Alternative Strategies at the Battle of Gettysburg

[Philosophy]

It's sad Robert E. Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg. His conventional warfare tactics, which rely heavily on the "invicibility" of his troops, and his being impatient and anxious prevented him from winning. What other alternative strategies at the Battle of Gettysburg could the Confederate Army use to win this battle? Recall that Gettysburg is a very important strategic point; more crucial than Vicksburg, even. Getting it means controlling the Maryland and Pennsylvania and thus nearly doubling the industrial power for the Confederacy...

I'm looking forward to hearing from your theoretical military maneuvering. :)

[Jesus Christ]

It's sad Robert E. Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg. His conventional warfare tactics, which rely heavily on the "invicibility" of his troops, and his being impatient and anxious prevented him from winning. What other alternative strategies at the Battle of Gettysburg could the Confederate Army use to win this battle? Recall that Gettysburg is a very important strategic point; more crucial than Vicksburg, even. Getting it means controlling the Maryland and Pennsylvania and thus nearly doubling the industrial power for the Confederacy...
It would fail to actually double their industrial capacity as I strongly doubt that many of the workers would be as willing to work for hostile occupiers. Further, he was not intent upon actually taking territory, but rather showing that the Confederate army was capable of fighting a successful offensive campaign in the North.

What could he have done to win the battle? Not fight it. His campaign was flawed for a few reasons. Firstly, it caused him to extend his line deep into enemy territory--and quickly, thus disrupting his ability to maintain adequate supplies (this was not a great factor in this battle, but it was an inevitability of the situation). Secondly, the campaign required that he win nearly constantly. One failure, and all that he set out to achieve would be undone. Thirdly, it was not intended to actually capture territory and take it, but to pyschologically weaken the North. That is a large risk to take, especially since it can very easily backfire, as it can demonstrate a credible threat to their homes and lives, something that often causes a strengthening of resolve amongst the people and an upswing of popular support. He also took troops that could be ill afforded from the defense of his territory.

If it was not Gettysburg, it would have been elsewhere, or there would have been events in the South to force his return, much as the Romans forced Hannibal to return to Carthage during the Second Punic War.

[Philosophy]

It would fail to actually double their industrial capacity as I strongly doubt that many of the workers would be as willing to work for hostile occupiers.

Maryland was a border slave state. Therefore, most likely if it secedes, it'll support the Confederacy.

[Jesus Christ]

It would fail to actually double their industrial capacity as I strongly doubt that many of the workers would be as willing to work for hostile occupiers.

Maryland was a border slave state. Therefore, most likely if it secedes, it'll support the Confederacy.
If it suceeded. Which it didn't.

[Dingfod]

The outcome of the Civil War might have been completely different had the Confederate troops been armed with AK-47s as in Harry Turtledove's book Guns of the South, which I happen to be reading right now.

Of course, the steam powered Gatling gun could well have offset the advantage (source: Kelly Country, an alternative history novel about Ned Kelly, infamous Australian outlaw).

Otherwise, I can't see another outcome of the Civil War. Given the inadequate rations and ammunition available to them, the Confederate Army was doomed to be defeated eventually.

[wei yau]

The outcome of the Civil War might have been completely different had the Confederate troops been armed with AK-47s as in Harry Turtledove's book Guns of the South, which I happen to be reading right now.

Good book.

I'm reading his latest installment in his "Great War" series. It begins with a Confederate victory in the Civil War, which leads to North and South clashing again and again in WWI and WWII.

Pretty bleak alternate history. Neither the Union nor the Confederacy seem like a great place to live.

[Sarpedon]

Longstreet, Lee's right hand man, wanted to fight a defensive battle. He thought that all they had to do was hold Seminary Ridge (which is where they launched their attacks from) and smash the Union army, as they had at Fredericksburg, Virginia, the previous year, except that here the Union army had no river to cover their retreat. He was dismayed when Lee chose to take the offensive.

The southern army was outnumbered, and also occupied a longer front. Also, their battle line was the outside arc of a circle, meaning it took a long time for troops from one sector to reinforce another. The union army was in the inside arc, so its troops could be moved around rapidly.

However, Gettysburg could have been won by the south if Lee's subordinates had shown the kind of initiative that they usually did. Instead, they bumbled and delayed. Meade's subordinates, especially Buford, Hancock and (damn, can't remember, the dude who's statue is on Little Round top) showed considerable initative, deploying their men at the best places, acting without hesitation, virtually without any direction from Meade. Lee, by contrast, had to manage everything himself, which he wasn't used to, and deal with balky subordinate generals on unfamiliar ground.

[wei yau]

Meade's subordinates, especially Buford, Hancock and (damn, can't remember, the dude who's statue is on Little Round top)

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain?

[Philosophy]

Meade's subordinates, especially Buford, Hancock and (damn, can't remember, the dude who's statue is on Little Round top)

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain?

Indeed. :yup:

[Philosophy]

Longstreet, Lee's right hand man, wanted to fight a defensive battle. He thought that all they had to do was hold Seminary Ridge (which is where they launched their attacks from) and smash the Union army, as they had at Fredericksburg, Virginia, the previous year, except that here the Union army had no river to cover their retreat. He was dismayed when Lee chose to take the offensive.

Lee's army could not take the defensive since their resources were being exhausted and Richmond had no more men to send to Gettysburg. That is why Lee was impatient. That is why he made the mistake. That is why he lost.

It's sad, though... :cry:

By the way, what would be alternative strategies that could have been used at Gettysburg to gain a Confederate victory? :scratch:

[Godwhacker]

Im no civil war expert, but I always wondered why, if Lee was already North of the Union army, why he didn't just keep going North and try to hit some more Northern towns? If his aim was to make a demoralizing blow, why not keep moving? Maybe the supply line issue, but then again, if he were able to get ahold of some supplies in the towns, etc. Somewhat similar strategy that won the revolultionary war.

I don't think it would have won the war for the South, but could Lee, if he wanted to, have moved his Army eastward and hit Philadelphia or even New York?

[BDS]

It's sad Robert E. Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg.

Why is it "sad"?

[Jesus Christ]

Im no civil war expert, but I always wondered why, if Lee was already North of the Union army, why he didn't just keep going North and try to hit some more Northern towns? If his aim was to make a demoralizing blow, why not keep moving? Maybe the supply line issue, but then again, if he were able to get ahold of some supplies in the towns, etc. Somewhat similar strategy that won the revolultionary war.

I don't think it would have won the war for the South, but could Lee, if he wanted to, have moved his Army eastward and hit Philadelphia or even New York?


That's exactly how the battle came about. They were looking for supplies, scouts ran into each other, and battle was joined.

[Philosophy]

Im no civil war expert, but I always wondered why, if Lee was already North of the Union army, why he didn't just keep going North and try to hit some more Northern towns? If his aim was to make a demoralizing blow, why not keep moving? Maybe the supply line issue, but then again, if he were able to get ahold of some supplies in the towns, etc. Somewhat similar strategy that won the revolultionary war.

I don't think it would have won the war for the South, but could Lee, if he wanted to, have moved his Army eastward and hit Philadelphia or even New York?

Logistics. It would be more difficult to advance to Philadelphia the Old Capital or even New York.

But Gettysburg was an important-enough strategic point. If they got it, they would win the civil war. Lee was right in attacking Gettysburg. If Jackson was there, perhaps the Confederates would win. :yup:

[Philosophy]

It's sad Robert E. Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg.

Why is it "sad"?

The South lost.

[Sarpedon]

No, you've got the wrong idea, Philosophy. Longstreet wanted to take the tactical defensive, but use a strategic offense, which means invade the enemy's territory, but force his army to attack you on ground of your own choosing. Longstreet thought they could accomplish it by getting between the Union army and Washington DC. This would have forced Meade to attack. Instead, Lee attacked Meade. I don't think that Lee could have won Gettysburg after the second day of fighting. The Union army had occupied the key terrain, and was much stronger than his.



And Gettysburg is not an all important strategic point. Its significant in that it had all those roads radiating out from it, thats the main reason the battle happened there. In itself its worthless.

The south was not meaning to gain territory. Lee's first invasion of maryland, that ended with the battle of Antietam, had the goal of inciting the Marylanders to secede. However, after the poor results of that campaign, the south gave up hope for Maryland to join them, and no such things were envisaged for this trip. The goals of the invasion were, from most likeliest to least likeliest: 1. Show Europe that the South was still strong. 2. Defeat the Union army on its home territory. 3. Disrupt communications between Washington DC and the North at large. 4. Looting, gaining of important supplies, possibly a temporary occupation of Baltimore or Philadelphia. 5. If possible, the surrounding and or capture of Washington D.C.

And it wasn't chamberlain I was thinking of. Its the general of engineers that decided to occupy little round top to begin with. Ok, I just looked it up, it was General Warren.

So you think its sad the south lost? Aside from the fact that it was an aristocratic, slave-holding oligarchy, that wanted to revive the african slave trade and spread that hated practice south by conquering Cuba, Mexico, etc. How do you think that western Europe and the americas could have stood up to the USSR, if the USA was divided? Heck, could the forces of democracy have defeated Germany and Austria in WWI, if the USA was divided. Count your blessings, and read Shelby Foote's "The Civil War, a Narrative."

[Stephen Maturin]

Longstreet, Lee's right hand man, wanted to fight a defensive battle.

Dat's a true fact. More than that, Longstreet didn't want to head north in the first place. He wanted to send a sizeable chunk of the Army of Northern Virginia west to relieve the seige of Vicksburg. Lee and Jeff Davis disagreed.

After the first day of fighting at Gettysburg ended, Longstreet wanted to march the entire ANV south and east, get between the Army of the Potomac and Washington, D.C., find some high ground, wait for Meade to attack and slaughter 'em like hogs. Lee was understandably reluctant to do that. The logistical problems were enormous. More important, Lee had no reliable information regarding the positions of the various components of the AotP because Jeb Stuart and the Confederate cavalry were riding around the Pennsylvania countryside making headlines instead of doing their job.

That's not to say that Lee made the correct decision in attacking the Union positions on Days 2 and 3. The ANV was largely successful on Day 1, but Ewell's failure to take Cemetary Hill coupled with the casualties the outnumbered ANV took that day rendered withdrawl the best option.

[Stephen Maturin]

Lee was right in attacking Gettysburg.

Lee had no intention of attacking Gettysburg.

[alphamale]

Uh, he shouldn't have allowed Pickett's Charge - or am I saying the obvious?

[Sarpedon]

Yes alphamale, not only did he allow it, he ORDERED it, against numerous and repeated protests by Longstreet.

[Philosophy]

Dat's a true fact. More than that, Longstreet didn't want to head north in the first place. He wanted to send a sizeable chunk of the Army of Northern Virginia west to relieve the seige of Vicksburg. Lee and Jeff Davis disagreed.

Meade would have led his army south towards Richmond had Lee and his army advanced west to reinforce the Confederate army sieged at Vicksburg.

[Philosophy]

Longstreet, Lee's right hand man, wanted to fight a defensive battle.

Dat's a true fact. More than that, Longstreet didn't want to head north in the first place. He wanted to send a sizeable chunk of the Army of Northern Virginia west to relieve the seige of Vicksburg. Lee and Jeff Davis disagreed.

After the first day of fighting at Gettysburg ended, Longstreet wanted to march the entire ANV south and east, get between the Army of the Potomac and Washington, D.C., find some high ground, wait for Meade to attack and slaughter 'em like hogs. Lee was understandably reluctant to do that. The logistical problems were enormous. More important, Lee had no reliable information regarding the positions of the various components of the AotP because Jeb Stuart and the Confederate cavalry were riding around the Pennsylvania countryside making headlines instead of doing their job.

That's not to say that Lee made the correct decision in attacking the Union positions on Days 2 and 3. The ANV was largely successful on Day 1, but Ewell's failure to take Cemetary Hill coupled with the casualties the outnumbered ANV took that day rendered withdrawl the best option.

Impossible, isn't it? It was Lee who marched up north, so I don't think Meade would likely attack him. And if Lee waited for too long, troubles will happen...

[Philosophy]

I wonder what would happen if Jackson was there. He and Lee were very good friends, know each other so well, and always work together. Furthermore, though eccentric, our "Stonewall" Jackson had a very interesting mind for strategy. The Sun Tzu of the American Civil War era he was! :yup:

[Sarpedon]

If Lee had threatened washington, Lincoln would have ORDERED Meade to attack him. If Lee had cut Washington off from the rest of the Union, by getting between it and Baltimore, Lincoln would have ORDERED Meade to attack him.

That's straight out of Sun Tzu...if you want your enemy to attack you, seize something he needs, and wait for him to come to you. If you want to defend, all you need to do is keep him busy with other things.

During the war large detachments were repeatedly made from the ANV: Longstreet and his entire corps was detached twice: once to obtain supplies in North Carolina, which is why he wasn't present at Chancellorsville, and once to reinforce Bragg in repelling Rosecranz at Stones River. Lee also detached Early to try to distract Grant, and made other detachments whenever needed. Again, you are thinking too simplistically.

[Philosophy]

Irrelevant. Thinking simplistically is not better or worse than thinking sophisticatedly. In warfare, sophisticated or simple strategies have their uses at different times.

[BDS]

The idea that the Commanders carefully determine battle tactics and strategies is questionable.

Read "War and Peace".

[Stephen Maturin]

Dat's a true fact. More than that, Longstreet didn't want to head north in the first place. He wanted to send a sizeable chunk of the Army of Northern Virginia west to relieve the seige of Vicksburg. Lee and Jeff Davis disagreed.

Meade would have led his army south towards Richmond had Lee and his army advanced west to reinforce the Confederate army sieged at Vicksburg.

True, but no one was proposing to send the entire Army of Northern Virginia to Vicksburg.

Impossible, isn't it? It was Lee who marched up north, so I don't think Meade would likely attack him.

As Sarpedon correctly pointed out, Meade wouldn't have had any choice in the matter.

And if Lee waited for too long, troubles will happen...

Indeed. After Day 1, Lee's choices were (1) withdraw or (2) attack an enemy that's numerically superior and has the advantage of defending high ground. He chose the second option -- twice. As a result, he ended up withdrawing anyway, but the ANV was something like 28,000 troops lighter going than it was coming.

[Philosophy]

True, but no one was proposing to send the entire Army of Northern Virginia to Vicksburg.

Sending an insignificant amount of troops won't help rescue Vicksburg. Grant commanded a quite large army at the Mississippi River. So, abandoning that citadel and marching northwards were the only most sensible way the South could do. Since, for instance, if Lee won and capture vital provinces in the North, then Vicksburg's fall would not matter, since then the Union's morale would be low, and the intention to keep Vicksburg and to divide the Confederacy in halves would be cancelled. At that stage, advancing northwards to invade the Union was the only strategy left, since if Davis and Lee did not do anything, then after capturing Vicksburg, both Grant's and Meade's armies would be marching towards Richmond from two directions (South & East); that would leave the South hopeless.

So I think ignoring Vicksburg was an excellent idea.

[Stephen Maturin]

Sending an insignificant amount of troops won't help rescue Vicksburg. Grant commanded a quite large army at the Mississippi River.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm not saying that Longstreet's plan would have worked. I quite agree that Vicksburg was finished, even if it had gotten help from the ANV.

I also agree that Lee's idea of taking the ANV north was a good one, at least in theory. Lee wasn't interested in taking territory that he knew he couldn't hold. The plan, as I understand it, was to lure the Army of the Potomac north and defeat them on U.S. soil. As Lee and Davis saw things, that would demoralize the U.S. even further and possibly lead to a peace accord under which the U.S. would recognize the C.S.A. as a separate, independent nation.

In theory it sounded good but in practice it turned out disasterously for the ANV. Lee simply lost track of the fact that many of the ANV's impressive victories were primarily defensive in nature. What Lee did at Gettysburg is akin to what Burnside did at Fredericksburg. Predictably, the result was just as ugly.