Battle of Chancellorsville

The battle of Chancellorsville is a victory that never materialized for the Army of the Potomac. The Union’s Army of the Potomac, on paper, was a force clearly superior in terms of manpower and technology to that of their adversary, however, tactical mistakes proved to be detrimental to their cause. On the contrary, planning and the execution of those plans propelled the Confederacy’s Army of Northern Virginia to the most recognized underdog victory in the American Civil War. Examining the Battle of Chancellorsville from both the Union and Confederate perspective provides military leaders an example of the importance of planning, adapting to the fluidity of combat, and the crucial nature of military warfare tactics all while leveraging the war-fighting functions necessary to achieve victory on the battlefield.

II. The subject

Scholars recognize the battle of Chancellorsville as the primary conflict during the Chancellorsville campaign in the American Civil War. Chancellorsville is perhaps the most doctrinally sound battle fought in the entire America Civil War. Chancellorsville tested the commander’s ability, scheme, and tactical maneuver of both the Army of Northern Virginia (Confederate States of America) and the Army of the Potomac (Union/United States Army). The fighting at Chancellorsville occurred over a three-day period, from May 1 through May 3, 1863. Confederate General Robert E. Lee, a seasoned war veteran and known military genius, squared off against Union Army Major General James Hooker, a newly appointed and untested commander in the Virginia theatre.

III. The setting

Operational overview

Strategically, the Union wanted to seize Richmond, the capital of the Confederate States of America. With Richmond in ...

... middle of paper ...

...urate and timely intelligence to operations.

VI. Conclusion

Leaders are trained to plan, prepare, and develop multiple solutions for many problems encountered in combat situations. The Military Decision Making Process, or the MDMP, as it is referred in the United States Army, provides leaders a systematic methodology for the execution of their plans. We must not forget that planning is only half the picture. General Hooker’s excellent planning was foiled by an inability to execute all the concepts within his plan. We as leaders need to recognize the failure of Hooker’s Army to avoid the same mistakes. Successful execution of plans is only achievable when leaders recognize mistakes present in other’s execution of their plans. Planning is only successful when we know how to apply the lessons learned during the planning process and in the execution of our plans.