Hood's wounding at Gettysburg... Most untimely wounding of war?

Sorah_45thVA

Private
Joined
May 31, 2018
Location
Knoxville
Good goodmorning, heres an intresting Debate to kick around this morning. Of all the instances that an officer was taken to the rear dead or wounded, which instance was thecmost detrimental to winning that battle?

8267b2dabfdfd542e66f97a456e8cc6c.jpg
I would argue that John Bell Hood's wounding at gettysburg is the most untimely of all of these. Had he been able to lead his Brigade, I truly believe they would have turned the left flank of Meade and thus claimed Little Round Top. However, as fate would have it, Hood would recieve a wound, losing his arm later that day. *Also* I am not discrediting or being critical of General Law and his handeling of the men. He did a superb job under the circumstances, but at so pivtol a moment Hood was sorely missed.​
 
Good goodmorning, heres an intresting Debate to kick around this morning. Of all the instances that an officer was taken to the rear dead or wounded, which instance was thecmost detrimental to winning that battle?

View attachment 197041 I would argue that John Bell Hood's wounding at gettysburg is the most untimely of all of these. Had he been able to lead his Brigade, I truly believe they would have turned the left flank of Meade and thus claimed Little Round Top. However, as fate would have it, Hood would recieve a wound, losing his arm later that day. *Also* I am not discrediting or being critical of General Law and his handeling of the men. He did a superb job under the circumstances, but at so pivtol a moment Hood was sorely missed.​

It is an interesting "what-if?" and a good argument could be made that Hood's wounding was one of the most inconvenient and untimely injuries of the war but, I'll be honest, I'm not sure how it would play out if he didn't go down so early in the attack. His brigades may have maintained more cohesion and direction but the on-the-fly actions render assumptions very difficult.

And, as a correction, Hood didn't lose his arm. He lost use of the arm for a time but had recovered almost all of its use just over a year later.

Ryan
 
Hello Sorah , In my opinion if Hood had been wounded or not it wouldn't have made a difference to what happened as Union could funnel fresh troops at will as they did in the battle due to good interior lines , Even if the CSA had broken through they would not have been in a position to support those 2 Division's with fresh troops both Mclaws and Hood got a good spanking any breakthrough could not have been sustained in my view.
 
If Hood's Division had claimed LRT, it might not have been the game changer some people want it to be. It wasn't a great artillery platform, and the Sixth Corps would've made it an unpleasant place to stay for long.

Additionally Meade had a contingency plan in case his line was broken and Sixth Corps (a large three division Corp) which was arriving in force was unable to stabilise the situation. Retreat to the line of Plum Run (Not to be confused with Pipe Creek) and make a stand there.
 
I submit that Hood's wounding at Chickamauga is more likely entitled to the title of most untimely wound of the Civil War. He was wounded in the immediate aftermath of one of a breakthrough of the Union lines. The potential existed to roll up the Army of the Cumberland - which the Confederates almost actually did. But for Hood's wounding, I wonder if Thomas would have had time to put together his rear guard defense, or (assuming Thomas did pull together his defensive line) would have been able to hold the Confederates at bay until dusk.
 
These are all very good points,
I submit that Hood's wounding at Chickamauga is more likely entitled to the title of most untimely wound of the Civil War. He was wounded in the immediate aftermath of one of a breakthrough of the Union lines. The potential existed to roll up the Army of the Cumberland - which the Confederates almost actually did. But for Hood's wounding, I wonder if Thomas would have had time to put together his rear guard defense, or (assuming Thomas did pull together his defensive line) would have been able to hold the Confederates at bay until dusk.

I think Hood had the worst possible luck of the war.. He still will always be my favorite brigade commander in the Eastern war. The Army of The Cumberland was certainly on edge of collapse at Chickamuga..Hoods tenacity and experience could have effected the outcome of any engagement
 
..and you feel the same about him as division commander?

I think he was much better suited at the brigade level. When he took over command of the Army of Tennessee he was only 33 or 34 I believe so he was very young. But I like him and Long street equally well at that level.
 
Hood has a resume as a division commander? :wink:

Ryan

He did very well at Antietam as a Division commander. He did very well in Chickamauga as a Division (and temporary Corps) commander, until he lost his leg. He gets an incomplete at Gettysburg. By that point the war cost him an arm and a leg (and a broken heart,) so since he does not have any peers on the field (one armed and one legged Division Commanders,) it is hard to compare...
 
I'd say Albert Sidney Johnston's and John Reynolds's situations were much more untimely.

Had Reynolds lived would he have been Howard’s superior?

I reckon the main question regarding Reynolds is would he have pulled back from McPherson Ridge to a different and presumably better line?

But on the other hand the United States did win the battle.
 
Reynolds was promoted Nov 29, 62 to Major General. All I could find on Howard was November 62, but not the day. Maybe they were both promoted the same day, however, Reynolds was promoted to Brigadier first.
 
Had Reynolds lived would he have been Howard’s superior?

I reckon the main question regarding Reynolds is would he have pulled back from McPherson Ridge to a different and presumably better line?

But on the other hand the United States did win the battle.

And the War.

Yeah Reynolds was Howard's superior. He actually had seniority over Meade as well, but declined the position for personal reasons.
 
I think Reynolds death did make a difference on July 1 but not in the ultimate outcome that Union forces we're driven from positions north and west of the town. But had he not been killed, I think Union forces (especially Slocum's 12th Corps) would have been on the road to the battlefield earlier, lessening the overwhelming nature of the Union defeat on July 1.

Stonewall's wounding was certainly consequential, but I'm not convinced his survival would have made a huge difference during the rest of the battle at Chancellorsville. The rest of the war, probably so.

My vote for most consequential wound at Gettysburg -- though not necessarily of the entire war -- is Dorsey Pender late on July 2. Had he not been wounded, there may have more coordination in the late evening attacks that I believe had the best chance of winning the battle for the Confederates.
 
Back
Top