Chamberlain or Oates, Who Had the More Difficult Task?

No,Cushing. Go down to Devil's Den,look up LRT,and tell us that Chamberlin,sitting behind bolders ,trees,and stone works,had a harder position to defend compared to Oates attacking up LRT? Oh,Puhlleeeeezzzzzz!
I've been there looked over the ground from the bottom and from the top. It should be pointed-out that Oates' Alabama boys had plenty of cover, also, during their assault(s). I agree Chamberlain had the better position. My argument is about Chamberlain's "orders." Puhlleeeeezzz re-read my post.
 
I've been there looked over the ground from the bottom and from the top. It should be pointed-out that Oates' Alabama boys had plenty of cover, also, during their assault(s). I agree Chamberlain had the better position. My argument is about Chamberlain's "orders." Puhlleeeeezzz re-read my post.
He was trying to be nice. Here, let me help, you're wrong.
 
Another supporting element of Chamberlain's dire circumstances was the fact that he resorted to a bayonet charge; it was either that or be over run. Withdrawal was not an option for him. Oates did not have his back up against the wall and could simply withdraw.
 
Another supporting element of Chamberlain's dire circumstances was the fact that he resorted to a bayonet charge; it was either that or be over run. Withdrawal was not an option for him. Oates did not have his back up against the wall and could simply withdraw.

That describes the possible consequences of their tasks but says nothing about the difficulty of each of their tasks.
 
That describes the possible consequences of their tasks but says nothing about the difficulty of each of their tasks.
You have a very good point, Pvt. Alaskazimm, but given those possible consequences, I would prefer Oates' situation over Chamberlain's. When weighing the two, Chamberlain could have easily been wiped-out. Would it not been easier for him to "bug-out" when his ammunition got low? I believe and have stated several times that the orders for Chamberlain to hold his ground at all costs, substantially increased the difficulty of his task. Oates and nearly half of his original 520 men were able to withdraw. Thank-you for your input.
 
You have a very good point, Pvt. Alaskazimm, but given those possible consequences, I would prefer Oates' situation over Chamberlain's. When weighing the two, Chamberlain could have easily been wiped-out. Would it not been easier for him to "bug-out" when his ammunition got low? I believe and have stated several times that the orders for Chamberlain to hold his ground at all costs, substantially increased the difficulty of his task. Oates and nearly half of his original 520 men were able to withdraw. Thank-you for your input.
"I would prefer Oates' situation over Chamberlain's." Oh,Puhleeeeze! Who made the most charges? Who lost the most men? Who held their position? Who retreated? Oh,Puhleeeze!
 
There is no doubt that both had a difficult job to do considering their respective circumstances. For Oates, his troops had to have been more than exhausted after the long forced march to get onto the field that day and then into position to make the attack itself. We know that the blistering heat took a toll on the Alabamians and it is most likely that many of them made the attack on little round top with canteens which were either low or completely empty. As has already been mentioned, being on the offensive is a tough task in itself, especially attacking uphill and over such unforgiving terrain. As for the terrain itself, it played a role in helping disrupt Longstreet's formation before it even arrived at Little Round Top. On the Alabamians left, 2 of Robertson's regiments of the "Texas Brigade" ended up further to the right than they should have been, closer to the Round Tops than the rest of their brigade which attacked at Devils Den, thus creating a gap in the line which had to be adjusted. Keeping any type of a linear formation over the rocky sloped ground was near impossible and would add even more problems to any type of attempt to dislodge Union troops from the heights in front of it. And finding the flank of the Union position would have been a difficult undertaking also, especially with the fire from Vincent's Brigade pouring down upon them.
As for Chamberlain and the 20th Maine, although I believe that their opponents probably had the rougher go of it, the task they faced also held it's challenges. Beginning with the fact of being the flank itself with no immediate support on the left and with no sure idea of just how many Confederate regiments were on their way to attack them. Add to this the pressure that the Union needed this victory in a huge way.
It was a task of gigantic proportions for the leaders on both sides in the fight. I couldn't imagine being in either regiment and having to undertake what they did. It is indeed a great topic for discussion!
 
Chamberlain certainly had the advantage of surviving the battle and the war, and he was persistent in telling his story. There were many heroes on Little Round Top (and elsewhere) whose stories are less well well known simply because they didn't survive.
I'm a bit biased by where I'm from (the Binghamton, NY area), but I'll argue that Col. Ireland and the 137th NY's defense of the upper peak of Culp's Hill was greater than the 20th Maine because it's trickier, more rolling ground (go just to the east of Pardee Field and you'll see what I mean), they were fighting men who hadn't spent all day marching, and it was dark. But Col. Ireland didn't survive the war.
 
Back
Top