Prussian Prince wrote:In reality I think that Gettysburg was the Souths only chance to win. There are two great if's here. IF Jackson had not died and IF Lee would have had his costumary zeal and vigor on day one. With Jackson I believe that Lee would have acted different in his aggressiveness. He seemed more aggressive with Jackson present because he knew that he could always count on Jackson. With a win at Gettysburg the South could have gone on to threaten Baltimore and this would not have been good for the Lincoln Administration. My 2 Cents.
MarkCSA wrote:I always go for: cut off their supply lines, encircle, destroy (or have them throw themselves at your entenched position, net result the same). Not sure if this would be a valid historical option. Worked in Forge of Freedom too!
Jabberwock wrote:Absolutely. It is just 10x harder for the South to do that in PBEM.
Jabberwock wrote:Hmmm, maybe it is a special permission. Rafiki? Korrigan?
Prussian Prince wrote:In reality I think that Gettysburg was the Souths only chance to win. There are two great if's here. IF Jackson had not died and IF Lee would have had his costumary zeal and vigor on day one. With Jackson I believe that Lee would have acted different in his aggressiveness. He seemed more aggressive with Jackson present because he knew that he could always count on Jackson. With a win at Gettysburg the South could have gone on to threaten Baltimore and this would not have been good for the Lincoln Administration. My 2 Cents.
tonedog wrote:so have many players had wins as the csa by actually breakin the norths morale? ive started umpteen games now as the csa and am havin great fun tryin to win.
in my current game i thought i was doin well when i defeated a uniion army of 70000 with my 4000 army at fredericksburg. they then hit me with an army off 130000, incuding allmost 1000 cannon.
it moments like that that make me think winning is impossible, or is just holding out all u can do?
but them doesnt that just equate to losing as well?
Gray_Lensman wrote:Don't say never...
Vicksburg Estimated Casualties: U.S.A. 4,855 C.S.A. 32,697 (29,495 surrendered)
Appomattox: U.S.A 164 C.S.A 500 (28,251 surrendered and paroled)
lodilefty wrote:The south had to gain European recognition before emancipation was announced. Once the war was politically clear about slavery [vs. the 'states rights' euphimism], the governments of Europe couldn't touch it. Russia had already freed the serfs, for cryin' out loud....
So foreign intervention/support was no longer realistic by Gettysburg, but northern 'war fatigue' could wel have ended it, pobably no later than the 1864 election.. [McClellan ran on a peace platform, and the Army voted for 'ol Abe]
Coffee Sergeant wrote:I think entire armies being wiped out is pretty optimisitc. It never happened on either side even when the CSA became badly outnumbered. They didn't have any panzer divisions that could breakthough lines and encircle the enemy quickly like in WWII.
Revolutionarythought wrote:I don't think you're right. As someone else pointed out there are a couple of cases where armies were completely wiped out. The first being the surrender of Pemberton at Vicksburg in July 1863 and the second being Lee at Appomattox in April 1865.
In the first case Pemberton surrendered after being besieged for a month in the city of Vicksburg. In the second case Lee was attempting to extricate his army in good order after Federal breakthroughs at Petersburg. Unfortunately for Lee, Grant was able to surround and trap Lee's army at Appomattox. This is why Lee surrendered when he did. He at first attempted a break out, and when it was clear that he could not, he told general Gordon that "there is nothing left for me to do, but to go see General Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths."
And there were many missed opportunities on both sides to destroy entire armies. At Shiloh a Johnston nearly routed Grant's army, whose back was to the Tennessee river. Had the union army not held out in the Hornet's Nest pocket as long as they did, Grant's entire army would have been pushed into the river or been captured. The Federal soldiers in the Hornet's Nest bought enough time for Grant that another army could be landed at Pittsburgh's Landing to reinforce Grant.
At Chancellorsville Jackson's corp had completely flanked Hooker's army and a route had begun. Had the attack been staged earlier in the day, in all likelihood Jackson would have been able to route the entire Federal army and cut it off from its lines of retreat. Essentially the Army of the Potomac would have been destroyed.
In fact, Jackson had realized this, and it was for this reason that he rode forward to scout for a night assault on Federal positions (something almost never done during the civil war). I think we all know the result, however (Jackson was shot by his own troops returning to Confederate lines).
For the Union's part, Lee's army was very vulnerable during both incursions into the North. Neither little Mac nor Meade followed up their victories and pressed the advantage (though Sharpsburg was less of a victory than Gettysburg). Iirc, the Army of Northern Virginia, after Gettysburg, was actually trapped on the northern side of the Potomac for 2 days as the river was swollen.
Anyway... I'm rambling.
-S
Revolutionarythought wrote:I don't think you're right. As someone else pointed out there are a couple of cases where armies were completely wiped out. The first being the surrender of Pemberton at Vicksburg in July 1863 and the second being Lee at Appomattox in April 1865.
In the first case Pemberton surrendered after being besieged for a month in the city of Vicksburg. In the second case Lee was attempting to extricate his army in good order after Federal breakthroughs at Petersburg. Unfortunately for Lee, Grant was able to surround and trap Lee's army at Appomattox. This is why Lee surrendered when he did. He at first attempted a break out, and when it was clear that he could not, he told general Gordon that "there is nothing left for me to do, but to go see General Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths."
And there were many missed opportunities on both sides to destroy entire armies. At Shiloh a Johnston nearly routed Grant's army, whose back was to the Tennessee river. Had the union army not held out in the Hornet's Nest pocket as long as they did, Grant's entire army would have been pushed into the river or been captured. The Federal soldiers in the Hornet's Nest bought enough time for Grant that another army could be landed at Pittsburgh's Landing to reinforce Grant.
At Chancellorsville Jackson's corp had completely flanked Hooker's army and a route had begun. Had the attack been staged earlier in the day, in all likelihood Jackson would have been able to route the entire Federal army and cut it off from its lines of retreat. Essentially the Army of the Potomac would have been destroyed.
In fact, Jackson had realized this, and it was for this reason that he rode forward to scout for a night assault on Federal positions (something almost never done during the civil war). I think we all know the result, however (Jackson was shot by his own troops returning to Confederate lines).
For the Union's part, Lee's army was very vulnerable during both incursions into the North. Neither little Mac nor Meade followed up their victories and pressed the advantage (though Sharpsburg was less of a victory than Gettysburg). Iirc, the Army of Northern Virginia, after Gettysburg, was actually trapped on the northern side of the Potomac for 2 days as the river was swollen.
Anyway... I'm rambling.
-S
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests