BOOK REVIEW : RETREAT FROM GETTYSBURG.

This week I have re - read one of my favourite books.

This book is a masterpiece of historical research and is one of the very best on my favourite subject of 19th century logistics. The author describes in amazing detail the retreat of Lee's army after the battle of Gettysburg. For those who may not be familiar with the aftermath of the battle I will just say that the primary reason for Lee's invasion of the North, which culminated in the famous battle, was to forage for supplies in the rich countryside of Pennsylvania. At the time, Virginia, where most of the action had taken place during the first years of the Civil war, was exhausted of supplies and Lee's army was desperate for food, fodder and general supplies. The campaign was therefore undertaken to collect the means to continue the war. In that objective Lee was very successful. During the retreat, Lee's army was proceeded by over 3000 wagon loads of looted supplies together with thousands of cattle, sheep, pigs and horses taken by means of systematic foraging by the Army of Northern Virginia. There is no doubt that these supplies enabled the Confederacy to continue the War into 1864.

The book gives graphic descriptions of these trains of wagons moving south, bearing in mind they were accompanied by yet more thousands of supply, ordnance and ambulance wagons. Just consider if you can, the state of the roads with the dung of over 25,000 horses spread over them let alone all the looted cattle, sheep and pigs!!!! The average horse produces more than 30 to 40 pounds of dung per day, just imagine the following troops marching through that, not something any book ever addresses but a reality to the soldiers of the 19th century. 

The book also covers the slow and cautious advance of the Federal army as it sought to follow up its victory at Gettysburg and bring Lee's army to battle in a effort to stop a successful retreat back to Virginia, in which of course it failed.  At the time Lincoln was highly critical of Meade, the Union commander, for that slow advance. However Meade acted perfectly in a military sense and Lincoln's criticism demonstrates clearly a total lack of understanding of military logistics, something often seen with political leaders throughout history. Meade's Federal army was at the time exhausted after the battle and also desperately short of supplies and ammunition as his supply trains had not caught up with the earlier rapid advance of the army to the Gettysburg battlefield. In addition, Meade was initially unsure of the exact route Lee was taking in retreat. 

Political leaders without military skills only see little flags on maps and are oblivious to the realities of actually fighting an army. In WW2 Hitler demonstrated regularly such a lack of understanding. He even went so far as to stop the production of spare parts in favour of building new  tanks and created new divisions from the limited available manpower rather than reinforcing existing formations just so that he could have more flags on the map. That many of these flags representing divisions often had merely 500 soldiers and 5 tanks  interested him only when they predictably failed to achieve the tasks set for them.

Taking that one more step leads me to wargamimg practise today. I do not pretend to be a wargaming guru but I have seen rules that determine supply situations and troop moral on the basis of a throw of the dice. How can that possibly  reflect the real thing?? Every General in history knows that logistics are 90% of fighting a battle or campaign. No tactical manoeuvre plan survives contact with the enemy but having sufficient ammunition, food and fodder or fuel is absolutely critical to success. No campaign has ever been won by an army that is starving or without ammunition or does not have fodder or fuel to manoeuvre. Does anyone disagree, please let me know, such a discussion would be very welcome please.