🎥 Join our RUclips members and patrons to unlock more than 200+ exclusive videos: ruclips.net/channel/UCMmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fwjoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals
@@KingsandGenerals What I didn't know I could join? The join button doesn't appear for me, but I solved the problem by running VPN. Thank you very much for your hard and sophisticated work. You are truly a miracle for history lovers. I don't speak English this is from google translate so there will be mistakes
@@kevind7396 According to Bruce Catton IIRC Pope was the only Union officer for whom Lee expressed personal contempt, declaring he "must be suppressed."
@@tripsaplenty1227Well Jackson was definitely one of America's best officers in the sense he understood defeat in detail, but as they say "in the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye rules" lol
I would argue that McClellan was the Confederacy’s advantage. Very self-absorbed, and only he could claim the victory. It got in the way of his own relationships with his own command, and rivalries in higher command. Not to mention his own political views on how the war should be fought. Not necessarily that the Confederacy was great, just the first half of 1862 the Union high command was more worried about how they looked politically than militarily. And I think each Union commander in the east was more cautious with their actions and what it looked like through the newspaper, because they were closer to the publishers in the east, then the Union commanders were in the west. Once McClellan was replaced with Burnside, then Hooker and then Meade, you see a gradual progression of military effort than political effort in the Army of The Potomac.
@tripsaplenty1227 I am considerably harsher in my critique of Lee. While I grant that he was a clever tactician, and he was a good motivator, he was otherwise incompetent. His strategy allowed for a war of attrition with a larger/better supplied army, rendering his victories as Pyrrhic. The Grand Army of Northern Virginia starved while fighting in Virginia, and Lee never had a solution for that. As for his tactical prowess: "Amateurs speak of tactics, while professionals speak of logistics." When we consider his education at West Point and his time spent under General Winfred Scott, his failures become even more egregious.
McClellen reminds me of how I play strategy games. I really hate losing men, even if the potential gain is high. As a result, I try to maneuver a lot, and lose the opportunity.
@@nomooonWhich is exactly why Lee eventually lost hard. He came up against Grant, who never gave him the opportunities he needed. Death by paper cuts is still death.
The Writer Here: As always, I'll answer any questions about the episode in this thread. Some details that didn't make the final script: 1) Halleck wasn't a great general but was a _very_ skilled administrator. He became general-in-chief by coordinating other generals effectively, which proved to be more important than anything else. 2) Lee's army was the _best_ supplied Confederate field army. Think about that for a second. 3) Stuart encouraged flamboyance and chivalry in his cavalry corps. This was a calculated move to use morale and bravado to make up for their dwindling numbers. It was far harder to maintain cavalry than infantry. 4) Grant wasn't chosen over Pope because of Shiloh. While this would prove to be a mistake, it did make sense at the time. 5) The Confederates were outraged that Pope was deliberately stripping the countryside. The fact that they'd done so out West already didn't matter. Those were _western_ states, *this* was Virginia. Said depredation campaign was designed to destroy everything of military value but not harm the populace. Hungry people create more disruption than dead ones. 6) McClellan was dragging his feet about sending reinforcements to Pope. Given how badly he used the troops he _did_ have, I don't think it made much of a difference. That doesn't excuse the deliberate sabotage. 7) Pope had a habit of writing grandiose orders that could be interpreted multiple ways, which directly caused all the confusion. 8) Following Cedar Mountain, Jackson made a point of giving his subordinates highly detailed, specific orders. He always learned from his mistakes. This made them more effective, but there would be consequences down the line. 9) The biggest innovation in battlefield medicine in this era was people like Barton showing up to tend the wounded. This was rare beforehand. It seems shamefully obvious in retrospect. 10) Many of Jackson's men would say that the meal they had at Manassas was the largest of the entire war. 11) No one knows why Pope was so target fixated on Jackson. There were _plenty_ of warnings prior to Longstreet's attack. Nor is it clear how he was so uninformed about where his own troops were. Just...terrible generalship by any standard. 12) Longstreet was in Throughfare Gap before dawn on the 29th, was skirmishing with Buford by 08:15, and in position by noon. It's a tremendous feat of marching logistics. 13) Sigel's troops were mostly German immigrants who'd signed up to fight under Sigel since he was also a German immigrant. 14) Pope didn't know anything was wrong until troops started routing past his headquarters. 15) Porter's court martial happened after Antietam. He'd be dismissed for insubordination, but that was a politically motivated decision and he'd be vindicated and his dismissal overturned after the war. 16) The Republicans lost their majority in the midterms but maintained a plurality of seats in Congress. 17) Davis didn't know about Lee's plans until after he was moving. This was not an accident. 18) Hooker always maintained that if he had been able to stay on the field, he could have broken Lee's line at Antietam. Historians now think he was right. 19) Porter was at least partially to blame for McClellan holding troops back, as he said "Remember, General, I command the last reverse of the last army of the republic."
Army camps had nurses, the army had nurses. Nursing was a male profession in America before the war. Volunteer female nurses became necessary because casualties were much higher than previous wars due to new technology and obsolete tactics. The Battle of Shiloh was bloodier than all the previous US wars combined and it wasn' the bloodiest battle of the war. Army nursing wasn't ready for that, the entire nursing profession wasn't ready for that.
Re: 2. That, more than anything, should put a decisive nail in the "Confederates could have won!" coffin. Lee's army was struggling for supplies, but everyone else was worse off than him. Ain't no way they were going to stand a chance if the war lasted longer than a few weeks.That they lasted longer than a few months is a testament to McLellan's utter incompetence.
Every time I reflect on McClellan's leadership, I'm always left puzzled by his reticence to attack the enemy and gross overestimation of Confederate defenses. On the one hand, you want a commander who doesn't just blindly attack in the face of all common sense (i.e. Burnside's ludicrous attacks on Marye's Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg) but McClellan was somehow simultaneously defeatist and overconfident. He was a great training officer and knew military tactics - he definitely could have dealt a serious blow to Lee at Antietam for instance - but it almost feels like he didn't trust the training he personally instilled in his own troops and thus underestimated their abilities while overestimating Lee's (even when he possessed every advantage an officer could ask for). Seems apparent that he let the moniker and vanity of "Little Napoleon" go to his head and thus wanted to amass the largest army anyone had ever seen while using his delusions as justification to do so. He took his enemy too seriously but didn't take himself seriously enough. Like I said, he's a puzzling man to dissect.
There are _so_ many theories. They all revolve around his political ambitions and emotional attachment to his soldiers. He feared defeat would derail his career and simultaneously loved his soldiers so much that he couldn't abide them being hurt. He wanted to create the perfect army and couldn't stomach the thought of damaging it.
@@TheReaperEagle His political ambitions have definitely been a source of debate but I'm always skeptical of how much that dictated his actions until after he was finally sacked and tried to run against Lincoln in the later election. I think it really does come down to that fear of derailing his career though like you mentioned - which is odd considering that if he had won a great victory that would only propel his career even further and solidify him as the great general he though he was. I guess his timidity and concern over losing what he'd gained won out over his desire to advance himself or gain glory on the battlefield.
@@KevinTheID A lack of practical experience may also explain a lot of McClellan's faults. He commanded engineers before the war, with his first major combat command being the Department of the Ohio. I think Philippi and Rich Mountain grossly overestimated his ability to command large numbers of troops because his plans failed both times, yet the Union Army was able to claw victories out because of the skill of their officers and the numerical inferiority of the Confederates. He claimed credit for those victories, despite the actions of his subordinates, like Rosecrans. McClellan's ego and overinflated reputation put him as the best candidate to lead the Army of the Potomac. This was still early in the war, when nearly everyone else but McClellan was failing to beat the Confederates. After First Bull Run, Lincoln needed someone, and McClellan had a couple victories under his belt. His ability to train and form armies is almost without peer at that time, he was a very capable training officer, and impressed Lincoln with his work. However, his exaggerated ability to lead in the field hampered him greatly. I think he realized he was in over his head, leading an army against a capable and experienced field commander in Lee, and yet his ego could not allow him to shirk the spotlight the Union's newspapers were putting him in, thus his subpar battlefield performances but near cult of personality status in the North. What sometimes gets forgotten is the fact that Philippi was McClellan's first ever time leading in battle, he was too late to fight in Mexico, was an observer at Crimea, and spent most of his military career in an intellectual pursuit of fame. He knew his strategy, he just couldn't perform very well, and a lack of combat experience as a lower-level officer didn't help him either.
@@nickgraff9413 That's an excellent point, his lack of practical experience is a serious contributing factor and the inflation of his abilities in the press probably contributed to him being overconfident but at the same time consternation about losing that image if he suffered a significant battlefield defeat.
He reminds me a lot of Bernard Montogemery. His command style was similar. He would also group up soldiers and wait to have an exceeding advantage and then grind down the enemy . However where McClellan was a coward and indecisive Montogemery was not. Both where egoistic. One history remembers fondly the other not.
President Lincoln remarked about General McClellan's endless requests for more reinforcements, that sending General McClellan more reinforcements "was like shoveling flies across a barn."
I just want to point out before more comments pop up concerning it, but the Confederate flag used in this video is indeed the Stars and Bars original flag of the South used up until 1863. They're not rewriting history, they're being historically accurate.
I often wonder if they use the Confederate Battle Flag (The Stainless Banner) because it looks pretty cool. A shame it has such a dark history attached.
If the Union had someone of Napoleon's caliber, the CSA might have fought the Union asymmetrically like Joe Johnston had wanted. It might have turned into another Peninsular War.
Given that tactics and especially command and control is still the same as in the Napoleonic wars, I think the “what if Napoleon commanded” scenario is a good one. Given that Napoleon often faced suoerior enemy numbers in campaigns, its reasonable to think he would have ended the conventional part of the civil war pretty quickly
@@Reese8531 ever is debatable. But he is way, way up there. In case you're wondering, I think the best general ever was General Erich Von Manstein. His 'mobile defense' was genius and most modern day generals on the defensive use a variant of it. If Hitler had listened to him and launched an immediate counterattack on the Kursk salient, he likely would won the battle of Kursk and who knows how that would have changed history.
The Battle of Antietam is a grim reminder of how brutal the Civil War truly was. It’s haunting to think that a single day of fighting led to such staggering casualties, and yet it was a pivotal moment in shaping Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
The more I learn about the battles of the Civil War the more I'm convinced that Lee wasn't all that successful. He just faced a lot of incompetent generals more often than not.
That’s something I’ve come to realize as well. Its funny people call Grant the “Butcher” but you had a greater chance of dying in Lee’s army than Grants if you look at the numbers
Lee was a good general however compared to the average Americans perception he is by far the most overrated general in history. Truth is that not only was he not the best general in the Civil war he wasn't even the best Confederate general.
Additionally you have to take into account that Grant was having to constantly attack Lee in prepared fortified positions and trenches during his Virginia campaign. A basic rule in modern warfare is to always expect higher causalities on the offensive side when attacking fortified positions.
@@lucashunskor3333 Which numbers? In practically every battle of the Overland Campaign Grant lost considerably more men than Lee: Wilderness was a confused series of firefights in woods where Grant's overwhelming numbers didn't count, while Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor were mostly one-sided struggles in which Union troops frontally assaulted Confederates in fortified positions. Grant lost around 70,000 men (KIA and WIA) in those battles and other smaller engagements while Lee's losses were barely half that. Likewise direct Union attacks on Petersburg were bloodily repulsed with heavy loss. Of course given that most fatalities came from natural causes in unsanitary conditions without proper hygiene it's possible poorly supplied Confederates suffered more than Union soldiers, but while I don't have those numbers it's doubtful it closes the gap with combat fatalities. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
Well yes and no. I understand that the soldiers thought so, but I also guess many more than "necessary" died because his shortcomings wasted quite some good chances in dealing significant and even decisive blows to the enemy.
@@marcbartuschka6372 Soldiers don't want to die in war. You have to spend their lives to win a war. That's how war works. McClellan didn't accept this. The problem is that pre-WWII, most soldiers who died during war didn't die from battlefield wounds but camp diseases. The shorter the war, the better their chances of survival. Grant knew this, and while he hated sending soldiers to die, he'd rather they died in battle than in hospital.
mclellan was loved until his men realized he was a coward and would shame them with loss after loss. they wanted to live, but they wanted to win as well.
I actually rebuke general lee, he fought against the very spirit of what freedom is meant to represent in usa. All men are created equal(except dark skin men and women).... usa is simply an economic zone and the culture is one of money worship.
Absolutely brilliant!! This series hits home to me as I have family that fought on both sides of this conflict, and I have been to MANY of the battlefields of this war in both the eastern and western theatres. I would LOVE to see some info boxes in here like you do in the WWII videos, there are loads of stories of individual acts of bravery and stories of small unit actions to be described on the micro level while the strategic story is being played out through narration and the beautiful illustrations!! Thank you as always for the excellent work, I will be a lifelong channel member, and I look forward to all the future content, especially the remainder of the Pacific campaign and the start of the Eastern Front!!
McClellan is proof positive on how best to train n supple n army but not on how best to use it against an enemy. Great video. Can't wait for the next one in this series to come out.
This entire war is actually a very good lesson on how to deploy and utilize a smaller army against an unseemingly endless enemy that can remobilize and resupply more than you ever could, even if it ended on the larger army's victory. All those rapid deployments and unconventional movements would later gain international acclaim that would see other nations want Confederate generals to teach their armies.
I did my dissertation on Pope. While I think he had some disadvantages--no ability to pick subordinates, getting stuck with McDowell, Sigel and Banks as corps commanders, little time to get to know the army and region--he was tactless and did himself no favors with his big mouth.
@20:55 McClellan did not do nothing for 18 hours, for once he actually did something with speed. For the past century historians have assumed that the boast telegram was sent earlier than it was, it was actually 12 hours later. That said McClellan while a good organizer and strategist was a piss poor battlefield commander as seen in the battle of Antietam and believed there were 100K Confederate soldiers on the other side of every hill, creek, river, forest, road, and whatever other natural or man-made obstacle between him and Richmond that the Confederacy somehow provisioned. The man could have won the war on at least two occasions (maybe more), but did not have the fortitude to do so.
I’ve always fond it odd how many people call Lee one of the best generals considering the majority of his career was spent fighting against the most incompetent morons in the history of the American military.
"Lost Cause" Myth and all that. The Confederate generals, while talented, were ultimately made to look better by both Southern propaganda that still survives, coupled with the Union generals being bad fits for the job. Soon as the Union got the right men in the right places (i.e. Grant and Sherman), the Confederacy folded in two in record time.
Yes he was no Napoleon, no Suvurov, Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Eugene etc. He is greatly overrated, he isnt even the best general on the confederate side.
You could say the same thing about Napoleon. Was Austerlitz Napoleons genius or allied incompetence? Its better to focus on the man not his opponents. Lee isn't Napoleon but I would take Lee over most of the generals in the Napoleonic wars. Lee's defense against Grant in 1864 is quite impressive given that he was outnumbered at least 2 to 1.
@@phenom568 I don't blame you there, other than kutuzov, wellington, and Schwarzenberg napoleon didn't fight much talent. However Lee was a fine tactician but a poor strategist and even worse logistical planner. He allowed his army to be caught in a war of attrition against a force with more man power and better logistics. I think while he was good, somebody like Johnston would've been a better fit.
Napoleon faced rather stiff opposition in Italy as well not to forget, all far more experienced at command than the generals that Lee faced. The main thing I see with Lee is how he tried to fight in a Napoleonic way, big grandiose deciding battles etc, but lacked the men, training and experience to fully do so. His army wasnt ready, the structure and resources needed wasnt there. He could win battles but never destroyed the army of the Potomac. So while its true that one could blame Lee's hunt for a new Austerlitz as a reason for why he in the end failed I think one also can argue that he also didnt have the means to fully master the napoleonic art of war.
I hope that in the coming days episodes will be released about the War of the Spanish Succession. It is an interesting, complex and historically wronged war.
Good video as always. A couple things. Its not Anti - et - am, its An - tiet - am. I visited the battlefield this last summer and before that I couldn't understand why Lee decided to make a stand here and why the casualties were so high. As soon as you get to the battlefield it becomes quite apparent. The entire battlefield is a mix of medium sized hills and little rolling hills through the land. You can't see more than a hundred yards in front of you. Its a quite good for defense but your troops are basically firing point blank into each other. At bloody lane the fighting had to be around 50 yards because you couldn't see the other side before then. Also the blue ridge mountains are absolutely stunning, its a picturesque site.
another great video. McClellan was a good trainer of infantry but a hopeless commanding or field general. Usually Jackson was a good if not eccentric general, I was a bit surprised he didn’t brief or give instructions to his sub-ordinates at Cedar Mountain, quite an oversight. In the end he won the battle but with high casualties, probably why he held his position for 2 days after the battle.
I'm guessing Jackson was tired for the day and it either slipped his mind or retired for the evening. Typically he liked to micromanage so it was out of character to leave such a matter unattended.
@@Lili_Chen2005 u relaized during this part of the war, He was only in charge of the Virginia army? and then when they started losing he became commander in chief
@brendanzhang7488 Lee had tremendous influence with Davis, who notoriously played favorites. His official position was indeed the AoNV, but he absolutely had a great deal of say in who got priority on weapons and reinforcements. He likewise had to approve troops transfers from his own command to another and very seldom did so, even when the western theater commanders pleaded with both him and Davis. Unofficially he had amounted the influence to hold defacto control, especially by 1864.
I hadn't realized that the Civil War legitimately could've been a short, less destructive war and that the Union was to blame for not making it so. Think of how different the history of the US would be different if the Union had immediately smacked down the South.
not necessarily true. even if we'd beaten them early, their morale was quite high even late into the war. they needed the fight beaten out of them or they'd have just come back for more. grant and sherman proved that later in the war, pummeling them with death and destruction and still they fought on and on and on in the siege of richmond and sherman's march to the sea.
2 things are true: 1.the North may have encounter larger losses without the organization skills of McClellan getting Northern Army into fighting force. 2. The North would not have won with McClellan in charge and may have extended the war by 3 years. McClellan did not have broad sense how communicate battle strategies nor developed intelligence network to give more accurate intelligence on the South's disposition. My opinion: McClellan was good at preparing an army, but not good to use an army in a war.
@@ukaszw.5461wow why are they your favorite civil war battles if you don’t mind me asking and in case you are wondering what my favorite civil war battles are they are Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg, Petersburg, New market and bull run.
A couple of things I wish you had included. Jacksons soldiers bacchanal at Popes supply depot. Lee's ultimate plan of destroying the bridge on the Susquehanna and dividing the North from east and west. Assuming a victory over McClellan, the only thing that would have faced him afterwards would have been raw militia. If the performance of the Militia at the battle of Richmond Ky is any indication, this would have been very bad news for the North. If this had played out, it would have been a huge game changer. Three things prevented this from happening: The size of Lee's army was about 20, 000 too small. The lost orders meant McClellan would move faster than usual. McClellan was unlikely to be destroyed by Lee assuming close odds. Defeated and pushed back, sure, but destroyed, not likely.
I always see the battle of Antietam as having the potential of being a Friedland with an army caught with its back to a river, yet such caution and lack of quality staff work just lets what could have been war winning moment disappear despite a significant investment of blood and bullets.
It seems to me that both sides were bad at pursuing and destroying the opposite army after victories, instead they could retreat, regroup and then try again. Perhaps its due to the inexperience of the cavalry arm? I mean many generals were trained on Napoleonic tactics so they should have realised the need to follow through on their victories.
@@Arrowfodder I think that is certainly part of it. Much of the decisive manoeuvres that were expected form in battles in Europe seem to fall apart or fall to exist at all in the civil war and I do wonder if it was a certain reluctance to escalate against their countrymen that tragically resulted in far more death and destruction.
@@Arrowfodder That you had to destroy the enemy during the retreat was well known, and many generals did try. The problem was that America's geography is so much more rugged than Europe's that pursuit became impossible due to exhaustion. Many times, both soldiers and horses were too worn out winning the battle to give chase.
Incredible the overwhelming advantages held by the Union in the East were thrown away again and again, for three years until Grant arrived. People attacked Grant for incurring casualties to win the war, but never seem to condemn the others, Meade excepted, who in their confusion and incompetence threw lives away for nothing. Fredericksburg the most horrifying of all. Also stirring to see Buford doing his thing, which always seemed to add value.
Lee issuing objectives to Longstreet and Jackson and letting them achieve them on their own was exactly the Prussian way of war in the 1860s and 70s. The key to this being a success was Lee being able to trust them since they knew what they were doing. Lee showed that, despite being a graduate of the West Point class of 1829, just 14 years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, he had adapted to the modern command methods advocated by Moltke in Europe. It is rather dismaying that it took the Union in the east a year and a half to get the right generals in the right places to command the army and fight a battle the way they were supposed to. An example of General Meade knowing what it took to fight a modern war was at Frostown at the Battle of South Mountain when his Pennsylvania Reserves attacked the position using established fire and maneuver tactics. Meade was, without a doubt, one of the best Union generals in the Civil War.
Isnt it more likely that Lee learnt this from his studies on Napoleonic warfare at West Point? Napoleon after all used the same system with his cores, his most trusted commanders being able to act independent with their cores. Davout, Lannes and Soult being prime exemples. So my take is that Lee was implemeting this in his army.
McClellan was an amazing organizer. He single handedly created the AoP as an effective fighting force. McClellan was also a sound tactician, BUT he loved his men and was overtly cautious because of it. This caused Mac to CONSTANTLY overestimate enemy strength and fail to take calculated risks.
Would you all consider adding a map scale to the battle maps? Sometimes it’s difficult to imagine the scale/distance some of these battle lines/advances cover.
I'm getting some North Africa Campaign vibes here of someone with a big material superiority pissing it away by coordination failures and being played by the one guy over and over
After years of hearing the announcer gracefully flow through the most unpronounceable names and places throughout history, his mispronunciation of "Antietam" shocked me so much it actually made me laugh. Oh well, it was a good run...
Lincoln: "Attack them!" McClellan: " No!" Lincoln: "You now have superiority army, you should attack them, common!" McClellan: "Still, No!" Lincoln: "You are fired!" McClellan: "So, I am running for presidential election!"
19:00 Lee actually did receive a "few score" or about 80 volunteers in Western Maryland, the issue as you said was any slaveholders or pro confederate families in the area had already been imprisoned or fled their neighbors.
When Jackson attached Pope’s column to prevent flanking I think you meant “tactical purpose was achieved” rather than “strategic purpose”. Tell me how I’m wrong but strategy would be “counter attack the Union and move north to capture Washington”. Tactics would be things like this attack on a column.
Its important to note for non-Americans on why we respect Robert E Lee so much even though he fought for something we abhorred. Put simply was his integrity, regardless of his strategic brilliance, he was a man of honor.
Never understood how some put Lee in the same tier as Napoleon when it comes to generalship. It was a war fought but by inexperienced commanders and armies, and it shows.
Because he was hyped up by his own side and to some extent by his enemies too who not wanted to admit how poor they executed many of their actions in the first half of the war.
Lee was not a bad general. I wouldn't put him with Napoleon as that is a very select few there, but Lee was still good. If Napoleon was S tier, Lee is either A or a high B.
No he was not a bad general, but I have often heard it said that he was Napoleons equal or even superior. I find that a strange notion. If I would rank him I would perhaps also put him in the B tier, or possibly C. "S" belonging to men like Napoleon, Hannibal etc. "A" to Gustavus Adolphus, Suvurov, Marlborough etc.
AMAZING video! Extremely well put together. I wish my history classes had been half this well done. Also I'm going to start calling my boss a Pope. Just an FYI on pronunciation: Buchanan is like "byoo-CAN-non" Antietam via IPA is [æn - 'ti - tәm] or something like "an-TEE-tem".
Some nit picks. Pretty sure Lee held his ground the day after Antietam and then retreated the following day. Most folks put his army size at around 40,000 once the battle start.
Sometimes it seems that Mcland's ideas about believing that Lee had a larger army seemed to be about him having more soldiers. But he seems to really believe it.
While the primary right the South cared about was the right to own slaves they were still very serious about state sovereignty. Lee not being properly supplied and reinforced is directly tied to how difficult it was to get states to send resources to states that weren't their own. Everyone talks about how the North had an excess of supplies and manpower but they also didn't have near as much trouble getting that stuff from the northern states. The Confederate constitution likely cost them any small chance they had of winning the war.
I agree the southern states are full of greedy racist ignorant individualists, the confederacy would have dissolved into multiple barbaric tribes eventually even if the south won.
If they cared so much about state sovereignty then why did they write a constitution that gave the states less rights than the United States they just left did.
Lee didn't really know his plans were stolen. He understood from calvary and spies that 1) McClellan was moving unusually quick, and 2) Union forces were moving on his rear toward South Mountain. It's at this time that Lee began to act and realized he had to somehow consolidate forces.
“If he had a million men, he would swear the enemy had two millions, and then he would sit down in the mud and yell for three.” I don't know...I think McClellan just didn't wanted to see his men die.
Awesome viedo can you do a viedo on the battle of Fredericksburg American civil war I live close to Fredericksburg and been to the battlefield very interesting a lot of untold stories happened over here
I think its safe to say the confederacy had many fine leaders in the right place at the right time in the beginning of the war. The union did not. By all rights the war shouldn't had lasted more then 2 years. The Norths finacial,industry and navy alone should had seen to that. Resources abundant in the north and limited in the south. Basically Mclellans strong point was logistics and training. But he was never a actual fighting general like Lee. What drew out the war was Lincoln having to sift through the chaff to find the diamond. Once found the war went bad quickly for the confederacy. Grant didn't play. He new he had superior logistics and resources and the confederacy did not. He did what any war general would do who holds all the cards. He attacked. Again again and again on all fronts. Even landing smaller armies in south Carolina, Florida and Texas. I think though that these events happened as they must when you don't have a Lee at your disposal at the beginning of conflict. The conflict itself must harden shape and refine the commander so that, when ready he is tempered and sharpened to a knifes edge and ready to cut...
Just saying but you are going to be in for a treat when Grant enters the scene as out of all the commanders that Lee faced Grant was the strongest as he thought like a true General as he aimed to destroy lees supply lines, railroads and everything that would give Lee the means to fight.
I have a different opinion on McClellan. He seemed to be fighting to not lose, definitely not to win. A total win would hurt his run for President, his platform was to end the war, without ending slavery. So his appearance of incompetence was intentional.
But doesn’t look incompetent hurt your chances at presidency, especially if you’re fighting on the side of the union which he would be if he was fighting not to lose?
Well that would be made him a worse person than he was. Because that would be egomanical treason than just shortcomings. And to be honest I do not think he was SUCH a machiavellistic planer.
@@marcbartuschka6372well consideribg the barbaric nature of american slavery. This demonstrates that america was not full of good people so it is safe to say most military leadership on both sides were in it for the money. Usa is an economic zone with all due respect. Revolution was a matter of not paying taxes to the king of england, slavery was about cheap labor, and so now and so forth even today with illegal immigrants doing all the manual labor work!
I mean there is value in the idea of fighting not to lose. The war was impossible for the Confederates to force a victory. Delay played strategically into the hands of the Union.
🎥 Join our RUclips members and patrons to unlock more than 200+ exclusive videos: ruclips.net/channel/UCMmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fwjoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals
Ratio
@@KingsandGenerals What I didn't know I could join? The join button doesn't appear for me, but I solved the problem by running VPN. Thank you very much for your hard and sophisticated work. You are truly a miracle for history lovers. I don't speak English this is from google translate so there will be mistakes
Please do Stonewall Jackson
I strongly recommend joining up if you can, folks. It's 100% worth it.
“As diplomatic as a brick to the face.”
That line made me giggle.
Having done my dissertation on Pope, it was a very accurate description of him in 1862.
@@kevind7396 According to Bruce Catton IIRC Pope was the only Union officer for whom Lee expressed personal contempt, declaring he "must be suppressed."
@jonshive5482 That's right. One of.his relations worked for Pope. Of course Pope was one of the few anti-slavery generals in the Union high command.
It seems Union military leadership at the start of the war, was the greatest advantage the Confederacy had.
Yeah, Jackson and Lee were capable but they were not as good as the Yankees made them look.
@@tripsaplenty1227Well Jackson was definitely one of America's best officers in the sense he understood defeat in detail, but as they say "in the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye rules" lol
Yup. The Union was still trying to not lose instead of trying to win. McClellan was a good logistics general, but a very poor battlefield general
I would argue that McClellan was the Confederacy’s advantage. Very self-absorbed, and only he could claim the victory. It got in the way of his own relationships with his own command, and rivalries in higher command. Not to mention his own political views on how the war should be fought.
Not necessarily that the Confederacy was great, just the first half of 1862 the Union high command was more worried about how they looked politically than militarily. And I think each Union commander in the east was more cautious with their actions and what it looked like through the newspaper, because they were closer to the publishers in the east, then the Union commanders were in the west.
Once McClellan was replaced with Burnside, then Hooker and then Meade, you see a gradual progression of military effort than political effort in the Army of The Potomac.
@tripsaplenty1227 I am considerably harsher in my critique of Lee. While I grant that he was a clever tactician, and he was a good motivator, he was otherwise incompetent.
His strategy allowed for a war of attrition with a larger/better supplied army, rendering his victories as Pyrrhic. The Grand Army of Northern Virginia starved while fighting in Virginia, and Lee never had a solution for that. As for his tactical prowess: "Amateurs speak of tactics, while professionals speak of logistics." When we consider his education at West Point and his time spent under General Winfred Scott, his failures become even more egregious.
McClellen reminds me of how I play strategy games. I really hate losing men, even if the potential gain is high. As a result, I try to maneuver a lot, and lose the opportunity.
You need to get better at leading bro 💀
You don't need those opportunities, when you are trying to create the inevitability of you winning at the end, even if it means 30 more turns...
@@nomooonWhich is exactly why Lee eventually lost hard. He came up against Grant, who never gave him the opportunities he needed. Death by paper cuts is still death.
I play Risk with friends and they are totally desensitized about losing pawns
Fortune favors the bold. Also, "Never take counsel of your fear." -Stonewall Jackson
The Writer Here: As always, I'll answer any questions about the episode in this thread.
Some details that didn't make the final script:
1) Halleck wasn't a great general but was a _very_ skilled administrator. He became general-in-chief by coordinating other generals effectively, which proved to be more important than anything else.
2) Lee's army was the _best_ supplied Confederate field army. Think about that for a second.
3) Stuart encouraged flamboyance and chivalry in his cavalry corps. This was a calculated move to use morale and bravado to make up for their dwindling numbers. It was far harder to maintain cavalry than infantry.
4) Grant wasn't chosen over Pope because of Shiloh. While this would prove to be a mistake, it did make sense at the time.
5) The Confederates were outraged that Pope was deliberately stripping the countryside. The fact that they'd done so out West already didn't matter. Those were _western_ states, *this* was Virginia. Said depredation campaign was designed to destroy everything of military value but not harm the populace. Hungry people create more disruption than dead ones.
6) McClellan was dragging his feet about sending reinforcements to Pope. Given how badly he used the troops he _did_ have, I don't think it made much of a difference. That doesn't excuse the deliberate sabotage.
7) Pope had a habit of writing grandiose orders that could be interpreted multiple ways, which directly caused all the confusion.
8) Following Cedar Mountain, Jackson made a point of giving his subordinates highly detailed, specific orders. He always learned from his mistakes. This made them more effective, but there would be consequences down the line.
9) The biggest innovation in battlefield medicine in this era was people like Barton showing up to tend the wounded. This was rare beforehand. It seems shamefully obvious in retrospect.
10) Many of Jackson's men would say that the meal they had at Manassas was the largest of the entire war.
11) No one knows why Pope was so target fixated on Jackson. There were _plenty_ of warnings prior to Longstreet's attack. Nor is it clear how he was so uninformed about where his own troops were. Just...terrible generalship by any standard.
12) Longstreet was in Throughfare Gap before dawn on the 29th, was skirmishing with Buford by 08:15, and in position by noon. It's a tremendous feat of marching logistics.
13) Sigel's troops were mostly German immigrants who'd signed up to fight under Sigel since he was also a German immigrant.
14) Pope didn't know anything was wrong until troops started routing past his headquarters.
15) Porter's court martial happened after Antietam. He'd be dismissed for insubordination, but that was a politically motivated decision and he'd be vindicated and his dismissal overturned after the war.
16) The Republicans lost their majority in the midterms but maintained a plurality of seats in Congress.
17) Davis didn't know about Lee's plans until after he was moving. This was not an accident.
18) Hooker always maintained that if he had been able to stay on the field, he could have broken Lee's line at Antietam. Historians now think he was right.
19) Porter was at least partially to blame for McClellan holding troops back, as he said "Remember, General, I command the last reverse of the last army of the republic."
Army camps had nurses, the army had nurses. Nursing was a male profession in America before the war. Volunteer female nurses became necessary because casualties were much higher than previous wars due to new technology and obsolete tactics. The Battle of Shiloh was bloodier than all the previous US wars combined and it wasn' the bloodiest battle of the war. Army nursing wasn't ready for that, the entire nursing profession wasn't ready for that.
Is George Mclellan the most frustrating general in human history?
interesting additions to the video
Re: 2. That, more than anything, should put a decisive nail in the "Confederates could have won!" coffin. Lee's army was struggling for supplies, but everyone else was worse off than him. Ain't no way they were going to stand a chance if the war lasted longer than a few weeks.That they lasted longer than a few months is a testament to McLellan's utter incompetence.
Some notable points in there, and I'm glad you included them. Were the cuts made to keep the runtime low?
Every time I reflect on McClellan's leadership, I'm always left puzzled by his reticence to attack the enemy and gross overestimation of Confederate defenses. On the one hand, you want a commander who doesn't just blindly attack in the face of all common sense (i.e. Burnside's ludicrous attacks on Marye's Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg) but McClellan was somehow simultaneously defeatist and overconfident.
He was a great training officer and knew military tactics - he definitely could have dealt a serious blow to Lee at Antietam for instance - but it almost feels like he didn't trust the training he personally instilled in his own troops and thus underestimated their abilities while overestimating Lee's (even when he possessed every advantage an officer could ask for). Seems apparent that he let the moniker and vanity of "Little Napoleon" go to his head and thus wanted to amass the largest army anyone had ever seen while using his delusions as justification to do so. He took his enemy too seriously but didn't take himself seriously enough.
Like I said, he's a puzzling man to dissect.
There are _so_ many theories. They all revolve around his political ambitions and emotional attachment to his soldiers. He feared defeat would derail his career and simultaneously loved his soldiers so much that he couldn't abide them being hurt. He wanted to create the perfect army and couldn't stomach the thought of damaging it.
@@TheReaperEagle His political ambitions have definitely been a source of debate but I'm always skeptical of how much that dictated his actions until after he was finally sacked and tried to run against Lincoln in the later election. I think it really does come down to that fear of derailing his career though like you mentioned - which is odd considering that if he had won a great victory that would only propel his career even further and solidify him as the great general he though he was. I guess his timidity and concern over losing what he'd gained won out over his desire to advance himself or gain glory on the battlefield.
@@KevinTheID A lack of practical experience may also explain a lot of McClellan's faults. He commanded engineers before the war, with his first major combat command being the Department of the Ohio. I think Philippi and Rich Mountain grossly overestimated his ability to command large numbers of troops because his plans failed both times, yet the Union Army was able to claw victories out because of the skill of their officers and the numerical inferiority of the Confederates. He claimed credit for those victories, despite the actions of his subordinates, like Rosecrans. McClellan's ego and overinflated reputation put him as the best candidate to lead the Army of the Potomac. This was still early in the war, when nearly everyone else but McClellan was failing to beat the Confederates. After First Bull Run, Lincoln needed someone, and McClellan had a couple victories under his belt. His ability to train and form armies is almost without peer at that time, he was a very capable training officer, and impressed Lincoln with his work. However, his exaggerated ability to lead in the field hampered him greatly. I think he realized he was in over his head, leading an army against a capable and experienced field commander in Lee, and yet his ego could not allow him to shirk the spotlight the Union's newspapers were putting him in, thus his subpar battlefield performances but near cult of personality status in the North. What sometimes gets forgotten is the fact that Philippi was McClellan's first ever time leading in battle, he was too late to fight in Mexico, was an observer at Crimea, and spent most of his military career in an intellectual pursuit of fame. He knew his strategy, he just couldn't perform very well, and a lack of combat experience as a lower-level officer didn't help him either.
@@nickgraff9413 That's an excellent point, his lack of practical experience is a serious contributing factor and the inflation of his abilities in the press probably contributed to him being overconfident but at the same time consternation about losing that image if he suffered a significant battlefield defeat.
He reminds me a lot of Bernard Montogemery. His command style was similar. He would also group up soldiers and wait to have an exceeding advantage and then grind down the enemy . However where McClellan was a coward and indecisive Montogemery was not. Both where egoistic. One history remembers fondly the other not.
President Lincoln remarked about General McClellan's endless requests for more reinforcements, that sending General McClellan more reinforcements "was like shoveling flies across a barn."
I just want to point out before more comments pop up concerning it, but the Confederate flag used in this video is indeed the Stars and Bars original flag of the South used up until 1863. They're not rewriting history, they're being historically accurate.
I often wonder if they use the Confederate Battle Flag (The Stainless Banner) because it looks pretty cool. A shame it has such a dark history attached.
McClennan "I heard reports they have a battalion of bigfoots riding on Gryphons. Retreat!!!"
The man literally found the cheat sheet, and still couldn't manage a full win.
Pretty much lol😂
McClellan truly wanted to be remembered for his enormous victories against overwhelming odds, odds that never existed cuz they were all in his head
"Having gloriously fled an inferior foe for the safety of James River". Wonderful! Your script is magnificent!
Nothing is more frustrating than your teammate snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
As a Ravens fan I’m all to familiar with that
If Napoleon was in charge of McClellan's forces he would have ended the war in one or two battles
I imagine that is true in many cases. Napoleon is one of the better generals of all time.
If the Union had someone of Napoleon's caliber, the CSA might have fought the Union asymmetrically like Joe Johnston had wanted. It might have turned into another Peninsular War.
@@chrismartindale7840Napoleon is by by far the best general ever!!
Given that tactics and especially command and control is still the same as in the Napoleonic wars, I think the “what if Napoleon commanded” scenario is a good one. Given that Napoleon often faced suoerior enemy numbers in campaigns, its reasonable to think he would have ended the conventional part of the civil war pretty quickly
@@Reese8531 ever is debatable. But he is way, way up there. In case you're wondering, I think the best general ever was General Erich Von Manstein. His 'mobile defense' was genius and most modern day generals on the defensive use a variant of it. If Hitler had listened to him and launched an immediate counterattack on the Kursk salient, he likely would won the battle of Kursk and who knows how that would have changed history.
The Battle of Antietam is a grim reminder of how brutal the Civil War truly was. It’s haunting to think that a single day of fighting led to such staggering casualties, and yet it was a pivotal moment in shaping Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
And the dead that came from that war is still more than the combined deaths of all the wars the US fought after that even to this day...
The more I learn about the battles of the Civil War the more I'm convinced that Lee wasn't all that successful. He just faced a lot of incompetent generals more often than not.
That’s something I’ve come to realize as well. Its funny people call Grant the “Butcher” but you had a greater chance of dying in Lee’s army than Grants if you look at the numbers
Lee was a good general however compared to the average Americans perception he is by far the most overrated general in history. Truth is that not only was he not the best general in the Civil war he wasn't even the best Confederate general.
Additionally you have to take into account that Grant was having to constantly attack Lee in prepared fortified positions and trenches during his Virginia campaign. A basic rule in modern warfare is to always expect higher causalities on the offensive side when attacking fortified positions.
Welcome to early American military history. Pretty much everything before the Spanish American war was America getting extremely lucky over and over.
@@lucashunskor3333 Which numbers? In practically every battle of the Overland Campaign Grant lost considerably more men than Lee: Wilderness was a confused series of firefights in woods where Grant's overwhelming numbers didn't count, while Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor were mostly one-sided struggles in which Union troops frontally assaulted Confederates in fortified positions. Grant lost around 70,000 men (KIA and WIA) in those battles and other smaller engagements while Lee's losses were barely half that. Likewise direct Union attacks on Petersburg were bloodily repulsed with heavy loss.
Of course given that most fatalities came from natural causes in unsanitary conditions without proper hygiene it's possible poorly supplied Confederates suffered more than Union soldiers, but while I don't have those numbers it's doubtful it closes the gap with combat fatalities. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
In the American North, the battle at Manasses is called the 2nd Battle of Bull Run.
If you're not going to use the army, I should like to borrow it for awhile. - Lincoln to McClellan, shortly before relieving him of his command
McClellan was loved by the troops because he was so risk averse and protective of them.
Well yes and no. I understand that the soldiers thought so, but I also guess many more than "necessary" died because his shortcomings wasted quite some good chances in dealing significant and even decisive blows to the enemy.
@@marcbartuschka6372 Soldiers don't want to die in war. You have to spend their lives to win a war. That's how war works. McClellan didn't accept this.
The problem is that pre-WWII, most soldiers who died during war didn't die from battlefield wounds but camp diseases. The shorter the war, the better their chances of survival. Grant knew this, and while he hated sending soldiers to die, he'd rather they died in battle than in hospital.
Exactly @@TheReaperEagle, the camp diseases were pretty horrible indeed.
mclellan was loved until his men realized he was a coward and would shame them with loss after loss. they wanted to live, but they wanted to win as well.
One must admire General Lee for what he was achving by having almost nothing and always being outnumberd..
I actually rebuke general lee, he fought against the very spirit of what freedom is meant to represent in usa. All men are created equal(except dark skin men and women).... usa is simply an economic zone and the culture is one of money worship.
26:08 "An-Ti-tem", not "Ant-i-et-am"
Yes that bugged me too. But better just to call it the battle of sharpsburg.
For some reason in AZ we call it Anthem
Don't ask me why that's just the way I always heard it called
Absolutely brilliant!! This series hits home to me as I have family that fought on both sides of this conflict, and I have been to MANY of the battlefields of this war in both the eastern and western theatres. I would LOVE to see some info boxes in here like you do in the WWII videos, there are loads of stories of individual acts of bravery and stories of small unit actions to be described on the micro level while the strategic story is being played out through narration and the beautiful illustrations!! Thank you as always for the excellent work, I will be a lifelong channel member, and I look forward to all the future content, especially the remainder of the Pacific campaign and the start of the Eastern Front!!
McClellan is proof positive on how best to train n supple n army but not on how best to use it against an enemy. Great video. Can't wait for the next one in this series to come out.
Whoever wrote "as diplomatic as a brick to the face" deserves a raise. A big, big raise
Hearing a Brit pronounce Antietam is like nails on a chalkboard 💀😂
He's actually Canadian
@@ojutay8375that doesn’t make it better
@@jasonrichardsondvi177 I was wrong he is British 🤢
Why can't the English speak English??
try listening to americans try to pronounce anything makes us feel the same
This entire war is actually a very good lesson on how to deploy and utilize a smaller army against an unseemingly endless enemy that can remobilize and resupply more than you ever could, even if it ended on the larger army's victory. All those rapid deployments and unconventional movements would later gain international acclaim that would see other nations want Confederate generals to teach their armies.
The confederates lost so
@@adamsnow4979 Yes, I wrote that.
0:44
"Can I have like 20 bucks"
"no"
OooOooOOOooHH NoooOOOooOO
Love that you're doing the American civil war. You make the best videos!
"Having gloriously fled an inferior foe for the safety" That line is crazy :DDDDD
I did my dissertation on Pope. While I think he had some disadvantages--no ability to pick subordinates, getting stuck with McDowell, Sigel and Banks as corps commanders, little time to get to know the army and region--he was tactless and did himself no favors with his big mouth.
When McLellan woke up in a nightfit I bet you he saw Lee in the corner of his room 😂
@20:55 McClellan did not do nothing for 18 hours, for once he actually did something with speed. For the past century historians have assumed that the boast telegram was sent earlier than it was, it was actually 12 hours later.
That said McClellan while a good organizer and strategist was a piss poor battlefield commander as seen in the battle of Antietam and believed there were 100K Confederate soldiers on the other side of every hill, creek, river, forest, road, and whatever other natural or man-made obstacle between him and Richmond that the Confederacy somehow provisioned. The man could have won the war on at least two occasions (maybe more), but did not have the fortitude to do so.
Thank you for your great efforts, the episodes are always wonderful. Your fans from Yemen ❤
I’ve always fond it odd how many people call Lee one of the best generals considering the majority of his career was spent fighting against the most incompetent morons in the history of the American military.
"Lost Cause" Myth and all that. The Confederate generals, while talented, were ultimately made to look better by both Southern propaganda that still survives, coupled with the Union generals being bad fits for the job. Soon as the Union got the right men in the right places (i.e. Grant and Sherman), the Confederacy folded in two in record time.
Yes he was no Napoleon, no Suvurov, Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Eugene etc. He is greatly overrated, he isnt even the best general on the confederate side.
You could say the same thing about Napoleon. Was Austerlitz Napoleons genius or allied incompetence? Its better to focus on the man not his opponents. Lee isn't Napoleon but I would take Lee over most of the generals in the Napoleonic wars. Lee's defense against Grant in 1864 is quite impressive given that he was outnumbered at least 2 to 1.
@@phenom568 I don't blame you there, other than kutuzov, wellington, and Schwarzenberg napoleon didn't fight much talent. However Lee was a fine tactician but a poor strategist and even worse logistical planner. He allowed his army to be caught in a war of attrition against a force with more man power and better logistics. I think while he was good, somebody like Johnston would've been a better fit.
Napoleon faced rather stiff opposition in Italy as well not to forget, all far more experienced at command than the generals that Lee faced. The main thing I see with Lee is how he tried to fight in a Napoleonic way, big grandiose deciding battles etc, but lacked the men, training and experience to fully do so. His army wasnt ready, the structure and resources needed wasnt there. He could win battles but never destroyed the army of the Potomac. So while its true that one could blame Lee's hunt for a new Austerlitz as a reason for why he in the end failed I think one also can argue that he also didnt have the means to fully master the napoleonic art of war.
I hope that in the coming days episodes will be released about the War of the Spanish Succession. It is an interesting, complex and historically wronged war.
Good video as always. A couple things. Its not Anti - et - am, its An - tiet - am. I visited the battlefield this last summer and before that I couldn't understand why Lee decided to make a stand here and why the casualties were so high. As soon as you get to the battlefield it becomes quite apparent. The entire battlefield is a mix of medium sized hills and little rolling hills through the land. You can't see more than a hundred yards in front of you. Its a quite good for defense but your troops are basically firing point blank into each other. At bloody lane the fighting had to be around 50 yards because you couldn't see the other side before then. Also the blue ridge mountains are absolutely stunning, its a picturesque site.
I visited Antietam also..it’s an amazing place
another great video.
McClellan was a good trainer of infantry but a hopeless commanding or field general.
Usually Jackson was a good if not eccentric general, I was a bit surprised he didn’t brief or give instructions to his sub-ordinates at Cedar Mountain, quite an oversight. In the end he won the battle but with high casualties, probably why he held his position for 2 days after the battle.
I'm guessing Jackson was tired for the day and it either slipped his mind or retired for the evening. Typically he liked to micromanage so it was out of character to leave such a matter unattended.
And to think that Lee was offered command of the Union army by Lincoln. Things would have played out very differently had that hapenned.
The Confederacy might have gotten someone good like Johnson while a Unionist Lee ignored everything west of the Appalachian mountains. 😅
@@Lili_Chen2005 u relaized during this part of the war, He was only in charge of the Virginia army? and then when they started losing he became commander in chief
@brendanzhang7488 Lee had tremendous influence with Davis, who notoriously played favorites. His official position was indeed the AoNV, but he absolutely had a great deal of say in who got priority on weapons and reinforcements. He likewise had to approve troops transfers from his own command to another and very seldom did so, even when the western theater commanders pleaded with both him and Davis. Unofficially he had amounted the influence to hold defacto control, especially by 1864.
I hadn't realized that the Civil War legitimately could've been a short, less destructive war and that the Union was to blame for not making it so.
Think of how different the history of the US would be different if the Union had immediately smacked down the South.
not necessarily true. even if we'd beaten them early, their morale was quite high even late into the war. they needed the fight beaten out of them or they'd have just come back for more. grant and sherman proved that later in the war, pummeling them with death and destruction and still they fought on and on and on in the siege of richmond and sherman's march to the sea.
2 things are true: 1.the North may have encounter larger losses without the organization skills of McClellan getting Northern Army into fighting force. 2. The North would not have won with McClellan in charge and may have extended the war by 3 years. McClellan did not have broad sense how communicate battle strategies nor developed intelligence network to give more accurate intelligence on the South's disposition.
My opinion: McClellan was good at preparing an army, but not good to use an army in a war.
He was bad at the parts of the job that required courage from the general in command.
My guess is the next episode will cover the battle of Fredericksburg, the emancipation proclamation and the battle of Chancellorsville.
Moje ulubione bitwy w wojnie secesyjnej.
@@ukaszw.5461wow why are they your favorite civil war battles if you don’t mind me asking and in case you are wondering what my favorite civil war battles are they are Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg, Petersburg, New market and bull run.
Lee was a bobcat while McClellan was an earthworm
A couple of things I wish you had included. Jacksons soldiers bacchanal at Popes supply depot. Lee's ultimate plan of destroying the bridge on the Susquehanna and dividing the North from east and west. Assuming a victory over McClellan, the only thing that would have faced him afterwards would have been raw militia. If the performance of the Militia at the battle of Richmond Ky is any indication, this would have been very bad news for the North. If this had played out, it would have been a huge game changer. Three things prevented this from happening: The size of Lee's army was about 20, 000 too small. The lost orders meant McClellan would move faster than usual. McClellan was unlikely to be destroyed by Lee assuming close odds. Defeated and pushed back, sure, but destroyed, not likely.
“was as diplomatic as a brick to the face” is a great line
McClellan reminds me of the Band of Brothers depiction of Lt. Sobel.
Will you cover the Western Theater in the long Version of the Series?
Yep
I always see the battle of Antietam as having the potential of being a Friedland with an army caught with its back to a river, yet such caution and lack of quality staff work just lets what could have been war winning moment disappear despite a significant investment of blood and bullets.
It seems to me that both sides were bad at pursuing and destroying the opposite army after victories, instead they could retreat, regroup and then try again. Perhaps its due to the inexperience of the cavalry arm? I mean many generals were trained on Napoleonic tactics so they should have realised the need to follow through on their victories.
@@Arrowfodder I think that is certainly part of it. Much of the decisive manoeuvres that were expected form in battles in Europe seem to fall apart or fall to exist at all in the civil war and I do wonder if it was a certain reluctance to escalate against their countrymen that tragically resulted in far more death and destruction.
@@Arrowfodder That you had to destroy the enemy during the retreat was well known, and many generals did try. The problem was that America's geography is so much more rugged than Europe's that pursuit became impossible due to exhaustion. Many times, both soldiers and horses were too worn out winning the battle to give chase.
Thank you for the video. I love the movie Gods and Generals.
Man I’m always checking for the next episode. So good!
Thanks!
Hi, would love to know when your series on the French Wars of religion are coming out
Hoping for 2025, but not sure.
Great as always!
Incredible the overwhelming advantages held by the Union in the East were thrown away again and again, for three years until Grant arrived. People attacked Grant for incurring casualties to win the war, but never seem to condemn the others, Meade excepted, who in their confusion and incompetence threw lives away for nothing. Fredericksburg the most horrifying of all.
Also stirring to see Buford doing his thing, which always seemed to add value.
Insult for the day : calling someone a McLellan 😏
I didn't lose! I merely failed to win!
Receive intelligence, sit on it all day. The McClellan way 😎
Lee issuing objectives to Longstreet and Jackson and letting them achieve them on their own was exactly the Prussian way of war in the 1860s and 70s. The key to this being a success was Lee being able to trust them since they knew what they were doing. Lee showed that, despite being a graduate of the West Point class of 1829, just 14 years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, he had adapted to the modern command methods advocated by Moltke in Europe. It is rather dismaying that it took the Union in the east a year and a half to get the right generals in the right places to command the army and fight a battle the way they were supposed to. An example of General Meade knowing what it took to fight a modern war was at Frostown at the Battle of South Mountain when his Pennsylvania Reserves attacked the position using established fire and maneuver tactics. Meade was, without a doubt, one of the best Union generals in the Civil War.
Isnt it more likely that Lee learnt this from his studies on Napoleonic warfare at West Point? Napoleon after all used the same system with his cores, his most trusted commanders being able to act independent with their cores. Davout, Lannes and Soult being prime exemples. So my take is that Lee was implemeting this in his army.
@Arrowfodder That would make more sense.
People talking shit on McClellan when most of them cant even organize their own rooms.
Maybe so but it doesn't change the fact that he was very ineffective.
a commander cant be avoid of any risk, evem in strategy games that will lead to defeat let alone real life
McClellan was an amazing organizer. He single handedly created the AoP as an effective fighting force. McClellan was also a sound tactician, BUT he loved his men and was overtly cautious because of it. This caused Mac to CONSTANTLY overestimate enemy strength and fail to take calculated risks.
He dumbass, being a field commander means you need to be able to do multiple things .
I see what you did at the 3 minute mark, sneaking in chamberlain. Jeff Daniels did a hell of a job rocking that mustache
[McClellan eyeing Lee from across the room]: This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them!
Would you all consider adding a map scale to the battle maps? Sometimes it’s difficult to imagine the scale/distance some of these battle lines/advances cover.
Ive been anxiously waiting on this !!🙌🏻🙌🏻☺️
I'm getting some North Africa Campaign vibes here of someone with a big material superiority pissing it away by coordination failures and being played by the one guy over and over
The largest simultaneously attack of the war took place here with Longstreet's wing,it was not Pickett's Charge.
Nope. Gaines Mill assault.
I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Love the civil war content! Keep it up!
Very interesting detail explaining the thinking of the key players - thanks.
Oh man it's killing me having to wait for more of these videos
After years of hearing the announcer gracefully flow through the most unpronounceable
names and places throughout history, his mispronunciation of "Antietam" shocked me
so much it actually made me laugh. Oh well, it was a good run...
Lincoln: "Attack them!"
McClellan: " No!"
Lincoln: "You now have superiority army, you should attack them, common!"
McClellan: "Still, No!"
Lincoln: "You are fired!"
McClellan: "So, I am running for presidential election!"
19:00 Lee actually did receive a "few score" or about 80 volunteers in Western Maryland, the issue as you said was any slaveholders or pro confederate families in the area had already been imprisoned or fled their neighbors.
Thank you for the video
Awesome video thanks
18:44 Harper’s ferry was where John browns raid was right?
Yes
Big supply depot at the time
Fascinating!
When Jackson attached Pope’s column to prevent flanking I think you meant “tactical purpose was achieved” rather than “strategic purpose”. Tell me how I’m wrong but strategy would be “counter attack the Union and move north to capture Washington”. Tactics would be things like this attack on a column.
Agood read-Return to Bull Run:The Campaign and Battle of 2nd Manassas by John J. Hennessy👍👍
20:45 191 battle plans
I would love to see a video on the Battle of Firaz where a combined Sassanid-Byzantine army fought agains the Rashidun Caliphate
Its important to note for non-Americans on why we respect Robert E Lee so much even though he fought for something we abhorred. Put simply was his integrity, regardless of his strategic brilliance, he was a man of honor.
Never understood how some put Lee in the same tier as Napoleon when it comes to generalship. It was a war fought but by inexperienced commanders and armies, and it shows.
Because he was hyped up by his own side and to some extent by his enemies too who not wanted to admit how poor they executed many of their actions in the first half of the war.
Lee was not a bad general. I wouldn't put him with Napoleon as that is a very select few there, but Lee was still good. If Napoleon was S tier, Lee is either A or a high B.
No he was not a bad general, but I have often heard it said that he was Napoleons equal or even superior. I find that a strange notion. If I would rank him I would perhaps also put him in the B tier, or possibly C. "S" belonging to men like Napoleon, Hannibal etc. "A" to Gustavus Adolphus, Suvurov, Marlborough etc.
@@ArrowfodderI've never once heard anyone say Lee was in the same tier as Napoleon
I live these videos.
Thanks
AMAZING video! Extremely well put together. I wish my history classes had been half this well done. Also I'm going to start calling my boss a Pope.
Just an FYI on pronunciation:
Buchanan is like "byoo-CAN-non"
Antietam via IPA is [æn - 'ti - tәm] or something like "an-TEE-tem".
Some nit picks. Pretty sure Lee held his ground the day after Antietam and then retreated the following day. Most folks put his army size at around 40,000 once the battle start.
thanks you
Sometimes it seems that Mcland's ideas about believing that Lee had a larger army seemed to be about him having more soldiers. But he seems to really believe it.
Like and commenting for the algorithm. Will watch when the 10 hour long video comes out.
While the primary right the South cared about was the right to own slaves they were still very serious about state sovereignty. Lee not being properly supplied and reinforced is directly tied to how difficult it was to get states to send resources to states that weren't their own. Everyone talks about how the North had an excess of supplies and manpower but they also didn't have near as much trouble getting that stuff from the northern states. The Confederate constitution likely cost them any small chance they had of winning the war.
I agree the southern states are full of greedy racist ignorant individualists, the confederacy would have dissolved into multiple barbaric tribes eventually even if the south won.
If they cared so much about state sovereignty then why did they write a constitution that gave the states less rights than the United States they just left did.
Can you please make a video on the history of lakshadweep islands
They don’t need modern technology, either side could have won with good communication. 😂😂
Union commanders displayed overall incompetence at the start of the war
With generals like these, who needs enemies?
I feel like with this level of incompetent command, McClellan is a Southern sympathizer
"I didn't lose. I merely failed to win!"
I don't think Lee learned McClellan had his plans, he simply knew they were missing. If your plans are missing you always assume the enemy has them.
Lee didn't really know his plans were stolen. He understood from calvary and spies that 1) McClellan was moving unusually quick, and 2) Union forces were moving on his rear toward South Mountain. It's at this time that Lee began to act and realized he had to somehow consolidate forces.
The General Clusterfudge 😅
“If he had a million men, he would swear the enemy had two millions, and then he would sit down in the mud and yell for three.”
I don't know...I think McClellan just didn't wanted to see his men die.
Awesome viedo can you do a viedo on the battle of Fredericksburg American civil war I live close to Fredericksburg and been to the battlefield very interesting a lot of untold stories happened over here
I think its safe to say the confederacy had many fine leaders in the right place at the right time in the beginning of the war. The union did not. By all rights the war shouldn't had lasted more then 2 years. The Norths finacial,industry and navy alone should had seen to that. Resources abundant in the north and limited in the south. Basically Mclellans strong point was logistics and training. But he was never a actual fighting general like Lee. What drew out the war was Lincoln having to sift through the chaff to find the diamond. Once found the war went bad quickly for the confederacy. Grant didn't play. He new he had superior logistics and resources and the confederacy did not. He did what any war general would do who holds all the cards. He attacked. Again again and again on all fronts. Even landing smaller armies in south Carolina, Florida and Texas. I think though that these events happened as they must when you don't have a Lee at your disposal at the beginning of conflict. The conflict itself must harden shape and refine the commander so that, when ready he is tempered and sharpened to a knifes edge and ready to cut...
Hopefully the Western front also gets covered. The Civil War was fought in more places than just Virginia.
Yep
Watching the original getting ready for the sequel:)
Love videos about the American civil war
Battle of Antietam was done dirty in this. Bloodiest single day in American history and we get 3mins on it, wew...
Generał Lee jest dla mnie drugim najlepszym dowódcą wojskowym w historii, tuż za Hannibalem (Kartagina) a przed Aleksandrem Wielkim (Macedonia).
Literally why? He's not even the second best of the Civil war.
Just saying but you are going to be in for a treat when Grant enters the scene as out of all the commanders that Lee faced Grant was the strongest as he thought like a true General as he aimed to destroy lees supply lines, railroads and everything that would give Lee the means to fight.
I request to make new video series on World War 1. I can’t find you any video of World War 1 except Gallipoli campaign. So please make it!
I have a different opinion on McClellan. He seemed to be fighting to not lose, definitely not to win. A total win would hurt his run for President, his platform was to end the war, without ending slavery. So his appearance of incompetence was intentional.
But doesn’t look incompetent hurt your chances at presidency, especially if you’re fighting on the side of the union which he would be if he was fighting not to lose?
Well that would be made him a worse person than he was. Because that would be egomanical treason than just shortcomings. And to be honest I do not think he was SUCH a machiavellistic planer.
@@marcbartuschka6372well consideribg the barbaric nature of american slavery. This demonstrates that america was not full of good people so it is safe to say most military leadership on both sides were in it for the money. Usa is an economic zone with all due respect. Revolution was a matter of not paying taxes to the king of england, slavery was about cheap labor, and so now and so forth even today with illegal immigrants doing all the manual labor work!
He feared a defeat on the battlefield, not a victory. THAT would have destroyed his political aspirations. He was a coward, not an evil genius.
I mean there is value in the idea of fighting not to lose. The war was impossible for the Confederates to force a victory. Delay played strategically into the hands of the Union.