Industrialization impacted war greatly while ground tactical operations were still following Napoleonic traditions with double and triple ranked infantry formations to keep up firepower while one rank reloaded their muskets.The technological improvements of the industrial world can be seen at work in the Civil War. The improved rifled musket with the percussion cap meant rifles fired nearly the all time compared to old flintlock muskets that fouled regularly. The Minie ball from rifle musket meant a trained soldier could engage targets at 300 meters. The Minie ball fired from a rifled musket increased the range over smoothbore musket more than twofold. Even smoothbore muskets, widely used by both sides throughout the first years of the war, and the South throughout most of the war, fired deadly buck and ball rounds consistently with the percussion cap. These buck and ball rounds fired by a regiment in a volley at close range of 50 to 70 yards simply decimated enemy infantry ranks with .69 caliber ball and three buckshot rounds. One buck and ball round at close range could wound or kill more than one human target per single shot. All buckshot rounds were frequently fired by both defender and attacker with smoothbore muskets during close quarter assaults. These buckshot rounds fired at close range caused heavy casualties to both attacker and defender. It is extremely important to remember that troops on both sides used any available cover whenever possible with entrenchments or felled logs or cut brush used for cover and concealment when digging in was impossible due to lack of time. Many accounts exist of veterans racing around before a battle to pile rocks, logs, cut brush, and dirt in front of their position for cover and concealment. All of these practices impact assessing how effective rifled weapons on a smokey cloudy blackpowder battlefield really were. The 12 pounder Napoleon brass cannon was an excellent mass produced cannon well liked by both sides. This 12 pounder cannon fired deadly canister rounds at ranges under 400 meters and double canister rounds at closer ranges leaving large gaps in the lines of attacking enemy infantry. The 12 pounder smoothbore cannon became a giant shotgun killing and maiming dozens of enemy soldiers with a single shot of double canister. Most Civil War battles left both sides bloodied, battered, and utterly exhausted from these deadly struggles. Most of the fighting between opposing infantry sides took place at ranges typically at about 70 meters with many rifle and musket volleys taking place back and forth before one side or the other broke and gave ground to reform for another round of skirmishing. Repeated assaults over the same ground usually took place with a final close quarters assault causing even greater carnage. The ubiquitous buck and ball and buckshot rounds were fired from the muskets of each side during these close quarters assaults. These buck and ball and buckshot close quarters fights left piles of corpses and mangled bodies of both sides on the battlefield. Archeologists of Civil War battlefields find buck and ball rounds wherever the fighting was at its bloodiest. Our school books do a poor job of teaching the bloody realities of the Civil War. The point here is that in the Civil War, the defender ALWAYS had the advantage over the attacker. A well dug-in defender on high ground could withstand artillery bombardments and hurl back an attacker who outnumbered him. Even battles where one side turned the flank of another side frequently turned into bloody slogging matches once reinforcements arrived to the threatened flank. The attacker usually had to have an advantage of three to one in manpower with significant advantages in guns including rifled cannon and siege mortars to wear down an entrenched defender. Most Civil War battles turned into terrible, brutal, slogging matches caused by deadly longer ranged rifle fire of the Minie ball, the devastating buck and ball rounds from percussion cap muskets, and deadly canister fire from those 12 pounder smoothbore brass cannon. Casualties for specific regiments in these battles were frequently 30 to 40 percent with 50 percent losses in hard fought battles occurred regularly. Overall casualties in a battle give lower casualty numbers but many more of the regiments in these battles were not in the heaviest fighting on the battlefield. Each side came through any hard fought battle exhausted, traumatized, battered, and in desperate need of resupply, rest, and reinforcement before any future engagements were possible. Most importantly, the railroad meant that both sides could resupply, rearm, rebuild decimated infantry units and reinforce threatened areas keeping continuous battle after battle in theaters of war a thousand miles apart. Napoleonic wars saw one or two battles per campaign season while in the Civil War armies supplied by railroad could engage in daily or weekly skirmishes with several large battles per month or even one per week for periods of time. The steamship with the ironclad warship meant the war at sea was far flung and deadlier. Confederate raiders and Union naval ships chased each other all over the Atlantic in far flung battles. The steampowered river gunboat and riverboat transport spread the war all along the inland navigable rivers of the Confederacy. The Union War Department under General Halleck managed the railroads to mobilize, transport, and continuously supply large armies efficiently over vast rail networks. General Herman Haupt repaired bridges, railways, and managed trains so efficiently that his principles for managing military railways in wartime were immediately copied by European military powers for their mobilization plans. We see in the U.S. Civil war at Petersburg, the same tactical problems encountered in World War One trench fighting. The telegraph proved indispensable for managing the logistical needs of armies with the railroad. But the Union supply point at City Point, Virginia was similar to busy logistical ports and railway centers seen in both World Wars. Amateurs study tactics and strategy while professional soldiers study logistics. In a long war of attrition, the side with the most efficient logistical system tends to prevail on the battlefield with better operational plans and more tactical flexibility resulting in a war winning strategy. The logistical network and transport capacity of a military determines the outcome of most battles because in a long modern war of attrition, who can fire the last shot is more important than who fires first.
@Harry Lagom not really.. you can position your entire army in the border and the AI won't react until it's already too late.. real people will shadow you every turn and react accordingly..
There was a great clip from some series with Lee and Jefferson Davis talking about strategy shortly after Fort Sumter, it's probably apocryphal, but in that they discuss the Union's Anaconda Strategy to slowly strangle the South with their superior resources and Navy. Lee's strategy that he pitches to Davis is the "Cobra" Plan, to strike swiftly at Washington, the heart of the Federal government, hoping to win a quick decisive victory before the Union can fully mobilize its vast resources. I don't know how fleshed out this strategy was in reality but if you look at what Lee did in the War you can see a version of this strategy being played out with his invasions of the North in 1862, that led to Antietam, and in 1863, which led to Gettysburg. Both times Lee sought to decisively defeat the federal army and take Washington, and both times he failed. Part of the reason why the Civil War was so deadly was because, to borrow a teaching from Sun Tzu, both sides knew themselves and the enemy, therefore it turned into a slog that the Union won.
@@michaelthayer5351 I am talking about a hypothetical best strategy for the South. To invade enemy territory when you have fewer men and resources was not a good plan. A protracted guerrilla war where the South offers battle inside its own territory maximizing Union losses and protracting the war making the North believe that this can never be won and it is just a pointless bloodletting seems a much more viable strategy to me. Countering and defeating Sherman would have been top priority in that list, also never giving quarters to Northerners. Spain did that vs Napoleon, even Vietnam did it to the US guerrilla warfare can be highly effective in wearing down your enemy's will to continue. The South did not need to win the war, just not lose it.
@@andraslibal A Fabian strategy, although potentially successful, is almost always politically unpopular. Remember that the Southern government was, in practice, quite beholden to its constituent states and their powerful state militias. It is difficult to believe that the border states would so meekly submit to a withdrawal to gain strategic depth. Combined with a sort of genteel character of the Confederate leadership (Lee himself declined the opportunity, when asked at the end of the war) it is unlikely that such a strategy would ever be adopted.
@@ptrckphm not much ground was given up ... just keep bleeding the North dry in Virginia. A crucial aspect to this plan would be to counter Sherman and encircle all those armies as they march the South. By 1864 the war was unpopular in the North, without Gettysburg the South could have dragged it out longer. Also, offer Britain some kind of a win after the disaster in Crimea.
General Robert E. Lee's greatest victory was the battle of Chancellorsville. He smashed the amry of the Potomac, despite only having 60,000 men to the Unions 130,000. Surely, it is tactically brillaint, but what did it acomplish beyond the cassualties? No strategic ground was gained, and the Union could better afford their losses than Lee. This happens constantly throughout the civil war. The confederacy was known for tactical victories, not strategic ones. "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu
McClennan's strategy would have worked it seems if he had good enough intelligence, wasn't so cautious, and had good enough generals to execute it. So if Grant was in charge overall off the bat and had generals like meade to work with... and that would take a few years....
@@AVGVST_1 The initial success until Getty, illustrated your point. But like most warfare, initial few months may be about tactics, generals, quality of troops, weaponry etc., 6 months down the road it is all about manpower and raw materials. When weed are out, there are no more incompetent generals or inexperienced troops.
Thanks for the video - no doubt you put *a lot* of time into researching and creating an 11-minute video. ... My only (very minor) quibble would have been that you could have done a bit of a noise-reduction to the audio. But that's just a nit-pick.
Many of my fellow Americans don't understand just how complex in many aspects the Civil War was. In public school, we're taught that "The Civil War was all about slavery, the North had more soldiers and factories which is why they would inevitably win, and that it was a conflict of good guys versus bad guys". Learning history in US public schools skims over everything while completely removing the human experience from events.
Its Government public schooling. Of course its simple and the narrative supports the government. Even tho it waged a war of aggression and subjugation. Preserve the Union by killing anyone who refuses said union and wishes their self governance and determination? But I digress, but sides had justified reasons for fighting. Its what makes the Civil War a tragedy for all Americans and its our duty to understand the truth on both sides, to learn from mistakes and prevent them repeating.
Had Lee not attempted an invasion in the north (and not incurred the losses at Gettysburg) and had Johnston kept to the defensive, was there an opening for the South to achieve enough northern casualties for Lincoln's reelection to fail in 1864? Was there any realistic chance of French/Mexican or British intervention on the Southern side? You raise very interesting points.
Yes, Lincoln's reelection is of course one of the great what-ifs of the Civil War. BUT we should note that the Confederates (esp. the Confederate hierarchy) also had mixed feelings regarding Lincoln's electoral defeat. After all, it was entirely possible that McClellan's conciliatory moves esp. re:slavery would see (parts of) the CSA rejoining the USA on favorable terms. I think politically and without the benefit of hindsight, Johnston's strategy was unacceptable. Johnston had also done a similar retreat up the James River in the 1862 Peninsular Campaign, and by the end did not even want to give a straight answer regarding the defense of Richmond. Keeping Johnston thus seemed to imply a guaranteed loss of Atlanta; switching him out at least promised a chance at keeping it. The most realistic chance for UK/French intervention was the Trent Crisis of 1861, and there, Lincoln was careful not to generate pretexts for intervention. By 1863 France was embroiled in Mexico, and even if Napoleon III was willing the last thing Britain wanted was an extension of French power in North America. The South's confidence in its cotton ban was also misplaced, as Britain simply switched to Egyptian sources.
Eh, there was a minor debate in parliament of the UK as to whether or not to support the CSA but the public opinion in all those nations by that point was that slavery was wrong and the lost Cotton trade was easily made up for by India. They also realized it was much more lucrative to take advantage of the US weakness to expand their influence in weaker American nations like Mexico than support a rebellion that would likely fail in the long run and lose much more once the US got their shit back together. As for the reelection, Americans tend to rally behind a sitting president when a war is happening and rarely vote them out before the war is over (Think Roosevelt, Bush, etc.). In all likelihood any anger at Lincoln for failure to meet objectives was overcome by the anger at the south for causing all the bloodshed in the first place. There is a reason one of Lincoln's first actions in the opening days of the war (which this video neglected to mention) was consolidating and reaffirming peaceful relations with Britain and France as to not incur intervention which is why they immediately backed down when a crisis came up with them searching British and French ships headed towards the south.
@@LiterallyWho1917 Food for thought: you say the American people tend to rally behind a sitting president in war time...but Bush only narrowly won re-election and Roosevelt had already been re-elected three times in peace. The 1944 election was 80 years after the 1864 election and the country had changed so much in the meantime so you can't just extrapolate backwards. All contemporary evidence suggests that Lincoln and others were quite concerned about the outcome of the election and that it was strongly influenced by actions taken in the months leading up to it. Also, all credible sources I've read suggest the cotton shortage Britain experienced was quite severe in 1862 and that leading up to Antietam there was a strong possibility of Britain recognizing the Confederacy. It was only in the aftermath of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation the possibility of recognition or mediation was put out of reach. A snippet from the Wikipedia article gives more detail: Earl Russell, British Foreign Secretary, had given Mason no encouragement, but after news of the Second Battle of Bull Run reached London in early September, Palmerston agreed that in late September, there could be a cabinet meeting at which Palmerston and Russell would ask approval of the mediation proposal. Then, Russell and Palmerston decided not to bring the plan before the cabinet until they got further word about Lee's invasion of the North. If the Northerners were beaten, the proposal would go through; if Lee failed, it might be well to wait a little longer before taking any action.[26]
Post Script: It's important not to underestimate how fundamentally racist Americans are. Our willingness to go to war in 1941 had a lot to do with being attacked, but it also had a lot to do with being attacked by people who were different from us. George McClellan was a white supremacist and he was much more willing to reconcile with rebel whites than accept blacks in society as equals. A lot of northerners felt that way. As the video shows, slaves existed in the north as well. So, while slavery was always the root of the war, the moral distinction was ambiguous until after Antietam.
Blaise Villaume You ignore the decades of squabbles between the (mostly) southern states and the federal government regarding the purview of federal power leading up to the civil war. Compact theory and states rights were very real issues, and arguably the center of the debate. Slavery was simply the issue that was at the center of an argument over first principles that had not been previously resolved. Simply saying America was racist, or simplifying the southern cause as simply about racialist hatred and slavery, is to misunderstand and misconstrue the argument.
Tamo Daleko the “states rights” they were fighting for was the right to own slaves. The government of the CSA was founded on and based around the continuation of slavery. It was the cornerstone of their economy and was a fundamental aspect of their foundational documents, including Article 1 Section 9-4 of their constitution which very explicitly states “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” They very specifically and intently forbade slavery from ever being abolished under their constitution.
Tamo Daleko There’s no two ways about it. Slavery ban coming into effect, South which was socially and economically based on slavery rebels. It really isn’t that complicated.
The north had a bigger population, but don’t forget the exploitation of Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine. It’s also easy to trivialize the suffering union troops inflicted under Sherman and grant. Yes, some southerners owned slaves and that’s inexcusable, but far from all of them did. Some people were just born in the wrong place at the wrong time, which doesn’t excuse their r🦍 and murder. Also, it’s helpful to look into the abhorrent conditions of factory workers in the industrial north and practically enslaved Asian rail workers in the west. History isn’t as black and white as people think. The Union was not the clear good guy. Many say the emancipation proclamation was only a ploy to discourage European intervention. Many in the north thought slavery was not an issue worth fighting for and simply wanted to preserve the integrity of the Union and there was also a large chunk that believed in just letting them go, slaves and all. If you feel the need to criticize me, pls do so on your phone made by workers whose conditions are so horrible, they put up suicide nets. Wear your clothes made by exploited labor in sweat shops. America doesn’t officially use slave labor anymore Bc we outsourced it to foreign countries. It is still real and bigger than ever
Ohh and I almost forgot to mention. The fact that Lee was on the losing side of history does not still exclude him from being an American hero. He would have been chosen to lead the north, if he had not led the south. He also would not have sided with the south, if not for his love of Virginia. To be frank, I think he had an internal conflict of should I watch my home be burned or fight against the nation I secondarily identify with and once fought for. He, like many of our founding fathers and people in general, did not always make the right choices, but who does? His accomplishments in the Mexican American war, along with his venerable dignity, cement his position as an American hero. Slavery did not suddenly become wrong right before the civil war. Unfortunately, it has been ingrained in us since the dawn of civilization, it still persists all over the world, including illegally in the usa. Though circumstance and ignorance are not always a viable excuse, what will we be judged for? To conclude that all the founding fathers and American figures that owned slaves are automatically bad is to trivialize the complexity of the human condition.
@@grey-spark refute one statement I used with facts pls. Do Americans still not benefit from exploited labor? Half the supply chain, from mineral extraction in Africa to sweat shops in Asia, is based in exploitation and potentially fatal conditions. You’re likely responding to me w a phone whose battery was made from lithium mined by a child and in a factory by a worker who is worked so hard they have to put up suicide nets to retain workers.
@@blankface5052 Okay. Why not. You probably not a troll, so why not. Exploitation =/= Slavery. Basically any unfair employment situation in is better than being a slave. Most most sweatshops workers in developing countries make comparably good money for where they live and since the 90s their nations have been lifted out of poverty. They're comparable to oil field workers here in the US. Doing backbreaking work for good money. The same applies to the Northerners who at the very least were considered autonomous people with rights. Its funny you use the example of Lithium mines considering Bolivia just elected the socialist Evo Morales government that has lifted millions out of poverty. So no. The people who made your smartphone have lives 100x better and self-determination than that of a 19th century slave. I think a more comparable example of their lives would be North Korea, or the literal Qatari slave state who at the very least dupe immigrants into slavery as opposed to outright abducting them.
You forgot the most important battle of the entire war at Glorieta Pass where the brave and noble Colorado Volunteers broke the back of the Texan war machine once and for all.
Hey, I’ve partnered with HistoryMarche and let him use the script! I’ve also made a few videos for him (like the one abt Heraclius a month ago). Trying to get back in the habit of making videos…
If you look at the ethnic makeup of the United Sates at that time, the Civil War could more be described as a war of the English in the North vs the Scots-Irish of the South. A continuation of the age old classic of Anglo-Saxon invasions of it's neighbors, the Irish and Scottish, just as has been the case in the British Isles for hundreds of years.
They didn’t phrase it in the way you did, but European financiers did see a basic “character” split btwn Antebellum North and South. North being industrious and honourable; South being lazy and treacherous (not saying that’s because North is English etc). Mainly cause the Southern states defaulted on their debts during the Panic of 1830 while the North honoured them… also a reason why the Southern rail system was underdeveloped
History Marche has literally and exactly copied your script from this video. See here: ruclips.net/video/gk-ynHH4VwE/видео.html I sent you an email, but I'm not sure if you keep up with that particular account. Best wishes
Hey, I think I replied to you - I’m collaborating with HistoryMarche and I’ve given him permission to use the US Civil War video (+ Crusades/Machiavelli/Japan/Roman Empire).
The union bottom line had more advantages more soldiers supplies more ammo stronger army while the south didnt have that but the fact that the south lasted five years was amazing
Barely any strategy, Union was incompetent they just won with numbers and industry. If the sides were equal the north would have been trounced, and I'm saying that as a "yankee" myself
+Xavier Rogers Agreed. 'They just won with numbers and industry, if on equal grounds the South would have won' has been a staple phrase of most Pro-CSA individuals. Not to mention that it's a very superficial statement. The North did have a strategy, which consisted in the Blockade - which was increasingly successful. Grant's strategy was also very sound: attack on several fronts; disregard taking cities, but instead focus on defeating the armies. Although he was going against Lee - rightly seen as the most able and dangerous battlefield commander left - he was keeping track of the other fronts. Did Lee ever manage a strategy on a continental scale? No, and he lacked the mindset for it. Lee was a brilliant TACTICIAN, but a rather poor STRATEGIST. His two 'invasions' ultimately wasted lives and resources that the CSA couldn't afford. The North also was better organized and by 1862 had excellent logistics. The South increasingly lost traction and its logistics - which were average at first - increasingly broke down.
@@Ares99999 Not to mention that the quality of the Union soldier was of higher quality being derived from volunteers rather than conscripts which made up a sizable proportion of the confederate army. The south's tendency to call the civil war, "The War of Northern Aggression" is also plainly wrong as they were the ones to start the conflict by firing on fort Sumter. Lee was also terrible in offensive action and only won skirmishes and defensive battles and never had any offensive action in the last 22 months of the civil war and in two battles, Gettysburg and Antietam, Lee lost a very high number and percentage of his army, roughly a third in each. @Trusted Flagger "Barely any strategy" what bullcrap. The Union's Anaconda plan was a masterpiece in strangling the south's resources and splitting them in half along the Mississippi. The Union only had a few generals which were incompetent in the beginning and even then they were still able to hold the south back. If the Union had started the war with Grant in charge then the war would've lasted less than 3 years and at most 2.
@@maleficar5776 just another armchair general fighting the South's rebellion with 20\20 hindsight seen through 2019 rose coloured lenses. What do you do in your spare time? Pick on Black Americans too!!!
At 4 years old this has officially outlived the confederacy
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu
100%, how many great armies got destroyed because their leader had a stupid strategy (world conquest/wage war with all my neighbors)
Napoleon feels offended
Industrialization impacted war greatly while ground tactical operations were still following Napoleonic traditions with double and triple ranked infantry formations to keep up firepower while one rank reloaded their muskets.The technological improvements of the industrial world can be seen at work in the Civil War. The improved rifled musket with the percussion cap meant rifles fired nearly the all time compared to old flintlock muskets that fouled regularly. The Minie ball from rifle musket meant a trained soldier could engage targets at 300 meters. The Minie ball fired from a rifled musket increased the range over smoothbore musket more than twofold. Even smoothbore muskets, widely used by both sides throughout the first years of the war, and the South throughout most of the war, fired deadly buck and ball rounds consistently with the percussion cap. These buck and ball rounds fired by a regiment in a volley at close range of 50 to 70 yards simply decimated enemy infantry ranks with .69 caliber ball and three buckshot rounds. One buck and ball round at close range could wound or kill more than one human target per single shot.
All buckshot rounds were frequently fired by both defender and attacker with smoothbore muskets during close quarter assaults. These buckshot rounds fired at close range caused heavy casualties to both attacker and defender. It is extremely important to remember that troops on both sides used any available cover whenever possible with entrenchments or felled logs or cut brush used for cover and concealment when digging in was impossible due to lack of time. Many accounts exist of veterans racing around before a battle to pile rocks, logs, cut brush, and dirt in front of their position for cover and concealment. All of these practices impact assessing how effective rifled weapons on a smokey cloudy blackpowder battlefield really were.
The 12 pounder Napoleon brass cannon was an excellent mass produced cannon well liked by both sides. This 12 pounder cannon fired deadly canister rounds at ranges under 400 meters and double canister rounds at closer ranges leaving large gaps in the lines of attacking enemy infantry. The 12 pounder smoothbore cannon became a giant shotgun killing and maiming dozens of enemy soldiers with a single shot of double canister. Most Civil War battles left both sides bloodied, battered, and utterly exhausted from these deadly struggles. Most of the fighting between opposing infantry sides took place at ranges typically at about 70 meters with many rifle and musket volleys taking place back and forth before one side or the other broke and gave ground to reform for another round of skirmishing. Repeated assaults over the same ground usually took place with a final close quarters assault causing even greater carnage. The ubiquitous buck and ball and buckshot rounds were fired from the muskets of each side during these close quarters assaults. These buck and ball and buckshot close quarters fights left piles of corpses and mangled bodies of both sides on the battlefield. Archeologists of Civil War battlefields find buck and ball rounds wherever the fighting was at its bloodiest. Our school books do a poor job of teaching the bloody realities of the Civil War.
The point here is that in the Civil War, the defender ALWAYS had the advantage over the attacker. A well dug-in defender on high ground could withstand artillery bombardments and hurl back an attacker who outnumbered him. Even battles where one side turned the flank of another side frequently turned into bloody slogging matches once reinforcements arrived to the threatened flank. The attacker usually had to have an advantage of three to one in manpower with significant advantages in guns including rifled cannon and siege mortars to wear down an entrenched defender. Most Civil War battles turned into terrible, brutal, slogging matches caused by deadly longer ranged rifle fire of the Minie ball, the devastating buck and ball rounds from percussion cap muskets, and deadly canister fire from those 12 pounder smoothbore brass cannon. Casualties for specific regiments in these battles were frequently 30 to 40 percent with 50 percent losses in hard fought battles occurred regularly. Overall casualties in a battle give lower casualty numbers but many more of the regiments in these battles were not in the heaviest fighting on the battlefield. Each side came through any hard fought battle exhausted, traumatized, battered, and in desperate need of resupply, rest, and reinforcement before any future engagements were possible.
Most importantly, the railroad meant that both sides could resupply, rearm, rebuild decimated infantry units and reinforce threatened areas keeping continuous battle after battle in theaters of war a thousand miles apart. Napoleonic wars saw one or two battles per campaign season while in the Civil War armies supplied by railroad could engage in daily or weekly skirmishes with several large battles per month or even one per week for periods of time. The steamship with the ironclad warship meant the war at sea was far flung and deadlier. Confederate raiders and Union naval ships chased each other all over the Atlantic in far flung battles. The steampowered river gunboat and riverboat transport spread the war all along the inland navigable rivers of the Confederacy.
The Union War Department under General Halleck managed the railroads to mobilize, transport, and continuously supply large armies efficiently over vast rail networks. General Herman Haupt repaired bridges, railways, and managed trains so efficiently that his principles for managing military railways in wartime were immediately copied by European military powers for their mobilization plans. We see in the U.S. Civil war at Petersburg, the same tactical problems encountered in World War One trench fighting. The telegraph proved indispensable for managing the logistical needs of armies with the railroad. But the Union supply point at City Point, Virginia was similar to busy logistical ports and railway centers seen in both World Wars. Amateurs study tactics and strategy while professional soldiers study logistics. In a long war of attrition, the side with the most efficient logistical system tends to prevail on the battlefield with better operational plans and more tactical flexibility resulting in a war winning strategy. The logistical network and transport capacity of a military determines the outcome of most battles because in a long modern war of attrition, who can fire the last shot is more important than who fires first.
Rex fromMN Underrated.
Dude this comment was great to read.
Thank you a lot for this, this informed me a great degree and actually gave me an idea for my paper lol
This probably is the best comment I have ever read on RUclips. Hats off to you!
This was a joy to read 👍👍👍
Just like in World War 2, here we see that the redeployment phase in the strategic theater is arguably one of the most important aspects of warfare.
@Harry Lagom not really.. you can position your entire army in the border and the AI won't react until it's already too late.. real people will shadow you every turn and react accordingly..
THis channel is seriously underviewed
This video has roughly as much as his subscribers
Any chance you can do a Southern Strategy also? Perhaps with what the best strategy would have been?
There was a great clip from some series with Lee and Jefferson Davis talking about strategy shortly after Fort Sumter, it's probably apocryphal, but in that they discuss the Union's Anaconda Strategy to slowly strangle the South with their superior resources and Navy.
Lee's strategy that he pitches to Davis is the "Cobra" Plan, to strike swiftly at Washington, the heart of the Federal government, hoping to win a quick decisive victory before the Union can fully mobilize its vast resources. I don't know how fleshed out this strategy was in reality but if you look at what Lee did in the War you can see a version of this strategy being played out with his invasions of the North in 1862, that led to Antietam, and in 1863, which led to Gettysburg. Both times Lee sought to decisively defeat the federal army and take Washington, and both times he failed.
Part of the reason why the Civil War was so deadly was because, to borrow a teaching from Sun Tzu, both sides knew themselves and the enemy, therefore it turned into a slog that the Union won.
@@michaelthayer5351 I am talking about a hypothetical best strategy for the South. To invade enemy territory when you have fewer men and resources was not a good plan. A protracted guerrilla war where the South offers battle inside its own territory maximizing Union losses and protracting the war making the North believe that this can never be won and it is just a pointless bloodletting seems a much more viable strategy to me. Countering and defeating Sherman would have been top priority in that list, also never giving quarters to Northerners.
Spain did that vs Napoleon, even Vietnam did it to the US guerrilla warfare can be highly effective in wearing down your enemy's will to continue. The South did not need to win the war, just not lose it.
@@andraslibal A Fabian strategy, although potentially successful, is almost always politically unpopular. Remember that the Southern government was, in practice, quite beholden to its constituent states and their powerful state militias. It is difficult to believe that the border states would so meekly submit to a withdrawal to gain strategic depth.
Combined with a sort of genteel character of the Confederate leadership (Lee himself declined the opportunity, when asked at the end of the war) it is unlikely that such a strategy would ever be adopted.
@@ptrckphm not much ground was given up ... just keep bleeding the North dry in Virginia. A crucial aspect to this plan would be to counter Sherman and encircle all those armies as they march the South. By 1864 the war was unpopular in the North, without Gettysburg the South could have dragged it out longer. Also, offer Britain some kind of a win after the disaster in Crimea.
General Robert E. Lee's greatest victory was the battle of Chancellorsville. He smashed the amry of the Potomac, despite only having 60,000 men to the Unions 130,000.
Surely, it is tactically brillaint, but what did it acomplish beyond the cassualties? No strategic ground was gained, and the Union could better afford their losses than Lee. This happens constantly throughout the civil war. The confederacy was known for tactical victories, not strategic ones.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu
This is superb, best analysis I have seen of this. You make the shape of the war come alive thank you
Winfield Scott is, I think, one of the best and most underrated Generals in US history
LOVE THIS
McClennan's strategy would have worked it seems if he had good enough intelligence, wasn't so cautious, and had good enough generals to execute it. So if Grant was in charge overall off the bat and had generals like meade to work with... and that would take a few years....
Bro, I just wake up, took a look at my fone, I read "Soviet Union's strategy in the American civil war"
Man, seeing this on History March was so wtf until I saw the collaboration thing.
This one deserves an expansion.
God damn this is gold, I can’t believe with such high quality vids you have under 10k subs
This is brilliant. Thanks for putting it together.
10 to 1 on population. Even a 2 to 1 on army size disguised the fact that North had much much more man power on production.
disguised?
It's not about how much you have but how you use it
@@AVGVST_1 The initial success until Getty, illustrated your point. But like most warfare, initial few months may be about tactics, generals, quality of troops, weaponry etc., 6 months down the road it is all about manpower and raw materials. When weed are out, there are no more incompetent generals or inexperienced troops.
@@cyrilchui2811 Yeah it's really about if you do the most damage early game and still have enough to live the end of the war
Thanks for the video - no doubt you put *a lot* of time into researching and creating an 11-minute video. ... My only (very minor) quibble would have been that you could have done a bit of a noise-reduction to the audio. But that's just a nit-pick.
Please make specific videos how strategies are formulated
Many of my fellow Americans don't understand just how complex in many aspects the Civil War was. In public school, we're taught that "The Civil War was all about slavery, the North had more soldiers and factories which is why they would inevitably win, and that it was a conflict of good guys versus bad guys". Learning history in US public schools skims over everything while completely removing the human experience from events.
Its Government public schooling. Of course its simple and the narrative supports the government. Even tho it waged a war of aggression and subjugation. Preserve the Union by killing anyone who refuses said union and wishes their self governance and determination? But I digress, but sides had justified reasons for fighting. Its what makes the Civil War a tragedy for all Americans and its our duty to understand the truth on both sides, to learn from mistakes and prevent them repeating.
All very good..
But, what is the effect of topograpy?
What about the effect of the configuration of railroads?
Good work. Well done and thank you!
very good, well done.
Had Lee not attempted an invasion in the north (and not incurred the losses at Gettysburg) and had Johnston kept to the defensive, was there an opening for the South to achieve enough northern casualties for Lincoln's reelection to fail in 1864? Was there any realistic chance of French/Mexican or British intervention on the Southern side? You raise very interesting points.
Yes, Lincoln's reelection is of course one of the great what-ifs of the Civil War. BUT we should note that the Confederates (esp. the Confederate hierarchy) also had mixed feelings regarding Lincoln's electoral defeat. After all, it was entirely possible that McClellan's conciliatory moves esp. re:slavery would see (parts of) the CSA rejoining the USA on favorable terms.
I think politically and without the benefit of hindsight, Johnston's strategy was unacceptable. Johnston had also done a similar retreat up the James River in the 1862 Peninsular Campaign, and by the end did not even want to give a straight answer regarding the defense of Richmond. Keeping Johnston thus seemed to imply a guaranteed loss of Atlanta; switching him out at least promised a chance at keeping it.
The most realistic chance for UK/French intervention was the Trent Crisis of 1861, and there, Lincoln was careful not to generate pretexts for intervention. By 1863 France was embroiled in Mexico, and even if Napoleon III was willing the last thing Britain wanted was an extension of French power in North America. The South's confidence in its cotton ban was also misplaced, as Britain simply switched to Egyptian sources.
Eh, there was a minor debate in parliament of the UK as to whether or not to support the CSA but the public opinion in all those nations by that point was that slavery was wrong and the lost Cotton trade was easily made up for by India. They also realized it was much more lucrative to take advantage of the US weakness to expand their influence in weaker American nations like Mexico than support a rebellion that would likely fail in the long run and lose much more once the US got their shit back together. As for the reelection, Americans tend to rally behind a sitting president when a war is happening and rarely vote them out before the war is over (Think Roosevelt, Bush, etc.). In all likelihood any anger at Lincoln for failure to meet objectives was overcome by the anger at the south for causing all the bloodshed in the first place. There is a reason one of Lincoln's first actions in the opening days of the war (which this video neglected to mention) was consolidating and reaffirming peaceful relations with Britain and France as to not incur intervention which is why they immediately backed down when a crisis came up with them searching British and French ships headed towards the south.
@@LiterallyWho1917 Food for thought: you say the American people tend to rally behind a sitting president in war time...but Bush only narrowly won re-election and Roosevelt had already been re-elected three times in peace. The 1944 election was 80 years after the 1864 election and the country had changed so much in the meantime so you can't just extrapolate backwards. All contemporary evidence suggests that Lincoln and others were quite concerned about the outcome of the election and that it was strongly influenced by actions taken in the months leading up to it.
Also, all credible sources I've read suggest the cotton shortage Britain experienced was quite severe in 1862 and that leading up to Antietam there was a strong possibility of Britain recognizing the Confederacy. It was only in the aftermath of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation the possibility of recognition or mediation was put out of reach. A snippet from the Wikipedia article gives more detail:
Earl Russell, British Foreign Secretary, had given Mason no encouragement, but after news of the Second Battle of Bull Run reached London in early September, Palmerston agreed that in late September, there could be a cabinet meeting at which Palmerston and Russell would ask approval of the mediation proposal. Then, Russell and Palmerston decided not to bring the plan before the cabinet until they got further word about Lee's invasion of the North. If the Northerners were beaten, the proposal would go through; if Lee failed, it might be well to wait a little longer before taking any action.[26]
Post Script: It's important not to underestimate how fundamentally racist Americans are. Our willingness to go to war in 1941 had a lot to do with being attacked, but it also had a lot to do with being attacked by people who were different from us. George McClellan was a white supremacist and he was much more willing to reconcile with rebel whites than accept blacks in society as equals. A lot of northerners felt that way. As the video shows, slaves existed in the north as well. So, while slavery was always the root of the war, the moral distinction was ambiguous until after Antietam.
Blaise Villaume You ignore the decades of squabbles between the (mostly) southern states and the federal government regarding the purview of federal power leading up to the civil war. Compact theory and states rights were very real issues, and arguably the center of the debate. Slavery was simply the issue that was at the center of an argument over first principles that had not been previously resolved. Simply saying America was racist, or simplifying the southern cause as simply about racialist hatred and slavery, is to misunderstand and misconstrue the argument.
Superior firepower and industry to mantain the war effort
Thje question should be how could the South persist so long...
Yeah "free people" defending slavery. What a fucking joke.
@@Tupadre97 they were defending state rights you lemming not slavery, slavery would have been abolished soon enough
Tamo Daleko the “states rights” they were fighting for was the right to own slaves. The government of the CSA was founded on and based around the continuation of slavery. It was the cornerstone of their economy and was a fundamental aspect of their foundational documents, including Article 1 Section 9-4 of their constitution which very explicitly states “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” They very specifically and intently forbade slavery from ever being abolished under their constitution.
@@CSmith-hx2pm if you are historically illiterate you might think thats the case
Tamo Daleko
There’s no two ways about it. Slavery ban coming into effect, South which was socially and economically based on slavery rebels. It really isn’t that complicated.
united states not the union. i feel it's trying to rewrite the history
telegraph wire network difference
Not enough comments on the burning Atlanta strategy
I can't find Sherman Boulevard in the map of Atlanta.
Nice! Thanks!
very good
Video Idea,
Create some snapshots of incidences where the South "punched above their weight", and won battles despite a disadvantage.
The north had a bigger population, but don’t forget the exploitation of Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine. It’s also easy to trivialize the suffering union troops inflicted under Sherman and grant. Yes, some southerners owned slaves and that’s inexcusable, but far from all of them did. Some people were just born in the wrong place at the wrong time, which doesn’t excuse their r🦍 and murder. Also, it’s helpful to look into the abhorrent conditions of factory workers in the industrial north and practically enslaved Asian rail workers in the west. History isn’t as black and white as people think. The Union was not the clear good guy. Many say the emancipation proclamation was only a ploy to discourage European intervention. Many in the north thought slavery was not an issue worth fighting for and simply wanted to preserve the integrity of the Union and there was also a large chunk that believed in just letting them go, slaves and all. If you feel the need to criticize me, pls do so on your phone made by workers whose conditions are so horrible, they put up suicide nets. Wear your clothes made by exploited labor in sweat shops. America doesn’t officially use slave labor anymore Bc we outsourced it to foreign countries. It is still real and bigger than ever
Ohh and I almost forgot to mention. The fact that Lee was on the losing side of history does not still exclude him from being an American hero. He would have been chosen to lead the north, if he had not led the south. He also would not have sided with the south, if not for his love of Virginia. To be frank, I think he had an internal conflict of should I watch my home be burned or fight against the nation I secondarily identify with and once fought for. He, like many of our founding fathers and people in general, did not always make the right choices, but who does? His accomplishments in the Mexican American war, along with his venerable dignity, cement his position as an American hero. Slavery did not suddenly become wrong right before the civil war. Unfortunately, it has been ingrained in us since the dawn of civilization, it still persists all over the world, including illegally in the usa. Though circumstance and ignorance are not always a viable excuse, what will we be judged for? To conclude that all the founding fathers and American figures that owned slaves are automatically bad is to trivialize the complexity of the human condition.
this almost reads as parody
Americans trying to not justify past atrocities by advocating for """nuance""" challenge (impossible)
@@grey-spark refute one statement I used with facts pls. Do Americans still not benefit from exploited labor? Half the supply chain, from mineral extraction in Africa to sweat shops in Asia, is based in exploitation and potentially fatal conditions. You’re likely responding to me w a phone whose battery was made from lithium mined by a child and in a factory by a worker who is worked so hard they have to put up suicide nets to retain workers.
@@blankface5052 Okay. Why not. You probably not a troll, so why not.
Exploitation =/= Slavery. Basically any unfair employment situation in is better than being a slave. Most most sweatshops workers in developing countries make comparably good money for where they live and since the 90s their nations have been lifted out of poverty. They're comparable to oil field workers here in the US. Doing backbreaking work for good money. The same applies to the Northerners who at the very least were considered autonomous people with rights.
Its funny you use the example of Lithium mines considering Bolivia just elected the socialist Evo Morales government that has lifted millions out of poverty. So no. The people who made your smartphone have lives 100x better and self-determination than that of a 19th century slave. I think a more comparable example of their lives would be North Korea, or the literal Qatari slave state who at the very least dupe immigrants into slavery as opposed to outright abducting them.
Grant and sherman are arguably the best tactician and strategists ever.
You forgot the most important battle of the entire war at Glorieta Pass where the brave and noble Colorado Volunteers broke the back of the Texan war machine once and for all.
The Civil War in the West is certainly an interesting and little discussed theater of the war. I recommend Nelson's The Three Cornered War.
Hey! History March completely plagiarized this video, using almost the same script
Hey, I’ve partnered with HistoryMarche and let him use the script! I’ve also made a few videos for him (like the one abt Heraclius a month ago). Trying to get back in the habit of making videos…
@@StrategyStuff O nice! Good to hear its a partnership. Amazing videos that you make, looking forward for more
Northern and Southern strategy during the Civil War was simple: get there the thickest with the mostus and beat the shit outta the other guy!
Or beat the crap out of the other guy enough so that he'll loose the will to fight for much longer
@@jakubpociecha8819 that's what I said!
If you look at the ethnic makeup of the United Sates at that time, the Civil War could more be described as a war of the English in the North vs the Scots-Irish of the South.
A continuation of the age old classic of Anglo-Saxon invasions of it's neighbors, the Irish and Scottish, just as has been the case in the British Isles for hundreds of years.
They didn’t phrase it in the way you did, but European financiers did see a basic “character” split btwn Antebellum North and South. North being industrious and honourable; South being lazy and treacherous (not saying that’s because North is English etc). Mainly cause the Southern states defaulted on their debts during the Panic of 1830 while the North honoured them… also a reason why the Southern rail system was underdeveloped
History Marche has literally and exactly copied your script from this video.
See here: ruclips.net/video/gk-ynHH4VwE/видео.html
I sent you an email, but I'm not sure if you keep up with that particular account.
Best wishes
Hey, I think I replied to you - I’m collaborating with HistoryMarche and I’ve given him permission to use the US Civil War video (+ Crusades/Machiavelli/Japan/Roman Empire).
lmao, the other day I watched the History Marche vid, and just now found this one, for a moment I thought they plagiarized you.
Next time , A-10s and nukes. Alo
Very hard to understand dude
The union bottom line had more advantages more soldiers supplies more ammo stronger army while the south didnt have that but the fact that the south lasted five years was amazing
Dont forget Lee
The south had slaves though that's the biggest advantage
Yafet profit How? It’s not like they could make the slaves fight for them
You can not speak withour rythm? Jez
Barely any strategy, Union was incompetent they just won with numbers and industry. If the sides were equal the north would have been trounced, and I'm saying that as a "yankee" myself
+Trusted Flagger Oh? What was the Southern Strategy?
"Yankee" You're not fooling anybody Dixie boy.
+Xavier Rogers Agreed. 'They just won with numbers and industry, if on equal grounds the South would have won' has been a staple phrase of most Pro-CSA individuals.
Not to mention that it's a very superficial statement. The North did have a strategy, which consisted in the Blockade - which was increasingly successful. Grant's strategy was also very sound: attack on several fronts; disregard taking cities, but instead focus on defeating the armies. Although he was going against Lee - rightly seen as the most able and dangerous battlefield commander left - he was keeping track of the other fronts.
Did Lee ever manage a strategy on a continental scale? No, and he lacked the mindset for it. Lee was a brilliant TACTICIAN, but a rather poor STRATEGIST. His two 'invasions' ultimately wasted lives and resources that the CSA couldn't afford.
The North also was better organized and by 1862 had excellent logistics. The South increasingly lost traction and its logistics - which were average at first - increasingly broke down.
@@Ares99999 Not to mention that the quality of the Union soldier was of higher quality being derived from volunteers rather than conscripts which made up a sizable proportion of the confederate army.
The south's tendency to call the civil war, "The War of Northern Aggression" is also plainly wrong as they were the ones to start the conflict by firing on fort Sumter.
Lee was also terrible in offensive action and only won skirmishes and defensive battles and never had any offensive action in the last 22 months of the civil war and in two battles, Gettysburg and Antietam, Lee lost a very high number and percentage of his army, roughly a third in each.
@Trusted Flagger "Barely any strategy" what bullcrap. The Union's Anaconda plan was a masterpiece in strangling the south's resources and splitting them in half along the Mississippi. The Union only had a few generals which were incompetent in the beginning and even then they were still able to hold the south back. If the Union had started the war with Grant in charge then the war would've lasted less than 3 years and at most 2.
@@maleficar5776 just another armchair general fighting the South's rebellion with 20\20 hindsight seen through 2019 rose coloured lenses. What do you do in your spare time? Pick on Black Americans too!!!