What made Meade great is that ,unlike other Union leaders, he was not afraid of Lee. Just because Lee won the 1st day did not cause Meade to panic. He saw the strengths & weaknesses of both army's & beat down Lee's army. Grant was smart to keep him.
It’s true that the Confederacy often faced numerical disadvantages during key battles, including Gettysburg. At Gettysburg, approximately 93,000 Union troops confronted around 72,000 Confederates. Despite this disadvantage, Confederate forces initially gained ground on the first day. However, the Union's strategic positioning and reinforcements played a crucial role in their eventual victory. The battle's outcome marked a significant turning point in the Civil War and highlighted the challenges faced by the Confederacy in sustaining their military efforts against a larger Union army. ~Kay
@@RootHistoryChannel well said, I suppose this account from Meade was either early before he had better information or was biased/designed to make himself look more heroic to Lincoln.
I would Like to see, you do more videos on Meade. My specialty is the siege of Petersburg Virginia. I won an award for a book called the Petersburg campaign. I’d like to share my material with you so you can do more videos.
Lee said Meade will make no mistake on my front and if I do he will exploit it. Imho the next 5 months show them as equals in competency. Day one was not an orderly withdrawal. Barlow did what Sickles did on day 2. Overextending the line and looking up on Oak Hill. Meade said afterward that no 5500 men could hold that ground. This is a rehash. Read Meade at Gettysburg a Study in Command by Brown. I’ve always been a solid Meade guy since I was in Jr High. Meadeous Victorious
The confederates had a numerical advantage on day 1. Day 2 before 6th corps arrival it was fairly even. What hurt the confederates was the length of their lines relative to union. If im not mistaken the sides counted army size differently. The union numbers included, cooks, drivers, horse tenders, laborers etc while confederates didn't.
At Gettysburg, Lee pretty much shredded his own Army. After that while Meade remained in Army command, it was Grant and Sherman that did most of the shredding.
Thank you for bringing these mistakes to our attention. We are trying our best to make these videos as correct as possible and bringing up the mistakes helps us make sure we won’t make them in future videos. -Kay
Actually the attack on the union center on day 3 “pickett’s charge” saw overwhelming confederate numbers compared to the actual number of Union troops in the center, also on Day 3 Stuart’s Cavalry made a rear attack which was thwarted by Union Cavalry at East Cavalry field, was supposed to be an attack on the rear of the union center but didn’t pan out.
Ya Longstreet was right. Lee had to feel like Napoleon though and over whelmed, at least Ewell was on day 1. His lack of ability caused the Confederate the battle.
On the maps you talk corps but the maps show names ... not being knowledgeable on the names .... it makes us of the maps much less useful ... I like the program but pls be consistent !
Most historians would dispute your claim that Gettysburg was a significant turning point in the war. It was a large battle, and its location in the North allowed it to be easily visited by veterans, but the next year, 1864, saw heavy fighting before the war's outcome was clear.
What are you talking about? Whenever you hear Gettysburg mentioned it is nearly always touted as one of if not THE most critical battle of the war. A lot of historians would say that the twin victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg were the death knell of the Confederacy because Lee’s army was so crippled that he never went on the offensive again and the Confederacy was cut in two.
@@Zarastro54 Vicksburg important, yes. Gettysburg, not so much. Sure, "Gettysburg was a turning point" is a popular opinion, but most historians disagree. Of course, it's an opinion and up for debate.
@@Zarastro54 Let me give an example. Gary Gallagher edited a collection of essays, "The Third Day at Gettysburg and Beyond." His own essay, "Lee's Army Has Not Lost Any of Its Prestige," begins the book. The essay ends with these words: "Confederates across the South persisted in viewing Lee as an invincible commander whose army increasingly sustained the hopes of the entire nation. For them, as for most of the men in the Army of Northern Virginia, Gettysburg was not a harbinger of eventual ruin."
@@kevinlewallen4778 Okay, but those were the opinions of Southerners who could not see the bigger picture. History is replete with losing sides believing they still had a chance long after the tide had turned. Do you have any strategic historian opinions of Gettysburg?
@@Zarastro54 Here's another example. Carol Reardon, in her excellent book about Pickett's Charge, wrote: "The seductiveness of the notion that somehow this one moment marked the war’s turning point quickly blurred the historical reality that very few soldiers who survived the charge and its repulse actually had felt that way."
As a means of supporting our efforts please hit the LIKE & SUBSCRIBE button.🙏🤍
What made Meade great is that ,unlike other Union leaders, he was not afraid of Lee. Just because Lee won the 1st day did not cause Meade to panic. He saw the strengths & weaknesses of both army's & beat down Lee's army. Grant was smart to keep him.
Meade was lucky. Hancock really won. Also, Lincoln did not like Meade.
This report from Meade hardly challenges the established narratives. If anything, it outlines the established narratives rather faithfully.
Confederacy hardly ever had a numerical advantage in any battle and certainly not at Gettysburg.
It’s true that the Confederacy often faced numerical disadvantages during key battles, including Gettysburg. At Gettysburg, approximately 93,000 Union troops confronted around 72,000 Confederates. Despite this disadvantage, Confederate forces initially gained ground on the first day. However, the Union's strategic positioning and reinforcements played a crucial role in their eventual victory. The battle's outcome marked a significant turning point in the Civil War and highlighted the challenges faced by the Confederacy in sustaining their military efforts against a larger Union army.
~Kay
@@RootHistoryChannel well said, I suppose this account from Meade was either early before he had better information or was biased/designed to make himself look more heroic to Lincoln.
@@RootHistoryChannelthe South had the most generals and officers that graduated West Point
That could be said about practically anybody @@texasjasper
@@Paulftate you’re absolutely right.
I would Like to see, you do more videos on Meade. My specialty is the siege of Petersburg Virginia. I won an award for a book called the Petersburg campaign. I’d like to share my material with you so you can do more videos.
Lee said Meade will make no mistake on my front and if I do he will exploit it. Imho the next 5 months show them as equals in competency. Day one was not an orderly withdrawal. Barlow did what Sickles did on day 2. Overextending the line and looking up on Oak Hill. Meade said afterward that no 5500 men could hold that ground. This is a rehash. Read Meade at Gettysburg a Study in Command by Brown. I’ve always been a solid Meade guy since I was in Jr High. Meadeous Victorious
Lincoln later told Meade that Meade's pursuit of Lee after the battle reminded him of an old woman shooing geese across a river.
General Meade was a solid soldier
The confederates had a numerical advantage on day 1. Day 2 before 6th corps arrival it was fairly even. What hurt the confederates was the length of their lines relative to union.
If im not mistaken the sides counted army size differently. The union numbers included, cooks, drivers, horse tenders, laborers etc while confederates didn't.
The confederates didn't count those as soldiers because they used slaves for many of those non-combat positions.
Meade was an amazing general, shredded Lee's army, and saved the Union.
At Gettysburg, Lee pretty much shredded his own Army. After that while Meade remained in Army command, it was Grant and Sherman that did most of the shredding.
With all due respect to Gen. Meade, Gen Howard deployed his 2nd division and artillery on Cemetery Hill not Cemetery Ridge.
8:38 pictured is General Hays not Newton
Thank you for bringing these mistakes to our attention. We are trying our best to make these videos as correct as possible and bringing up the mistakes helps us make sure we won’t make them in future videos.
-Kay
Longstreet was right
Longstreet was slow
Lee never took his army that far north again
so where is the untold part? they just want subscribers
"Union troops fought valiantly over OVERWHELMING Confederate forces?' Could you tell me what you are talking about??
Well, I Corps and XI Corpps were overwhelmed on July 1, and III Corps was overwhelmed on July 2. So there's that.
Actually the attack on the union center on day 3 “pickett’s charge” saw overwhelming confederate numbers compared to the actual number of Union troops in the center, also on Day 3 Stuart’s Cavalry made a rear attack which was thwarted by Union Cavalry at East Cavalry field, was supposed to be an attack on the rear of the union center but didn’t pan out.
Ya Longstreet was right. Lee had to feel like Napoleon though and over whelmed, at least Ewell was on day 1. His lack of ability caused the Confederate the battle.
Stonewall would have taken Cemetery Hill. Maybe Culp's...
On the maps you talk corps but the maps show names ... not being knowledgeable on the names .... it makes us of the maps much less useful ... I like the program but pls be consistent !
Most historians would dispute your claim that Gettysburg was a significant turning point in the war. It was a large battle, and its location in the North allowed it to be easily visited by veterans, but the next year, 1864, saw heavy fighting before the war's outcome was clear.
What are you talking about? Whenever you hear Gettysburg mentioned it is nearly always touted as one of if not THE most critical battle of the war. A lot of historians would say that the twin victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg were the death knell of the Confederacy because Lee’s army was so crippled that he never went on the offensive again and the Confederacy was cut in two.
@@Zarastro54 Vicksburg important, yes. Gettysburg, not so much. Sure, "Gettysburg was a turning point" is a popular opinion, but most historians disagree. Of course, it's an opinion and up for debate.
@@Zarastro54 Let me give an example. Gary Gallagher edited a collection of essays, "The Third Day at Gettysburg and Beyond." His own essay, "Lee's Army Has Not Lost Any of Its Prestige," begins the book. The essay ends with these words: "Confederates across the South persisted in viewing Lee as an invincible commander whose army increasingly sustained the hopes of the entire nation. For them, as for most of the men in the Army of Northern Virginia, Gettysburg was not a harbinger of eventual ruin."
@@kevinlewallen4778 Okay, but those were the opinions of Southerners who could not see the bigger picture. History is replete with losing sides believing they still had a chance long after the tide had turned. Do you have any strategic historian opinions of Gettysburg?
@@Zarastro54 Here's another example. Carol Reardon, in her excellent book about Pickett's Charge, wrote: "The seductiveness of the notion that somehow this one moment marked the war’s turning point quickly blurred the historical reality that very few soldiers who survived the charge and its repulse actually had felt that way."
Overwhelming Confederate forces? Something like 75K for the Grey and 90K for the Blue? Boy they have strange mathematics in 1863.