Absolutely what I was looking for, thanks!

1:08 holy cow the same position in gettisburg, Lee push at the morning in the middle.

This is one if the most expressive order of battle

I understand the Union's hesitation to commit large numbers of men early in the war. I'm sure the whole thing still seemed unreal. But after Shiloh, Antietam and Fredericksburg, you would think Hooker would have taken the initiative and just ended it with overwhelming numbers. I guess President Lincoln was asking that exact same question though.

@chriskule4663

6 жыл бұрын

That ground behind Chancellorsville is pretty soft for maneuver. Lee had a logistically supportable base in Orange, to the SW but Hooker was not heading in that direction. Probably because of Lincoln's strategic wishes. When Grant came across in 1864 he deployed North South, not East West, against Lee, who was then in Orange. Lee's advantage at Chancellorsville was better ground behind and below him and interior lines. Burnside had failed with direct assault at F'burg. Not sure Hooker could have done what Grant later did... which cost Grant something like 100,000 casualties in about 5 weeks. Chancellorsville was a bloodletting for Lee's army and a clear prelude to the losses which ensued at G'burg, Overland, and P'burg. From that perspective it was exactly what Lincoln ordered.

Excellent visual, nicely done. I am curious, what program did you use to make this video?

I want to plug in my GreatGreatGrandfather's unit number and watch this again!

Thx for this!

We can see how badly conducted were the Union's armies. The left flank is protected by the river but they do nothing to protect their right flank. The army in Fredericksburg attacked way too late.

@ianjones2068

5 жыл бұрын

The right flank was protected by the Wilderness which was a second growth forest. This map does not do a good job explaining what that area was like. The problem for the Union was the fact that local guides showed Confederates paths through the Wilderness which is why Jackson was able to do his flank attack. Think of the Ardennes in 1940. The mistake Hooker made was not attacking Lee and the Confederates thus preventing them from doing something like this. Also in ignoring reports from Union pickets who had run into lots of Confederates in the Wilderness. Another battle was fought in the Wilderness itself in 1864 between Grant and Lee and it was one of the ugliest battles of the war. At the time it was hard to navigate and had lots of serious ground cover. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Wilderness

Very nice!!

That was very helpful.

What programs were used to make these?

Grant would had pushed the attacks further and won the battle.

@danielkitchens4512

Жыл бұрын

Grant faced Lee very late in the war when Lee was at his weakest and Grant Almost always outnumbered his opponents in every way. Grant is a great general but I wonder how he would perform if he was put in the same situations as Lee .

@szalard

Жыл бұрын

@@danielkitchens4512 Yes, Grant was an offensive general, while Lee a deffensive one. Lee obtained his greatest victories in deffensive, while Grant in offensive. But I think If Grant would had not achieved his success against Lee, If he has had the smaller numbers of troops, shortages in weapons and Military technology of Lee's troops.

hi, which map program did u use for this?

How was this made?

No voice but still nicely done.

wow#

Which app is that

Why didn’t lee just crush the men left at fredricksburg then escape that way? Could’ve totally wiped them out, attacking downhill with the enemies backs against the river (mostly) and being able to pound them with artillery.

@maskcollector6949

2 жыл бұрын

Lee was by far the best general at the time on any battlefield. He sympathized with both sides, I'm convinced he did not think it was wise for the South to win the war. My theory is that he made sure the Confederates slowly lost while still raising morale. He nearly joined the Union as their General, but only stayed because his family was in the South (pretty sure Virginia). Once he pushed up far enough North, he basically gave up at Gettysburg and let em have it. I don't think he had the heart to do it, because he opposed slavery, and I think he was too genius not to win when he could have. The irony is that the Japanese commander of WW2 in the pacific during Midway based his strategy on Grant, assuming he was the best general because he won. If it wasn't for that, the U.S. would have lost Midway. Lee did just enough to keep as many alive as possible, to me, but sometimes his Army was too effective. He ultimately decided to let his generals lead themselves by Gettysburg, for the most part, and it was their own undoing. He then retreated into the woods, all the way back to the South, keeping many alive while Grant still took heavy losses by being as dumb as a mule. Hooker at least had fighting spirit and was demoralized after this battle, Grant was just a dumbass. I wouldn't be surprised if Stonewall Jackson being killed wasn't an accident - Lee made sure the racists and power players were taken out. It was fate, otherwise - but I think there's sufficient evidence to think that Lee(or Lincoln) ordered a hit on Jackson and Lee had a secret alliance with Lincoln: who was ultimately assassinated. Bottom line is it deserves more investigation. The South was crippled without Jackson. Jackson himself was probably on the fence about slavery, having taught his slaves to read - so I'm sure there's more to it than what I know. I just know most Southerners fought "Because you're down here." more than for slavery or even states rights as most didn't own slaves - so taking out southern leaders was important. I'm surprised no one else has postulated that Jackson was murdered on purpose by a Union spy posing as a confederate. He even had his arm shot off by confederates in a "mistaken identity" (Actually a failed assassination attempt). Methinks the first "Special Forces" were fake confederates. He was then thrown from his stretcher and left for dead in an attempt to finish the job, and ultimately succumbed to his wounds and pneumonia about a week later. The 67 caliber speaks for itself, when it's known they called out who they were before being shot at. Jackson would have undoubtedly won the South the war if left alive: Lee the greatest strategist alive and Jackson the greatest tactician - you couldn't leave a man like that alone.

@dubsy1026

2 жыл бұрын

Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

@peknive8331

2 жыл бұрын

What the fuck or you on? I’m just gonna block out the rest of your post but about Lee trying to spare his men, he, over the course of the war, took 109 THOUSAND casualties. You call that sparing his men? I mean even this battle, the battle of chancellorsville, he took 13k casualties to the Unions 17k, and what did he gain? Also about Grant being as dumb as a mule, he was on the offensive, against entrenched positions,(see WW1 for why that might cause casualties) and he sustained lower overall and a lower percentage of casualties in the war, Grants 90k to lees ~110k, and Lees 23% per battle and grants 21% per battle

@peknive8331

2 жыл бұрын

I’m guessing that because fredricksburg is urban they wouldn’t have time to crush the Union forces there before getting hit in the back by union forces coming to reinforce. If you look at the Franco-Prussian war even with modern Prussian artillery it still took several days before the French surrendered at sedan, in a complete encirclement, I don’t think it was freasible for Lee to do what you suggest.

@brocksargeant1134

Жыл бұрын

Good idea but Lee did not have the God's eye view presented here with instant information. He probably assumed a larger force was still in front of him until he received reports that he had been flanked, and even then he wasn't sure by how many.

The civil war wasn’t about blue and red buses driving all around town. They didn’t even have buses at that time so the entire idea is nothing more than a cartoon.