OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Canoerebel »

(I am interested in your opinions - rather than opinions from the "General" Matrix forums - because I know most of you and therefore know the reliablity of what you might post).

Who do you think was most culpible for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg?

Shortly after the war, Jubal Early blamed Longstreet for failing to move with alacrity on the right flank on the second day of the battle.

A bit later, Longstreet had some pretty harsh criticism of Lee in choosing to fight an offensive battle when the circumstance, so Longstreet thought, called for a defensive battle.

Today, I think the weight of opinion is that Ewell carries the most blame in failing to attack the Union left on Cemetery Hill at the close of the first day.

We just received a manuscript at the magazine I work for intimating that Jubal Early is most culpable. This caught me by surprise and I'm trying to figure out if the writer has a legitimate theory. He says Early failed miserably in attacking Cemetery Hill on day two. But I've always felt that Early had a nearly impossble task - assaulting a well-dug-in enemy on the high ground.

Do any of you guys think Early is at fault? Or do you think that's a real stretch?

If not Early, who then? (I say Ewell, but that may be a shallow adoption of a commonly accepted but not necessarily well thought out theory).
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by SqzMyLemon »

Interesting post Canoerebel. For a Canadian, I have read quite abit on the Civil War, Foote and Catton being the main ones. Do you think blame can be laid at the door of any one Confederate General? My gut feeling would be to they were all at fault at some point during the battle, as they all seemed to have dropped the ball when called upon to make the proper decision on any of the three days of the battle.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Canoerebel »

As a complex and dramatic battle, there might have been dozens of "turning points" or decisive moments - you know, the kind of thing where "for want of a nail the shoe was lost..."

I think history proved Longstreet right - that a defensive battle would have been better.  So Lee might take blame on the operational level.  But Ewell deserves a healthy dose of blame.  Had Stonewall Jackson - dead just six weeks - been available the battle might have been very, very different.

In the end, though, George Pickett was problably right when he said, 'I think the Yankees had something to do with it."
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

I suppose you mean tactically because the valid quesiton of whether Lee should have fought any battle in that incursion is open. But that's a different article.

I'd also have to review my history books and ponder your question about who lost it, but I can tell you, after living here for almost twenty years, that Minnesotans are pretty sure who won it--the First Minnesota Volunteer, on the second day, on Cemetary Ridge. They took 83% casualties, still the highest in US history I believe, and their flag rests in the state Capitol.
The Moose
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Canoerebel »

Pfft!  Minnesota.
 
Most of you gents may know that Pickett's Charge is said to have represented the High Water Mark of the Confederacy.  That is, it was all downhill from that point to the end of the war.
 
I don't think many people are aware that a Georgia brigade covered the same ground that Pickett did, but a day earlier.  In fact, Wright's Georgia Brigade possibly went just a bit further.
 
Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina contributed the most troops to the Confederate militiary (no surprise, since those were probably the three most populous CSA states).  But Pickett's Charge was comprised almost entirely of Virginians and Tar Heels (with a smattering of other states, including Tennessee and Alabama, thrown in).  But there were no Georgians involved, unless you count Longstreet and Col. Porter Alexander, who commanded the artillery barrage that preceded the charge. 
 
Most or all of the Georgia brigades were too depleted from fighting on the first and second days of the battle, while Pickett's Charge was made up mostly of fresh or rested units.  So Georgia brigades like those of Wright, Benning, Gordon, Thomas, Doles, Anderson, and Semmes weren't involved.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Pfft!  Minnesota.

Most of you gents may know that Pickett's Charge is said to have represented the High Water Mark of the Confederacy.  That is, it was all downhill from that point to the end of the war.

Pfft, sir? I pfft you in return and raise you a small history lesson:

"July 2-3, 1863 – BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG
During the second day (July 2,’62), the Confederates had broken through Sickles’ position. With a failed attempt at rallying Sickles’ men, General Winfield S. Hancock had ordered the First that was held in reserve nearby to counterattack and fill the gap in the Union line until reinforcements could arrive. During the attack, three companies ‘C’, ‘F’, and 2nd Minnesota Sharpshooters Co. ‘L’, totaling some 73 men, had been detached. Out of the 262 men remaining that attacked to delay the rebs and restore the Union position, 215 were killed, wounded, or missing. Earlier in the day, Col. Wm. Colville had been relieved of arrest and resumed command the regiment. Gen. W.S. Hancock whose order “Colonel, do you see those colors?” (pointing at the advancing Confederate forces) “Then take them!”, later stated:

“I had no alternative but to order the regiment in. We had no force on hand to meet the sudden emergency. Troops had been ordered up and were coming on the run, but I saw that in some way five minutes must be gained or we were lost. It was fortunate that I found there so grand a body of men as the First Minnesota. I knew they must lose heavily and it caused me pain to give the order for them to advance, but I would have done it (even) if I had known every man would be killed. It was a sacrifice that must be made. The superb gallantry of those men saved our line from being broken. No soldiers on any field, in this or any other country, ever displayed grander heroism.”

Bruce Catton stated in Glory Road:

“The whole war had suddenly come to a focus in this smoky hollow, with a few score westerners trading their lives for the time the army needed…They had not captured the flag that Hancock had asked them to capture, but they still had their own flag and a great name…”

Lt. Col. Joseph B. Mitchell in his Decisive Battles of the Civil War stated:

“There is no other unit in the history of warfare that ever made such as charge and then stood its ground sustaining such losses.”

The attacking Confederate forces consisted of Wilcox’s Brigade, Anderson’s Division, A.P. Hill’s Corps. Wilcox had begun the days fighting with some 1,800 men in his unit although it is not known exactly how many were left at the time of the action with the First Minnesota. There are also indications that the 39th and 11th New York Regiments began the attack on the left of the First, while the 19th Mass. and 42nd New York were on the regiments right. In all these instances these supporting units fell back before completing the charge so that the First went in on its own. The First Minnesota has the distinction of sustaining the highest regimental losses in any battle, in proportion to the number engaged, in the Civil War.

On July 3rd the First found itself on the receiving end of Pickett’s charge. Co’s ‘C’ and ‘F’ had rejoined by this time and another 45 men became casualties. Thus by the end of the battle 64 men had been killed and 160 men wounded for a total of 224 casualties. By the end of July, Regimental strength stood at 175 men, but this included some of the slightly wounded who had returned to duty by this time. On top of such losses for the battle the First did manage to share in the glory of the Union Victory. Pvt. Marshall Sherman of Co. ‘C’ had captured the 28th Virginia’s colors and Cpl. Henry O’Brien spurred on the men with the colors and its shattered staff. Both would later receive the Medal of Honor for their feats."

http://www.firstminnesota.org/history/first.html
The Moose
User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by SqzMyLemon »

I used to play a computer game on Gettysburg by the title of "Sid Meier's Gettysburg" and even joined a clan to play multiplayer battles. I think my callsign was Clayton, as we were limited to officers from Tennessee since that was the pretense for the clan. We were the AOT (Army ot Tennessee) Clan. Playing that game was a great way to learn about the individual brigades and their leaders. Too bad it was Windows 95, I'd love to still be able to fire it up. I played almost every night while attending a technical college. [:D]

Earlier than that I used to play the Avalon Hill boardgame "Gettysburg" base on an actual topographic survey of the battlefield. It was a monster game but again a great way to learn about the terrain and battle as it developed.

I remember years ago seeing a diorama on the battle. The owner showed various actions from all three days of the battle and used over 10,000 figures on his display. He actually used cardboard to build up his terrain based on the map from the game I mentioned above. One layer of cardboard was 20' I believe. He had the topo all done perfectly and resin streams and the entire Town of Gettysburg built up. It really was an amazing display.

Sorry for the hijack. I just really enjoy the whole history of the Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg in particular. A lot of my interest in history has been influenced by a number of wargames over the years, and I'm finding WitP AE is no different. I've never read as many books as I have now on the Pacific War since playing this game.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
LST Express
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:38 am
Location: Texas

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by LST Express »

I'm not qualified to place blame but in my opinion the battle was lost on day one when the high ground was taken by the Union army.  After going there and walking the grounds, it's hard for me to imagine the Army of Northern Virginia ever taking those positions. But I'm curious to hear what you more knowledgeable guys have to say about it.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Canoerebel »

Okay, Bullwinkle, I suppose I need to acknowledge that Minnesotans did play an important role in the battle.  For one thing, Wright's Brigade was one of those involved in the "breakthrough" referred to in your reference:  "During the second day (July 2,’62), the Confederates had broken through Sickles’ position." 
 
On that note, had the Union managed to lose at Gettysburg, Sickles would have taken a fair bit of the blame.  For reasons unknown, he advanced his division well to the front of the Union MLR on the second day of the battle.  His division got mauled as a result.  (He was primarily a political appointment, so he had little military training).
 
But the Minnesota troops were some stout men.  Darn them.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
mdiehl
Posts: 3969
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by mdiehl »

Do any of you guys think Early is at fault? Or do you think that's a real stretch?

If not Early, who then? (I say Ewell, but that may be a shallow adoption of a commonly accepted but not necessarily well thought out theory).

In my view the problem lay with Stuart. The main chance to unhinge Meade came on Day 1, but absent any sort of recon it was a meeting engagement that combined discovery of opponent's disposition with the moment of engagement. Once Meade had settled in, the Army of the Potomac was basically an immovable object.

But as to calling it a matter of blame... ultimately, Lee chose to make the fight on that ground against well prepared US forces on Day 2 and Day 3. I'd say that the blame lies with him. Day 3 was especially ill advised.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Sardaukar »

I am speaking very bluntly now:

This is totally OT, does not belong to forum about Pacific War, does not have anything to do with air, land or naval Pacific War. In addition, while military, it has bad habit to get into political discussion.

Lock this.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I am speaking very bluntly now:

This is totally OT, does not belong to forum about Pacific War, does not have anything to do with air, land or naval Pacific War. In addition, while military, it has bad habit to get into political discussion.

Lock this.


It's marked with an OT.
The Moose
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Sardaukar »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I am speaking very bluntly now:

This is totally OT, does not belong to forum about Pacific War, does not have anything to do with air, land or naval Pacific War. In addition, while military, it has bad habit to get into political discussion.

Lock this.


It's marked with an OT.

As in past others that did degenerate to "shit-fest"...
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by JeffroK »

A long distance point of view, and I dont think there is an answer.

The battle was unplanned, was it Heth's Division which went to Gettyusburg looking for boots?

Stuarts absence meant that little recon (maybe why the Union left a Sqn sized cavalry unit with many Divisions) was done to ascertain Union movements.

For the South, Buford's Div was the wrong unit in the wrong place at the wrong time, an easy walk into Gettysburg and swipe the boots turned into a major engagement.

Its always possible to blame Divs/Corps for pushing hard enough on Day 1 or 2, how far had they marched and did they know what was ahead of them (we do, 150 years later) Again, were was the Cavalry.

I think Lee missed Jackson, his other Commanders pale into insignifigance.

Why not a slip to the right, copying Jackson's move at The Wilderness, again, where was Stuart plus a little less intel on enemy ground.

Pickets Charge was stupid, Lee should have cut his losses.

I think Lee erred in fighting this battle, he should have chosen his ground as at Antietam, even picking the right place for an attack.
Stuart is culpable for swanning off earning glory instead of being the eyes and ears of the Army, even detaching a Brigade might have made a major differance.
Lees Commanders were not exactly the epitome of being good subordinates.
Meade (or Hancock) found the right place to take on the South, and were lucky the South wasnt having its best days.

I dont know anyone is to blame, lots of people contributed to the failure of the Southern attacks and the succesful defense by the North, maybe you should blame Chamberlain!
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I am speaking very bluntly now:

This is totally OT, does not belong to forum about Pacific War, does not have anything to do with air, land or naval Pacific War. In addition, while military, it has bad habit to get into political discussion.

Lock this.


It's marked with an OT.

As in past others that did degenerate to "shit-fest"...

Not always. I refer you to the thread right below this one, about the Elf on the Abe (Not marked 'OT' BTW.) That could go to the Iranian situation, but it probably won't. Just like htis one won't lead to a bunch of crazed rebels heading north with Rifles by WalMart. IMO of course.
The Moose
pmelheck1
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Alabama

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by pmelheck1 »

I also agree that failure to seize the high ground was not good for the south. Their is also more than enough mistakes to go around. I remember reading about a rifle that the union had that was an advantage at this battle as well. As for this being off topic I'm sure there others here who have other area's of historical interest besides WW2 in the pacific. Hopefully that interest in other history can keep any such discussion pleasant.
User avatar
Blackhorse
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Eastern US

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Blackhorse »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

On that note, had the Union managed to lose at Gettysburg, Sickles would have taken a fair bit of the blame.  For reasons unknown, he advanced his division well to the front of the Union MLR on the second day of the battle.  His division got mauled as a result.  (He was primarily a political appointment, so he had little military training).

Sickles' advance made sense, in isolation. He advanced to more defensible terrain (Cemetery ridge petered out just north of his assigned position). IIRC, he consulted with reknowned Union artillerist Henry Hunt before shifting his position. Sickles' unforgivable military error was in not first getting permission from Gen'l Meade, or at least coordinating with Hancock to his right before moving forward into a position with his 'flanks in the air.'

To your original question, I'd find it hard to blame Early for failing to take Culp's Hill on day 2. There were weaknesses in the Union position, particularly south of the hill, but the whole Union army was near there in a bunch, and reinforcements could have been rushed to conatain any CSA breakthrough. Whatever Meade's failings on that battlefield, he was quick to reinforce threatened sectors.

If we're looking to apportion blame for missed opportunities, I'd go with 1) Ewell for failing to pursue the broken XIth Corps on Day 1, 2) Stuart, for his third attempt to ride around the Union Army, 3) -- as much as I hate to say it -- Lee, for ignoring Longstreet's advice to march around Meade's southern flank, and for asking too much of his men on the third day.
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

(I am interested in your opinions - rather than opinions from the "General" Matrix forums - because I know most of you and therefore know the reliablity of what you might post).

Who do you think was most culpible for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg?

Shortly after the war, Jubal Early blamed Longstreet for failing to move with alacrity on the right flank on the second day of the battle.

A bit later, Longstreet had some pretty harsh criticism of Lee in choosing to fight an offensive battle when the circumstance, so Longstreet thought, called for a defensive battle.

Today, I think the weight of opinion is that Ewell carries the most blame in failing to attack the Union left on Cemetery Hill at the close of the first day.

We just received a manuscript at the magazine I work for intimating that Jubal Early is most culpable. This caught me by surprise and I'm trying to figure out if the writer has a legitimate theory. He says Early failed miserably in attacking Cemetery Hill on day two. But I've always felt that Early had a nearly impossble task - assaulting a well-dug-in enemy on the high ground.

Do any of you guys think Early is at fault? Or do you think that's a real stretch?

If not Early, who then? (I say Ewell, but that may be a shallow adoption of a commonly accepted but not necessarily well thought out theory).


Early should get a good portion of the blame for convincing Ewell that assualting Cemetary Hill on the first day was "not practicable". Ewell was still rather unsure of himself as a Corps Commander, and leaned on Early for advice.

Lee should be blaimed for letting Stuart go running off on his own, and for forgetting to bring up his other three Cavalry Brigades to make up for Stuart's absense. And if he REALLY wanted Cemetary Hill taken on the first day, he should have gone in person and ordered Ewell to move. Overall, Longstreet was probably right that the Confederates should have sought a defensive battle once on Northern soil.
User avatar
BeastieDog
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:23 pm

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by BeastieDog »

Lee - against interior lines on high ground - should have passed
Dog
User avatar
Capt Cliff
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:48 pm
Location: Northwest, USA

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

Post by Capt Cliff »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I suppose you mean tactically because the valid quesiton of whether Lee should have fought any battle in that incursion is open. But that's a different article.

I'd also have to review my history books and ponder your question about who lost it, but I can tell you, after living here for almost twenty years, that Minnesotans are pretty sure who won it--the First Minnesota Volunteer, on the second day, on Cemetary Ridge. They took 83% casualties, still the highest in US history I believe, and their flag rests in the state Capitol.

Hey Bullwinkle, the 1st Minnesota held the line at Plum Run on the 2nd day, that is a bit north of the Devils Den and east of the Wheat Field. A single Union regiment took on a full brigade (Wilcox's I think)an stop them. Definitely the last full measure of devotion.
Capt. Cliff
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”