- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Battle of Gettysburg Podcast
Posted on 12/22/19 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 12/22/19 at 12:56 pm
I have been listening to this for a while now and thought I'd bring it to the OT for those who might be interested. Anyway...it's a podcast that is done by Licensed Battlefield Guides Jim Hessler and Eric Lindblade. They just concluded their "first season" of podcasts and will be starting season two towards the end of January.
Overall...these guys know their shite and really do a good job of imparting their knowledge. While not as well-produced or put together as Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts, I still highly recommend these guys as they are the experts in their field.
The episode list is as follows:
1. Introduction
2. June 28, 1863 - A Critical Day
3. "What If Jackson Were At Gettysburg" - Richard Ewell and July 1
4. The Peach Orchard at Gettysburg - Part One
5. The Peach Orchard at Gettysburg - Part Two
6. What Was Lee Thinking? - July 3, 1863
7. Lewis Armistead
8. The Killer Angels and Gettysburg "a.k.a. The Movie" - Part One
9. The Killer Angels and Gettysburg "a.k.a. The Movie" - Part Two
10. Johnston Pettigrew and the Gettysburg Campaign
11. Gettysburg Books - A Very Special Super Fan Choice Episode
12. Bonus Episode - The Myth of Little Round Top
Spotify
Overall...these guys know their shite and really do a good job of imparting their knowledge. While not as well-produced or put together as Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcasts, I still highly recommend these guys as they are the experts in their field.
The episode list is as follows:
1. Introduction
2. June 28, 1863 - A Critical Day
3. "What If Jackson Were At Gettysburg" - Richard Ewell and July 1
4. The Peach Orchard at Gettysburg - Part One
5. The Peach Orchard at Gettysburg - Part Two
6. What Was Lee Thinking? - July 3, 1863
7. Lewis Armistead
8. The Killer Angels and Gettysburg "a.k.a. The Movie" - Part One
9. The Killer Angels and Gettysburg "a.k.a. The Movie" - Part Two
10. Johnston Pettigrew and the Gettysburg Campaign
11. Gettysburg Books - A Very Special Super Fan Choice Episode
12. Bonus Episode - The Myth of Little Round Top
Spotify
8
Posted on 12/22/19 at 1:09 pm to RollTide1987
Thanks for sharing.
Sorry you live in a cess pool filled with corruption.
Sorry you live in a cess pool filled with corruption.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 1:30 pm to RollTide1987
Thanks for this!
Posted on 12/22/19 at 2:23 pm to RollTide1987
Thanks currently listening to book on Gettysburg. I had the opportunity to go there twice this year. No place does as good a job capturing the history because of the monuments. You can really see how things played out because of that. The monuments are everywhere.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 2:28 pm to RollTide1987
Gettysburg and Antietam are close to my family’s ancestral inbreeding grounds.
I’ve visited both a bunch since the 1960s when there visiting.
Both pivotal, Gettysburg even more so.
Thanks for the link.
I’ve visited both a bunch since the 1960s when there visiting.
Both pivotal, Gettysburg even more so.
Thanks for the link.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 2:35 pm to RollTide1987
The Myth of the Decisive Battle in Napoleonic and American Civil War History.
Decisive battles were exceedingly rare during that period of warfare, because there was no effective way to exploit a battlefield victory. This doesn't stop oceans of ink from being spilled by authors writing books about the decisive battles in the American Civil War. Reading books like that is fun! But I always try to keep in mind the reality of the strategic situation.
Decisive battles were exceedingly rare during that period of warfare, because there was no effective way to exploit a battlefield victory. This doesn't stop oceans of ink from being spilled by authors writing books about the decisive battles in the American Civil War. Reading books like that is fun! But I always try to keep in mind the reality of the strategic situation.
This post was edited on 12/22/19 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 12/22/19 at 2:45 pm to Champagne
quote:
Decisive battles were exceedingly rare
quote:
Napoleonic
Waterloo comes to mind.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 3:27 pm to No Colors
Everybody thinks that since Waterloo seemed so decisive that decisive battles were common during the Nappy Wars. but they weren't.
Even if Napoleon had WON at Waterloo in 1815, Austria and Russia both had huge armies on the march towards France. Napoleon would have had to win one or two more battles to secure his crown.
The French Army was not destroyed at Waterloo. By sunrise, Napoleon and his Army had successfully broken contact with the enemy armies.
As such, it is debatable whether Waterloo was as decisive as many believe it to be. It probably wasn't.
But beware. If you travel to Britain and ask any historian whether Wellington's Victory at Waterloo was one of history's Decisive Battles, 9 out of 10 will say "Yes."
Even if Napoleon had WON at Waterloo in 1815, Austria and Russia both had huge armies on the march towards France. Napoleon would have had to win one or two more battles to secure his crown.
The French Army was not destroyed at Waterloo. By sunrise, Napoleon and his Army had successfully broken contact with the enemy armies.
As such, it is debatable whether Waterloo was as decisive as many believe it to be. It probably wasn't.
But beware. If you travel to Britain and ask any historian whether Wellington's Victory at Waterloo was one of history's Decisive Battles, 9 out of 10 will say "Yes."
This post was edited on 12/22/19 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 12/22/19 at 3:30 pm to RollTide1987
Digressing a bit but my whole life I pronounced Gettysburg as in the name J Paul Getty -- Get-eee's burg. But learned recently the town was named for someone with the last name Gettys, pronounced Gettis and that many locals call it Gettis-burg.
Thanks for the info about the podcast. Sounds interesting!
Thanks for the info about the podcast. Sounds interesting!
Posted on 12/22/19 at 3:38 pm to Champagne
quote:
As such, it is debatable whether Waterloo was as decisive as many believe it to be. It probably wasn't.
The Battle of Waterloo was fought on June 18 and Napoleon abdicated his throne on June 22 after the people turned against him in the aftermath of the battle.
I would say that Waterloo was pretty decisive.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 3:47 pm to RollTide1987
Thanks for the link. Hopefully it’s not the usual Yankee propaganda, but I suspect it is.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 3:47 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I would say that Waterloo was pretty decisive.
Your facts falsely assume that Nappy's abdication would not have happened, but for Waterloo. That's not correct. Those 800,000 Russians and Austrians marching towards France had a lot to do with the abdication.
Nappy withdrew from the field of battle with his Army. He had broken contact by sunrise. In a decisive battle, the next day's activities would have seen the destruction of Nappy's Army after a vigorous pursuit.
If Nappy had won, he would have had to win one or two more big battles vs the Austrians and Russians.
Nappy suffered an important and crushing defeat, but, the decision of the campaign was made when those Russians and Austrians closed in on the French border.
Same with Gettysburg. Had Lee given Meade a good beating such that Meade would have withdrawn the Army of the Potomac, that would not have decided the campaign. Lee would have had to beat up on Meade in another big battle, THEN perhaps that battle might have decided the campaign.
Gettysburg and Waterloo were important battles. Both very close to being decisive. I like to call them decisive but we've got to leave room for the argument that they were not true Decisive Battles.
This post was edited on 12/22/19 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 12/22/19 at 4:13 pm to Champagne
quote:
Those 800,000 Russians and Austrians marching towards France had a lot to do with the abdication.
That and the fact that Napoleon no longer had an army. He brought 73,000 men into the Battle of Waterloo and left with only 32,000. Plus...there's no way of knowing what would have happened had the French won the Battle of Waterloo because, well, that didn't happen.
This is why Waterloo is remembered as one of the last truly decisive battles in the history of warfare. It ended the French's run as the dominant power in Europe and gave rise to the British Empire as the world's greatest superpower.
This post was edited on 12/22/19 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 12/22/19 at 4:16 pm to Champagne
I always thought this was the wrong battle, indeed the wrong place period. The fight should have been at Vicksburg, THIS was the place to break the North.
John Pemberton was a moron for starters. He was not prepared for a siege, he did not have his warehouses filled. It was a fool's errand sending his forces out on a campaign towards Jackson, although that was not all his fault.
The South should have done all it could to break Grant at Vicksburg. He and Sherman could have never broken into the fortifications and were losing troops trying. Had Lee sent Longstreet's First Corps to join with Johnston, who had scraped up around 30, 000 men, they would have had enough men to threaten Grant's rear enough to perhaps force him to abandon the siege.
John Pemberton was a moron for starters. He was not prepared for a siege, he did not have his warehouses filled. It was a fool's errand sending his forces out on a campaign towards Jackson, although that was not all his fault.
The South should have done all it could to break Grant at Vicksburg. He and Sherman could have never broken into the fortifications and were losing troops trying. Had Lee sent Longstreet's First Corps to join with Johnston, who had scraped up around 30, 000 men, they would have had enough men to threaten Grant's rear enough to perhaps force him to abandon the siege.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 4:32 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
This is why Waterloo is remembered as one of the last truly decisive battles in the history of warfare. It ended the French's run as the dominant power in Europe and gave rise to the British Empire as the world's greatest superpower.
Except it wasn't. Anybody who insists that it was is wrong. Period. I know that it's difficult to accept that you have believed a wrong thing for your whole life, but, there it is.
This post was edited on 12/22/19 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 12/22/19 at 4:34 pm to antibarner
Certainly more could have been done to help the CSA's efforts in the West.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 4:39 pm to Champagne
Your entire argument is based on a hypothetical scenario. My argument is based on actual history. The Battle of Waterloo ended the War of the Seventh Coalition before the armies of Austria and Russia could even reach the area. Napoleon’s forces began to dissolve/desert within hours of retreating from the field. When he arrived back in Paris he arrived to a city that had completely turned against him.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 5:19 pm to antibarner
quote:
The South should have done all it could to break Grant at Vicksburg
You can blame Lee for that.
After the Battle of Chancellorsville had ended, there was a high-level council of war in Richmond that involved Davis, Lee, and Secretary of War James Seddon. At this meeting, Seddon proposed exactly as you did above. Longstreet, Lee's #2 man, was also behind the plan and had discussed it with Seddon before the meeting. Davis was sympathetic to this strategy because Mississippi was his home state.
Lee convinced them both that an invasion of Pennsylvania was the better course of action.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 7:36 pm to RollTide1987
Lee won out but he was dead wrong, and events bear that out pretty much. They could have sent Longstreet ahead and it would have been him in command at Vicksburg instead of Pemberton, and Johnston with 55 to 60k plus perhaps Forrest harassing Grant's supply lines, what lines he had.
Grant and Sherman would have been dealing with a much different animal, far behind enemy lines with a huge enemy force in their rear and massive fortifications in their front manned by another 28, 000 Rebels.
Grant and Sherman would have been dealing with a much different animal, far behind enemy lines with a huge enemy force in their rear and massive fortifications in their front manned by another 28, 000 Rebels.
Posted on 12/22/19 at 9:50 pm to antibarner
quote:
Lee won out but he was dead wrong, and events bear that out pretty much. They could have sent Longstreet ahead and it would have been him in command at Vicksburg instead of Pemberton, and Johnston with 55 to 60k plus perhaps Forrest harassing Grant's supply lines, what lines he had.
That's very easy to argue in hindsight but you have to look at the situation on the ground as Lee saw it. He had just fought a battle against the Army of the Potomac and lost 13,000 men in the process. If Longstreet were to be detached from the Army of Northern Virginia to go west to aid in Pemberton's defense of Vicksburg, Lee would have had barely 50,000 men to defend the Rappahannock line against some 115,000 Union soldiers.
As bad as the southern railroads were, it would have taken weeks to get Longstreet's men to Mississippi. And it being early in campaign season, the Union Army of the Potomac would have taken advantage of Lee's weakened state and would have made another try at Richmond.
If Lee's army is defeated in the field and Richmond is captured, what happens at Vicksburg becomes a moot point.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News