Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Jonathan4290
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Overrated Battles Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 02:11 |
How did it turn the tide? If the Confederates win at Gettysburg, they would still have suffered high casualties, and Union forces would move back and establish a new defensive position. The battle wouldn't have helped the Confederacy win any of the decisive campaigns such as Chattannoga in the Western Theater and it was this theater that proved more important.
|
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 22:03 |
Originally posted by cavalry4ever
Lee's army escaped to Virginia in pretty good shape. |
but this is just as much true for Gettysburg. tactcially the battles were not too different actually, also the strategical outcome was the same. the southerners route to the north was only closed by Sheridans valley campaign.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 06:14 |
Temujin, at Gettysburg, Lee lost soime of his best and most experienced men, men he was never able to replace. 25000 casualties, almost all from battle hardened formations.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 13:25 |
Originally posted by Sparten
Temujin, at Gettysburg, Lee lost soime of his best and most experienced men, men he was never able to replace. 25000 casualties, almost all from battle hardened formations. |
This is accurate. The ANV was gutted at Gettysburg and was not able to undertake the offensive after that. The war for them became a matter of attritional defense, but one they could not win. The frontal assault on the third day was reflective of their desperate situation, as the entire campaign was reflective of the desperation of the Confederacy.
Had Lee taken Harrisburg with its rail connections, he still would not have had sufficient forces to move against Washington. The city had virtually impregnable field fortifications, in depth, and a very large garrison.
The only advantage of the temporary success would probably have been to delay the moves on Chattanooga and Atlanta.
|
|
Jonathan4290
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 21:30 |
Well said pikeshot. The Battle of Gettysburg was very convenient for the Union out but had Lee not lost those 25,000 at Gettysburg, he would've lost them a little further north.
|
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 21:42 |
You know, the Confederate command had little regard for the importance of Vicksburg - look at the commander there. They felt that as long as the CSA controlled the banks of the Mississippi south to New Orleans, the river was not very important! The Union generals were in virtual agreement that the control of the valley would lead to control of the rail communications, and the CSA would not be able to regain control ever.
I have sometimes felt (and sometimes not) that the 1863 campaign in middle Tennessee was the actual crucial event of the war. Gettysburg destroyed the offensive capacity of the ANV; Vickburg opened the Miss. Middle Tennessee (Tullahoma and Chattanooga) opened the South to a strategic thrust into its guts that would kill it. Grant and Thomas and Sherman understood modern war. The Confederate generals mostly understood war as decisive Napoleonic battles, but they never had the resources to deliver decisive results.
Lee was a great general, but he was no Bonaparte, and the CSA was not 1806 France.
Any opinions on the middle Tennessee campaign(s)? The strike into Georgia afterwards seems to be the decisive one.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 23-Mar-2008 at 12:54
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2008 at 22:29 |
Originally posted by Sparten
Temujin, at Gettysburg, Lee lost soime of his best and most experienced men, men he was never able to replace. 25000 casualties, almost all from battle hardened formations. |
yeah it was the last major offensive, but it was still similar to Antietam and the later sieges of Petersburg and Richmond were not too different from the Peninsular Campaign, another 7days camapign and the tables had changed again.
|
|
cavalry4ever
AE Moderator
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 01:44 |
Originally posted by Temujin
but this is just as much true for Gettysburg. tactcially the battles were not too different actually, also the strategical outcome was the same. the southerners route to the north was only closed by Sheridans valley campaign. |
Besides the fact that CSA lost its best troops and generals, it could never replace, Gettysburg is the first major battle when Union stood its ground and won without a question, followed by the retrait. If Lee won this battle he would cut northern states in half and this was his plan. Also important think to remember is that some of best Union troops from Gettysburg were shipped to New Your to put down a major revolt. There was a serious discontent through Union states and sentiment was pushing toward negotiation with CSA. One more Confederate victory and history would look quite different. You have to also understand that lasted over three years with liittle to show on Union side. The fact that union did not pursue the Confederates after this battle will help in choosing Grant as Union Army Commander. The fact that Grant will get his command without string attached, free of political interference may be related to gen. Reynolds which died heroically at Gettysburg. He was considered to be brightets Union general and did not accept command because Lincoln refused ti give him the free hand. The idea was planted and that is what gen. Grant will get.
You keep forgetting that Pennsylvania was sitting on very important communication and trade routes and Maryland was neutral with a lot of Confederate sympathizers ( look up Baltimore riots).
Sheridan Valley campaign was an aberration. South lost war and did not pay attention to Shenandoah Vaolley. Sheridan was dispatched by Grant to finish what was becoming a major annoyance for Union. Lot of peple thought that it was a poor use of man and skills of CSA gen. Yubal Early to fight something that had no chance of succeeding.
Edited by cavalry4ever - 23-Mar-2008 at 02:04
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 18:24 |
any troop losses were decsisive for the CSA and which great generals were lost at Gettysburg? i can't recall even one. the Union Army actually followed up the CSA but due to Stuarts cavalry they never came close enough. Baltimore is alsoa different story, many people from maryland, whcih was a slave-holdign state, were inf avour of the CSA and fought in teh CSA army, but pennsylvania was not.
|
|
mini
Immortal Guard
Joined: 15-Apr-2008
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 18:08 |
Hastings was an extremly important battle as it decided the fate of England(The Nation that would later own a quater of the world!!!). As well as this the battle was no way a fore gone conclusion.Harold held a strong position on the hill that the Normans spent the whole morning trying to capture and the only way they did was by drawing Harolds troops off it when they ran away.
|
|
Sun Tzu
Consul
Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 18:24 |
Well To me Manikert 1071 because the Byzantines realy only lost 8,000 but it was the after effects and general shcok that sent shockwaves throughout the empire (virtually losing all of Anatolia). The battle really resulted more in a mental scarring than a physical one for the Byzantine empire.
|
Sun Tzu
All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
|
|
chean
Immortal Guard
Joined: 12-Mar-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 13:07 |
Have to say anyone saying Hastings was unimportant obviously hasn't studied English history. At the beginning of 1066 England was an Anglo-Saxon country, with Anglo-Saxon people, nobility, laws, culture etc. By the end it was a Norman country with not only different rulers but different culture, laws, rights, social standing and allegances. The appearance and order of England - not to mention it's future - was profoundly changed by the victory.
The next few years would see a ruthless culling of all the old Anglo-Saxon nobility and their replacement with new Norman barons, the start of castle building on a near unmatched scale in English history and a brutal subjugation of the common people. This was as a result specifically of the battle of Hastings, because if William had lost there it's highly unlikely he would have been able to try again (if he had managed to survive the battle that is!).
|
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 15:44 |
The Battle of the Atlantic....
My guess is that Great Britian exaggerated the U-boat "peril" to give the impression that Britain was on the verge of collapse and bring America into the war.
Even in their short lived glory days, the U-boats experienced steady losses and Great Britain was in no serious danger of being cut off. By summer 1941, the U-Boat to shipping loss ratio from attacks on properly escorted convoys are starting to be un-economical for the U-boats.
The U-boats get a brief second life by rampaging through unescorted American shipping in the summer of 1942. But... now attacks on escorted convoys are not sustainable for the U-boats. German U Boat command ignores the statistics. By Black May, 1943 U boats are suffering horrendous casualties. By 1944, U Boat operations are equivelant to Kamikaze missions.
Edited by Cryptic - 28-Apr-2009 at 19:51
|
|
Sun Tzu
Consul
Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 15:46 |
were there any missions in 1945?
|
Sun Tzu
All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 17:08 |
Actually I think I'd agree that the Battle of the Atlantic has been overrated - not that it wasn't a serious affair, but it wasn't as big a threat to Britain's survival as the battle of Britain was, say.
On the other hand I don't think it was Britain at the time that exaggerated its importance, but subsequent historians attempting to heighten the possibility of a German victory.
With regard to pulling the US into the war, that sounds more like the other Battle of the Atlantic in ww1.
|
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 17:38 |
Marathon and Salamis.
For the Persians it was just a frontier battle and thats it like all the other frontier battles in those days. Plus Persians ruled the eastern half of the greek world and they didn't distroy their civilization or culture or even rule them directly.
AL-Jassas
|
|
Evrenosgazi
Consul
Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 17:48 |
Originally posted by Sun Tzu
Well To me Manikert 1071 because the Byzantines realy only lost 8,000 but it was the after effects and general shcok that sent shockwaves throughout the empire (virtually losing all of Anatolia). The battle really resulted more in a mental scarring than a physical one for the Byzantine empire. |
We dont know the armies casualties but the outcome was decisive and changed the world history
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 19:12 |
Originally posted by chean
Have to say anyone saying Hastings was unimportant obviously hasn't studied English history. At the beginning of 1066 England was an Anglo-Saxon country, with Anglo-Saxon people, nobility, laws, culture etc. By the end it was a Norman country with not only different rulers but different culture, laws, rights, social standing and allegances. The appearance and order of England - not to mention it's future - was profoundly changed by the victory.
The next few years would see a ruthless culling of all the old Anglo-Saxon nobility and their replacement with new Norman barons, the start of castle building on a near unmatched scale in English history and a brutal subjugation of the common people. This was as a result specifically of the battle of Hastings, because if William had lost there it's highly unlikely he would have been able to try again (if he had managed to survive the battle that is!). |
yeah we know about Normans and their local importance for Britian but English are not Normans. the failure here is to understand that the Normans were only a sidenote in world history, a phenomenon limited to the middle ages. there is no serious argument Normans were responsible for future English/British exploits.
|
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 19:53 |
Originally posted by gcle2003
With regard to pulling the US into the war, that sounds more like the other Battle of the Atlantic in ww1. |
I think that it also applies in WWII. For example, Britain convinced the United States to assign destroyer escorts to convoys west of Iceland long before the United States actually entered the war. The U.S. ships were escorting legitimate targets in a combat zone so it was only a matter of time before a destroyer (USS James Greer?) was sunk and public opinion inflamed.
In convincing the U.S. to escort the convoys, Britain probably exagerrated the impact of the U-boast to give the impression that they were on the verge of collapse and thus the U.S. escorts were needed for Britain's very survival. In reality, the British losses from U-boats, though heavy, were bearable and the British situation was steadily improving.
Originally posted by Sun Tzu
were there any missions in 1945? |
Yes, as a testimony to the enormous dedication and sacrifice of the crews, U-boats continously sailed (and were systematicaly sunk) until the last days of the war.
Edited by Cryptic - 28-Apr-2009 at 20:22
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 20:07 |
in fact German U-boats in ww1 sunk more total tonnage than in ww2.
|
|