Posted: 6/12/2012 5:48:29 PM EDT
|
Ok, just watched the movie/mini-series (I know, I know, i should read the book but you guys can correct me) and I don't know much about civil war.
questions. 1. Where was JEB Staurt? 2. did 20th Maine really get hammered like that? 3. Why did Lee choose to fight instead of withdrawing to better ground? Tactically it was poor ground and not his usual brilliance, so were their strategic reasons? |
|
Stuart was recovering from the blow (setback) he received earlier at Bristoe Station. Earlier in 1863 the Union cavalry came of age and proved itself a match for Stuart's men. Embarrassed, Stuart used his loosely written orders to capture a wagon train. For him it was redemption of his honor as the beau saber. Unfortunately, escorting those wagons meant Stuart no longer performed the traditional role of scout for the army. Hence Stuart's misadventures deprived Lee of a battlefield asset.
The Twentieth Maine was hammered, but the First Minnesota got it worse. Their unsupported charge stopped the Confederate advance and allowed Hancock to reinforce the center vacated by Sickles. Why didn't Marsh Bob withdraw to more favorable ground? Overconfidence. He beat back the Union Army from the gates of Richmond (Seven Days Battle), then he marched north and defeated Pope at Second Manassas. Shortly after that he fought against incredible odds at Sharpsburg where his smaller army was not crushed by McClellan. He then repelled Burnside at Fredericksburg and with a much smaller army Hooker at Chancellorsville. His rag tag band of Corn-feds were a sinewy and tough lot. Marsh Bob was confident that they could whip the Yankees again. BTW, look up Gen Green who held Culp's Hill. If that had fallen, Meade's line would have been rolled up. The difference between Green and Chamberlain was the latter was a professor of rhetoric who loved writing about his favorite person - himself. Green's contribution was no less important (think of it as the other bookend holding up the books) but Green was modest and not given to self admiration. BTW - issue No 39 of The Gettysburg Magazine has my article on sharpshooting at Gettysburg. The current issue of North and South magazine has my article on Sharpshooters of the Civil War. |
|
Another thing I'll add regarding Lee... As brilliant a General as he was, he never seemed to fully grasp how advancing weapons technology and the industrial age had changed warfare. This isn't exactly a knock on Lee, as most of the leaders on both sides of the war suffered from this flaw. However, this is something that probably plays a greater importance in the war as a whole than in any individual battle.
The ones that always stood out for me in terms of understanding how war had changed were Gen. Longstreet and Gen. Grant. |
|
Quoted:
As brilliant a General as he was, he never seemed to fully grasp how advancing weapons technology and the industrial age had changed warfare. This isn't exactly a knock on Lee, as most of the leaders on both sides of the war suffered from this flaw. However, this is something that probably plays a greater importance in the war as a whole than in any individual battle. . can you elaborate????? |
|
Weapons do affect tactics - if the officers know how to use them and adapt the tactics for them. The Minie rifle was certainly deadlier than the musket. You could kill at 500 yds with it as opposed to 50 yds with a musket. Voffsetting that technology is the lack of marksmanship training soldiers received during the war. While repeaters were available, they didn't play a prominent role in most battles. Joe Bilby has a book on firearms technology.
Agree that Lee didn't catch on. He squandered his men during the Seven Days Battles in June 1862. That was the largest army he ever led too. Malvern Hill should have taught him a lesson on frontal assaults. |
|
I would agree on Lee's overconfidence. His men had won time and time again, he saw no need to think they wouldn't win this time.
Personally ( this is just me ) if think he also underestimated Meade a little bit. Not that Meade or the Union leadership was perfect, I just think that Lee believed they would make more mistakes than they did, and his men would take advantage. Again, just my humble opinion. On a side note, I finally got to visit Gettysburg last year, and Antietam the year before. Actually being on that ground really makes it sink in. |
|
Quoted: Ok, just watched the movie/mini-series (I know, I know, i should read the book but you guys can correct me) and I don't know much about civil war. I have many books on Gettysburg and have read many more than I own but for a good flowing read and a balance understanding of the 3 day battle, may I recommend Noah A. Trudeau's "Gettysburg, A Testing Of Courage". Some will recommend Stephen Sears "Gettysburg" but I find it to be a difficult read, I'm 150 pages in and had to put it down for a while. Coddington's "Gettysburg" is another good overall book on the subject. If you wish then to concentrate on each day or certain portions of the field like Culps Hill or Pickett's Charge, there are many to pick from and I'm positive you'll receive many recommendations here. |