What if scenario for Gettysburg.

[andy morrey]

It occured to me today while painting those damn Rebs and watching Gettysburg for the tenth time, what if Longstreet had pursuaded Lee not to fight at Gettysburg at all and instead disengaged and moved further north and then Lee selected a battlefield of his choosing rather than Meads.
It would of maybe changed the course of the war totally and quite possibly the union would of been devided for ever. Maybe it would be a good idea to explore this posibility further and design and fight a new battle based upon this\what if scenario.
Another interesting thought is perhaps Picketts charged was\ cancelled and Lee had decided to attack the union right and left wings has Longstreet proposed on the third day, what would of happened then would the outcome been different or would the battle go into a fourth day.
Just a few interesting what if's to consider and maybe fight these as part of a campaign.

[Fox1]

That sounds a realy interesting idea and would be very interesting to explore, sounds like you have the makings of a couple of nice scenarios there Andy and a project you can get your teeth into, write it up and if you do count me in for a player when they are ready:D

[Robin]

Hmm... interesting. However, neither Lee nor Longstreet had much say in the battle taking place where it did as Heth had taken it upon himself to occupt Gettysburg, ostensibly in search of a warehouse full of shoes. By the time Lee had arrived to find his orders to expressly avoid engagement had been broken, it was too late - for to have withdrawn then would've possibly meant the loss of virtually an entire Corps whilst disengaging. Effectively a third of his army.

Another "what-if" is on the evening of the second day. Longstreet spent most of the night formulating a bold swing around Union lines from the Confederate occupied Big Round Top, only for Lee to dismiss this idea in favour of a frontal assault - which we all know as Picketts charge. What if Lee had approved Longstreets plan? I fear the Army of the Potomac would've been destroyed. The Union was saved only by the fact that Lee was ill (bad stomach, heart disease and painful hands from his accident the year before) and as such like Bonaparte at Waterloo, really didn't have his eye on the ball. :)

[Fox1]

oooo some one has been reading their books, well done robin me old blue belly.....on the subject of Lee he did have another failing iv read about that may well have contributed to the matter, pig headiness he just had to and i mean had to make that full frontal assault with pickett as robin mentioned, wonderful thing hind sight aint it....which raises the question was he as good as they say he was?.....ok i feel another thread coming on here:)

[Robin]

Alan,

Well I think he was good in so far as he took risks which is more than can be said for any of the Union commanders (correct me if I'm wrong!). However, I agree with the pig-headedness and as one of the authors remarks in one of the books I have, he appeared to be clinging to Napoleonic frontal infantry assaults which worked - but only so far before they were thrown back. Picketts charge nearly made it. As Wellington would say "a close run thing". Testament to the quality of the Confederate infantry as poor men in a rich mans war.

[JeffH]

Bloody rebels what if maybe

What if Meade had followed up and wiped out Lee's Army end of war

What if I could paint and sold all my stuff on ebay

What if What if What if

Be good name for Rebel Officer Major Whatif

Now the facts WE WON LOL

[Jade Phoenix]

Hey quit the Lee Bashing, after a great deal of research I firmly believe he was as good as is widely believed, son of Light Horse Harry Lee (friend of George Washington) he was part of one of Americas most illustrious families, graduated 2nd in class at West point (not sure if that’s good or not given to how many crap Union generals there were), also Lincoln asked him to lead the Union army before any of the Union noobs, kinda says something to his skill.

Given the fact that he always had a third less men in almost every engagement, his men were underfed, underequiped and often that equipment wasn’t quite on par with the more techno north, he had no naval support thus no real river control, he still managed some brilliant victories. I think Gettysburg was his only real mistake, but then if Stonewall were still alive his Brigade would have smashed the left flank and taken Culp’s hill (but that’s because Stonewall is the god emperor).

Even his final defeat by (unnecessary slaughter) Grant was simply numbers not skill, they both matched each other as they flanked and counter flanked down the coast, but the rebs inflicted way more casualties than they lost themselves.


@Jeff. come on if you don’t have anything intellectual to add to the debate don’t post at all

Now the facts WE WON LOL

What do you mean we won? 1) Are you American 2) Are you 150 years old, answer NO!

[JeffH]

History records facts (we think)

Lee was without doubt the best General on either side of the conflict

However whether it was numbers skills or not the Union was more greatly supported therfore won the war.

Its a shame Lee focused so much on the right of Virginia instead of the rights of all people Black white blue or orange.

I believe he was a honourable man drawn into a War he did not really believe in.

[Fox1]

It is a very interesting subject and one for massive debate and of course personal opinion, the union had some very good capable commanders such as Hancock, Meade and Grants campaign in the west was text book in its execution (not the winning of battles but execution of the campaign), yet one thing we can not take a way from Lee was his ability to take on the union army with less numbers and still come away with a result, and of course the love he installed within his own men for their country and their cause.
When you start to study both theaters of war both east and west it is realy a game of two halves, the rebs in the west did not have a good time of it, and indeed had some bad commanders such as Bragg i wonder what would have happened if Johnston had not been wounded at seven pines and Lee had not been given command of the Army...would we have seen a vastly diffrent war?

[Robin]

I take on board all thats been said so far and they are good points.

However, the two armies facing each other at Gettysburg were roughly equal in size and granted that Lee was heavily out-numbered at Antietam but the sign of a great General and which he displayed, was that he knew McClellan and gambled on knowing what he would do - vaccilate. Needless to say he wasn't wrong and I feel he won the day by knowing McClellan would throw the chance of destroying Lee's army.

I totally agree that Lee was a good general and indeed arguably the best general in the American Civil War. I do feel though that in an effort to keep some face, the South and ultimately American historians, have over-stated his prowess to the point of canonisation. :cool: