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.
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.