U. S. Army Command and General Staff Col

Much has been written about the Confederate armies during the American Civil War. General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia has gotten most of the attention of historians and writers over the years. There are several reasons for this. The Army of Northern Virginia has been identified with the Confederacy's effort for independence. Lee's army was much more successful on the battlefield than any other Confederate force. Its battles were fought near the capitals of both the North and the South, thus getting most of the attention and writing of both sides during the war. Much of the manuscript source materials on the Army of Tennessee were lost or destroyed over the years. One could also infer that writers prefer a winner over a loser. However, especially in the relatively recent past, there has been work focused on the Army of Tennessee. One such book, Two Great Rebel Armies by Richard McMurry, compares and contrasts the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. In this work McMurry cites reasons he believed caused the difference in effectiveness and performance between the two armies. Additionally, there have been numerous books written about the field artillery corps of the Army of Northern Virginia. The artillerymen in the Army of Tennessee have received less attention. One recent and notable book on the subject is Cannoneers in Gray by Larry J. Daniel. However, unlike Two Great Rebel Armies, there has been no book written comparing the field artillery corps of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was there a difference in the effectiveness and performance of the respective field artillery corps as there was with the armies in general? If so, what were the reasons? This thesis will attempt to answer these questions. To answer these questions a look at the foundation of each army and its field artillery corps will be examined. Topics addressed in the foundation include state militia strength, equipment, and experience levels, as well as, recruiting, governmental relationships with each army, and other areas. In addition to the foundation of each force, the senior leadership of each army will be examined to determine its effect on the performance of the army and its field artillery corps. Quantity and quality of ordnance, equipment levels, logistics, and training are all important components of each armies artillery that must be examined. The effectiveness of each field artillery corps is also going to be highly influenced by its leadership, organization, and tactical use. Each of these areas will be thoroughly examined to answer the question which field artillery corps was the most productive for the Confederacy during the American Civil War.

This work is a historical analysis of Major General James Negley and his division during the Battle of Chickamauga. An examination of Negley, his actions, his major subordinate commanders, and the regiments of the division was conducted to provide a base with which to evaluate the principals during the Chickamauga Campaign of 1863. On 19 September, the division fought well as, and served to arrest a Confederate penetration of the Federal lines. The division was piecemealed into the fight on 20 September by brigade, and regiments. Negley ended up commanding fifty Federal artillery pieces on Snodgrass Hill and withdrew them to support the Union collapse upon Chattanooga. Negley was relieved after the battle, and charged with removing the artillery prematurely. He was acquitted of all charges during a subsequent court of inquiry; however, he never received another command. The relief of Negley tarnished an otherwise solid performance by the division during the two day battle. This study analyzes Negley and his division during the Battle of Chickamauga and draws conclusions using the battle command competencies as a framework: seeing the enemy, seeing the terrain, knowing yourself, visualizing the battle, and seeing into the future.

The French Foreign Legion is an integral part of the recently professionalized French regular army, yet outside of Europe and Asia, the organization remains an obscure and sometimes misunderstood entity with even some American military officers unaware of its existence. Many believed the Legion went the way of French imperialism after the country's defeat in the Algerian War in 1962. In those post-war years, however, the Legion shed its mercenary image through reorganization and real world operations and quietly rebuilt itself into a ready and relevant fighting force. This book summarizes the Legion's history, describes its current structure, and characterizes its place in the French military complex. In doing so, it shows that despite a rocky early history, a mercenary reputation, and recent obscurity, the French Foreign Legion has built and maintained a level of readiness and competency that is more than equal to that of other professional military organizations and it remains a vital component of the French military infrastructure.