It’s interesting how his energy, his body language, and his gestures emphasize his words rather than distract from them. I was thoroughly enthralled by his storytelling, from the background and context and then the personality issues that left Lee blind at Gettysburg. (I’m also impressed that he squeezed it into a little less than a half hour.)
First of all, I am infatuated with the civil war; this guy is fantastic and as I read a moment ago from another comment, he knows how to tell a story. I already knew the economic factors and lack of materials and men that plagued the South. Steve Knott really explained in great detail what happened in Gettysburg; I would absolutely love to sit down and talk to this guy, and could listen to him every day and never tire.GREAT JOB STEVE!! I hope they pay you fantastic money there, it is well deserved.
I have heard several lectures on the Gettysburg Campaign. This is the best and most pragmatic assessment of the events leading up to the Battle of Gettysburg I have heard. Very insightful, I wish I could heard the full presentation. As a student of history, This man knows what he is talking about.
*HEADS UP CIVIL WAR HISTORIANS!* As of this notification, see what *WIKIPEDIA* has posted as a Confederate Flag!!! It's an SJW nightmare, and you have reason to hound them, big-time! For those of us who hold the lives and the reasons the war was fought as sacred or worthy of respect, this is proof that WIKIPEDIA is a biased, unreliable, history-bending pile of shit. *Rally, men and sisters of the cause!* A wrong needs righting!!!
@Andrew Layton The kind of person that calls experts " clueless dweebs " is generally sufferng from the Dunning-kruger effect wherein those who have less knowledge of a subject tend to have the loudest and more arrogant opinions regarding the topic.
He called Lee personally a terrorist and said Lee set the war strategy for the south, same as modern day terrorists? Why would you smooch this guy? He smooched you with that southern accent line and sorry, I hear no southern accent; What an easy crowd most of you are to smooch that guy -- ruclips.net/video/VCQYwxIcxiI/видео.html
Thank you Mr. Knott, this is as complete and understandable an explanation of the whole of this battle that is not covered in any literature or media sources I have seen. I am more informed about this topic than before.
Those little details - the inter-personal relationships and jealousies - although insignificant footnotes, they played a BIG role in the outcome of one of the most important battles of the war. I love the details!!! I often wonder about this in the ranks of the Wehrmacht in WWII how many battles went awry because of similar circumstances.
Wow, this is, by far, the greatest explanation of the Gettysburg campaign I've ever seen/heard (even after having read multiple books on the subject). The presentation fills in many of the gaps in my knowledge, especially about Lee's strategic mindset at the time. Brilliant stuff! Thank you Mr Knott!
As a U.S. military officer he was 100% correct about officer putting their rivarly above the greater good. Hell, I've done it myself without even noticing it but that's how people are and officers are no different.
This is still my favorite lecture ever. I found it in high school, and im nearly 28. Ive always wanted to meet this guy. My friends call me the most diplomatic confederate they've ever met. We moved north, and I've done well keeping this energy on the topic in debate without turning on my heritage nor hiding it. Thank you, sir.
What a fantastic presentation! I have been a civil war buff my entire life and did not understand the real reason for Stuart's actions in this campaign. I want to hear this guy speak more!
Who he left with Lee was irrelevant since he thought Mosby, Stringfellow or Conrad was available to contact the spies in Union HQ, This information had been vital in all previous campaigns. Lee needed Stuart in his role as espionage Chief, not cavalryman. If you miss that, you miss everything.
"Who he left with Lee is irrelevant"...That is a ridiculous statement. Assigning 2 corp of inexperienced cavalry on an invasion of enemy territory and leaving your experienced corps behind to guard supplies is simply bad strategy no matter who you are. "He thought..." That's sloppy planning on Stuart's part (assuming your point is correct)) to let his plan depend on "He thought..."
Stephen Troup they were not inexperienced at all, they were very battle hardened veterans, just militia, border guards like Mosby and Niel, you are the inexperienced one, read a few books on CSA Cav. before playing in the big league.
Steve would have the same passion for this subject on a street corner or anywhere that you spoke with him. This is the right person for The War College.
Given some of the silliness that was going on in some of the units I was in during the final years of the Cold War, I am profoundly thankful that we didn't go to war with that leadership roster. A fascinating presentation.
I knew a guy whos name was JB Stuart. On his driver's license application he wrote his name as "J" only "B" only Stuart but when he got his license it said Jonly Bonly Stuart.
Just so. The camera followed Capt. Knott (USN) so carefully keeping centered on him while ignoring what Knott was trying to show on the map. It's like the cameraman was told "follow the speaker no matter what," to which he dutifully obeyed -- with his actions completely devoid of judgment and personal initiative.
*HEADS UP CIVIL WAR HISTORIANS!* As of this notification, see what *WIKIPEDIA* has posted as a Confederate Flag!!! It's an SJW nightmare, and you have reason to hound them, big-time! For those of us who hold the lives and the reasons the war was fought as sacred or worthy of respect, this is proof that WIKIPEDIA is a biased, unreliable, history-bending pile of shit. *Rally, men and sisters of the cause!* A wrong needs righting!!!
Don W, of course it is generally known that Wikipedia is just a do-it-yourself encyclopaedia. It is representative only of the last wise and learned expert -- or obnoxious & ignorant buffoon, to touch it. Wikipedia articles are sometimes superb. Sometimes they are just a pile of worthless detritus.
ive listenned to this 3 or 4 times.. this gentleman is brilliant.. not all his conclusions are correct..but he knows his business.. hes about 95% correct here on lee and 100% correct on human nature
I just blundered into this presentation. Magnificent! An animated, enthusiastic, and well-written class. This presentation needs to be seen by every high school student studying (If they still are studying American History) the American Civil War. I do agree with Blaze Callahan. Would have been nice to see the map. Thank you for posting.
Custer & additional Union Cav units prevented Confederate Cav units to assist Pickett's Charge thus preventing the Confederates from winning at Gettysburg
The guy with the camera is excellent at keeping the camera on his smiling face. But is extremely terrible showing us what he's talking about on the big screen.
As an experienced camera person I noticed this right away. An expert single-camera shooter in this situation would show the viewer what the speaker was talking about once it became clear the viewer would want to see it for himself... perhaps even keeping the speaker in the frame, but not necessarily if close-ups were needed. There's a chance the camera person expected the maps and drawings would be edited in later to show what he failed to show. Otherwise push in to show the maps, pull back when you had a good look and could understand what was being spoken about. It takes awhile to develop the instinct of what to do when you're running a one-camera setup.
@@7936Barry I think you’re correct that the camera person expected that the slides would be edited in, and that he made the choice to focus attention on the dynamic presentation by Steve Knott. I disagree that zooming in and out is a very good solution in this case. The wide shot will lose a lot of the vitality of this particular speaker and the zoom in (or out) will actually be distracting at a visceral level. Zooms (again, imho) are best used judiciously, intentionally, and with choreography, to emphasize a dramatic moment. It’s a weak compromise to zoom in and out over the course of a monologue to show context, especially if you’re expecting the addition of slides during editing. In this case, acting on the fly, when do you zoom in on the speaker to emphasize the right moment or zoom out for a better view of the map? That’s what I mean about choreography. The cameraman was faced with a choice, and (imho), made the strongest choice to create a more impactful video for a lay audience. I realize this is unsatisfactory for some members of the audience, but the truth is that if they are interested enough to see graphical representations of troop movements, they can find them and compare them to the presentation (especially because Steve Knott was giving dates for the activities). As for the end result, sure I would have liked a better view of the maps. But even more, I appreciate prioritizing the capture of Knott’s energetic delivery, his body language and gestures, and his mannerisms. It’s a more powerful presentation and we (or I, at least) am more focused on his words and the story he is telling. If you feel strongly the opposite, might I make a humble suggestion? You might find a way of downloading the presentation and editing in your own maps and graphics. I know this is asking a lot of a stranger. But I think you could improve upon the video because of your experience. 😊
I stand corrected. It was Buford and his Union cavalry that was first arriving at Gettysburg. Yes, they had repeating rifles. And Longstreet's infantry had a hard march on the way to the battlefield and his forces were probably exhausted from the march. So it was Buford's forces that were holding back the Confederate forces at Gettysburg on the first day of the battle.
That Buford was able to go toe-to-toe with an infantry brigade long enough for Reynold’s to come up was something that would have been unthinkable a year earlier. The Union cavalry had good weapons but obviously they were now the equal to Confederate cavalry.
Buford’s troopers did not have repeaters. They had a variety of single shot breech loaders which gave them an advantage, but not as big an advantage as the repeaters would have. Only a couple companies of Custer’s Wolverines carried repeaters at the time - perhaps some units of Berdan’s sharpshooters.
Both responses are correct. Actually Buford fought a marvelous delaying action as Judy says, lasted long enough to allow Reynold's to bring up his two leading brigades, those of Cutler and Meredith (the fabulous Iron Brigade) which were reinforced during the rest of the morning and early afternoon by the remainder of the 1st Corp and the 11th Corp. Hooker's reorganization of the Union cavalry turned it into the elite organization that stood toe-to-toe against Heth's division and Stuart and later to dominate the worn-out Confederate cavalry.
The breech loading Sharps carbines gave the Federal troopers superior fire power and their mobility allowed them to defend the NWest and Northern approaches to the town. If Reynolds had taken longer to arrive, Buford would have exhausted his ammo and have to pull back.
Having watched a documentary about the war between Prussia and Austria in 1866, I can tell you that the major advantage of a breechloading rifle is that you can remain in cover or very close to the ground. A musketman can only reload with efficiency if he remains standing up, easily targeted and hit by the opposing infantry.
I really love this lecture. I'd like to hear more from Capt Steven W Knott, but I can only find lectures by Dr Steven F Knott, a different historian. Anyone know where I can find more?
Awesome video and starts off good right away. The way he is presenting information makes the history interesting and puts things into context. I remember when the History Channel used to be like that. This presentation would make a great program there!
Tremendous lecture. The opening on Lee's war aims helps explain why he was so headstrong about giving battle at Gettyburg instead of threatening Washington as Longstreet recommended. Similarly why he committed to Pickett's attack - all due to his obsession with obliterating the Army of the Potomac. This presentation is a nice adjunct to Chernow's excellent new biography on Grant. Well done, Mr Knott.
Fantastic. Thank you. I've armchair studied the American Civil War my entire life and have never gotten the answer to "why" Lee continually attacked an above-average defensive position and didn't alter his plan (particularly on Day 3). I could never understand WHY he ignored Longstreet and all these battle-hardened vetarans that knew what they were doing and were very capable of reading a battlefield.
Amazing talk and energy Mr. Knott!!!! The only tragedy here is that I can't find the part of the talk by Dr. Sommers. :( And there isn't enough of you on RUclips either Mr. Knott.
@Phillip Hiller The South had only one chance to win the war and that was to exhaust the North, which, as this presentation notes, was possible, however, they had very little margin for error. The personality issues in the Western Confederate armies were even worse. The Confederate generals hated each other and, most of all, hated Braxton Bragg, the commander of the Army of the Tennessee. That Army's disarray did much to ensure defeat in the West for the Confederacy. That along with Grant's brilliant Vicksburg Campaign, of course.
I do like the way he talks about the war, as he keeps it interesting and engaging; however, I would like to see the camera focus on the projector screen when he uses his laser pointer on points on the screen. I can't see what he's pointing at when he uses his pointer.
Excellent presentation. I love the highlighting of the interpersonal conflicts in the Confederate leadership and the effects it had on the tactics. This is something seen later with the rivalry of Patton and Montgomery in WW2. I would really like to see a production of Steve Knott in a more detailed analysis of the battle as narrator in a more graphics intensive video.
Can you say Arnhem or a Bridge to Far. It was a direct result of Monty's need to outshine Patton. So unlike his other battles. Monty was excellent but not usually daring. Lots of courage in the battles but lives could have been spent elsewhere for greater advantage
Went to school on this one. Very informative. Would never read in the history books that Jeb had interpersonal relationship deficits that cost the south the war!
I thoroughly enjoyed this tutorial, the lecturer was very enthuasiatic, excellent eye contact with his audiece and possess excellent volume of speech and he thorough knows his stuff, but just a small note is that the camera should have been directed at the overhead project or the presentation. Part from that, its an extremely interesting lecture :)
Hitler tried to divide the allies in the same manner with the battle of the bulge. Hitler knew that Germany could not win the war. He knew the allies were tired of war, and that Americans and English generals were not getting along. Hitler felt if he could capture Antwarp, cut off the allies supplies, they would seek a peace agreement .
Never under-estimate an individual's capacity to be self-delusional when they are set on collision course of catastrophic failure. We evolved in a way that causes us to rather than accept out inevitable defeat & powerlessness to survive, we evolved mental blinders to delude ourselves into persevering and fight on if there is nothing else we can do but wait for our inevitable (but not yet imminent) downfall. Hitler thought there was a real chance in Hell until Zhukov's army literally started knocking on his front door. Only then did the total reality of the situation become realized/clear; He accepted his fate just before turning to the barrel of his gun. Our brains didn't evolve to treat maps, forecasts, force projection calculations like we perceive what is around us. Only his brain couldn't somersault around basic sensory perception, that's when reality hit. That's when he shot himself.
Todd Sauve- I'm sorry you don't see any survival mechanism in there that could explain why one would be more likely to survive in dire times while others without such a trait would presume inevitable death and give up trying anything to survive altogether. As an analogy: like seeing the mirage that leads you out of the desert, the water wasn't real but it got you out of the desert anyway. Your genes are coded to see the mirage. Could there have ever been a time when that trait was selected as the determinant for survival?
I don't believe in evolution. Your explanation would make sense if seen through normal psychological analysis. Yes, I agree that Hitler probably used his beliefs--delusional as they were--as a survival mechanism. :)
".... Hitler felt if he could capture Antwarp, cut off the allies supplies, they would seek a peace agreement ." Actually, had the war been delayed long enough, the US would have dropped the Atomic Bombs on Germany. That was the original intention for their creation.
I looked all over the USAWC and couldn't find the "esteemed Dr Sommers" follow up to this lecture.Edit 11/25/24 Dr Richard Sommers passed away in May 2019. This is the third time I've watched this video. Dr Sommers videos are still on RUclips.
Excellent lecture. I wish I could have seen this before watching the mini-series "Gettysburg", it would have explained a lot. For instance, why Lee was so insistent on fighting the Union army "here and now".
And I loved the way that movie showed the interaction between Longstreet, Lee and Harrison at the beginning. And the use of re-enactors for the period extras.
The contradiction of "They weren't after shoes.", and Stuart slowed his column with a captured mule trail of wagons, is troubling. They were after supplies. They were attempting to capture whatever materials of war and provisions whenever and wherever possible. Secondly, the "second largest city of the Confederacy" was marching, and marching a couple hundred miles on dirt and thru water and mud ruins shoes. So, yes, one of the reasons they chose Gettysburg was because of a chance to seize supplies there and one of the chief supplies of the city at that time, was shoes. The cargo of the mule train isn't mentioned, but it was significant enough that a senior commander slowed his march to keep it, and deliver it to the Confederate Army. The interpersonal relationships angle of the lecture is well done and valid. That has been well documented in the Union army, how favoritism adversely affected the progress of the war for the North.
There were no shoes at Gettysburg. That story was a complete fabrication of the journalists following the battle who did not understand Lee’s strategy or orders. The mule pulled wagons was absolutely a problem - Lee reprimanded Stuart over the issue.
Credit to Joseph Hooker for the reforms he made while in command. The most important one was he took cavalry that was attached to various regiments, and consolidated them into their own force. Yankee cavalry was starting to feel it's strength by the time of Gettysburg. Hooker was also responsible for the positioning of the various pieces of the Army of the Potomac that he screened Lee with and they were positioned superbly. They were able to keep an eye on Lee and concentrate fairly quickly when contact was made. All the pieces were in place when Meade took over.
How come today’s youth are so ignorant about the Civil War and American history?!? BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT HATES OUR HISTORY and aims to indoctrinate rather than teach the objective truth! This gentleman reminds me of my history professor in College. Good job Sir! Thank you from the Suwannee. 😎🇺🇸👍
Jeb Stuart was likely laying low just as Lee ordered him to so the Union army would lose focus on the significance of his some 6,000 calvary. On the day of Pickett's so called suicide march, Stewart did in fact emerge and would have flanked the union fish hook from behind while Pickett's 13,000 men would have broken union lines if coordinated with Stuart and probably have won the war .....only Stewart's cavalry was fought to a standstill by a relatively unknown cocky Union general named George Armstrong Custer who ordered his Michigan cavalry to engage Stuart and prevented them from flanking union defenses 1 mile behind at a site called east cavalry battlefield. That sole event changed the course of the war and perhaps modern human history. Read 'LOST TRIUMPH' for a detailed description of this pivotal event
No, Jeb Stuart was not 'laying low'. He screwed up prior to the Gettysburg campaign. And Robert E. Lee was pissed off at him. Truth be told, a cavalry attack would not meant a hill of beans even if Mr. Stuart had any success. Please just visit the Gettysburg battlefield, talk to the Park rangers, read more than the one incorrect 'description' you mention, and learn the real story. Really now.
lars funny thing is colonel custer was made a general by mistake a written order making him general was written for another commander read this in several history book on Custer yes he took the Michigan Custer led a charge against stopping him cold where union Calvary surrendered
I knew J.E.B. messed up, but didn't know the details. Great lecture. In truth, Lee should have known to take cavalry he trusted. Why take cavalry you were not going to use?
The arrest of Valladigham was not ordered by "members of the Lincoln Administration"; his arrest was ordered by General Ambrose Burnside. Lincoln told him no more arresting politicians or shutting down newspapers without clearing it with Washington first. Burnside, a good man, sometimes exercised poor strategic judgment. Fredericksburg comes to mind.
Your have a verifiable documents of this bit of history? It is hard to believe that a military officer would take upon himself to violate Constitutional rights of a seating congressmen. See Art. 1 of the Const.
Burnside was only following the example of his commander-in-chief. Lincoln had many duly elected representatives illegally arrested (many in Maryland, which would have seceded if Lincoln hadn't arrested everyone in the Maryland state legislature whose opinion he disagreed with). Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeus corpus, holding duly elected representatives of the people, who committed no crime, against their will with no charges. Blame it on Burnside but he was just doing what Lincoln had done numerous times.
It's in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, not to mention being documented numerous times in books relating to Burnside, Vallandigham, the Copperheads and other opponents of the war, and in such general histories as McPherson and Foote.
That is unfortunately one of the issues of a many tiered government. Both the truth, which is the first casualty of a conflict [war] and the law . Which is circumvented or diluted. Both by time and the levels of government and society. But if the rules of the constitution are upheld and followed. Those issues would not occur [maybe]. Then we look back from our arm chairs and point fingers at the mistakes. That past people knew about and did little . And those that just occurred because of not following the rules. Both in government and on the field. Anger is not a luxury any person can afford; And in this circumstance, a clear mind is both an illusion and a delusion .
This fellow is is an awesome lecturer! He really draws you into the story... and it can be about anything.. Steve Knott weaves the story and basically brings in the real reason why JEB Stuart failed Lee. In the end we know that intelligence is absolutely crucial for the success of an army, and without the Cavalry (back then) as its eyes and ears Lee was blind. Lessons learned, Cavalry must be act as the whiskers of the main force and be in constant communication to the main force.. Stuart failed in this in colossal way by being completely out of touch with Lee for several crucial days. Had the Calvary been deployed more effectively, Gettysburg may not have happened or if it had happened it would have been on Lee's terms. The irony was that it was during this engagement that the Union Cavalry was most effective in their role. Buford's Cavalry provided the Army of the Potomac with advanced intelligence so vitally needed and was able to screen Lee's advanced elements until the main body was able to consolidate the high ground.
In fact, what was missing was Stuart, not cavalry. Lee still had three brigades of cavalry with him, but not an overall leader to use them efficiently. One brigade was sent to the northwest, into the mountains where they did some damage to the railroads, and may have scarfed up enough supplies from scattered farms to support themselves, but contributed nothing to intelligence and did not participate in the battle. What a brigade did could have been done by detaching a regiment. The rest of the cavalry seems to have been used to clear the way to Harrisburg before being recalled. Some of that force could have been better used scouting east of the Mountains. When Early headed toward the Susquehanna, some of that cavalry should have established a screen south of the Maryland border to watch his flank. That would also more likely have allowed an earlier hookup with Stuart. Lee had cavalry. He did not use it properly.
The real reason Stuart failed Lee is because of his ego. The Flora Cook saga, combined with the Battle Of Brandy Station. Where the Union Calvary fought the Confederate Calvary in a pitched day long battle. The Union withdrew but not in headlong flight as it had in the past. Stuart was angered that they dared to challenge his men. As a result, he felt he had to regain his "honor" and humiliate the North again. Thus the ride around the Army of the Potomac.
One of Sun Tzu’s first teachings is exactly what the professor started off with. 👍🏽 love this professor Ive learned so much. This is my favorite channel. i enjoy comparing the professors lectures to Sun Tzu’s teachings. One of My questions on today’s lecture is for the professor. Gen Longstreet “Lee’s old war horse” suggested to Lee several times that they regroup so to gain better ground also Stuart “the eyes of the confederate army” had finally arrived that being said why did Lee one of the greatest most beloved generals decide to attack the center? Do you think he really believed his army was invincible? Love your lectures keep posting thank you sir. Hampton Y
posession of the intiative- combined with a third (the fact that Lee was living off the land and could not remain more than 4-5 days in any one location) to induce Lee to order what came to be known as Pickett's Charge.
Jeb Stuart failed because Lee gave Stuart conflicting orders. Lee ordered Stuart to gather both information and provisions. The first required mobility which cavalry could provide, while the second was bound to impede that very mobility. Furthermore, these two conflicting directives coincided in time, so there was literally no chance for Stuart to do one and then the other. It's worth remembering that one of the primary reasons for Lee's invasion was that the AoNV could not remain along the line of the Rappahannock because his army could not be adequately supplied there- and that the Confederates could live off of the northern countryside. Stuart simply tried to carry out Lee's instructions, and failed. The essential mistake here was a violation of the military principle of "one force, one objective".
Hmm, Why was jeb stuart not able to send back messengers while obtaining his provisions of 140 carts? The standard mug of jeb with that feather in his hat,A dandy of ladies man,The Hutpsa that exists in War till this very day.He can't be blamed for "Joyriding". But its an easy scapegoat.
Excellent presentation! The lead up to Gettysburg is as amazing as the battle itself, and great explanation of Stuart's actions beyond he was just showboating and goofing around, but how his ego really screwed things up. Also good to see Bernie Sanders front and center in case he actually becomes POTUS and has to deal with such a situation.
The south had to forage. Lack of production was not the only reason for this. The lack of unity among the confederate states regarding providing supplies to the confederate army further exacerbated the situation. Each state stubbornly clung to the action of providing supplies ONLY to the soldiers from that state. Lee was a masterful tactician, but he was a miserable logistician. Had Lee a more determined logistics officer who was able to procure those resources Lee would have been able prolong his ability to attack.
Yes, I've heard the same. One example i understand is that North Carolina had enough uniforms for the entire confederate army but never released them. The uniforms were eventually used for German POWs during ww2. Also another example was that Richmond had huge food reserves but would not release them for the army because they claimed it was for the end of the war. Lee was irate at their reasoning but still couldn't make the politicians release the food stores.
+William E Lanning Jr Showing another reason why CSA was absurd, factories will always win wars, people are the best "forgetters" of their rally cries. Vietnam was a great idea in 1963-65 even though the population in Vietnam voted for a communist economy in 1946. Only the Imperialist rich folks wanted to keep their economy and pride they lost during Hitler's crushing of France in 1940.
Well that would make spence because they were a CONFEDERACY. This type of government is were regional government have more power the central. So the confederate central government by definition could had a tough time appropriate and accumulating resources from states.
Reminder of that ol' saying: "Amateurs talk about tactics; Professionals talk logistics" I'm sure you all have heard that proverb already. I posted it for younger folks.
The real issue was States Rights and how the States themselves applied the principle to everything. As Franklin was overheard to say, "King George has done more to unify us that he could possibly imagine. Veriky we will now all hang together or we shall certainly hang separately." The Confederate States often treated Jeff Davis as nearly as big an enemy as Lincoln.
William Hopper You are right, William. There is relatively inexpensive software that allows you to split the screen so you can see the speaker in one box and the slides in another and package it into RUclips format. That is one of my pet peeves with taped lectures. I don't really care to see the speaker. I want to see the visuals to which they are referring.
FACTS!! Commanders need facts to make the best decisions!! Same with we the people when voting. Pretty speeches and opinions of politicians should go in one ear, out the other.
Excellent talk...please have camera pan to maps the next time. Perhaps a college student might edit video to add maps and markers to your audio. Will look for more of your CW talks. Thanks
Interesting presentation. It also may provide insight upon why Pickett's charge was ordered. As I stood at the spot where Pickett began his advance, my dad said "what was he thinking"? To look across that unobstructed field of fire was sobering. I know it was normal to advance upon your enemy in the open. I also know there had been a massive artillery bombardment of the union lines (which unknown to tje confederates had fallen too deep behind union lines). However,if Lee had the mindset that he had to destroy his opponent, not just win a battle, perhaps that led him to order the advance that none of his subordinates agreed with.
The panning is really hard on me, I'm not sure I can hang with this, I am getting somewhat seasick. I wonder why they could not put the camera wide so he could just walk back and forth and let the eyes do the work, less strain.
JEB Stuart was secretly reconning the Army War College. This is little known and has been suppressed by Davis and the Southern Aristocracy because it revealed a desire for long range planning.
The means disparity is one of the more often cited facts and is universally used to demonstrate the toughness of the South. But it fails to capture one important aspect of Civil War warfare: napoleonic deployment and tactics of troops HEAVILY favors defenders and neutralizes the gains typically enjoyed by the resource rich side. In these terms, the South enjoyed enormous advantages over the North, an advantage not present at Gettysburg which (surprise) the South lost.
This is a most excellent teaching. As a complete aside: did anyone else notice his consistent substitution of "calvary" for "cavalry"? I find it interesting. Perhaps it's a Freudian slip.
If we believe Heth's after-battle report then the shoes story is not a "myth". One the morning of June 30 Heth sent Johnston Pettigrew's brigade to Gettysburg to find supplies. As per his report: "On the morning of June 30, I ordered Brigadier-General Pettigrew to take his brigade to Gettysburg, search the town for army supplies (shoes especially), and return the same day."
@@bdrrogers No one says Lee concentrated his army at Gettysburg "to get shoes." The fact is that on June 30, Heth's division was the farthest east at Cashtown and there was supposed to be ample supplies at Gettysburg, shoes being the most in demand as many a Reb were barefoot. (Due to lack of communication however, even if they got into the town they'd have found that Earley's men had already been through there and picked through most of the town's bounty). Heth ordered one brigade under Johnston Pettigrew -- hardly a 'strategic convergence' -- to march eight miles to Gettysburg to secure the rumored supplies. They were under orders to avoid contact with the enemy as the army wasn't concentrated yet. When they encountered Buford's cavalry three miles west of town Pettigrew dutifully withdrew back to Cashtown. For whatever reason it seems that Heth and III Corps commander AP Hill were either unaware of or didn't believe Harrison's report because they both doubted that Pettigrew encountered anything but militia. Still, on the morning of July 1, Hill, perhaps having second thoughts, ordered not one brigade but two of his three divisions plus the bulk of his corps artillery to advance on Gettysburg. By this time the shoes were an afterthought. No historian says Hill sent 2/3 of his corps down the Chambersburg Pike just to get shoes. Historians love to be contrarians and debunk myths, even incorrectly in this case, as it makes them feel both different and more learned and 'in the know.' It's a common trait among those combing through already picked clean subjects like Gettysburg, perhaps the most analyzed campaign in US military history.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I always wondered why Stuart did not play a bigger role at Gettysburg, the details of the story are amazing! Great Job!
Trump "WOW"
@@atpg5What does your politician of choice have to do with J.E.B. Stuart and Gettysburg?
@@no-barknoonan1335 Trump "Wow just WoW"
@@no-barknoonan1335 you know how those Trump fart sniffers are, they just randomly say shit! 🤣
This might be the best lecture I've ever seen... this guy not only knows how to tell a story, but you can feel his passion.
I agree completely!
It’s interesting how his energy, his body language, and his gestures emphasize his words rather than distract from them. I was thoroughly enthralled by his storytelling, from the background and context and then the personality issues that left Lee blind at Gettysburg. (I’m also impressed that he squeezed it into a little less than a half hour.)
You have got to admire the passion and enthusiasm with which this wonderful history is told by Steve. Thanks man. Loved it !!!!
First of all, I am infatuated with the civil war; this guy is fantastic and as I read a moment ago from another comment, he knows how to tell a story. I already knew the economic factors and lack of materials and men that plagued the South. Steve Knott really explained in great detail what happened in Gettysburg; I would absolutely love to sit down and talk to this guy, and could listen to him every day and never tire.GREAT JOB STEVE!! I hope they pay you fantastic money there, it is well deserved.
I have heard several lectures on the Gettysburg Campaign. This is the best and most pragmatic assessment of the events leading up to the Battle of Gettysburg I have heard. Very insightful, I wish I could heard the full presentation. As a student of history, This man knows what he is talking about.
David Ramirez he is a clueless dweeb. Has no clue about cavalry mission or method.
*HEADS UP CIVIL WAR HISTORIANS!* As of this notification, see what *WIKIPEDIA* has posted as a Confederate Flag!!! It's an SJW nightmare, and you have reason to hound them, big-time! For those of us who hold the lives and the reasons the war was fought as sacred or worthy of respect, this is proof that WIKIPEDIA is a biased, unreliable, history-bending pile of shit. *Rally, men and sisters of the cause!* A wrong needs righting!!!
Could you explain further?
@Andrew Layton The kind of person that calls experts " clueless dweebs " is generally sufferng from the Dunning-kruger effect wherein those who have less knowledge of a subject tend to have the loudest and more arrogant opinions regarding the topic.
He called Lee personally a terrorist and said Lee set the war strategy for the south, same as modern day terrorists? Why would you smooch this guy? He smooched you with that southern accent line and sorry, I hear no southern accent; What an easy crowd most of you are to smooch that guy
--
ruclips.net/video/VCQYwxIcxiI/видео.html
Thank you Mr. Knott, this is as complete and understandable an explanation of the whole of this battle that is not covered in any literature or media sources I have seen. I am more informed about this topic than before.
Those little details - the inter-personal relationships and jealousies - although insignificant footnotes, they played a BIG role in the outcome of one of the most important battles of the war. I love the details!!!
I often wonder about this in the ranks of the Wehrmacht in WWII how many battles went awry because of similar circumstances.
@Inquisitor---you can believe big egos helped defeat them---their worship of aryan supremacy, know it all, etc
Wow, this is, by far, the greatest explanation of the Gettysburg campaign I've ever seen/heard (even after having read multiple books on the subject). The presentation fills in many of the gaps in my knowledge, especially about Lee's strategic mindset at the time. Brilliant stuff! Thank you Mr Knott!
The lecturer, Steve Knott, is a very accomplished speaker and historian.
As a U.S. military officer he was 100% correct about officer putting their rivarly above the greater good. Hell, I've done it myself without even noticing it but that's how people are and officers are no different.
This is still my favorite lecture ever. I found it in high school, and im nearly 28. Ive always wanted to meet this guy. My friends call me the most diplomatic confederate they've ever met. We moved north, and I've done well keeping this energy on the topic in debate without turning on my heritage nor hiding it.
Thank you, sir.
What a fantastic presentation! I have been a civil war buff my entire life and did not understand the real reason for Stuart's actions in this campaign. I want to hear this guy speak more!
Stephen Troup but he is wrong about so much i wouldnt waste my time.
Could you waste a little time and tell us what he is wrong about and why?
Who he left with Lee was irrelevant since he thought Mosby, Stringfellow or Conrad was available to contact the spies in Union HQ, This information had been vital in all previous campaigns. Lee needed Stuart in his role as espionage Chief, not cavalryman. If you miss that, you miss everything.
"Who he left with Lee is irrelevant"...That is a ridiculous statement. Assigning 2 corp of inexperienced cavalry on an invasion of enemy territory and leaving your experienced corps behind to guard supplies is simply bad strategy no matter who you are.
"He thought..." That's sloppy planning on Stuart's part (assuming your point is correct)) to let his plan depend on "He thought..."
Stephen Troup they were not inexperienced at all, they were very battle hardened veterans, just militia, border guards like Mosby and Niel, you are the inexperienced one, read a few books on CSA Cav. before playing in the big league.
Perhaps the best presentation that I have hear in my 75 years on the lead-up to the Battle of Gettysburg. Very informative.
I wish I had teachers like this guy- He would have me on the edge of my seat all day
Great presentation, especially in defining the Clausewtizian utility of will and its utmost importance.
Steve Knott was one of my favorite teachers in High School! Great teacher, coach, person and friend!
Steve would have the same passion for this subject on a street corner or anywhere that you spoke with him. This is the right person for The War College.
Given some of the silliness that was going on in some of the units I was in during the final years of the Cold War, I am profoundly thankful that we didn't go to war with that leadership roster. A fascinating presentation.
I would like to see the whole presentation.
It's good to see a historian animated and speaking with passion.
Excellent lecture! At once educational and highly entertaining. Thank you!
I knew a guy whos name was JB Stuart. On his driver's license application he wrote his name as "J" only "B" only Stuart but when he got his license it said Jonly Bonly Stuart.
Great video. The battle finally makes sense to me. Thank you.
Nice presentation but frustrating to not see the map!
or split
Seeing the maps would help make the lecture clearer for folks who haven't studied this campaign.
Just so. The camera followed Capt. Knott (USN) so carefully keeping centered on him while ignoring what Knott was trying to show on the map. It's like the cameraman was told "follow the speaker no matter what," to which he dutifully obeyed -- with his actions completely devoid of judgment and personal initiative.
*HEADS UP CIVIL WAR HISTORIANS!* As of this notification, see what *WIKIPEDIA* has posted as a Confederate Flag!!! It's an SJW nightmare, and you have reason to hound them, big-time! For those of us who hold the lives and the reasons the war was fought as sacred or worthy of respect, this is proof that WIKIPEDIA is a biased, unreliable, history-bending pile of shit. *Rally, men and sisters of the cause!* A wrong needs righting!!!
Don W, of course it is generally known that Wikipedia is just a do-it-yourself encyclopaedia. It is representative only of the last wise and learned expert -- or obnoxious & ignorant buffoon, to touch it. Wikipedia articles are sometimes superb. Sometimes they are just a pile of worthless detritus.
ive listenned to this 3 or 4 times.. this gentleman is brilliant.. not all his conclusions are correct..but he knows his business.. hes about 95% correct here on lee and 100% correct on human nature
I just blundered into this presentation. Magnificent! An animated, enthusiastic, and well-written class. This presentation needs to be seen by every high school student studying (If they still are studying American History) the American Civil War. I do agree with Blaze Callahan. Would have been nice to see the map. Thank you for posting.
I lived relatively close to the war college in Carlisle for 20+ years, just never had the opportunity to go tour the displays and what not
Custer & additional Union Cav units prevented Confederate Cav units to assist Pickett's Charge thus preventing the Confederates from winning at Gettysburg
@John--go Wolverines! Unfortunately this may have been what stoked Custer's ego to try Little Big Horn.
@@sofly7634 well he was trying to run for president and get a big win heading in
The guy with the camera is excellent at keeping the camera on his smiling face. But is extremely terrible showing us what he's talking about on the big screen.
As an experienced camera person I noticed this right away. An expert single-camera shooter in this situation would show the viewer what the speaker was talking about once it became clear the viewer would want to see it for himself... perhaps even keeping the speaker in the frame, but not necessarily if close-ups were needed. There's a chance the camera person expected the maps and drawings would be edited in later to show what he failed to show. Otherwise push in to show the maps, pull back when you had a good look and could understand what was being spoken about. It takes awhile to develop the instinct of what to do when you're running a one-camera setup.
@@7936Barry I think you’re correct that the camera person expected that the slides would be edited in, and that he made the choice to focus attention on the dynamic presentation by Steve Knott. I disagree that zooming in and out is a very good solution in this case. The wide shot will lose a lot of the vitality of this particular speaker and the zoom in (or out) will actually be distracting at a visceral level.
Zooms (again, imho) are best used judiciously, intentionally, and with choreography, to emphasize a dramatic moment. It’s a weak compromise to zoom in and out over the course of a monologue to show context, especially if you’re expecting the addition of slides during editing. In this case, acting on the fly, when do you zoom in on the speaker to emphasize the right moment or zoom out for a better view of the map? That’s what I mean about choreography.
The cameraman was faced with a choice, and (imho), made the strongest choice to create a more impactful video for a lay audience. I realize this is unsatisfactory for some members of the audience, but the truth is that if they are interested enough to see graphical representations of troop movements, they can find them and compare them to the presentation (especially because Steve Knott was giving dates for the activities).
As for the end result, sure I would have liked a better view of the maps. But even more, I appreciate prioritizing the capture of Knott’s energetic delivery, his body language and gestures, and his mannerisms. It’s a more powerful presentation and we (or I, at least) am more focused on his words and the story he is telling.
If you feel strongly the opposite, might I make a humble suggestion? You might find a way of downloading the presentation and editing in your own maps and graphics. I know this is asking a lot of a stranger. But I think you could improve upon the video because of your experience. 😊
Who was the largest Southern manufacturer? Tredegar? I have fond memories of visiting Tredegar Iron Works.
Very informative and enjoyable. Makes me reevaluate my admiration for Gen Stuart.
I stand corrected. It was Buford and his Union cavalry that was first arriving at Gettysburg. Yes, they had repeating rifles. And Longstreet's infantry had a hard march on the way to the battlefield and his forces were probably exhausted from the march. So it was Buford's forces that were holding back the Confederate forces at Gettysburg on the first day of the battle.
That Buford was able to go toe-to-toe with an infantry brigade long enough for Reynold’s to come up was something that would have been unthinkable a year earlier. The Union cavalry had good weapons but obviously they were now the equal to Confederate cavalry.
Buford’s troopers did not have repeaters. They had a variety of single shot breech loaders which gave them an advantage, but not as big an advantage as the repeaters would have. Only a couple companies of Custer’s Wolverines carried repeaters at the time - perhaps some units of Berdan’s sharpshooters.
Both responses are correct. Actually Buford fought a marvelous delaying action as Judy says, lasted long enough to allow Reynold's to bring up his two leading brigades, those of Cutler and Meredith (the fabulous Iron Brigade) which were reinforced during the rest of the morning and early afternoon by the remainder of the 1st Corp and the 11th Corp. Hooker's reorganization of the Union cavalry turned it into the elite organization that stood toe-to-toe against Heth's division and Stuart and later to dominate the worn-out Confederate cavalry.
The breech loading Sharps carbines gave the Federal troopers superior fire power and their mobility allowed them to defend the NWest and Northern approaches to the town. If Reynolds had taken longer to arrive, Buford would have exhausted his ammo and have to pull back.
Having watched a documentary about the war between Prussia and Austria in 1866, I can tell you that the major advantage of a breechloading rifle is that you can remain in cover or very close to the ground. A musketman can only reload with efficiency if he remains standing up, easily targeted and hit by the opposing infantry.
Is there a video that continues this lecture.... from the point that the speaker ends and the next speaker continues the lecture?????????????????????
I know why Jeb Stewart went to Caslisle. There is a great Italian restaurant in the downtown area.
I used to work there. Piazzo.
Jeb didn't like Italian food.
I know I have been there
@@mobilechiefnear the recess rm
Meh, no one goes there anymore-it’s too crowded.
I really love this lecture. I'd like to hear more from Capt Steven W Knott, but I can only find lectures by Dr Steven F Knott, a different historian. Anyone know where I can find more?
Me, too. I'm a fan.
I’m sorry…. I do Knott
@@jazzjackson9875 Go sit in the corner and think about what you said.
Remakably insightful !! So glad Steve Knott is on our side. So right about "who's who in the zoo."
Awesome video and starts off good right away. The way he is presenting information makes the history interesting and puts things into context. I remember when the History Channel used to be like that. This presentation would make a great program there!
That was great, particularly the bit about the second largest city in the Confederacy.
EXCELLENT presentation! I'd love to hear the full version!
Tremendous lecture. The opening on Lee's war aims helps explain why he was so headstrong about giving battle at Gettyburg instead of threatening Washington as Longstreet recommended. Similarly why he committed to Pickett's attack - all due to his obsession with obliterating the Army of the Potomac. This presentation is a nice adjunct to Chernow's excellent new biography on Grant. Well done, Mr Knott.
This is the best presentation on the Civil War I have seen. Thanks for posting.
Fascinating analysis. Thanks for posting
This would be better if the camera focussed on the display rather than the speaker.
Great presentation, but I wish the camera operator had shown the slides when he referred to them.....
The War College has moments of levity in discussing war. Very palatable!
Outstanding presentation, thanks for posting!
Very good presentation. Cadre attrition was a terrible problem for Lee, and it bore fruit against him at Gettysburg.
Excellent presentation, thank you!
This guy knows his material. It really puts things into perspective to know all these little sub-stories.
Fantastic. Thank you. I've armchair studied the American Civil War my entire life and have never gotten the answer to "why" Lee continually attacked an above-average defensive position and didn't alter his plan (particularly on Day 3). I could never understand WHY he ignored Longstreet and all these battle-hardened vetarans that knew what they were doing and were very capable of reading a battlefield.
Cool stuff. I live within a few miles of the Army War College in Carliale, PA. Lots of retired military officers here.
Terrific lecture, thanks for sharing.
Amazing talk and energy Mr. Knott!!!! The only tragedy here is that I can't find the part of the talk by Dr. Sommers. :( And there isn't enough of you on RUclips either Mr. Knott.
The beginning of this lecture is so good, this guy can end all misconceptions about the war
See why Shelby Foote is so, so popular - the Elvis Presley sound of the PBS Civil War Series - and his 3 set Civil War books are the best.
Outstanding presentation! But- now that my curiosity is piqued- where is the presentation of "the esteemed Dr. Sommers"?
Thank you, my thoughts exactly!!
My question also
@Phillip Hiller The South had only one chance to win the war and that was to exhaust the North, which, as this presentation notes, was possible, however, they had very little margin for error. The personality issues in the Western Confederate armies were even worse. The Confederate generals hated each other and, most of all, hated Braxton Bragg, the commander of the Army of the Tennessee. That Army's disarray did much to ensure defeat in the West for the Confederacy. That along with Grant's brilliant Vicksburg Campaign, of course.
even braggs wife stuck it up him.a case of who you know not what you know.
Brilliant presentation.
Very good presentation, I learned things I did not know about Stuart's relationship with his subordinates.
Outstanding presentation...this battle like most lost battles come down to poor Command, poor Control and poor Communication.
Loved the presentation. I wish I could see the rest of this.
I love the comment: " When I say we, I mean the Confederates".
I do like the way he talks about the war, as he keeps it interesting and engaging; however, I would like to see the camera focus on the projector screen when he uses his laser pointer on points on the screen. I can't see what he's pointing at when he uses his pointer.
If you've seen any historic battle maps of this point in the Civil War campaign, it's pretty easy to know what he's talking abut.o
Why does the cameraman fixate on the speaker as he's constantly referring to a map, but not show the map?
yeah whoever graciously recorded this (thank you!) needs a video editor to put in maps and stuff
The cameraman was engaged to the speakers wife before the engagement was called off so he is purposely trying to sabotage the video of his lecture.
Citizen20 Twenty Well, obviously the cameraMan is gay for this guy! Thanks for asking.
This is such a great lecture.
zeer zeer goed gebracht en uitgelegd dank voor de upload groet uit Holland u weet wel daar waar Longstreet van daan kwam
Excellent presentation. I love the highlighting of the interpersonal conflicts in the Confederate leadership and the effects it had on the tactics. This is something seen later with the rivalry of Patton and Montgomery in WW2. I would really like to see a production of Steve Knott in a more detailed analysis of the battle as narrator in a more graphics intensive video.
Can you say Arnhem or a Bridge to Far. It was a direct result of Monty's need to outshine Patton. So unlike his other battles. Monty was excellent but not usually daring. Lots of courage in the battles but lives could have been spent elsewhere for greater advantage
Went to school on this one. Very informative. Would never read in the history books that Jeb had interpersonal relationship deficits that cost the south the war!
I thoroughly enjoyed this tutorial, the lecturer was very enthuasiatic, excellent eye contact with his audiece and possess excellent volume of speech and he thorough knows his stuff, but just a small note is that the camera should have been directed at the overhead project or the presentation. Part from that, its an extremely interesting lecture :)
Hitler tried to divide the allies in the same manner with the battle of the bulge. Hitler knew that Germany could not win the war. He knew the allies were tired of war, and that Americans and English generals were not getting along. Hitler felt if he could capture Antwarp, cut off the allies supplies, they would seek a peace agreement .
Never under-estimate an individual's capacity to be self-delusional when they are set on collision course of catastrophic failure. We evolved in a way that causes us to rather than accept out inevitable defeat & powerlessness to survive, we evolved mental blinders to delude ourselves into persevering and fight on if there is nothing else we can do but wait for our inevitable (but not yet imminent) downfall. Hitler thought there was a real chance in Hell until Zhukov's army literally started knocking on his front door. Only then did the total reality of the situation become realized/clear; He accepted his fate just before turning to the barrel of his gun. Our brains didn't evolve to treat maps, forecasts, force projection calculations like we perceive what is around us. Only his brain couldn't somersault around basic sensory perception, that's when reality hit. That's when he shot himself.
Todd Sauve- I'm sorry you don't see any survival mechanism in there that could explain why one would be more likely to survive in dire times while others without such a trait would presume inevitable death and give up trying anything to survive altogether. As an analogy: like seeing the mirage that leads you out of the desert, the water wasn't real but it got you out of the desert anyway. Your genes are coded to see the mirage. Could there have ever been a time when that trait was selected as the determinant for survival?
I don't believe in evolution. Your explanation would make sense if seen through normal psychological analysis. Yes, I agree that Hitler probably used his beliefs--delusional as they were--as a survival mechanism. :)
I mean you know that's delusional because at the time the allies owned Normandy and several large deep water ports to offload supplies.
".... Hitler felt if he could capture Antwarp, cut off the allies supplies, they would seek a peace agreement ."
Actually, had the war been delayed long enough, the US would have dropped the Atomic Bombs on Germany. That was the original intention for their creation.
Damn i needed this class in college
I looked all over the USAWC and couldn't find the "esteemed Dr Sommers" follow up to this lecture.Edit 11/25/24 Dr Richard Sommers passed away in May 2019. This is the third time I've watched this video. Dr Sommers videos are still on RUclips.
Excellent lecture. I wish I could have seen this before watching the mini-series "Gettysburg", it would have explained a lot. For instance, why Lee was so insistent on fighting the Union army "here and now".
And I loved the way that movie showed the interaction between Longstreet, Lee and Harrison at the beginning. And the use of re-enactors for the period extras.
Might be a little propaganda in there somewhere, so be careful and never heard anyone say Lee was no different than a modern day terrorist
@Ralph--without these notes you still would not be fully informed about motives though.
At the beginning the speaker says he normally does a longer lecture- would love to hear the full version.
The men needed horse shoes, not people shoes, he is dead wrong about too much to be taken seriously.
@@karlburkhalter1502 ~ and you are??? Let me guess, a guy who's read some books.
moncorp1 Inc and got a degree in history, a few books? many hundreds, actually.
And that's why you are an instructor at the Army War College, no doubt.
I’m always amazed by knowledgeable military historians who pronounce “cavalry” as “calvary”.
The contradiction of "They weren't after shoes.", and Stuart slowed his column with a captured mule trail of wagons, is troubling. They were after supplies. They were attempting to capture whatever materials of war and provisions whenever and wherever possible. Secondly, the "second largest city of the Confederacy" was marching, and marching a couple hundred miles on dirt and thru water and mud ruins shoes. So, yes, one of the reasons they chose Gettysburg was because of a chance to seize supplies there and one of the chief supplies of the city at that time, was shoes. The cargo of the mule train isn't mentioned, but it was significant enough that a senior commander slowed his march to keep it, and deliver it to the Confederate Army. The interpersonal relationships angle of the lecture is well done and valid. That has been well documented in the Union army, how favoritism adversely affected the progress of the war for the North.
Excellent comment about shoes and other supplies.
There were no shoes at Gettysburg. That story was a complete fabrication of the journalists following the battle who did not understand Lee’s strategy or orders. The mule pulled wagons was absolutely a problem - Lee reprimanded Stuart over the issue.
Credit to Joseph Hooker for the reforms he made while in command. The most important one was he took cavalry that was attached to various regiments, and consolidated them into their own force. Yankee cavalry was starting to feel it's strength by the time of Gettysburg. Hooker was also responsible for the positioning of the various pieces of the Army of the Potomac that he screened Lee with and they were positioned superbly. They were able to keep an eye on Lee and concentrate fairly quickly when contact was made. All the pieces were in place when Meade took over.
How come today’s youth are so ignorant about the Civil War and American history?!? BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT HATES OUR HISTORY and aims to indoctrinate rather than teach the objective truth!
This gentleman reminds me of my history professor in College. Good job Sir!
Thank you from the Suwannee. 😎🇺🇸👍
Wrong birddog:)
Would have been much better had the cameraman actually aimed the camera at the part of the map that Steve was referring to.
Jeb Stuart was likely laying low just as Lee ordered him to so the Union army would lose focus on the significance of his some 6,000 calvary. On the day of Pickett's so called suicide march, Stewart did in fact emerge and would have flanked the union fish hook from behind while Pickett's 13,000 men would have broken union lines if coordinated with Stuart and probably have won the war .....only Stewart's cavalry was fought to a standstill by a relatively unknown cocky Union general named George Armstrong Custer who ordered his Michigan cavalry to engage Stuart and prevented them from flanking union defenses 1 mile behind at a site called east cavalry battlefield. That sole event changed the course of the war and perhaps modern human history. Read 'LOST TRIUMPH' for a detailed description of this pivotal event
No, Jeb Stuart was not 'laying low'. He screwed up prior to the Gettysburg campaign. And Robert E. Lee was pissed off at him. Truth be told, a cavalry attack would not meant a hill of beans even if Mr. Stuart had any success. Please just visit the Gettysburg battlefield, talk to the Park rangers, read more than the one incorrect 'description' you mention, and learn the real story. Really now.
“Would haves” have no place in History.
lars funny thing is colonel custer was made a general by mistake a written order making him general was written for another commander read this in several history book on Custer yes he took the Michigan Custer led a charge against stopping him cold where union Calvary surrendered
I knew J.E.B. messed up, but didn't know the details. Great lecture. In truth, Lee should have known to take cavalry he trusted. Why take cavalry you were not going to use?
The arrest of Valladigham was not ordered by "members of the Lincoln Administration"; his arrest was ordered by General Ambrose Burnside. Lincoln told him no more arresting politicians or shutting down newspapers without clearing it with Washington first. Burnside, a good man, sometimes exercised poor strategic judgment. Fredericksburg comes to mind.
Your have a verifiable documents of this bit of history? It is hard to believe that a military officer would take upon himself to violate Constitutional rights of a seating congressmen. See Art. 1 of the Const.
FDzerzhinsky
Burnside was only following the example of his commander-in-chief. Lincoln had many duly elected representatives illegally arrested (many in Maryland, which would have seceded if Lincoln hadn't arrested everyone in the Maryland state legislature whose opinion he disagreed with). Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeus corpus, holding duly elected representatives of the people, who committed no crime, against their will with no charges.
Blame it on Burnside but he was just doing what Lincoln had done numerous times.
It's in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, not to mention being documented numerous times in books relating to Burnside, Vallandigham, the Copperheads and other opponents of the war, and in such general histories as McPherson and Foote.
That is unfortunately one of the issues of a many tiered government.
Both the truth, which is the first casualty of a conflict [war] and the law . Which is circumvented or diluted. Both by time and the levels of government and society. But if the rules of the constitution are upheld and followed. Those issues would not occur [maybe]. Then we look back from our arm chairs and point fingers at the mistakes. That past people knew about and did little . And those that just occurred because of not following the rules. Both in government and on the field. Anger is not a luxury any person can afford; And in this circumstance, a clear mind is both an illusion and a delusion .
This fellow is is an awesome lecturer! He really draws you into the story... and it can be about anything.. Steve Knott weaves the story and basically brings in the real reason why JEB Stuart failed Lee.
In the end we know that intelligence is absolutely crucial for the success of an army, and without the Cavalry (back then) as its eyes and ears Lee was blind. Lessons learned, Cavalry must be act as the whiskers of the main force and be in constant communication to the main force.. Stuart failed in this in colossal way by being completely out of touch with Lee for several crucial days. Had the Calvary been deployed more effectively, Gettysburg may not have happened or if it had happened it would have been on Lee's terms.
The irony was that it was during this engagement that the Union Cavalry was most effective in their role. Buford's Cavalry provided the Army of the Potomac with advanced intelligence so vitally needed and was able to screen Lee's advanced elements until the main body was able to consolidate the high ground.
Perfidious Albion darn if dont get it, most of these fools cant spell horse.
in other word yes you are correct.
In fact, what was missing was Stuart, not cavalry. Lee still had three brigades of cavalry with him, but not an overall leader to use them efficiently. One brigade was sent to the northwest, into the mountains where they did some damage to the railroads, and may have scarfed up enough supplies from scattered farms to support themselves, but contributed nothing to intelligence and did not participate in the battle. What a brigade did could have been done by detaching a regiment. The rest of the cavalry seems to have been used to clear the way to Harrisburg before being recalled. Some of that force could have been better used scouting east of the Mountains. When Early headed toward the Susquehanna, some of that cavalry should have established a screen south of the Maryland border to watch his flank. That would also more likely have allowed an earlier hookup with Stuart.
Lee had cavalry. He did not use it properly.
The real reason Stuart failed Lee is because of his ego. The Flora Cook saga, combined with the Battle Of Brandy Station. Where the Union Calvary fought the Confederate Calvary in a pitched day long battle. The Union withdrew but not in headlong flight as it had in the past. Stuart was angered that they dared to challenge his men. As a result, he felt he had to regain his "honor" and humiliate the North again. Thus the ride around the Army of the Potomac.
Fascinating. Thanks for posting this.
You Civil War "Buffs" will enjoy these facts about Gen. LEE. -Steve Knott does a good job. -Bill Howes.
One of Sun Tzu’s first teachings is exactly what the professor started off with. 👍🏽 love this professor Ive learned so much. This is my favorite channel. i enjoy comparing the professors lectures to Sun Tzu’s teachings. One of My questions on today’s lecture is for the professor. Gen Longstreet “Lee’s old war horse” suggested to Lee several times that they regroup so to gain better ground also Stuart “the eyes of the confederate army” had finally arrived that being said why did Lee one of the greatest most beloved generals decide to attack the center? Do you think he really believed his army was invincible? Love your lectures keep posting thank you sir.
Hampton Y
posession of the intiative- combined with a third (the fact that Lee was living off the land and could not remain more than 4-5 days in any one location) to induce Lee to order what came to be known as Pickett's Charge.
Jeb Stuart failed because Lee gave Stuart conflicting orders. Lee ordered Stuart to gather both information and provisions. The first required mobility which cavalry could provide, while the second was bound to impede that very mobility. Furthermore, these two conflicting directives coincided in time, so there was literally no chance for Stuart to do one and then the other. It's worth remembering that one of the primary reasons for Lee's invasion was that the AoNV could not remain along the line of the Rappahannock because his army could not be adequately supplied there- and that the Confederates could live off of the northern countryside. Stuart simply tried to carry out Lee's instructions, and failed. The essential mistake here was a violation of the military principle of "one force, one objective".
Hmm, Why was jeb stuart not able to send back messengers while obtaining his provisions of 140 carts? The standard mug of jeb with that feather in his hat,A dandy of ladies man,The Hutpsa that exists in War till this very day.He can't be blamed for "Joyriding". But its an easy scapegoat.
@@pdv9184 He sent back two messengers to Lee to inform him that the AotP was en route north. Neither of them got through to Lee.
Excellent presentation! The lead up to Gettysburg is as amazing as the battle itself, and great explanation of Stuart's actions beyond he was just showboating and goofing around, but how his ego really screwed things up.
Also good to see Bernie Sanders front and center in case he actually becomes POTUS and has to deal with such a situation.
The south had to forage. Lack of production was not the only reason for this. The lack of unity among the confederate states regarding providing supplies to the confederate army further exacerbated the situation. Each state stubbornly clung to the action of providing supplies ONLY to the soldiers from that state. Lee was a masterful tactician, but he was a miserable logistician. Had Lee a more determined logistics officer who was able to procure those resources Lee would have been able prolong his ability to attack.
Yes, I've heard the same. One example i understand is
that North Carolina had enough uniforms for the entire confederate army but never released them. The uniforms were eventually used for German POWs during ww2.
Also another example was that Richmond had huge food reserves but would not release them for the army because they claimed it was for the end of the war. Lee was irate at their reasoning but still couldn't make the politicians release the food stores.
+William E Lanning Jr Showing another reason why CSA was absurd, factories will always win wars, people are the best "forgetters" of their rally cries. Vietnam was a great idea in 1963-65 even though the population in Vietnam voted for a communist economy in 1946. Only the Imperialist rich folks wanted to keep their economy and pride they lost during Hitler's crushing of France in 1940.
Well that would make spence because they were a CONFEDERACY. This type of government is were regional government have more power the central. So the confederate central government by definition could had a tough time appropriate and accumulating resources from states.
Reminder of that ol' saying: "Amateurs talk about tactics; Professionals talk logistics"
I'm sure you all have heard that proverb already. I posted it for younger folks.
The real issue was States Rights and how the States themselves applied the principle to everything. As Franklin was overheard to say, "King George has done more to unify us that he could possibly imagine. Veriky we will now all hang together or we shall certainly hang separately." The Confederate States often treated Jeff Davis as nearly as big an enemy as Lincoln.
Interesting, but the camera work could have been better and actually show the projection.
William Hopper You are right, William. There is relatively inexpensive software that allows you to split the screen so you can see the speaker in one box and the slides in another and package it into RUclips format. That is one of my pet peeves with taped lectures. I don't really care to see the speaker. I want to see the visuals to which they are referring.
FACTS!! Commanders need facts to make the best decisions!! Same with we the people when voting. Pretty speeches and opinions of politicians should go in one ear, out the other.
Excellent talk...please have camera pan to maps the next time. Perhaps a college student might edit video to add maps and markers to your audio. Will look for more of your CW talks. Thanks
Great lecture and fresh information for a civil war newby
Interesting presentation. It also may provide insight upon why Pickett's charge was ordered. As I stood at the spot where Pickett began his advance, my dad said "what was he thinking"? To look across that unobstructed field of fire was sobering. I know it was normal to advance upon your enemy in the open. I also know there had been a massive artillery bombardment of the union lines (which unknown to tje confederates had fallen too deep behind union lines). However,if Lee had the mindset that he had to destroy his opponent, not just win a battle, perhaps that led him to order the advance that none of his subordinates agreed with.
This is a great presentation. Thanks.
The panning is really hard on me, I'm not sure I can hang with this, I am getting somewhat seasick. I wonder why they could not put the camera wide so he could just walk back and forth and let the eyes do the work, less strain.
JEB Stuart was secretly reconning the Army War College. This is little known and has been suppressed by Davis and the Southern Aristocracy because it revealed a desire for long range planning.
The means disparity is one of the more often cited facts and is universally used to demonstrate the toughness of the South. But it fails to capture one important aspect of Civil War warfare: napoleonic deployment and tactics of troops HEAVILY favors defenders and neutralizes the gains typically enjoyed by the resource rich side. In these terms, the South enjoyed enormous advantages over the North, an advantage not present at Gettysburg which (surprise) the South lost.
This is a most excellent teaching. As a complete aside: did anyone else notice his consistent substitution of "calvary" for "cavalry"? I find it interesting. Perhaps it's a Freudian slip.
Great presentation. Nice to understand what happen to Jeb Stuart.
If we believe Heth's after-battle report then the shoes story is not a "myth". One the morning of June 30 Heth sent Johnston Pettigrew's brigade to Gettysburg to find supplies.
As per his report: "On the morning of June 30, I ordered Brigadier-General Pettigrew to take his brigade to Gettysburg, search the town for army supplies (shoes especially), and return the same day."
The opportunity to obtain supplies by being there is not the same as the army converging there for a strategic purpose as stated in the presentation.
@@bdrrogers No one says Lee concentrated his army at Gettysburg "to get shoes." The fact is that on June 30, Heth's division was the farthest east at Cashtown and there was supposed to be ample supplies at Gettysburg, shoes being the most in demand as many a Reb were barefoot. (Due to lack of communication however, even if they got into the town they'd have found that Earley's men had already been through there and picked through most of the town's bounty). Heth ordered one brigade under Johnston Pettigrew -- hardly a 'strategic convergence' -- to march eight miles to Gettysburg to secure the rumored supplies. They were under orders to avoid contact with the enemy as the army wasn't concentrated yet. When they encountered Buford's cavalry three miles west of town Pettigrew dutifully withdrew back to Cashtown.
For whatever reason it seems that Heth and III Corps commander AP Hill were either unaware of or didn't believe Harrison's report because they both doubted that Pettigrew encountered anything but militia. Still, on the morning of July 1, Hill, perhaps having second thoughts, ordered not one brigade but two of his three divisions plus the bulk of his corps artillery to advance on Gettysburg. By this time the shoes were an afterthought. No historian says Hill sent 2/3 of his corps down the Chambersburg Pike just to get shoes.
Historians love to be contrarians and debunk myths, even incorrectly in this case, as it makes them feel both different and more learned and 'in the know.' It's a common trait among those combing through already picked clean subjects like Gettysburg, perhaps the most analyzed campaign in US military history.