German March offensive & Sherman`s march

[PhilB]

As discussed in a recent thead on the German March 1918 offensive, the advance soon ran out of steam. The conclusion was reached that a WW1 advance could only go as far as logistics would allow - a few miles at a time. Sherman, however, according to my reading, set off with 100,000 men and marched through hostile territory to the sea without depending on logistical support. Was the big difference the machine gun? Phil B

[BeppoSapone]

I don't know too much about the ACW, but my understanding is that Sherman's Army completed the march to the sea because it just took whatever it needed from the civilian population.

"The bitterness provoked by this march was immediate and lasting. Sherman’s soldiers needed food and supplies. They lived off the land, depriving desperate civilians of those same items"

After being at war since 1914 I don't suppose that people in the way of the German advance had much worth taking, and little would have been available in the fields so early in the year. However, iirc, the Germans looted British stores etc and this slowed their advance. They were also demoralised to see the amount of food and goods still available to British soldiers, despite their submarines.

[PhilB]

Thanks, Beppo. Surprising that the much vaunted German discipline should break down at the sight of a supply dump, though? Sherman started his march from Atlanta in November. Not the best season for living off the land! Phil B

[truthergw]

Sherman started his march from Atlanta in November. Not the best season for living off the land!  Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspect that Sherman's men did not so much " live off the land" as live out of people's store cupboards. Not to put too fine a point on it, they stole the civilian population's food from them.

[AndyHollinger]

Remember Sherman had little opposition and little cause for concern on his flanks. Yes, they did loot their way forward. The WWI Germans had neither - safe flanks or easy pickings for the proper material for war ... and Joe Johnston was not Haig ...

[PhilB]

But, Andy, isn`t the USCW full of attempts to hit the flank/s? Wouldn`t Sherman have been constantly aware of the danger? Or was the Confederate force in no condition to do so? Phil B

[andigger]

Like WWI the 'fronts' in the US Civil War are very different in terraine and tactics.

Phil - I think your image is more in line with the VA campaign where Lee and Grant were using flanking maneuvers in a war of attrition. In Georgia there was a much wider field of movement and Johnson's Army was not as cohesive as Lee's.

[Max]

But, Andy, isn`t the USCW full of attempts to hit the flank/s? Wouldn`t Sherman have been constantly aware of the danger? Or was the Cofederate force in no condition to do so? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Phil

One of the first actions of Shermans pillage to the sea was the defense of the Oconee River crossing near Milledgeville, GA in late November 1864. The defending force consisted of mounted Kentuckians, cadets from the local military academy (Milledgeville) and prisoners from the local jail, hardly a force to match that of Shermans.

This link from the University of Georgia (Athens) is very interesting

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/marchsea.htm

Andy

[paul guthrie]

Oh Evilandymax! just what did those Kentucky boys mount?

[Max]

Oh Evilandymax! just what did those Kentucky boys mount?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably the prisoners.

[PhilB]

Thanks for the reference, Andy. It indicates that Sherman`s men were not solely living off the land.

Quote:-

Railroads played a crucial role in all phases of Sherman's operations. Not only was moving against rail lines held by the Confederate army an important feature of his offensive scheme, but holding and maintaining the railroad which supplied the Union forces from the North were also critical to his success.[27] With a keen understanding of the great importance of these railroads, Sherman characterized this campaign as an exercise in supply and transportation.[28]

[AndyHollinger]

It was once said Joe Johnston never met a Yankee Army from which he could not retreat ...

Sherman did operate independently and in terms of the time was certainly not fully supplied from Union depots ... but he didn't feed 100K men on what they found in GA ... that's for sure.

[andigger]

Quote:-

Railroads played a crucial role in all phases of Sherman's operations. Not only was moving against rail lines held by the Confederate army an important feature of his offensive scheme, but holding and maintaining the railroad which supplied the Union forces from the North were also critical to his success.[27] With a keen understanding of the great importance of these railroads, Sherman characterized this campaign as an exercise in supply and transportation.[28]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Remember - Atlanta was a military logistics goal because of the rail links which converged there (the original name for the city was Terminus). Miledgeville was the capital of GA at the time so that would have been the politic prize.

Andy

[Desmond7]

As I've read it .. Sherman's march was no more and no less than a massive march of vandalism with the primary aim of sickening the population of the Rebel States.

If he sucked in some Rebel forces .. well and good. But Sherman seems to have been more aware than most that the ACW was a 'total war' and that people had to be made aware of just how nasty things could be?

As for Georgia .. it got off lightly compared to Nawf Ca'Lina.

Any basis in this understanding I have?

Edited 29 March , 2005 by Desmond7

[carninyj]

Des,

I understand the basics as you do.

The march was not, as sometimes presented, the march of a unruly band of plundering and uncontrolled soldiers; it was a deliberate act, ordered by Sherman and rigidly organised. It was psychological warfare, a destructive campaign against a civilian population to break their will to continue the war. It was intended to convey to Southeners that the Confederate government could not protect its own people; conversely, it also demonstrated the power of the Union and suggested the futility of continuing hostilities. It created bitterness, some of which endures to the present, but it supposedly weakened the will of Southerners at the time to fight (Area bombing in WW2 was supposed to do the same to civilians in Nazi Germany and it didn't work!). It is still allegedly studied at West Point to show cadets how to break the enemy's will to fight.

Carninyj

[andigger]

As I've read it .. Sherman's march was no more and no less than a massive march of vandalism with the primary aim of sickening the population of the previously independent States.

If he sucked in some freedom fighters... well and good. But Sherman seems to have been more aware than most that the ACW was a 'total war' and that people had to be made aware of just how nasty things could be?

As for Georgia .. it got off lightly compared to Nawf Ca'Lina.

Any basis in this understanding I have?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What did you hear about N Carolina? I am not an expert, but the Yankee armies (which actually were part of Sherman's command) didn't get there until early 1865. Even then it was Charlotte. NC was probably the last of all the States to see the invaders violate their borders.

Andy

[Neil Burns]

Des,

I beleive you are thinking of South Carolina which was viewed as the seat of seccession.

Andy H,

In fairness to Johnston, Hood didn't leave much of an army to defend the deep South with.

Neil

[Desmond7]

Yup you're right ... sath ca'lina was the bug-bear state!

Sherman: "The truth is the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak havoc on South Carolina. I almost tremble at her fate nut feel that she deserves all that seems to be in store for her."

And just to make it plain ... 'when the army entered North Carolina the destruction of civilian property stopped. Not a house was burned and the army gave more to the people than it took from them.'

[paul guthrie]

Even considering the times Sherman was a virulent racist also did not really believe in democratic government.

[andigger]

And just to make it plain ... 'when the army entered North Carolina the destruction of civilian property stopped. Not a house was burned and the army gave more to the people than it took from them.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahh, where did you hear that?

Andy

[Desmond7]

Joseph T. Glatthar - The March to the Sea and Beyond: Sherman's Troops in the Savannah and Carolinas Cam[aigns (New York 1985).

[BottsGreys]

To oppose Sherman's 62,000 battle-hardened veterans, Georgia could muster about 13,000 untested and untrained state militia. Along with the infantry, he took 65 artillery pieces, and although they were to live off the land, 10,000 cattle. Five thousand Union cavalry were concentrated to the south. The troops were to march 15 miles a day, breaking camp before dawn. The 2 wings marched on a front about 60 miles wide (sometimes narrowing to as low as 20, and sometimes widening up to 80). Sherman chose his routes after poring over census reports of farm production county by county so that he could march through the regions richest in provisions.

While the Confederate forces hardly deterred the Union march, it should be noted that almost daily, Union foragers were found roadside, often with throats cut, caught raping (the black (slave) women encountered during the march suffered terribly from rape) and pillaging by Joe Wheeler's Confederate Cavalry and other Southerners. On Feb 22, 1865, 18 of Kilpatrick's Union cavalrymen were killed in this way. Union stragglers on the line of march also were dealt with when they were found.

(Per Burke Davis' Sherman's March)

Chris

[Ste]

Remember Sherman had little opposition and little cause for concern on his flanks.  Yes, they did loot their way forward.  The WWI Germans had neither - safe flanks or easy pickings for the proper material for war ... and Joe Johnston was not Haig ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that is the key point when comparing Sherman's campaign with the German Spring offensive.

Whatever the similarites in terms of relying on foraging as a means of supply, the operational circumstances are in no way comparable. The Germans had to puncture a long, continuous line, and advanced in the face of constant opposition and serious threats to their flanks.

Cheers,

S