"why did Robert R Lee lose the battle of Gettysburg?" Ordering a charge into an open field with heavy Union canon fire was probably it. An unbelievably idiotic order from a General who should have known better or listened to his staff
@@Fhurin Correct. Even if the assault had achieved its objective, the attrition and loss of men would still have been nearly as great, something that Lee could not afford. He still would have been stuck in enemy territory with a hobbled and undersupplied army. Even a technical victory at Gettysburg probably would have proved to be a Pyrrhic one.
I write from England . You are absolutely right. The way Lee is depicted in the film Gettysburg conjours up images of the British generals of World War One - donkeys leading lions to reverse the normal phrase.
Lee's cavalry lost touch with the army and Lee had no good intelligence as to what the Union army was doing before and during the first two days of the battle.
Chancellorsville was right before Gettysburg. And what Lee did in May was beyond believable. With a army that was already short (Longstreet was in N.Carolina) he divided his army at least 3x in the face of a superior force ! And nearly drove it into the river. Hard not to think your are invincible so immediately after such a showing. But Lee learned a hard lesson : - Frontal assault (so stupid) - Faulty intelligence (not believing that nearly the entire AOP was on the field by the evening of the 2nd also stupid) - Loss of Stonewall (relying on Ewell and Hill to be up to Jackson's par, unwise)
At a UDC Meeting, General Picket was asked why General Lee lost The Battle of Gettysburg! He stated, “The last time I checked, the Yankees had something to do with it!”
@@lpwienert7358 Jackson only commanded a brigade, probably didn’t have much influence with Johnston, or Beauregard (or Davis. who was on the scene by that time) but there should have been at least an attempt!
The seldom mentioned factor is the Union rate of march. It is often stated that the marches before Gettysburg were difficult, but no credit is given to their result. Meade for the first time parked the ambulances and supply wagons to give the fighting forces priority on the road. As a result, those forces marched several times faster than they had before, and more Union troops were at Gettysburg than Lee anticipated. Of course, no ambulances or supplies proved a difficulty for the Union forces, but the speed and numbers led to a victory.
The battle should have been one on the second day. Two corps commanders (Hill and Ewell) and several other generals including Anderson, Mahone, Posey, Rodes and Early failed to carry out their responsibiliteis.
Lee lost Gettysburg because it is a war and you don’t win every battle. He had won almost every battle from 7 days to Chancellorsville (Antietam was a draw). Winning every battle against great odds prob gave him a false sense of security
@@irockuroll60 Seven Days was a strategic victory because McClellan had decided to start running away before the fighting even started. Tactically, Lee was defeated in almost every engagement. At Gaines Mill, Lee had a huge numerical advantage yet lost more men and accomplished nothing. Just a few days after Gaines Mill, Lee suffered an awful defeat at Malvern Hill. What did the two battles have in common? Lee attacked uphill against determined infantry and massed artillery. What happened at Gettysburg? Lee attacked uphill against determined infantry and massed artillery. Conclusion: Lee hadn't been learning from his mistakes. If he couldn't defeat Porter at Gaines Mill when the rebels had a huge numerical advantage, how on earth did he think he could be able to defeat Meade with uphill attacks across open ground when the rebels were outnumbered?
@@aaronfleming9426 did the seven days battle drive McClellan from Richmond? Did it drive McClellan from the Peninsula? I love know it alls aka virgins.
STUART was the reason as Lee didnt know where the union army was..then a attack up hill against defended positions and over open ground..longstreet knew what to do drop back and set up defencive positions.
Shelby Foote said that Gettysburg was the price the confederacy paid to have Lee as their Commanding General. And as has been suggested, Lee had not lost a significant battle to that point and had a belief that the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia was somehow invincible!
1. Lee got his troops butchered at Malvern Hill by marching them up a well-defended hill. While some may not consider MH to be a significant battle, it seems significant in that Lee didn't learn from it. 2. Lee also lost the battle of Antietam, a serious strategic setback made worse by how successful the Maryland campaign could have been if he hadn't foolishly stayed to fight at Antietam.
@@aaronfleming9426 Correct. Lee lost the two most crucial battles, Antietam and Gettysburg. Moreover, both attacks were not really good strategy, as Porter Alexander pointed out. An invasion of the North could not be sustained logistically.
@@heridfel I think the invasions of '62 and '63 were well conceived as opportunities to get supplies on Union soil; to shift the theater of operations at least temporarily; and to create possible opportunities for battlefield success. In the case of the invasion of Maryland, Lee got the opportunity to capture Harpers Ferry, with mountains of materiel and a garrison of over 12,000 troops - a very good haul indeed. Where both campaigns fell apart was when Lee insisted on giving pitched battle, going for a knockout punch when he could have a smaller success at much lower cost.
@ I believed that as well; however, after reading Porter Alexanders book, I doubt it a bit. He argues that the South could have used its interior lines to quickly shift a great number troops to the West and overwhelm one of the western armies like in Ky or Tennessee instead of defending everywhere with numerical inferiority. The invasions of Maryland or Pennsylvania could not realistically achieve much more than a glorified raid, since supplies of ammo etc could not be sustained. Moreover, Lee had a penchant for attacking even strong defences, wasting way more men than the Confederates could afford
@@heridfel Alexander's case certainly has merit: look at what happened at Chickamauga when Lee finally did send Longstreet and 10k crack troops to the west! Chickamauga was, in my opinion, far closer to being a war-winning battle than anything Lee ever engineered. Glorified raids are underrated, in my opinion. Bragg's invasion/raid of Kentucky was vilified in the Confederacy, and while Bragg was far from perfect, he shifted the theater of operations out of Tennessee for several months; Rosecrans didn't begin to move toward Chattanooga until December! And going back to Alexander...what if Lee had sent Bragg another 10k men for Murfreesboro...?
Weight and age issues aside as it is beating an already over-discussed dead horse, reenactors should know by now how to poperly wear/don your kit. Accoutrement belts should be worn at the waist...not haphazardly hanging off the hips.. This among other...
1. Should have gone around to the right and forced Meade to chase him to Washington 2. Another confidant (Stonewall Jackson) was killed several days earlier 3. Rumour has it General Lee may have suffered a heart attack prior to the battle to name more possible reasons
And how would he have gone around to the right? Meade controlled the roads to the south; any route Lee might have taken, Meade would be able to use interior lines of march to beat Lee to the spot.
Longstreet correctly believed that the Confederates needed to fight a defensive battle, given their numerical inferiority. Lee underestimated the Army of the Potomac, nd although day 2 should have taught him, he got stubborn and ordered Picketts charge, a stupid move if ever there was one. He definitely does not deserve a place among the Great Captains, he lost his two most important battles, Antietam and Gettysburg, both offensive battles when he needed to fight defensive ones given the balance of forces. Chancellorsville was a fluke: Lee thought it was a pattern.
"Chancellorsville was a fluke: Lee thought it was a pattern." Yes! Thank you! So tired of people treating Chancellorsville like it was some sort of genius move, when it was actually a wild gamble that got lucky.
I believe that Lee sent General Stuart and his cavalry around the Union line with the orders to attack the Union center from the rear. The attack was supposed to be timed with Pickett's charge. General Stuart cavalry was stopped by Union cavalry. The Union cavalry was led by Gen. Gregg and was only 1/10 the size of Stuarts. If Stuart had reached the center rear at the time Pickett's men reached the stone wall, Lee would have won. Lee's battle plan was solid but depended on Stuart getting behind the Union line. Gen Gregg along with Gen. Custer's Wolverines, saved the day and perhaps the Union. Yes Grant took Vicksburg the next day but if Lee would have pushed and taken Washington, well let's just say all of us you be saying y'all.
Lee, what a disaster, his decision making at Gettysburg, it totaly erased all of his previous stategy and prior success, was his failure a culminating weakness, one that would bring light to his lack of leadership and validation, or was this a judgment, and devine intervention at the hands of our creator ?
Lee's decisions at Gettysburg were fairly predictable, given his previous mistakes and the way he interpreted Union mistakes. Biblical examples of the creator intervening in battle are typically more decisive and less ambiguous in origin: an earthquake that throws the enemy into panic; a stone wall crumbling inexplicably; and army being struck down by a plague in a single night; etc. Gettysburg, on the other hand, is a pretty non-miraculous chain of events leading from mistakes on the rebel side and courage and skillful generalship on the Union side.
Imagine a time when you think 15,000 men can take a position and think over 100,000 union men will just say "screw it" and go home as the rest of the Confederate Army will catch up and sweep through the other defenses (yea, most were a southern approach to DC) to hand a letter over. This was a desperate attempt which was Quixotic, but I guess what other option did they have?
What other option did they have? Retreat to Virginia without losing another 10k casualties and have that many more men to resist when Meade tried to move into Virginia again.
Interesting question. It certainly could have helped. As it happened, Lincoln was in bad shape in the summer of '64, with the Democrats running on a peace platform. A few more rebel victories might have been enough to convince the public to vote Lincoln out of office. Personally, I think that Chickamauga was much closer to being a decisive victory for the rebels. Rosecrans was isolated and trapped at Chattanooga after Chickamauga; a defeated Union army after Gettysburg would easily find refuge, supplies, and reinforcements nearby.
this is the shortest documentary of Gettysburg EVER... omg 2 min 53 seconds... theyre usually a minimum of 45 minutes. hmm mb this is like a Cliffnotes doc
FALL !? The battle was supposed to slam the southern forces .... after three days of slaughter and no positions overrun or decided victory ..... the field of battle was near even in death tolls for each side .... 53,000 men perished at Gettysburg ! Lee and his second division each retired from the conflict - as did the North .... each wanting to minimize losses for another day.
It was crazy stuff to make this assault and this attack without the required Intelligence of what the Union Forces were upto or planned to do. But with this defeat the Confederacy were always going to be defeated.
Lincoln was in serious political trouble in the summer of '64. It might not have taken too many more rebel victories in '63 or '64 to tip the scales so that the northern public would vote Lincoln out in favor of a peace candidate.
It's simple Nathan Bedford Forrest was ordered to flank the hill with pickit but followed a trail gold laden wagons with beer bullets 😉 BTW this guy is clueless your welcome
@@manilajohn0182 several factors. Meade while not exactly a genius was a solid general who was not going to do anything stupid, so you basically had to beat him outright. The army of the Potomac at the time of the battle was dangerous basically like a wounded grizzly bear who had egg on their face from several bad losses, but were still basically in tact as a fighting force and their back was to the wall. And this time they were fighting on their own home soil. Whereas the Confederate Army was dangerously overconfident. Lee was also not at his best, he was not only sick during the battle but had two new corps commanders in their first battle, and even they weren't 100% as Hill was sick too. And even his two remaining experienced subordinates Longstreet and Stuart did not perform particularly well during the campaign at a time when Lee needed both to be at their best. The Gettysburg campaign all in all was not very well planned and hasty. But Grant's siege of Vicksburg plus Virginia farms having been devastated and Lee needing to get the war out of Virginia forced him to move quickly, more so than he might have done under other circumstances. So none of Lee's subordinates really came through for him. Whereas in the Union army, they had probably their best lineup of the war between most particularly Reynolds, Hancock, and Slocum. Meade was fairly well liked in the army as he had not really sought out the job, whereasHooker was generally disliked by his subordinates. So they kind of came together to help out Meade.
@@joshlight6892 There was no planning of the Confederate campaign. Lee had no topographical department and had no idea of the ground in the north. He had only an idea of the road net. The AoNV was starving in its position along the Rappahannock. Lee's operational objective was to invade the north, forage off of Union territory, and restock the army's supply train. His plan of campaign was to maneuver the AotP into attacking the AoNV and decisively defeat that attack. Lee was allowed to do this by Confederate President Davis, who authorized Lee's invasion provided that Lee would achieve a great enough success to remove pressure from the Confederate defenders at Vicksburg. Lee's subordinates didn't fail him, or perform particularly badly. The critical errors of the campaign were made not by any of them, but by Lee himself- and before the battle at Gettysburg even began.
@@manilajohn0182 disagree. I'm not absolving Lee of blame for the battle, but saying his subordinates performed well is simply not accurate. Stuart did not report for weeks effectively leaving Lee blind, (though it was partly his fault for not using the cavalry available to him I concede but to do so would have left the supply trains unguarded), Ewell did not take Cemetery or Culp's Hill (though the vagueness of Lee's order was partly to blame), and Longstreet was slow to attack July 2nd as a result the Confederates failed to take Little Round Top by a matter of minutes. A.P Hill was sick the whole battle. Not that that's his fault, but it still supports my argument none of these guys was up to par. Longstreet gets a pass for the battle just because he felt Pickett's charge was a bad idea which was true. But his subpar performance on July 2nd is part of why they were in that desperate a position in the first place to try that. Granted, it was one of very few poor performances by Longstreet in the battle, he was excellent most of the rest of the war, but not in that battle.
@@joshlight6892 Hold on. I never said that Lee's subordinates performed well. I said that they "...didn't fail him, or perform particularly badly". The Stuart fiasco was Lee's fault completely. "One force, one objective" is a military standard practiced by every army on this planet since the dawn of military history. Lee placed Stuart in an impossible situation when he gave him two objectives for one (very small) force. Stuart lacked the strength to accomplish both simultaneously or the time to accomplish first one and then the other. Moreover, Stuart sent two messengers to inform Lee that the AotP was in motion northward but neither of them got through to Lee. Lee gave Ewell what in military parlance is known as a "discretionary order". Since Lee wasn't close enough to see for himself what was taking place, he left the decision on whether to take the hill up to the "man on the spot"- Ewell. Ewell's decision not to attack was the correct one given his situation and the information which he had available. Lee instructed Ewell twice not to bring on a general engagement. As Ewell commanded a corps, this precluded Ewell from taking any action which his corps couldn't accomplish. One if his divisions wasn't on scene, the other two had been marching since dawn and had seen combat, and he had received a report of Union forces moving on his left flank. Most importantly, Ewell had no idea of the strength on either Cemetery or Culp's Hill. Ewell did what Jackson was well- known for doing; he sent a reconnaissance unit to scout Cemetery Hill while he looked to the report regarding his flank. It was almost dark by the time that he established that the report was false. When his reconnaissance unit returned shortly afterward and reported the hill was held "...by a superior force", Ewell chose not to attack. It was only after the war was over that it became clear that Ewell probably could have taken the hill. Longstreet was not slow in attacking on 2 July. Lee's orders weren't even issued until 1100. The 30- minute delay in waiting for Law's brigade was authorized by Lee and the fiasco caused by moving down the wrong road bringing his corps within sight of Little Round Top was due to a guide sent by Lee. The remainder of the delay was due to moving his forces into position and Hood's formal complaint regarding the frontal assault. Far from being a bad idea, Lee's 3 July attack was the only viable option open to him. He was late getting into Pennsyvania (he wrote Davis to this effect) because he tasked his infantry formations with foraging while getting northward in good time, which they couldn't possibly do (Lee's fault), the information he needed to maneuver the AotP into attacking him didn't arrive (Lee's fault), and the resulting unexpected meeting engagement on 1 July ruined his plan of campaign because he assumed the tactical offensive to gain it. With Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville in recent memory, the AotP was unlikely in the extreme to attack him, particularly since they had a new commanding general at the helm. The AoNV was foraing and couldn't remain in any one area for more than 3- 5 days, and it hadn't foraged since Lee's concentration order of 29 June. Lastly- up to this point, Lee had done nothing to remove pressure from the Confederate defenders at Vicksburg, which was the strategic objective of the campaign- and they Vicksburg was placed under siege before Lee's campaign even began. Longstreet's idea of a flanking maneuver wasn't viable because: 1) Lee was out of time; 2) the local road net didn't support, and; 3) such a maneuver wasn't likely to elicit a major offensive by the AotP. Lee had to either attack or abandon the campaign in failure. Pickett's Charge was not the lamentable idea envisioned by so many. It was right in line with a variant of the Napoleonic strategic battle, where flank attacks would presumably draw local Union reinforcements from the closest locale- namely the Union center, leaving it weak for a concentrated assault. The primary reason why the attack failed was that Meade saw the attack coming. He told Gibbon on the night of 2 July that if Lee attacked on the 3rd, it would be on Gibbon's front. When Gibbon asked him why, Meade- himself a West Point Graduate- said that as Lee had attacked on both flanks and failed, an attack on 3 July would be in the center. Meade was ready when the attack came and he had approximately 20,000 Union reinforcements moved to the center, where they crushed the attack.
And the next day, Vicksburg surrendered, cutting the Confederacy in half and giving the Union full control of the Mississippi River.
And it got Lincoln re-elected.
@@donb7113 No, that was Sherman's capture of Atlanta a year later in 1864. That was when Lincoln was re-elected.
Mississippi River 😮
"I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." - George Pickett
That guy, to whom I am related by marriage into my extended family, had a damned good point there.
"why did Robert R Lee lose the battle of Gettysburg?"
Ordering a charge into an open field with heavy Union canon fire was probably it. An unbelievably idiotic order from a General who should have known better or listened to his staff
Wrong they were not supported.
@@edwardclement102 what? Lee was winning the battle, until he got it in his head to attack the center lines 😐
@@Fhurin Correct. Even if the assault had achieved its objective, the attrition and loss of men would still have been nearly as great, something that Lee could not afford. He still would have been stuck in enemy territory with a hobbled and undersupplied army. Even a technical victory at Gettysburg probably would have proved to be a Pyrrhic one.
I write from England . You are absolutely right. The way Lee is depicted in the film Gettysburg conjours up images of the British generals of World War One - donkeys leading lions to reverse the normal phrase.
Robert R. LEE.?
Pickett himself said that the Union Army had something to do with it. Lee didn’t lack cavalry.
Lee's cavalry lost touch with the army and Lee had no good intelligence as to what the Union army was doing before and during the first two days of the battle.
@@infantinofan He had at least one brigade of cavalry, plus other intelligence sources
@@TheBabashee Which Brigade and what other sources?
Lee believed his own press clippings, thought his army was invincible. Frontal assault proved otherwise
You mean invincible :)
Chancellorsville was right before Gettysburg.
And what Lee did in May was beyond believable.
With a army that was already short (Longstreet was in N.Carolina)
he divided his army at least 3x in the face of a superior force !
And nearly drove it into the river.
Hard not to think your are invincible so immediately after such a showing.
But Lee learned a hard lesson :
- Frontal assault (so stupid)
- Faulty intelligence (not believing that nearly the entire AOP was on the field by the evening of the 2nd also stupid)
- Loss of Stonewall (relying on Ewell and Hill to be up to Jackson's par, unwise)
Instead of how Lee lost it. How about how Meade won it?
At a UDC Meeting, General Picket was asked why General Lee lost The Battle of Gettysburg! He stated, “The last time I checked, the Yankees had something to do with it!”
Because Meade outfought him.
And General Buford had an "eye" for good high ground.
@@anthonyhengst2908 Definitely!
Lee lost the battle Gettysburg because of general Longstreet!!
@@WalterKing-f2h
No, lee lost in spite of Longstreet. Longstreet was right, attacking those hills was suicide.
NO!
Meade, "How did we win the battle? Easy. Our boys were better."
Stonewall wanted towards the capital immediately after Bull Run. Washington was open, Baltimore was open, troops were fresh.
@@lpwienert7358 Jackson only commanded a brigade, probably didn’t have much influence with Johnston, or Beauregard (or Davis. who was on the scene by that time) but there should have been at least an attempt!
The seldom mentioned factor is the Union rate of march. It is often stated that the marches before Gettysburg were difficult, but no credit is given to their result. Meade for the first time parked the ambulances and supply wagons to give the fighting forces priority on the road. As a result, those forces marched several times faster than they had before, and more Union troops were at Gettysburg than Lee anticipated. Of course, no ambulances or supplies proved a difficulty for the Union forces, but the speed and numbers led to a victory.
Cool detail
A confederate soldier at Gettysburg quoted, " the Yankees seemed to shoot straighter in the North"
The battle should have been one on the second day. Two corps commanders (Hill and Ewell) and several other generals including Anderson, Mahone, Posey, Rodes and Early failed to carry out their responsibiliteis.
Battlefields aren't chessboards. It's hard to carry out your responsibilities when the Union army is shooting at you.
still licking their wounds from Day 1
Not even remotely true.
Lee lost at Gettysburg because he didn't listen to General Longstreet.
Wrong Longstreet moved too slowly.
@@edwardclement102 Longstreet did not agree with Pickets Charge, Lee should have listened.
Lee lost Gettysburg because it is a war and you don’t win every battle. He had won almost every battle from 7 days to Chancellorsville (Antietam was a draw).
Winning every battle against great odds prob gave him a false sense of security
@@irockuroll60 Seven Days was a strategic victory because McClellan had decided to start running away before the fighting even started. Tactically, Lee was defeated in almost every engagement. At Gaines Mill, Lee had a huge numerical advantage yet lost more men and accomplished nothing.
Just a few days after Gaines Mill, Lee suffered an awful defeat at Malvern Hill.
What did the two battles have in common? Lee attacked uphill against determined infantry and massed artillery.
What happened at Gettysburg? Lee attacked uphill against determined infantry and massed artillery.
Conclusion: Lee hadn't been learning from his mistakes. If he couldn't defeat Porter at Gaines Mill when the rebels had a huge numerical advantage, how on earth did he think he could be able to defeat Meade with uphill attacks across open ground when the rebels were outnumbered?
@@aaronfleming9426 did the seven days battle drive McClellan from Richmond? Did it drive McClellan from the Peninsula?
I love know it alls aka virgins.
What’s with the Russians at 1:56?
STUART was the reason as Lee didnt know where the union army was..then a attack up hill against defended positions and over open ground..longstreet knew what to do drop back and
set up defencive positions.
Shelby Foote said that Gettysburg was the price the confederacy paid to have Lee as their Commanding General. And as has been suggested, Lee had not lost a significant battle to that point and had a belief that the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia was somehow invincible!
1. Lee got his troops butchered at Malvern Hill by marching them up a well-defended hill. While some may not consider MH to be a significant battle, it seems significant in that Lee didn't learn from it.
2. Lee also lost the battle of Antietam, a serious strategic setback made worse by how successful the Maryland campaign could have been if he hadn't foolishly stayed to fight at Antietam.
@@aaronfleming9426 Correct. Lee lost the two most crucial battles, Antietam and Gettysburg. Moreover, both attacks were not really good strategy, as Porter Alexander pointed out. An invasion of the North could not be sustained logistically.
@@heridfel I think the invasions of '62 and '63 were well conceived as opportunities to get supplies on Union soil; to shift the theater of operations at least temporarily; and to create possible opportunities for battlefield success. In the case of the invasion of Maryland, Lee got the opportunity to capture Harpers Ferry, with mountains of materiel and a garrison of over 12,000 troops - a very good haul indeed.
Where both campaigns fell apart was when Lee insisted on giving pitched battle, going for a knockout punch when he could have a smaller success at much lower cost.
@ I believed that as well; however, after reading Porter Alexanders book, I doubt it a bit. He argues that the South could have used its interior lines to quickly shift a great number troops to the West and overwhelm one of the western armies like in Ky or Tennessee instead of defending everywhere with numerical inferiority. The invasions of Maryland or Pennsylvania could not realistically achieve much more than a glorified raid, since supplies of ammo etc could not be sustained. Moreover, Lee had a penchant for attacking even strong defences, wasting way more men than the Confederates could afford
@@heridfel Alexander's case certainly has merit: look at what happened at Chickamauga when Lee finally did send Longstreet and 10k crack troops to the west! Chickamauga was, in my opinion, far closer to being a war-winning battle than anything Lee ever engineered.
Glorified raids are underrated, in my opinion. Bragg's invasion/raid of Kentucky was vilified in the Confederacy, and while Bragg was far from perfect, he shifted the theater of operations out of Tennessee for several months; Rosecrans didn't begin to move toward Chattanooga until December! And going back to Alexander...what if Lee had sent Bragg another 10k men for Murfreesboro...?
Every piece of bad luck hit Lee at the same time ? Outnumbered and Overextended lines didn’t allow for Any Mistakes ? Hubris or Desperation ? 🤔
Good and to the point!!
Weight and age issues aside as it is beating an already over-discussed dead horse, reenactors should know by now how to poperly wear/don your kit. Accoutrement belts should be worn at the waist...not haphazardly hanging off the hips.. This among other...
Charging across a vast open field at an enemy who is well fortified, while holding high ground...aint too smart!🙄
The glorification of Lee as a symbol of the defiant South is understandable, but dispassionate analysis would label him a fool.
1. Should have gone around to the right and forced Meade to chase him to Washington
2. Another confidant (Stonewall Jackson) was killed several days earlier
3. Rumour has it General Lee may have suffered a heart attack prior to the battle
to name more possible reasons
And how would he have gone around to the right? Meade controlled the roads to the south; any route Lee might have taken, Meade would be able to use interior lines of march to beat Lee to the spot.
Chairside Generals..I am with Pickett..the Union soldiers had something to do with the Confederates losing at Gettysburg.
Longstreet correctly believed that the Confederates needed to fight a defensive battle, given their numerical inferiority. Lee underestimated the Army of the Potomac, nd although day 2 should have taught him, he got stubborn and ordered Picketts charge, a stupid move if ever there was one. He definitely does not deserve a place among the Great Captains, he lost his two most important battles, Antietam and Gettysburg, both offensive battles when he needed to fight defensive ones given the balance of forces. Chancellorsville was a fluke: Lee thought it was a pattern.
"Chancellorsville was a fluke: Lee thought it was a pattern." Yes! Thank you! So tired of people treating Chancellorsville like it was some sort of genius move, when it was actually a wild gamble that got lucky.
Lee was outgeneraled by Meade.
Largely true.
He lost because he was too pig headed to listen to reason!
Lost all those men 😮
Yes
I believe that Lee sent General Stuart and his cavalry around the Union line with the orders to attack the Union center from the rear. The attack was supposed to be timed with Pickett's charge. General Stuart cavalry was stopped by Union cavalry. The Union cavalry was led by Gen. Gregg and was only 1/10 the size of Stuarts. If Stuart had reached the center rear at the time Pickett's men reached the stone wall, Lee would have won. Lee's battle plan was solid but depended on Stuart getting behind the Union line. Gen Gregg along with Gen. Custer's Wolverines, saved the day and perhaps the Union. Yes Grant took Vicksburg the next day but if Lee would have pushed and taken Washington, well let's just say all of us you be saying y'all.
Lee, what a disaster, his decision making at Gettysburg, it totaly erased all of his previous stategy and prior success, was his failure a culminating weakness, one that would bring light to his lack of leadership and validation, or was this a judgment, and devine intervention at the hands of our creator ?
Lee's decisions at Gettysburg were fairly predictable, given his previous mistakes and the way he interpreted Union mistakes.
Biblical examples of the creator intervening in battle are typically more decisive and less ambiguous in origin: an earthquake that throws the enemy into panic; a stone wall crumbling inexplicably; and army being struck down by a plague in a single night; etc. Gettysburg, on the other hand, is a pretty non-miraculous chain of events leading from mistakes on the rebel side and courage and skillful generalship on the Union side.
Meade had interior lines and the high ground. Lee didn't have enough artillery ammunition. A.P. was sick , Ewell failed .
Imagine a time when you think 15,000 men can take a position and think over 100,000 union men will just say "screw it" and go home as the rest of the Confederate Army will catch up and sweep through the other defenses (yea, most were a southern approach to DC) to hand a letter over. This was a desperate attempt which was Quixotic, but I guess what other option did they have?
What other option did they have? Retreat to Virginia without losing another 10k casualties and have that many more men to resist when Meade tried to move into Virginia again.
You misspelled “Gettysburg”.
Thanks. I’ll fix it.
was this an american version of stalingrad?
Not really. It's hard to compare them, though...the scale of the armies is just so different between the Civil War and WWII.
Forest was not at Gettysburg
Forrest was at a lot of major battles the rebels lost. Great cavalry raider, but not some sort of game-changer in pitched battles.
Lee and Forrest never met
Lee lost to a better general.
Wrong l disagree
There's a lot of truth to that. Meade did anticipate where Lee would attack on 3 July.
Better that day yes. Better overall? Debatable. Meade certainly was not better at Mine Run or Cold Harbor.
His intelligence was poor due to his cavalry gallivanting, and overconfidence.
Lee's intelligence problems and his 'lack of cavalry' (he actually had two other cavalry units he failed to use to that end) was Lee's own fault.
I wonder if the Confederacy would still have lost the war if they won at Gettysburg.
Interesting question. It certainly could have helped. As it happened, Lincoln was in bad shape in the summer of '64, with the Democrats running on a peace platform. A few more rebel victories might have been enough to convince the public to vote Lincoln out of office.
Personally, I think that Chickamauga was much closer to being a decisive victory for the rebels. Rosecrans was isolated and trapped at Chattanooga after Chickamauga; a defeated Union army after Gettysburg would easily find refuge, supplies, and reinforcements nearby.
It's unfortunate that Gen. Lee never studied the teachings of Sun Tzu.
Why is that unfortunate?
Because Lee failed to properly direct his Corp commanders. That and that stupid Napoleonic charge the last day.
this is the shortest documentary of Gettysburg EVER... omg 2 min 53 seconds... theyre usually a minimum of 45 minutes. hmm mb this is like a Cliffnotes doc
FALL !? The battle was supposed to slam the southern forces .... after three days of slaughter and no positions overrun or decided victory ..... the field of battle was near even in death tolls for each side .... 53,000 men perished at Gettysburg ! Lee and his second division each retired from the conflict - as did the North .... each wanting to minimize losses for another day.
Shallow. Does not actually explain why Lee lost.
Not enough men and fire power no cannons
It was crazy stuff to make this assault and this attack without the required Intelligence of what the Union Forces were upto or planned to do.
But with this defeat the Confederacy were always going to be defeated.
Lincoln was in serious political trouble in the summer of '64. It might not have taken too many more rebel victories in '63 or '64 to tip the scales so that the northern public would vote Lincoln out in favor of a peace candidate.
The Union will come to you...but if you come to us...mmmm no
It's simple Nathan Bedford Forrest was ordered to flank the hill with pickit but followed a trail gold laden wagons with beer bullets 😉 BTW this guy is clueless your welcome
🤣🤣🤣
You mean Jeb Stuart.
Great .!!! The Union beat break off lee army .!!! Thank God the US Army .!!!!
Why does nobody ask “Why did George Meade WIN the battle of Gettysburg”?
Why did George Meade WIN the battle of Gettysburg? I asked.
@@manilajohn0182 several factors. Meade while not exactly a genius was a solid general who was not going to do anything stupid, so you basically had to beat him outright. The army of the Potomac at the time of the battle was dangerous basically like a wounded grizzly bear who had egg on their face from several bad losses, but were still basically in tact as a fighting force and their back was to the wall. And this time they were fighting on their own home soil. Whereas the Confederate Army was dangerously overconfident. Lee was also not at his best, he was not only sick during the battle but had two new corps commanders in their first battle, and even they weren't 100% as Hill was sick too. And even his two remaining experienced subordinates Longstreet and Stuart did not perform particularly well during the campaign at a time when Lee needed both to be at their best. The Gettysburg campaign all in all was not very well planned and hasty. But Grant's siege of Vicksburg plus Virginia farms having been devastated and Lee needing to get the war out of Virginia forced him to move quickly, more so than he might have done under other circumstances. So none of Lee's subordinates really came through for him. Whereas in the Union army, they had probably their best lineup of the war between most particularly Reynolds, Hancock, and Slocum. Meade was fairly well liked in the army as he had not really sought out the job, whereasHooker was generally disliked by his subordinates. So they kind of came together to help out Meade.
@@joshlight6892 There was no planning of the Confederate campaign. Lee had no topographical department and had no idea of the ground in the north. He had only an idea of the road net. The AoNV was starving in its position along the Rappahannock. Lee's operational objective was to invade the north, forage off of Union territory, and restock the army's supply train. His plan of campaign was to maneuver the AotP into attacking the AoNV and decisively defeat that attack. Lee was allowed to do this by Confederate President Davis, who authorized Lee's invasion provided that Lee would achieve a great enough success to remove pressure from the Confederate defenders at Vicksburg.
Lee's subordinates didn't fail him, or perform particularly badly. The critical errors of the campaign were made not by any of them, but by Lee himself- and before the battle at Gettysburg even began.
@@manilajohn0182 disagree. I'm not absolving Lee of blame for the battle, but saying his subordinates performed well is simply not accurate. Stuart did not report for weeks effectively leaving Lee blind, (though it was partly his fault for not using the cavalry available to him I concede but to do so would have left the supply trains unguarded), Ewell did not take Cemetery or Culp's Hill (though the vagueness of Lee's order was partly to blame), and Longstreet was slow to attack July 2nd as a result the Confederates failed to take Little Round Top by a matter of minutes. A.P Hill was sick the whole battle. Not that that's his fault, but it still supports my argument none of these guys was up to par. Longstreet gets a pass for the battle just because he felt Pickett's charge was a bad idea which was true. But his subpar performance on July 2nd is part of why they were in that desperate a position in the first place to try that. Granted, it was one of very few poor performances by Longstreet in the battle, he was excellent most of the rest of the war, but not in that battle.
@@joshlight6892 Hold on. I never said that Lee's subordinates performed well. I said that they "...didn't fail him, or perform particularly badly". The Stuart fiasco was Lee's fault completely. "One force, one objective" is a military standard practiced by every army on this planet since the dawn of military history. Lee placed Stuart in an impossible situation when he gave him two objectives for one (very small) force. Stuart lacked the strength to accomplish both simultaneously or the time to accomplish first one and then the other. Moreover, Stuart sent two messengers to inform Lee that the AotP was in motion northward but neither of them got through to Lee.
Lee gave Ewell what in military parlance is known as a "discretionary order". Since Lee wasn't close enough to see for himself what was taking place, he left the decision on whether to take the hill up to the "man on the spot"- Ewell. Ewell's decision not to attack was the correct one given his situation and the information which he had available. Lee instructed Ewell twice not to bring on a general engagement. As Ewell commanded a corps, this precluded Ewell from taking any action which his corps couldn't accomplish. One if his divisions wasn't on scene, the other two had been marching since dawn and had seen combat, and he had received a report of Union forces moving on his left flank. Most importantly, Ewell had no idea of the strength on either Cemetery or Culp's Hill. Ewell did what Jackson was well- known for doing; he sent a reconnaissance unit to scout Cemetery Hill while he looked to the report regarding his flank. It was almost dark by the time that he established that the report was false. When his reconnaissance unit returned shortly afterward and reported the hill was held "...by a superior force", Ewell chose not to attack. It was only after the war was over that it became clear that Ewell probably could have taken the hill.
Longstreet was not slow in attacking on 2 July. Lee's orders weren't even issued until 1100. The 30- minute delay in waiting for Law's brigade was authorized by Lee and the
fiasco caused by moving down the wrong road bringing his corps within sight of Little Round Top was due to a guide sent by Lee. The remainder of the delay was due to moving his forces into position and Hood's formal complaint regarding the frontal assault.
Far from being a bad idea, Lee's 3 July attack was the only viable option open to him. He was late getting into Pennsyvania (he wrote Davis to this effect) because he tasked his infantry formations with foraging while getting northward in good time, which they couldn't possibly do (Lee's fault), the information he needed to maneuver the AotP into attacking him didn't arrive (Lee's fault), and the resulting unexpected meeting engagement on 1 July ruined his plan of campaign because he assumed the tactical offensive to gain it. With Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville in recent memory, the AotP was unlikely in the extreme to attack him, particularly since they had a new commanding general at the helm. The AoNV was foraing and couldn't remain in any one area for more than 3- 5 days, and it hadn't foraged since Lee's concentration order of 29 June. Lastly- up to this point, Lee had done nothing to remove pressure from the Confederate defenders at Vicksburg, which was the strategic objective of the campaign- and they Vicksburg was placed under siege before Lee's campaign even began. Longstreet's idea of a flanking maneuver wasn't viable because: 1) Lee was out of time; 2) the local road net didn't support, and; 3) such a maneuver wasn't likely to elicit a major offensive by the AotP. Lee had to either attack or abandon the campaign in failure.
Pickett's Charge was not the lamentable idea envisioned by so many. It was right in line with a variant of the Napoleonic strategic battle, where flank attacks would presumably draw local Union reinforcements from the closest locale- namely the Union center, leaving it weak for a concentrated assault. The primary reason why the attack failed was that Meade saw the attack coming. He told Gibbon on the night of 2 July that if Lee attacked on the 3rd, it would be on Gibbon's front. When Gibbon asked him why, Meade- himself a West Point Graduate- said that as Lee had attacked on both flanks and failed, an attack on 3 July would be in the center. Meade was ready when the attack came and he had approximately 20,000 Union reinforcements moved to the center, where they crushed the attack.
Hot and humid 😫
When we make plans God laughs.
Well known jeb screwed it all up
каких "выводов" хочет московит дождливый?
Lack of intelligence why does that remind me of something. That’s trump right now!😅