First of all, I am infatuated with the civil war; this guy is fantastic and as I read a moment ago from another comment, he knows how to tell a story. I already knew the economic factors and lack of materials and men that plagued the South. Steve Knott really explained in great detail what happened in Gettysburg; I would absolutely love to sit down and talk to this guy, and could listen to him every day and never tire.GREAT JOB STEVE!! I hope they pay you fantastic money there, it is well deserved.
This is still my favorite lecture ever. I found it in high school, and im nearly 28. Ive always wanted to meet this guy. My friends call me the most diplomatic confederate they've ever met. We moved north, and I've done well keeping this energy on the topic in debate without turning on my heritage nor hiding it. Thank you, sir.
Those little details - the inter-personal relationships and jealousies - although insignificant footnotes, they played a BIG role in the outcome of one of the most important battles of the war. I love the details!!! I often wonder about this in the ranks of the Wehrmacht in WWII how many battles went awry because of similar circumstances.
Thank you Mr. Knott, this is as complete and understandable an explanation of the whole of this battle that is not covered in any literature or media sources I have seen. I am more informed about this topic than before.
Wow, this is, by far, the greatest explanation of the Gettysburg campaign I've ever seen/heard (even after having read multiple books on the subject). The presentation fills in many of the gaps in my knowledge, especially about Lee's strategic mindset at the time. Brilliant stuff! Thank you Mr Knott!
I really love this lecture. I'd like to hear more from Capt Steven W Knott, but I can only find lectures by Dr Steven F Knott, a different historian. Anyone know where I can find more?
I have heard several lectures on the Gettysburg Campaign. This is the best and most pragmatic assessment of the events leading up to the Battle of Gettysburg I have heard. Very insightful, I wish I could heard the full presentation. As a student of history, This man knows what he is talking about.
*HEADS UP CIVIL WAR HISTORIANS!* As of this notification, see what *WIKIPEDIA* has posted as a Confederate Flag!!! It's an SJW nightmare, and you have reason to hound them, big-time! For those of us who hold the lives and the reasons the war was fought as sacred or worthy of respect, this is proof that WIKIPEDIA is a biased, unreliable, history-bending pile of shit. *Rally, men and sisters of the cause!* A wrong needs righting!!!
@Andrew Layton The kind of person that calls experts " clueless dweebs " is generally sufferng from the Dunning-kruger effect wherein those who have less knowledge of a subject tend to have the loudest and more arrogant opinions regarding the topic.
He called Lee personally a terrorist and said Lee set the war strategy for the south, same as modern day terrorists? Why would you smooch this guy? He smooched you with that southern accent line and sorry, I hear no southern accent; What an easy crowd most of you are to smooch that guy -- ua-cam.com/video/VCQYwxIcxiI/v-deo.html
I knew a guy whos name was JB Stuart. On his driver's license application he wrote his name as "J" only "B" only Stuart but when he got his license it said Jonly Bonly Stuart.
Custer & additional Union Cav units prevented Confederate Cav units to assist Pickett's Charge thus preventing the Confederates from winning at Gettysburg
Given some of the silliness that was going on in some of the units I was in during the final years of the Cold War, I am profoundly thankful that we didn't go to war with that leadership roster. A fascinating presentation.
Just so. The camera followed Capt. Knott (USN) so carefully keeping centered on him while ignoring what Knott was trying to show on the map. It's like the cameraman was told "follow the speaker no matter what," to which he dutifully obeyed -- with his actions completely devoid of judgment and personal initiative.
*HEADS UP CIVIL WAR HISTORIANS!* As of this notification, see what *WIKIPEDIA* has posted as a Confederate Flag!!! It's an SJW nightmare, and you have reason to hound them, big-time! For those of us who hold the lives and the reasons the war was fought as sacred or worthy of respect, this is proof that WIKIPEDIA is a biased, unreliable, history-bending pile of shit. *Rally, men and sisters of the cause!* A wrong needs righting!!!
Don W, of course it is generally known that Wikipedia is just a do-it-yourself encyclopaedia. It is representative only of the last wise and learned expert -- or obnoxious & ignorant buffoon, to touch it. Wikipedia articles are sometimes superb. Sometimes they are just a pile of worthless detritus.
The guy with the camera is excellent at keeping the camera on his smiling face. But is extremely terrible showing us what he's talking about on the big screen.
As an experienced camera person I noticed this right away. An expert single-camera shooter in this situation would show the viewer what the speaker was talking about once it became clear the viewer would want to see it for himself... perhaps even keeping the speaker in the frame, but not necessarily if close-ups were needed. There's a chance the camera person expected the maps and drawings would be edited in later to show what he failed to show. Otherwise push in to show the maps, pull back when you had a good look and could understand what was being spoken about. It takes awhile to develop the instinct of what to do when you're running a one-camera setup.
What a fantastic presentation! I have been a civil war buff my entire life and did not understand the real reason for Stuart's actions in this campaign. I want to hear this guy speak more!
Who he left with Lee was irrelevant since he thought Mosby, Stringfellow or Conrad was available to contact the spies in Union HQ, This information had been vital in all previous campaigns. Lee needed Stuart in his role as espionage Chief, not cavalryman. If you miss that, you miss everything.
"Who he left with Lee is irrelevant"...That is a ridiculous statement. Assigning 2 corp of inexperienced cavalry on an invasion of enemy territory and leaving your experienced corps behind to guard supplies is simply bad strategy no matter who you are. "He thought..." That's sloppy planning on Stuart's part (assuming your point is correct)) to let his plan depend on "He thought..."
Stephen Troup they were not inexperienced at all, they were very battle hardened veterans, just militia, border guards like Mosby and Niel, you are the inexperienced one, read a few books on CSA Cav. before playing in the big league.
As a U.S. military officer he was 100% correct about officer putting their rivarly above the greater good. Hell, I've done it myself without even noticing it but that's how people are and officers are no different.
ive listenned to this 3 or 4 times.. this gentleman is brilliant.. not all his conclusions are correct..but he knows his business.. hes about 95% correct here on lee and 100% correct on human nature
Fantastic. Thank you. I've armchair studied the American Civil War my entire life and have never gotten the answer to "why" Lee continually attacked an above-average defensive position and didn't alter his plan (particularly on Day 3). I could never understand WHY he ignored Longstreet and all these battle-hardened vetarans that knew what they were doing and were very capable of reading a battlefield.
I stand corrected. It was Buford and his Union cavalry that was first arriving at Gettysburg. Yes, they had repeating rifles. And Longstreet's infantry had a hard march on the way to the battlefield and his forces were probably exhausted from the march. So it was Buford's forces that were holding back the Confederate forces at Gettysburg on the first day of the battle.
That Buford was able to go toe-to-toe with an infantry brigade long enough for Reynold’s to come up was something that would have been unthinkable a year earlier. The Union cavalry had good weapons but obviously they were now the equal to Confederate cavalry.
Buford’s troopers did not have repeaters. They had a variety of single shot breech loaders which gave them an advantage, but not as big an advantage as the repeaters would have. Only a couple companies of Custer’s Wolverines carried repeaters at the time - perhaps some units of Berdan’s sharpshooters.
Both responses are correct. Actually Buford fought a marvelous delaying action as Judy says, lasted long enough to allow Reynold's to bring up his two leading brigades, those of Cutler and Meredith (the fabulous Iron Brigade) which were reinforced during the rest of the morning and early afternoon by the remainder of the 1st Corp and the 11th Corp. Hooker's reorganization of the Union cavalry turned it into the elite organization that stood toe-to-toe against Heth's division and Stuart and later to dominate the worn-out Confederate cavalry.
The breech loading Sharps carbines gave the Federal troopers superior fire power and their mobility allowed them to defend the NWest and Northern approaches to the town. If Reynolds had taken longer to arrive, Buford would have exhausted his ammo and have to pull back.
Having watched a documentary about the war between Prussia and Austria in 1866, I can tell you that the major advantage of a breechloading rifle is that you can remain in cover or very close to the ground. A musketman can only reload with efficiency if he remains standing up, easily targeted and hit by the opposing infantry.
I just blundered into this presentation. Magnificent! An animated, enthusiastic, and well-written class. This presentation needs to be seen by every high school student studying (If they still are studying American History) the American Civil War. I do agree with Blaze Callahan. Would have been nice to see the map. Thank you for posting.
Tremendous lecture. The opening on Lee's war aims helps explain why he was so headstrong about giving battle at Gettyburg instead of threatening Washington as Longstreet recommended. Similarly why he committed to Pickett's attack - all due to his obsession with obliterating the Army of the Potomac. This presentation is a nice adjunct to Chernow's excellent new biography on Grant. Well done, Mr Knott.
Steve would have the same passion for this subject on a street corner or anywhere that you spoke with him. This is the right person for The War College.
@Phillip Hiller The South had only one chance to win the war and that was to exhaust the North, which, as this presentation notes, was possible, however, they had very little margin for error. The personality issues in the Western Confederate armies were even worse. The Confederate generals hated each other and, most of all, hated Braxton Bragg, the commander of the Army of the Tennessee. That Army's disarray did much to ensure defeat in the West for the Confederacy. That along with Grant's brilliant Vicksburg Campaign, of course.
Awesome video and starts off good right away. The way he is presenting information makes the history interesting and puts things into context. I remember when the History Channel used to be like that. This presentation would make a great program there!
I looked all over the USAWC and couldn't find the "esteemed Dr Sommers" follow up to this lecture.Edit 11/25/24 Dr Richard Sommers passed away in May 2019. This is the third time I've watched this video. Dr Sommers videos are still on UA-cam.
Amazing talk and energy Mr. Knott!!!! The only tragedy here is that I can't find the part of the talk by Dr. Sommers. :( And there isn't enough of you on UA-cam either Mr. Knott.
I do like the way he talks about the war, as he keeps it interesting and engaging; however, I would like to see the camera focus on the projector screen when he uses his laser pointer on points on the screen. I can't see what he's pointing at when he uses his pointer.
The panning is really hard on me, I'm not sure I can hang with this, I am getting somewhat seasick. I wonder why they could not put the camera wide so he could just walk back and forth and let the eyes do the work, less strain.
Went to school on this one. Very informative. Would never read in the history books that Jeb had interpersonal relationship deficits that cost the south the war!
Credit to Joseph Hooker for the reforms he made while in command. The most important one was he took cavalry that was attached to various regiments, and consolidated them into their own force. Yankee cavalry was starting to feel it's strength by the time of Gettysburg. Hooker was also responsible for the positioning of the various pieces of the Army of the Potomac that he screened Lee with and they were positioned superbly. They were able to keep an eye on Lee and concentrate fairly quickly when contact was made. All the pieces were in place when Meade took over.
Hitler tried to divide the allies in the same manner with the battle of the bulge. Hitler knew that Germany could not win the war. He knew the allies were tired of war, and that Americans and English generals were not getting along. Hitler felt if he could capture Antwarp, cut off the allies supplies, they would seek a peace agreement .
Never under-estimate an individual's capacity to be self-delusional when they are set on collision course of catastrophic failure. We evolved in a way that causes us to rather than accept out inevitable defeat & powerlessness to survive, we evolved mental blinders to delude ourselves into persevering and fight on if there is nothing else we can do but wait for our inevitable (but not yet imminent) downfall. Hitler thought there was a real chance in Hell until Zhukov's army literally started knocking on his front door. Only then did the total reality of the situation become realized/clear; He accepted his fate just before turning to the barrel of his gun. Our brains didn't evolve to treat maps, forecasts, force projection calculations like we perceive what is around us. Only his brain couldn't somersault around basic sensory perception, that's when reality hit. That's when he shot himself.
Todd Sauve- I'm sorry you don't see any survival mechanism in there that could explain why one would be more likely to survive in dire times while others without such a trait would presume inevitable death and give up trying anything to survive altogether. As an analogy: like seeing the mirage that leads you out of the desert, the water wasn't real but it got you out of the desert anyway. Your genes are coded to see the mirage. Could there have ever been a time when that trait was selected as the determinant for survival?
I don't believe in evolution. Your explanation would make sense if seen through normal psychological analysis. Yes, I agree that Hitler probably used his beliefs--delusional as they were--as a survival mechanism. :)
".... Hitler felt if he could capture Antwarp, cut off the allies supplies, they would seek a peace agreement ." Actually, had the war been delayed long enough, the US would have dropped the Atomic Bombs on Germany. That was the original intention for their creation.
William Hopper You are right, William. There is relatively inexpensive software that allows you to split the screen so you can see the speaker in one box and the slides in another and package it into UA-cam format. That is one of my pet peeves with taped lectures. I don't really care to see the speaker. I want to see the visuals to which they are referring.
I thoroughly enjoyed this tutorial, the lecturer was very enthuasiatic, excellent eye contact with his audiece and possess excellent volume of speech and he thorough knows his stuff, but just a small note is that the camera should have been directed at the overhead project or the presentation. Part from that, its an extremely interesting lecture :)
Excellent talk...please have camera pan to maps the next time. Perhaps a college student might edit video to add maps and markers to your audio. Will look for more of your CW talks. Thanks
The contradiction of "They weren't after shoes.", and Stuart slowed his column with a captured mule trail of wagons, is troubling. They were after supplies. They were attempting to capture whatever materials of war and provisions whenever and wherever possible. Secondly, the "second largest city of the Confederacy" was marching, and marching a couple hundred miles on dirt and thru water and mud ruins shoes. So, yes, one of the reasons they chose Gettysburg was because of a chance to seize supplies there and one of the chief supplies of the city at that time, was shoes. The cargo of the mule train isn't mentioned, but it was significant enough that a senior commander slowed his march to keep it, and deliver it to the Confederate Army. The interpersonal relationships angle of the lecture is well done and valid. That has been well documented in the Union army, how favoritism adversely affected the progress of the war for the North.
There were no shoes at Gettysburg. That story was a complete fabrication of the journalists following the battle who did not understand Lee’s strategy or orders. The mule pulled wagons was absolutely a problem - Lee reprimanded Stuart over the issue.
The arrest of Valladigham was not ordered by "members of the Lincoln Administration"; his arrest was ordered by General Ambrose Burnside. Lincoln told him no more arresting politicians or shutting down newspapers without clearing it with Washington first. Burnside, a good man, sometimes exercised poor strategic judgment. Fredericksburg comes to mind.
Your have a verifiable documents of this bit of history? It is hard to believe that a military officer would take upon himself to violate Constitutional rights of a seating congressmen. See Art. 1 of the Const.
Burnside was only following the example of his commander-in-chief. Lincoln had many duly elected representatives illegally arrested (many in Maryland, which would have seceded if Lincoln hadn't arrested everyone in the Maryland state legislature whose opinion he disagreed with). Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeus corpus, holding duly elected representatives of the people, who committed no crime, against their will with no charges. Blame it on Burnside but he was just doing what Lincoln had done numerous times.
It's in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, not to mention being documented numerous times in books relating to Burnside, Vallandigham, the Copperheads and other opponents of the war, and in such general histories as McPherson and Foote.
That is unfortunately one of the issues of a many tiered government. Both the truth, which is the first casualty of a conflict [war] and the law . Which is circumvented or diluted. Both by time and the levels of government and society. But if the rules of the constitution are upheld and followed. Those issues would not occur [maybe]. Then we look back from our arm chairs and point fingers at the mistakes. That past people knew about and did little . And those that just occurred because of not following the rules. Both in government and on the field. Anger is not a luxury any person can afford; And in this circumstance, a clear mind is both an illusion and a delusion .
If we believe Heth's after-battle report then the shoes story is not a "myth". One the morning of June 30 Heth sent Johnston Pettigrew's brigade to Gettysburg to find supplies. As per his report: "On the morning of June 30, I ordered Brigadier-General Pettigrew to take his brigade to Gettysburg, search the town for army supplies (shoes especially), and return the same day."
@@bdrrogers No one says Lee concentrated his army at Gettysburg "to get shoes." The fact is that on June 30, Heth's division was the farthest east at Cashtown and there was supposed to be ample supplies at Gettysburg, shoes being the most in demand as many a Reb were barefoot. (Due to lack of communication however, even if they got into the town they'd have found that Earley's men had already been through there and picked through most of the town's bounty). Heth ordered one brigade under Johnston Pettigrew -- hardly a 'strategic convergence' -- to march eight miles to Gettysburg to secure the rumored supplies. They were under orders to avoid contact with the enemy as the army wasn't concentrated yet. When they encountered Buford's cavalry three miles west of town Pettigrew dutifully withdrew back to Cashtown. For whatever reason it seems that Heth and III Corps commander AP Hill were either unaware of or didn't believe Harrison's report because they both doubted that Pettigrew encountered anything but militia. Still, on the morning of July 1, Hill, perhaps having second thoughts, ordered not one brigade but two of his three divisions plus the bulk of his corps artillery to advance on Gettysburg. By this time the shoes were an afterthought. No historian says Hill sent 2/3 of his corps down the Chambersburg Pike just to get shoes. Historians love to be contrarians and debunk myths, even incorrectly in this case, as it makes them feel both different and more learned and 'in the know.' It's a common trait among those combing through already picked clean subjects like Gettysburg, perhaps the most analyzed campaign in US military history.
I knew J.E.B. messed up, but didn't know the details. Great lecture. In truth, Lee should have known to take cavalry he trusted. Why take cavalry you were not going to use?
posession of the intiative- combined with a third (the fact that Lee was living off the land and could not remain more than 4-5 days in any one location) to induce Lee to order what came to be known as Pickett's Charge.
The means disparity is one of the more often cited facts and is universally used to demonstrate the toughness of the South. But it fails to capture one important aspect of Civil War warfare: napoleonic deployment and tactics of troops HEAVILY favors defenders and neutralizes the gains typically enjoyed by the resource rich side. In these terms, the South enjoyed enormous advantages over the North, an advantage not present at Gettysburg which (surprise) the South lost.
The actual purpose of the campaign- as carried out- was to supply Lee's army. Longstreet;s statement that the campaign was to be one of defensive tactics is borne out by Lee, and the primary mistake during the campaign was made by Lee, who so underestimated his opponent ("those people") that he believed that the AoNV could move north at will, living off the land, and daring the AotP to attack him. This overconfidence was shared by the army as a whole, but when the battle was brought on by...
...by accident, the "defensive tactics" were disregarded due to the fact that the battle assumed all the characteristics of a meeting engagement with the Confederates having an initial marked superiority. This superiority vanished when the AotP was all in place- but by this point, the Confederates had already assumed the offensive in the conduct of the battle, and Lee apparently concluded that he could not relinquish it. These factors-underestimation of his opponent and...
Excellent lecture. I wish I could have seen this before watching the mini-series "Gettysburg", it would have explained a lot. For instance, why Lee was so insistent on fighting the Union army "here and now".
And I loved the way that movie showed the interaction between Longstreet, Lee and Harrison at the beginning. And the use of re-enactors for the period extras.
This fellow is is an awesome lecturer! He really draws you into the story... and it can be about anything.. Steve Knott weaves the story and basically brings in the real reason why JEB Stuart failed Lee. In the end we know that intelligence is absolutely crucial for the success of an army, and without the Cavalry (back then) as its eyes and ears Lee was blind. Lessons learned, Cavalry must be act as the whiskers of the main force and be in constant communication to the main force.. Stuart failed in this in colossal way by being completely out of touch with Lee for several crucial days. Had the Calvary been deployed more effectively, Gettysburg may not have happened or if it had happened it would have been on Lee's terms. The irony was that it was during this engagement that the Union Cavalry was most effective in their role. Buford's Cavalry provided the Army of the Potomac with advanced intelligence so vitally needed and was able to screen Lee's advanced elements until the main body was able to consolidate the high ground.
In fact, what was missing was Stuart, not cavalry. Lee still had three brigades of cavalry with him, but not an overall leader to use them efficiently. One brigade was sent to the northwest, into the mountains where they did some damage to the railroads, and may have scarfed up enough supplies from scattered farms to support themselves, but contributed nothing to intelligence and did not participate in the battle. What a brigade did could have been done by detaching a regiment. The rest of the cavalry seems to have been used to clear the way to Harrisburg before being recalled. Some of that force could have been better used scouting east of the Mountains. When Early headed toward the Susquehanna, some of that cavalry should have established a screen south of the Maryland border to watch his flank. That would also more likely have allowed an earlier hookup with Stuart. Lee had cavalry. He did not use it properly.
The real reason Stuart failed Lee is because of his ego. The Flora Cook saga, combined with the Battle Of Brandy Station. Where the Union Calvary fought the Confederate Calvary in a pitched day long battle. The Union withdrew but not in headlong flight as it had in the past. Stuart was angered that they dared to challenge his men. As a result, he felt he had to regain his "honor" and humiliate the North again. Thus the ride around the Army of the Potomac.
Interesting presentation. It also may provide insight upon why Pickett's charge was ordered. As I stood at the spot where Pickett began his advance, my dad said "what was he thinking"? To look across that unobstructed field of fire was sobering. I know it was normal to advance upon your enemy in the open. I also know there had been a massive artillery bombardment of the union lines (which unknown to tje confederates had fallen too deep behind union lines). However,if Lee had the mindset that he had to destroy his opponent, not just win a battle, perhaps that led him to order the advance that none of his subordinates agreed with.
Excellent presentation. I love the highlighting of the interpersonal conflicts in the Confederate leadership and the effects it had on the tactics. This is something seen later with the rivalry of Patton and Montgomery in WW2. I would really like to see a production of Steve Knott in a more detailed analysis of the battle as narrator in a more graphics intensive video.
Can you say Arnhem or a Bridge to Far. It was a direct result of Monty's need to outshine Patton. So unlike his other battles. Monty was excellent but not usually daring. Lots of courage in the battles but lives could have been spent elsewhere for greater advantage
So ... can any give a reason why the Confederates failed to command Cemetery Ridge at the end of July 1? Or maybe perhaps kindly direct me to a video dealing with this?
ewell failed to press the advantage that was gained when jubal early's division crushed the flank of the union army on the 1st late in the afternoon-in the movie gettysburg it is mentioned when lee talks to trimble
Ese es el echo que marco la batalla ni lee ni Stuart ni nada más si se hubiera tomado esa colina lee hubiese dominado las alturas y en otra posición que la que tuvo en la batalla,el fallo fue no tomar la colina y sabemos el nombre del incapaz que hizo que se perdiera esa batalla,además ya puestos en las alturas no habría necesidad de atacar y lee no hubiese atacado y los federales no hubieran atacado no hubiera habido batalla en getty,después quizás en otro lugar pero allí no y dejémonos de historias irrelevantes ese es el echo de la batalla que se produjo y se obvia por completo hubiese dado tiempo a concentrar a esperar a Stuart o preparar el siguiente movimiento un saludo y gracias es la única persona que sabe la verdad que fue no tomar esa colina pudiéndolo haberlo echo fácilmente y no busquen peces donde no hay agua.que hubiera pasado si? Que hubiera echo si? Eso no es valido lo que lo es es lo que ocurrió en el lugar y momento esa era la única forma de parar a la unión en ese momento lo demás es historia.saludos dio la clave de la batalla en su respuesta le felicito.
I always wondered why Stuart did not play a bigger role at Gettysburg, the details of the story are amazing! Great Job!
Trump "WOW"
@@atpg5What does your politician of choice have to do with J.E.B. Stuart and Gettysburg?
@@no-barknoonan1335 Trump "Wow just WoW"
@@no-barknoonan1335 you know how those Trump fart sniffers are, they just randomly say shit! 🤣
You have got to admire the passion and enthusiasm with which this wonderful history is told by Steve. Thanks man. Loved it !!!!
This might be the best lecture I've ever seen... this guy not only knows how to tell a story, but you can feel his passion.
I agree completely!
First of all, I am infatuated with the civil war; this guy is fantastic and as I read a moment ago from another comment, he knows how to tell a story. I already knew the economic factors and lack of materials and men that plagued the South. Steve Knott really explained in great detail what happened in Gettysburg; I would absolutely love to sit down and talk to this guy, and could listen to him every day and never tire.GREAT JOB STEVE!! I hope they pay you fantastic money there, it is well deserved.
It's good to see a historian animated and speaking with passion.
This is still my favorite lecture ever. I found it in high school, and im nearly 28. Ive always wanted to meet this guy. My friends call me the most diplomatic confederate they've ever met. We moved north, and I've done well keeping this energy on the topic in debate without turning on my heritage nor hiding it.
Thank you, sir.
The lecturer, Steve Knott, is a very accomplished speaker and historian.
Those little details - the inter-personal relationships and jealousies - although insignificant footnotes, they played a BIG role in the outcome of one of the most important battles of the war. I love the details!!!
I often wonder about this in the ranks of the Wehrmacht in WWII how many battles went awry because of similar circumstances.
@Inquisitor---you can believe big egos helped defeat them---their worship of aryan supremacy, know it all, etc
Thank you Mr. Knott, this is as complete and understandable an explanation of the whole of this battle that is not covered in any literature or media sources I have seen. I am more informed about this topic than before.
I wish I had teachers like this guy- He would have me on the edge of my seat all day
Wow, this is, by far, the greatest explanation of the Gettysburg campaign I've ever seen/heard (even after having read multiple books on the subject). The presentation fills in many of the gaps in my knowledge, especially about Lee's strategic mindset at the time. Brilliant stuff! Thank you Mr Knott!
I really love this lecture. I'd like to hear more from Capt Steven W Knott, but I can only find lectures by Dr Steven F Knott, a different historian. Anyone know where I can find more?
Me, too. I'm a fan.
I’m sorry…. I do Knott
@@jazzjackson9875 Go sit in the corner and think about what you said.
I have heard several lectures on the Gettysburg Campaign. This is the best and most pragmatic assessment of the events leading up to the Battle of Gettysburg I have heard. Very insightful, I wish I could heard the full presentation. As a student of history, This man knows what he is talking about.
David Ramirez he is a clueless dweeb. Has no clue about cavalry mission or method.
*HEADS UP CIVIL WAR HISTORIANS!* As of this notification, see what *WIKIPEDIA* has posted as a Confederate Flag!!! It's an SJW nightmare, and you have reason to hound them, big-time! For those of us who hold the lives and the reasons the war was fought as sacred or worthy of respect, this is proof that WIKIPEDIA is a biased, unreliable, history-bending pile of shit. *Rally, men and sisters of the cause!* A wrong needs righting!!!
Could you explain further?
@Andrew Layton The kind of person that calls experts " clueless dweebs " is generally sufferng from the Dunning-kruger effect wherein those who have less knowledge of a subject tend to have the loudest and more arrogant opinions regarding the topic.
He called Lee personally a terrorist and said Lee set the war strategy for the south, same as modern day terrorists? Why would you smooch this guy? He smooched you with that southern accent line and sorry, I hear no southern accent; What an easy crowd most of you are to smooch that guy
--
ua-cam.com/video/VCQYwxIcxiI/v-deo.html
I knew a guy whos name was JB Stuart. On his driver's license application he wrote his name as "J" only "B" only Stuart but when he got his license it said Jonly Bonly Stuart.
Custer & additional Union Cav units prevented Confederate Cav units to assist Pickett's Charge thus preventing the Confederates from winning at Gettysburg
@John--go Wolverines! Unfortunately this may have been what stoked Custer's ego to try Little Big Horn.
@@sofly7634 well he was trying to run for president and get a big win heading in
Perhaps the best presentation that I have hear in my 75 years on the lead-up to the Battle of Gettysburg. Very informative.
Given some of the silliness that was going on in some of the units I was in during the final years of the Cold War, I am profoundly thankful that we didn't go to war with that leadership roster. A fascinating presentation.
Nice presentation but frustrating to not see the map!
or split
Seeing the maps would help make the lecture clearer for folks who haven't studied this campaign.
Just so. The camera followed Capt. Knott (USN) so carefully keeping centered on him while ignoring what Knott was trying to show on the map. It's like the cameraman was told "follow the speaker no matter what," to which he dutifully obeyed -- with his actions completely devoid of judgment and personal initiative.
*HEADS UP CIVIL WAR HISTORIANS!* As of this notification, see what *WIKIPEDIA* has posted as a Confederate Flag!!! It's an SJW nightmare, and you have reason to hound them, big-time! For those of us who hold the lives and the reasons the war was fought as sacred or worthy of respect, this is proof that WIKIPEDIA is a biased, unreliable, history-bending pile of shit. *Rally, men and sisters of the cause!* A wrong needs righting!!!
Don W, of course it is generally known that Wikipedia is just a do-it-yourself encyclopaedia. It is representative only of the last wise and learned expert -- or obnoxious & ignorant buffoon, to touch it. Wikipedia articles are sometimes superb. Sometimes they are just a pile of worthless detritus.
The guy with the camera is excellent at keeping the camera on his smiling face. But is extremely terrible showing us what he's talking about on the big screen.
As an experienced camera person I noticed this right away. An expert single-camera shooter in this situation would show the viewer what the speaker was talking about once it became clear the viewer would want to see it for himself... perhaps even keeping the speaker in the frame, but not necessarily if close-ups were needed. There's a chance the camera person expected the maps and drawings would be edited in later to show what he failed to show. Otherwise push in to show the maps, pull back when you had a good look and could understand what was being spoken about. It takes awhile to develop the instinct of what to do when you're running a one-camera setup.
What a fantastic presentation! I have been a civil war buff my entire life and did not understand the real reason for Stuart's actions in this campaign. I want to hear this guy speak more!
Stephen Troup but he is wrong about so much i wouldnt waste my time.
Could you waste a little time and tell us what he is wrong about and why?
Who he left with Lee was irrelevant since he thought Mosby, Stringfellow or Conrad was available to contact the spies in Union HQ, This information had been vital in all previous campaigns. Lee needed Stuart in his role as espionage Chief, not cavalryman. If you miss that, you miss everything.
"Who he left with Lee is irrelevant"...That is a ridiculous statement. Assigning 2 corp of inexperienced cavalry on an invasion of enemy territory and leaving your experienced corps behind to guard supplies is simply bad strategy no matter who you are.
"He thought..." That's sloppy planning on Stuart's part (assuming your point is correct)) to let his plan depend on "He thought..."
Stephen Troup they were not inexperienced at all, they were very battle hardened veterans, just militia, border guards like Mosby and Niel, you are the inexperienced one, read a few books on CSA Cav. before playing in the big league.
As a U.S. military officer he was 100% correct about officer putting their rivarly above the greater good. Hell, I've done it myself without even noticing it but that's how people are and officers are no different.
I would like to see the whole presentation.
Excellent lecture! At once educational and highly entertaining. Thank you!
I lived relatively close to the war college in Carlisle for 20+ years, just never had the opportunity to go tour the displays and what not
EXCELLENT presentation! I'd love to hear the full version!
Great presentation, especially in defining the Clausewtizian utility of will and its utmost importance.
Excellent presentation, thank you!
Is there a video that continues this lecture.... from the point that the speaker ends and the next speaker continues the lecture?????????????????????
Great presentation, but I wish the camera operator had shown the slides when he referred to them.....
ive listenned to this 3 or 4 times.. this gentleman is brilliant.. not all his conclusions are correct..but he knows his business.. hes about 95% correct here on lee and 100% correct on human nature
Fantastic. Thank you. I've armchair studied the American Civil War my entire life and have never gotten the answer to "why" Lee continually attacked an above-average defensive position and didn't alter his plan (particularly on Day 3). I could never understand WHY he ignored Longstreet and all these battle-hardened vetarans that knew what they were doing and were very capable of reading a battlefield.
I stand corrected. It was Buford and his Union cavalry that was first arriving at Gettysburg. Yes, they had repeating rifles. And Longstreet's infantry had a hard march on the way to the battlefield and his forces were probably exhausted from the march. So it was Buford's forces that were holding back the Confederate forces at Gettysburg on the first day of the battle.
That Buford was able to go toe-to-toe with an infantry brigade long enough for Reynold’s to come up was something that would have been unthinkable a year earlier. The Union cavalry had good weapons but obviously they were now the equal to Confederate cavalry.
Buford’s troopers did not have repeaters. They had a variety of single shot breech loaders which gave them an advantage, but not as big an advantage as the repeaters would have. Only a couple companies of Custer’s Wolverines carried repeaters at the time - perhaps some units of Berdan’s sharpshooters.
Both responses are correct. Actually Buford fought a marvelous delaying action as Judy says, lasted long enough to allow Reynold's to bring up his two leading brigades, those of Cutler and Meredith (the fabulous Iron Brigade) which were reinforced during the rest of the morning and early afternoon by the remainder of the 1st Corp and the 11th Corp. Hooker's reorganization of the Union cavalry turned it into the elite organization that stood toe-to-toe against Heth's division and Stuart and later to dominate the worn-out Confederate cavalry.
The breech loading Sharps carbines gave the Federal troopers superior fire power and their mobility allowed them to defend the NWest and Northern approaches to the town. If Reynolds had taken longer to arrive, Buford would have exhausted his ammo and have to pull back.
Having watched a documentary about the war between Prussia and Austria in 1866, I can tell you that the major advantage of a breechloading rifle is that you can remain in cover or very close to the ground. A musketman can only reload with efficiency if he remains standing up, easily targeted and hit by the opposing infantry.
Outstanding presentation, thanks for posting!
I just blundered into this presentation. Magnificent! An animated, enthusiastic, and well-written class. This presentation needs to be seen by every high school student studying (If they still are studying American History) the American Civil War. I do agree with Blaze Callahan. Would have been nice to see the map. Thank you for posting.
I know why Jeb Stewart went to Caslisle. There is a great Italian restaurant in the downtown area.
I used to work there. Piazzo.
Jeb didn't like Italian food.
I know I have been there
@@mobilechiefnear the recess rm
Meh, no one goes there anymore-it’s too crowded.
Who was the largest Southern manufacturer? Tredegar? I have fond memories of visiting Tredegar Iron Works.
Tremendous lecture. The opening on Lee's war aims helps explain why he was so headstrong about giving battle at Gettyburg instead of threatening Washington as Longstreet recommended. Similarly why he committed to Pickett's attack - all due to his obsession with obliterating the Army of the Potomac. This presentation is a nice adjunct to Chernow's excellent new biography on Grant. Well done, Mr Knott.
Great video. The battle finally makes sense to me. Thank you.
Steve Knott was one of my favorite teachers in High School! Great teacher, coach, person and friend!
Steve would have the same passion for this subject on a street corner or anywhere that you spoke with him. This is the right person for The War College.
Why does the cameraman fixate on the speaker as he's constantly referring to a map, but not show the map?
yeah whoever graciously recorded this (thank you!) needs a video editor to put in maps and stuff
The cameraman was engaged to the speakers wife before the engagement was called off so he is purposely trying to sabotage the video of his lecture.
Citizen20 Twenty Well, obviously the cameraMan is gay for this guy! Thanks for asking.
Outstanding presentation! But- now that my curiosity is piqued- where is the presentation of "the esteemed Dr. Sommers"?
Thank you, my thoughts exactly!!
My question also
@Phillip Hiller The South had only one chance to win the war and that was to exhaust the North, which, as this presentation notes, was possible, however, they had very little margin for error. The personality issues in the Western Confederate armies were even worse. The Confederate generals hated each other and, most of all, hated Braxton Bragg, the commander of the Army of the Tennessee. That Army's disarray did much to ensure defeat in the West for the Confederacy. That along with Grant's brilliant Vicksburg Campaign, of course.
even braggs wife stuck it up him.a case of who you know not what you know.
Very informative and enjoyable. Makes me reevaluate my admiration for Gen Stuart.
This guy knows his material. It really puts things into perspective to know all these little sub-stories.
Awesome video and starts off good right away. The way he is presenting information makes the history interesting and puts things into context. I remember when the History Channel used to be like that. This presentation would make a great program there!
The War College has moments of levity in discussing war. Very palatable!
See why Shelby Foote is so, so popular - the Elvis Presley sound of the PBS Civil War Series - and his 3 set Civil War books are the best.
Cool stuff. I live within a few miles of the Army War College in Carliale, PA. Lots of retired military officers here.
Brilliant presentation.
Loved the presentation. I wish I could see the rest of this.
Fascinating analysis. Thanks for posting
I looked all over the USAWC and couldn't find the "esteemed Dr Sommers" follow up to this lecture.Edit 11/25/24 Dr Richard Sommers passed away in May 2019. This is the third time I've watched this video. Dr Sommers videos are still on UA-cam.
That was great, particularly the bit about the second largest city in the Confederacy.
This would be better if the camera focussed on the display rather than the speaker.
I love the comment: " When I say we, I mean the Confederates".
Would have been much better had the cameraman actually aimed the camera at the part of the map that Steve was referring to.
Is there a part 2?? Great presentation!
Amazing talk and energy Mr. Knott!!!! The only tragedy here is that I can't find the part of the talk by Dr. Sommers. :( And there isn't enough of you on UA-cam either Mr. Knott.
Very good presentation. Cadre attrition was a terrible problem for Lee, and it bore fruit against him at Gettysburg.
Remakably insightful !! So glad Steve Knott is on our side. So right about "who's who in the zoo."
At the beginning the speaker says he normally does a longer lecture- would love to hear the full version.
The men needed horse shoes, not people shoes, he is dead wrong about too much to be taken seriously.
@@karlburkhalter1502 ~ and you are??? Let me guess, a guy who's read some books.
moncorp1 Inc and got a degree in history, a few books? many hundreds, actually.
And that's why you are an instructor at the Army War College, no doubt.
I do like the way he talks about the war, as he keeps it interesting and engaging; however, I would like to see the camera focus on the projector screen when he uses his laser pointer on points on the screen. I can't see what he's pointing at when he uses his pointer.
If you've seen any historic battle maps of this point in the Civil War campaign, it's pretty easy to know what he's talking abut.o
Outstanding presentation...this battle like most lost battles come down to poor Command, poor Control and poor Communication.
The panning is really hard on me, I'm not sure I can hang with this, I am getting somewhat seasick. I wonder why they could not put the camera wide so he could just walk back and forth and let the eyes do the work, less strain.
Damn i needed this class in college
Went to school on this one. Very informative. Would never read in the history books that Jeb had interpersonal relationship deficits that cost the south the war!
I would like to hear the next guy after him. Does anyone know?
The beginning of this lecture is so good, this guy can end all misconceptions about the war
This is the best presentation on the Civil War I have seen. Thanks for posting.
This was a very interesting presentation. How can I get more?
Credit to Joseph Hooker for the reforms he made while in command. The most important one was he took cavalry that was attached to various regiments, and consolidated them into their own force. Yankee cavalry was starting to feel it's strength by the time of Gettysburg. Hooker was also responsible for the positioning of the various pieces of the Army of the Potomac that he screened Lee with and they were positioned superbly. They were able to keep an eye on Lee and concentrate fairly quickly when contact was made. All the pieces were in place when Meade took over.
I’m always amazed by knowledgeable military historians who pronounce “cavalry” as “calvary”.
Hitler tried to divide the allies in the same manner with the battle of the bulge. Hitler knew that Germany could not win the war. He knew the allies were tired of war, and that Americans and English generals were not getting along. Hitler felt if he could capture Antwarp, cut off the allies supplies, they would seek a peace agreement .
Never under-estimate an individual's capacity to be self-delusional when they are set on collision course of catastrophic failure. We evolved in a way that causes us to rather than accept out inevitable defeat & powerlessness to survive, we evolved mental blinders to delude ourselves into persevering and fight on if there is nothing else we can do but wait for our inevitable (but not yet imminent) downfall. Hitler thought there was a real chance in Hell until Zhukov's army literally started knocking on his front door. Only then did the total reality of the situation become realized/clear; He accepted his fate just before turning to the barrel of his gun. Our brains didn't evolve to treat maps, forecasts, force projection calculations like we perceive what is around us. Only his brain couldn't somersault around basic sensory perception, that's when reality hit. That's when he shot himself.
Todd Sauve- I'm sorry you don't see any survival mechanism in there that could explain why one would be more likely to survive in dire times while others without such a trait would presume inevitable death and give up trying anything to survive altogether. As an analogy: like seeing the mirage that leads you out of the desert, the water wasn't real but it got you out of the desert anyway. Your genes are coded to see the mirage. Could there have ever been a time when that trait was selected as the determinant for survival?
I don't believe in evolution. Your explanation would make sense if seen through normal psychological analysis. Yes, I agree that Hitler probably used his beliefs--delusional as they were--as a survival mechanism. :)
I mean you know that's delusional because at the time the allies owned Normandy and several large deep water ports to offload supplies.
".... Hitler felt if he could capture Antwarp, cut off the allies supplies, they would seek a peace agreement ."
Actually, had the war been delayed long enough, the US would have dropped the Atomic Bombs on Germany. That was the original intention for their creation.
Interesting, but the camera work could have been better and actually show the projection.
William Hopper You are right, William. There is relatively inexpensive software that allows you to split the screen so you can see the speaker in one box and the slides in another and package it into UA-cam format. That is one of my pet peeves with taped lectures. I don't really care to see the speaker. I want to see the visuals to which they are referring.
Liked that , is the contribution of the esteemed Doctor Summers available?
how does one find the follow up to this video...
I thoroughly enjoyed this tutorial, the lecturer was very enthuasiatic, excellent eye contact with his audiece and possess excellent volume of speech and he thorough knows his stuff, but just a small note is that the camera should have been directed at the overhead project or the presentation. Part from that, its an extremely interesting lecture :)
Excellent talk...please have camera pan to maps the next time. Perhaps a college student might edit video to add maps and markers to your audio. Will look for more of your CW talks. Thanks
Terrific lecture, thanks for sharing.
Very good presentation, I learned things I did not know about Stuart's relationship with his subordinates.
The contradiction of "They weren't after shoes.", and Stuart slowed his column with a captured mule trail of wagons, is troubling. They were after supplies. They were attempting to capture whatever materials of war and provisions whenever and wherever possible. Secondly, the "second largest city of the Confederacy" was marching, and marching a couple hundred miles on dirt and thru water and mud ruins shoes. So, yes, one of the reasons they chose Gettysburg was because of a chance to seize supplies there and one of the chief supplies of the city at that time, was shoes. The cargo of the mule train isn't mentioned, but it was significant enough that a senior commander slowed his march to keep it, and deliver it to the Confederate Army. The interpersonal relationships angle of the lecture is well done and valid. That has been well documented in the Union army, how favoritism adversely affected the progress of the war for the North.
Excellent comment about shoes and other supplies.
There were no shoes at Gettysburg. That story was a complete fabrication of the journalists following the battle who did not understand Lee’s strategy or orders. The mule pulled wagons was absolutely a problem - Lee reprimanded Stuart over the issue.
The arrest of Valladigham was not ordered by "members of the Lincoln Administration"; his arrest was ordered by General Ambrose Burnside. Lincoln told him no more arresting politicians or shutting down newspapers without clearing it with Washington first. Burnside, a good man, sometimes exercised poor strategic judgment. Fredericksburg comes to mind.
Your have a verifiable documents of this bit of history? It is hard to believe that a military officer would take upon himself to violate Constitutional rights of a seating congressmen. See Art. 1 of the Const.
FDzerzhinsky
Burnside was only following the example of his commander-in-chief. Lincoln had many duly elected representatives illegally arrested (many in Maryland, which would have seceded if Lincoln hadn't arrested everyone in the Maryland state legislature whose opinion he disagreed with). Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeus corpus, holding duly elected representatives of the people, who committed no crime, against their will with no charges.
Blame it on Burnside but he was just doing what Lincoln had done numerous times.
It's in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, not to mention being documented numerous times in books relating to Burnside, Vallandigham, the Copperheads and other opponents of the war, and in such general histories as McPherson and Foote.
That is unfortunately one of the issues of a many tiered government.
Both the truth, which is the first casualty of a conflict [war] and the law . Which is circumvented or diluted. Both by time and the levels of government and society. But if the rules of the constitution are upheld and followed. Those issues would not occur [maybe]. Then we look back from our arm chairs and point fingers at the mistakes. That past people knew about and did little . And those that just occurred because of not following the rules. Both in government and on the field. Anger is not a luxury any person can afford; And in this circumstance, a clear mind is both an illusion and a delusion .
This is such a great lecture.
If we believe Heth's after-battle report then the shoes story is not a "myth". One the morning of June 30 Heth sent Johnston Pettigrew's brigade to Gettysburg to find supplies.
As per his report: "On the morning of June 30, I ordered Brigadier-General Pettigrew to take his brigade to Gettysburg, search the town for army supplies (shoes especially), and return the same day."
The opportunity to obtain supplies by being there is not the same as the army converging there for a strategic purpose as stated in the presentation.
@@bdrrogers No one says Lee concentrated his army at Gettysburg "to get shoes." The fact is that on June 30, Heth's division was the farthest east at Cashtown and there was supposed to be ample supplies at Gettysburg, shoes being the most in demand as many a Reb were barefoot. (Due to lack of communication however, even if they got into the town they'd have found that Earley's men had already been through there and picked through most of the town's bounty). Heth ordered one brigade under Johnston Pettigrew -- hardly a 'strategic convergence' -- to march eight miles to Gettysburg to secure the rumored supplies. They were under orders to avoid contact with the enemy as the army wasn't concentrated yet. When they encountered Buford's cavalry three miles west of town Pettigrew dutifully withdrew back to Cashtown.
For whatever reason it seems that Heth and III Corps commander AP Hill were either unaware of or didn't believe Harrison's report because they both doubted that Pettigrew encountered anything but militia. Still, on the morning of July 1, Hill, perhaps having second thoughts, ordered not one brigade but two of his three divisions plus the bulk of his corps artillery to advance on Gettysburg. By this time the shoes were an afterthought. No historian says Hill sent 2/3 of his corps down the Chambersburg Pike just to get shoes.
Historians love to be contrarians and debunk myths, even incorrectly in this case, as it makes them feel both different and more learned and 'in the know.' It's a common trait among those combing through already picked clean subjects like Gettysburg, perhaps the most analyzed campaign in US military history.
I knew J.E.B. messed up, but didn't know the details. Great lecture. In truth, Lee should have known to take cavalry he trusted. Why take cavalry you were not going to use?
zeer zeer goed gebracht en uitgelegd dank voor de upload groet uit Holland u weet wel daar waar Longstreet van daan kwam
posession of the intiative- combined with a third (the fact that Lee was living off the land and could not remain more than 4-5 days in any one location) to induce Lee to order what came to be known as Pickett's Charge.
This is a great presentation. Thanks.
The means disparity is one of the more often cited facts and is universally used to demonstrate the toughness of the South. But it fails to capture one important aspect of Civil War warfare: napoleonic deployment and tactics of troops HEAVILY favors defenders and neutralizes the gains typically enjoyed by the resource rich side. In these terms, the South enjoyed enormous advantages over the North, an advantage not present at Gettysburg which (surprise) the South lost.
Is the following speaker's presentation available?
Great presentation. Nice to understand what happen to Jeb Stuart.
Great analysis, excellent presentation
The actual purpose of the campaign- as carried out- was to supply Lee's army. Longstreet;s statement that the campaign was to be one of defensive tactics is borne out by Lee, and the primary mistake during the campaign was made by Lee, who so underestimated his opponent ("those people") that he believed that the AoNV could move north at will, living off the land, and daring the AotP to attack him. This overconfidence was shared by the army as a whole, but when the battle was brought on by...
...by accident, the "defensive tactics" were disregarded due to the fact that the battle assumed all the characteristics of a meeting engagement with the Confederates having an initial marked superiority. This superiority vanished when the AotP was all in place- but by this point, the Confederates had already assumed the offensive in the conduct of the battle, and Lee apparently concluded that he could not relinquish it. These factors-underestimation of his opponent and...
Excellent lecture. I wish I could have seen this before watching the mini-series "Gettysburg", it would have explained a lot. For instance, why Lee was so insistent on fighting the Union army "here and now".
And I loved the way that movie showed the interaction between Longstreet, Lee and Harrison at the beginning. And the use of re-enactors for the period extras.
Might be a little propaganda in there somewhere, so be careful and never heard anyone say Lee was no different than a modern day terrorist
@Ralph--without these notes you still would not be fully informed about motives though.
This fellow is is an awesome lecturer! He really draws you into the story... and it can be about anything.. Steve Knott weaves the story and basically brings in the real reason why JEB Stuart failed Lee.
In the end we know that intelligence is absolutely crucial for the success of an army, and without the Cavalry (back then) as its eyes and ears Lee was blind. Lessons learned, Cavalry must be act as the whiskers of the main force and be in constant communication to the main force.. Stuart failed in this in colossal way by being completely out of touch with Lee for several crucial days. Had the Calvary been deployed more effectively, Gettysburg may not have happened or if it had happened it would have been on Lee's terms.
The irony was that it was during this engagement that the Union Cavalry was most effective in their role. Buford's Cavalry provided the Army of the Potomac with advanced intelligence so vitally needed and was able to screen Lee's advanced elements until the main body was able to consolidate the high ground.
Perfidious Albion darn if dont get it, most of these fools cant spell horse.
in other word yes you are correct.
In fact, what was missing was Stuart, not cavalry. Lee still had three brigades of cavalry with him, but not an overall leader to use them efficiently. One brigade was sent to the northwest, into the mountains where they did some damage to the railroads, and may have scarfed up enough supplies from scattered farms to support themselves, but contributed nothing to intelligence and did not participate in the battle. What a brigade did could have been done by detaching a regiment. The rest of the cavalry seems to have been used to clear the way to Harrisburg before being recalled. Some of that force could have been better used scouting east of the Mountains. When Early headed toward the Susquehanna, some of that cavalry should have established a screen south of the Maryland border to watch his flank. That would also more likely have allowed an earlier hookup with Stuart.
Lee had cavalry. He did not use it properly.
The real reason Stuart failed Lee is because of his ego. The Flora Cook saga, combined with the Battle Of Brandy Station. Where the Union Calvary fought the Confederate Calvary in a pitched day long battle. The Union withdrew but not in headlong flight as it had in the past. Stuart was angered that they dared to challenge his men. As a result, he felt he had to regain his "honor" and humiliate the North again. Thus the ride around the Army of the Potomac.
Interesting presentation. It also may provide insight upon why Pickett's charge was ordered. As I stood at the spot where Pickett began his advance, my dad said "what was he thinking"? To look across that unobstructed field of fire was sobering. I know it was normal to advance upon your enemy in the open. I also know there had been a massive artillery bombardment of the union lines (which unknown to tje confederates had fallen too deep behind union lines). However,if Lee had the mindset that he had to destroy his opponent, not just win a battle, perhaps that led him to order the advance that none of his subordinates agreed with.
Excellent presentation. I love the highlighting of the interpersonal conflicts in the Confederate leadership and the effects it had on the tactics. This is something seen later with the rivalry of Patton and Montgomery in WW2. I would really like to see a production of Steve Knott in a more detailed analysis of the battle as narrator in a more graphics intensive video.
Can you say Arnhem or a Bridge to Far. It was a direct result of Monty's need to outshine Patton. So unlike his other battles. Monty was excellent but not usually daring. Lots of courage in the battles but lives could have been spent elsewhere for greater advantage
It would be nice to see the graphics that he constantly referees to on the wall.
Just look at any Civil War textbook or relevant document - even Wikipedia. The map of this point in the campaign is pretty standard.
So ... can any give a reason why the Confederates failed to command Cemetery Ridge at the end of July 1?
Or maybe perhaps kindly direct me to a video dealing with this?
ewell failed to press the advantage that was gained when jubal early's division crushed the flank of the union army on the 1st late in the afternoon-in the movie gettysburg it is mentioned when lee talks to trimble
Ese es el echo que marco la batalla ni lee ni Stuart ni nada más si se hubiera tomado esa colina lee hubiese dominado las alturas y en otra posición que la que tuvo en la batalla,el fallo fue no tomar la colina y sabemos el nombre del incapaz que hizo que se perdiera esa batalla,además ya puestos en las alturas no habría necesidad de atacar y lee no hubiese atacado y los federales no hubieran atacado no hubiera habido batalla en getty,después quizás en otro lugar pero allí no y dejémonos de historias irrelevantes ese es el echo de la batalla que se produjo y se obvia por completo hubiese dado tiempo a concentrar a esperar a Stuart o preparar el siguiente movimiento un saludo y gracias es la única persona que sabe la verdad que fue no tomar esa colina pudiéndolo haberlo echo fácilmente y no busquen peces donde no hay agua.que hubiera pasado si? Que hubiera echo si? Eso no es valido lo que lo es es lo que ocurrió en el lugar y momento esa era la única forma de parar a la unión en ese momento lo demás es historia.saludos dio la clave de la batalla en su respuesta le felicito.
excellent presentation....a true professional...
Really? He called Lee a terrorist? And acted like Lee set the entire military plan?