🎥 Join our UA-cam members and patrons to unlock more than 200+ exclusive videos: ua-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals
@@KingsandGenerals What I didn't know I could join? The join button doesn't appear for me, but I solved the problem by running VPN. Thank you very much for your hard and sophisticated work. You are truly a miracle for history lovers. I don't speak English this is from google translate so there will be mistakes
@@tripsaplenty1227Well Jackson was definitely one of America's best officers in the sense he understood defeat in detail, but as they say "in the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye rules" lol
I would argue that McClellan was the Confederacy’s advantage. Very self-absorbed, and only he could claim the victory. It got in the way of his own relationships with his own command, and rivalries in higher command. Not to mention his own political views on how the war should be fought. Not necessarily that the Confederacy was great, just the first half of 1862 the Union high command was more worried about how they looked politically than militarily. And I think each Union commander in the east was more cautious with their actions and what it looked like through the newspaper, because they were closer to the publishers in the east, then the Union commanders were in the west. Once McClellan was replaced with Burnside, then Hooker and then Meade, you see a gradual progression of military effort than political effort in the Army of The Potomac.
@tripsaplenty1227 I am considerably harsher in my critique of Lee. While I grant that he was a clever tactician, and he was a good motivator, he was otherwise incompetent. His strategy allowed for a war of attrition with a larger/better supplied army, rendering his victories as Phyric. The Grand Army of Northern Virginia starved while fighting in Virginia, and Lee never had a solution for that. As for his tactical prowess: "Amateurs speak of tactics, while professionals speak of logistics." When we consider his education at West Point and his time spent under General Winfred Scott, his failures become even more egregious.
McClellen reminds me of how I play strategy games. I really hate losing men, even if the potential gain is high. As a result, I try to maneuver a lot, and lose the opportunity.
@@nomooonWhich is exactly why Lee eventually lost hard. He came up against Grant, who never gave him the opportunities he needed. Death by paper cuts is still death.
@@kevind7396 According to Bruce Catton IIRC Pope was the only Union officer for whom Lee expressed personal contempt, declaring he "must be suppressed."
The Writer Here: As always, I'll answer any questions about the episode in this thread. Some details that didn't make the final script: 1) Halleck wasn't a great general but was a _very_ skilled administrator. He became general-in-chief by coordinating other generals effectively, which proved to be more important than anything else. 2) Lee's army was the _best_ supplied Confederate field army. Think about that for a second. 3) Stuart encouraged flamboyance and chivalry in his cavalry corps. This was a calculated move to use morale and bravado to make up for their dwindling numbers. It was far harder to maintain cavalry than infantry. 4) Grant wasn't chosen over Pope because of Shiloh. While this would prove to be a mistake, it did make sense at the time. 5) The Confederates were outraged that Pope was deliberately stripping the countryside. The fact that they'd done so out West already didn't matter. Those were _western_ states, *this* was Virginia. Said depredation campaign was designed to destroy everything of military value but not harm the populace. Hungry people create more disruption than dead ones. 6) McClellan was dragging his feet about sending reinforcements to Pope. Given how badly he used the troops he _did_ have, I don't think it made much of a difference. That doesn't excuse the deliberate sabotage. 7) Pope had a habit of writing grandiose orders that could be interpreted multiple ways, which directly caused all the confusion. 8) Following Cedar Mountain, Jackson made a point of giving his subordinates highly detailed, specific orders. He always learned from his mistakes. This made them more effective, but there would be consequences down the line. 9) The biggest innovation in battlefield medicine in this era was people like Barton showing up to tend the wounded. This was rare beforehand. It seems shamefully obvious in retrospect. 10) Many of Jackson's men would say that the meal they had at Manassas was the largest of the entire war. 11) No one knows why Pope was so target fixated on Jackson. There were _plenty_ of warnings prior to Longstreet's attack. Nor is it clear how he was so uninformed about where his own troops were. Just...terrible generalship by any standard. 12) Longstreet was in Throughfare Gap before dawn on the 29th, was skirmishing with Buford by 08:15, and in position by noon. It's a tremendous feat of marching logistics. 13) Sigel's troops were mostly German immigrants who'd signed up to fight under Sigel since he was also a German immigrant. 14) Pope didn't know anything was wrong until troops started routing past his headquarters. 15) Porter's court martial happened after Antietam. He'd be dismissed for insubordination, but that was a politically motivated decision and he'd be vindicated and his dismissal overturned after the war. 16) The Republicans lost their majority in the midterms but maintained a plurality of seats in Congress. 17) Davis didn't know about Lee's plans until after he was moving. This was not an accident. 18) Hooker always maintained that if he had been able to stay on the field, he could have broken Lee's line at Antietam. Historians now think he was right. 19) Porter was at least partially to blame for McClellan holding troops back, as he said "Remember, General, I command the last reverse of the last army of the republic."
Army camps had nurses, the army had nurses. Nursing was a male profession in America before the war. Volunteer female nurses became necessary because casualties were much higher than previous wars due to new technology and obsolete tactics. The Battle of Shiloh was bloodier than all the previous US wars combined and it wasn' the bloodiest battle of the war. Army nursing wasn't ready for that, the entire nursing profession wasn't ready for that.
Re: 2. That, more than anything, should put a decisive nail in the "Confederates could have won!" coffin. Lee's army was struggling for supplies, but everyone else was worse off than him. Ain't no way they were going to stand a chance if the war lasted longer than a few weeks.That they lasted longer than a few months is a testament to McLellan's utter incompetence.
Every time I reflect on McClellan's leadership, I'm always left puzzled by his reticence to attack the enemy and gross overestimation of Confederate defenses. On the one hand, you want a commander who doesn't just blindly attack in the face of all common sense (i.e. Burnside's ludicrous attacks on Marye's Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg) but McClellan was somehow simultaneously defeatist and overconfident. He was a great training officer and knew military tactics - he definitely could have dealt a serious blow to Lee at Antietam for instance - but it almost feels like he didn't trust the training he personally instilled in his own troops and thus underestimated their abilities while overestimating Lee's (even when he possessed every advantage an officer could ask for). Seems apparent that he let the moniker and vanity of "Little Napoleon" go to his head and thus wanted to amass the largest army anyone had ever seen while using his delusions as justification to do so. He took his enemy too seriously but didn't take himself seriously enough. Like I said, he's a puzzling man to dissect.
There are _so_ many theories. They all revolve around his political ambitions and emotional attachment to his soldiers. He feared defeat would derail his career and simultaneously loved his soldiers so much that he couldn't abide them being hurt. He wanted to create the perfect army and couldn't stomach the thought of damaging it.
@@TheReaperEagle His political ambitions have definitely been a source of debate but I'm always skeptical of how much that dictated his actions until after he was finally sacked and tried to run against Lincoln in the later election. I think it really does come down to that fear of derailing his career though like you mentioned - which is odd considering that if he had won a great victory that would only propel his career even further and solidify him as the great general he though he was. I guess his timidity and concern over losing what he'd gained won out over his desire to advance himself or gain glory on the battlefield.
@@KevinTheID A lack of practical experience may also explain a lot of McClellan's faults. He commanded engineers before the war, with his first major combat command being the Department of the Ohio. I think Philippi and Rich Mountain grossly overestimated his ability to command large numbers of troops because his plans failed both times, yet the Union Army was able to claw victories out because of the skill of their officers and the numerical inferiority of the Confederates. He claimed credit for those victories, despite the actions of his subordinates, like Rosecrans. McClellan's ego and overinflated reputation put him as the best candidate to lead the Army of the Potomac. This was still early in the war, when nearly everyone else but McClellan was failing to beat the Confederates. After First Bull Run, Lincoln needed someone, and McClellan had a couple victories under his belt. His ability to train and form armies is almost without peer at that time, he was a very capable training officer, and impressed Lincoln with his work. However, his exaggerated ability to lead in the field hampered him greatly. I think he realized he was in over his head, leading an army against a capable and experienced field commander in Lee, and yet his ego could not allow him to shirk the spotlight the Union's newspapers were putting him in, thus his subpar battlefield performances but near cult of personality status in the North. What sometimes gets forgotten is the fact that Philippi was McClellan's first ever time leading in battle, he was too late to fight in Mexico, was an observer at Crimea, and spent most of his military career in an intellectual pursuit of fame. He knew his strategy, he just couldn't perform very well, and a lack of combat experience as a lower-level officer didn't help him either.
@@nickgraff9413 That's an excellent point, his lack of practical experience is a serious contributing factor and the inflation of his abilities in the press probably contributed to him being overconfident but at the same time consternation about losing that image if he suffered a significant battlefield defeat.
He reminds me a lot of Bernard Montogemery. His command style was similar. He would also group up soldiers and wait to have an exceeding advantage and then grind down the enemy . However where McClellan was a coward and indecisive Montogemery was not. Both where egoistic. One history remembers fondly the other not.
Absolutely brilliant!! This series hits home to me as I have family that fought on both sides of this conflict, and I have been to MANY of the battlefields of this war in both the eastern and western theatres. I would LOVE to see some info boxes in here like you do in the WWII videos, there are loads of stories of individual acts of bravery and stories of small unit actions to be described on the micro level while the strategic story is being played out through narration and the beautiful illustrations!! Thank you as always for the excellent work, I will be a lifelong channel member, and I look forward to all the future content, especially the remainder of the Pacific campaign and the start of the Eastern Front!!
If the Union had someone of Napoleon's caliber, the CSA might have fought the Union asymmetrically like Joe Johnston had wanted. It might have turned into another Peninsular War.
Given that tactics and especially command and control is still the same as in the Napoleonic wars, I think the “what if Napoleon commanded” scenario is a good one. Given that Napoleon often faced suoerior enemy numbers in campaigns, its reasonable to think he would have ended the conventional part of the civil war pretty quickly
I just want to point out before more comments pop up concerning it, but the Confederate flag used in this video is indeed the Stars and Bars original flag of the South used up until 1863. They're not rewriting history, they're being historically accurate.
I often wonder if they use the Confederate Battle Flag (The Stainless Banner) because it looks pretty cool. A shame it has such a dark history attached.
I did my dissertation on Pope. While I think he had some disadvantages--no ability to pick subordinates, getting stuck with McDowell, Sigel and Banks as corps commanders, little time to get to know the army and region--he was tactless and did himself no favors with his big mouth.
The more I learn about the battles of the Civil War the more I'm convinced that Lee wasn't all that successful. He just faced a lot of incompetent generals more often than not.
That’s something I’ve come to realize as well. Its funny people call Grant the “Butcher” but you had a greater chance of dying in Lee’s army than Grants if you look at the numbers
Lee was a good general however compared to the average Americans perception he is by far the most overrated general in history. Truth is that not only was he not the best general in the Civil war he wasn't even the best Confederate general.
Additionally you have to take into account that Grant was having to constantly attack Lee in prepared fortified positions and trenches during his Virginia campaign. A basic rule in modern warfare is to always expect higher causalities on the offensive side when attacking fortified positions.
@@lucashunskor3333 Which numbers? In practically every battle of the Overland Campaign Grant lost considerably more men than Lee: Wilderness was a confused series of firefights in woods where Grant's overwhelming numbers didn't count, while Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor were mostly one-sided struggles in which Union troops frontally assaulted Confederates in fortified positions. Grant lost around 70,000 men (KIA and WIA) in those battles and other smaller engagements while Lee's losses were barely half that. Likewise direct Union attacks on Petersburg were bloodily repulsed with heavy loss. Of course given that most fatalities came from natural causes in unsanitary conditions without proper hygiene it's possible poorly supplied Confederates suffered more than Union soldiers, but while I don't have those numbers it's doubtful it closes the gap with combat fatalities. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
I’ve always fond it odd how many people call Lee one of the best generals considering the majority of his career was spent fighting against the most incompetent morons in the history of the American military.
"Lost Cause" Myth and all that. The Confederate generals, while talented, were ultimately made to look better by both Southern propaganda that still survives, coupled with the Union generals being bad fits for the job. Soon as the Union got the right men in the right places (i.e. Grant and Sherman), the Confederacy folded in two in record time.
Yes he was no Napoleon, no Suvurov, Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Eugene etc. He is greatly overrated, he isnt even the best general on the confederate side.
You could say the same thing about Napoleon. Was Austerlitz Napoleons genius or allied incompetence? Its better to focus on the man not his opponents. Lee isn't Napoleon but I would take Lee over most of the generals in the Napoleonic wars. Lee's defense against Grant in 1864 is quite impressive given that he was outnumbered at least 2 to 1.
@@phenom568 I don't blame you there, other than kutuzov, wellington, and Schwarzenberg napoleon didn't fight much talent. However Lee was a fine tactician but a poor strategist and even worse logistical planner. He allowed his army to be caught in a war of attrition against a force with more man power and better logistics. I think while he was good, somebody like Johnston would've been a better fit.
Napoleon faced rather stiff opposition in Italy as well not to forget, all far more experienced at command than the generals that Lee faced. The main thing I see with Lee is how he tried to fight in a Napoleonic way, big grandiose deciding battles etc, but lacked the men, training and experience to fully do so. His army wasnt ready, the structure and resources needed wasnt there. He could win battles but never destroyed the army of the Potomac. So while its true that one could blame Lee's hunt for a new Austerlitz as a reason for why he in the end failed I think one also can argue that he also didnt have the means to fully master the napoleonic art of war.
Well yes and no. I understand that the soldiers thought so, but I also guess many more than "necessary" died because his shortcomings wasted quite some good chances in dealing significant and even decisive blows to the enemy.
@@marcbartuschka6372 Soldiers don't want to die in war. You have to spend their lives to win a war. That's how war works. McClellan didn't accept this. The problem is that pre-WWII, most soldiers who died during war didn't die from battlefield wounds but camp diseases. The shorter the war, the better their chances of survival. Grant knew this, and while he hated sending soldiers to die, he'd rather they died in battle than in hospital.
Never understood how some put Lee in the same tier as Napoleon when it comes to generalship. It was a war fought but by inexperienced commanders and armies, and it shows.
Because he was hyped up by his own side and to some extent by his enemies too who not wanted to admit how poor they executed many of their actions in the first half of the war.
Lee was not a bad general. I wouldn't put him with Napoleon as that is a very select few there, but Lee was still good. If Napoleon was S tier, Lee is either A or a high B.
No he was not a bad general, but I have often heard it said that he was Napoleons equal or even superior. I find that a strange notion. If I would rank him I would perhaps also put him in the B tier, or possibly C. "S" belonging to men like Napoleon, Hannibal etc. "A" to Gustavus Adolphus, Suvurov, Marlborough etc.
I hope that in the coming days episodes will be released about the War of the Spanish Succession. It is an interesting, complex and historically wronged war.
@@ukaszw.5461wow why are they your favorite civil war battles if you don’t mind me asking and in case you are wondering what my favorite civil war battles are they are Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg, Petersburg, New market and bull run.
McClellan is proof positive on how best to train n supple n army but not on how best to use it against an enemy. Great video. Can't wait for the next one in this series to come out.
2 things are true: 1.the North may have encounter larger losses without the organization skills of McClellan getting Northern Army into fighting force. 2. The North would not have won with McClellan in charge and may have extended the war by 3 years. McClellan did not have broad sense how communicate battle strategies nor developed intelligence network to give more accurate intelligence on the South's disposition. My opinion: McClellan was good at preparing an army, but not good to use an army in a war.
Incredible the overwhelming advantages held by the Union in the East were thrown away again and again, for three years until Grant arrived. People attacked Grant for incurring casualties to win the war, but never seem to condemn the others, Meade excepted, who in their confusion and incompetence threw lives away for nothing. Fredericksburg the most horrifying of all. Also stirring to see Buford doing his thing, which always seemed to add value.
another great video. McClellan was a good trainer of infantry but a hopeless commanding or field general. Usually Jackson was a good if not eccentric general, I was a bit surprised he didn’t brief or give instructions to his sub-ordinates at Cedar Mountain, quite an oversight. In the end he won the battle but with high casualties, probably why he held his position for 2 days after the battle.
I'm guessing Jackson was tired for the day and it either slipped his mind or retired for the evening. Typically he liked to micromanage so it was out of character to leave such a matter unattended.
I actually rebuke general lee, he fought against the very spirit of what freedom is meant to represent in usa. All men are created equal(except dark skin men and women).... usa is simply an economic zone and the culture is one of money worship.
Good video as always. A couple things. Its not Anti - et - am, its An - tiet - am. I visited the battlefield this last summer and before that I couldn't understand why Lee decided to make a stand here and why the casualties were so high. As soon as you get to the battlefield it becomes quite apparent. The entire battlefield is a mix of medium sized hills and little rolling hills through the land. You can't see more than a hundred yards in front of you. Its a quite good for defense but your troops are basically firing point blank into each other. At bloody lane the fighting had to be around 50 yards because you couldn't see the other side before then. Also the blue ridge mountains are absolutely stunning, its a picturesque site.
President Lincoln remarked about General McClellan's endless requests for more reinforcements, that sending General McClellan more reinforcements "was like shoveling flies across a barn."
The Battle of Antietam is a grim reminder of how brutal the Civil War truly was. It’s haunting to think that a single day of fighting led to such staggering casualties, and yet it was a pivotal moment in shaping Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
@20:55 McClellan did not do nothing for 18 hours, for once he actually did something with speed. For the past century historians have assumed that the boast telegram was sent earlier than it was, it was actually 12 hours later. That said McClellan while a good organizer and strategist was a piss poor battlefield commander as seen in the battle of Antietam and believed there were 100K Confederate soldiers on the other side of every hill, creek, river, forest, road, and whatever other natural or man-made obstacle between him and Richmond that the Confederacy somehow provisioned. The man could have won the war on at least two occasions (maybe more), but did not have the fortitude to do so.
19:00 Lee actually did receive a "few score" or about 80 volunteers in Western Maryland, the issue as you said was any slaveholders or pro confederate families in the area had already been imprisoned or fled their neighbors.
Lincoln: "Attack them!" McClellan: " No!" Lincoln: "You now have superiority army, you should attack them, common!" McClellan: "Still, No!" Lincoln: "You are fired!" McClellan: "So, I am running for presidential election!"
Some nit picks. Pretty sure Lee held his ground the day after Antietam and then retreated the following day. Most folks put his army size at around 40,000 once the battle start.
I always see the battle of Antietam as having the potential of being a Friedland with an army caught with its back to a river, yet such caution and lack of quality staff work just lets what could have been war winning moment disappear despite a significant investment of blood and bullets.
It seems to me that both sides were bad at pursuing and destroying the opposite army after victories, instead they could retreat, regroup and then try again. Perhaps its due to the inexperience of the cavalry arm? I mean many generals were trained on Napoleonic tactics so they should have realised the need to follow through on their victories.
@@Arrowfodder I think that is certainly part of it. Much of the decisive manoeuvres that were expected form in battles in Europe seem to fall apart or fall to exist at all in the civil war and I do wonder if it was a certain reluctance to escalate against their countrymen that tragically resulted in far more death and destruction.
@@Arrowfodder That you had to destroy the enemy during the retreat was well known, and many generals did try. The problem was that America's geography is so much more rugged than Europe's that pursuit became impossible due to exhaustion. Many times, both soldiers and horses were too worn out winning the battle to give chase.
A couple of things I wish you had included. Jacksons soldiers bacchanal at Popes supply depot. Lee's ultimate plan of destroying the bridge on the Susquehanna and dividing the North from east and west. Assuming a victory over McClellan, the only thing that would have faced him afterwards would have been raw militia. If the performance of the Militia at the battle of Richmond Ky is any indication, this would have been very bad news for the North. If this had played out, it would have been a huge game changer. Three things prevented this from happening: The size of Lee's army was about 20, 000 too small. The lost orders meant McClellan would move faster than usual. McClellan was unlikely to be destroyed by Lee assuming close odds. Defeated and pushed back, sure, but destroyed, not likely.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh had been rated by historians to be the greatest world leader of all time. Unheard story of his empire deserves to be on this channel. Especially because it was only in the 1800s. This way of life and way of governance would still apply to a better living of all people today
Sometimes it seems that Mcland's ideas about believing that Lee had a larger army seemed to be about him having more soldiers. But he seems to really believe it.
Lee's successes had more to do with his counterparts' timidity than his own talents. Lee regularly battered his own army in surface level brilliant tactical victories that achieved little long term strategically as in each one, the Union Army of the Potomac still held significant advantages despite their commanders pulling the army back. Both of Lee's invasions of the North were myopically foolish operations with no real chance at achieving the strategic goals they set out to while also exponentially increasing the risk to his own army. When Grant took over against Lee, he utilized the advantages the Union had possessed for years and continually ground Lee down until the Army of Northern Virginia was reduced to a shell that had no choice but to surrender.
Just saying but you are going to be in for a treat when Grant enters the scene as out of all the commanders that Lee faced Grant was the strongest as he thought like a true General as he aimed to destroy lees supply lines, railroads and everything that would give Lee the means to fight.
The army was largely conservative and Democratic, so there was an attitude that the war was just a particularly bad incident that could be resolved through compromise, without the need for real battles. As a result, "reconciliation warfare" dominated Union thinking in the East until mid-1862. McClellan, an ardent Democrat, very much shared this way of thinking. Why antagonize the situation by bringing death and destroying hopes for reconciliation? It is better to just delay and wait out the heated passions. It helps to explain why he was always so timid and offered so many excuses as to why something couldn't be done.
“If he had a million men, he would swear the enemy had two millions, and then he would sit down in the mud and yell for three.” I don't know...I think McClellan just didn't wanted to see his men die.
I’ve contemplated recently before this video. What if at second bull run - Manassas we had been able to with either Longstreet or Stuart gotten around Popes army and cut off their retreat. Had they been able to destroy popes force that might have been the most devastating impact of the war and from there a potential south military victory, as it would’ve impacted almost everything.
I really do understand why president Lincoln fired general McClellan after this battle, because he did not have the killer view, which US Grant did have, which why Grant won the war and McClellan was a poor general……
I have a different opinion on McClellan. He seemed to be fighting to not lose, definitely not to win. A total win would hurt his run for President, his platform was to end the war, without ending slavery. So his appearance of incompetence was intentional.
But doesn’t look incompetent hurt your chances at presidency, especially if you’re fighting on the side of the union which he would be if he was fighting not to lose?
Well that would be made him a worse person than he was. Because that would be egomanical treason than just shortcomings. And to be honest I do not think he was SUCH a machiavellistic planer.
@@marcbartuschka6372well consideribg the barbaric nature of american slavery. This demonstrates that america was not full of good people so it is safe to say most military leadership on both sides were in it for the money. Usa is an economic zone with all due respect. Revolution was a matter of not paying taxes to the king of england, slavery was about cheap labor, and so now and so forth even today with illegal immigrants doing all the manual labor work!
I mean there is value in the idea of fighting not to lose. The war was impossible for the Confederates to force a victory. Delay played strategically into the hands of the Union.
Command of large armies is hard. Nothing in the experience of even the most senior commanders prepared them for the reality of modern war. You can so often see Generals acting more or less like majors.
After watching this video, one cannot helped but wondering what did George McClellan did during the Mexican-American War to deserve to be called Little Napoleon. From what I heard and read, many military commanders of both sides of the American Civil War were in fact veterans of the Mexican-American War themselves but yet, the previous war seemed to shaped each of them differently, regardless of which faction they belonged. Speaking of Mexican-American War, will such a series be made to function as the prequel of the American Civil War series on this channel? After all, I am certain many viewers would like to see how such a war shaped and even influenced the military commanders of both sides of the Union and the Confederacy when they came into conflict with one another when the American Civil War broke out.
Something to consider about 'bad generals' in the Civil War. These armies were made out of nothing with little time to train to become a skilled army. They had to learn as they went. Most of these men understood that a poor order or plan or decision would get 100's to 1000's of men killed due to their blunder. As if they had killed them personally with their stupidity. The weight of this responsibility was heavy on most generals which made them hesitate or behave cautiously.Two generals, Joe Johnston and McClellan would go down as over-cautious, but the men under them were quite appreciative of their caution. Secondly, the scale of the units they were in command over was far above what any of these commanders had experienced before. Which makes many of these Generals look like fools. Some grew into their roles , others did not, and some were good at brigade or division, but not so good above that amount. On a side note, the reason I think Lee regarded McClellan highly after the war is that Lee was always looking to destroy his opponents army. With a larger army, Lee might very well have done this on a number of occasions. However, McClellan never game him an opportunity to do this. Sure, McClellan was not Grant or Sherman, or even Thomas, and he was maddeningly slow, but he was certainly better than Pope, Burnside, Hooker and possibly Meade.
Mclellan gets way too much heat. The man wasn't a bad general, he just was too cautious. He likely would've won the civil war himself even being as he was if he had stayed in command the whole time.....or maybe the civil war would still be going on right now in 2025 if he stayed in command 😂
@crazyirish209 no it does not. It just makes him suited for more defensive operations but he was fundamentally not a bad general. He was a defensive general put in a offensive campaign
@crazyirish209 that was a joke obviously. I doubt anyone could maintain the moral justification of slavery for over 100 years to keep the civil war going that long
While the primary right the South cared about was the right to own slaves they were still very serious about state sovereignty. Lee not being properly supplied and reinforced is directly tied to how difficult it was to get states to send resources to states that weren't their own. Everyone talks about how the North had an excess of supplies and manpower but they also didn't have near as much trouble getting that stuff from the northern states. The Confederate constitution likely cost them any small chance they had of winning the war.
I agree the southern states are full of greedy racist ignorant individualists, the confederacy would have dissolved into multiple barbaric tribes eventually even if the south won.
I could talk about the Paraguayan War or the War of the Triple Alliance in South America or other conflicts in Latin America such as the French interventions in Mexico and the War of the Peruvian Confederation.Boliviana and the War of the Pacific Between Chile and Peru and Bolivia.
🎥 Join our UA-cam members and patrons to unlock more than 200+ exclusive videos: ua-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals
Ratio
@@KingsandGenerals What I didn't know I could join? The join button doesn't appear for me, but I solved the problem by running VPN. Thank you very much for your hard and sophisticated work. You are truly a miracle for history lovers. I don't speak English this is from google translate so there will be mistakes
Please do Stonewall Jackson
I strongly recommend joining up if you can, folks. It's 100% worth it.
It seems Union military leadership at the start of the war, was the greatest advantage the Confederacy had.
Yeah, Jackson and Lee were capable but they were not as good as the Yankees made them look.
@@tripsaplenty1227Well Jackson was definitely one of America's best officers in the sense he understood defeat in detail, but as they say "in the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye rules" lol
Yup. The Union was still trying to not lose instead of trying to win. McClellan was a good logistics general, but a very poor battlefield general
I would argue that McClellan was the Confederacy’s advantage. Very self-absorbed, and only he could claim the victory. It got in the way of his own relationships with his own command, and rivalries in higher command. Not to mention his own political views on how the war should be fought.
Not necessarily that the Confederacy was great, just the first half of 1862 the Union high command was more worried about how they looked politically than militarily. And I think each Union commander in the east was more cautious with their actions and what it looked like through the newspaper, because they were closer to the publishers in the east, then the Union commanders were in the west.
Once McClellan was replaced with Burnside, then Hooker and then Meade, you see a gradual progression of military effort than political effort in the Army of The Potomac.
@tripsaplenty1227 I am considerably harsher in my critique of Lee. While I grant that he was a clever tactician, and he was a good motivator, he was otherwise incompetent.
His strategy allowed for a war of attrition with a larger/better supplied army, rendering his victories as Phyric. The Grand Army of Northern Virginia starved while fighting in Virginia, and Lee never had a solution for that. As for his tactical prowess: "Amateurs speak of tactics, while professionals speak of logistics." When we consider his education at West Point and his time spent under General Winfred Scott, his failures become even more egregious.
McClellen reminds me of how I play strategy games. I really hate losing men, even if the potential gain is high. As a result, I try to maneuver a lot, and lose the opportunity.
You need to get better at leading bro 💀
You don't need those opportunities, when you are trying to create the inevitability of you winning at the end, even if it means 30 more turns...
@@nomooonWhich is exactly why Lee eventually lost hard. He came up against Grant, who never gave him the opportunities he needed. Death by paper cuts is still death.
I play Risk with friends and they are totally desensitized about losing pawns
Fortune favors the bold. Also, "Never take counsel of your fear." -Stonewall Jackson
“As diplomatic as a brick to the face.”
That line made me giggle.
Having done my dissertation on Pope, it was a very accurate description of him in 1862.
@@kevind7396 According to Bruce Catton IIRC Pope was the only Union officer for whom Lee expressed personal contempt, declaring he "must be suppressed."
The Writer Here: As always, I'll answer any questions about the episode in this thread.
Some details that didn't make the final script:
1) Halleck wasn't a great general but was a _very_ skilled administrator. He became general-in-chief by coordinating other generals effectively, which proved to be more important than anything else.
2) Lee's army was the _best_ supplied Confederate field army. Think about that for a second.
3) Stuart encouraged flamboyance and chivalry in his cavalry corps. This was a calculated move to use morale and bravado to make up for their dwindling numbers. It was far harder to maintain cavalry than infantry.
4) Grant wasn't chosen over Pope because of Shiloh. While this would prove to be a mistake, it did make sense at the time.
5) The Confederates were outraged that Pope was deliberately stripping the countryside. The fact that they'd done so out West already didn't matter. Those were _western_ states, *this* was Virginia. Said depredation campaign was designed to destroy everything of military value but not harm the populace. Hungry people create more disruption than dead ones.
6) McClellan was dragging his feet about sending reinforcements to Pope. Given how badly he used the troops he _did_ have, I don't think it made much of a difference. That doesn't excuse the deliberate sabotage.
7) Pope had a habit of writing grandiose orders that could be interpreted multiple ways, which directly caused all the confusion.
8) Following Cedar Mountain, Jackson made a point of giving his subordinates highly detailed, specific orders. He always learned from his mistakes. This made them more effective, but there would be consequences down the line.
9) The biggest innovation in battlefield medicine in this era was people like Barton showing up to tend the wounded. This was rare beforehand. It seems shamefully obvious in retrospect.
10) Many of Jackson's men would say that the meal they had at Manassas was the largest of the entire war.
11) No one knows why Pope was so target fixated on Jackson. There were _plenty_ of warnings prior to Longstreet's attack. Nor is it clear how he was so uninformed about where his own troops were. Just...terrible generalship by any standard.
12) Longstreet was in Throughfare Gap before dawn on the 29th, was skirmishing with Buford by 08:15, and in position by noon. It's a tremendous feat of marching logistics.
13) Sigel's troops were mostly German immigrants who'd signed up to fight under Sigel since he was also a German immigrant.
14) Pope didn't know anything was wrong until troops started routing past his headquarters.
15) Porter's court martial happened after Antietam. He'd be dismissed for insubordination, but that was a politically motivated decision and he'd be vindicated and his dismissal overturned after the war.
16) The Republicans lost their majority in the midterms but maintained a plurality of seats in Congress.
17) Davis didn't know about Lee's plans until after he was moving. This was not an accident.
18) Hooker always maintained that if he had been able to stay on the field, he could have broken Lee's line at Antietam. Historians now think he was right.
19) Porter was at least partially to blame for McClellan holding troops back, as he said "Remember, General, I command the last reverse of the last army of the republic."
Army camps had nurses, the army had nurses. Nursing was a male profession in America before the war. Volunteer female nurses became necessary because casualties were much higher than previous wars due to new technology and obsolete tactics. The Battle of Shiloh was bloodier than all the previous US wars combined and it wasn' the bloodiest battle of the war. Army nursing wasn't ready for that, the entire nursing profession wasn't ready for that.
Is George Mclellan the most frustrating general in human history?
interesting additions to the video
Re: 2. That, more than anything, should put a decisive nail in the "Confederates could have won!" coffin. Lee's army was struggling for supplies, but everyone else was worse off than him. Ain't no way they were going to stand a chance if the war lasted longer than a few weeks.That they lasted longer than a few months is a testament to McLellan's utter incompetence.
Some notable points in there, and I'm glad you included them. Were the cuts made to keep the runtime low?
Every time I reflect on McClellan's leadership, I'm always left puzzled by his reticence to attack the enemy and gross overestimation of Confederate defenses. On the one hand, you want a commander who doesn't just blindly attack in the face of all common sense (i.e. Burnside's ludicrous attacks on Marye's Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg) but McClellan was somehow simultaneously defeatist and overconfident.
He was a great training officer and knew military tactics - he definitely could have dealt a serious blow to Lee at Antietam for instance - but it almost feels like he didn't trust the training he personally instilled in his own troops and thus underestimated their abilities while overestimating Lee's (even when he possessed every advantage an officer could ask for). Seems apparent that he let the moniker and vanity of "Little Napoleon" go to his head and thus wanted to amass the largest army anyone had ever seen while using his delusions as justification to do so. He took his enemy too seriously but didn't take himself seriously enough.
Like I said, he's a puzzling man to dissect.
There are _so_ many theories. They all revolve around his political ambitions and emotional attachment to his soldiers. He feared defeat would derail his career and simultaneously loved his soldiers so much that he couldn't abide them being hurt. He wanted to create the perfect army and couldn't stomach the thought of damaging it.
@@TheReaperEagle His political ambitions have definitely been a source of debate but I'm always skeptical of how much that dictated his actions until after he was finally sacked and tried to run against Lincoln in the later election. I think it really does come down to that fear of derailing his career though like you mentioned - which is odd considering that if he had won a great victory that would only propel his career even further and solidify him as the great general he though he was. I guess his timidity and concern over losing what he'd gained won out over his desire to advance himself or gain glory on the battlefield.
@@KevinTheID A lack of practical experience may also explain a lot of McClellan's faults. He commanded engineers before the war, with his first major combat command being the Department of the Ohio. I think Philippi and Rich Mountain grossly overestimated his ability to command large numbers of troops because his plans failed both times, yet the Union Army was able to claw victories out because of the skill of their officers and the numerical inferiority of the Confederates. He claimed credit for those victories, despite the actions of his subordinates, like Rosecrans. McClellan's ego and overinflated reputation put him as the best candidate to lead the Army of the Potomac. This was still early in the war, when nearly everyone else but McClellan was failing to beat the Confederates. After First Bull Run, Lincoln needed someone, and McClellan had a couple victories under his belt. His ability to train and form armies is almost without peer at that time, he was a very capable training officer, and impressed Lincoln with his work. However, his exaggerated ability to lead in the field hampered him greatly. I think he realized he was in over his head, leading an army against a capable and experienced field commander in Lee, and yet his ego could not allow him to shirk the spotlight the Union's newspapers were putting him in, thus his subpar battlefield performances but near cult of personality status in the North. What sometimes gets forgotten is the fact that Philippi was McClellan's first ever time leading in battle, he was too late to fight in Mexico, was an observer at Crimea, and spent most of his military career in an intellectual pursuit of fame. He knew his strategy, he just couldn't perform very well, and a lack of combat experience as a lower-level officer didn't help him either.
@@nickgraff9413 That's an excellent point, his lack of practical experience is a serious contributing factor and the inflation of his abilities in the press probably contributed to him being overconfident but at the same time consternation about losing that image if he suffered a significant battlefield defeat.
He reminds me a lot of Bernard Montogemery. His command style was similar. He would also group up soldiers and wait to have an exceeding advantage and then grind down the enemy . However where McClellan was a coward and indecisive Montogemery was not. Both where egoistic. One history remembers fondly the other not.
McClennan "I heard reports they have a battalion of bigfoots riding on Gryphons. Retreat!!!"
Absolutely brilliant!! This series hits home to me as I have family that fought on both sides of this conflict, and I have been to MANY of the battlefields of this war in both the eastern and western theatres. I would LOVE to see some info boxes in here like you do in the WWII videos, there are loads of stories of individual acts of bravery and stories of small unit actions to be described on the micro level while the strategic story is being played out through narration and the beautiful illustrations!! Thank you as always for the excellent work, I will be a lifelong channel member, and I look forward to all the future content, especially the remainder of the Pacific campaign and the start of the Eastern Front!!
If Napoleon was in charge of McClellan's forces he would have ended the war in one or two battles
I imagine that is true in many cases. Napoleon is one of the better generals of all time.
If the Union had someone of Napoleon's caliber, the CSA might have fought the Union asymmetrically like Joe Johnston had wanted. It might have turned into another Peninsular War.
@@chrismartindale7840Napoleon is by by far the best general ever!!
Given that tactics and especially command and control is still the same as in the Napoleonic wars, I think the “what if Napoleon commanded” scenario is a good one. Given that Napoleon often faced suoerior enemy numbers in campaigns, its reasonable to think he would have ended the conventional part of the civil war pretty quickly
I just want to point out before more comments pop up concerning it, but the Confederate flag used in this video is indeed the Stars and Bars original flag of the South used up until 1863. They're not rewriting history, they're being historically accurate.
I often wonder if they use the Confederate Battle Flag (The Stainless Banner) because it looks pretty cool. A shame it has such a dark history attached.
I did my dissertation on Pope. While I think he had some disadvantages--no ability to pick subordinates, getting stuck with McDowell, Sigel and Banks as corps commanders, little time to get to know the army and region--he was tactless and did himself no favors with his big mouth.
The more I learn about the battles of the Civil War the more I'm convinced that Lee wasn't all that successful. He just faced a lot of incompetent generals more often than not.
That’s something I’ve come to realize as well. Its funny people call Grant the “Butcher” but you had a greater chance of dying in Lee’s army than Grants if you look at the numbers
Lee was a good general however compared to the average Americans perception he is by far the most overrated general in history. Truth is that not only was he not the best general in the Civil war he wasn't even the best Confederate general.
Additionally you have to take into account that Grant was having to constantly attack Lee in prepared fortified positions and trenches during his Virginia campaign. A basic rule in modern warfare is to always expect higher causalities on the offensive side when attacking fortified positions.
Welcome to early American military history. Pretty much everything before the Spanish American war was America getting extremely lucky over and over.
@@lucashunskor3333 Which numbers? In practically every battle of the Overland Campaign Grant lost considerably more men than Lee: Wilderness was a confused series of firefights in woods where Grant's overwhelming numbers didn't count, while Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor were mostly one-sided struggles in which Union troops frontally assaulted Confederates in fortified positions. Grant lost around 70,000 men (KIA and WIA) in those battles and other smaller engagements while Lee's losses were barely half that. Likewise direct Union attacks on Petersburg were bloodily repulsed with heavy loss.
Of course given that most fatalities came from natural causes in unsanitary conditions without proper hygiene it's possible poorly supplied Confederates suffered more than Union soldiers, but while I don't have those numbers it's doubtful it closes the gap with combat fatalities. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
I’ve always fond it odd how many people call Lee one of the best generals considering the majority of his career was spent fighting against the most incompetent morons in the history of the American military.
"Lost Cause" Myth and all that. The Confederate generals, while talented, were ultimately made to look better by both Southern propaganda that still survives, coupled with the Union generals being bad fits for the job. Soon as the Union got the right men in the right places (i.e. Grant and Sherman), the Confederacy folded in two in record time.
Yes he was no Napoleon, no Suvurov, Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Eugene etc. He is greatly overrated, he isnt even the best general on the confederate side.
You could say the same thing about Napoleon. Was Austerlitz Napoleons genius or allied incompetence? Its better to focus on the man not his opponents. Lee isn't Napoleon but I would take Lee over most of the generals in the Napoleonic wars. Lee's defense against Grant in 1864 is quite impressive given that he was outnumbered at least 2 to 1.
@@phenom568 I don't blame you there, other than kutuzov, wellington, and Schwarzenberg napoleon didn't fight much talent. However Lee was a fine tactician but a poor strategist and even worse logistical planner. He allowed his army to be caught in a war of attrition against a force with more man power and better logistics. I think while he was good, somebody like Johnston would've been a better fit.
Napoleon faced rather stiff opposition in Italy as well not to forget, all far more experienced at command than the generals that Lee faced. The main thing I see with Lee is how he tried to fight in a Napoleonic way, big grandiose deciding battles etc, but lacked the men, training and experience to fully do so. His army wasnt ready, the structure and resources needed wasnt there. He could win battles but never destroyed the army of the Potomac. So while its true that one could blame Lee's hunt for a new Austerlitz as a reason for why he in the end failed I think one also can argue that he also didnt have the means to fully master the napoleonic art of war.
And to think that Lee was offered command of the Union army by Lincoln. Things would have played out very differently had that hapenned.
The Confederacy might have gotten someone good like Johnson while a Unionist Lee ignored everything west of the Appalachian mountains. 😅
McClellan was loved by the troops because he was so risk averse and protective of them.
Well yes and no. I understand that the soldiers thought so, but I also guess many more than "necessary" died because his shortcomings wasted quite some good chances in dealing significant and even decisive blows to the enemy.
@@marcbartuschka6372 Soldiers don't want to die in war. You have to spend their lives to win a war. That's how war works. McClellan didn't accept this.
The problem is that pre-WWII, most soldiers who died during war didn't die from battlefield wounds but camp diseases. The shorter the war, the better their chances of survival. Grant knew this, and while he hated sending soldiers to die, he'd rather they died in battle than in hospital.
Exactly @@TheReaperEagle, the camp diseases were pretty horrible indeed.
Will you cover the Western Theater in the long Version of the Series?
Yep
Never understood how some put Lee in the same tier as Napoleon when it comes to generalship. It was a war fought but by inexperienced commanders and armies, and it shows.
Because he was hyped up by his own side and to some extent by his enemies too who not wanted to admit how poor they executed many of their actions in the first half of the war.
Lee was not a bad general. I wouldn't put him with Napoleon as that is a very select few there, but Lee was still good. If Napoleon was S tier, Lee is either A or a high B.
No he was not a bad general, but I have often heard it said that he was Napoleons equal or even superior. I find that a strange notion. If I would rank him I would perhaps also put him in the B tier, or possibly C. "S" belonging to men like Napoleon, Hannibal etc. "A" to Gustavus Adolphus, Suvurov, Marlborough etc.
Thank you for your great efforts, the episodes are always wonderful. Your fans from Yemen ❤
Love that you're doing the American civil war. You make the best videos!
I hope that in the coming days episodes will be released about the War of the Spanish Succession. It is an interesting, complex and historically wronged war.
Whoever wrote "as diplomatic as a brick to the face" deserves a raise. A big, big raise
Nothing is more frustrating than your teammate snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
0:44
"Can I have like 20 bucks"
"no"
OooOooOOOooHH NoooOOOooOO
My guess is the next episode will cover the battle of Fredericksburg, the emancipation proclamation and the battle of Chancellorsville.
Moje ulubione bitwy w wojnie secesyjnej.
@@ukaszw.5461wow why are they your favorite civil war battles if you don’t mind me asking and in case you are wondering what my favorite civil war battles are they are Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg, Petersburg, New market and bull run.
McClellan is proof positive on how best to train n supple n army but not on how best to use it against an enemy. Great video. Can't wait for the next one in this series to come out.
2 things are true: 1.the North may have encounter larger losses without the organization skills of McClellan getting Northern Army into fighting force. 2. The North would not have won with McClellan in charge and may have extended the war by 3 years. McClellan did not have broad sense how communicate battle strategies nor developed intelligence network to give more accurate intelligence on the South's disposition.
My opinion: McClellan was good at preparing an army, but not good to use an army in a war.
He was bad at the parts of the job that required courage from the general in command.
Incredible the overwhelming advantages held by the Union in the East were thrown away again and again, for three years until Grant arrived. People attacked Grant for incurring casualties to win the war, but never seem to condemn the others, Meade excepted, who in their confusion and incompetence threw lives away for nothing. Fredericksburg the most horrifying of all.
Also stirring to see Buford doing his thing, which always seemed to add value.
Love the civil war content! Keep it up!
Insult for the day : calling someone a McLellan 😏
I didn't lose! I merely failed to win!
Receive intelligence, sit on it all day. The McClellan way 😎
Great as always!
another great video.
McClellan was a good trainer of infantry but a hopeless commanding or field general.
Usually Jackson was a good if not eccentric general, I was a bit surprised he didn’t brief or give instructions to his sub-ordinates at Cedar Mountain, quite an oversight. In the end he won the battle but with high casualties, probably why he held his position for 2 days after the battle.
I'm guessing Jackson was tired for the day and it either slipped his mind or retired for the evening. Typically he liked to micromanage so it was out of character to leave such a matter unattended.
One must admire General Lee for what he was achving by having almost nothing and always being outnumberd..
I actually rebuke general lee, he fought against the very spirit of what freedom is meant to represent in usa. All men are created equal(except dark skin men and women).... usa is simply an economic zone and the culture is one of money worship.
Good video as always. A couple things. Its not Anti - et - am, its An - tiet - am. I visited the battlefield this last summer and before that I couldn't understand why Lee decided to make a stand here and why the casualties were so high. As soon as you get to the battlefield it becomes quite apparent. The entire battlefield is a mix of medium sized hills and little rolling hills through the land. You can't see more than a hundred yards in front of you. Its a quite good for defense but your troops are basically firing point blank into each other. At bloody lane the fighting had to be around 50 yards because you couldn't see the other side before then. Also the blue ridge mountains are absolutely stunning, its a picturesque site.
I visited Antietam also..it’s an amazing place
President Lincoln remarked about General McClellan's endless requests for more reinforcements, that sending General McClellan more reinforcements "was like shoveling flies across a barn."
Hi, would love to know when your series on the French Wars of religion are coming out
Hoping for 2025, but not sure.
The Battle of Antietam is a grim reminder of how brutal the Civil War truly was. It’s haunting to think that a single day of fighting led to such staggering casualties, and yet it was a pivotal moment in shaping Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
Ive been anxiously waiting on this !!🙌🏻🙌🏻☺️
@20:55 McClellan did not do nothing for 18 hours, for once he actually did something with speed. For the past century historians have assumed that the boast telegram was sent earlier than it was, it was actually 12 hours later.
That said McClellan while a good organizer and strategist was a piss poor battlefield commander as seen in the battle of Antietam and believed there were 100K Confederate soldiers on the other side of every hill, creek, river, forest, road, and whatever other natural or man-made obstacle between him and Richmond that the Confederacy somehow provisioned. The man could have won the war on at least two occasions (maybe more), but did not have the fortitude to do so.
Man I’m always checking for the next episode. So good!
Thanks!
"Having gloriously fled an inferior foe for the safety" That line is crazy :DDDDD
19:00 Lee actually did receive a "few score" or about 80 volunteers in Western Maryland, the issue as you said was any slaveholders or pro confederate families in the area had already been imprisoned or fled their neighbors.
Lincoln: "Attack them!"
McClellan: " No!"
Lincoln: "You now have superiority army, you should attack them, common!"
McClellan: "Still, No!"
Lincoln: "You are fired!"
McClellan: "So, I am running for presidential election!"
McClellan truly wanted to be remembered for his enormous victories against overwhelming odds, odds that never existed cuz they were all in his head
Some nit picks. Pretty sure Lee held his ground the day after Antietam and then retreated the following day. Most folks put his army size at around 40,000 once the battle start.
Thank you for the video
I always see the battle of Antietam as having the potential of being a Friedland with an army caught with its back to a river, yet such caution and lack of quality staff work just lets what could have been war winning moment disappear despite a significant investment of blood and bullets.
It seems to me that both sides were bad at pursuing and destroying the opposite army after victories, instead they could retreat, regroup and then try again. Perhaps its due to the inexperience of the cavalry arm? I mean many generals were trained on Napoleonic tactics so they should have realised the need to follow through on their victories.
@@Arrowfodder I think that is certainly part of it. Much of the decisive manoeuvres that were expected form in battles in Europe seem to fall apart or fall to exist at all in the civil war and I do wonder if it was a certain reluctance to escalate against their countrymen that tragically resulted in far more death and destruction.
@@Arrowfodder That you had to destroy the enemy during the retreat was well known, and many generals did try. The problem was that America's geography is so much more rugged than Europe's that pursuit became impossible due to exhaustion. Many times, both soldiers and horses were too worn out winning the battle to give chase.
Awesome video thanks
I request to make new video series on World War 1. I can’t find you any video of World War 1 except Gallipoli campaign. So please make it!
Fascinating!
Can you please make a video on the history of lakshadweep islands
A couple of things I wish you had included. Jacksons soldiers bacchanal at Popes supply depot. Lee's ultimate plan of destroying the bridge on the Susquehanna and dividing the North from east and west. Assuming a victory over McClellan, the only thing that would have faced him afterwards would have been raw militia. If the performance of the Militia at the battle of Richmond Ky is any indication, this would have been very bad news for the North. If this had played out, it would have been a huge game changer. Three things prevented this from happening: The size of Lee's army was about 20, 000 too small. The lost orders meant McClellan would move faster than usual. McClellan was unlikely to be destroyed by Lee assuming close odds. Defeated and pushed back, sure, but destroyed, not likely.
26:08 "An-Ti-tem", not "Ant-i-et-am"
Ah, yes, the classic Robert E. Lee frontal suicidal Pickett charge tactic he was known for.
Like and commenting for the algorithm. Will watch when the 10 hour long video comes out.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh had been rated by historians to be the greatest world leader of all time. Unheard story of his empire deserves to be on this channel. Especially because it was only in the 1800s. This way of life and way of governance would still apply to a better living of all people today
I live these videos.
Sometimes it seems that Mcland's ideas about believing that Lee had a larger army seemed to be about him having more soldiers. But he seems to really believe it.
Battle of Antietam was done dirty in this. Bloodiest single day in American history and we get 3mins on it, wew...
Hearing a Brit pronounce Antietam is like nails on a chalkboard 💀😂
I don't think Lee learned McClellan had his plans, he simply knew they were missing. If your plans are missing you always assume the enemy has them.
Lee's successes had more to do with his counterparts' timidity than his own talents. Lee regularly battered his own army in surface level brilliant tactical victories that achieved little long term strategically as in each one, the Union Army of the Potomac still held significant advantages despite their commanders pulling the army back. Both of Lee's invasions of the North were myopically foolish operations with no real chance at achieving the strategic goals they set out to while also exponentially increasing the risk to his own army. When Grant took over against Lee, he utilized the advantages the Union had possessed for years and continually ground Lee down until the Army of Northern Virginia was reduced to a shell that had no choice but to surrender.
I would love to see a video on the Battle of Firaz where a combined Sassanid-Byzantine army fought agains the Rashidun Caliphate
Union commanders displayed overall incompetence at the start of the war
With generals like these, who needs enemies?
Watching the original getting ready for the sequel:)
3:08 I wonder what went wrong with his inspirational speech so much that it made people quit...
In the American North, the battle at Manasses is called the 2nd Battle of Bull Run.
"I didn't lose. I merely failed to win!"
Generał Lee jest dla mnie drugim najlepszym dowódcą wojskowym w historii, tuż za Hannibalem (Kartagina) a przed Aleksandrem Wielkim (Macedonia).
Literally why? He's not even the second best of the Civil war.
Just saying but you are going to be in for a treat when Grant enters the scene as out of all the commanders that Lee faced Grant was the strongest as he thought like a true General as he aimed to destroy lees supply lines, railroads and everything that would give Lee the means to fight.
The largest simultaneously attack of the war took place here with Longstreet's wing,it was not Pickett's Charge.
The army was largely conservative and Democratic, so there was an attitude that the war was just a particularly bad incident that could be resolved through compromise, without the need for real battles. As a result, "reconciliation warfare" dominated Union thinking in the East until mid-1862. McClellan, an ardent Democrat, very much shared this way of thinking. Why antagonize the situation by bringing death and destroying hopes for reconciliation? It is better to just delay and wait out the heated passions.
It helps to explain why he was always so timid and offered so many excuses as to why something couldn't be done.
McClellan is the anti-Napoleon. Given that Napoleons battles must have been mandated curriculum for officers at the time, its quite an amzing feat.
“If he had a million men, he would swear the enemy had two millions, and then he would sit down in the mud and yell for three.”
I don't know...I think McClellan just didn't wanted to see his men die.
I’ve contemplated recently before this video. What if at second bull run - Manassas we had been able to with either Longstreet or Stuart gotten around Popes army and cut off their retreat. Had they been able to destroy popes force that might have been the most devastating impact of the war and from there a potential south military victory, as it would’ve impacted almost everything.
I really do understand why president Lincoln fired general McClellan after this battle, because he did not have the killer view, which US Grant did have, which why Grant won the war and McClellan was a poor general……
Going on the offensive when he probably shouldn't have was kind of Lee's whole schtick
They don’t need modern technology, either side could have won with good communication. 😂😂
Is that Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain at 2:53??
I have a different opinion on McClellan. He seemed to be fighting to not lose, definitely not to win. A total win would hurt his run for President, his platform was to end the war, without ending slavery. So his appearance of incompetence was intentional.
But doesn’t look incompetent hurt your chances at presidency, especially if you’re fighting on the side of the union which he would be if he was fighting not to lose?
Well that would be made him a worse person than he was. Because that would be egomanical treason than just shortcomings. And to be honest I do not think he was SUCH a machiavellistic planer.
@@marcbartuschka6372well consideribg the barbaric nature of american slavery. This demonstrates that america was not full of good people so it is safe to say most military leadership on both sides were in it for the money. Usa is an economic zone with all due respect. Revolution was a matter of not paying taxes to the king of england, slavery was about cheap labor, and so now and so forth even today with illegal immigrants doing all the manual labor work!
He feared a defeat on the battlefield, not a victory. THAT would have destroyed his political aspirations. He was a coward, not an evil genius.
I mean there is value in the idea of fighting not to lose. The war was impossible for the Confederates to force a victory. Delay played strategically into the hands of the Union.
thanks you
Command of large armies is hard. Nothing in the experience of even the most senior commanders prepared them for the reality of modern war. You can so often see Generals acting more or less like majors.
what total war are u using for footage napolion acw mod or empire brother vs brother mod
After watching this video, one cannot helped but wondering what did George McClellan did during the Mexican-American War to deserve to be called Little Napoleon. From what I heard and read, many military commanders of both sides of the American Civil War were in fact veterans of the Mexican-American War themselves but yet, the previous war seemed to shaped each of them differently, regardless of which faction they belonged.
Speaking of Mexican-American War, will such a series be made to function as the prequel of the American Civil War series on this channel? After all, I am certain many viewers would like to see how such a war shaped and even influenced the military commanders of both sides of the Union and the Confederacy when they came into conflict with one another when the American Civil War broke out.
Auntie-ett-um??? Antietam!
lmao I've never heard anyone pronounce it Auntie-ett-um.... hearing that made got me laughing.. always heard it said An-tee-tum
20:45 191 battle plans
If you want to critisize North leading generals, remember that it was Lincoln who pointed them to their positions.
Is this empire total war? If yes what mod was used for it?
Antietam... "A great and a terrible day."
so when do we get to competent union generals?
now i want to play UG : civil war again
"Ignored orders, feelings hurt" seems to have been a recurring theme for the Union's Generals at this point.
😒
Robert E Lee reminds me alot of Hannibal or Charles XII of Sweden. Strong general, but ultimately fighting in vein for a weak state.
Thanks
Hopefully the Western front also gets covered. The Civil War was fought in more places than just Virginia.
Hopfullyvwe get a new and improved napoleonic wars series
Something to consider about 'bad generals' in the Civil War. These armies were made out of nothing with little time to train to become a skilled army. They had to learn as they went. Most of these men understood that a poor order or plan or decision would get 100's to 1000's of men killed due to their blunder. As if they had killed them personally with their stupidity. The weight of this responsibility was heavy on most generals which made them hesitate or behave cautiously.Two generals, Joe Johnston and McClellan would go down as over-cautious, but the men under them were quite appreciative of their caution. Secondly, the scale of the units they were in command over was far above what any of these commanders had experienced before. Which makes many of these Generals look like fools. Some grew into their roles , others did not, and some were good at brigade or division, but not so good above that amount. On a side note, the reason I think Lee regarded McClellan highly after the war is that Lee was always looking to destroy his opponents army. With a larger army, Lee might very well have done this on a number of occasions. However, McClellan never game him an opportunity to do this. Sure, McClellan was not Grant or Sherman, or even Thomas, and he was maddeningly slow, but he was certainly better than Pope, Burnside, Hooker and possibly Meade.
Anti-et-em that's one hell of a pronunciation.
Mclellan gets way too much heat. The man wasn't a bad general, he just was too cautious. He likely would've won the civil war himself even being as he was if he had stayed in command the whole time.....or maybe the civil war would still be going on right now in 2025 if he stayed in command 😂
that makes him a bad general wtf
@crazyirish209 no it does not. It just makes him suited for more defensive operations but he was fundamentally not a bad general. He was a defensive general put in a offensive campaign
@@EmperorDionx a general that cant win a war in over 100 years as u suggested is a terrible general
@crazyirish209 that was a joke obviously. I doubt anyone could maintain the moral justification of slavery for over 100 years to keep the civil war going that long
People talking shit on McClellan when most of them cant even organize their own rooms.
Maybe so but it doesn't change the fact that he was very ineffective.
a commander cant be avoid of any risk, evem in strategy games that will lead to defeat let alone real life
While the primary right the South cared about was the right to own slaves they were still very serious about state sovereignty. Lee not being properly supplied and reinforced is directly tied to how difficult it was to get states to send resources to states that weren't their own. Everyone talks about how the North had an excess of supplies and manpower but they also didn't have near as much trouble getting that stuff from the northern states. The Confederate constitution likely cost them any small chance they had of winning the war.
I agree the southern states are full of greedy racist ignorant individualists, the confederacy would have dissolved into multiple barbaric tribes eventually even if the south won.
I could talk about the Paraguayan War or the War of the Triple Alliance in South America or other conflicts in Latin America such as the French interventions in Mexico and the War of the Peruvian Confederation.Boliviana and the War of the Pacific Between Chile and Peru and Bolivia.