🚩 Thanks to Storyblocks for sponsoring this video! Download unlimited stock media at one set price with Storyblocks: storyblocks.com/historymarche 🚩 Support HistoryMarche on Patreon and get ad-free early access to our videos for as little as $1: www.patreon.com/historymarche
Great video. I hope you do more on the American Civil War. Have you read Jeffery D Wert Biography on Longstreet. Longstreet always thought that 2nd Bull Run rather than Chancellorsville was Lee's finest hour. 2 Please please consider doing Grants Vicksberg Campaign and Champions Hill Battle
I greatly enjoyed this video. I hope you do equal justice to the Battle of Gettysburg. And the campaigns General Grant embarked on when the time comes.
"At Chancellorsville, we gained another victory; our people were wild with delight-I, on the contrary, was more depressed than after Fredericksburg; our loss was severe, and again we gained not an inch of ground and the enemy could not be pursued." -Robert E. Lee
@@calinmarian98 Jackson was the most bold and ingenious general Lee ever had. His death and the culminating Battle of Gettysburg pretty much left his army with little initiative but to resume a defensive campaign.
@alexiaNBC indeed he was. Stonewall was almost how French Marshal Jean Lannes was to Napoleon for General Lee. If anyone has watched Epic History's videos, then you might know what I am talking about. Lee and Jackson understood each other very well (like how Napoleon & Lanness were in the early days of the Napoleonic Wars), while others did not, and with both men deceased, they forever altered history for their respective leaders and peoples. Both Lanne and Jackson were deeply loved by the troops and brought a perfect balance of military leadership to their supreme commander. Like Jackson was for the Confederacy, Lannes was deeply missed by the French in the coming campaigns for Napoleon beyond 1809, and his death/absence really hurt the military effectiveness of the Grand Armee (the same goes for Lee's attempt to invade the Union and later inability to defend the Virginia frontier). Sometimes, the transcript of orders was misinterpreted, and many of Lee's generals misunderstood what Jackson would know to do. Stonewall's aggressive nature was born from reading up Napoleon's success on the battlefield decades later. He admired how Napoleon recognized the initiative in a quick attack maneuver before an enemy could assemble in the 1804-5 campaign. Jackson took the lessons from Napoleon to heart during the early 1862 campaign with quick maneuvers into Maryland to outflank the Union, which in all met greater success over General Lee's Duke of Wellington defense strategy and then frontal assault against Union forces in Virginia (unlike the British, the South didn't have all the necessary manpower, ships, and other military capacities as the North as time went on). Jackson knew that the South couldn't meet the vast manpower of the Union in the long run. (similar to how the US fought the Japanese in WW2 with the attrition of war) Had Jackson lived longer, the war's outcome would have either taken much longer for the Union to repel any movements into Northern territory or could have given the Confederates the much-needed geopolitical battle (despite how Antietam was their only hope of bringing in international support and putting the Union on the backburner) they wanted to put pressure on Lincoln and choke the Union into submission near DC. Since we all love watching the Hannibal series on this channel, Jackson's 1862 campaign to anchor around D.C. and Union defenses through the Shenandoah Valley range most resembles how Hannibal bypassed the Romans early on after the battle of the Trebia and later maneuvered his army to outflank and surprise the two Roman armies trying to guard the entrance into the interior of Italy and approach Rome. Ironically, both Jackson and Lannes lost their legs in a battle under very unfortunate circumstances and died when Napoleon and Lee had the advantage over their opponents.
Lee was lucky he didn't get crushed, a commander like Grant would have (unfortunately there were none in the East), much less gain ground. He was lucky, as he was several times.
My experiences reading/studying the Civil War, is that there was only truly 1 army and 1 chance for the South. Once Lee inevitably took too many losses, they didn't have replacements. All it would take is 1 mistake or 1 blow, and afterwards, they would lose; that blow was received at Gettysburg. So, it's astounding that the South 'did' defeat the North so many times. This shows how scared the North was, even though they outnumbered and lost against the South in nearly every engagement, and they were eventually so scared that they were using up their last draftees and resources; even notably, little children were being drafted. But of course, the winner writes the history. It resembles closely Athens vs Sparta, in a different era. The North, like Athens had perks of mercenaries, naval blockades, foreign support, and ability to constantly replace and recycle troops and generals; Athens tended to win, even if the Spartans had a superior land army that defeated them many times. To say the Lee was simply 'lucky' would be a pretty low probability gamble, as he won so many times, it clearly wasn't just luck, unless you want to wager on some 1% to 5% chance. Almost all his victories were without numerical superiority. It's an example that the South was superior in planning, troop quality, and battles like these showed why the North were so scared. The North had literally everything else in their favor , yet all their 'losses' inevitably still meant little to change the result. Lee would need a 'perfect' victory streak, right into the North's capitol, which would have been difficult without suffering a single defeat.
@@richardtaylor1652I firmly agree. Also, Jackson seemed to have a handle on Jeb Stuart. Dude wouldn't have wandered off during an invasion of the north and completely abandoned the army of northern Virginia
Can't wait for future content regarding the civil war, your collaboration with epic history produced some of the best battle descriptions on the internet!
I've been waiting for some American Civil War battles from you! This was amazing! I hope to see more like this, maybe even more from the French and Indian wars, U.S. Revolution and the War of 1812. Thank you for all that you do.
War of 1812, i like to hear about Sir Isaac Brock , he defended CDN with only ca. 1500 British regulars against superior Numbers of US Army and US Milicias
@@MyBlueZed he can always go back and fill in the earlier battles. And it's not like you're watching this as a fiction enthusiast trying to avoid spoilers for later seasons!
John D Barry who commanded the 18th North Carolina infantry that fired on Jackson was reportedly shocked and heartbroken. Nevertheless, Lee assured him that it was an accident and promoted him after the battle. Barry died two years after Appomattox from poor health due to his war wounds but his family and friends said it was a "broken heart" for giving the order to keep firing into the dark at those he thought were Union cavalry.
The commander of the company that killed Jackson later became a general , but killed himselfafter the war as he believed he had lost the war for the south
My ancestor, Col. Stapleton Crutchfield, Gen Jackson's Chief of Artillery, was also wounded in the incident with Gen. Jackson. He took a shot to the thigh. Rode in ambulance with the General who even had the driver stop during the ride because of Crutchfield's discomfort, not his own.
Especially since him and Lee was the only two elite Generals the South had. If he survived the war would have probably ended the same but would definitely have lasted a few more years. Can you imagine if he did survive and was sent out west to confront Grant. Man they would've have had some epic battles.
It's actually crazy how out of whack perception is with reality. Lee, the genius who was almost always on the defensive, lost 209,000 men. If you were in his army you'd have a greater than 20% chance of being a casualty. Oh - and he lost. Grant, the drunk butcher who was always on the offensive across three theaters of war... lost 155,000 men. If you were in his army, constantly assaulting entrenched positions... you had a 9% chance of being a casualty. Oh - and he forced the surrender of three Southern armies. Lee was, objectively speaking, a disaster for the south. Grant was, objectively speaking, the best general in the war.
@@nineomite This doesn't account for supplies or weaponry. A more accurate comparison would be 5,000 Taliban armed with Ak-47s holding off 15,000 tanks for several years. Confederate armies marched barefoot and fought while wounded while starving. Achieving any number of victories is historically significant.
@@doublepoet7852 There's a difference between the strategic offensive and the tactical offensive. The campaigns into the north usually aimed to plop down somewhere where they could threaten DC or Union supply lines and force the Union to attack. The Confederates were horrible at turning that vision into a reality and often found themselves forced into the tactical offensive or overestimating the gains they could achieve through a battlefield victory.
Not stressed particularly but Jackson's forced march through muddy rained bushy tracks for 10 hours, while his troopers intact enough to carry out night attack past 5pm, this shows the leader's charisma and understanding of logistics. Rebel soldiers were willing to follow Jackson to unknown territory of the slaughter (battle). Also kudos to Federal brigades fended off this surprise flanking. Both sides must be well drilled and whole heartedly believed in their cause of sacrificing their own lives.
Everything I read about Jackson's relations with his soldiers said they did not particularly like him. They primarily feared him and his very harsh punishments for even minor infractions, but as long as he brought them victories they put up with it.
Lee is vastly overrated in my opinion, Jackson and Forrest were the true genius' out of the Confederate generals. I think Lee only looks good because he was matched against some of the worst generals the Union had until later in the war. I think if Lee had been matched against Grant, Sherman, Thomas or Rosecrans earlier no-one would be singing his praises because they would have destroyed him much, much sooner.
It's always cute seeing a proper lost causer out in the wild. The confederacy was a deeply evil failure of a state, existing only to perpetuate misery, and its fall was the greatest moment in American history. Cry about it. @@Gothalon
Thanks so much for this. One of my ancestors fought in a New York artillery brigade in the battle of the Wilderness soon after all this, so it's awesome to see how it all laid out.
The Wilderness confrontation was rough, I’ve read accounts of wounded soldiers’ gunpowder bags exploding on them from the fires that were ignited from gunfire. It must had been hell on earth.
yeah, the woods were on fire, it was full on summer and they were in wool uniforms, running cannons. That HAD to suck. My great great grandfather Ferdinand (a fairly recent German immigrant) was apparently shot through the top of the foot/ankle area, taken to the surgeons for amputation, decided he did not want one, and supposedly bribed a Black attendant fellow to spirit him away...the war was ending and he just wanted to go home so he got himself onto a coastal steamer/riverboat sort of thing and rode it home to New York (where he had six or seven kids and a sick wife.), dangling his foot in the water to keep it clean. I'm not sure if he really had permission to leave but I guess he did. He survived, his wife died, he moved to Illinois and had six or seven more kids with a second spouse.@@Talleyhoooo
@@kerranz holy crap, that’s an amazing story! Glad that you were able to discover that. It just makes you think about how many different tales are out there about the war. I do love the tactics and learning about the high profile names during the conflict, but over the years, I’ve really become interested in the normal people involved, that go unheard.
Right from the Caption to the commentary and every bit of your video is usually a topnotch. History Marche is a channel second to non. ...and for the algorithm! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Thank you!
I usually listen to podcasts or audiobook breakdowns of famous battles, so seeing the way they unfolded on the battlefield really helps grasp how the tactics and settings can override the numerical advantage during the fight. I'm only commenting to help with the algorithm, more people need to see your videos
While Jackson's flank march on May 2 is the most famous action of the entire battle, the fighting on May 3 was some of the fiercest combat of the entire Civil War. In just five hours of combat at Hazel Grove, Fairview, Marye's Heights, and Salem Church, more than 21,000 men on both sides fell killed and wounded. It ranks as the second bloodiest day in American history behind only September 17, 1862 (the Battle of Antietam Creek).
A long ago relative of mine, Henderson Scott, lost a leg fighting for the Union with a Pennsylvania volunteer regiment at Chancelorsville, but luckily survived the war, married a nice young lady, and went into the ice cream business. Thank you for the U.S. Civil War content. I hope for much more (Gettysburg, Antietam and Vicksburg being favorite battles of mine to study). It's also refreshing to hear about our "great" civil war from a narrator with a non-American accent on a channel that I love.
Something else I heard about this battle that just added to the comedy of errors on the Union side. At 29:00, you can plainly see that there are 2 Union Corps to the north of the Confederate lines. Meade and Reynolds both wanted to counterattack into that flank, but Hooker was already in the mindset of defeat and retreat, and the concussion that he suffered did not help.
^^This. This could've easily gone the other way catastrophically. It was only a Confederate victory because Hooker withdrew and Sedgwick was the wrong man for independent command. Not taking anything away from the initial execution of Jackson's flank attack, of course.
@@starshipchris4518 Another reason that that flank attack worked so well is that I think Lee had already taken his measure of Hooker and knew there would not be as great of a risk as there otherwise would be. Hooker's mindset even before this battle was to draw the enemy in and fight a defensive battle (as Lee had done to Burnside at Fredericksburg). And to be fair, that is a sound strategy, but it was very poorly executed. Every commander on that field, from the Union Corps commanders and even Lee and Jackson, were bewildered that the Union army just withdrew after that initial skirmish. Hooker had Lee outnumbered even with half of his army threatening in the east. Even so, after the initial clash, he pulled his army back into that semi-circle, thinking that Lee would just ram into him. Lee's feint attacks probably played into that belief as well.
It’s just one of many examples in the Army of the Potomac’s history where the corps and divisional generals saw opportunities that were denied by the commanding general. General Grant was one of the few who actually trusted his subordinate commanders to make their own decisions and encouraged them to be aggressive. Same with General Meade who defeated Lee at Gettysburg. McClellan was notorious for assuming the Confederates always outnumbered him (by vastly inflated amounts). It’s quite hilarious to hear about how many times he would’ve crushed the Confederates and probably ended the war earlier if he had just been aggressive. He was great for shaping and whipping the army into shape, not so much as a battle commander. The battle of Antietam being the most prominent example. He had Lee with his back to the wall, but instead of a general all out assault that would’ve overwhelmed Lee’s vastly outnumbered army, he sent his divisions in piecemeal. That enabled Lee to move troops around as he needed them, resulting in the single bloodiest day of combat in US history.
No it wasn't. Stonewall performed terribly in some battles - and the legend that sprung up around him was also a key factor in encouraging the South to take on tactics like Napoleon's (which resulting in mass death and defeat). The South had the general to win the war - Sidney Albert Johnson, who ran such an effective guerilla campaign (while wildly out-gunned) that he literally drove Sherman nuts. When Johnson died, the South died.
@@marknewton6984Forrest was in one of lee’s greatest generals, he said so himself. However it greatly relied on Jackson. Researching the confederate army and the mishaps that happened and lapses in communication makes you realize how things could have been very different.
The Red Badge of Courage is a fictional account of the Battle of Chancellorsville described through the eyes of a Private named Henry, who finds himself become the color guard of his regiment by the end of the battle's 3rd or 4th day. We never find out what happened to Henry afterwards.
Private Henry later caught a steamer to Havana, where he took up the life of a novelist. He drank Rum by night, and wrote fiction by day. The ladies adored him for his colorful war stories and creative use of epithets and swear words. The men respected him for his prowess with a musket and bayonette.
Thanks for covering American history. Very well done as always. I feel like early and mid American history is glossed over as quick or black and white. Good to see it broken down properly. Sorry for the rant and good work! Obvious addition, clearly the right side won and slavery is bad.
I recently moved to Fredericksburg... And while I knew there was a great deal of Civil War history here, I haven't had the time to learn much detail, this video is a great way to learn about my new home... Its strange to hear the names of the roads and sites in town mentioned in this video... "Plank Road", "Banks Ford", "Zoan Church" are all still prominent place-names in town...
I lived in Lynchburg, Virginia not far from Appomattox Court House for a few years. It’s crazy how much history is packed in that state. It’s alway neat seeing the echoes of history. I live in Nashville, TN now and at the university I worked at and attended school, the campus was lined with stone walls that were built as confederate battlements. It’s such neat stuff!
ปีที่แล้ว +57
Due to the lack of initiative seen in battles like these in the Union, the figure of Grant stands out quite a bit, for being the only general who dared not to be intimidated by the legend of Lee, although we must not take away the merits of the defense of Meade at the Battle of Gettysburg. Changing the subject, I would like you to make a video about the Spanish Carlist Wars or a battle from the War of the Polish Succession (those on the Italian front, mainly).
Critically, Grant was almost the only general in the Eastern Theater who didn't just stop and pull back after a tactical defeat. Instead, even when he lost on a given battlefield, he kept on pushing forward using his still much larger forces, and maintained the strategic initiative in a way no other northern general had against Lee.
ปีที่แล้ว +14
@@Wolfeson28 Exactly, although he ungratefully received the nickname "Butcher" from the newspapers for that, the truth is that he was the only one who understood that if the war was to be won quickly, a total offensive on the South had to be carried out and that having numerical superiority means that you inevitably have to sacrifice more lives; However, as a general, that brings you many tactical benefits that he was able to take advantage of. For me, Grant is the true hero of the history of the United States, the unity of the country was thanks to his resolution, demonstrating that the North and its soldiers did not lack motivation to want to win in that conflict.
@ I’d disagree, it was Sherman, not Grant. Grant was a good general, Lee was better. Sure Grant could bludgeon Lee with his army and back him into siege works around Petersburg, but once Lee was in those Siege works it became a stalemate again, and the North’s population was starting to get sick of the war in Virginia. Sherman beating Johnston really pissed in Lee’s cornflakes, because now he’s cut off from supplies, States of the Old South deserting in droves to protect them from Sherman, and the eventual threat of Sherman’s army threatening to reinforce Grant.
@@PeterPan54167 Grant spent his career winning from the first battle onward. The Traitor does not compare in any way, shape or form to him. You give Sherman credit but Shermans positions was founded on what Grant had won; his movements directed by Grant who was his superior officer. Sherman did not just decide one day to "Hey, let me burn down the South", the entire PLAN was to make sure no part of the confederacy could support the other. Meades part of the plan was to keep hounding Lee; never letting up. Lee - the guy you claim is so fucking great - could do nothing but react.
@@PeterPan54167 Go read about the tactical maneuvers and strategic decisions that Grant made while he was leading the capture of the Confederate Strongholds along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, how he turned the battle at Shiloh from a defeat into an overwhelming victory that crushed Confederate moral and ended any chance of a counter-offensive. Find out why he earned the nickname Unconditional Surrender. How he cracked the impenetrable nut that was Vicksburg and how he was the only United States Commanding General who didn't let minor setbacks throw him off his goals. He was an excellent general, and he suffered greatly over the anguish that leading young boys to their deaths on all fronts of the war which led to alcoholism and a habit of chewing cigars which eventually killed him. Lee is famous for pyrrhic victories against enemies that had superior numbers, but it was likely Jackson that even gave the Army of West Virginia its fire, and Longstreet that gave it resolve. Lee was an experienced soldier, and had the charisma and authority to lead an Army, but he wasn't the tactical genius people say he was; he was a good listener and wise enough to head council until he flew off the hook at Gettysburg and wasted his army in an impossible battle that nobody with any military sense thought he should have prosecuted. He wasn't as great as the storybooks written by historical revisionists portray him to be, he was good enough for the job he needed to do for the first couple of years, but then he wasn't any longer, but his legend had grown too big for anyone to do the right thing and remove him from the front; after Chancerlorsville a serious study of the goings on in his theater of war under his command shows he was on the ropes, too old, too tired, and too full of guilt and his own legend to be a successful battlefield commander; he also lacked the men and material necessary to wage total war anyway, and Grant pushed the war in the east into a campaign of total war just like he had in the west.
Remember watching Ken Burns epic about the civil war. And the Inferno in the woods that claimed the injured and dying, also when Grant and the Army of the Patomac returned to the woods the bleached bones of the dead could still be seen lying on the ground.
Now that HM has moved to the new world I can't wait to see you cover battles from conflicts in South America! Some that come to mind are: -Battle of Yungay, 1839 -Battle of Arica, 1880 -Battle of Huamachuco, 1883 -Battle of Rancagua, 1814 -Battle of Maipú, 1818 Keep up the good work! Love from Chile 🇨🇱♥️
I'm always astonished by the battles of the Civil War. The sheer amount of luck, and/or enemy incompetence that was necessary for practically every victory was insane. It has a distinctly different feel than a lot of others. My only guess would be the decades of relative peace and one-sided conflicts during the first 100 years of US history lead our military leadership to indolence and incompetence.
While incompetence was an issue one of the larger issues was the same thing the British dealt with during the revolutionary war. The terrain of the USA is extremely diverse and very few parts were clear of forest/hills/obstructions so a commander could see much of the battlefield effectively. The USA is a horrible place for finding obstruction free battlefields. In addition the moment black powder rifles were fired the battlefield would have been drastically obscured by the smoke. There have always been bad officers, and that will never change, but there were plenty of times we in hindsight see something as an incompetent decision when in reality the officer making the decision had so little information that a good decision relied on luck. All that to say that I agree incompetency is definitely an issue, luck definitely made some victories, but the confusion of battle at that time was insane and even good officers needed luck to a certain extent. I think this is also why the Confederacy did well fighting on their turf, they new the countryside and could exploit the terrain more easily than the Union. One of the reasons that Confederate troops lost initiative when they invaded Union territory, they now were in the opposite position.
@@Flamer-om8hyI’m reading Shelby Foote’s volumes on the Civil War and I’ve come to the same conclusion. The US just isn’t a very good place to fight a war in. A lot of the times the commanders had decent enough plans but rains, rivers, roads that became impassable after a little marching, etc foiled their plans time and time again. It also made maintaining lines of communication and supply lines very difficult.
@@Flamer-om8hy Though, I think part of the reason the British might have had a difficult time in some regards was that they also rarely fought continental wars in Europe proper. When they did, it was typically in the more open, but very riverine plains of Flanders. There are other parts of Europe that were just as difficult to deal with as the Americas in terms of forests, hills, rivers, etc and, prior to the 19th century, roads were not all that good either. It is a common misconception that Europe is just filled with quality Roman roads everywhere, but we have to remember that of the tracks of roads the Romans made, only a fifth were stone-paved and, even among those, not all have remained intact throughout almost two millennia. The rest were dirt roads or tracks which could just as easily be churned to mud, especially in times of rainfall or snow. Especially in places like Germany, such road networks were nigh nonexistent for centuries and the polities of the past were typically not centralized enough to create large scale projects like the Romans did. There are several cases of major battles taking place in difficult conditions, one such example in the 19th century being Hohenlinden, where you have a thick mass of forests which obscure vision all throughout the field, and this gave the Austrians a very difficult time, but the French commander, Moreau, somehow found a way to work with it and won a decisive victory. We have the misconceptions that battles cannot be decisive due to such terrain, but in this instance, Moreau not only defeated the Austrians, but utterly destroyed their army, especially in the following days' pursuit. We have another case such as the Serra do Bussaco in Portugal, when Massena's French army (or rather, the divisions of Ney and Reynier under him) attacked uphill against a tall ridge, almost a mountain in its sheer scale, while the surrounding area was also heavily wooded. It was like Missionary Ridge meets Wilderness and one can understand how Wellington's British-Portuguese army was so easily able to repulse the French, who had to attack under such conditions. Road networks in Spain and Portugal were also notoriously bad and the arid climate didn't help either (yes, Spain does have an arid climate in many parts of the country, surprisingly). All of this was before Macadamized roads. Hell, in the 18th century and before, they didn't even have Tresaguet's road building methods yet. Still, somehow they were able to coordinate massive armies for extended campaigns without the telegraph and without railroads to help facilitate their communications. There is the idea that Europe is rather small, but when one thinks of Napoleon's regular campaigns which can see him go hundreds of miles to nearly a thousand miles away from Paris, commanding armies which were on average 100,000-200,000 strong, including the mass amounts of cavalry horses which had to be fed along the way, it paints a different picture. Even in the ACW, the likes of Grant and Sherman would be hard-pressed to pull off such a logistical feat and, as I said, he did it without railroads and ironclad riverboats. The idea that Napoleon relied on forage alone is also incorrect and a myth perpetuated by Clausewitz. Forage and requisition alone would not have been able to feed such massive armies, even in a densely populated region, let alone provide them with ammunition and other necessities. He also had to rely on supply trains and extended lines of communications with numerous supply depots established, connecting operational bases to the strategic bases back home in Northern France. In the end, that is not to say that our forefathers in the States did not face difficult challenges, but I think that many of us all too often have the mentality of "Our conditions were more difficult and we had to overcome this in revolutionary new ways! The old traditions were wrong and we were the purveyors of brand new and better ideas!" I see this myopic view, not only in regards to things like field conditions when examining our wars, but also tactics, operations, and strategy. There are a lot of things America has invented/innovated and we should be proud of them, but putting down the accomplishments of others in doing so is something I find incorrect. Not that I'm accusing you of these things. Just saying that I do see it happen, especially when the ACW comes into comparison with warfare in other parts of history/other parts of the world.
@@doritofeeshExcellent description and explanation. The only thing I would add is that British correspondence from the revolutionary war included references to the extreme underbrush and broken ground of almost every battlefield, so the soldiers fighting the war found the terrain above and beyond the norm, which could also be based on their experience as you stated. I think one of the things this video brings out is how great commanders are able to overcome the impediments while other officers falter. The age of black powder was especially horrible for officers to survey the field and I think the exploits of the great commanders showcases their excellence more than the other officers shortcomings.
@@Flamer-om8hy To be fair to Hooker, it was as you mentioned up above. He did not know the terrain as well as Lee and lacked proper maps of the area in contrast to the Rebels. Though, I find this rather peculiar, considering how the distance from DC to Richmond is only some 100 miles from north to south. The fact that the Federal army cannot provide accurate maps of their own country, especially so close to the capital, is concerning to say the least.
It always amazes me seeing how big these battlefields are. I live in Fredericksburg and to drive from downtown to elys ford is probably 30mins. It’s just awesome how they could keep control of everything in those days
Excellent animation and explanation of the Battle of Chancellorsville. My fourth great-grandfather died on May 3rd from wounds received on the 2nd. He was a Pvt. in the Ill. 82nd Volunteers.
Great video, as always! Overland campaign next?? Spotsylvania in particular is one I'm interested in...hours of sustained hand-to-hand combat reminiscent of ancient battles.
Id like a video on generals facing domestic issues such as recruitment, moral, logistics, etc rather than just battles. For example how hooked improved moral or how Washington prevented his militia from leaving.
Chancellorsville kind of sums up Lee’s CW career in a nutshell. Tactical brilliant and hyper aggressive. Yet he lost almost as many men in the victory as the Union did in defeat (and his right hand commander). Unsustainable losses and failed to destroy the Union Army in the end.
hard to not when opponent has 2 times your numbers. It earlier eras of warfare Lee would either inflict 50k casualties or even slaughter entire union army. As i watched i was quite in shoock. Well, they rolled entire wing, why they stop? In earlier eras rolling of the wing would collapse entire union army and condemn them to slaugher. But in XIX century they could just withdraw a mile and that was it.
Lee had greater casualties both in percentages and real numbers: An average of 20 percent of his troops were killed or wounded in his major campaigns, a total of more than 121,000 (far more than any other Civil War general). He was the true butcher of the civil war.
@@scottgoens7575 He was also far out numbered by the north, by 1 million men. When the odds are 2 to 1 in your opponents favor with better technology, better manufacturing, what do you expect?
You make it sound as if he was without advantages. Lee's Advantages were formidable in that topography ensured the Lee had great interior lines to always produce a greater consolidation of force. Also in friendly territory Lee's intelligence by civilians gave him advantage in which this battle itself proves as a farmer made Jackson and Lee aware of a logging road by which to attack the enemy flank. Thirdly being the forever the defender he easily took the initiative away from his enemy as they struggled with natural terrain features. In his great loses away from Virginia we begin to see how those built in advantages of Virginia aided him. @@manofchaitea6904
He took a risk, he was aware of the danger of riding out to scout at night, returning cavalry got mistaken for enemy even in daylight often enough. and atleast he got good care and company before he gave out.
Second Manasas was always a interesting Battle for me. It was scattered all over the map, Jackson almost got crushed on one of his flank moves, and Longsteet "saved the day" (Pope helped a lot :). It would make for a nice HistoryMarche map vid :)
Traditional USA historiography usually refers to it as Lee's "highest moment" or something like that, which is probably more apt. Both were certainly embarrassing reverses for the USA government.
Awesome video y'all! Please consider adapting the many battles fought in south america, it's a region full of rich yet often forgotten history, even by its own inhabitants
Thank you for not backing down and being willing to say Lee was a historically great general and did not have to give many apologies about his association that any man of his time would've been loyal to his own people that he saw Virginia as his country and he fought honorably.
I hear that Virginia entered the union contingent that it could leave at any time. The trouble started when that a-hole Lincoln sent the Virginia Governor a letter, stating that he was going to supply him with 70,000 Virginians, to ostensibly trample through Virginia and assist the union in murdering southerners, and relieving them of their property. The Governor had no choice but to join the Confederacy. At least he was on the right side, will end up in heaven, presumably. Not like those northern heathens. LOL
This. I loath talks about the civil war as they tend to devolve into “southerners are all just inbreeding slavers” as if the people who spout that nonsense don’t praise Macedonian, Roman, Egyptian, Spanish, French, etc. wars, generals, concepts, and culture. As a southerner, I get so annoyed by people who have this weird double standard and fetish for hating southerners. Like, you hate Lee because he was associated with a faction that was experiencing the dying stages of slavery but then worship a faction that only went through those stages only a bit earlier and then after the war churned out people like Custer who massacred native Americans for sport. It’s just an obnoxious level of unadulterated and diluted personal bias that I cannot stand.
Loyal to his own people - if that means fighting for slavery, I am against that type of loyalty. We loath that loyalty and recognize it as self-serving when we discuss the "loyalty" that supporters of other odious causes had. If slavery did not have the foot soldiers of Lee and Jackson, we would not have had the Civil war last as long or as horribly to eradicate the horrible institution of racist slavery.
Thank you for making this video. For years civil war content exploded but for some reason very few videos on Chancellorsville were made. Which is weird because many consider it the greatest Confederate victory of the war
This was so excellent of a diagnosis of a battle. The graphics and movement of forces as show in the video are Excellent. Well Done. Can't wait for the next battle.
These are great maps! However, there are so many errors. Longstreet was in North Carolina collecting supplies, not protecting Richmond. Hooker didn’t turn over command to Couch as the latter was not capable of commanding the Army, but was next in line. Early was ordered by Col. R. Chilton to withdraw; he vehemently protested. There were 2 other brigades “left behind” Hays and Wilcox. In his greatest contribution of the war, Wilcox’s Brigade fought a very effective rear guard action. There are numerous small errors, such as Posey was a colonel not a general. Any chance the voice of the video can be redone to correct the many errors
Love historical battles and strategies. Lee and Stonewall were both great leaders and United States veterans. Stonewall should also be praised for giving black people an education. A major thing to do. Lee should be praised for also criticizing and wanting slavery to end. Another great thing to love about these military geniuses and us veterans
@@PeterNygard69Lee inherited slaves but released them well before the war. After the war, Lee worked on reunifying northerners and southerners through his position at Washington and Lee University. Jackson treated blacks well but died before we could see him post war. If I recall, the slaves he had, like Lee, were inherited, while slaves, they were still treated respectfully all things considered. I think people watch Django unchained and think every single southerner had a pension of whipping and torturing black people. The truth is, it was really only the aristocracy who had them while the majority of other southerners were just trying to make it. As we see with Lee and Jackson, some aristocrats who did have them merely inherited them and often freed them of their own initiative. It was only when the northerners made it a point to demonize southerners that the southerners started to hold a firmer grip on their slaves to prove a point to the northerners that they weren’t beholden to what the Yankees had to say. Had the northerners not gone out of their way to antagonize and belittle southerners while trying to rob them of federal power and had the southerners not responded to such instigation with boastful pride on top of a molehill, slavery in the south would’ve ended naturally by the 1870s. The thing you have to understand about southern slavery was that it was a product of its time. The slave trade had ended long before and even by the early 19th century it was virtually taboo. The remnants that existed in the south were just that: remnants. They were pieces of a system that had existed for hundreds of years that had naturally dissipated over the course of time. By the time of the civil war, southerners weren’t exactly taking advantage of black people as much as they were taking advantage of a system that had existed for well over a century. Had the north worked with the South instead of demonizing it, that system would’ve been replaced. But instead, they took an already paranoid people (southerners) and tried to remove what those people considered to be a foundational aspect of their economy without replacing it. Effectively robbing them of what little economic power they did have effectively leaving them beholden to New Yorkers as a mere vassal state of the north. A deep seated fear that southern states have held even before the revolutionary war. Naturally, this resulted in doubling down on the dying process of slavery rather than a release of it. So when you talk about slavery in the south it’s a little more complicated than just “they had slaves” or “they hated black people.”
@@evanrogers1825 It’s funny because Lee still managed slaves at Arlington until december of 1862, and according to sources he was a cruel slaver. And for Jackon, how exactly can you treat a slave ”well”? If these men truly were abolitionists, then they would’ve straight up refused to take them on. Without the war slavery had absolutely zero chance of ending in the 1870s, and for good reason since slavery was incredibly lucrative. Stop trying to justify slavery, it’s not a good look
Lee would remark after his victories "we have won the battle but not achieved our political objectives to end the war!" I'm paraphrasing. This would haunt Lee's command as the Civil War evolved into a quagmire of attrition. Eventually Lee's army of Northern Virginia was wearing rags & starving,which prompted his surrender to Grant at Appomattox. Lee's ability to keep the Confederacy in the war while basically entirely blockaded by Union Navy,also protecting the Capital at Richmond until 1865 is one of the greatest display of Generalship in history.
Lee & Jackson: "We re outnumbered 1-2. Lets attack!" Hooker: "We outnumber them 2-1. Lets only fight with half our men and do nothing with the other half."
If that's how you're defining a pyrrhic victory, then there's never any point in any outnumbered nation ever fighting, because any victory would be pyrrhic and any defeat disastrous. The Union outnumbered the South in manpower more than double, and excluding decisive victories that led to large surrenders, then casualty ratios of 2:1 at this time were very rare for notable engagements. Lee took a force severely outnumbered and outgunned, and managed to completely halt his opponent's offensive, protecting the nearby capital, reclaiming a notable amount of ground, and allowing him to harry his opponent across state lines and perform an offensive of his own- all while enjoying a casualty rate of 20k vs 26k. Sounds like a textbook victory to me, even if the South was so disadvantaged that it would lose to attrition if those losses were maintained without purpose.
In a prolonged conflict, the South was going to inevitably lose. They just didn’t have the population or industry or economy to keep up. That’s why Lee invaded the north. He couldn’t win militarily but if he could hold out militarily long enough for northern weariness to take effect, exacerbated by the fright of a “southern invasion” he could help the war to end without carrying on a losing war. He didn’t need to necessarily win battles; he needed to scare the Northerners enough to be willing to end the war through elections or policy.
The success of the initial attack is due to Jackson's strategic and tactical genius. If he isn't gunned down when he is, the attack resumes and the bulk of the Army of the Potamic is cut off from retreat and is destroyed. However, after Jackson is wounded and Lee resumes overall operational command of the entire attack he can't think of anything better than a direct frontal assault where the bulk of the Confederate casualties resulted. Tactically, Lee was a defensive genius, but whenever he went over on the offensive he always went with straight-forward frontal assaults and bled his army dry.
Jackeson was at best an average tactician. And on bad days he was way below average. (during the 7 days he was horrible, at Fredericksburg he was bad) His one big strength was at the operational level. Moving his men from town a to town B... and the move during this battle was In my opinion done at the operational level.
During the Seven Days Jackson was the type of subordinate that he expected his subordinates to be. He moved when told to and awaited further orders. Once he realized after that campaign that Lee granted his subordinates to take the initiative he did. After the Seven Days you can see several times Jackson handed Lee a resounding victory on a silver platter and each time Lee hesitated until Chancellorsville where Jackson was within 100 yards of completely annihilating the Army of the Potomac when he was wounded. You can see how dependent Lee was upon Jackson afterward at Gettysburg when he gave both A.P. Hill and Richard Ewell discretionary orders and they used their discretion to essentially do nothing because they were used to Jackson telling them what to do. If anything I would say Jackson's biggest weakness was he did not develop his subordinate generals to become able to operate independently and it showed after he died.
Is it tactical "genius" if you sneak attack is observed and the enemy corps commander on the flank just ignores orders to prepare for that "sneaky" attack?
"We must make this campaign an exceedingly active one. Only thus can a weaker country cope with a stronger; it must make up in activity what it lacks in strength. A defensive campaign can only be made successful by taking the aggressive at the proper time. Napoleon never waited for his adversary to become fully prepared, but struck him the first blow." - Stonewall Jackson Ch. 22 : The Last Happy Days - Chancellorsville - 1863 P. 429. Life and Letters of General Thomas J. Jackson (1891) by Mary Anna Jackson Mary wrote an excellent bibliography covering her husband's life behind the frontlines of the Civil War. As an American, I recommend anyone who loves reading about history to check it out. She was named the "Widow of the Confederacy" after Jackson's death at Chancellorsville and never remarried. She became a legend due to her memoirs dedicated to her late husband. As the saying goes by Proverbs 31:2..." Behind a great man is a great woman."
After the Union route at First Manassas, Jackson is reported to have said, "I can take Washington with but 5,000 men." He was ordered not to pursue. How history might have been different if he had taken his brigade and exploited the victory and initiative?
@@nathancraig4480 I think I read something long time ago about how feasible this actually was, or was not, but it does illustrate one of the maybe 2 times in the whole war where the Confederates held the operational initiative.
@emcee768 it depends. Longstreet had his own dangerous failings as a general. At several points during the war, his carelessness and indecision nearly led to disaster for his army. At Knoxville, his hesitation and poor planning led many of his troops into a ditch where they suffered over 800 casulties in 20 minutes. Despite trying to convince Lee to not engage Meade at Gettysburg, he still failed to report to Lee on the early recon of the Union's positions and later failing to outflank the Union against Custer's cavalry to roll up the Union right flank. However, most of Jackson's colleagues defended Longstreet while Lee's supporters made him the scapegoat in the failure of defeating the Union. More or less Anna believed Lee's interpretation of events seeing how he was her late husband's trusted friend and Longstreet's political ambitions. He was mostly right tactically regarding Cementary Hill but his decision of attacking the Union midday at Gettysburg was enough by Lee's people to slander Longstreet. Longstreet's "attitude was wrong, but his instinct was correct. This is something that Jacksom would agree regarding Longstreet's decisions but he still was sluggish in implementing his military maneuvers. He wasn't perfect nor highly aggressive as Jackson, but he was right in some critical moments. He never developed the same working relationship with Lee as Jackson did.
@@Spiderfisch Napoleon had French republican army with its spirit, a lot of talented commanders, and a powerful France state to provide him with huge army and arms and still lost. Yes he defeated Europe multiple times, he is a genius, no doubt. But he eventually made a lot of military mistakes and lost key battles. Lee had almost nothing of what Napoleon had, confederate army literally often fought barefoot. Just look at this battle and all the odds the Lee faced. I doubt Napoleon could do any better.
@@fiddlersgreen2433 Napoleon did do better and against more competent opponents than McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, or Meade throughout his entire career, whilst also thrashing an opponent of similar skill to Grant. His 1st Italian Campaign, he was operationally outnumbered the whole year of 1796, using troops which were unpaid, demoralized, and undersupplied such that many did not have firearms, ammunition, proper clothes, or boots. Many of his men also had to march barefoot over bad roads choked with mud from rains or by the abundance of marshy rivers in Northern Italy. They also traversed through mountainous terrain and were bogged down in besieging the formidable fortress of Mantua while fending off four relief attempts by armies which outnumbered his own (even when you don't count the garrison of Mantua). In 1814, when he was up with his back to the wall, he pulled off his famous Six Days' Campaign, where using primarily green conscripts, many of whom did not even know how to use a musket, and facing bad weather of previous snowfalls and heavy rain, he completely outmanoeuvred an army of over 50,000 seasoned troops with some 30,000 men of his own, defeating them four times in six days... the casualties being 3,400 French losses compared to 28,500 Allied losses. That was when he was working with such poor quality troops and most of his best generals were dead, retired, or not in the same theater as him.
Losing Jackson was an insurmountable loss. Who knows what would have happened if Jackson was at Gettysburg. (And yes, I know the South would most definitely still have lost the war, but it would have been interesting to see if Jackson’s presence could have made a difference in a 3 day battle like Gettysburg.
It absolutely would have made a difference on day 1 of the battle. Kind of hard to guess what would have happened after that. A crushing victory for the South at Gettysburg could have led to a treaty and at worst would have delayed the end of the war by at least a year which may have changed the results of the 1864 election.
I also agree that Jackson was a great general but I seriously doubt that had he survived his wounds that the outcome of the war would've came out differently The South was heavily out numbered by the North in both men and material The South had no chance for a final victory in the contest
@@travisbayles870 they definitely had a chance. war is by definition, diplomacy. battles and wars are not always won by the side with the most men and material. its not like playing football.
@xisotopex I never said war was like playing football I simply meant that as a figure of speech I don't think the South had any real chance of defeating the North We simply outnumbered in every category
@@travisbayles870 So did the British in the American revolution and the Americans in Vietnam. Sometimes its not about material its about the willingness to keep fighting. You are correct the South could never militarily beat the North but they didn't have to either.
Hooker is "No plan survives contact with the enemy" personified. His initial plan had the potential to be very effective, but he completely lacked in improvisational and adaptibility so the moment something didn't go to plan he completely lost his composure and lost the battle before it really started in earnest.
Sure, but "Hooker losing faith in Hooker" is not a lack of improv, it's a lack of confidence and follow- through. He didn't need to pull competent officers back.
@@jacksoncole6672 The battle lasted from April 30th to May 6th. His two days of being on the field hardly made a difference. He didn’t route half the GAR, he didn’t somehow break through union lines and destroy its command structure, and he didn’t somehow wheel around and catch any part of the GAR in a pincer. A random and lucky cannonball did more to win the battle than Jackson did.
Fighting Joe Hooker was one of the Union's most colourful characters. Slightly less notorious than Daniel Sickles, slightly less infamous than Benjamin "Beast" Butler, slightly less incompetent than Ambrose Burnside. He was the complete package compared to those men. His HQ was described as a combination between a brothel and a gambling den apparently. Where no respectabel Victorian gentleman would allow himself to be seen. Very ambitious too, he wanted to be America's dictator and was confident he could pull it off. And then this battle happened...oh well he ended up with a nice equestrian statue in Boston for his troubles at least.
"Fighting Joe" was a mess at independent command but putting him with the other reprobates is a bit of a stretch. He did reasonably well as a corps commander in the Western Theater with Sherman and served competently in the Western Theater until the end of the war.
Hooker was actually an excellent commander-- way ahead of his time in numerous respects, particularly what we would now call "C3I" (command, control, communications and intelligence). His intelligence bureau was so good that he went into the campaign knowing exactly what units Lee had, how strong they were, and where they were. And he made fantastic use of military telegraphy and signals in an era where long-distance communication was sketchy-to-nonexistent. That's not to say that he handled the campaign flawlessly; he made a number of fairly serious errors on May 1 and 2 that allowed Jackson's attack to succeed. But as of mid-day on May 3, he had the Confederates exactly where he needed them to be-- concentrated awkwardly to the southwest of the main Union force with Fredericksburg and the crossings above it firmly in Union hands. All that was needed was a sharp turning maneuver to the southeast, just as Grant executed in 1864, and Lee was sunk. Unfortunately, he was semiconscious at the time, and (as alluded to in the video) had not fully confided his plans to his subordinates, who preferred to just end the battle rather than risk failure by further maneuvers.
Lee also lost more men at chancellorsvillw than the union lost at Fredericksburg Almost 1/3 of his men were casualties. This is often overlooked due to the victory
Unlike other History channels who would take sides in modern conflicts you should do one on the Russo Ukraine war and show both perspectives of the conflict instead of picking a side, and focus on the military aspects only.
This is why I like this channel, kings and generals and epic history because they are unbias straight facts, with no political woke crap getting in the way.
Jackson was a strict Calvinist, believing everything to be pre-ordained. He took astounding risks believing his death would occur at God’s choosing and not secondary to his actions.
McLellan gets a lot of hate but his strategy is what won the Civil War he fought the south like a seige avoiding losing a major battle which would have gave the south what they needed to win all the while letting the south use more and more of their few precious resources to sustain the conflict 😊
That wasn't McClellan's strategy; that was Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan that he inherited. McClellan thought he could take Richmond and the South would fall apart, which was ludicrous (and he never accomplished it anyway).
PLEASE continue with a series about the battles of US Civil War. An unbiased, objective view of this era of American history, which has too often fallen victim to “political correctness”, is much needed.
@@user-dn3pz1yw2t Lee wrote and spoke against slavery, he refused to pick up arms against his country, Virginia. The US was not a unified nation at the time, it was a loose federation of states, Lincoln changed that legal precedent and made the US a unified nation.
@@99EKjohnthank you, it’s so frustrating when you get people who don’t understand at this point in time your state was FAR more important than the USA, it’s nothing like it is a today. You were a Virginian, a Texan, a Georgian first and foremost and an American second. And they weren’t trying to overthrow the DC govt, they were trying to withdraw from the union that they joined, but you can’t make them understand. Gotta love historically ignorant people who are so sure of what they don’t know…
@@user-dn3pz1yw2tI’m not trying to be rude, but you are completely historically ignorant. Is Washington or Jefferson a great man? Because Lee did nothing that those men didn’t do. Lee was a great man, but people like you don’t understand the nuances of history unfortunately, try to educate yourself, I mean this in the nicest way possible. State allegiance was far more important at that time, nobody viewed themselves as an Americans first.
@@user-dn3pz1yw2tHe didn’t betray his country. His loyalty was to Virginia and by extension, the United States. When Virginia ceased to be a member of that union, he no longer had loyalty to it. The idea of nationalism in terms of countries rather than regions is a very 20th century concept. This is what made the colonies of the American revolution so difficult to unify. Nobody was interested in a union, they were interested in their own region or colony’s interests. Even the British empire struggled with uprisings who were loyal only to England, Scotland, Wales, or Ireland and not Britain as a whole. If you asked an IRA soldier if he was betraying his country, he’d laugh at you before blowing you up. His country isn’t the United Kingdom, it’s Ireland.
You really need to do a Gettysburg video. It will be long but worth it. Maybe even get some of the American Battlefield Trust guys to help with it, and your channel will get more notoriety from it. Gettysburg was larger than any battle that Napoleon ever fought.
Lee's army was never the same after the events at Chancellorsville and would lead Lee to disaster at Gettysburg via the restructure of Army after the death of Jackson which would have dire effects at Gettysburg with two new Corps commanders leading to huge mistakes made by AP Hill and Dick Ewell and the age old question would Jackson have taken that Hill at Gettysburg if he were alive.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
🚩 Thanks to Storyblocks for sponsoring this video! Download unlimited stock media at one set price with Storyblocks: storyblocks.com/historymarche
🚩 Support HistoryMarche on Patreon and get ad-free early access to our videos for as little as $1: www.patreon.com/historymarche
You're incredible man! Always surprising US time and again!😊😊😊😊❤❤❤❤
EPIC Thank you so much!
Great video. I hope you do more on the American Civil War. Have you read Jeffery D Wert Biography on Longstreet. Longstreet always thought that 2nd Bull Run rather than Chancellorsville was Lee's finest hour.
2 Please please consider doing Grants Vicksberg Campaign and Champions Hill Battle
I greatly enjoyed this video. I hope you do equal justice to the Battle of Gettysburg. And the campaigns General Grant embarked on when the time comes.
You misspelled Meade as Maede.
"At Chancellorsville, we gained another victory; our people were wild with delight-I, on the contrary, was more depressed than after Fredericksburg; our loss was severe, and again we gained not an inch of ground and the enemy could not be pursued."
-Robert E. Lee
And they lost Stonewall to friendly fire too.
@@calinmarian98 Jackson was the most bold and ingenious general Lee ever had. His death and the culminating Battle of Gettysburg pretty much left his army with little initiative but to resume a defensive campaign.
@alexiaNBC indeed he was. Stonewall was almost how French Marshal Jean Lannes was to Napoleon for General Lee. If anyone has watched Epic History's videos, then you might know what I am talking about.
Lee and Jackson understood each other very well (like how Napoleon & Lanness were in the early days of the Napoleonic Wars), while others did not, and with both men deceased, they forever altered history for their respective leaders and peoples. Both Lanne and Jackson were deeply loved by the troops and brought a perfect balance of military leadership to their supreme commander.
Like Jackson was for the Confederacy, Lannes was deeply missed by the French in the coming campaigns for Napoleon beyond 1809, and his death/absence really hurt the military effectiveness of the Grand Armee (the same goes for Lee's attempt to invade the Union and later inability to defend the Virginia frontier).
Sometimes, the transcript of orders was misinterpreted, and many of Lee's generals misunderstood what Jackson would know to do. Stonewall's aggressive nature was born from reading up Napoleon's success on the battlefield decades later. He admired how Napoleon recognized the initiative in a quick attack maneuver before an enemy could assemble in the 1804-5 campaign.
Jackson took the lessons from Napoleon to heart during the early 1862 campaign with quick maneuvers into Maryland to outflank the Union, which in all met greater success over General Lee's Duke of Wellington defense strategy and then frontal assault against Union forces in Virginia (unlike the British, the South didn't have all the necessary manpower, ships, and other military capacities as the North as time went on). Jackson knew that the South couldn't meet the vast manpower of the Union in the long run. (similar to how the US fought the Japanese in WW2 with the attrition of war)
Had Jackson lived longer, the war's outcome would have either taken much longer for the Union to repel any movements into Northern territory or could have given the Confederates the much-needed geopolitical battle (despite how Antietam was their only hope of bringing in international support and putting the Union on the backburner) they wanted to put pressure on Lincoln and choke the Union into submission near DC.
Since we all love watching the Hannibal series on this channel, Jackson's 1862 campaign to anchor around D.C. and Union defenses through the Shenandoah Valley range most resembles how Hannibal bypassed the Romans early on after the battle of the Trebia and later maneuvered his army to outflank and surprise the two Roman armies trying to guard the entrance into the interior of Italy and approach Rome.
Ironically, both Jackson and Lannes lost their legs in a battle under very unfortunate circumstances and died when Napoleon and Lee had the advantage over their opponents.
Lee was lucky he didn't get crushed, a commander like Grant would have (unfortunately there were none in the East), much less gain ground. He was lucky, as he was several times.
My experiences reading/studying the Civil War, is that there was only truly 1 army and 1 chance for the South. Once Lee inevitably took too many losses, they didn't have replacements. All it would take is 1 mistake or 1 blow, and afterwards, they would lose; that blow was received at Gettysburg.
So, it's astounding that the South 'did' defeat the North so many times. This shows how scared the North was, even though they outnumbered and lost against the South in nearly every engagement, and they were eventually so scared that they were using up their last draftees and resources; even notably, little children were being drafted. But of course, the winner writes the history.
It resembles closely Athens vs Sparta, in a different era. The North, like Athens had perks of mercenaries, naval blockades, foreign support, and ability to constantly replace and recycle troops and generals; Athens tended to win, even if the Spartans had a superior land army that defeated them many times.
To say the Lee was simply 'lucky' would be a pretty low probability gamble, as he won so many times, it clearly wasn't just luck, unless you want to wager on some 1% to 5% chance. Almost all his victories were without numerical superiority.
It's an example that the South was superior in planning, troop quality, and battles like these showed why the North were so scared. The North had literally everything else in their favor , yet all their 'losses' inevitably still meant little to change the result.
Lee would need a 'perfect' victory streak, right into the North's capitol, which would have been difficult without suffering a single defeat.
“He’s lost his left arm… and I have lost my right.” - Robert E Lee
One can only wonder what would have happened had Jackson not been killed. There may not have been a battle at Gettysburg.
@@richardtaylor1652I firmly agree. Also, Jackson seemed to have a handle on Jeb Stuart. Dude wouldn't have wandered off during an invasion of the north and completely abandoned the army of northern Virginia
Can't wait for future content regarding the civil war, your collaboration with epic history produced some of the best battle descriptions on the internet!
You literally read my mind.
@@chasechristophermurraydola9314 I’d say a lot of people share the sentiment.
@@TheIrishvolunteer oh okay.
Yes! More civil war content! It’s important to remember our past to avoid repeating the same mistakes.
@@chasechristophermurraydola9314Same here
I've been waiting for some American Civil War battles from you! This was amazing! I hope to see more like this, maybe even more from the French and Indian wars, U.S. Revolution and the War of 1812. Thank you for all that you do.
Yet the videos began in 1863! Beginning at the beginning would have been logical surely. 🤷🏼
War of 1812, i like to hear about Sir Isaac Brock , he defended CDN with only ca. 1500 British regulars against superior Numbers of US Army and US Milicias
War of 1812 is goat.
@@MyBlueZed he can always go back and fill in the earlier battles. And it's not like you're watching this as a fiction enthusiast trying to avoid spoilers for later seasons!
Thanks for the collaboration, I enjoyed working with yall!
Likewise man. Looking forward to future collabs.
Man, imagine that Confederate soldier shooting at who turned out to be his commander...then learning that the commander died.
John D Barry who commanded the 18th North Carolina infantry that fired on Jackson was reportedly shocked and heartbroken. Nevertheless, Lee assured him that it was an accident and promoted him after the battle. Barry died two years after Appomattox from poor health due to his war wounds but his family and friends said it was a "broken heart" for giving the order to keep firing into the dark at those he thought were Union cavalry.
The commander of the company that killed Jackson later became a general , but killed himselfafter the war as he believed he had lost the war for the south
My ancestor, Col. Stapleton Crutchfield, Gen Jackson's Chief of Artillery, was also wounded in the incident with Gen. Jackson. He took a shot to the thigh. Rode in ambulance with the General who even had the driver stop during the ride because of Crutchfield's discomfort, not his own.
@@themulletteer6839 Jeez...
How did Crutchfield reply to that?
Especially since him and Lee was the only two elite Generals the South had. If he survived the war would have probably ended the same but would definitely have lasted a few more years. Can you imagine if he did survive and was sent out west to confront Grant. Man they would've have had some epic battles.
Tactical masterstroke. Strategically insignificant. Lee’s enduring military legacy
It's actually crazy how out of whack perception is with reality.
Lee, the genius who was almost always on the defensive, lost 209,000 men. If you were in his army you'd have a greater than 20% chance of being a casualty.
Oh - and he lost.
Grant, the drunk butcher who was always on the offensive across three theaters of war... lost 155,000 men. If you were in his army, constantly assaulting entrenched positions... you had a 9% chance of being a casualty.
Oh - and he forced the surrender of three Southern armies.
Lee was, objectively speaking, a disaster for the south. Grant was, objectively speaking, the best general in the war.
Still studied today.
@@nineomite This doesn't account for supplies or weaponry. A more accurate comparison would be 5,000 Taliban armed with Ak-47s holding off 15,000 tanks for several years.
Confederate armies marched barefoot and fought while wounded while starving. Achieving any number of victories is historically significant.
@@nineomitelee was actually on the offensive more than you realize.
@@doublepoet7852 There's a difference between the strategic offensive and the tactical offensive. The campaigns into the north usually aimed to plop down somewhere where they could threaten DC or Union supply lines and force the Union to attack. The Confederates were horrible at turning that vision into a reality and often found themselves forced into the tactical offensive or overestimating the gains they could achieve through a battlefield victory.
I can already tell that this video is going to be a masterpiece.
Too many factual errors.
@@fredsmith8498 not really
Not stressed particularly but Jackson's forced march through muddy rained bushy tracks for 10 hours, while his troopers intact enough to carry out night attack past 5pm, this shows the leader's charisma and understanding of logistics. Rebel soldiers were willing to follow Jackson to unknown territory of the slaughter (battle). Also kudos to Federal brigades fended off this surprise flanking. Both sides must be well drilled and whole heartedly believed in their cause of sacrificing their own lives.
Well, the Confederates had the right to break off from the Union, so I can see why they were willing to die. It was written in the constitution.
Everything I read about Jackson's relations with his soldiers said they did not particularly like him. They primarily feared him and his very harsh punishments for even minor infractions, but as long as he brought them victories they put up with it.
Interesting note. Thanks! Reminds me of Davout who got Napoleon's young conscripts ready in no time.
Lee is vastly overrated in my opinion, Jackson and Forrest were the true genius' out of the Confederate generals. I think Lee only looks good because he was matched against some of the worst generals the Union had until later in the war. I think if Lee had been matched against Grant, Sherman, Thomas or Rosecrans earlier no-one would be singing his praises because they would have destroyed him much, much sooner.
It's always cute seeing a proper lost causer out in the wild. The confederacy was a deeply evil failure of a state, existing only to perpetuate misery, and its fall was the greatest moment in American history. Cry about it. @@Gothalon
Thanks so much for doing Civil War battles! I don't hear so much about them as ancient battles, so it's good that someone is looking at them.
If you’re not hearing much about CW battles you’re not really looking
There’s not a ton of animations like this but there’s a lot of content out there
Thanks so much for this. One of my ancestors fought in a New York artillery brigade in the battle of the Wilderness soon after all this, so it's awesome to see how it all laid out.
The Wilderness confrontation was rough, I’ve read accounts of wounded soldiers’ gunpowder bags exploding on them from the fires that were ignited from gunfire. It must had been hell on earth.
yeah, the woods were on fire, it was full on summer and they were in wool uniforms, running cannons. That HAD to suck. My great great grandfather Ferdinand (a fairly recent German immigrant) was apparently shot through the top of the foot/ankle area, taken to the surgeons for amputation, decided he did not want one, and supposedly bribed a Black attendant fellow to spirit him away...the war was ending and he just wanted to go home so he got himself onto a coastal steamer/riverboat sort of thing and rode it home to New York (where he had six or seven kids and a sick wife.), dangling his foot in the water to keep it clean. I'm not sure if he really had permission to leave but I guess he did.
He survived, his wife died, he moved to Illinois and had six or seven more kids with a second spouse.@@Talleyhoooo
@@kerranz holy crap, that’s an amazing story! Glad that you were able to discover that. It just makes you think about how many different tales are out there about the war. I do love the tactics and learning about the high profile names during the conflict, but over the years, I’ve really become interested in the normal people involved, that go unheard.
Right from the Caption to the commentary and every bit of your video is usually a topnotch.
History Marche is a channel second to non.
...and for the algorithm!
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Thank you!
@@sedrfghbn I'm also a fan of Epic History, however History Marche is outstanding
I usually listen to podcasts or audiobook breakdowns of famous battles, so seeing the way they unfolded on the battlefield really helps grasp how the tactics and settings can override the numerical advantage during the fight.
I'm only commenting to help with the algorithm, more people need to see your videos
Love this, keep the American Civil War content coming!
While Jackson's flank march on May 2 is the most famous action of the entire battle, the fighting on May 3 was some of the fiercest combat of the entire Civil War. In just five hours of combat at Hazel Grove, Fairview, Marye's Heights, and Salem Church, more than 21,000 men on both sides fell killed and wounded. It ranks as the second bloodiest day in American history behind only September 17, 1862 (the Battle of Antietam Creek).
Brave lads. Both sides!
Love this one, I used to live in Fredericksburg now in Richmond and just listening to this I can visualize the exact places you are talking about
A long ago relative of mine, Henderson Scott, lost a leg fighting for the Union with a Pennsylvania volunteer regiment at Chancelorsville, but luckily survived the war, married a nice young lady, and went into the ice cream business.
Thank you for the U.S. Civil War content. I hope for much more (Gettysburg, Antietam and Vicksburg being favorite battles of mine to study). It's also refreshing to hear about our "great" civil war from a narrator with a non-American accent on a channel that I love.
Something else I heard about this battle that just added to the comedy of errors on the Union side. At 29:00, you can plainly see that there are 2 Union Corps to the north of the Confederate lines. Meade and Reynolds both wanted to counterattack into that flank, but Hooker was already in the mindset of defeat and retreat, and the concussion that he suffered did not help.
^^This. This could've easily gone the other way catastrophically. It was only a Confederate victory because Hooker withdrew and Sedgwick was the wrong man for independent command.
Not taking anything away from the initial execution of Jackson's flank attack, of course.
@@starshipchris4518 Another reason that that flank attack worked so well is that I think Lee had already taken his measure of Hooker and knew there would not be as great of a risk as there otherwise would be.
Hooker's mindset even before this battle was to draw the enemy in and fight a defensive battle (as Lee had done to Burnside at Fredericksburg). And to be fair, that is a sound strategy, but it was very poorly executed. Every commander on that field, from the Union Corps commanders and even Lee and Jackson, were bewildered that the Union army just withdrew after that initial skirmish.
Hooker had Lee outnumbered even with half of his army threatening in the east. Even so, after the initial clash, he pulled his army back into that semi-circle, thinking that Lee would just ram into him. Lee's feint attacks probably played into that belief as well.
We have the benefit of hindsight and a nice overhead map showing positions. They did not.
It’s just one of many examples in the Army of the Potomac’s history where the corps and divisional generals saw opportunities that were denied by the commanding general. General Grant was one of the few who actually trusted his subordinate commanders to make their own decisions and encouraged them to be aggressive. Same with General Meade who defeated Lee at Gettysburg.
McClellan was notorious for assuming the Confederates always outnumbered him (by vastly inflated amounts). It’s quite hilarious to hear about how many times he would’ve crushed the Confederates and probably ended the war earlier if he had just been aggressive. He was great for shaping and whipping the army into shape, not so much as a battle commander. The battle of Antietam being the most prominent example. He had Lee with his back to the wall, but instead of a general all out assault that would’ve overwhelmed Lee’s vastly outnumbered army, he sent his divisions in piecemeal. That enabled Lee to move troops around as he needed them, resulting in the single bloodiest day of combat in US history.
Were you there?
The loss of the great Stonewall Jackson was the greatest defeat Lee could have ever suffered
No it wasn't. Stonewall performed terribly in some battles - and the legend that sprung up around him was also a key factor in encouraging the South to take on tactics like Napoleon's (which resulting in mass death and defeat).
The South had the general to win the war - Sidney Albert Johnson, who ran such an effective guerilla campaign (while wildly out-gunned) that he literally drove Sherman nuts.
When Johnson died, the South died.
What about Forrest?
@@marknewton6984Forrest was in one of lee’s greatest generals, he said so himself. However it greatly relied on Jackson.
Researching the confederate army and the mishaps that happened and lapses in communication makes you realize how things could have been very different.
@@nineomiteJackson was always fighting at a disadvantage but almost always made the best of it.
If Stonewall had been at Gettysburg, he would have taken Cemetery and Culp's Hills. Different battle.
The Red Badge of Courage is a fictional account of the Battle of Chancellorsville described through the eyes of a Private named Henry, who finds himself become the color guard of his regiment by the end of the battle's 3rd or 4th day. We never find out what happened to Henry afterwards.
Private Henry later caught a steamer to Havana, where he took up the life of a novelist. He drank Rum by night, and wrote fiction by day. The ladies adored him for his colorful war stories and creative use of epithets and swear words. The men respected him for his prowess with a musket and bayonette.
@@GrislyAtoms12 I like that headcanon.
You'd have to track down Richard Thomas and ask him that question, sir😂😅lol
@@GrislyAtoms12Good points!
Thanks for covering American history. Very well done as always. I feel like early and mid American history is glossed over as quick or black and white. Good to see it broken down properly. Sorry for the rant and good work! Obvious addition, clearly the right side won and slavery is bad.
This is fantastic. I was recently reading up on these campaigns, thank you for bringing them to life!
I recently moved to Fredericksburg... And while I knew there was a great deal of Civil War history here, I haven't had the time to learn much detail, this video is a great way to learn about my new home... Its strange to hear the names of the roads and sites in town mentioned in this video... "Plank Road", "Banks Ford", "Zoan Church" are all still prominent place-names in town...
I lived in Lynchburg, Virginia not far from Appomattox Court House for a few years. It’s crazy how much history is packed in that state. It’s alway neat seeing the echoes of history. I live in Nashville, TN now and at the university I worked at and attended school, the campus was lined with stone walls that were built as confederate battlements. It’s such neat stuff!
Due to the lack of initiative seen in battles like these in the Union, the figure of Grant stands out quite a bit, for being the only general who dared not to be intimidated by the legend of Lee, although we must not take away the merits of the defense of Meade at the Battle of Gettysburg. Changing the subject, I would like you to make a video about the Spanish Carlist Wars or a battle from the War of the Polish Succession (those on the Italian front, mainly).
Critically, Grant was almost the only general in the Eastern Theater who didn't just stop and pull back after a tactical defeat. Instead, even when he lost on a given battlefield, he kept on pushing forward using his still much larger forces, and maintained the strategic initiative in a way no other northern general had against Lee.
@@Wolfeson28 Exactly, although he ungratefully received the nickname "Butcher" from the newspapers for that, the truth is that he was the only one who understood that if the war was to be won quickly, a total offensive on the South had to be carried out and that having numerical superiority means that you inevitably have to sacrifice more lives; However, as a general, that brings you many tactical benefits that he was able to take advantage of. For me, Grant is the true hero of the history of the United States, the unity of the country was thanks to his resolution, demonstrating that the North and its soldiers did not lack motivation to want to win in that conflict.
@ I’d disagree, it was Sherman, not Grant. Grant was a good general, Lee was better. Sure Grant could bludgeon Lee with his army and back him into siege works around Petersburg, but once Lee was in those Siege works it became a stalemate again, and the North’s population was starting to get sick of the war in Virginia. Sherman beating Johnston really pissed in Lee’s cornflakes, because now he’s cut off from supplies, States of the Old South deserting in droves to protect them from Sherman, and the eventual threat of Sherman’s army threatening to reinforce Grant.
@@PeterPan54167 Grant spent his career winning from the first battle onward. The Traitor does not compare in any way, shape or form to him. You give Sherman credit but Shermans positions was founded on what Grant had won; his movements directed by Grant who was his superior officer. Sherman did not just decide one day to "Hey, let me burn down the South", the entire PLAN was to make sure no part of the confederacy could support the other. Meades part of the plan was to keep hounding Lee; never letting up.
Lee - the guy you claim is so fucking great - could do nothing but react.
@@PeterPan54167 Go read about the tactical maneuvers and strategic decisions that Grant made while he was leading the capture of the Confederate Strongholds along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, how he turned the battle at Shiloh from a defeat into an overwhelming victory that crushed Confederate moral and ended any chance of a counter-offensive. Find out why he earned the nickname Unconditional Surrender. How he cracked the impenetrable nut that was Vicksburg and how he was the only United States Commanding General who didn't let minor setbacks throw him off his goals. He was an excellent general, and he suffered greatly over the anguish that leading young boys to their deaths on all fronts of the war which led to alcoholism and a habit of chewing cigars which eventually killed him. Lee is famous for pyrrhic victories against enemies that had superior numbers, but it was likely Jackson that even gave the Army of West Virginia its fire, and Longstreet that gave it resolve. Lee was an experienced soldier, and had the charisma and authority to lead an Army, but he wasn't the tactical genius people say he was; he was a good listener and wise enough to head council until he flew off the hook at Gettysburg and wasted his army in an impossible battle that nobody with any military sense thought he should have prosecuted. He wasn't as great as the storybooks written by historical revisionists portray him to be, he was good enough for the job he needed to do for the first couple of years, but then he wasn't any longer, but his legend had grown too big for anyone to do the right thing and remove him from the front; after Chancerlorsville a serious study of the goings on in his theater of war under his command shows he was on the ropes, too old, too tired, and too full of guilt and his own legend to be a successful battlefield commander; he also lacked the men and material necessary to wage total war anyway, and Grant pushed the war in the east into a campaign of total war just like he had in the west.
This is the 🐐 of TH-cam channels. Honorable mentions Kings and generals, epic history and history dose
An american civil war video! Great man! Cant wait for it! Love your content 😊😊😊❤❤❤❤
Remember watching Ken Burns epic about the civil war.
And the Inferno in the woods that claimed the injured and dying, also when Grant and the Army of the Patomac returned to the woods the bleached bones of the dead could still be seen lying on the ground.
Would love to see whole series on the American civil war
Now that HM has moved to the new world I can't wait to see you cover battles from conflicts in South America! Some that come to mind are:
-Battle of Yungay, 1839
-Battle of Arica, 1880
-Battle of Huamachuco, 1883
-Battle of Rancagua, 1814
-Battle of Maipú, 1818
Keep up the good work! Love from Chile 🇨🇱♥️
Great idea!
Nice to see some Civil War battles being covered
I'm always astonished by the battles of the Civil War. The sheer amount of luck, and/or enemy incompetence that was necessary for practically every victory was insane. It has a distinctly different feel than a lot of others. My only guess would be the decades of relative peace and one-sided conflicts during the first 100 years of US history lead our military leadership to indolence and incompetence.
While incompetence was an issue one of the larger issues was the same thing the British dealt with during the revolutionary war. The terrain of the USA is extremely diverse and very few parts were clear of forest/hills/obstructions so a commander could see much of the battlefield effectively. The USA is a horrible place for finding obstruction free battlefields. In addition the moment black powder rifles were fired the battlefield would have been drastically obscured by the smoke. There have always been bad officers, and that will never change, but there were plenty of times we in hindsight see something as an incompetent decision when in reality the officer making the decision had so little information that a good decision relied on luck. All that to say that I agree incompetency is definitely an issue, luck definitely made some victories, but the confusion of battle at that time was insane and even good officers needed luck to a certain extent.
I think this is also why the Confederacy did well fighting on their turf, they new the countryside and could exploit the terrain more easily than the Union. One of the reasons that Confederate troops lost initiative when they invaded Union territory, they now were in the opposite position.
@@Flamer-om8hyI’m reading Shelby Foote’s volumes on the Civil War and I’ve come to the same conclusion. The US just isn’t a very good place to fight a war in. A lot of the times the commanders had decent enough plans but rains, rivers, roads that became impassable after a little marching, etc foiled their plans time and time again. It also made maintaining lines of communication and supply lines very difficult.
@@Flamer-om8hy Though, I think part of the reason the British might have had a difficult time in some regards was that they also rarely fought continental wars in Europe proper. When they did, it was typically in the more open, but very riverine plains of Flanders. There are other parts of Europe that were just as difficult to deal with as the Americas in terms of forests, hills, rivers, etc and, prior to the 19th century, roads were not all that good either.
It is a common misconception that Europe is just filled with quality Roman roads everywhere, but we have to remember that of the tracks of roads the Romans made, only a fifth were stone-paved and, even among those, not all have remained intact throughout almost two millennia. The rest were dirt roads or tracks which could just as easily be churned to mud, especially in times of rainfall or snow. Especially in places like Germany, such road networks were nigh nonexistent for centuries and the polities of the past were typically not centralized enough to create large scale projects like the Romans did.
There are several cases of major battles taking place in difficult conditions, one such example in the 19th century being Hohenlinden, where you have a thick mass of forests which obscure vision all throughout the field, and this gave the Austrians a very difficult time, but the French commander, Moreau, somehow found a way to work with it and won a decisive victory. We have the misconceptions that battles cannot be decisive due to such terrain, but in this instance, Moreau not only defeated the Austrians, but utterly destroyed their army, especially in the following days' pursuit.
We have another case such as the Serra do Bussaco in Portugal, when Massena's French army (or rather, the divisions of Ney and Reynier under him) attacked uphill against a tall ridge, almost a mountain in its sheer scale, while the surrounding area was also heavily wooded. It was like Missionary Ridge meets Wilderness and one can understand how Wellington's British-Portuguese army was so easily able to repulse the French, who had to attack under such conditions. Road networks in Spain and Portugal were also notoriously bad and the arid climate didn't help either (yes, Spain does have an arid climate in many parts of the country, surprisingly).
All of this was before Macadamized roads. Hell, in the 18th century and before, they didn't even have Tresaguet's road building methods yet. Still, somehow they were able to coordinate massive armies for extended campaigns without the telegraph and without railroads to help facilitate their communications. There is the idea that Europe is rather small, but when one thinks of Napoleon's regular campaigns which can see him go hundreds of miles to nearly a thousand miles away from Paris, commanding armies which were on average 100,000-200,000 strong, including the mass amounts of cavalry horses which had to be fed along the way, it paints a different picture. Even in the ACW, the likes of Grant and Sherman would be hard-pressed to pull off such a logistical feat and, as I said, he did it without railroads and ironclad riverboats.
The idea that Napoleon relied on forage alone is also incorrect and a myth perpetuated by Clausewitz. Forage and requisition alone would not have been able to feed such massive armies, even in a densely populated region, let alone provide them with ammunition and other necessities. He also had to rely on supply trains and extended lines of communications with numerous supply depots established, connecting operational bases to the strategic bases back home in Northern France.
In the end, that is not to say that our forefathers in the States did not face difficult challenges, but I think that many of us all too often have the mentality of "Our conditions were more difficult and we had to overcome this in revolutionary new ways! The old traditions were wrong and we were the purveyors of brand new and better ideas!" I see this myopic view, not only in regards to things like field conditions when examining our wars, but also tactics, operations, and strategy. There are a lot of things America has invented/innovated and we should be proud of them, but putting down the accomplishments of others in doing so is something I find incorrect. Not that I'm accusing you of these things. Just saying that I do see it happen, especially when the ACW comes into comparison with warfare in other parts of history/other parts of the world.
@@doritofeeshExcellent description and explanation. The only thing I would add is that British correspondence from the revolutionary war included references to the extreme underbrush and broken ground of almost every battlefield, so the soldiers fighting the war found the terrain above and beyond the norm, which could also be based on their experience as you stated. I think one of the things this video brings out is how great commanders are able to overcome the impediments while other officers falter. The age of black powder was especially horrible for officers to survey the field and I think the exploits of the great commanders showcases their excellence more than the other officers shortcomings.
@@Flamer-om8hy To be fair to Hooker, it was as you mentioned up above. He did not know the terrain as well as Lee and lacked proper maps of the area in contrast to the Rebels. Though, I find this rather peculiar, considering how the distance from DC to Richmond is only some 100 miles from north to south. The fact that the Federal army cannot provide accurate maps of their own country, especially so close to the capital, is concerning to say the least.
I'm stoked for more Civil War videos!!
It always amazes me seeing how big these battlefields are. I live in Fredericksburg and to drive from downtown to elys ford is probably 30mins. It’s just awesome how they could keep control of everything in those days
Same here, it's awesome to visit these places in person, then watch this video and know exactly what they're referring to!
Thank you for the Civil War battle! Hope to see more Battles like Antietam or Chickamuaga!
Excellent animation and explanation of the Battle of Chancellorsville. My fourth great-grandfather died on May 3rd from wounds received on the 2nd. He was a Pvt. in the Ill. 82nd Volunteers.
Great video, as always! Overland campaign next?? Spotsylvania in particular is one I'm interested in...hours of sustained hand-to-hand combat reminiscent of ancient battles.
Been to Spotsylvania. Never forgot it.
Id like a video on generals facing domestic issues such as recruitment, moral, logistics, etc rather than just battles. For example how hooked improved moral or how Washington prevented his militia from leaving.
Chancellorsville kind of sums up Lee’s CW career in a nutshell.
Tactical brilliant and hyper aggressive. Yet he lost almost as many men in the victory as the Union did in defeat (and his right hand commander). Unsustainable losses and failed to destroy the Union Army in the end.
hard to not when opponent has 2 times your numbers. It earlier eras of warfare Lee would either inflict 50k casualties or even slaughter entire union army. As i watched i was quite in shoock. Well, they rolled entire wing, why they stop? In earlier eras rolling of the wing would collapse entire union army and condemn them to slaugher. But in XIX century they could just withdraw a mile and that was it.
Lee had greater casualties both in percentages and real numbers: An average of 20 percent of his troops were killed or wounded in his major campaigns, a total of more than 121,000 (far more than any other Civil War general). He was the true butcher of the civil war.
@@scottgoens7575 He was also far out numbered by the north, by 1 million men. When the odds are 2 to 1 in your opponents favor with better technology, better manufacturing, what do you expect?
You make it sound as if he was without advantages. Lee's Advantages were formidable in that topography ensured the Lee had great interior lines to always produce a greater consolidation of force. Also in friendly territory Lee's intelligence by civilians gave him advantage in which this battle itself proves as a farmer made Jackson and Lee aware of a logging road by which to attack the enemy flank. Thirdly being the forever the defender he easily took the initiative away from his enemy as they struggled with natural terrain features. In his great loses away from Virginia we begin to see how those built in advantages of Virginia aided him. @@manofchaitea6904
Did I mention the advantage of the Woods making number useless?
@@manofchaitea6904
The fact Jackson was cut down by his own men is one of the worst deaths to a commander in history.
He took a risk, he was aware of the danger of riding out to scout at night, returning cavalry got mistaken for enemy even in daylight often enough.
and atleast he got good care and company before he gave out.
@@scalion44y22 Dope
If Jackson instead of Ewell had been at Gettysburg...😮
Wow never expected to see civil war content but I love it!
Second Manasas was always a interesting Battle for me. It was scattered all over the map, Jackson almost got crushed on one of his flank moves, and Longsteet "saved the day" (Pope helped a lot :). It would make for a nice HistoryMarche map vid :)
I wouldn't describe this as Lee's greatest battle. I'd be much more likely to give that title to the battle of second Manassas
Traditional USA historiography usually refers to it as Lee's "highest moment" or something like that, which is probably more apt. Both were certainly embarrassing reverses for the USA government.
I would say Fredericksburg but that’s mostly Burnside stubbornness and stupidity in not doing Something Anything different than “the plan”
General Lee was my Great Great Uncle. Thanks for making this video
Spectacular! We need more content on the Army of Northern Virginia.
Great video! Thoroughly enjoyed it, especially the after action report. Excellent job 👏
Good work, always enjoy your work. First time caught a premiere, being time zone disadvantaged.
Awesome video y'all! Please consider adapting the many battles fought in south america, it's a region full of rich yet often forgotten history, even by its own inhabitants
Totally agree with @Theirishvolunteer : Great rendering of battles & tactics. Nice job !
Thank you for not backing down and being willing to say Lee was a historically great general and did not have to give many apologies about his association that any man of his time would've been loyal to his own people that he saw Virginia as his country and he fought honorably.
I hear that Virginia entered the union contingent that it could leave at any time. The trouble started when that a-hole Lincoln sent the Virginia Governor a letter, stating that he was going to supply him with 70,000 Virginians, to ostensibly trample through Virginia and assist the union in murdering southerners, and relieving them of their property. The Governor had no choice but to join the Confederacy. At least he was on the right side, will end up in heaven, presumably. Not like those northern heathens. LOL
This. I loath talks about the civil war as they tend to devolve into “southerners are all just inbreeding slavers” as if the people who spout that nonsense don’t praise Macedonian, Roman, Egyptian, Spanish, French, etc. wars, generals, concepts, and culture.
As a southerner, I get so annoyed by people who have this weird double standard and fetish for hating southerners. Like, you hate Lee because he was associated with a faction that was experiencing the dying stages of slavery but then worship a faction that only went through those stages only a bit earlier and then after the war churned out people like Custer who massacred native Americans for sport. It’s just an obnoxious level of unadulterated and diluted personal bias that I cannot stand.
Loyal to his own people - if that means fighting for slavery, I am against that type of loyalty. We loath that loyalty and recognize it as self-serving when we discuss the "loyalty" that supporters of other odious causes had. If slavery did not have the foot soldiers of Lee and Jackson, we would not have had the Civil war last as long or as horribly to eradicate the horrible institution of racist slavery.
Thank you for making this video. For years civil war content exploded but for some reason very few videos on Chancellorsville were made. Which is weird because many consider it the greatest Confederate victory of the war
It was indeed the high point of the CSA.
Love your videos thank you for such excellent content for the algorithm.
AD ends at 3:10
All your work is outstanding.
This was so excellent of a diagnosis of a battle. The graphics and movement of forces as show in the video are Excellent. Well Done. Can't wait for the next battle.
And also, the south's costliest. "He has lost his left arm but I have lost my right."
You have taken the high ground and raised your flag with this video sir. I salute you. :)
These are great maps! However, there are so many errors. Longstreet was in North Carolina collecting supplies, not protecting Richmond. Hooker didn’t turn over command to Couch as the latter was not capable of commanding the Army, but was next in line. Early was ordered by Col. R. Chilton to withdraw; he vehemently protested. There were 2 other brigades “left behind” Hays and Wilcox. In his greatest contribution of the war, Wilcox’s Brigade fought a very effective rear guard action. There are numerous small errors, such as Posey was a colonel not a general. Any chance the voice of the video can be redone to correct the many errors
Uh, if you're going to be pedantic, you'd better be right. Posey was promoted to brigadier general in January 1863.
As always a great Video, thank you for recently making a Video about Augsburg ,Greetings from Augsburg ❤🎉
Thanks for watching!
Love historical battles and strategies. Lee and Stonewall were both great leaders and United States veterans.
Stonewall should also be praised for giving black people an education. A major thing to do.
Lee should be praised for also criticizing and wanting slavery to end. Another great thing to love about these military geniuses and us veterans
They were traitors and not United States Veterans. Read your real history of what Lee said about slavery and what he did when it was about his slaves.
They both owned slaves lol
@@PeterNygard69Lee inherited slaves but released them well before the war. After the war, Lee worked on reunifying northerners and southerners through his position at Washington and Lee University.
Jackson treated blacks well but died before we could see him post war. If I recall, the slaves he had, like Lee, were inherited, while slaves, they were still treated respectfully all things considered.
I think people watch Django unchained and think every single southerner had a pension of whipping and torturing black people. The truth is, it was really only the aristocracy who had them while the majority of other southerners were just trying to make it. As we see with Lee and Jackson, some aristocrats who did have them merely inherited them and often freed them of their own initiative.
It was only when the northerners made it a point to demonize southerners that the southerners started to hold a firmer grip on their slaves to prove a point to the northerners that they weren’t beholden to what the Yankees had to say.
Had the northerners not gone out of their way to antagonize and belittle southerners while trying to rob them of federal power and had the southerners not responded to such instigation with boastful pride on top of a molehill, slavery in the south would’ve ended naturally by the 1870s.
The thing you have to understand about southern slavery was that it was a product of its time. The slave trade had ended long before and even by the early 19th century it was virtually taboo. The remnants that existed in the south were just that: remnants. They were pieces of a system that had existed for hundreds of years that had naturally dissipated over the course of time. By the time of the civil war, southerners weren’t exactly taking advantage of black people as much as they were taking advantage of a system that had existed for well over a century. Had the north worked with the South instead of demonizing it, that system would’ve been replaced. But instead, they took an already paranoid people (southerners) and tried to remove what those people considered to be a foundational aspect of their economy without replacing it. Effectively robbing them of what little economic power they did have effectively leaving them beholden to New Yorkers as a mere vassal state of the north. A deep seated fear that southern states have held even before the revolutionary war. Naturally, this resulted in doubling down on the dying process of slavery rather than a release of it.
So when you talk about slavery in the south it’s a little more complicated than just “they had slaves” or “they hated black people.”
@@evanrogers1825 It’s funny because Lee still managed slaves at Arlington until december of 1862, and according to sources he was a cruel slaver. And for Jackon, how exactly can you treat a slave ”well”? If these men truly were abolitionists, then they would’ve straight up refused to take them on.
Without the war slavery had absolutely zero chance of ending in the 1870s, and for good reason since slavery was incredibly lucrative.
Stop trying to justify slavery, it’s not a good look
No praise for fighting for slavery. Only eternal scorn and damnation.
Excellent Amer. Civil War video, content, maps, narrative, well done.
Lee would remark after his victories "we have won the battle but not achieved our political objectives to end the war!" I'm paraphrasing. This would haunt Lee's command as the Civil War evolved into a quagmire of attrition. Eventually Lee's army of Northern Virginia was wearing rags & starving,which prompted his surrender to Grant at Appomattox. Lee's ability to keep the Confederacy in the war while basically entirely blockaded by Union Navy,also protecting the Capital at Richmond until 1865 is one of the greatest display of Generalship in history.
Pyrrhus of Epirus.
@@neptunestylevgood analogy. Good coaches, shallow benches
Love ur films and that is why I decided to support. More of History from all over the world please.
Lee & Jackson: "We re outnumbered 1-2. Lets attack!"
Hooker: "We outnumber them 2-1. Lets only fight with half our men and do nothing with the other half."
Hooker was obviously trained at the same academy as Total War AI generals set to easy difficulty!
Same as McClellan
@@fredsmith8498old Mac only lost one battle tho
@@wardaddy6595
almost all of them union and confederate, went to USMA
Looking forward to seeing more US Civil/Revolution on this channel. Would also love to see some African and Asian battles.
The definition of a Pyrrhic Victory. Lee won the battle but lost more than he could afford and ultimately the entire war.
If that's how you're defining a pyrrhic victory, then there's never any point in any outnumbered nation ever fighting, because any victory would be pyrrhic and any defeat disastrous. The Union outnumbered the South in manpower more than double, and excluding decisive victories that led to large surrenders, then casualty ratios of 2:1 at this time were very rare for notable engagements.
Lee took a force severely outnumbered and outgunned, and managed to completely halt his opponent's offensive, protecting the nearby capital, reclaiming a notable amount of ground, and allowing him to harry his opponent across state lines and perform an offensive of his own- all while enjoying a casualty rate of 20k vs 26k. Sounds like a textbook victory to me, even if the South was so disadvantaged that it would lose to attrition if those losses were maintained without purpose.
In a prolonged conflict, the South was going to inevitably lose. They just didn’t have the population or industry or economy to keep up. That’s why Lee invaded the north. He couldn’t win militarily but if he could hold out militarily long enough for northern weariness to take effect, exacerbated by the fright of a “southern invasion” he could help the war to end without carrying on a losing war.
He didn’t need to necessarily win battles; he needed to scare the Northerners enough to be willing to end the war through elections or policy.
The success of the initial attack is due to Jackson's strategic and tactical genius. If he isn't gunned down when he is, the attack resumes and the bulk of the Army of the Potamic is cut off from retreat and is destroyed. However, after Jackson is wounded and Lee resumes overall operational command of the entire attack he can't think of anything better than a direct frontal assault where the bulk of the Confederate casualties resulted.
Tactically, Lee was a defensive genius, but whenever he went over on the offensive he always went with straight-forward frontal assaults and bled his army dry.
Jackeson was at best an average tactician. And on bad days he was way below average. (during the 7 days he was horrible, at Fredericksburg he was bad)
His one big strength was at the operational level. Moving his men from town a to town B... and the move during this battle was In my opinion done at the operational level.
During the Seven Days Jackson was the type of subordinate that he expected his subordinates to be. He moved when told to and awaited further orders. Once he realized after that campaign that Lee granted his subordinates to take the initiative he did.
After the Seven Days you can see several times Jackson handed Lee a resounding victory on a silver platter and each time Lee hesitated until Chancellorsville where Jackson was within 100 yards of completely annihilating the Army of the Potomac when he was wounded.
You can see how dependent Lee was upon Jackson afterward at Gettysburg when he gave both A.P. Hill and Richard Ewell discretionary orders and they used their discretion to essentially do nothing because they were used to Jackson telling them what to do.
If anything I would say Jackson's biggest weakness was he did not develop his subordinate generals to become able to operate independently and it showed after he died.
Is it tactical "genius" if you sneak attack is observed and the enemy corps commander on the flank just ignores orders to prepare for that "sneaky" attack?
More civil war vids please 🙏🤩
Nice work on this one! Definitely Lee's masterpiece. I actually did a report on this battle in 10th grade.
This is regarded as Lee’s masterpiece - but his victory was also in part to an incredible series of lucky circumstances that worked out in his favor.
Yes that can be said about alot of great commanders throughout history. Caesar is a great example
Jackson and Lee would call them providential circumstances.
Turns out gold Generals get lucky a lot. You put yourself I'm a position to get lucky and it happens.
Luck counts.😮
Luck counts in War. Also Love and Gambling...😎
I hope you do more civil war videos because this was a masterpiece presentation!!
"We must make this campaign an exceedingly active one. Only thus can a weaker country cope with a stronger; it must make up in activity what it lacks in strength. A defensive campaign can only be made successful by taking the aggressive at the proper time. Napoleon never waited for his adversary to become fully prepared, but struck him the first blow."
- Stonewall Jackson
Ch. 22 : The Last Happy Days - Chancellorsville - 1863 P. 429.
Life and Letters of General Thomas J. Jackson (1891) by Mary Anna Jackson
Mary wrote an excellent bibliography covering her husband's life behind the frontlines of the Civil War. As an American, I recommend anyone who loves reading about history to check it out.
She was named the "Widow of the Confederacy" after Jackson's death at Chancellorsville and never remarried. She became a legend due to her memoirs dedicated to her late husband. As the saying goes by Proverbs 31:2..." Behind a great man is a great woman."
After the Union route at First Manassas, Jackson is reported to have said, "I can take Washington with but 5,000 men." He was ordered not to pursue. How history might have been different if he had taken his brigade and exploited the victory and initiative?
@@nathancraig4480
I think I read something long time ago about how feasible this actually was, or was not, but it does illustrate one of the maybe 2 times in the whole war where the Confederates held the operational initiative.
@emcee768 it depends. Longstreet had his own dangerous failings as a general. At several points during the war, his carelessness and indecision nearly led to disaster for his army. At Knoxville, his hesitation and poor planning led many of his troops into a ditch where they suffered over 800 casulties in 20 minutes.
Despite trying to convince Lee to not engage Meade at Gettysburg, he still failed to report to Lee on the early recon of the Union's positions and later failing to outflank the Union against Custer's cavalry to roll up the Union right flank.
However, most of Jackson's colleagues defended Longstreet while Lee's supporters made him the scapegoat in the failure of defeating the Union.
More or less Anna believed Lee's interpretation of events seeing how he was her late husband's trusted friend and Longstreet's political ambitions. He was mostly right tactically regarding Cementary Hill but his decision of attacking the Union midday at Gettysburg was enough by Lee's people to slander Longstreet.
Longstreet's "attitude was wrong, but his instinct was correct. This is something that Jacksom would agree regarding Longstreet's decisions but he still was sluggish in implementing his military maneuvers. He wasn't perfect nor highly aggressive as Jackson, but he was right in some critical moments. He never developed the same working relationship with Lee as Jackson did.
I honestly think second Manassas is Lee’s best campaign.
Often overlooked. May be his best!
For sure. Especially if you extend it up to the capture of Harpers Ferry.
I love animated recreations of the Civil War. This is so far the best one. Appreciate your hard work brutha!
You should check out warhawk, good cw channel
what Lee achieved with what little he had ... that is so impressive. I honestly think he was a military genius of a Napoleon level.
Napoleon defeated all of europe four times in a row
Lee failed to win a single war
@@Spiderfisch Napoleon had French republican army with its spirit, a lot of talented commanders, and a powerful France state to provide him with huge army and arms and still lost. Yes he defeated Europe multiple times, he is a genius, no doubt. But he eventually made a lot of military mistakes and lost key battles. Lee had almost nothing of what Napoleon had, confederate army literally often fought barefoot. Just look at this battle and all the odds the Lee faced. I doubt Napoleon could do any better.
@@fiddlersgreen2433 Napoleon did do better and against more competent opponents than McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, or Meade throughout his entire career, whilst also thrashing an opponent of similar skill to Grant. His 1st Italian Campaign, he was operationally outnumbered the whole year of 1796, using troops which were unpaid, demoralized, and undersupplied such that many did not have firearms, ammunition, proper clothes, or boots. Many of his men also had to march barefoot over bad roads choked with mud from rains or by the abundance of marshy rivers in Northern Italy. They also traversed through mountainous terrain and were bogged down in besieging the formidable fortress of Mantua while fending off four relief attempts by armies which outnumbered his own (even when you don't count the garrison of Mantua).
In 1814, when he was up with his back to the wall, he pulled off his famous Six Days' Campaign, where using primarily green conscripts, many of whom did not even know how to use a musket, and facing bad weather of previous snowfalls and heavy rain, he completely outmanoeuvred an army of over 50,000 seasoned troops with some 30,000 men of his own, defeating them four times in six days... the casualties being 3,400 French losses compared to 28,500 Allied losses. That was when he was working with such poor quality troops and most of his best generals were dead, retired, or not in the same theater as him.
Bonaparte never defeated all of Europe even once. Great Britain existed you see@@Spiderfisch
@@juliantheapostate8295 caught me on a technicality
This is the best comprehensive video on the Chancellorsville battle I've seen.
Losing Jackson was an insurmountable loss. Who knows what would have happened if Jackson was at Gettysburg. (And yes, I know the South would most definitely still have lost the war, but it would have been interesting to see if Jackson’s presence could have made a difference in a 3 day battle like Gettysburg.
It absolutely would have made a difference on day 1 of the battle. Kind of hard to guess what would have happened after that. A crushing victory for the South at Gettysburg could have led to a treaty and at worst would have delayed the end of the war by at least a year which may have changed the results of the 1864 election.
I also agree that Jackson was a great general but I seriously doubt that had he survived his wounds that the outcome of the war would've came out differently The South was heavily out numbered by the North in both men and material The South had no chance for a final victory in the contest
@@travisbayles870
they definitely had a chance. war is by definition, diplomacy. battles and wars are not always won by the side with the most men and material. its not like playing football.
@xisotopex I never said war was like playing football I simply meant that as a figure of speech I don't think the South had any real chance of defeating the North We simply outnumbered in every category
@@travisbayles870 So did the British in the American revolution and the Americans in Vietnam. Sometimes its not about material its about the willingness to keep fighting. You are correct the South could never militarily beat the North but they didn't have to either.
Please cover more American civil war battles! It was so interesting to watch.
A bit confusing when you use the same markers regardless of unit size.
Hooker is "No plan survives contact with the enemy" personified. His initial plan had the potential to be very effective, but he completely lacked in improvisational and adaptibility so the moment something didn't go to plan he completely lost his composure and lost the battle before it really started in earnest.
Sure, but "Hooker losing faith in Hooker" is not a lack of improv, it's a lack of confidence and follow- through. He didn't need to pull competent officers back.
The Civil War would've been a lot shorter if the Union have competent officers in the first place.
They did
But there ain't any good general in the East side to fight against Lee.
Grant and Sherman were busying to fight in the Western threater.
Great video. Would love a whole series one day on the American civil war
Jackson won that battle for Lee.
Ah yes the man who was shot two days into the battle definitely won it.
Well, duh…
Well he did. Paid with his life.
@@jacksoncole6672 The battle lasted from April 30th to May 6th. His two days of being on the field hardly made a difference. He didn’t route half the GAR, he didn’t somehow break through union lines and destroy its command structure, and he didn’t somehow wheel around and catch any part of the GAR in a pincer. A random and lucky cannonball did more to win the battle than Jackson did.
This is absolutely awesome!!! Civil War history baby!! Very exciting!!!
Fighting Joe Hooker was one of the Union's most colourful characters. Slightly less notorious than Daniel Sickles, slightly less infamous than Benjamin "Beast" Butler, slightly less incompetent than Ambrose Burnside. He was the complete package compared to those men. His HQ was described as a combination between a brothel and a gambling den apparently. Where no respectabel Victorian gentleman would allow himself to be seen.
Very ambitious too, he wanted to be America's dictator and was confident he could pull it off. And then this battle happened...oh well he ended up with a nice equestrian statue in Boston for his troubles at least.
"Fighting Joe" was a mess at independent command but putting him with the other reprobates is a bit of a stretch. He did reasonably well as a corps commander in the Western Theater with Sherman and served competently in the Western Theater until the end of the war.
Hooker was actually an excellent commander-- way ahead of his time in numerous respects, particularly what we would now call "C3I" (command, control, communications and intelligence). His intelligence bureau was so good that he went into the campaign knowing exactly what units Lee had, how strong they were, and where they were. And he made fantastic use of military telegraphy and signals in an era where long-distance communication was sketchy-to-nonexistent.
That's not to say that he handled the campaign flawlessly; he made a number of fairly serious errors on May 1 and 2 that allowed Jackson's attack to succeed. But as of mid-day on May 3, he had the Confederates exactly where he needed them to be-- concentrated awkwardly to the southwest of the main Union force with Fredericksburg and the crossings above it firmly in Union hands. All that was needed was a sharp turning maneuver to the southeast, just as Grant executed in 1864, and Lee was sunk. Unfortunately, he was semiconscious at the time, and (as alluded to in the video) had not fully confided his plans to his subordinates, who preferred to just end the battle rather than risk failure by further maneuvers.
These videos are legendary!
I would argue that Fredericksburg was a greater victory for him because it didnt get his right hand man killed
Lee also lost more men at chancellorsvillw than the union lost at Fredericksburg Almost 1/3 of his men were casualties. This is often overlooked due to the victory
Warhawk is a graphic video channel with similar quality but more historically correct. I suggest the creator reach out to Warhawk for collaboration
Unlike other History channels who would take sides in modern conflicts you should do one on the Russo Ukraine war and show both perspectives of the conflict instead of picking a side, and focus on the military aspects only.
This is why I like this channel, kings and generals and epic history because they are unbias straight facts, with no political woke crap getting in the way.
@Iamnotracistlmao tbf I don't bother watching the modern warfare ones so I didn't know that. Pepe de la kek to you too friend.
So excited to see American Civil War content on this channel!!!!!
Great video. Jacksons close scouting was dangerous to the extreme, and he paid the price . A more stable general would have left scouting to scouts.
Jackson was a strict Calvinist, believing everything to be pre-ordained. He took astounding risks believing his death would occur at God’s choosing and not secondary to his actions.
@@fredsmith8498
yep, 100%. he had absolutely no fear of death.
I can safely say this video kept me... hooked!
McLellan gets a lot of hate but his strategy is what won the Civil War he fought the south like a seige avoiding losing a major battle which would have gave the south what they needed to win all the while letting the south use more and more of their few precious resources to sustain the conflict 😊
That wasn't McClellan's strategy; that was Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan that he inherited. McClellan thought he could take Richmond and the South would fall apart, which was ludicrous (and he never accomplished it anyway).
PLEASE continue with a series about the battles of US Civil War. An unbiased, objective view of this era of American history, which has too often fallen victim to “political correctness”, is much needed.
Robert E Lee was a great man!
Except for being a traitor who took up arms against his country to defend slavery (which he thought Black people needed and deserved). What a guy.
@@user-dn3pz1yw2t Lee wrote and spoke against slavery, he refused to pick up arms against his country, Virginia. The US was not a unified nation at the time, it was a loose federation of states, Lincoln changed that legal precedent and made the US a unified nation.
@@99EKjohnthank you, it’s so frustrating when you get people who don’t understand at this point in time your state was FAR more important than the USA, it’s nothing like it is a today. You were a Virginian, a Texan, a Georgian first and foremost and an American second. And they weren’t trying to overthrow the DC govt, they were trying to withdraw from the union that they joined, but you can’t make them understand. Gotta love historically ignorant people who are so sure of what they don’t know…
@@user-dn3pz1yw2tI’m not trying to be rude, but you are completely historically ignorant. Is Washington or Jefferson a great man? Because Lee did nothing that those men didn’t do. Lee was a great man, but people like you don’t understand the nuances of history unfortunately, try to educate yourself, I mean this in the nicest way possible. State allegiance was far more important at that time, nobody viewed themselves as an Americans first.
@@user-dn3pz1yw2tHe didn’t betray his country. His loyalty was to Virginia and by extension, the United States. When Virginia ceased to be a member of that union, he no longer had loyalty to it.
The idea of nationalism in terms of countries rather than regions is a very 20th century concept. This is what made the colonies of the American revolution so difficult to unify. Nobody was interested in a union, they were interested in their own region or colony’s interests.
Even the British empire struggled with uprisings who were loyal only to England, Scotland, Wales, or Ireland and not Britain as a whole.
If you asked an IRA soldier if he was betraying his country, he’d laugh at you before blowing you up. His country isn’t the United Kingdom, it’s Ireland.
I can’t wait for the next episode on the Hannibal Barca series!
Sacrifice to the algorithm!!!
You really need to do a Gettysburg video. It will be long but worth it. Maybe even get some of the American Battlefield Trust guys to help with it, and your channel will get more notoriety from it. Gettysburg was larger than any battle that Napoleon ever fought.
Lee's army was never the same after the events at Chancellorsville and would lead Lee to disaster at Gettysburg via the restructure of Army after the death of Jackson which would have dire effects at Gettysburg with two new Corps commanders leading to huge mistakes made by AP Hill and Dick Ewell and the age old question would Jackson have taken that Hill at Gettysburg if he were alive.
Very informative !!!