Robert E. lee read Sun Tzu's ART OF WAR

Another thread based on reading an ACG article yest- which speculated how Gettysburg would've had a different result had Lee read Sun Tzu, concluding that Sun Tzu, based on his principles, wouldn't have fought the battle there at all. Now, WI somehow Lee had read the ART OF WAR ? How would he have applied Sun Tzu's principles at Gettysburg to the ANV's benefit ?
 
I don't know... Sun Tzu wasn't a superhuman, he just wrote a book of rules of thumb for warfare. Lee was a pretty great general, and any doctrine of Sun Tzu's would probably have seemed like common sense to him, to be taken or left as the situation and his own sense dictated. If he had read the book, AND it had somehow greatly influenced him to be a different sort of tactician, he might very well have fought much more conservatively and cautiously. Unfortunately, caution doesn't win the war for the South. It needed miracles, and that's what Lee tried (unsuccessfully) to create at Gettysburg.
 
Lee was a good general, but he was too wedded to the offense.

This was mostly a result of his West Point / Mexican War experience plus his being steeped in the history of the Napoleonic Wars.

But by the time he came of age as a commander, the offense had lost power to the defense. And as the leader of an outnumber, outclassed nation, while his offensive tactics brought tactical and strategic victories, they consistenly wasted men the Confederacy couldn't afford to loose.

Frankly, if the Confederacy had a McClellan in charge, they might have won. (Unlikely, but their best chance.)
 
Trading Places

Lee was a good general, but he was too wedded to the offense.

This was mostly a result of his West Point / Mexican War experience plus his being steeped in the history of the Napoleonic Wars.

But by the time he came of age as a commander, the offense had lost power to the defense. And as the leader of an outnumber, outclassed nation, while his offensive tactics brought tactical and strategic victories, they consistenly wasted men the Confederacy couldn't afford to loose.

Frankly, if the Confederacy had a McClellan in charge, they might have won. (Unlikely, but their best chance.)

I had a silly thought. What if McClellan and Lee switch places?
I know Lee went with Virginia when it rebelled; What if he stayed with the North?
I know McClellan knew how to train men really well, just not how to use them aggressively; But that's all I know about him. I can't think of any references about loyalty with regards to him.
 
I had a silly thought. What if McClellan and Lee switch places?
I know Lee went with Virginia when it rebelled; What if he stayed with the North?
I know McClellan knew how to train men really well, just not how to use them aggressively; But that's all I know about him. I can't think of any references about loyalty with regards to him.

McClellan was true Blue through and through. So, despite what in modern lights are some of his political short commings, it'd be ASB for this Pennsylvanian to join the rebellion. However, if we handwave or TL them away, I could see a McClellan type character doing quite well in the Eastern Theater for the Confederacy.

A more fluid gurilla type might be necessary for Confederate victory in the West, but even a McClellan in the West would probably buy the Confederates at least a couple of months if not a year against Union advances there, since no doubt all battles would be on the defensive, will well placed artillery and dug in troops, even if against vastly superior and more mobile union forces.

And, one advantage McClellan 'mentality' southerner might have is that he he probably wouldn't surrender like Lee, if and when conventional resistence became impossible. Again, despite his limitations, he was more of a romantic than Lee overall I believe. At least, had he been a Southern, I think he'd been less inclined to 'survive' the war, despite his timidity. At least if you can count his letters to his wife for anything. Which could have massive butterflies for a gurilla resistance.

Either way, with McClellan, or a McClellan type in Command of rebel forces, there's definately no Invasions of the North. And while there's probably no Lee drive of the Federals out of Northern Virgina, Richmons to Petersburg, to the West probably become trench warfare earlier. And the South probably has the men to man those trenches for a lot longer than OTL. (And more resources for building ironclads, ect. to challenge the blockade.)
 
Another thread based on reading an ACG article yest- which speculated how Gettysburg would've had a different result had Lee read Sun Tzu, concluding that Sun Tzu, based on his principles, wouldn't have fought the battle there at all. Now, WI somehow Lee had read the ART OF WAR ? How would he have applied Sun Tzu's principles at Gettysburg to the ANV's benefit ?

He did, it was a West Point Requirement, and it still is.

I don't know... Sun Tzu wasn't a superhuman, he just wrote a book of rules of thumb for warfare. Lee was a pretty great general, and any doctrine of Sun Tzu's would probably have seemed like common sense to him, to be taken or left as the situation and his own sense dictated. If he had read the book, AND it had somehow greatly influenced him to be a different sort of tactician, he might very well have fought much more conservatively and cautiously. Unfortunately, caution doesn't win the war for the South. It needed miracles, and that's what Lee tried (unsuccessfully) to create at Gettysburg.

Sun Tzu wasn't superhuman, however, he wrote one of the first manuals for warfare in history. It has been practiced in warfare and business. However, Sun Tzu's tactics along with all Chinese tactics are completely different than western tactics. If Lee were to actually follow Sun Tzu's advice ver batum, he might have stood a better chance. The reason being is that Chinese military tactics followed Confucionism closely. Control your interior before expanding out. Play the defensive and wait for the perfect opportunity for an offensive. The basic rule of thumb for Chinese tactics was to play a defensive war.

Lee was a good general, but he was too wedded to the offense.

This was mostly a result of his West Point / Mexican War experience plus his being steeped in the history of the Napoleonic Wars.

But by the time he came of age as a commander, the offense had lost power to the defense. And as the leader of an outnumber, outclassed nation, while his offensive tactics brought tactical and strategic victories, they consistenly wasted men the Confederacy couldn't afford to loose.

Frankly, if the Confederacy had a McClellan in charge, they might have won. (Unlikely, but their best chance.)

Lee's experience was actually his downfall. It was because he had too much experience in the Mexican American War and the study of the Napoleonic Wars that made him lose. He focused too much on offense. This isn't all that dissimilar to what happened to the American leaders in the ARW who focused too much on British tactics while being a vastly outnumbered, outgunned and out trained force.
 
Another thread based on reading an ACG article yest- which speculated how Gettysburg would've had a different result had Lee read Sun Tzu, concluding that Sun Tzu, based on his principles, wouldn't have fought the battle there at all. Now, WI somehow Lee had read the ART OF WAR ? How would he have applied Sun Tzu's principles at Gettysburg to the ANV's benefit ?

I think it would make Lee pretty accomplished. I didn't think they taught Chinese at West Point. The Art of War wasn't translated into english until 1905, tho he may have had access to a french translation, the first appearing in 1772.
 
I had a silly thought. What if McClellan and Lee switch places?
I know Lee went with Virginia when it rebelled; What if he stayed with the North?
I know McClellan knew how to train men really well, just not how to use them aggressively; But that's all I know about him. I can't think of any references about loyalty with regards to him.

if we want a 'defensive mode' southerner in charge of the ANV, wouldn't Longstreet fit the bill? Suppose we 'dispose' of Lee early on in the war and have Longstreet put in charge....
 
Top