|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 8, 2012 11:20:45 GMT -5
Chuck T - lighten up. Like it or not, this continent was settled and conquered by those gifted amateurs that technically had no business in combat. Yet, they did it. Some through trial and error (like Travis and Custer) and some through their willingness to sacrifice thousands (like Grant. But look at the America they made. What I,m saying is that there are intangibles that seperate foolhardiness from heroics. This forum is a great place to debate where one ends and the other begins. For example, all the months of planning didn't save the hundreds who pershed in the lagoon at Tarawa and other battlegrounds. As I said, "It speaks well..."
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 8, 2012 13:41:55 GMT -5
Chuck T - lighten up. Like it or not, this continent was settled and conquered by those gifted amateurs that technically had no business in combat. Yet, they did it. Some through trial and error (like Travis and Custer) and some through their willingness to sacrifice thousands (like Grant. But look at the America they made. What I,m saying is that there are intangibles that seperate foolhardiness from heroics. This forum is a great place to debate where one ends and the other begins. For example, all the months of planning didn't save the hundreds who pershed in the lagoon at Tarawa and other battlegrounds. As I said, "It speaks well..." Lou, I have to eespectfully take issue with almost your entire post. The "gifted amateur" is the great American military Myth. While I'm sure there are others, off the top of my head I can think of only three genuine gifted amateurs, Andrew Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forest, and Benedict Arnold. Almost every other great commander, was professionally trained, or grew into his role by experience and was anything but an amateur (eg Washington, Nathaniel Greene, Henry Knox, etc.). Now professional training doesn't guarantee success, Kasserine Pass is probably a better example than Tarawa. Every profession has it incompetent members that slip thru. For some reason, Americans, have never seen the military has a true profession, even has the profession has grown in scale and complexity. It may be a poor analogy, but who do you want landing the 747 a trained pilot or the amateur being talked down by the tower? Do you really want your son or daughters life in combat zone depending on the decisions of an amateur?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 8, 2012 13:48:13 GMT -5
Now, if you are talking small unit leadership, platoon/company, etc. versus command of larger units, I might agree.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Apr 8, 2012 14:42:03 GMT -5
It may be a poor analogy, but who do you want landing the 747 a trained pilot or the amateur being talked down by the tower? Do you really want your son or daughters life in combat zone depending on the decisions of an amateur? My favorite analogy is, "If you were going to have somebody shoot an apple off your head with a bow-and-arrow, would you pick a friend or a professional?"
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 8, 2012 14:45:39 GMT -5
While I certainly believe that the mythology of the amateur soldier has been somewhat overplayed in American thought, there's been plenty of incompetence on the professional side as well.
Having said that, a trained individual possessing an innate ability is probably more valuable than an untrained person with the same innate ability.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 8, 2012 15:38:46 GMT -5
Having said that, a trained individual possessing an innate ability is probably more valuable than an untrained person with the same innate ability. Bingo. Some people can rise to the occasion in a pinch, be it from natural instincts or some innate ability, but in the heat of battle, that's only going to get you so far. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 8, 2012 16:38:55 GMT -5
This reminds me of my recent re-reading of some Alamo books. The Texas revolution seems to have been plagued with particularly poor military and political leadership. Few if any of the military commanders appears to have had much professional training or battle experience. Fannin is an exception in that he attended West Point for a time before dropping out, but he seems to be one of Herb's exceptions in that he was an inept, indecisive officer who lacked any confidence in himself and openly said so -- in writing! Most authors give Bowie high marks for his leadership abilities, the willingness of men to follow him into battle, his coolness under pressure and his victories over larger forces at Concepcion and San Saba. The Grass Fight may not count for much, but it showed the same abilities. Yet Bowie lacked any formal training or real battlefield experience prior to the Texas war. We can only wonder how well he might have performed at the head of a larger, trained army.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 8, 2012 18:21:40 GMT -5
Good question about Bowie, Allen. It's one thing to lead a group of volunteers, which as a group tend to be less disciplined than "regulars." I think Bowie would have had a hard time leading a larger group of trained and disciplined regulars. Crockett had a lot of respect, and had some military experience, but still not of the caliber of a properly schooled and trained soldier.
Travis had his leadership flaws, to be certain, but I think he did okay dealing with the cards he was dealt with. Surrender doesn't seem to have been an option with SA and, at least at first, for WBT. I've read the speculation that Travis was on the verge of surrendering the Alamo, but even if true, that dog wasn't going to hunt with SA.
The deal was sealed and outcome a foregone conclusion once Travis and company committed to locking themselves inside the Alamo. Even Houston woudn't have fared any better if he'd have been in command of the 'mo.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 8, 2012 20:03:48 GMT -5
Napoleon once said there are no bad regiments only bad colonels. The green volunteers under Stonewall Jackson did pretty well at First Manasas. The Regulars at Kasserine less so. Leadership, training, discipline and command are what makes the difference not whether the man is regular or a volunteer.
The problem with the Alamo is that the attack on March 6th could have been defeated. The Mexican Army waited in attack positions for at least two hours, well within rifle range, never mind cannon range. While the ultimate doom of the Alamo was probably inevitable, it didn't have to have happened the way it did.
Had Travis taken some very rudimentary steps, the Mexicans could have suffered truly devastating casualties. This conclusion says nothing about Travis' courage, patriotism, or dedication, only his very obvious failings as a commander.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 8, 2012 20:26:28 GMT -5
There's one more point to consider in thinking about the fate of the Alamo. Nearly everyone, except for Houston and maybe a few others, thought that it was essential to hold Bexar -- Neill, Bowie, Travis, Robinson and the Council and (IIRC) Gov. Smith. The assumption was the Texan colonists and probably new arrivals from the U.S. (in droves) would man the Alamo well before the Mexicans could possibly return - probably not before mid-March. The latter was a miscalculation; the former a hope that simply did not pan out. From first to last, Neill, Bowie and Travis wrote for badly needed supplies and more men; Travis's letters were increasingly urgent, desperate and finally bitter as he accepted that the much anticipated help was not coming. Once it came to a battle, with Bowie out of action, Travis was left to command, despite his inexperience. He had no one else in the fort who could lend him much help with that.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 8, 2012 20:53:08 GMT -5
True. Witness Rorke's Drift, for example. Even taking the breach loading rifles out of the equation, it was military discipline that won the day despite the defending force being grossly outnumbered. Rorke's is a model for what could have been at the Alamo, in my opinion.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Apr 8, 2012 23:05:38 GMT -5
As John Ford said, "When fact becomes legend, print the legend!" Great epic pictures, but he was no historian. Lou from Long Island As Ransom Stoddard said, "Hallie, who put the cactus rose on Tom's coffin?"
|
|
|
Post by jamesg on Apr 8, 2012 23:54:18 GMT -5
Through out history there has been a certain contempt of Full time soldiers..the "Professionals"against the part time militia. Some of it is Justified some Not. When it depends much on the fighting spirit of the individual Man and how he trained. If you Look at Iraq Reservists have served just as well a the Full Time solider..why?? because the are serving active duty time just as the Full Time solider. Much Like WWII can you tell the difference in Reserves and active in WWII? Looking at the Texas Revolution I find no real Professional Body of Regulars better than the Militia forces as it seems they were raised and sent to active duty at the same time. I do not find the Texian solider lacking in Fighting Spirit but Leadership questionable amongst individuals. It would appear Texian Units fought better when they elected their own Leaders rather than Political appointees. But Then in Texas there's always exceptions as well.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 9, 2012 9:39:35 GMT -5
Military units fight better when they are competently trained and led. It makes no difference if they are Regular or volunteer, Reservist or Guardsmen. It is not the status but the training and leadership.
I think Lou missed my point, or perhaps I did not state the point well. I have no problem with Travis. As stated I think he did remarkably well with what he had to work with, considering he had no formal military training. That he made obvious errors is self evident, errors that would probably not been made by a trained officer regardless of the previous status of that officer.
What I wished to shine light on was the idea of the time that military service was an extension of civilian life and as such anyone that could provide and fire a rifle, ride a horse, walk a distance, stand in line, or possess a martial spirit was a soldier. Further I object to the idea that leaders were born not made, that leaders should be chosen from the upper echelon of society, that leaders in one arena were automaticly fit for leadership on the battlefield. These were the prevailing ideas and attitudes. The attitude is what was wrong, and in part that attitude was fostered both in the States and in Texas by a distrust of a standing military. That too is not surprising considering we were only fifty odd years distant from military being quartered in homes, impressment of seamen and the like.
The history of our country pre and immediate post revolution created a system of a tiny caretaker regular force, augmented by volunteers, the citizen soldier volunteer. Over the last two hundred years we have kept that system largely intact. What has changed due to painful experience at times is that now this system of a small regular force augmented in time of need has added proper dicipline, training, and equipment into the mix.
We are a much better force now because over the years we have recognized the deficiencies of the system. I would only argue why was it that it took us one hundred fifty or more years to understand what the deficiencies were, before we went about correcting them.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Apr 10, 2012 17:37:10 GMT -5
Military units fight better when they are competently trained and led. It makes no difference if they are Regular or volunteer, Reservist or Guardsmen. It is not the status but the training and leadership. Quite. Let us not forget that a professionally trained CIC allowed his (mostly trained?) army to enjoy their afternoon's siesta (in the presence of the enemy) until rudely awakened around tea time by old Sam & his big alarm clock.
|
|