The University of Virginia Darden School of Business is one of the world's leading business schools, offering MBA, PhD and Executive Education programs. The unique Darden experience combines the case study method, top-ranked faculty whose research advances global managerial practice and business education, and a tight-knit learning environment to develop principled and complete leaders who are ready to make an impact.
Пікірлер
Gary is a bit double standard with Lee and Longstreet. When Lee delegates command he praised him and uses buzz words like "latitude". When Longstreet asks his artillery COMMANDER (Porter had a low rank but in terms of his power and position he was basically the 2nd to Longstreet. Longstreet commanded the corps as a whole and the infantry. Porter commanded the artillery which was severely important to an attack.) to make a decision Gary criticizes Longstreet for delegating. If anyone had knowledge of if the assault would be well supported with artillery it would be Porter and artillery is key to an assault. Also I think that exchange between them is blown out of proportion. Longstreet isn't really giving Porter the decision. He is basically asking Porter if he thinks the plan is a good one. Longstreet nodded because he confirmed that Porter wasn't confident in the plan. Longstreet wasn't the only person as Gary paints it to be against the plan. Nearly every general on that side of the field didn't believe Lee had a good plan. Hood even protested it on the record. Gary leaves out some key information in this great performance and its unfortunate. He should have had them read Lee's resignation letter to Davis in August. Lee very clearly says his staff failed him. That he made choices based on bad information and his staff performed poorly. Lee's staff did all this: Failed to report union troops on little round top. Found and led the route for the march that resulted in a counter march. Longstreet shouldn't be blamed for the counter march. If he was even present at the front of the column when it occurred Lee was there with him and should share any blame. Who we know led and was at the front of the column was Lee's staff. Lee's staff did not feed Lee the information needed.
I love Dr’Gallagher’s “Rides”. Videos!, I would love to discuss one point with him - that being the practicality of Meade pursuing Lee into the passes of South Mountain. I believe that Meade’s logistical tail lead from Gettysburg on the Baltimore Pike (via the Baltimore Pike) to Emmitsburg, MD. Emmitsburg was the railhead supporting the logistics needs of the AOP during the battle. The distance from Emmitsburg to Gettysburg was approximately 13 miles and all supplies had to be unloaded from train to wagon and then moved to Gettysburg. A direct pursuit of the ANV would have necessitated a dramatic lengthing (it was 13 miles to Cashtown alone) of Meade’s logistical tail. All of which would be performed solely by wagons! It’s my understanding that many in the AOP were already suffering from a shortage of food, etc by July 3rd. If that’s true then it is highly unlikely that, the AOP could have been properly supplied if Meade pursued the ANV directly into the mountains. Meade moved his army south staying between Lee and Washington and moved his logistical railhead to Frederick, MD which was much close to Falling Waters, MD where the ANV ultimately crossed the Potomac.
I enjoy Professor Gallagher’s “Rides” immensely. I’ve watched them all. But I do have some question about his conclusion that Lee attacked on July 2nd and 3rd because of “momentum and morale”. I believe that Lee was intuitively aware that once the ANV stopped moving and concentrated the operational strategic situation changed in the UnIon’s favor. There were significant numbers of Union forces in Harper’s Ferry and moving eastward from Western Maryland which posed the possibility (probability?) that a return to Virginia would be extremely difficult. In addition there was a force of 30-40 thousand Militia in Harrisburg which could move down the Cumberland Valley and into his rear. Obviously, these other Union forces alone could not defeat the ANV but Lee would have to deal with them with a numerically superior Army of the Potomac in his rear! Time was not on Lee’s side and he needed to defeat the Army of the Potomac as quickly as possible to have the effect that he sought.
The girl at the end saying "He was there for 10 days and didn't do anything" with regard to Meade has no clue of the entire picture of the retreat and aftermath. Meade did pursue, had a longer route to take, then faced formidable defenses at Williamsport. His army needed resupply, the weather was bad, his best corp commanders were not available, etc.). She doesn't have all the details, and takes the common conceptions as truth.
Lee says very quietly, "I have your argument several times now. Now shut up and do exactly as I tell you. Exactly. I say again, Exactly."
Although I'm really enjoying this, I feel he dismisses the Fall 1863 campaigns because they didn't result in large battles
It's really baffling to me how these people just don't *_get it_* with regard to Lee and Longstreet.
Prof. Gallagher certainly seems eager either to misrepresent what his students are saying or else focus on irrelevant details of what they say. Basically, he seems like a bit of a dick. I do enjoy his lectures but I'm glad I'm not actually in his classroom.
Kathy is hot ❤
Gary every time someone who isn't named Robert E Lee makes a bad choice: "they should have known better and had all this hindsight." Gary every time someone named Robert E Lee makes a mistake: "he acted how he should have given the information he had!"
I feel like Gary, though I love him, is being a bit of a Lee lover here and goes pretty far out on a limb to say that Lee isn't to blame because his subordinates should have known all these vague orders were actually specific and that even though they were given direct orders they could disobey them. For example, I think what Gary doesn't really mention is Longstreet and Lee had a long argument over the move to the right. They argued it all morning and Lee even gave some orders that specifically prevented it like putting some of McClaws men under Lee's/Hill's command instead of Longstreet which means Longstreet couldn't move to the right without splitting up his command. So Longstreet is put into a position where he doesn't agree with the plan, his hands are tied in terms of the orders, Lee's staff officers are in charge of the route to get into position which causes a delay because they fucked it up, and to top it all off Sickles had moved up and the union had occupied the round tops. Longstreet had 2 choices: resign his command and probably be criticized for abandoning his post or follow the orders and hope for the best and still get criticized. The blame belongs to Lee for not adapting his leadership style to the change in the situation and subordinates. Lee also approved Stuart's plan to ride around the army. Lee had an entire cav corps of his own to use to scout but he didn't use them. If Lee wasn't aware of the enemy movements it's because he failed to use his forces appropriately.
I love Prof Gallagher as a great historian and teacher but his love of Lee is a bit hard to take.
Longstreet did have the column formed and on the road by 11am. Col. Long, Lee, Longstreet, and all the accounts agree on that. Specifically shown when in all their accounts at 11am Lee comes and finds Longstreet at the middle of a COLUMN on the march. This is after Lee went to speak with Ewell about the plan and returned. Longstreet seems to say the plan was formed but not official until Lee returned with word that Ewell was agreeable. This is because Ewell was part of the plan and the 2 attacks were supposed to be coordinated. The people to blame on the 2nd day are Lee's staff. Lee himself said so. Basically Lee had a reletively small staff of somewhat inexperienced officers who attempted to run the battle as a committee without Lee present because Lee wasn't feeling fell and would be in his tent. So Lee's staff officer did a poor recon. Lee's staff led the route of longstreets march and caused the delay because they didn't properly recon the route. Lee's staff didn't see Sickles move forward. Lee's staff after the war all throw Longstreet under the bus but it was all their doing and mismanagement. You can even blame them for the vague orders Lee gives and not conveying to the receiver of the message the real intention or importance.
Backseat drivers with lots of opinions and no bullets flying.
Outstanding lecture. I wish I could have been there in person
Excellent Lecturer👍
Great historian
Who doesn't love learning from Professor Gallagher...
Wonderful.
2-4-2024. Just found this series on you tube. I’m 72 and found out a couple years ago that I had a great grandfather in the civil war. It’s now my passion to learn. Gary is the best teacher I’ve ever heard. School would have been so much better with his style of delivery!
Not a Confederate fan at all....but if Lee had just not engaged and pivoted around to the south east and formed up a good defensive line the war could have ended differently. As a person who loves the United States of America I am glad he made this fundamental mistake. Lee didn't deserve to win and his decisions that day saved a lot of Unites States Army lives and possibly the state of the Union.
Superb
It would have been interesting to look at the damage these resupply trains did to 19th Cent. roads and the minor river crossing points.
It's so hard to watch these engaging lectures and not want to jump in and comment. So here's my two cents. I'm gonna use a funny comparison, but I think it holds merit. I play a lot of card games, and card games are unlike any other game. They aren't like video games, and they aren't like board games. In a card game you always want to do something to advance your "game state." In other words you want to make plays and moves that move your deck into a better position to win regardless of what your opponent does. Further, you never want to rely on a card that only works if your opponent does "X" because there is never a guarantee that your opponent will do "X." Your deck needs to have a goal and a gameplan, and constantly work towards that goal. In that regard Lee was using the ANV like a deck. His game plan was to attack, his goal was to engage and defeat Meade. Therefore he attacked, as it was the only way to ensure he advanced his game state. People always act like Meade would have attacked Lee on day 2 if Lee had hunkered down to defend. That's just not the case. Meade could've disengaged, called up more reinforcements, or strengthened his own defences. Lee took the initiative, he advanced his game state. He did not wait to see if his opponent would do "X" he made the safest play. The best example I can think of during the war of relying on your opponent to make your plan work is at first manassas. The confederates relied on the US to do "X" and and nearly got their asses handed to them. Never rely on your opponent to do anything to help you win.
Acct is not hard , it like a algebra equation asset=debt - capital. Left side=Right side The hardest point is where make it not equal.
There was fighting during the Confederate retreat. That was when Pettigrew was killed.
I haven’t listened to a complete college lecture since I graduated college 13 years ago. Listened to parts 1-5 and enjoyed it a great deal. Didn’t agree with everything but that’s what makes america great.
Wish I was in the classroom…Lee had to attack on July 3rd. Lee and the entire army had to know Vicksburg was going to fall soon. Also, Lee said it himself-he had whooped the Union on the peninsula. He whooped the Union at 2nd Manassas. He whooped the Union at Fredericksburg. He whooped the Union at Chancellorsville. In less than a year, he had beat the union at every turn (Antietam was a draw and Lee had an army outnumbered 2 to 1). Even tho Lee always whooped their ass-he had gained nothing. His army’s high command was getting weakened after each battle. His army wasn’t getting bigger. The Union’s army was getting bigger. He had to attack. He had to drive the enemy or he would be in the same predicament he was already in.
❤❤😂😮😮😢😊😅😊😅😊❤❤❤
amen##007😢😮😮😂❤❤
great 😮😮❤❤😂😮😮
yea ima giong to buy #4 more baby bottlles of raid ant abd roach kills on contact 🤣😂🤣⁉️⁉️🔥⁉️🔥⁉️🔥⁉️🔥
Why didn't Meade go after Lee? Meade had just hit the lottery and wasn't very keen on taking another chance and maybe in the end losing it all.
I'm so proud to be a visiting student to Darden next month, it's too easy to be good while in darden the only target is to be the great.
He knows how to teach! Kids are impressive.
I just came here to learn more about ghosts
An actual historian teaching actual history. What a novel concept these days.
I had some quibbles but all in all, an excellent series of talks, very lively and entertaining, especially when the students followed Prof Gallagher's lead in being light in places. BTW, I use "Prof Gallagher" just to indicate respect I've gained for him having seen a number of his talks here on KZread.
The Spanish nation waged a guerrilla war, the original 'guerrilla war', against Napoleon's occupation. The difference isn't that the so-called Confederacy was trying to be a nation but, as Prof Gallagher mentions, but that the Spanish were fighting solely for nationhood while the Confederacy was fighting for nationhood _with_ slavery intact.
Quoting the ANV's losses is not enough. You need to ask 'Did Meade know just how badly hurt the ANV?' Meade had a reasonable idea of how badly his army had been hurt, at least in terms of brigades, divisions and corps that were combat ineffective, but that is harder to assess of the enemy army. The 3rd (or hypothetical 4th) day are one thing, but once Lee is on his way to the Potomac, there's no real excuse for Meade not conducting a vigorous pursuit because there Meade still won't have a good handle on how hurt the ANV is, but he'd know they were strung out.
Lawyers will often bring up in court evidence that tells against their case for two purposes: 1) to address it on your own terms, especially if you are going first; and 2) because it looks less damning if you bring it up rather than the other side throwing it in your face - it communicates 'This is no big whoop.' Too many folk get their idea of lawyering from Law & Order which does a terrible job of showing how actual trials are done. In L&O, lawyers regularly call witnesses without right off the bat bringing up their criminal record. IRL, no competent lawyer introduces a witness who has a criminal record without bringing it up themself and right off the bat where you can address the record and make clear to a jury (or judge) that you're not trying to hide anything and that it's no big whoop (you hope).
Can anyone tell me why Spring Class 2 was removed? F-ing YT.
Also wondering this.
The truth hurts. That's why this man gets some hate.
Idk. I love him and would love to take his class and be there to press back on his Lee loving. This session he really stretched a few times when the woman asked him about Stuart and his only defense of Lee approving Stuart's bad plan was "Lee thought Stuart was great." Ok but that's not really a defense Gary. It is basically saying the truth is Lee screwed up in letting Stuart ride around the union army and take A B C with him. Lee signed off the plan and recently had seen a review of Stuart's cav corps he knew all the information yet still allowed the situation and failed to forsee an issue with having DEF with him. Gary continues to defend Lee and say "Lee is somewhat culpable" then proceeds to blast some subordinate for being themselves. Imo Lee failed to adapt after losses in leadership. He fails to adapt to different subordinates. He continues to send vague yet binding orders when his corps commanders need specifics and movement. For example Gary argues Longstreet should have made the executive decision to go right yet Lee pretty clearly forbade it. Literally loves Lee so much that even when Lee does give specific orders and someone follows them Gary says "but Lee's leadership style always allowed modification and Longstreet should have known that he could break orders." Come on man. Everyone but Lee is blamed for what they should have known but Lee isn't blamed for that same thing with Gary. My stretch theory is Lee cared alot about his reputation. He carefully lead the army in a manner in which every order he gave he wouldn't be blamed. He gave vague orders for that reason. If a subordinate failed Lee would just say "not my fault. I told him to take the hill and his plan failed." This is because Lee gave the vague order to take the hill and it was up to the commanders to make these vague demands actually happen with plans.
An excellent teacher….
Excellent orator, profoundly knowledgable, and a wonderful sense of humor. Gary is a beacon of learning that I'm so glad I get to listen to! What a joy it would be to attend one of his lectures
Will the dummy with the hacking cough please leave
The first Minnesota … to the last man
Excellent series; superb instruction. Future leaders ought to use correct grammar. I hope they were corrected.
Taught like they're in an elementary school
Wonderful historian and teacher...a pleasure to listen to
Great historian and teacher