These videos are always interesting. Living in Richmond, VA I get to see so many of the places that were battlefields but it's hard to wrap the mind around how many people were slaughtered.
you say that the army of Lee overcame 80.000 men [ I knew that before Gettysburg they attained 86000 men] and the losses (the irretrievable ones) were only 17000, whereas 11.000 thousand were slight wounded who were thereafter retrieved for service
@Faber9722 Lee's invasion army consisted of 67,600 infantry and artillery and 12,400 cavalry. Of his casualties, 17,200 (mostly infantry/artillery) were struck permanently from the rolls. This is a disastrous 21% loss of irreplaceable veterans. Total CSA casualties for the PA campaign would be a staggering 27,000. (again, with 17k lost forever). 33% total casualties. An utter catastrophe for an army for whom manpower shortages were its greatest disadvantage in the war.
Of course specially if we consider the dead ones; BUT DESPITE ALL THE CRUELTY which ruled sovereign, despite the official forbiddings of making exchange of prisoners, the latter ones went on to be exchanged and the desertion was the factor which bowed the south, because at the end of the war there were still 150.000 johnny rebs on the field or more but the best mood of one times had already gone lost for ever after the numerous defeats and the squander of men at Atlanta and Nashville
as already stated Grant contributed enormously to the victory but the South had still great chances in the deep south and if they had avoided of throwing and wasting their men on the trenches of Franklin and Atlanta, the south would have achieved the results of preventing the North from achieving their results; Atlanta not fallen and Richmond not fallen; in the second half of 1864 everything was decided and whether it was a form of uncorrectness of not , the mistake which ruined
Grant wonderful campaign at Vickburg was his generosity in paroling all the men, who were found again and very often in the ranks of that army , that according to the treaties they should have never served again. if not all 38000 men of Vicksburg and P.H. were reinserted in the ranks, many were recaptured again thereafter so the prisoners were only a temporary loss.About what concerns Antietam I perfectly agree, they cast away the chance at Sharpsburg and another victory like that
About Gettysburg instead we could say only that they were 28.000 men out of 76000 soldiers so after Gettysburg they were reduced to 48000 men too and Meade could not destroy Lee and war lengthened and went on and on; that the lot might have been decided at Gettysburg we can agree but it didn't stop the war and Antietam at the same despite the exceptionl efforts who bowed the Johnny rebs breaking the centre of their army and taking Burnside Bridge. But maybe you are more informed than I am if
@Faber9722 Victory creates almost as much chaos as defeat. I don't fault Meade for not finishing Lee. Seminary Ridge was still a strong position, and his later Williamsport position was almost impregnable. (Sept. 17 1862 is when Lee's army could have been destroyed. McClellan blew it at Antietam.) After Gettysburg there was no way the South could win the war. The war lasted another one year an nine months...BUT once combat in May 64 commenced, Grant ended Lee and the war in eleven months.
the grey commanders had their good grounds or good reasons to lessen their numbers in order to magnify the way how they kept the foe at bay. however I think that 37.000 seems to me a very , a too small number
37000 but at least 45000 against 67000 or maybe 70000 men. This explains better many situations; the shoeless soldiers were surely numerous, the tired ones too but not 20.000 as Hill stated with hatred towards them; then another piece of army to watch over them and accompany back to Virginia. Where was then the Army of Lee if 20.000 men were out of the battlefield and many other were there to patrol them to clothe them and prepare them for other battles???? The southern commandera had interest
What seems impossible to me of Antietam, although the 37000 declared by Lee on the battlefield on that day were not so many and we must believe in his word, becuaee who could know his numbers better than himself [?] is that they were "only" 37000 to be able to push continuously back the blue boys; it seems that only 67000 were employed by MacClellan and it justifies the difficulties the Yankee met; but after all they were always 67000 federal soldiers so the Johnny rebs could not have been only
@Faber9722 McClellen committed forces in "driblets' a division here, a corps there which allowed Lee to shift his forces and achieve often local numerical superiority. The North fought just as well as the South at Antietam and a good commander like Grant or Sherman would have gone all in and finished Lee by noon McClellen withheld troops because he feared defeat more than he desired victory. The blue boys punished the Rebs pretty bad(Hood said his division was "dead on the field" for example.
@MiniInloesteam McClellen brought over twice as many men to the field yes. But he kept two full corps in reserve and never committed them--even when Lee's center had been shattered and would have collapsed if he put in just one of them into the fight. And the troops he did commit were sent in one group at a time, north to south, allowing Lee to shift forces to where they were needed. Had McClellen beeb Grant (or Meade or Hooker for that matter) the war would have ended. Lee got lucky.
@MiniInloesteam But Lee DIDN'T have the army he had at Gettysburg. Not by half. They were exhausted, half-starved, often shoeless and in no condition for such long marches on Maryland's hard roads. A third of the men that crossed the Potomac with him simply melted away due to straggling. Lee never should have fought at Antietam, Outnumbered, back to a swollen river with no escape but one ford should he be broken. He lost 1/3 of his men for nothing. But for McClellen he would have lost.
@nightsongs1970 Dude. Honestly, the last CSA veteran died in 1956. You never wore the uniform of the CSA. were not even born in the same century as that distant war. This country has so moved on from the Civil War as to make sentiments like yours utterly foolish. "Me people"? LOL. Give me a break. You are trapped in the wrong century. They lost! (Note I say 'they' not 'you' since you weren't even alive then). Their cause (not 'yours' since you weren't alive then) was a wretched one.
Capt Carey F Grimes, Portsmouth Light Artillery CSA. Defender of Gosport veteran of the seven days campaign and Malvern Hill..unlimbered his battalion of three companies, four guns each above Pipers Farm on the Hagerstown Turnpike posted to drive the enemy back. While directing his batteries fire he was shot from his horse; to die on the field of honor 17 Sep 1862 Sharpsburg, MD.
Such is my family's heritage in the War of Nothern Aggression ; American history past should never be abandoned.
the synthsesis and the concreteness; that's way you positevely distinguished from old Europe , which acts and rules basing itself on a heap of words; I am astonished that an American gets lost in such a trivial detail.However I didn't absolutely mean to be offensive, if my words or my "voice" could sound like that
the synthsesis and the concreteness; that's way you positevely distinguished from old Europe , which acts and rules basing itself on a heap of words; I am astonished that an American gets lost in such a trivial detail
I know perfectly that the battle took place at ptersburg and not atCold Mountain, I am sorry if there was this slip of finger (instead of pen)or this slip of keyboard; I accept the critics and accuracy but not the sophistication; in every case tell me where I wrote the battle of Cold Mountain; and however whether I said the battle of Cold Mopuntain , I only meant the battle contained and poirtrayed in that movie; I only synthetized the concept; You American have become a great Nation thanks to
It's obvious that in battle there is smoke, dust confusion and mess; WHo denied that?????In Antieetam it's sure but take the battle of Could Mountain; at the Crater the Johnny rebs had in practice 18.000 men in a hole like a farmer , who has a chick or a small kitty or bunny in his hands; they could only be seen by the shooting southerners.
@Faber9722 There was no battle of Cold Mountain that was the movie that showed the battle of the crater which was part of the Siege of Petersburg, and in the previous comment I was just talking about how bloody the battles were, didn't say you said they wern't.
In fact I never said that they were not bloody; do you still believe that the data of 365000 dead for union are definitive? and so the 258.000 or 329.000 soldiers of fallen Confederates are a data not to be changed????? According to me as now with the skull of the ancient people , which are found again by the archaeologists. in some centuries many historians will find again the bones of soldiers , who were said missing and never found, and those numbers could attain 500.000 for both armies
People don't seem to understand how fierce and bloody civil war battles were, people think they fought in lines and fired back and forth but the battles were many times chaotic and confusing with fighting all over the place and smoke covered the battle almost to where you couldn't even see a few feet infront of you with artillery and bullets landing everywhere.
but only at Antietam there was the lost chance for an immediate peace. gettysburg was like KuNERSDORF for the Russians and Austrians against Prussians. paid at a t dear price a Pyrrhus victory, which didn't allow them to take Berlin as gettysburg narrowedly saved Washington as it didn't also allow to take Richmon that at moment waa surelky the last thought for Lincoln
After my long and BORING SPEECH I can say that neither Cedar Creek, where blue coats were gathered in hopelessness after being swept away, has the prestige of ANtietam; the victory, if it could have been precocious, could have been achieved at ANtietam; there North cast waay a soon victory not at gettysburg
a giant victory and was surrounding from the South the rebel army, when Hill drove him back towards the bridge that was named after him. Never ANd I UNDERLINE NEVER THE NORTH DOMINATED AND WOULD AGAIN DOMINATE THE FIELD AS AT ANTIETAM. DESPITE THE NUMEROUS DEFEATS AND IRRETRIEVABLE LOSSES OF MEN AND TOOLS (gUNS CARTS WITH PROVISIONS ETC) The blue soldiers would never have such a crushing rule of the field; at Nashville , not even at Franklin where they were forced to escape, Vicksburg
day ??? After Chamberlain had charged, after exhausting all ammunitions???? The front of Hancock was broken, and the southerners stayed only shortly on the seminary ridge only because had themselves slaughtered during a foolish badly led charge (at pageant step) absurd!! Instead at ANtietam they had the plan of the enemy , they broke the center, and they were stopped everywhewre by ana nemy largely lower in numbers. They might have enveloped both flanks and didn't manage. burnside achieved
North underwent Southern initiative at gettysburg from the first minute to the last; the cavalry allowed the corps to shelter on the hills but thereafter the third corps was slaughtered and without this slaughter the Fifth corps would have never profited to come before southerners on the round tops; where is the mistake of the Third Corps and of its commanderr; they engaged Lee while the 5th corps climbed the round tops and planted the flag forming the south flank of Union army; and the third
Think at Gettysburg; the Southerners lost and it is the most famous southern defeat , however, the yankee dead at Gettysburg were more numerous than at the defeats of the months before (3155 at Gettysburg against 1284 at Fredericksburg and 1606 at Chancellorsville) Where is the great victory of Gettysburg; without counting moreover the men who died of wounds in all the three battles. Southern attack was repulsed but the war went on and not even at Gettusburg they managed to destroy southerners.
@Faber9722 Gettysburg was quite decisive in that ended once and for all any Southern prospects of victory. Sure, the AoP may have lost marginally more men, but they had men to lose. The South on the other hand could not afford casualties and at Gettysburg they were magnified by being in enemy territory. A wounded CSA in Virginia would recover and return to the ranks (if infection didn't kill him). In PA, they became POWs. Gettysbrg cost Lee 17,000 men struck permanently from the rolls. (cont)
@Shafeone 17,000 out of 80,000. Furthermore, Lee lost an inordinant number of his best officers either KIA, POW, or disabled by wounds: Pender, Hood, Pettigrew, Kemper, Armistead, Garnett, Barkesdale, just to name a few. Lee's army never fully recovered from Gettysburg. He could only fight on the defense from then on. And then, with the North's overwhelming advantage in men and materiel, it was only a matter of time...especially once Grant took charge. Gettysburg was a catastrophe for Lee.
nobody said that Gettysburg was a triumph for Lee and we perfectly know, all of us, that the also such a great general could not make up for the losses he provoked with his mistakes (Malvern Hill and Gaines' Mill too despite the final success) and South could not afford the losses of Gettysburg but also the blood victory of North didn't shorten the war and however it made the North worn out , bringing about the riots of New York and the growth of opposition increased by Copperheads
Vicksburg was a masterwork of strategy and military art, if military life can be considered so, but this battle is the only one, where the Northerners had the complete control from the beginning to the end of the fighting; from the tactical point of view they never dominated the scene; the South squandered a heap of men , however with their bloody onsets , old-fashioned at that time in the tactics because of the waste of men they often risked to shatter into pieces the enemy's armies.
"Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he [Abraham Lincoln] shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the — that iron, iron fist. " - Ron Paul
@TheSpillProductions They are the Berdan's Sharpshooters, the sharpshooters in the Civil War were different than today's sharpshooters, they fought in small regiments usually no larger than companies and attached to regular regiments for special deployment at a field general's order in a specific action. They fought usually in or close to the action and fought almost like skirmishers picking off people from a distance or fighting like regular troops in the middle of the battle.
Historian's view of the battle as shown by the movie: "Though by 1862, George Mclellan had transformed the Union army of the Potomac into a unified fighting force, he was nonetheless unprepared for the Confederates, who had been studying under the tutelage of Lt. Colonel John Woo, who taught them how to charge shooting dual handguns..."
American Civil War was decisive not only to America but for the whole world. It was the event that divided that nation but it also established what that country would be in the future. The racial conflicts have remained for many decades after slavery was abolished. But united, America became the most powerful nation on the planet. Civil war has showed the power of will of the american people.
I agree. It would have been better not to have ever needed to fight the war but a United America (USA) is so much greater than a divided America (CSA and USA). The USA would never be as influential or as great today if it had remained divided.
@zipsrule Do you know how old this? 20 years ago probably closer to 30. We did not worry about if our button holes were hand sewn back then. Nobody said "you can't take the field because you don't have the correct pattern sack coat for fall 1862", and if you think this is bad, you should have seen the 100th anniversary reenactments.
@mecallahan1 100 year anniversary was really bad. But this is typical Hollywood crap that is not even making a fair attempt at accuracy and the parts of the sound track sounds like something from a World War II movie.
British govement intrests in the american colonies revolved around one thing, before & after independance and that was greed. Greed & intractability And it was that greed witch that led to the states declaring independance & the same greed witch lost britan the revolutionary war & directed all further policies concerning the us & the civil war ie how much money the could make out of the situation . the only thing the british had in common with the union at the time was the stance on slavery
This movie or whatever sucks it basically shows all dead confederate soldiers... That's bs the yankees lost almost 1,000 more people and almost 2,000 more wounded.
Try thinking within the confines of the time period you ignorant moron. In the 1770's our founding fathers were Traitors and Rebels. That is a fact, stop trying to revise history to your liking, so it fits your ideals. I was elaborating on the fact that the founding fathers and the Confederacy shared a comparable position. Slavery is on the back burner, seeing as it would have died anyway with the rise of industry. I've spoke with many retards like you who follow mainstream history.
@HaggenPagan26 "I was elaborating on the fact that the founding fathers and the Confederacy shared a comparable position."
Only southerners think that. The colonists were pissed because they had no representation in Parliament but it was still trying to control the colonies. In a democracy, if a territory has no say in the government, then it's not really part of that government, and it's not treason. The south had MORE representation in Congress than it deserved.
@HaggenPagan26 King and Country weren't loyal to them. Britain wouldn't help the colonists in their conflicts with the Native Americans. Only when another European power was involved.
@HaggenPagan26 Learn some history. As I said, the British wouldn't help the Americans in conflicts with the Natives UNLESS A EUROPEAN POWER WAS INVOLVED. Who were the British fighting in the 7 Years War? The French.
People don't realize that our beloved **Founding Fathers**, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Jay, Hamilton and Madison were all deemed Traitorous Rebels by their colonial masters. Somehow the rebels in the 1860's were inbred, racist rednecks. But the Rebels in the 1770's were savior's of the World. Kind of funny how history is written.
@HaggenPagan26 that's because the winners get to write the history books. i'm sure if we lost the revelution the founding fathers would be seen differently
@xPrinceOfAngelsx Write you are correct. Unfortunately this generation does not see it necessary to find out what real history is. They take everything they hear in 10- 11th grade history as gospel that can't be questioned. Brainwashed when you think of it.
@HaggenPagan26 "Somehow the rebels in the 1860's were inbred, racist rednecks. But the Rebels in the 1770's were savior's of the World."
It might have something to do with the fact that one of the main reasons the southern states were fighting was to maintain slavery. The Founding Fathers may have supported slavery, but that's not why they were fighting. The Confederates brainwashed their citizens into believing they were fighting for liberty, but they were really fighting for slavery and greed.
@KayBeeEee1983 Oh hear it comes, now I am a bigot. It is hard for me to read the entirety of your posts, they are so incredibly filled to the brim with ignorance and stupidity. Our founding fathers were deemed TRAITORS and REBELS according to their government. You are a half wit who studies one sided, commonly excepted propaganda.
No, I get the feeling that you were always a bigot. I also get the feeling that you don't actually know what the literal definition of bigot is.
"You are a half wit who studies one sided, commonly excepted propaganda."
Are you joking? You just described yourself exactly, except I doubt you've studied either side. You subscribe to the common idea that everyone in a communist society receives the same treatment regardless of the work they do
@KayBeeEee1983 You don't even know me. What gives you the qualifications to judge me as a bigot. When I say you study one sided, common history, I mean that you don't study at all. And you can't realize that propaganda surrounds all Wars. There is always a motive and a cause. But you fail to understand the fact that Slavery would have been killed by the Industrial Revolution, and that the common Southern soldier never owned a Slave in his life. And the North also had Slaves.
@KayBeeEee1983 I am the bigot? You are the one who first responded to most post with how much you disagreed with it. You started the intolerance you jackhole. All I said was that our founding fathers were deemed traitors and rebels by their current government. Then you responded with the ignorant comment of saying that they were fighting for freedom, where the Confederates were fighting for greed and slavery. Your ignorance created this argument.
I am from the North ,and they say we won,but I feel no one won. So many died.I will try to visit Gettysburg this year.I live abut 4 hours away. We have a camp in WV with two grave yards on the land .One for the South the other for the North. They are worn out rocks with no names. I feel they should have a marker,
do you think the Goverment would pay for this . 12 graves. If not I am going to try to get the money.
@REMIREZZ you know what 600000 good red blooded americans died in this stupid war as you call it you respect those brave men who died for what they thought was right and my great great great great uncle phelix corbett 15th south Carolinian infantry regiment
@REMIREZZ Wrong? What do you think the South was fighting for? Let me guess, every Southerner was fighting for Slavery right? Is that what you honestly believe?
@legomyeggo713 Respect to your pop. What a brave man he must have been. Fighting an enormous force with less and often inferior weapons. I don't believe that Southerners were fighting for anything wrong. They were just fighting because their state went to War....and for each other and their respected units. People who think the conflict was all about Slavery really know very little about the CW! I used to be an insufferable Union supporter, until I cracked open some serious historical material.
@HaggenPagan26 The men who were actually fighting and dying in the civil war weren't fighting for slavery, but the politicians definitely "fought" for slavery.
@HaggenPagan26 BTW, your communism analogy in the "about me" section of your channel is a gross over-simplification and shows your knowledge of communism. In a communist society, Joe would be killed for being lazy and George would be rewarded by being allowed entry into the communist party.
@KayBeeEee1983 Oh it all comes out. Now I know where your ignorance comes from. You are a Commie sympathizer. You'd probably support Stalins Great Purge or the Soviet genocide in the Ukraine.
@HaggenPagan26 So if I tell you that your conception of communism is wrong that makes me a communist sympathizer? You're about 60 years behind your time, McCarthy. I guess you stopped reading my comment after the first sentence, like most bigots would do. I pointed out the amoral nature of communist societies. Like slavery, fear of death does not produce very efficient labor. Try learning about this stuff before jumping on your online soapbox. Then you might not embarrass yourself.
To all, I agree. But you have to accept that the waste of men here cannot be reconciled as tactics, not to mention strategy, on the part of the Union forces. It could have indeed ended the War, this battle, right here. But it didn't, and it kept right on, wasting more and more, in blood and material. Better Generalship, on this field, could have saved so much.
So simple to criticize from a distance. Everyone is a supreme tactician when there not involved in the moment.. face it, all of your discussions over who did right or wrong is pointless.. they had there reasons 'at the time.'
For it's time (1985, if I'm informed correctly) this looks quite impressive. The quite fierce battle scenes and the fact you have protagonists on both sides of the battle make this theme quite modern. Also the shaky camera during the fighting kind of forshadows the current Saving Private Ryan approach to filming battles.
@seeingthesigns I Lee had the same amount of resources then Grant had, he probably would have won the war for the south early on. However if that was the case Lee would have Grant's job and being fighting for the North instead of the south. Unless the South had garnered large support from some forigen power such as England then maybe. But there was no chance they could have had any such advantage like that over the North.
Even though Grant was not as good,he was still a decent strategist.
@seeingthesigns, Grant was indeed an excellent strategist & tactician. You should read & study his remarkable Vicksburg Campaign from start to finish. Grant was outnumbered & defeated the CSA in the field & was fighting in 2 directions before the siege began.
@christof139 I'm not sure I would call him excellent. The Vicksburg campaign is, indeed, a masterful campaign. However, Donelson, Henry, and Shiloh were anything but, and the Overland Campaign of 1864 was an absolute disaster. Federal victory, by that point, had more to do with Hood's mistakes in and around Atlanta rather than masterful Federal maneuvers. In short, Vicksburg showed what Grant could do, but one good campaign does not an excellent strategist make.
@reenactor19th, I wouldn't call Lee excellent then either. Lee proffited from Federal mistakes & indecision more than anything else & he blew it at Gettysburg. Grant had more than 1 good campaign; you seem to have forgotten Fts. Henry & Donelson (& southern mistakes there), his recovery at Shiloh before Buell arrived, Belmont, & even the 1864 Virginia Campaign with his persistant attcking & driving south althogh wiht high casualties, & his conception of the Valley campaigns etc.
@christof139 I never called Lee excellent. And just as one campaign does not make a great general, neither does it make a bad general. I did not forget Henry and Donelson, they are clearly mentioned in my first post, and neither they, nor Shiloh, are good campaigns. That battle was won by a colonel acting against orders, under threat of court martial who sent out a 200 man patrol. The 1864 Campaign was horrible. Grant coordinated all three armies, the Army of Cumberland was decimated...
@christof139 Sherman's army was stopped butt-cold outside Atlanta, and Grant was outmaneuvered by Lee throughout the entire campaign. Grant's officer corps was turning against him due to the casualties, his campaign--an its conception--caused the public opinion to turn against them and was about to contribute to Lincoln's defeat. His entire strategy hinged on destroying the Confederate armies. At the end of 1864, one of his armies was routed, the other...
@christof139 could not achieve its objective, and Grant had lost tens of thousands of men and had gained nothing. He and his officers said as much. Largely due to this campaign, Lincoln and his advisers were resigned to defeat in 1864, under a familiar cry of "the war is unwinnable, the only end is a negotiated end," which was led by Lincoln's personal enemy, George B. McClellan. However, with Hood taking over command of Atlanta, he adopted Davis' policy of attack...
@christof139 rather than wait out the 1864 election. Sherman finally got the series of decisive battles that had been denied to him, and was able to take Atlanta. This news saved Lincoln's election. To review, Grant's generalship, if followed as he intended, would have probably led to disaster on the banks of the Tennessee, his campaign and overall strategy in 1864 failed, and was on track to lose the war. Sherman going off orders, and seizing Atlanta rather than destroying Hood's army, saved...
@christof139 that disaster. That said, Grant certainly showed sparks of what he could do. His rallying at Shiloh saved the day, but only because his generalship endangered the day. His campaign against Vicksburg was masterful. However, as I have shown, very thorough examinations of his stated objectives, the failure of these objectives, and how the Union was imperiled, show that his generalship cannot truly be called great or excellent, and...
@christof139 back to the crux of the first argument, his strategy is certainly worthy of reproach and criticism. I am sorry for the length of this. And, again, I must stress that I am not doing this as a comparative analysis between Grant and Lee. I do not mean to be combative or drown you in responses. I wanted to answer you in full, as your contention deserved, and I certainly welcome your response. Thank you for reading my view.
after 6-7 failed attempts, not so great tactically when considering the blunders the Confederate army made. Also, his campaign vs. Lee was a battle of attrition, not a "masterpiece" at all. And to suggest he was good with lesser men than his adversary is disingenuous. How many times did he have that disadvantage? Not many. If he were in Lee's shoes, most historians would doubt he'd perform anywhere near to Lee's caliber.
@treehugger3615 That was later in the war during the Overland Campaign where he used allot of frontal attacks and superior numbers to try to overrun or push back Lee. At battles like Spotsylvania there he took thousands of casualties and was one of the bloodiest battles of the war with Union troops attacking confederate trenches in the mud and rain allot like in WW1. The same happened at Cold Harbor where he lead an assualt on Lee's trenches and got the name "the Butcher".
@seeingthesigns Southern bullcrap again. The Vicksburg Campaign is a prime example of excellent strategy, and if we're to take other Union generals then Rosecrans was a mastermind as well. Study the Tullahoma campaign and you'll see.
I think Lee in that extend was far more of a strategist and tactician than any other general in the war. He operated under extreme pressure. Pressure from both politicians and also major responsibility for his men and the success of the war.
As Grant was not a fool, Lee wasnt either. And by looking at the immense failure on the west Lee and his army's success was what kept confederacy alive for that long.
@spoukas Lee was a spectacular, if sometimes flawed, tactician. Perhaps nobody led an army like he did in the war. But he wasn't a strategist. He rarely linked the actions of the armies he had, with that of armies commanded by others. He didn't quite have an overall strategy encompassing the whole CSA.
Grant was a good strategist, but he was no Lee. But he was an excellent strategist. He knew it didn't matter if he, himself, won. He had a better overall sense of the War.
@spoukas I'll amend that. Lee wasn't as good a strategist as Grant, while Grant wasn't as good a tactician as Lee. They both had their strengths, and both used it well during the war.
@Ares99999 I agree he knew it didnt matter as long as he could replenish his losses everytime. But Lee knew it mattered. If he would have been tactically succesful on the field when it really mattered we would have another view on the confederacy strategy. The thing im trying to say is that his strategy was inherently tied with keeping confederacy on the action, not a secondary player and also keeping the war outside the south states while putting the much needed pressure on the north.
Lee never should have fought at Antietam. With his back to the Potomac and barely 1/3 of McClellan's numbers and his man half starved and ragged, he was lucky his command wasn't massacred. Grant would have had that battle over by 10 am. Lee fought there because he refused to admit his invasion was an ill-advised failure. He felt he could beat McClellan but that wasn't realistic despite him being by far the superior general. Lee lost 1/4 of his army for nothing. Stupid.
@Shafeone True. McClellan held 20,000 troops back. Grant would have used them to keep Lee from retreating, kept him there, and might have won after a long battle of clear attrition. Losing Lee at that point - along with excellent generals like Jackson and Longstreet - would have been a crushing blow. McClellan was a very poor battlefield commander.
@ares999 Lee made plenty of terrible mistakes, the most overarching one being that he attacked very often while leading an army that was consistently outnumbered and suffered horrific casualties his country could ill-afford. Being a front line soldier in Lee's army was more dangerous than in Grant's! Grant knew what the war was about. Attrition. Grant was the better general in that he knew how to defeat Lee...and he did. That's what mattered.
@Shafeone Exactly. People tend to see Lee's flamboyance as a sign that he was the greater general. Grant was pragmatic, which make his actions more ordinary-looking. Yet he kicked the crap out of his enemies in the West very effectively.
Neither general liked the killing, but both felt at home on the battlefield. Both took risks, and both paid for it (Gettysbug for Lee, Cold Harbour for Grant). But Lee was a tactician. Grant was a strategist.
@Ares99999 Grant would have never had the success that Lee had if they were in opposite sides, being outnumbered, outgunned and fighting a desperate war of politics and attrition that demanded success and results in the battlefields at an overwhelming element. I agree Grant was a pragmatist and great to take into advantage northern unlimited manpower and resources but i doubt he could succeed without them.
@spoukas On the other hand, Lee was a man too concerned about the State of Virginia, and unable to fully grasp the entirety of the war. Lee would never have had Grant's ability to see the war as a whole and put together a broad, concerted strategy.
@Ares99999 I disagree. South could not fight a war of attrition. Staying on the defence would just prolonge the inevitable end, while giving the enemy the attacking lead. Its easy to criticize generals from the safety of the outcome and specialized circumstances. Having south fight a defensive war of attrition on their own soil would be a disaster, something that happened later anyway.
@spoukas How does that in any way answer what I said? You said Grant couldn't have done as good a job had he commanded Lee's army. I have to agree with that. I am saying that, on the other hand, Lee wouldn't have been able to bring about the overall, multi-thrust strategy that Grant did.
Lee was a better tactician. Grant was a better strategist. And they were the best each side had.
@Ares99999 If Lee had the numbers do you think he would fail in the strategical level ? For me Grant wasnt a great strategist to the extend that he outperformed everyone else or that he did anything remarkable but he was the right man for the job. A potent general, ruthless and determined to exploit the disadvantages of his enemy while using his strong cards that were by that time so obvious. Theres a fine line between good strategy when it involves things like 2:1 or 3:1 field superiority.
@spoukas A strategist doesn't necessarily care that he wins the given battle or not. Grant didn't mind losing on the tactical level, if it ensured that he would win on the overall, strategic level. Lee cared about winning every battle on the tactical level. Strategically, his plans of invasions were often based on luck and what-ifs. That in no way diminishes Lee as a field general. But many historical papers show Lee was more a 'battle to battle' genius.
@ares99999 Lee had a long term strategy, you mean. Grants was simplistic at best, and was basically just "defeat Lee's army." he didn't really have any other. But the irony is that Lee read grant so well he could figure out where Grant was going to go before Grant even moved, then move his army and get the high ground. That's how he inflicted so many casualties on Grant in the months leading up to the election. He was trying to make Lincoln lose to McClellan.
@josded Wow. You either intensely hate Grant for having bested Lee, or you're just trying to make Grant appear like a moron to make Lee look better.
Grant HAD a plan: He recognized that taking Richmond wouldn't bring victory. What he learned he had to do, was pin Lee down. It didn't matter to Grant that Lee would know where he was. His part of the plan wasn't about being subtle. It was meant to stop Lee, keep pressure on him, until Lee eventually had to give up. And Lee eventually did.
@Ares99999 You just said the same thing I said. His plan was to destroy Lee's army. I don't hate the man, I'm a northerner. But I'm not blind to what actually happened. If you look how he performed at individual battles, it isn't very impressive. Even when Lee had only a fourth of what Grant had, Lee still somehow managed to bloody Grant and slip away. Granted, Grant was happy when there were lots of confederate casualties, but its not hard to do that if you have a bagillion more people...
These videos are always interesting. Living in Richmond, VA I get to see so many of the places that were battlefields but it's hard to wrap the mind around how many people were slaughtered.
2012Steelerfan 1 month ago
This from North and South?
CharmingLordSausage 1 month ago
it ain't over yall,it's just half time!
keithehlert 1 month ago
can someone tell me what movie is that??? ty
djmillka 2 months ago
@djmillka Its from the North and the South tv series
AUG351 1 month ago
@AUG351 ty
djmillka 1 month ago
one day the south will rise again.It has to.........lest we be ruled by nigroes.
rw5791 2 months ago
you say that the army of Lee overcame 80.000 men [ I knew that before Gettysburg they attained 86000 men] and the losses (the irretrievable ones) were only 17000, whereas 11.000 thousand were slight wounded who were thereafter retrieved for service
Faber9722 2 months ago
@Faber9722 Lee's invasion army consisted of 67,600 infantry and artillery and 12,400 cavalry. Of his casualties, 17,200 (mostly infantry/artillery) were struck permanently from the rolls. This is a disastrous 21% loss of irreplaceable veterans. Total CSA casualties for the PA campaign would be a staggering 27,000. (again, with 17k lost forever). 33% total casualties. An utter catastrophe for an army for whom manpower shortages were its greatest disadvantage in the war.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone
Of course specially if we consider the dead ones; BUT DESPITE ALL THE CRUELTY which ruled sovereign, despite the official forbiddings of making exchange of prisoners, the latter ones went on to be exchanged and the desertion was the factor which bowed the south, because at the end of the war there were still 150.000 johnny rebs on the field or more but the best mood of one times had already gone lost for ever after the numerous defeats and the squander of men at Atlanta and Nashville
Faber9722 2 months ago
@Shafeone
as already stated Grant contributed enormously to the victory but the South had still great chances in the deep south and if they had avoided of throwing and wasting their men on the trenches of Franklin and Atlanta, the south would have achieved the results of preventing the North from achieving their results; Atlanta not fallen and Richmond not fallen; in the second half of 1864 everything was decided and whether it was a form of uncorrectness of not , the mistake which ruined
Faber9722 2 months ago
@Shafeone
Grant wonderful campaign at Vickburg was his generosity in paroling all the men, who were found again and very often in the ranks of that army , that according to the treaties they should have never served again. if not all 38000 men of Vicksburg and P.H. were reinserted in the ranks, many were recaptured again thereafter so the prisoners were only a temporary loss.About what concerns Antietam I perfectly agree, they cast away the chance at Sharpsburg and another victory like that
Faber9722 2 months ago
@Shafeone
would be never achieved in a short time again
Faber9722 2 months ago
About Gettysburg instead we could say only that they were 28.000 men out of 76000 soldiers so after Gettysburg they were reduced to 48000 men too and Meade could not destroy Lee and war lengthened and went on and on; that the lot might have been decided at Gettysburg we can agree but it didn't stop the war and Antietam at the same despite the exceptionl efforts who bowed the Johnny rebs breaking the centre of their army and taking Burnside Bridge. But maybe you are more informed than I am if
Faber9722 2 months ago
@Faber9722 Victory creates almost as much chaos as defeat. I don't fault Meade for not finishing Lee. Seminary Ridge was still a strong position, and his later Williamsport position was almost impregnable. (Sept. 17 1862 is when Lee's army could have been destroyed. McClellan blew it at Antietam.) After Gettysburg there was no way the South could win the war. The war lasted another one year an nine months...BUT once combat in May 64 commenced, Grant ended Lee and the war in eleven months.
Shafeone 2 months ago
the grey commanders had their good grounds or good reasons to lessen their numbers in order to magnify the way how they kept the foe at bay. however I think that 37.000 seems to me a very , a too small number
Faber9722 2 months ago
37000 but at least 45000 against 67000 or maybe 70000 men. This explains better many situations; the shoeless soldiers were surely numerous, the tired ones too but not 20.000 as Hill stated with hatred towards them; then another piece of army to watch over them and accompany back to Virginia. Where was then the Army of Lee if 20.000 men were out of the battlefield and many other were there to patrol them to clothe them and prepare them for other battles???? The southern commandera had interest
Faber9722 2 months ago
What seems impossible to me of Antietam, although the 37000 declared by Lee on the battlefield on that day were not so many and we must believe in his word, becuaee who could know his numbers better than himself [?] is that they were "only" 37000 to be able to push continuously back the blue boys; it seems that only 67000 were employed by MacClellan and it justifies the difficulties the Yankee met; but after all they were always 67000 federal soldiers so the Johnny rebs could not have been only
Faber9722 2 months ago
@Faber9722 McClellen committed forces in "driblets' a division here, a corps there which allowed Lee to shift his forces and achieve often local numerical superiority. The North fought just as well as the South at Antietam and a good commander like Grant or Sherman would have gone all in and finished Lee by noon McClellen withheld troops because he feared defeat more than he desired victory. The blue boys punished the Rebs pretty bad(Hood said his division was "dead on the field" for example.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone They were HEAVILY outnumbered at antietam, had lee marched into maryland with the army he had at gettysburg he would have won
MiniInloesteam 2 months ago
@MiniInloesteam McClellen brought over twice as many men to the field yes. But he kept two full corps in reserve and never committed them--even when Lee's center had been shattered and would have collapsed if he put in just one of them into the fight. And the troops he did commit were sent in one group at a time, north to south, allowing Lee to shift forces to where they were needed. Had McClellen beeb Grant (or Meade or Hooker for that matter) the war would have ended. Lee got lucky.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@MiniInloesteam But Lee DIDN'T have the army he had at Gettysburg. Not by half. They were exhausted, half-starved, often shoeless and in no condition for such long marches on Maryland's hard roads. A third of the men that crossed the Potomac with him simply melted away due to straggling. Lee never should have fought at Antietam, Outnumbered, back to a swollen river with no escape but one ford should he be broken. He lost 1/3 of his men for nothing. But for McClellen he would have lost.
Shafeone 2 months ago
We will NEVER forget! I am a Southerner! My people will never serve the federals! To hell with the USA and to hell with the yankees!
nightsongs1970 2 months ago
@nightsongs1970 Then you sir are not A true United States of America, American...you might as well love the Nazis instead!
AcHiEvehIgH3rGoALs88 2 months ago
@nightsongs1970 Dude. Honestly, the last CSA veteran died in 1956. You never wore the uniform of the CSA. were not even born in the same century as that distant war. This country has so moved on from the Civil War as to make sentiments like yours utterly foolish. "Me people"? LOL. Give me a break. You are trapped in the wrong century. They lost! (Note I say 'they' not 'you' since you weren't even alive then). Their cause (not 'yours' since you weren't alive then) was a wretched one.
Shafeone 2 months ago
Capt Carey F Grimes, Portsmouth Light Artillery CSA. Defender of Gosport veteran of the seven days campaign and Malvern Hill..unlimbered his battalion of three companies, four guns each above Pipers Farm on the Hagerstown Turnpike posted to drive the enemy back. While directing his batteries fire he was shot from his horse; to die on the field of honor 17 Sep 1862 Sharpsburg, MD.
Such is my family's heritage in the War of Nothern Aggression ; American history past should never be abandoned.
s6u6r6f6 3 months ago
Could somebody upload the Gods and Generals Battle of Antietam please
GCmediacourse 3 months ago
the synthsesis and the concreteness; that's way you positevely distinguished from old Europe , which acts and rules basing itself on a heap of words; I am astonished that an American gets lost in such a trivial detail.However I didn't absolutely mean to be offensive, if my words or my "voice" could sound like that
Faber9722 3 months ago
the synthsesis and the concreteness; that's way you positevely distinguished from old Europe , which acts and rules basing itself on a heap of words; I am astonished that an American gets lost in such a trivial detail
Faber9722 3 months ago
I know perfectly that the battle took place at ptersburg and not atCold Mountain, I am sorry if there was this slip of finger (instead of pen)or this slip of keyboard; I accept the critics and accuracy but not the sophistication; in every case tell me where I wrote the battle of Cold Mountain; and however whether I said the battle of Cold Mopuntain , I only meant the battle contained and poirtrayed in that movie; I only synthetized the concept; You American have become a great Nation thanks to
Faber9722 3 months ago
Also with smoke and confusion you had to blindfold yourself in order not to see the yankees in the hole!!!!!!!!!
Faber9722 3 months ago
It's obvious that in battle there is smoke, dust confusion and mess; WHo denied that?????In Antieetam it's sure but take the battle of Could Mountain; at the Crater the Johnny rebs had in practice 18.000 men in a hole like a farmer , who has a chick or a small kitty or bunny in his hands; they could only be seen by the shooting southerners.
Faber9722 3 months ago
@Faber9722 There was no battle of Cold Mountain that was the movie that showed the battle of the crater which was part of the Siege of Petersburg, and in the previous comment I was just talking about how bloody the battles were, didn't say you said they wern't.
AUG351 3 months ago
In fact I never said that they were not bloody; do you still believe that the data of 365000 dead for union are definitive? and so the 258.000 or 329.000 soldiers of fallen Confederates are a data not to be changed????? According to me as now with the skull of the ancient people , which are found again by the archaeologists. in some centuries many historians will find again the bones of soldiers , who were said missing and never found, and those numbers could attain 500.000 for both armies
Faber9722 3 months ago
People don't seem to understand how fierce and bloody civil war battles were, people think they fought in lines and fired back and forth but the battles were many times chaotic and confusing with fighting all over the place and smoke covered the battle almost to where you couldn't even see a few feet infront of you with artillery and bullets landing everywhere.
AUG351 3 months ago
but only at Antietam there was the lost chance for an immediate peace. gettysburg was like KuNERSDORF for the Russians and Austrians against Prussians. paid at a t dear price a Pyrrhus victory, which didn't allow them to take Berlin as gettysburg narrowedly saved Washington as it didn't also allow to take Richmon that at moment waa surelky the last thought for Lincoln
Faber9722 3 months ago
After my long and BORING SPEECH I can say that neither Cedar Creek, where blue coats were gathered in hopelessness after being swept away, has the prestige of ANtietam; the victory, if it could have been precocious, could have been achieved at ANtietam; there North cast waay a soon victory not at gettysburg
Faber9722 3 months ago
a giant victory and was surrounding from the South the rebel army, when Hill drove him back towards the bridge that was named after him. Never ANd I UNDERLINE NEVER THE NORTH DOMINATED AND WOULD AGAIN DOMINATE THE FIELD AS AT ANTIETAM. DESPITE THE NUMEROUS DEFEATS AND IRRETRIEVABLE LOSSES OF MEN AND TOOLS (gUNS CARTS WITH PROVISIONS ETC) The blue soldiers would never have such a crushing rule of the field; at Nashville , not even at Franklin where they were forced to escape, Vicksburg
Faber9722 3 months ago
day ??? After Chamberlain had charged, after exhausting all ammunitions???? The front of Hancock was broken, and the southerners stayed only shortly on the seminary ridge only because had themselves slaughtered during a foolish badly led charge (at pageant step) absurd!! Instead at ANtietam they had the plan of the enemy , they broke the center, and they were stopped everywhewre by ana nemy largely lower in numbers. They might have enveloped both flanks and didn't manage. burnside achieved
Faber9722 3 months ago
North underwent Southern initiative at gettysburg from the first minute to the last; the cavalry allowed the corps to shelter on the hills but thereafter the third corps was slaughtered and without this slaughter the Fifth corps would have never profited to come before southerners on the round tops; where is the mistake of the Third Corps and of its commanderr; they engaged Lee while the 5th corps climbed the round tops and planted the flag forming the south flank of Union army; and the third
Faber9722 3 months ago
Think at Gettysburg; the Southerners lost and it is the most famous southern defeat , however, the yankee dead at Gettysburg were more numerous than at the defeats of the months before (3155 at Gettysburg against 1284 at Fredericksburg and 1606 at Chancellorsville) Where is the great victory of Gettysburg; without counting moreover the men who died of wounds in all the three battles. Southern attack was repulsed but the war went on and not even at Gettusburg they managed to destroy southerners.
Faber9722 3 months ago
@Faber9722 Gettysburg was quite decisive in that ended once and for all any Southern prospects of victory. Sure, the AoP may have lost marginally more men, but they had men to lose. The South on the other hand could not afford casualties and at Gettysburg they were magnified by being in enemy territory. A wounded CSA in Virginia would recover and return to the ranks (if infection didn't kill him). In PA, they became POWs. Gettysbrg cost Lee 17,000 men struck permanently from the rolls. (cont)
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone 17,000 out of 80,000. Furthermore, Lee lost an inordinant number of his best officers either KIA, POW, or disabled by wounds: Pender, Hood, Pettigrew, Kemper, Armistead, Garnett, Barkesdale, just to name a few. Lee's army never fully recovered from Gettysburg. He could only fight on the defense from then on. And then, with the North's overwhelming advantage in men and materiel, it was only a matter of time...especially once Grant took charge. Gettysburg was a catastrophe for Lee.
Shafeone 2 months ago
@Shafeone
nobody said that Gettysburg was a triumph for Lee and we perfectly know, all of us, that the also such a great general could not make up for the losses he provoked with his mistakes (Malvern Hill and Gaines' Mill too despite the final success) and South could not afford the losses of Gettysburg but also the blood victory of North didn't shorten the war and however it made the North worn out , bringing about the riots of New York and the growth of opposition increased by Copperheads
Faber9722 2 months ago
@Faber9722 You asked "where is the great victory?" I answered.
Shafeone 2 months ago
Vicksburg was a masterwork of strategy and military art, if military life can be considered so, but this battle is the only one, where the Northerners had the complete control from the beginning to the end of the fighting; from the tactical point of view they never dominated the scene; the South squandered a heap of men , however with their bloody onsets , old-fashioned at that time in the tactics because of the waste of men they often risked to shatter into pieces the enemy's armies.
Faber9722 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he [Abraham Lincoln] shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the — that iron, iron fist. " - Ron Paul
Sistarovat 3 months ago
2:20 was he speaking a different language? xD i thought it was either that..or just really fast accented english... ;o and my bad hearing
chidoriookami 3 months ago
If only all arguments over the internet were this thought out and developed!
HailTheBrull 3 months ago
I still don't understand what the heck a sharpshooter is doing in the middle of an open field shooting down guys at point blank range.
TheSpillProductions 4 months ago
@TheSpillProductions They are the Berdan's Sharpshooters, the sharpshooters in the Civil War were different than today's sharpshooters, they fought in small regiments usually no larger than companies and attached to regular regiments for special deployment at a field general's order in a specific action. They fought usually in or close to the action and fought almost like skirmishers picking off people from a distance or fighting like regular troops in the middle of the battle.
AUG351 3 weeks ago
@AUG351
FFS you mean sniper just say it d-.-b
finalfrontier001 1 day ago
@finalfrontier001 Well now days we call them snipers but back then they called them sharpshooters.
AUG351 1 day ago
bush sent me
NickoRules17 4 months ago
What film was this?
fidomusic 4 months ago
@fidomusic It's no film, it's a series called ''North & South'' :D Category is ''drama and war''
Dennizjoon 4 months ago
@Dennizjoon Thanks. I know of the series, but have never seen it.
fidomusic 4 months ago
Historian's view of the battle as shown by the movie: "Though by 1862, George Mclellan had transformed the Union army of the Potomac into a unified fighting force, he was nonetheless unprepared for the Confederates, who had been studying under the tutelage of Lt. Colonel John Woo, who taught them how to charge shooting dual handguns..."
kit40 5 months ago
Isn't the civil war still going on?
movieklump 5 months ago
@movieklump
No, but news travels slow in some places...
Robertz1986 5 months ago
@Robertz1986 Ideologically, I think it never was completely resolved.
movieklump 5 months ago
like if your watching this in 1862
jackasskidzify 5 months ago
American Civil War was decisive not only to America but for the whole world. It was the event that divided that nation but it also established what that country would be in the future. The racial conflicts have remained for many decades after slavery was abolished. But united, America became the most powerful nation on the planet. Civil war has showed the power of will of the american people.
MrRoulf 5 months ago 7
@MrRoulf
I agree. It would have been better not to have ever needed to fight the war but a United America (USA) is so much greater than a divided America (CSA and USA). The USA would never be as influential or as great today if it had remained divided.
lobbotekka2019 5 months ago
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!
oskaras77 5 months ago
What a bunch of FARB crap.
zipsrule 6 months ago 15
@zipsrule I completely agree
1912tr 5 months ago
@zipsrule couldent agree more
Hardrada88 5 months ago
@zipsrule Do you know how old this? 20 years ago probably closer to 30. We did not worry about if our button holes were hand sewn back then. Nobody said "you can't take the field because you don't have the correct pattern sack coat for fall 1862", and if you think this is bad, you should have seen the 100th anniversary reenactments.
mecallahan1 3 months ago
@mecallahan1 100 year anniversary was really bad. But this is typical Hollywood crap that is not even making a fair attempt at accuracy and the parts of the sound track sounds like something from a World War II movie.
zipsrule 3 months ago
What movie is it from?
Cracken1979 6 months ago
@Cracken1979 Its from the North and the South tv series.
AUG351 5 months ago
@Boppomolies You Americans do this every day to other nations
ShovelHorse 6 months ago
do I hear bagpipes when the federals are charging up the hill? awesome
MichaelCasanovaMusic 6 months ago
type in and watch -
14th Indiana vs. Taylor Swift
see the heros of the Sunken Road fight through You Belong With Me
just before the battle of Cold Harbor
1967mustanggta 7 months ago
British govement intrests in the american colonies revolved around one thing, before & after independance and that was greed. Greed & intractability And it was that greed witch that led to the states declaring independance & the same greed witch lost britan the revolutionary war & directed all further policies concerning the us & the civil war ie how much money the could make out of the situation . the only thing the british had in common with the union at the time was the stance on slavery
Ske11en 7 months ago
This movie or whatever sucks it basically shows all dead confederate soldiers... That's bs the yankees lost almost 1,000 more people and almost 2,000 more wounded.
fprtclvs 7 months ago
Try thinking within the confines of the time period you ignorant moron. In the 1770's our founding fathers were Traitors and Rebels. That is a fact, stop trying to revise history to your liking, so it fits your ideals. I was elaborating on the fact that the founding fathers and the Confederacy shared a comparable position. Slavery is on the back burner, seeing as it would have died anyway with the rise of industry. I've spoke with many retards like you who follow mainstream history.
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 "I was elaborating on the fact that the founding fathers and the Confederacy shared a comparable position."
Only southerners think that. The colonists were pissed because they had no representation in Parliament but it was still trying to control the colonies. In a democracy, if a territory has no say in the government, then it's not really part of that government, and it's not treason. The south had MORE representation in Congress than it deserved.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Were they not rebels and traitors?
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 rebels yes traitors no
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 But were they not supposed to be colonialists loyal to the Crown? Loyal to King and Country?
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 King and Country weren't loyal to them. Britain wouldn't help the colonists in their conflicts with the Native Americans. Only when another European power was involved.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 That's bs, you ever heard of the 7 Years War? The British fought the Native Americans countless times. Your history is muddled.
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 Learn some history. As I said, the British wouldn't help the Americans in conflicts with the Natives UNLESS A EUROPEAN POWER WAS INVOLVED. Who were the British fighting in the 7 Years War? The French.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 They were fighting the French and the Indians for hegemony in the American colonies.
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 Very good.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
The civil war was horrible
but it gets uglier yet.
watch -
"Civil War Taylor Swift"
The 14th Indiana fought at Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chacellorsville, Gettysburg, Wilderness and Cold Harbor
but can they handle Taylor Swift?
1967mustanggta 7 months ago
north and south book 2 : love and war. it's a minieseries
Jacob6443 8 months ago
what movie is this scene from?
TheRapper10000 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRapper10000 north and south book 2: love and war it's minieseries
Jacob6443 8 months ago
People don't realize that our beloved **Founding Fathers**, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Jay, Hamilton and Madison were all deemed Traitorous Rebels by their colonial masters. Somehow the rebels in the 1860's were inbred, racist rednecks. But the Rebels in the 1770's were savior's of the World. Kind of funny how history is written.
HaggenPagan26 8 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 that's because the winners get to write the history books. i'm sure if we lost the revelution the founding fathers would be seen differently
xPrinceOfAngelsx 8 months ago
@xPrinceOfAngelsx Write you are correct. Unfortunately this generation does not see it necessary to find out what real history is. They take everything they hear in 10- 11th grade history as gospel that can't be questioned. Brainwashed when you think of it.
HaggenPagan26 8 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 "Somehow the rebels in the 1860's were inbred, racist rednecks. But the Rebels in the 1770's were savior's of the World."
It might have something to do with the fact that one of the main reasons the southern states were fighting was to maintain slavery. The Founding Fathers may have supported slavery, but that's not why they were fighting. The Confederates brainwashed their citizens into believing they were fighting for liberty, but they were really fighting for slavery and greed.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Oh hear it comes, now I am a bigot. It is hard for me to read the entirety of your posts, they are so incredibly filled to the brim with ignorance and stupidity. Our founding fathers were deemed TRAITORS and REBELS according to their government. You are a half wit who studies one sided, commonly excepted propaganda.
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 "Oh hear it comes, now I am a bigot."
No, I get the feeling that you were always a bigot. I also get the feeling that you don't actually know what the literal definition of bigot is.
"You are a half wit who studies one sided, commonly excepted propaganda."
Are you joking? You just described yourself exactly, except I doubt you've studied either side. You subscribe to the common idea that everyone in a communist society receives the same treatment regardless of the work they do
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 You don't even know me. What gives you the qualifications to judge me as a bigot. When I say you study one sided, common history, I mean that you don't study at all. And you can't realize that propaganda surrounds all Wars. There is always a motive and a cause. But you fail to understand the fact that Slavery would have been killed by the Industrial Revolution, and that the common Southern soldier never owned a Slave in his life. And the North also had Slaves.
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 "What gives you the qualifications to judge me as a bigot"
A bigot is someone intolerant of other opinions.
"you fail to understand the fact that Slavery would have been killed by the Industrial Revolution"
So what? The Southern politicians still started the war because they were afraid the Republicans were going to destroy slavery.
"the common Southern soldier never owned a Slave in his life"
Are you retarded? I said the soldiers weren't fighting for slavery, the politicians were
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I am the bigot? You are the one who first responded to most post with how much you disagreed with it. You started the intolerance you jackhole. All I said was that our founding fathers were deemed traitors and rebels by their current government. Then you responded with the ignorant comment of saying that they were fighting for freedom, where the Confederates were fighting for greed and slavery. Your ignorance created this argument.
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 Disagreement is not intolerance you stupid fuck.
"All I said was that our founding fathers were deemed traitors and rebels by their current government."
You were pondering the reason the Founding Fathers were heroes while the Confederate Fathers weren't.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Ok well you started the disagreement you prick monkey. Don't get mad at me when I say your rebuttal is stupid and retarded.
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
What movie is this?
MidnightMarauder1 8 months ago
@MidnightMarauder1 Pretty sure this is from the miniseries North and South.
AllenbysEyes 8 months ago
3:30 "General, that is an impeccable hat." quote General Jackson Gods and Generals
TheJonvonn 8 months ago
bhnkhj
NOPEACE97 8 months ago
SUPERIOR WEAPONS FOR STUPID TACTICS
CrustyStinky 8 months ago
at antietam the south were the one doing the damage not the north ? history is so fucked up
legomyeggo713 8 months ago
I am from the North ,and they say we won,but I feel no one won. So many died.I will try to visit Gettysburg this year.I live abut 4 hours away. We have a camp in WV with two grave yards on the land .One for the South the other for the North. They are worn out rocks with no names. I feel they should have a marker,
do you think the Goverment would pay for this . 12 graves. If not I am going to try to get the money.
m109r1800 9 months ago
i mean "NOrth and South"miniseries
jeffreybernabe 9 months ago
@jeffreybernabe no. The blue and the gray.
MrCopperhead1861 8 months ago
is this "LOVe and War" miniseries?
jeffreybernabe 9 months ago
in my opinion the civil war was fucking dumb...but it was needed to settle the controvertial subject of slavery
REMIREZZ 9 months ago
@REMIREZZ you know what 600000 good red blooded americans died in this stupid war as you call it you respect those brave men who died for what they thought was right and my great great great great uncle phelix corbett 15th south Carolinian infantry regiment
legomyeggo713 8 months ago
@legomyeggo713 Trust me dude I have great respect for the men who fought, just not as much for the south becasue what they were fighting for is wrong
REMIREZZ 8 months ago
@REMIREZZ Wrong? What do you think the South was fighting for? Let me guess, every Southerner was fighting for Slavery right? Is that what you honestly believe?
HaggenPagan26 8 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 "states rights"
REMIREZZ 8 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 Their government was absolutely. Let me ask you... States' Rights TO DO WHAT exactly?
Shafeone 7 months ago
@legomyeggo713 Respect to your pop. What a brave man he must have been. Fighting an enormous force with less and often inferior weapons. I don't believe that Southerners were fighting for anything wrong. They were just fighting because their state went to War....and for each other and their respected units. People who think the conflict was all about Slavery really know very little about the CW! I used to be an insufferable Union supporter, until I cracked open some serious historical material.
HaggenPagan26 8 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 Spoken like a man who's never been a slave of course.
Shafeone 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shafeone Spoken like a man who has never been invaded.
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 The men who were actually fighting and dying in the civil war weren't fighting for slavery, but the politicians definitely "fought" for slavery.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Since when do Politicians fight????
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 They don't. That's why "fought" was in "quotes". It's being used figuratively.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 BTW, your communism analogy in the "about me" section of your channel is a gross over-simplification and shows your knowledge of communism. In a communist society, Joe would be killed for being lazy and George would be rewarded by being allowed entry into the communist party.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Oh it all comes out. Now I know where your ignorance comes from. You are a Commie sympathizer. You'd probably support Stalins Great Purge or the Soviet genocide in the Ukraine.
HaggenPagan26 7 months ago
@HaggenPagan26 So if I tell you that your conception of communism is wrong that makes me a communist sympathizer? You're about 60 years behind your time, McCarthy. I guess you stopped reading my comment after the first sentence, like most bigots would do. I pointed out the amoral nature of communist societies. Like slavery, fear of death does not produce very efficient labor. Try learning about this stuff before jumping on your online soapbox. Then you might not embarrass yourself.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
To all, I agree. But you have to accept that the waste of men here cannot be reconciled as tactics, not to mention strategy, on the part of the Union forces. It could have indeed ended the War, this battle, right here. But it didn't, and it kept right on, wasting more and more, in blood and material. Better Generalship, on this field, could have saved so much.
jggrow 9 months ago
antietam was the single bloodiest day in American Military history
zyzor 9 months ago
So simple to criticize from a distance. Everyone is a supreme tactician when there not involved in the moment.. face it, all of your discussions over who did right or wrong is pointless.. they had there reasons 'at the time.'
kamacazi8 9 months ago
farbe
topolino2 10 months ago
For it's time (1985, if I'm informed correctly) this looks quite impressive. The quite fierce battle scenes and the fact you have protagonists on both sides of the battle make this theme quite modern. Also the shaky camera during the fighting kind of forshadows the current Saving Private Ryan approach to filming battles.
I wil have to watch the whole series now. ^^
Schensue 10 months ago
Grant was neither a strategist, nor a tactician. He simply had a bottemless well of troops and supplies to draw from.
If Lee had the same....game over by 1863.
seeingthesigns 10 months ago 15
@seeingthesigns I Lee had the same amount of resources then Grant had, he probably would have won the war for the south early on. However if that was the case Lee would have Grant's job and being fighting for the North instead of the south. Unless the South had garnered large support from some forigen power such as England then maybe. But there was no chance they could have had any such advantage like that over the North.
Even though Grant was not as good,he was still a decent strategist.
forrestorocks 5 months ago
@seeingthesigns Against Meade and Hancock? I think not
BryantFinlay 5 months ago
@seeingthesigns, Grant was indeed an excellent strategist & tactician. You should read & study his remarkable Vicksburg Campaign from start to finish. Grant was outnumbered & defeated the CSA in the field & was fighting in 2 directions before the siege began.
christof139 4 months ago 2
@christof139 I'm not sure I would call him excellent. The Vicksburg campaign is, indeed, a masterful campaign. However, Donelson, Henry, and Shiloh were anything but, and the Overland Campaign of 1864 was an absolute disaster. Federal victory, by that point, had more to do with Hood's mistakes in and around Atlanta rather than masterful Federal maneuvers. In short, Vicksburg showed what Grant could do, but one good campaign does not an excellent strategist make.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th, I wouldn't call Lee excellent then either. Lee proffited from Federal mistakes & indecision more than anything else & he blew it at Gettysburg. Grant had more than 1 good campaign; you seem to have forgotten Fts. Henry & Donelson (& southern mistakes there), his recovery at Shiloh before Buell arrived, Belmont, & even the 1864 Virginia Campaign with his persistant attcking & driving south althogh wiht high casualties, & his conception of the Valley campaigns etc.
christof139 4 months ago
@christof139 I never called Lee excellent. And just as one campaign does not make a great general, neither does it make a bad general. I did not forget Henry and Donelson, they are clearly mentioned in my first post, and neither they, nor Shiloh, are good campaigns. That battle was won by a colonel acting against orders, under threat of court martial who sent out a 200 man patrol. The 1864 Campaign was horrible. Grant coordinated all three armies, the Army of Cumberland was decimated...
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@christof139 Sherman's army was stopped butt-cold outside Atlanta, and Grant was outmaneuvered by Lee throughout the entire campaign. Grant's officer corps was turning against him due to the casualties, his campaign--an its conception--caused the public opinion to turn against them and was about to contribute to Lincoln's defeat. His entire strategy hinged on destroying the Confederate armies. At the end of 1864, one of his armies was routed, the other...
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@christof139 could not achieve its objective, and Grant had lost tens of thousands of men and had gained nothing. He and his officers said as much. Largely due to this campaign, Lincoln and his advisers were resigned to defeat in 1864, under a familiar cry of "the war is unwinnable, the only end is a negotiated end," which was led by Lincoln's personal enemy, George B. McClellan. However, with Hood taking over command of Atlanta, he adopted Davis' policy of attack...
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@christof139 rather than wait out the 1864 election. Sherman finally got the series of decisive battles that had been denied to him, and was able to take Atlanta. This news saved Lincoln's election. To review, Grant's generalship, if followed as he intended, would have probably led to disaster on the banks of the Tennessee, his campaign and overall strategy in 1864 failed, and was on track to lose the war. Sherman going off orders, and seizing Atlanta rather than destroying Hood's army, saved...
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@christof139 that disaster. That said, Grant certainly showed sparks of what he could do. His rallying at Shiloh saved the day, but only because his generalship endangered the day. His campaign against Vicksburg was masterful. However, as I have shown, very thorough examinations of his stated objectives, the failure of these objectives, and how the Union was imperiled, show that his generalship cannot truly be called great or excellent, and...
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@christof139 back to the crux of the first argument, his strategy is certainly worthy of reproach and criticism. I am sorry for the length of this. And, again, I must stress that I am not doing this as a comparative analysis between Grant and Lee. I do not mean to be combative or drown you in responses. I wanted to answer you in full, as your contention deserved, and I certainly welcome your response. Thank you for reading my view.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@christof139
after 6-7 failed attempts, not so great tactically when considering the blunders the Confederate army made. Also, his campaign vs. Lee was a battle of attrition, not a "masterpiece" at all. And to suggest he was good with lesser men than his adversary is disingenuous. How many times did he have that disadvantage? Not many. If he were in Lee's shoes, most historians would doubt he'd perform anywhere near to Lee's caliber.
Evocati2008 2 months ago
@christof139 Wow that's new. Everything I heard from Grant was that he sucked. And that he only won due to the superior number of the Union forces.
treehugger3615 1 month ago
@treehugger3615 That was later in the war during the Overland Campaign where he used allot of frontal attacks and superior numbers to try to overrun or push back Lee. At battles like Spotsylvania there he took thousands of casualties and was one of the bloodiest battles of the war with Union troops attacking confederate trenches in the mud and rain allot like in WW1. The same happened at Cold Harbor where he lead an assualt on Lee's trenches and got the name "the Butcher".
AUG351 1 month ago
@seeingthesigns Southern bullcrap again. The Vicksburg Campaign is a prime example of excellent strategy, and if we're to take other Union generals then Rosecrans was a mastermind as well. Study the Tullahoma campaign and you'll see.
DrStrangebomb1993 4 months ago
This is from North and South.
I recommend watching it.
George Vreeland Hill
GeorgeVreelandHill 11 months ago
What movie is tis?
3SBot 11 months ago
@3SBot it not a movie it a tv series called north and south
754721 11 months ago
I think Lee in that extend was far more of a strategist and tactician than any other general in the war. He operated under extreme pressure. Pressure from both politicians and also major responsibility for his men and the success of the war.
As Grant was not a fool, Lee wasnt either. And by looking at the immense failure on the west Lee and his army's success was what kept confederacy alive for that long.
spoukas 1 year ago
@spoukas Lee was a spectacular, if sometimes flawed, tactician. Perhaps nobody led an army like he did in the war. But he wasn't a strategist. He rarely linked the actions of the armies he had, with that of armies commanded by others. He didn't quite have an overall strategy encompassing the whole CSA.
Grant was a good strategist, but he was no Lee. But he was an excellent strategist. He knew it didn't matter if he, himself, won. He had a better overall sense of the War.
Ares99999 1 year ago
@Ares99999 "Lee wasnt a strategist" Where do you base that, and whats your definition of strategy ?
spoukas 1 year ago
@spoukas I'll amend that. Lee wasn't as good a strategist as Grant, while Grant wasn't as good a tactician as Lee. They both had their strengths, and both used it well during the war.
Ares99999 1 year ago
@Ares99999 I agree he knew it didnt matter as long as he could replenish his losses everytime. But Lee knew it mattered. If he would have been tactically succesful on the field when it really mattered we would have another view on the confederacy strategy. The thing im trying to say is that his strategy was inherently tied with keeping confederacy on the action, not a secondary player and also keeping the war outside the south states while putting the much needed pressure on the north.
spoukas 1 year ago
@spoukas Thats vague strategy. Without concerted action and planning with other field generals, it can't work that well.
Ares99999 1 year ago
Lee never should have fought at Antietam. With his back to the Potomac and barely 1/3 of McClellan's numbers and his man half starved and ragged, he was lucky his command wasn't massacred. Grant would have had that battle over by 10 am. Lee fought there because he refused to admit his invasion was an ill-advised failure. He felt he could beat McClellan but that wasn't realistic despite him being by far the superior general. Lee lost 1/4 of his army for nothing. Stupid.
Shafeone 1 year ago
@Shafeone True. McClellan held 20,000 troops back. Grant would have used them to keep Lee from retreating, kept him there, and might have won after a long battle of clear attrition. Losing Lee at that point - along with excellent generals like Jackson and Longstreet - would have been a crushing blow. McClellan was a very poor battlefield commander.
Ares99999 1 year ago
@ares999 Lee made plenty of terrible mistakes, the most overarching one being that he attacked very often while leading an army that was consistently outnumbered and suffered horrific casualties his country could ill-afford. Being a front line soldier in Lee's army was more dangerous than in Grant's! Grant knew what the war was about. Attrition. Grant was the better general in that he knew how to defeat Lee...and he did. That's what mattered.
Shafeone 1 year ago
@Shafeone Exactly. People tend to see Lee's flamboyance as a sign that he was the greater general. Grant was pragmatic, which make his actions more ordinary-looking. Yet he kicked the crap out of his enemies in the West very effectively.
Neither general liked the killing, but both felt at home on the battlefield. Both took risks, and both paid for it (Gettysbug for Lee, Cold Harbour for Grant). But Lee was a tactician. Grant was a strategist.
Ares99999 1 year ago
@Ares99999 Grant would have never had the success that Lee had if they were in opposite sides, being outnumbered, outgunned and fighting a desperate war of politics and attrition that demanded success and results in the battlefields at an overwhelming element. I agree Grant was a pragmatist and great to take into advantage northern unlimited manpower and resources but i doubt he could succeed without them.
spoukas 1 year ago
@spoukas On the other hand, Lee was a man too concerned about the State of Virginia, and unable to fully grasp the entirety of the war. Lee would never have had Grant's ability to see the war as a whole and put together a broad, concerted strategy.
Ares99999 1 year ago
@Ares99999 I disagree. South could not fight a war of attrition. Staying on the defence would just prolonge the inevitable end, while giving the enemy the attacking lead. Its easy to criticize generals from the safety of the outcome and specialized circumstances. Having south fight a defensive war of attrition on their own soil would be a disaster, something that happened later anyway.
spoukas 1 year ago
@spoukas How does that in any way answer what I said? You said Grant couldn't have done as good a job had he commanded Lee's army. I have to agree with that. I am saying that, on the other hand, Lee wouldn't have been able to bring about the overall, multi-thrust strategy that Grant did.
Lee was a better tactician. Grant was a better strategist. And they were the best each side had.
Ares99999 1 year ago
@Ares99999 If Lee had the numbers do you think he would fail in the strategical level ? For me Grant wasnt a great strategist to the extend that he outperformed everyone else or that he did anything remarkable but he was the right man for the job. A potent general, ruthless and determined to exploit the disadvantages of his enemy while using his strong cards that were by that time so obvious. Theres a fine line between good strategy when it involves things like 2:1 or 3:1 field superiority.
spoukas 1 year ago
@spoukas A strategist doesn't necessarily care that he wins the given battle or not. Grant didn't mind losing on the tactical level, if it ensured that he would win on the overall, strategic level. Lee cared about winning every battle on the tactical level. Strategically, his plans of invasions were often based on luck and what-ifs. That in no way diminishes Lee as a field general. But many historical papers show Lee was more a 'battle to battle' genius.
Ares99999 1 year ago
@ares99999 Lee had a long term strategy, you mean. Grants was simplistic at best, and was basically just "defeat Lee's army." he didn't really have any other. But the irony is that Lee read grant so well he could figure out where Grant was going to go before Grant even moved, then move his army and get the high ground. That's how he inflicted so many casualties on Grant in the months leading up to the election. He was trying to make Lincoln lose to McClellan.
josded 1 year ago
@josded Wow. You either intensely hate Grant for having bested Lee, or you're just trying to make Grant appear like a moron to make Lee look better.
Grant HAD a plan: He recognized that taking Richmond wouldn't bring victory. What he learned he had to do, was pin Lee down. It didn't matter to Grant that Lee would know where he was. His part of the plan wasn't about being subtle. It was meant to stop Lee, keep pressure on him, until Lee eventually had to give up. And Lee eventually did.
Ares99999 1 year ago
@Ares99999 You just said the same thing I said. His plan was to destroy Lee's army. I don't hate the man, I'm a northerner. But I'm not blind to what actually happened. If you look how he performed at individual battles, it isn't very impressive. Even when Lee had only a fourth of what Grant had, Lee still somehow managed to bloody Grant and slip away. Granted, Grant was happy when there were lots of confederate casualties, but its not hard to do that if you have a bagillion more people...
josded 10 months ago