What if you reversed the number of troops in the major battles?

Silverfox

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
Georgia Coast
If you reversed the number of troops in each major action----Would the results change? If so how much? We all know that in most instances the South was outnumbered and fought with this great disadvantage all thru the war. Given this--- if for instance, the South had the 90,000 at Gettysburg and the North the 70,000---Would the South have won?
 
Well, if the numbers were reversed, then obviously strategies employed would have been completely different. Hooker would not have tried to flank Lee out of Fredericksburg during the Chancellorsville campaign if he had had only 60,000 men to Lee's 120,000. Sherman would not have advanced against Atlanta if he had had 55,000 men to Johnston's 100,000.

The Peninsular and Maryland campaigns would probably have gone the same way, though, as McClellan actually thought he was the one who was massively outnumbered.

To be realistic, though, if the South were putting armies of more than a hundred thousand men into the field in both the East and West, the men would have probably starved to death, as it would have been impossible for the Confederacy to have supplied and fed such large armies.
 
Just "top of my heading it here..." I think that the side that "won" many of the battles still would have won, because if they had more men, the leaders strategy and/or topography of the land their are defending/advancing upon is only strengthened by it. If the winning side had fewer men, their leaders, strategy and topography of land they are defending still carries them in many of the instances.
 
Well, if the numbers were reversed, then obviously strategies employed would have been completely different. Hooker would not have tried to flank Lee out of Fredericksburg during the Chancellorsville campaign if he had had only 60,000 men to Lee's 120,000. Sherman would not have advanced against Atlanta if he had had 55,000 men to Johnston's 100,000.

The Peninsular and Maryland campaigns would probably have gone the same way, though, as McClellan actually thought he was the one who was massively outnumbered.

To be realistic, though, if the South were putting armies of more than a hundred thousand men into the field in both the East and West, the men would have probably starved to death, as it would have been impossible for the Confederacy to have supplied and fed such large armies.

Good points---But would they have starved if the war was over quickly?
 
If you reversed the number of troops in each major action----Would the results change? If so how much? We all know that in most instances the South was outnumbered and fought with this great disadvantage all thru the war. Given this--- if for instance, the South had the 90,000 at Gettysburg and the North the 70,000---Would the South have won?
Yes, and food and provisions wouldn'thave been a problem. Just take what they needed.
 
Just "top of my heading it here..." I think that the side that "won" many of the battles still would have won, because if they had more men, the leaders strategy and/or topography of the land their are defending/advancing upon is only strengthened by it. If the winning side had fewer men, their leaders, strategy and topography of land they are defending still carries them in many of the instances.

I hear what you are saying but I believe with a reverse of those numbers, you would have a Southern accent---With the leadership of the North in the first two years---The war would have been a short one. Could the North have lasted four years with the South's numbers? In my opinion, no.
 
I hear what you are saying but I believe with a reverse of those numbers, you would have a Southern accent---With the leadership of the North in the first two years---The war would have been a short one. Could the North have lasted four years with the South's numbers? In my opinion, no.

But as I pointed out above, the South would not have been able to keep such large armies in the field for logistical reasons.
 
I have no data but tend to agree with you---Of courses, captured supplies might make a huge difference.

It would make no difference at all in terms of food. Rations don't last long and must be constantly replenished. If Lee captured the entire rations stockpile of the Army of the Potomac, it would be great for a little while but then he'd be right back where he started. It's not like Yankee trains would start arriving at his camp with loads of beef and bread.

Recall that Jackson captured Pope's main supply depot during the Second Manassas Campaign and Earl van Dorn captured Grant's main supply depot during the early stages of the Vicksburg Campaign. Did it help the Confederate supply situation? For a little while, perhaps, but nothing more than that. And rations in danger of being captured have an unpleasant tendency of going up in flames.
 
It would make no difference at all in terms of food. Rations don't last long and must be constantly replenished. If Lee captured the entire rations stockpile of the Army of the Potomac, it would be great for a little while but then he'd be right back where he started. It's not like Yankee trains would start arriving at his camp with loads of beef and bread.

Recall that Jackson captured Pope's main supply depot during the Second Manassas Campaign and Earl van Dorn captured Grant's main supply depot during the early stages of the Vicksburg Campaign. Did it help the Confederate supply situation? For a little while, perhaps, but nothing more than that. And rations in danger of being captured have an unpleasant tendency of going up in flames.

I can't argue because I do not know---Do know that on the Gettysburg adventure, Lee came back with enough food for six months---With all the new troops, Lee would probably be in the North anyway living off the land like Sherman did and paying with good Confederate money. I doubt Lee would turn down all those troops.
 
Gettysburg, which featured Lee making attacks against strong positions, might have had a very similar result, defensive fighting under a good commander like Meade negating a hypothetical advantage in numbers. But generally having more men is an advantage.

But "more men" means more population. If the South was the majority, why would it secede?

Let's say the free states, a minority, seceded from the Union, and the Confederates(in this context, the US government) attempted to bring them back into the Union(in this context, the South). How would a southern invasion do against the north, given an advantage in numbers?

Since the south would still lack a couple of advantages, namely industry and a navy, as well as a rail network, it would be an tough task.
 
Taking Gettysburg as an example, if manpower odds had been reversed, I can't see Meade taking a position before his army's all up and daring Lee to attack him. But if he had, Ewell's corps would certainly have enveloped the Federal right on Culp's Hill on Day 2. The AOP would try to retreat toward their left, only to find Longstreet waiting.

For whatever reasons, the Confederate armies performed incredibly well against tough odds the whole war. Reverse the odds on the second day of Shiloh and that would have been the end of Grant's career. God help us, there might still be slaves today.
 
Gettysburg, which featured Lee making attacks against strong positions, might have had a very similar result, defensive fighting under a good commander like Meade negating a hypothetical advantage in numbers. But generally having more men is an advantage.

But "more men" means more population. If the South was the majority, why would it secede?

Let's say the free states, a minority, seceded from the Union, and the Confederates(in this context, the US government) attempted to bring them back into the Union(in this context, the South). How would a southern invasion do against the north, given an advantage in numbers?

Since the south would still lack a couple of advantages, namely industry and a navy, as well as a rail network, it would be an tough task.

Of course, we are just what if-ing---But Lee was "attacking" with at least 20,000 men less than Meade and still almost won the battle---This was with Meade dug in on good ground. I agree with you about the defense, but if Lee had 20,000 more he would have really improved his odds. The Confederates were always outnumbered and yet held their own for four long years. In my what if, do you really think Lee would not have moved on Washington and other major cities immediately? With the new numbers and if it was early enough in the war-----I think Lee would have won in short order-----Stonewall would have had a fine time. The South should have gone for total war at the beginning---including draft at the beginning. Davis should have appointed Lee at the beginning also.

Based on real figures actually engaged, why would the Confederates ever be on the offense? There had to be other factors or the South would never have been on the offense. My point is the Confederate Army man for man was superior to Union troops at the beginning----Why else would they have won as much as they did given the number advantages for the Federals.
 
Of course, we are just what if-ing---But Lee was "attacking" with at least 20,000 men less than Meade and still almost won the battle---This was with Meade dug in on good ground. I agree with you about the defense, but if Lee had 20,000 more he would have really improved his odds. The Confederates were always outnumbered and yet held their own for four long years. In my what if, do you really think Lee would not have moved on Washington and other major cities immediately? With the new numbers and if it was early enough in the war-----I think Lee would have won in short order-----Stonewall would have had a fine time. The South should have gone for total war at the beginning---including draft at the beginning. Davis should have appointed Lee at the beginning also.

Based on real figures actually engaged, why would the Confederates ever be on the offense? There had to be other factors or the South would never have been on the offense. My point is the Confederate Army man for man was superior to Union troops at the beginning----Why else would they have won as much as they did given the number advantages for the Federals.

Tactically, Lee often took the offensive. His two forays into the North both didn't work, but he was without his hypothetical advantage in numbers. If the numbers situation was reversed, I'm guessing that the Union armies would do more defending, and less attacking. In the CW, that's an easier row to hoe.

There's an old saying: amateurs talk about tactics, professional talk about logistics. Numbers are one thing. Arming, feeding, moving and equipping them is another.
 
Tactically, Lee often took the offensive. His two forays into the North both didn't work, but he was without his hypothetical advantage in numbers. If the numbers situation was reversed, I'm guessing that the Union armies would do more defending, and less attacking. In the CW, that's an easier row to hoe.

There's an old saying: amateurs talk about tactics, professional talk about logistics. Numbers are one thing. Arming, feeding, moving and equipping them is another.

Well if Sherman could march without railroads----Lee could too. But I appreciate your points.
 
Well if Sherman could march without railroads----Lee could too. But I appreciate your points.

Its funny, after I posted, I thought about Sherman. Sherman never had to fight any major battles on the March, through, one of the reasons he felt it was feasible.
 
Its funny, after I posted, I thought about Sherman. Sherman never had to fight any major battles on the March, through, one of the reasons he felt it was feasible.

I do not believe he had much opposition other than delay actions until he got to Bentonville. His army was too big to oppose by what was left to do it. I think building roads probably delayed him more.

I proposed this "what if" just to point out how outnumbered the Confederacy was and really how well they did to last for four years considering all that they were up against----Frankly early in the war I don't think the Federals could have made it against the same odds.
 
I do not believe he had much opposition other than delay actions until he got to Bentonville. His army was too big to oppose by what was left to do it. I think building roads probably delayed him more.

I proposed this "what if" just to point out how outnumbered the Confederacy was and really how well they did to last for four years considering all that they were up against----Frankly early in the war I don't think the Federals could have made it against the same odds.

If your point is that the Confederate armies fought very well, against the odds, no argument from me!
 
If you reversed the number of troops in each major action----Would the results change? If so how much? We all know that in most instances the South was outnumbered and fought with this great disadvantage all thru the war. Given this--- if for instance, the South had the 90,000 at Gettysburg and the North the 70,000---Would the South have won?

Despite having inferior numbers, the Confederates scored a number of major battle victories, so I don't see where having superior numbers in a major battle was especially significant. The Union took Gettysburg not because it had a larger foce than the Confederates, but because it was able to claim the high ground and hold it ahead of Lee's Army, which marched into southern Pennsylvania essentially blind.

I wonder if the ANV would have been as lithe had it been larger, slower and clumsier the way the AOTP generally was?

Numbers also would have made the South's logistical problems of supplying its troops even more cumbersome because there would be more men to have to feed and supply, and a very limited system of transportation to rely upon.
 
Despite having inferior numbers, the Confederates scored a number of major battle victories, so I don't see where having superior numbers in a major battle was especially significant. The Union took Gettysburg not because it had a larger foce than the Confederates, but because it was able to claim the high ground and hold it ahead of Lee's Army, which marched into southern Pennsylvania essentially blind.

I wonder if the ANV would have been as lithe had it been larger, slower and clumsier the way the AOTP generally was?

Numbers also would have made the South's logistical problems of supplying its troops even more cumbersome because there would be more men to have to feed and supply, and a very limited system of transportation to rely upon.

Valid assessment---Smaller numbers help the ANV to generally always move faster than his opposition and of course made supplying a manageable problem. However, I propose that Lee like Sherman could have lived off the land and would have won the war fast enough by occupying some key locations like Harrisburg, Washington, Baltimore, etc.---Of course, only my speculation.
 
Back
Top