One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Lee says that he is going to hit the Yankees in the middle and the next scene has someone telling Chamberlain that his unit is getting a rest in the middle lol.
Except that never actually happened. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine were not sent to the center and did not participate in the repulse of Picketts Charge. They were actually sent to the far rear. That part of the movie is one of the few highly inaccurate parts that was put in as pure Hollywood.
Either way it would have made no difference. Their morale was awful high to get as far as they did, and still suffer ghastly casualties. Maybe if they'd broke sooner, less men would have died and been spared to fight in future battles where they would have made a difference.
Can you imagine that? Like actually being a corps commander and KNOWING....KNOWING full well that your boys are going to die. A LOT of them. This is reminiscent of the scene with poor John Bell Hood right before he assaults little round top and speaks with Longstreet furiously. "General, I do this UNDER PROTEST"..... they all go in and lose over 50% casualties. There is GRIT in that as well as god damn tragedy. But you cannot help but admire the DUTY of the General and the men who carry out the order.
The problem was Lee did not listen to his subordinates. He thought only he was right. Other generals actually at least called a war council. Ie Houston, Greene, Marion, etc.
Gettysburg did so many things right. This is just another beautiful example: two men looking death in the face and marching forward regardless because its what must be done. Longstreet knows this charge is suicide (even if the Confeds win it'll break their army to do it and finish the South)...but he has his orders and must contemplate the inevitable. On the other hand we have Harrison, an actor turned scout that has proven all throughout the film that beyond his Southern pride he has no real faults as a soldier: he is discreet, tactical, thorough in intelligence gathering and can assess outcomes quite well and stay out of trouble... ...so why does he want to be on the frontline of a charge a blind man could tell will probably be a slaughter? Southern Pride. The Confeds fought here in no small part because of his intelligence gathering. And now thousands of soldiers (and very possibly the cause of the South) will perish where the army chose to fight. So he feels whatever happens, he has no right to run away...he either lives or dies here...God will decide the rest. Harrison believes every word Longstreet says..which is why he's joining the charge. SUCH a powerful
This is one of the best analyzations of a scene I have ever read. Really does a great job to sum up what the movie is telling us right here. I’m not just saying that this comment is really dope
i could add when Longstreet was asked to Order the Attack, he never replied. he just shook his head every time and eventually his underlings went forth anyway. This blunder was completely unnecessary, Lee just grew to confident and thought Glorious victory was within reach. Lee always preferred for Glorious field battles, instead Strategic goals, like factories. I Would highly recommend checking out the General George Henry Thomas, who was the complete opposite to this.
Some of the most interesting aspects of the Civil War are that they fought with each other. Men who sat next to each other at West Point. Some even fought Mexico together in the same units and then were across the battlefield from each other in the Civil War.
@@firingallcylinders2949 Yep, Lee had either fought alongside in Mexico or taught many of the officers on either side, allowing him to have a good idea as to what sort of officer they were.
This scene parallels the earlier scene when Buford is talking to his aide, Devon, on the day before the battle, predicting the disaster to come if Lee's army gets the ridges and the hills before Meade can come up with all his force and then going in to attack fully fortified Confederate positions on the high ground. Here now is Longstreet essentially pronouncing the same prediction to Harrison, all the worse that Longstreet is confronting the imminent reality of ordering a doomed attack, knowing that it will fail and he cannot stop it: must even participate, help it fail.
I'll agree to that, but still, gotta admit that those men who did the charge were brave sons of guns. After all, they DID at least make it to the wall.
@@michellekinder3051 Maybe not. Jackson was the bette tatician. He knew a bad situation when he saw it, and he was the one man Lee would actually listen to. It was at Malvern Hill Jackson called off an attack because he knew it would fail, and of course, they both witnessed what happened at Fredericksburg. What made Lee think he could get away with it?
@@totallynotalpharius2283Yes, Jacksom was a loyal soldier and enthusiastic about the glorious charge. He was not known for being cautious or calculating. That was his downfall at Chancellorsville; he pushed his advantage too much heedlessly of the realities and dangers.
Longstreet was and still to this day was a brilliant tactician. He understood that if the confederate army went to the right they could make the union army give up the superior ground and win the battle. Unfortunately Lee and many other generals just could not leave the fight. So Longstreet had to obey the orders of his commanding general.
Or the left. Longstreet made preparation for a separate operation on the right, without telling Lee. When he did eventually tell him it was not only too late, but also stuffed up Lee's plan to move Longstreet to the Left.
There something about a man knowing he's about to make a huge mistake and yet can't find a way out of doing it. Reminds me of Yamamoto planning his attack on Pearl Harbor.
Longstreet had defended the Marye Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg the previous December, and inflicted the majority of casualties upon the Union troops. Union forces suffered 12,000 casualties to just 4000 Confederates. He knew first hand the futility of Lee's decision.
This scene is heart breaking for a ton of reasons. Obviously, a big reason is the fact that one of the bloodiest events in American history is moments away from taking place. Yet what is heartbreaking on a "person to person" level is the fact that Harrison clearly is misreading Longstreet's sullen and brooding demeanor as contempt/anger towards him - yet we all know that Longstreet's moroseness stems from the fact that he knows a disaster is about to take place while deeply knowing that he can do nothing to stop it. The thought of putting any person in the attack who does not have to be there (such as Harrison) is something that emotionally/mentally hurts Longstreet even more.
Hard to say. I always felt that Longstreet was trying to persuade Harrison not to go. In this scene I think Longstreet feels Harrison did earn the stripes, genuinely liked him and didn't want to see Harrison killed. Can't imagine what went through anybody's mind then. So much death in minutes.
Lee lost 28,000 men mas o menos. If the charge had WORKED, he wouldn't have lost fewer. I think his army would have been too exhausted to exploit the penetration.
Worse still, Americans enslaving Americans. Then selling their children for profit. One camp here had entirely abandoned the quintessential principles of the. Constitution and merited liquidation. I find this refreshing, that some were willing to fight for those principles (amongst other things).
@@i.m.9918 You're right. Besides how we treated Native Americans, slavery is the most disgusting abuse in United States history. I will disagree with you on a certain point. I believe most Americans who served was to preserve the Union, not free the slaves.
You studied Longstreet for years and concluded he should been in charge of the ENTIRE confederate army??? That was Gen. Coopers job for most of the War, and Lee's job late in the war... Davis acted is his own secretary of war. Civilian leadership of the Army is a longstanding tradition in the US, a tradition the Union Army never relinquished, and the Confederate Army should never have either. Longstreet was a great Lieutenant General and Corp Commander, but that was the extent of his ability. He preformed well because of Lee's generalship, not in spite of it. His ability to command and control divisions and tactical offensive assaults were unmatched during the War, but he reached the limits of his ability as a Corp Commander. He received independent command in November 1863 for his Knoxville campaign which was not successful (4 months after Gettysburg) in which he quarreled with his subordinates (even placed McLaws under arrest), launched unimaginative and costly frontal assaults of the Union Army and limped his wrecked command back to Braggs army. He plotted against Bragg in the western theater, and recommended Johnston for command (who Davis LOATHED, and who didn't preform well at all). Longstreet had his chance at independent command and did not perform well. His return to Lee's Army in 1864 was a welcome return to his rightful position, though short lived. Longstreet's job as Lee's chief Lieutentant was to advise the Commanding General, which he did... it was also to carry out the Generals orders, which he did. That is where he flourished, and that is where he belonged.
Agree to both agree and disagree. There were dozens and dozens of engagements were Lee was absent and his lieutenant generals had to carry the day. Dozens more where (just like in Gettysburg!) Lee didn't arrive on the field until the second day and hence had to rely on division and corps commanders to envision the best ground to take hold of at the offset of conflict. We see this on the union side with brigadier John Buford and his cavalry division, holding their own against veteran confederate infantry with more numbers and far superior firepower. But Buford knew what was at stake and had his brigades give it their all in order to ensure that the confederates didn't reach the heights and fortify. Were that to happen (the battle positions reversed) it would be the union trying to take Roundtop on the second day and Meade would've been forced to attack and likely defeated... That was the strategy that Longstreet was advocating for and why he pressed Lee so hard to abandon Gettysburg and head south toward Washington until they found ground of their choosing that would let them fight defensively - as was the South's strategy throughout the war. When you look at the technology during the Civil War (primarily more accurate muskets with longer ranges and more accurate cannon but also the advent of repeater rifles - like what Buford's outnumbered cavalry used on day one to hold off the Confederates until Reynolds arrived!) the military tactics the generals were using were so outdated that really the only way to fight without great loss was via trench warfare - which is what happened at the tail end of the civil war and was continued to be used throughout the world until WW2 came along and Germany stormed Europe with the use of armor and mobile infantry (blitzkrieg). My point is that at this time with muskets that had ranges of two to three football fields and deadly accurate artillery, the best tactic a soldier could do is find good ground, find a tree or wall to hide behind, and let the enemy come to them. Fredericksburg is the most glaringly obvious example of this tactic and it's what Longstreet referenced on the third day when he advised Lee not to charge, that no 15,000 men ever made could take that ridge - at least not against Hancock's men (veterans of Fredericksburg themselves which is why they chanted that battle after Pickett's charge). The only time when the Confederates won an offensive battle was Chansellorville and even then it was very risky. If the union was more aggressive they would've realized how shorthanded Lee was and easily could've won the day. But Jackson's gambit paid off and is still heralded as the Confederacy's greatest victory. Which brings us back to Gettysburg and the mentality seen throughout the film, that Lee thought his army was invincible. Yes retreating may have hurt morale but that would be a temporary thing because the next engagement would leave the Confederates the definitive victor. As for not having enough supplies? I forget how much supplies did Sherman receive when he marched to Atlanta? Hubris and shortsightedness, that's what led to the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg.
@@eNosArmory great points. Some generals were meant to command brigades but not divisions but not corps. Corps but not armies. Looked how hood performed.
After that speech I would have said: "thank you sir, I'll just slink away to the rear. Thank you again sir". This was uncompromising truth in advertising. That said, recruiting volunteers would not have been Longstreet's strong suit.
Longstreet was told by Lee not to go too far in front as too many generals did. Longstreet said can't lead from behind and later on he got badly wounded
@Darthbelal Probably so. But Lee was deploying his forces without sufficient knowledge. He was taking a huge risk and he did it all throughout the battle. Sun Tzu's maxim in war is to know yourself and your enemy more than he does. A commander that does not have sufficient information is bound to lose. Lee was not himself during this battle as he hastily committed to an offensive strategy when there are some more viable tactical options available.
One thing that's one of the most important in a war is morale, and I have no doubts that Longstreet's defeatist attitude here- as realistic and mathematical as it was- would've destroyed morale for a fair majority of them. Then again, Armistead did say that the men knew that "for many of them, this will be their last charge" so Longstreet's words actually might've done little damage if the troops overheard.
@ConstantineJoseph Yup. This was the complete opposite of what Jackson did at Chancellorsville- get the high ground, make them come to you, and then hit them with a stronger counterpunch. Had Jackson survived the South probably would have won the battle of Gettysburg, and possibly even the war.
@ConstantineJoseph It has been speculated that had Jackson been alive and at Gettysburg, he WOULD have taken Gettysburg and swept up and over, it was either Culp's Hill or Cemetery Ridge, which would've made the Union position at Gettysburg untenable.
@@refugeeca So I tried to help you as best as I can. I cannot find any direct wording that states he fought in Gettysburg. However he does state on wikipedia that he was assigned to the 12th Mississippi Infantry which that unit did fight at Gettysburg. So with him being a spy but also directly attached to a military unit, something spies are usually not, would hint that he may of fought at this battle. But it's not verified.
@@Seriona1 Thanks! I was probably drunk as heck when I asked this. There was a Gettysburg Ranger who did a program on Harrison. ua-cam.com/video/ErJ-8jR2lJ0/v-deo.html I believe there was another who did one. Apparently the real Harrison did a little acting but also skipped on his family and fled out West only resurfacing 20 or 30 years later.
Ace, it is interesting to speculate. My speculation is that the whole invasion of the north was a bad error. You get the north's dander up by invading the north, like the south got its dander up from the north invading the south. I think that had Lee "won" at Gettysburg (whatever that means), the north would have gone into panic & done a general overpowering mobilization. Tar Baby strategy was better; make the Union fight in the South.
Yes in some sense it was a defeat for the North Vietnamese. But the effect was a psychological blow to America and the aura of invincibility was shattered through that surprise attack campaign. Indeed Sun Tzu is not a must read and I would dedicate my attention to God's Word being a Christian myself. However there is no perfect general in history and many a times fortune favors those who prepare themselves sufficiently over those that are over confident or ill prepared.
If Jackson had been alive at Gettysburg, he WOULD have NOT made any attempt at Culp's Hill, as the approach has the eerie similarity to Malvern Hill. Jackson actually stopped Trimble from attacking then and he would have done so again. And Trimble would not have gotten off as lightly with jackson as he did with Ewell. Jackson was brilliant, and he would have seen that Culp's Hill, like Malvern Hill, should not be taken.
Lee after losing his best general Stonewall Jackson, had lost his footing. Should Jackson still be around for Gettysburg, Longstreet and Stonewall would have both objected to Lee plan to charge the Union centre. Jackson in the previous campaigns relied on good defensive positions on high grounds and was liberal with his counter attacks that drove back the Yanks. Apart from strong defense, Jackson also believed in mobility and flanking attacks relying on the element of surprise.
To be fair Jackson was a buffoon in the 7 days campaign. He wasn't all that he was cracked up to be. Pop culture has enshrined him but he wouldn't have changed the outcome of this battle.
Henry V was a violent man, but he is a believer who actually prays 3 hours a day in an abbey, this is what I know from my readings. In the battle of Agincourt he ordered his men to seek God before the battle. As for Constantine, no one will truly know his motives. Again, he's very manipulative using religion to strengthen his authority and was pagan at the root. However, the radical Christianizing of the Roman system, albeit with pagan tradition is observed, owing to lack of bible knowledge
Probably would've been starved to death. The initial aim of the campaign was to take Frederick and sit outside Washington and be a nuisance with the end goal of forcing a political ceasefire during the upcoming election. The problem was that the Federal army was quite content to sit in Frederick, and so Lee had to induce them out somehow. Gettysburg could have been what Lee was looking for if he had managed to secure the high ground during the first day
Sun Tzu didnt call himself a guru. People call him a guru. The Chinese were more concerned of fighting the communists under Mao. Moreover back in the sino Japan war, there more than just Japan and China. China had a few factions contending for control. Japan is a highly militarized state and has military technology that can defeat most nations, the Brits got beaten good in 41-42 by the Japanese.
Const: Tnx 4 the info on Hen V. Prayed 3 hrs? Was he talking to God or reciting: bla bla bla -- vain repetitions, counting beads, etc. Prayer is talking to God, not rote recitations. There is nothing in what u posted on Hen V that makes me think he was a Christian. The Roman system was not Christianized. Professed Christianity was syncretized with paganism; Mary was exalted to god status, the Roman gods were exchanged for saints, still with statues. I know of Nothing Chr about Constantine
The story about Constantine is that he saw a cross in the sky just before a battle with a rival. He took its message to be that if he accepted Christianity and its values, he would win the battle. He and his men decorated themselves with that very symbol he saw in the sky, and they won the battle. Most likely he might've only converted for military reasons or it may have been an actual conversion of beliefs. Either way, the Roman Empire did sort of become Christianized, though for the most part Constantine just unbanned Christianity from being practiced publicly.
Well you definitely need to read Sun Tzu. It is useful both militarily and business wise. Militarily China did not really incorporate Sun Tzu in WW2. Japan did to some extent. The British did by employing "fake"divisions. The North Vietnamese general Nguyen vo Giap used Sun Tzu in the Tet offensive and it is known to be the most coordinated military campaign ever in history. Sun Tzu tells you the art of deception, incorporating intelligence and understanding environments.
Well Constantine, I haven't read Sun Tzu. Thanks for reminding me about him; I would like to read him some day. But the question still remains to me, that if he was such a great military strategist, why didn't the Chinese conquer the world, but get conquered by colonialists & the Japanese? Perhaps the Chinese didn't read their own guru? (I never said that S T called him self a guru -- I have no idea what he thought of himself, but if he pontificated, he must have believed his own ideas.)
CJ, I thought that the Tet offensive was a military fiasco for the North. The N Viet commies triumphed because of American politics, not military brilliance IMHO. But yes, I would profit from reading Sun Tzu, which I have not done. However, there is more profit from reading God's word. Have you considered that the Assyrians knew how to wage war & could teach the USA a lot? But they blundered when they bad-mouthed YHWH.
In regards to Henry V, it was known he was a pious man. What he prayed, no one knows. But after the miraculous victory at Agincourt in 1415, he ordered his men to sing praises to God with the songs Non Nobis and the Te Deum. Again, history will only tell us that much about famous monarchs but even in history, people like Hildegard von Bingen and St Francis of Assisi were anointed of God and worked with the Holy Spirit in their ministries.
That is a good question: Who was a Christian general. I would think that most of the Southern generals were members of some denomination, culturally professed Christians. I don't think that Bedford Forrest darkened the doors of churches, but he apparently was gloriously saved after the war. I have never thot of Constantine as a Christian; I think he was an anti-christ. He was only baptized when near death, apparently thinking that water baptism wud remove all his sins. I must √ on Henry
No doubt about that. Christians have authority over the spiritual lords that try to inflict war upon earth. However, there isn't many Christian generals and even if they are, do not implement spiritual warfare, hence falling back on human principles and wisdom. A few generals such as Gideon, King David, Emperor Constantine and even King Henry V have been known to be spiritually pious and the battles they won were at odds greater than 4:1.
I see so many comments on here as though this scene is accurate... I assure you it is not.... very little of Pickett's Charge as portrayed in this movie is accurate.... longstreet's plan as portrayed in this movie as it was in 1863... gloomy Pete as he was referred to was a brilliant defensive Commander... he showed his inability to grasp offencive maneuvering as usual on this morning... he would have not known the casualty rates nor would he have even estimated... swinging around and attacking DC was never really much on Robert Edward plans.... after all there was a guard defending DC of around I believe at least two thousand men Heavy Artillery as well entrenchments Washington DC is well-defended.... so yes go make a c John D C Y the army of the Potomac swings around you cut you off from Richmond and destroys you.... the movie does not talk about the left side movement that is supposed to be coordinated with the charge.... Pickett's Charge or longstreet's Folly as it was known is nowhere accurately portrayed in this movie not even close anyway it's a nice movie it's a great book that focuses far too much on the round tops and far too much on a defensive shy defensive argumentative commanding officer this is what Lee is left with Longstreet lets him down anyway the subject is far more complex than I have time to discuss on here good day
One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Lee says that he is going to hit the Yankees in the middle and the next scene has someone telling Chamberlain that his unit is getting a rest in the middle lol.
@blockmasterscott - I feel you. xD
Except that never actually happened. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine were not sent to the center and did not participate in the repulse of Picketts Charge. They were actually sent to the far rear. That part of the movie is one of the few highly inaccurate parts that was put in as pure Hollywood.
Hollywood lies
"but Harrison, I don't believe my boys will reach that wall" :(
Either way it would have made no difference. Their morale was awful high to get as far as they did, and still suffer ghastly casualties. Maybe if they'd broke sooner, less men would have died and been spared to fight in future battles where they would have made a difference.
Oh, but they did. Only they died at that wall,
Can you imagine that? Like actually being a corps commander and KNOWING....KNOWING full well that your boys are going to die. A LOT of them. This is reminiscent of the scene with poor John Bell Hood right before he assaults little round top and speaks with Longstreet furiously. "General, I do this UNDER PROTEST"..... they all go in and lose over 50% casualties. There is GRIT in that as well as god damn tragedy. But you cannot help but admire the DUTY of the General and the men who carry out the order.
The problem was Lee did not listen to his subordinates. He thought only he was right. Other generals actually at least called a war council. Ie Houston, Greene, Marion, etc.
Gettysburg did so many things right. This is just another beautiful example: two men looking death in the face and marching forward regardless because its what must be done.
Longstreet knows this charge is suicide (even if the Confeds win it'll break their army to do it and finish the South)...but he has his orders and must contemplate the inevitable.
On the other hand we have Harrison, an actor turned scout that has proven all throughout the film that beyond his Southern pride he has no real faults as a soldier: he is discreet, tactical, thorough in intelligence gathering and can assess outcomes quite well and stay out of trouble...
...so why does he want to be on the frontline of a charge a blind man could tell will probably be a slaughter? Southern Pride. The Confeds fought here in no small part because of his intelligence gathering. And now thousands of soldiers (and very possibly the cause of the South) will perish where the army chose to fight. So he feels whatever happens, he has no right to run away...he either lives or dies here...God will decide the rest.
Harrison believes every word Longstreet says..which is why he's joining the charge.
SUCH a powerful
This is one of the best analyzations of a scene I have ever read. Really does a great job to sum up what the movie is telling us right here. I’m not just saying that this comment is really dope
i could add when Longstreet was asked to Order the Attack, he never replied. he just shook his head every time and eventually his underlings went forth anyway. This blunder was completely unnecessary, Lee just grew to confident and thought Glorious victory was within reach. Lee always preferred for Glorious field battles, instead Strategic goals, like factories. I Would highly recommend checking out the General George Henry Thomas, who was the complete opposite to this.
This was my favourite part of the movie.
“But that’s Hancock out there and he ain’t gunna run.”
Some of the most interesting aspects of the Civil War are that they fought with each other. Men who sat next to each other at West Point. Some even fought Mexico together in the same units and then were across the battlefield from each other in the Civil War.
"So it's mathematical after all."
@@firingallcylinders2949 Yep, Lee had either fought alongside in Mexico or taught many of the officers on either side, allowing him to have a good idea as to what sort of officer they were.
This scene parallels the earlier scene when Buford is talking to his aide, Devon, on the day before the battle, predicting the disaster to come if Lee's army gets the ridges and the hills before Meade can come up with all his force and then going in to attack fully fortified Confederate positions on the high ground. Here now is Longstreet essentially pronouncing the same prediction to Harrison, all the worse that Longstreet is confronting the imminent reality of ordering a doomed attack, knowing that it will fail and he cannot stop it: must even participate, help it fail.
we will charge valiantly and be butcher valiantly
I often wondered if I was the only person that noted that!
LordZontar actually he was overly cautious. It was a good plan, but it relied on good fortune, which favored the union in the battle
@@crackshack2 it wasn't a good plan as much as it was the best plan available -besides withdrawing-
@@epyon1983 "And afterwards, men in tall hats and gold watch fobs will thump their chests and say what a brave charge it was."
"Up, men, up! And to your posts! And let no one forget today, that you are from Old Virginia!"
that's the style, Lo !!
"General Lee, I have no division."
FREDERICKSBURG! FREDERICKSBURG! FREDERICKSBURG!
Lee should have listened to Longstreet, he was a fool not too.
This was one of the worst calls Lee made.
I'll agree to that, but still, gotta admit that those men who did the charge were brave sons of guns. After all, they DID at least make it to the wall.
yes, graat courage.
Justin Williams reminds me of the charge of the light brigade
They even took the position but couldn't hold it.
True. Also, Jackson would have reminded Lee of Malvern Hill and added his voice to Longstreet in discouraging a direct attack.
Flip side if Lee INSISTED on the attack Jackson would have saluted and been blown to bits leading it
I heard that the price for the south was Lee. Good as a good general, bad as a stubborn aristocrat who would not listen to others opinions.
@@michellekinder3051 Maybe not. Jackson was the bette tatician. He knew a bad situation when he saw it, and he was the one man Lee would actually listen to. It was at Malvern Hill Jackson called off an attack because he knew it would fail, and of course, they both witnessed what happened at Fredericksburg. What made Lee think he could get away with it?
@@totallynotalpharius2283Yes, Jacksom was a loyal soldier and enthusiastic about the glorious charge. He was not known for being cautious or calculating. That was his downfall at Chancellorsville; he pushed his advantage too much heedlessly of the realities and dangers.
Longstreet was and still to this day was a brilliant tactician. He understood that if the confederate army went to the right they could make the union army give up the superior ground and win the battle. Unfortunately Lee and many other generals just could not leave the fight. So Longstreet had to obey the orders of his commanding general.
Or the left. Longstreet made preparation for a separate operation on the right, without telling Lee. When he did eventually tell him it was not only too late, but also stuffed up Lee's plan to move Longstreet to the Left.
Or withdraw anywhere to superior ground. The northern politicians would be all over Meade to pursue Lee him being on northern soil.
There something about a man knowing he's about to make a huge mistake and yet can't find a way out of doing it. Reminds me of Yamamoto planning his attack on Pearl Harbor.
Longstreet had defended the Marye Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg the previous December, and inflicted the majority of casualties upon the Union troops. Union forces suffered 12,000 casualties to just 4000 Confederates. He knew first hand the futility of Lee's decision.
Interesting point. Harrison could not tell Longstreet that the Union line was too strong. Longstreet could not give the order to attack.
After the war Harrison took his family to Mexico....then vanished and declared dead.
In 1915 he is found to be alive and living in Cincinnati..
Harrison: "Sir, with your permission, I'll get myself that musket, sir."
Viggo: "Did he hear a fucking word I said?"
This scene is heart breaking for a ton of reasons. Obviously, a big reason is the fact that one of the bloodiest events in American history is moments away from taking place. Yet what is heartbreaking on a "person to person" level is the fact that Harrison clearly is misreading Longstreet's sullen and brooding demeanor as contempt/anger towards him - yet we all know that Longstreet's moroseness stems from the fact that he knows a disaster is about to take place while deeply knowing that he can do nothing to stop it. The thought of putting any person in the attack who does not have to be there (such as Harrison) is something that emotionally/mentally hurts Longstreet even more.
Hard to say.
I always felt that Longstreet was trying to persuade Harrison not to go.
In this scene I think Longstreet feels Harrison did earn the stripes, genuinely liked him and didn't want to see Harrison killed.
Can't imagine what went through anybody's mind then. So much death in minutes.
Longstreet knew the outcome three days earlier. He did follow orders and his suspicions came true.
Lee lost 28,000 men mas o menos. If the charge had WORKED, he wouldn't have lost fewer. I think his army would have been too exhausted to exploit the penetration.
This movie makes me sick, not because of any poor production quality, but the idea of Americans killing Americans hurts me
Worse still, Americans enslaving Americans. Then selling their children for profit. One camp here had entirely abandoned the quintessential principles of the. Constitution and merited liquidation. I find this refreshing, that some were willing to fight for those principles (amongst other things).
@@i.m.9918 You're right. Besides how we treated Native Americans, slavery is the most disgusting abuse in United States history. I will disagree with you on a certain point. I believe most Americans who served was to preserve the Union, not free the slaves.
I have studied gen longstreet for years and he was a superior gen to lee and he should have been in command of the entire confederate army.
You studied Longstreet for years and concluded he should been in charge of the ENTIRE confederate army??? That was Gen. Coopers job for most of the War, and Lee's job late in the war... Davis acted is his own secretary of war. Civilian leadership of the Army is a longstanding tradition in the US, a tradition the Union Army never relinquished, and the Confederate Army should never have either. Longstreet was a great Lieutenant General and Corp Commander, but that was the extent of his ability. He preformed well because of Lee's generalship, not in spite of it. His ability to command and control divisions and tactical offensive assaults were unmatched during the War, but he reached the limits of his ability as a Corp Commander. He received independent command in November 1863 for his Knoxville campaign which was not successful (4 months after Gettysburg) in which he quarreled with his subordinates (even placed McLaws under arrest), launched unimaginative and costly frontal assaults of the Union Army and limped his wrecked command back to Braggs army. He plotted against Bragg in the western theater, and recommended Johnston for command (who Davis LOATHED, and who didn't preform well at all). Longstreet had his chance at independent command and did not perform well. His return to Lee's Army in 1864 was a welcome return to his rightful position, though short lived. Longstreet's job as Lee's chief Lieutentant was to advise the Commanding General, which he did... it was also to carry out the Generals orders, which he did. That is where he flourished, and that is where he belonged.
Agree to both agree and disagree.
There were dozens and dozens of engagements were Lee was absent and his lieutenant generals had to carry the day. Dozens more where (just like in Gettysburg!) Lee didn't arrive on the field until the second day and hence had to rely on division and corps commanders to envision the best ground to take hold of at the offset of conflict. We see this on the union side with brigadier John Buford and his cavalry division, holding their own against veteran confederate infantry with more numbers and far superior firepower. But Buford knew what was at stake and had his brigades give it their all in order to ensure that the confederates didn't reach the heights and fortify. Were that to happen (the battle positions reversed) it would be the union trying to take Roundtop on the second day and Meade would've been forced to attack and likely defeated...
That was the strategy that Longstreet was advocating for and why he pressed Lee so hard to abandon Gettysburg and head south toward Washington until they found ground of their choosing that would let them fight defensively - as was the South's strategy throughout the war.
When you look at the technology during the Civil War (primarily more accurate muskets with longer ranges and more accurate cannon but also the advent of repeater rifles - like what Buford's outnumbered cavalry used on day one to hold off the Confederates until Reynolds arrived!) the military tactics the generals were using were so outdated that really the only way to fight without great loss was via trench warfare - which is what happened at the tail end of the civil war and was continued to be used throughout the world until WW2 came along and Germany stormed Europe with the use of armor and mobile infantry (blitzkrieg).
My point is that at this time with muskets that had ranges of two to three football fields and deadly accurate artillery, the best tactic a soldier could do is find good ground, find a tree or wall to hide behind, and let the enemy come to them. Fredericksburg is the most glaringly obvious example of this tactic and it's what Longstreet referenced on the third day when he advised Lee not to charge, that no 15,000 men ever made could take that ridge - at least not against Hancock's men (veterans of Fredericksburg themselves which is why they chanted that battle after Pickett's charge).
The only time when the Confederates won an offensive battle was Chansellorville and even then it was very risky. If the union was more aggressive they would've realized how shorthanded Lee was and easily could've won the day. But Jackson's gambit paid off and is still heralded as the Confederacy's greatest victory.
Which brings us back to Gettysburg and the mentality seen throughout the film, that Lee thought his army was invincible. Yes retreating may have hurt morale but that would be a temporary thing because the next engagement would leave the Confederates the definitive victor. As for not having enough supplies?
I forget how much supplies did Sherman receive when he marched to Atlanta? Hubris and shortsightedness, that's what led to the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg.
@@eNosArmory great points. Some generals were meant to command brigades but not divisions but not corps. Corps but not armies. Looked how hood performed.
After that speech I would have said: "thank you sir, I'll just slink away to the rear. Thank you again sir". This was uncompromising truth in advertising.
That said, recruiting volunteers would not have been Longstreet's strong suit.
Longstreet was told by Lee not to go too far in front as too many generals did. Longstreet said can't lead from behind and later on he got badly wounded
The Lost Cause myth in film.
I still believe longstreet should've been commander & chief of the South!
Lee was a little too aggressive, but Longstreet was also a little too conservative, too cautious.
@Darthbelal
Probably so. But Lee was deploying his forces without sufficient knowledge. He was taking a huge risk and he did it all throughout the battle. Sun Tzu's maxim in war is to know yourself and your enemy more than he does. A commander that does not have sufficient information is bound to lose.
Lee was not himself during this battle as he hastily committed to an offensive strategy when there are some more viable tactical options available.
Really wish Longstreet was in Last Full Measure reading it now and it's just not the same without him.
Such an under rated movie
GOD BLESS MY AWESOME FRIEND MOCTESUMA ESPARZA. I AM VERY PROUD OF YOU AND VERY HAPPY FOR YOU MR. ESPARZA. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.
Wonderful scene I'm a wonderful movie.
One thing that's one of the most important in a war is morale, and I have no doubts that Longstreet's defeatist attitude here- as realistic and mathematical as it was- would've destroyed morale for a fair majority of them.
Then again, Armistead did say that the men knew that "for many of them, this will be their last charge" so Longstreet's words actually might've done little damage if the troops overheard.
They make it like Harrison is his first name but it's Thomas Harisson
Harrison was a good man, and survived the charge.
I am pretty sure thousands of good men did not survive the charge.
From what I read by Longstreet, he didn't seem to think much of either Lee or Jackson.
@ConstantineJoseph Yup. This was the complete opposite of what Jackson did at Chancellorsville- get the high ground, make them come to you, and then hit them with a stronger counterpunch. Had Jackson survived the South probably would have won the battle of Gettysburg, and possibly even the war.
@ConstantineJoseph It has been speculated that had Jackson been alive and at Gettysburg, he WOULD have taken Gettysburg and swept up and over, it was either Culp's Hill or Cemetery Ridge, which would've made the Union position at Gettysburg untenable.
Does anyone know any info on whether Harrison actually participated in the attack? The movie says he did but I can't find references elsewhere.
He did participate and he survived.
Ok.... As I stated that's what the movie says.That tells me nothing without a source
@@refugeeca So I tried to help you as best as I can. I cannot find any direct wording that states he fought in Gettysburg. However he does state on wikipedia that he was assigned to the 12th Mississippi Infantry which that unit did fight at Gettysburg. So with him being a spy but also directly attached to a military unit, something spies are usually not, would hint that he may of fought at this battle. But it's not verified.
@@Seriona1 Thanks! I was probably drunk as heck when I asked this. There was a Gettysburg Ranger who did a program on Harrison. ua-cam.com/video/ErJ-8jR2lJ0/v-deo.html I believe there was another who did one. Apparently the real Harrison did a little acting but also skipped on his family and fled out West only resurfacing 20 or 30 years later.
@@refugeeca He went to Mexico & was latter declared legally dead. He was found in Cincinnati in 1915.
There is almost a tendency to treat Harrison as a bit of a clown, but he was shrewd, intelligent, and very brave.
Ace, it is interesting to speculate. My speculation is that the whole invasion of the north was a bad error. You get the north's dander up by invading the north, like the south got its dander up from the north invading the south. I think that had Lee "won" at Gettysburg (whatever that means), the north would have gone into panic & done a general overpowering mobilization. Tar Baby strategy was better; make the Union fight in the South.
Yes in some sense it was a defeat for the North Vietnamese. But the effect was a psychological blow to America and the aura of invincibility was shattered through that surprise attack campaign. Indeed Sun Tzu is not a must read and I would dedicate my attention to God's Word being a Christian myself.
However there is no perfect general in history and many a times fortune favors those who prepare themselves sufficiently over those that are over confident or ill prepared.
Haven't I earned it? YOU DoN'T WANT THIS.
Harrison somehow survived the attack
If Jackson had been alive at Gettysburg, he WOULD have NOT made any attempt at Culp's Hill, as the approach has the eerie similarity to Malvern Hill. Jackson actually stopped Trimble from attacking then and he would have done so again. And Trimble would not have gotten off as lightly with jackson as he did with Ewell. Jackson was brilliant, and he would have seen that Culp's Hill, like Malvern Hill, should not be taken.
Today might be the last day
- November 3rd 2020
Oh what could have been, if only all embraced the idea of America
If Sun Tzu was such a guru, how come the Chinese who followed him didn't conquer the world, but were defeated by little Japan?
I believe Harrison survived the Civil War then vanished from history!
Lee after losing his best general Stonewall Jackson, had lost his footing. Should Jackson still be around for Gettysburg, Longstreet and Stonewall would have both objected to Lee plan to charge the Union centre.
Jackson in the previous campaigns relied on good defensive positions on high grounds and was liberal with his counter attacks that drove back the Yanks.
Apart from strong defense, Jackson also believed in mobility and flanking attacks relying on the element of surprise.
To be fair Jackson was a buffoon in the 7 days campaign. He wasn't all that he was cracked up to be. Pop culture has enshrined him but he wouldn't have changed the outcome of this battle.
I felt sorry for Gen LongStreet he knew in his heart that picketers charge would fail.
Henry V was a violent man, but he is a believer who actually prays 3 hours a day in an abbey, this is what I know from my readings. In the battle of Agincourt he ordered his men to seek God before the battle.
As for Constantine, no one will truly know his motives. Again, he's very manipulative using religion to strengthen his authority and was pagan at the root. However, the radical Christianizing of the Roman system, albeit with pagan tradition is observed, owing to lack of bible knowledge
What would have happened if they want to the left straight to Washington instead of Gettysburg? We'll never know.
Probably would've been starved to death. The initial aim of the campaign was to take Frederick and sit outside Washington and be a nuisance with the end goal of forcing a political ceasefire during the upcoming election.
The problem was that the Federal army was quite content to sit in Frederick, and so Lee had to induce them out somehow. Gettysburg could have been what Lee was looking for if he had managed to secure the high ground during the first day
Sun Tzu didnt call himself a guru. People call him a guru.
The Chinese were more concerned of fighting the communists under Mao. Moreover back in the sino Japan war, there more than just Japan and China. China had a few factions contending for control.
Japan is a highly militarized state and has military technology that can defeat most nations, the Brits got beaten good in 41-42 by the Japanese.
Const: Tnx 4 the info on Hen V. Prayed 3 hrs? Was he talking to God or reciting: bla bla bla -- vain repetitions, counting beads, etc. Prayer is talking to God, not rote recitations. There is nothing in what u posted on Hen V that makes me think he was a Christian.
The Roman system was not Christianized. Professed Christianity was syncretized with paganism; Mary was exalted to god status, the Roman gods were exchanged for saints, still with statues. I know of Nothing Chr about Constantine
The story about Constantine is that he saw a cross in the sky just before a battle with a rival. He took its message to be that if he accepted Christianity and its values, he would win the battle. He and his men decorated themselves with that very symbol he saw in the sky, and they won the battle. Most likely he might've only converted for military reasons or it may have been an actual conversion of beliefs. Either way, the Roman Empire did sort of become Christianized, though for the most part Constantine just unbanned Christianity from being practiced publicly.
Well you definitely need to read Sun Tzu. It is useful both militarily and business wise. Militarily China did not really incorporate Sun Tzu in WW2. Japan did to some extent. The British did by employing "fake"divisions.
The North Vietnamese general Nguyen vo Giap used Sun Tzu in the Tet offensive and it is known to be the most coordinated military campaign ever in history. Sun Tzu tells you the art of deception, incorporating intelligence and understanding environments.
So knowing all that and send them anyways!!! Nice! The distruction of the south in just one afternoon!!
John Toreterella speaking about playing the Penguins.
Well Constantine, I haven't read Sun Tzu. Thanks for reminding me about him; I would like to read him some day. But the question still remains to me, that if he was such a great military strategist, why didn't the Chinese conquer the world, but get conquered by colonialists & the Japanese? Perhaps the Chinese didn't read their own guru? (I never said that S T called him self a guru -- I have no idea what he thought of himself, but if he pontificated, he must have believed his own ideas.)
:(
CJ, I thought that the Tet offensive was a military fiasco for the North. The N Viet commies triumphed because of American politics, not military brilliance IMHO.
But yes, I would profit from reading Sun Tzu, which I have not done. However, there is more profit from reading God's word. Have you considered that the Assyrians knew how to wage war & could teach the USA a lot? But they blundered when they bad-mouthed YHWH.
In regards to Henry V, it was known he was a pious man. What he prayed, no one knows. But after the miraculous victory at Agincourt in 1415, he ordered his men to sing praises to God with the songs Non Nobis and the Te Deum.
Again, history will only tell us that much about famous monarchs but even in history, people like Hildegard von Bingen and St Francis of Assisi were anointed of God and worked with the Holy Spirit in their ministries.
Pickrtts charge
That is a good question: Who was a Christian general. I would think that most of the Southern generals were members of some denomination, culturally professed Christians. I don't think that Bedford Forrest darkened the doors of churches, but he apparently was gloriously saved after the war.
I have never thot of Constantine as a Christian; I think he was an anti-christ. He was only baptized when near death, apparently thinking that water baptism wud remove all his sins. I must √ on Henry
No doubt about that. Christians have authority over the spiritual lords that try to inflict war upon earth.
However, there isn't many Christian generals and even if they are, do not implement spiritual warfare, hence falling back on human principles and wisdom.
A few generals such as Gideon, King David, Emperor Constantine and even King Henry V have been known to be spiritually pious and the battles they won were at odds greater than 4:1.
I see so many comments on here as though this scene is accurate... I assure you it is not.... very little of Pickett's Charge as portrayed in this movie is accurate.... longstreet's plan as portrayed in this movie as it was in 1863... gloomy Pete as he was referred to was a brilliant defensive Commander... he showed his inability to grasp offencive maneuvering as usual on this morning... he would have not known the casualty rates nor would he have even estimated... swinging around and attacking DC was never really much on Robert Edward plans.... after all there was a guard defending DC of around I believe at least two thousand men Heavy Artillery as well entrenchments Washington DC is well-defended.... so yes go make a c John D C Y the army of the Potomac swings around you cut you off from Richmond and destroys you.... the movie does not talk about the left side movement that is supposed to be coordinated with the charge.... Pickett's Charge or longstreet's Folly as it was known is nowhere accurately portrayed in this movie not even close anyway it's a nice movie it's a great book that focuses far too much on the round tops and far too much on a defensive shy defensive argumentative commanding officer this is what Lee is left with Longstreet lets him down anyway the subject is far more complex than I have time to discuss on here good day