July 3, 1863 - "In the center they will break..."

If Lee would’ve listened to Longstreet, none of this would’ve happened.

quote:

---

In an unusual departure, Lee broke every one of Sun Tzu's Five Rules of the Decisive Battle that day.

---

Not so unusual when you actually study Lee's battle tactics. He had been living on the edge since he took command of the Army of Northern Virginia a year earlier. At Gettysburg he finally came up against an opposing general who was competent and not afraid of him.

quote:

---

Lincoln was a tyrant in invaded the south escalating a needless war to the tune of 600,000 American deaths.

---

Sure. Whatever.

Anyways...what is your opinion on the actual tactics of the third day of the Battle of Gettysburg? Should Lee have cut his losses and fallen back or should he have attempted something different?

He originally wanted to keep up Longstreet's attack from Day 2 but things changed throughout the morning of July 3 which made such a want impossible.

quote:

---

Not so unusual when you actually study Lee's battle tactics.

---

He lived for audacity and constantly sought decisive battles which was required since the longer the war went on the more likely the North was to win. However, he still was able to temper when the situation required it. The loss of Jackson was a huge blow and he had no alternative but to fight a likely unwinnable battle. He was overly aggressive at Gettysburg, but it was probably his last chance. It is arguable that if he was more of a hands-on leader or just more clear in his communication to his subordinates, he must just have been able to prevail.

quote:

---

The insurgent tactics that Forrest suggested were seen as being too ugly and profane for Lee, but had he listened, he likely would have been successful.

---

Forrest’s guerrilla-style cavalry raids were brilliant at the tactical level at disrupting supplies, capturing outposts, and harassing larger forces with speed and surprise. However, they could not win the war for the South. The Confederacy required decisive victories or foreign recognition to secure independence, which demanded conventional armies capable of defending territory, protecting slavery-based agriculture and industry, and forcing the North to the negotiating table. Raiding warfare disperses strength, invites brutal retaliation, alienates potential support, and fails to address the South’s insurmountable disadvantages in manpower, production, and logistics. It might have prolonged suffering, but it offered no realistic path to victory - only a slower, more destructive path to the same defeat.

quote:

---

Raiding warfare disperses strength, invites brutal retaliation, alienates potential support, and fails to address the South’s insurmountable disadvantages in manpower, production, and logistics. 

---

Raiding and guerrilla campaigns are exactly what is needed when facing a superior, in number, adversary. You cannot win on the battlefield due to sheer numbers. You must cut supply lines, maroon foreign troops deep into your territory, and make the cost of war significantly more expensive for your admittedly superior adversary.

This kind of campaign is what has made Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc too expensive for the US to maintain. It also creates sympathy, which can be leveraged into support, as you can argue "we're being invaded, and we only intend to defend our territory. "

Victory may well have been impossible for a number of reasons. But it would have been the most likely chance at victory. Remember, there was a great deal of anti-war sentiment in 63 and 64 - political pressure may have existed to just let those rebels leave.

Dunno. Who's to say. But I think it's the most realistic path to victory.

I wonder whether one of the insurgents' fundamental military problems arose from one of the fundamental beliefs of their rebellion: an emphasis on dispersed control rather than central control.

The weak central command of the rebellion's individual states, departments, and regions seemed ill-suited to handle the problems facing the whole of the rebellion.

Once Grant was granted control of the various theaters, the military conclusion was written. He had no analog in the rebellion until the war was in hand.

The fact is the Notth threw their reserves against the few Southern soldiers that reached the “high point” and took care of them in short order. So many of the Southern attack had been killed or wounded that there wasn’t a sufficient number of troops to really breakthrough as planned.

quote:

---

Does that scene accurately capture the distance that the rebels had to travel to get to the Union lines or the decimation of the rebel charge by the time the two sides met?

---

The scene that I posted occurs at the end of a much longer segment. The film accurately depicts the distances involved, the scene posted is just the climax of everything that led to that particular point.