Gettysburg: can't understand why Lee would attack up hill.

W

wondering

Guest
As an amateur military history buff, and after many years reading about the Civil War and in particular the Battle of Gettysburg, I am still perplexed. After all the balihoo about the battle being "forced" on General Lee, and that it had occured almost by "accident" (due to ineffectiveness of subordinates), I still don't get it. Despite all the books written and theories postulated, why the hell does Lee attack up hill for two days? It is really striking how amateur this appears to me, despite Lee's shiny reputation. It is more than a "blunder". It borders on the incompetence he witnessed from the Union at Fredericksburg.

I don't care about supply problems, or no cavalry, or bad intelligence, or alleged tardiness of orders being executed. Get moving and change that field. In my humble opinion, to attack that ridge line was plain foolhardy (history bears that out). For this reason alone, I think General Lee is still a far over-rated military commander, despite his previous gambler's victories. It seems American historians are unable to accept this. Can someone explain Lee's untarnished legacy to me? He could have won the war in the summer of 1863, but instead he attacked up hill after losing strategic and tactical iniative after the first day. Thanks very much.
 
There quite a few "reasons" for days two and three:

1. He had great confidence in his army.
2. He was known to take audacious chances.
3. He stubbornly insisted on not retreating.
4. Day 3. He might have wanted to disable the Federals so he could get away with his army.

And that's only a scratch on the surface.
 
Welcome from Southern California!
Lee felt he could break the union line with a concentrated attack at one point and the feds would be turn and run like they had so often in the past. thats why he attacked. He thought he would win the battle and maybe end the war. He was a very good general who knew his men. Now as to why the attacked failed...that is the subject of a forest worth of pulp in print.:frantic:
respectfully,
Napoleon 12 pounder
 
I am also nearly obssessed with the battle of Gettysburg for many months now. Of the many questions I wonder why he didn't have his soldiers try to set the woods on the hills at Gettysburg on fire.

And Lee should arguably have supply for at least one more day of fighting. How about if he had attacked on the flanks and the center simultaneously? I recall that Lee was also outnumbered. 94 000 federal troops against 72 000 Confederates.

Being outnumbered and attacking uphill. How smart is that? I admire Lee as a General in many ways but I guess he got intoxicated by his own ego prior to Gettysburg.

When it comes to the idiocy of Picketts charge and regardless of some of the historical excuses made for it, I have some questions. If he had to do the attack at all, why did Lee not send in scouts with binoculars in order to verify whether most of the Union artillery had been destroyed before he ordered the main attack?

Why did the Confederates not bombard the fences and prioritize the fences befor ethe artillery. According to a long book I read several months ago by King Frederick the II, King of Prussia, a General should firstly bombard any fences in the way of attacking infantry, then the enemy troops and lastly the enemy artillery. The reason being that no artiller can survive without artillery in front of it.

Regardless of ones own preferences, Frederick the II had a lot more of military experience than General Lee and was still revered nearly as much of a genius at war as Napoleon.

Why did Pickett not let half of his men run towards the Union defenses while the other half gave supportive fire, and then the other way around?

But once again and most importantly, why was tha battle fought at all? And how can any sensible General even conceive to attack an enemy without proper intelligence obtained from the (in this case absent) cavalry?
 
Another note on what Frederick the II wrote regarding attacking or defending high ground. Something which was probably common knowledge for most hiher officers in the Western Hemisphere. Infantry defending the high ground can on average fire with three ranks, while the attacking infantry can only fire with one rank. This besides from the attaking not being able to fire as often or as accurately as they must move. Plus one more disadvantage that I saw in a documentary about the battle of Gettysburg, being that the second and supporting ranks of Confederate infantry moving uphill often fired into the first rank.

No, Lee should just have ordered his men to set the hills on fire with thousands of torches and smoked out the Union forces.
 
No Nathan I haven't been to Gettysburg, but I would really loved to one day. I looked at the entire area and photos of it on Google Maps and I think that helped a lot. In my humble opinion I don't think I have a poblem with understanding why Lee lost the battle. As to why he fought under those circumstances, well, history is full of brilliant military commanders who do really stupid things.

The Confederate infantry performed beyond expectation according to my impression, so I don't blame his army. As to the commanders on both sides there were both good and bad ones. One thing that strikes me though is that the Union army seemed to have learned from their several previous intelligence screw-ups and lack of coordination. The signals corps- the federal troops used at Gettysburg seemed to lack a similar counterpart in the Confederate army.

If Lees staff had realized before that they needed to improve the efficiency of how orders were distributed, the attacks the Confederades executed could have been improved. Although I doubt it would have changed the outcome. Same thing when it comes to the organization of artillery. The Union seemed to have changed their troop composition in a way as to have a centralized command of most of their artillery. This leading to the Union artillery being able to concentrate their fire at any threatened point. Plus it was centrally located, while the Confederate artiller which appears to have been quite superior in number, had to be moved from section to section of the battlefield.

As to my understanding much of Lees troops had not rested, among them notably the Georgians attacking Little Round Top. Am I right?

And how about Lee advancing with his infantry say one hour before daybreak on day four? I think that would have diminished the effect of the Union artillery. His men would have been fully rested, Picketts division would have arrived and possibly most of the Confederate cavalry. Lee could have ordered some harassing fire from his artillery on the hills where the Union forces were posted, so they would have a hard time sleeping.

The Union forces were already well entrenched, so I don' tthink that would have been a major problem.

No, Lee was impatient and demanded too much of his men. The rest is history as they say.

Please tell me if you differ with me or have other thoughts. I'd love to hear them.
 
Folks, the reason you were asked if you've ever walked the ground is because the way you're talking makes it seem like they were climbing hills to attack the Federals. Before you condemn Lee as being amateurish you really ought to see the ground. The slope really isn't all that bad.
 
The center of the Union line where Lee attacked is really not very much uphill. Kinda surprises folks when they actually see it. Small slope actually...but the ridge grew higher and higher as the old Vets recounted their memories. Into a mountain. The problem was not putting in 25,000 or 30,000 men...like drop the hammer ya know. Go all in. Longstreet, the only one who ever really had a handle on this , knew 12,000 or 15,000 was wayyyyy to small a force to do it. Even if Lee had gone all out Meade still had a compleate Corps in reserve. What, bout 25,000 under Sedge? But...how could Lee have put a force this big into the attack? He was beat to hell by July 3rd.
 
Cash,

I on my part would never dream of calling General Lee amateurish. I think he was fooling himself at Gettyssburg. The hills at Gettysburg were of different height. I have seen documentaries and films showing those hills. Several of them seemed very high. No doubt about it.

This short private film is one out of several good examples:

And then we have Picketss charge. Facts seem to be known. Attacking in the kind of fashion it was conducted was advised against by King Frederick the II of Prussian back in the mid 18th century. Things of course got a lot bloddier a hundred years later when weapons had improved greatly.

Here is another good private film showing the place of Picketts charge:

I see no excuse for that attack either and Lee had seen what happened to Union forces when they previously attempted similar stunts.

Jenkins, I agree that there are many battles that have or were fought successgully against conventional wisdom. When deciding to do battle one has to take many things into consideration. From the info I have gathered so far I would not have foguth at Gettysburg if I was Lee. If I would, I would have fought it very differently.

Folks, the reason you were asked if you've ever walked the ground is because the way you're talking makes it seem like they were climbing hills to attack the Federals. Before you condemn Lee as being amateurish you really ought to see the ground. The slope really isn't all that bad.[/quote
 
The center of the Union line where Lee attacked is really not very much uphill. Kinda surprises folks when they actually see it. Small slope actually...but the ridge grew higher and higher as the old Vets recounted their memories. Into a mountain. The problem was not putting in 25,000 or 30,000 men...like drop the hammer ya know. Go all in. Longstreet, the only one who ever really had a handle on this entire battle, knew 12,000 or 15,000 was wayyyyy to small a force to do it. Even if Lee had gone all out Meade still had a total Corps in reserve.. whole dam Corps. What, bout 20,000 under Sedge? But...how could Lee have put a force this big into the attack? He was beat to hell by July 3rd. No way...no how. One of the great debates of the Civil War but go to the field and you see, and grasp, why this thing by Lee was a biggee error. All humans make errors. Aaaaa, tragic....for the South. Big time good for the slaves who knew what went down up in PA. Had a grapevine ya know. After Gettysburg/Vicksburg the slaves began to bolt like hell. Can ya blame em!!! I like to remind folks of those often forgotten people whom the whole dam thing was about. Yep I do.
 
Cash,

I on my part would never dream of calling General Lee amateurish. I think he was fooling himself at Gettyssburg. The hills at Gettysburg were of different height. I have seen documentaries and films showing those hills. Several of them seemed very high. No doubt about it.

This short private film is one out of several good examples:

And then we have Picketss charge. Facts seem to be known. Attacking in the kind of fashion it was conducted was advised against by King Frederick the II of Prussian back in the mid 18th century. Things of course got a lot bloddier a hundred years later when weapons had improved greatly.

Here is another good private film showing the place of Picketts charge:

I see no excuse for that attack either and Lee had seen what happened to Union forces when they previously attempted similar stunts.

Jenkins, I agree that there are many battles that have or were fought successgully against conventional wisdom. When deciding to do battle one has to take many things into consideration. From the info I have gathered so far I would not have foguth at Gettysburg if I was Lee. If I would, I would have fought it very differently.

I haven't relied on "short private films," but rather I've walked the ground--a great deal. You really need to see it for yourself because you're really not coming across very well right now.
 
Lee believed as a principle that offensive was his only chance for ultimate victory. He really couldn't win ultimate victory for the Confederacy by simply repelling the enemy attacks. He had the lesser forces so he had to strike the Federals hard and fast. This principle was intensified by the fact that he was in unfriendly territory where he was in more danger of his supply lines being cut and being surrounded and destroyed.

When the battle came on at Gettysburg Lee was hampered by his lack of usable cavalry. He couldn't conduct a grand flanking move like at Chancellorsville because his best cavalry generals were away from the field. Additionally, he wouldn't have much warning if the Federals tried to do the same to him. None the less, Lee didn't plan solely frontal attacks. Faulty intelligence led him to believe that Longstreet's attack on the 2nd day would hit the Federal flank where they could easily roll them up. The reported success of Wright's brigade led him to believe that Pickett's charge if properly organized had a good chance of success. Add to that, as others have noted, his complete confidence in his army and you get Gettysburg turning out the way it did.
 
True Jenkins, which I suggested that Lee, Pickett or whomever should have sent in scouts or skirmishers to verify the effects of the Cinfederate bombardment before the attack was ordered. IF, I say IF the attack should have been made at all. Longstreet seemed to have advised against it but none would listen.

Another factor was artillery... the Confederate preparatory barrage tended to go long and the Union counterbattery fire was effective. The line that Longstreet's ("Pickett's") charge went up against was not really softened up as much as would have been desired.
 
There are so many private films, movies and documentaries all showing more or less the same thing cash. Plus the maps and photos on Google Earth. I can obviously not say you are wrong regarding the terrain as you have been there and I haven't. But do you think I have gotten it mostly wrong? Please tell me so if you feel that is the case and explain why, because I want to learn.

I haven't relied on "short private films," but rather I've walked the ground--a great deal. You really need to see it for yourself because you're really not coming across very well right now.
 
Lees ambitions to fight the war on Union soil was sound. But I believe his strategy was not properly planned and his tactics were even more failed. He got sloppy, was overconfident and impatient.

Lee believed as a principle that offensive was his only chance for ultimate victory. He really couldn't win ultimate victory for the Confederacy by simply repelling the enemy attacks. He had the lesser forces so he had to strike the Federals hard and fast. This principle was intensified by the fact that he was in unfriendly territory where he was in more danger of his supply lines being cut and being surrounded and destroyed.

When the battle came on at Gettysburg Lee was hampered by his lack of usable cavalry. He couldn't conduct a grand flanking move like at Chancellorsville because his best cavalry generals were away from the field. Additionally, he wouldn't have much warning if the Federals tried to do the same to him. None the less, Lee didn't plan solely frontal attacks. Faulty intelligence led him to believe that Longstreet's attack on the 2nd day would hit the Federal flank where they could easily roll them up. The reported success of Wright's brigade led him to believe that Pickett's charge if properly organized had a good chance of success. Add to that, as others have noted, his complete confidence in his army and you get Gettysburg turning out the way it did.
 
Distance and size. Think about time......to get scouts into position and then get the intelligence back. That's if you can see anything useful where you are......it's just not as simple as you're inferring. I will say until I had been there I had some of the same thoughts. Those were gone by the time I'd been there an hour or less.
 
Back
Top