to their deaths and that he would not regret the decision.
This was an interesting post. I am anxious to see whether, by the end of the book, their conflicting personalities impede or improve their leadership abilities.
It can be beneficial to have different viewpoints when trying to decide on what route is best to take when in war, but it can also be what hinders it the most. If officials can't decide on what to do then there will be internal conflict from which they might not recover from.
Sean you make a really good point here. I failed to even see the part about troop morale and choosing sides in previous posts about this topic. I think, however, that it can be beneficial if the two generals understand the situation. Its like having a defensive coordinator and an offensive coordinator,it can be difficult to have one in charge and the other behind the scenes. If the behind the scenes guy is comfortable with his position, and has a good enough relationship with the head coach, then it will work. If these circumstances do not exist, the chances of success are slim.
Post a Comment