Talk:Battle of Spotsylvania Court House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email)

Contents 1 Criticism by Matthew White 2 Did you actually read Matthew White's article? 3 inconclusive? 4 Infiltration 5 Assessment

[edit] Criticism by Matthew White

There's cogent criticism of the neutrality and accuracy of this article by Matthew White at [1]. Gdr 20:03, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Matthew is hereby invited to modify the article in any way he thinks he could improve it. One comment I'll make on his analysis of Grant vs Lee is that the latter had to exert more person control of the battle than he should have, due to failures or inexperience of his subordinates, the result of attrition. So I would expect Lee's name to come up more frequently. Try counting the total number of mentions of Union generals vs Confederate and see how they stack up. Hal Jespersen 21:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Did you actually read Matthew White's article?

here it is, so read it again... http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.html#Spotsylvania

Of course I read it, before I replied the first time. What point in his article interests you enough to post your question? Hal Jespersen 18:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Most of the article is my work; it's been tweaked here or there a few times. Hal has pretty much addressed what I would say about Mr. White's comments. Lee was much more hands-on in the 1864 campaign after the Wilderness, having lost his right-hand man (Longstreet) in the Wilderness. He even tried to personally lead the Mule Shoe counterattack and had to be persuaded that the Confederates could ill afford to lose him.

I wonder if he read all three of my articles on the 1864 campaign; Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor. If he did, I think he would see that I give Grant a great deal of credit for battering Lee back into the Richmond and Petersburg forts.

I would say the same thing...if White thinks he can improve on the article in any way, he should do so and help this project instead of criticizing those who do try to help.

Incidentally, I am a Southerner, but I think Lee was a bit of a putz in this battle, and should have gotten his men out of the Mule Shoe mess after Upton's first crack at it. Instead, he dawdled and lost 4,000 of his best troops as prisoners, and was lucky to hold the position at all.user:Jsc1973

[edit] inconclusive?

Technically, this seems like a strategic victory for Grant (since he was able to continue the offensive), while a tactical victory for Lee, (who had less casualties), is it not? -- 169.244.143.115 14:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically, the tactical victors of Civil War battles are determined by who leaves the battlefield first. So McClellan won at Antietam, Meade at Gettysburg, Lee at his other 62-63 battles. By this measure, SCH was a Confederate tactical victory, regardless of casualty figures. Strategic is another matter and is more debatable (which is why I spend little time worrying about the accuracy of these superficial battle boxes in the articles). Grant continued unabated with one of his strategic goals, wearing down Lee's army. He also got closer to Richmond. While I would call the full Overland Campaign an overall strategic victory (in hindsight), it is more difficult to explain why this bloody battle itself is strategic. I think "inconclusive" is OK. Hal Jespersen 15:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infiltration

It is stated that in this battle, Col. Emory Upton made first use of what was to become known as "Infiltration Tactics". Of coarse thats an overstatement since there wasn't really an infiltration, just a mere concentrated attack against a weak point of the enemie's defense system. Wich is not realy a novelty, since it has been done since stone age.

Infiltration is quite a diferent concept actualy. You don't attack in one point, you attack in many points. You don't actualy select flagrant weak points, you will be lucky if your enemy has got any! Instead you just avoid the realy strong points and concentrate on the not so strong. The key element to infiltration is not your enemy weaknesses but the fact that your attacking forces will be concentrated in those attack points so they will enjoy numerical superiority. The main objective is not to "break the line" with a massed conventional force wich was what Upton did, but instead to "infiltrate" the line with elite forces and then creating havok in the rear of the enemy front line. The diference is that you realy don't ave to be strong enough to actualy break the line and push your enemy back, you just have to be strong enough to pass a certain number of your troops over the line. It may seem to be the same thing, but it is not. There is a reason for the attacking troops to be elite. They have to cross the line, fighting all the way trough until reaching the rear of the frontline.

I don't see any discussion of infiltration in the article. It says "... twelve regiments under the command of Col. Emory Upton followed up a concentrated, intense artillery attack by slamming into the toe of the Mule Shoe along a narrow front." If you mean by "It is stated" that you read it somewhere else, I don't know why you mention it here. Hal Jespersen 13:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I know what he means. In the article, I wrote that similar tactics were used by Germany in March of 1918, those tactics are what became known as "Infiltration tactics" or "Hutier tactics" (after Oskar von Hutier, one of their WW1 proponents). What Upton did was similar, but it wasn't everything that Hutier was doing 54 years later. At no point did I credit Upton with actually developing infiltration, just that he used some of those concepts in what was, in 1864, a novel and successful way of breaking an enemy trench line. user:Jsc1973

[edit] Assessment

Overall, the article is cogent and well-written, but I would suggest breaking up that first section, providing a brief introduction, context, and then a discussion of the actual battle. Carom 16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)