Lee Attacks - Manassas and Antietam - American Civil War DOCUMENTARY

[@KingsandGenerals]

🎥 Join our KZbin members and patrons to unlock more than 200+ exclusive videos: kzbin.info/door/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fwjoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals

[@IRS-internal-revenue-service]

Ratio

[@القاسمالشرعبي]

@@KingsandGenerals What I didn't know I could join? The join button doesn't appear for me, but I solved the problem by running VPN. Thank you very much for your hard and sophisticated work. You are truly a miracle for history lovers. I don't speak English this is from google translate so there will be mistakes

[@thedrinkinggamemaker9749]

Please do Stonewall Jackson

[@TheTanSteele]

I strongly recommend joining up if you can, folks. It's 100% worth it.

[@AdmRose]

“As diplomatic as a brick to the face.” That line made me giggle.

[@kevind7396]

Having done my dissertation on Pope, it was a very accurate description of him in 1862.

[@jonshive5482]

@@kevind7396 According to Bruce Catton IIRC Pope was the only Union officer for whom Lee expressed personal contempt, declaring he "must be suppressed."

[@kevind7396]

@jonshive5482 That's right. One of.his relations worked for Pope. Of course Pope was one of the few anti-slavery generals in the Union high command.

[@JohnnyElRed]

It seems Union military leadership at the start of the war, was the greatest advantage the Confederacy had.

[@tripsaplenty1227]

Yeah, Jackson and Lee were capable but they were not as good as the Yankees made them look.

[@stevecooper7883]

​@@tripsaplenty1227Well Jackson was definitely one of America's best officers in the sense he understood defeat in detail, but as they say "in the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye rules" lol

[@soulknife20]

Yup. The Union was still trying to not lose instead of trying to win. McClellan was a good logistics general, but a very poor battlefield general

[@dilladinbutler5811]

I would argue that McClellan was the Confederacy’s advantage. Very self-absorbed, and only he could claim the victory. It got in the way of his own relationships with his own command, and rivalries in higher command. Not to mention his own political views on how the war should be fought. Not necessarily that the Confederacy was great, just the first half of 1862 the Union high command was more worried about how they looked politically than militarily. And I think each Union commander in the east was more cautious with their actions and what it looked like through the newspaper, because they were closer to the publishers in the east, then the Union commanders were in the west. Once McClellan was replaced with Burnside, then Hooker and then Meade, you see a gradual progression of military effort than political effort in the Army of The Potomac.

[@avet4521]

​@tripsaplenty1227 I am considerably harsher in my critique of Lee. While I grant that he was a clever tactician, and he was a good motivator, he was otherwise incompetent. His strategy allowed for a war of attrition with a larger/better supplied army, rendering his victories as Pyrrhic. The Grand Army of Northern Virginia starved while fighting in Virginia, and Lee never had a solution for that. As for his tactical prowess: "Amateurs speak of tactics, while professionals speak of logistics." When we consider his education at West Point and his time spent under General Winfred Scott, his failures become even more egregious.

[@ElBandito]

McClellen reminds me of how I play strategy games. I really hate losing men, even if the potential gain is high. As a result, I try to maneuver a lot, and lose the opportunity.

[@DrKarmo]

You need to get better at leading bro 💀

[@nomooon]

You don't need those opportunities, when you are trying to create the inevitability of you winning at the end, even if it means 30 more turns...

[@Thechezbailey]

​@@nomooonWhich is exactly why Lee eventually lost hard. He came up against Grant, who never gave him the opportunities he needed. Death by paper cuts is still death.

[@theawesomeman9821]

I play Risk with friends and they are totally desensitized about losing pawns

[@chrismartindale7840]

Fortune favors the bold. Also, "Never take counsel of your fear." -Stonewall Jackson

[@TheReaperEagle]

The Writer Here: As always, I'll answer any questions about the episode in this thread. Some details that didn't make the final script: 1) Halleck wasn't a great general but was a _very_ skilled administrator. He became general-in-chief by coordinating other generals effectively, which proved to be more important than anything else. 2) Lee's army was the _best_ supplied Confederate field army. Think about that for a second. 3) Stuart encouraged flamboyance and chivalry in his cavalry corps. This was a calculated move to use morale and bravado to make up for their dwindling numbers. It was far harder to maintain cavalry than infantry. 4) Grant wasn't chosen over Pope because of Shiloh. While this would prove to be a mistake, it did make sense at the time. 5) The Confederates were outraged that Pope was deliberately stripping the countryside. The fact that they'd done so out West already didn't matter. Those were _western_ states, *this* was Virginia. Said depredation campaign was designed to destroy everything of military value but not harm the populace. Hungry people create more disruption than dead ones. 6) McClellan was dragging his feet about sending reinforcements to Pope. Given how badly he used the troops he _did_ have, I don't think it made much of a difference. That doesn't excuse the deliberate sabotage. 7) Pope had a habit of writing grandiose orders that could be interpreted multiple ways, which directly caused all the confusion. 8) Following Cedar Mountain, Jackson made a point of giving his subordinates highly detailed, specific orders. He always learned from his mistakes. This made them more effective, but there would be consequences down the line. 9) The biggest innovation in battlefield medicine in this era was people like Barton showing up to tend the wounded. This was rare beforehand. It seems shamefully obvious in retrospect. 10) Many of Jackson's men would say that the meal they had at Manassas was the largest of the entire war. 11) No one knows why Pope was so target fixated on Jackson. There were _plenty_ of warnings prior to Longstreet's attack. Nor is it clear how he was so uninformed about where his own troops were. Just...terrible generalship by any standard. 12) Longstreet was in Throughfare Gap before dawn on the 29th, was skirmishing with Buford by 08:15, and in position by noon. It's a tremendous feat of marching logistics. 13) Sigel's troops were mostly German immigrants who'd signed up to fight under Sigel since he was also a German immigrant. 14) Pope didn't know anything was wrong until troops started routing past his headquarters. 15) Porter's court martial happened after Antietam. He'd be dismissed for insubordination, but that was a politically motivated decision and he'd be vindicated and his dismissal overturned after the war. 16) The Republicans lost their majority in the midterms but maintained a plurality of seats in Congress. 17) Davis didn't know about Lee's plans until after he was moving. This was not an accident. 18) Hooker always maintained that if he had been able to stay on the field, he could have broken Lee's line at Antietam. Historians now think he was right. 19) Porter was at least partially to blame for McClellan holding troops back, as he said "Remember, General, I command the last reverse of the last army of the republic."

[@tripsaplenty1227]

Army camps had nurses, the army had nurses. Nursing was a male profession in America before the war. Volunteer female nurses became necessary because casualties were much higher than previous wars due to new technology and obsolete tactics. The Battle of Shiloh was bloodier than all the previous US wars combined and it wasn' the bloodiest battle of the war. Army nursing wasn't ready for that, the entire nursing profession wasn't ready for that.

[@awesomehpt8938]

Is George Mclellan the most frustrating general in human history?

[@ArmchairFilmCritic]

interesting additions to the video

[@raetekusu1]

Re: 2. That, more than anything, should put a decisive nail in the "Confederates could have won!" coffin. Lee's army was struggling for supplies, but everyone else was worse off than him. Ain't no way they were going to stand a chance if the war lasted longer than a few weeks.That they lasted longer than a few months is a testament to McLellan's utter incompetence.

[@NefariousKoel]

Some notable points in there, and I'm glad you included them. Were the cuts made to keep the runtime low?

[@KevinTheID]

Every time I reflect on McClellan's leadership, I'm always left puzzled by his reticence to attack the enemy and gross overestimation of Confederate defenses. On the one hand, you want a commander who doesn't just blindly attack in the face of all common sense (i.e. Burnside's ludicrous attacks on Marye's Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg) but McClellan was somehow simultaneously defeatist and overconfident. He was a great training officer and knew military tactics - he definitely could have dealt a serious blow to Lee at Antietam for instance - but it almost feels like he didn't trust the training he personally instilled in his own troops and thus underestimated their abilities while overestimating Lee's (even when he possessed every advantage an officer could ask for). Seems apparent that he let the moniker and vanity of "Little Napoleon" go to his head and thus wanted to amass the largest army anyone had ever seen while using his delusions as justification to do so. He took his enemy too seriously but didn't take himself seriously enough. Like I said, he's a puzzling man to dissect.

[@TheReaperEagle]

There are _so_ many theories. They all revolve around his political ambitions and emotional attachment to his soldiers. He feared defeat would derail his career and simultaneously loved his soldiers so much that he couldn't abide them being hurt. He wanted to create the perfect army and couldn't stomach the thought of damaging it.

[@KevinTheID]

@@TheReaperEagle His political ambitions have definitely been a source of debate but I'm always skeptical of how much that dictated his actions until after he was finally sacked and tried to run against Lincoln in the later election. I think it really does come down to that fear of derailing his career though like you mentioned - which is odd considering that if he had won a great victory that would only propel his career even further and solidify him as the great general he though he was. I guess his timidity and concern over losing what he'd gained won out over his desire to advance himself or gain glory on the battlefield.

[@nickgraff9413]

@@KevinTheID A lack of practical experience may also explain a lot of McClellan's faults. He commanded engineers before the war, with his first major combat command being the Department of the Ohio. I think Philippi and Rich Mountain grossly overestimated his ability to command large numbers of troops because his plans failed both times, yet the Union Army was able to claw victories out because of the skill of their officers and the numerical inferiority of the Confederates. He claimed credit for those victories, despite the actions of his subordinates, like Rosecrans. McClellan's ego and overinflated reputation put him as the best candidate to lead the Army of the Potomac. This was still early in the war, when nearly everyone else but McClellan was failing to beat the Confederates. After First Bull Run, Lincoln needed someone, and McClellan had a couple victories under his belt. His ability to train and form armies is almost without peer at that time, he was a very capable training officer, and impressed Lincoln with his work. However, his exaggerated ability to lead in the field hampered him greatly. I think he realized he was in over his head, leading an army against a capable and experienced field commander in Lee, and yet his ego could not allow him to shirk the spotlight the Union's newspapers were putting him in, thus his subpar battlefield performances but near cult of personality status in the North. What sometimes gets forgotten is the fact that Philippi was McClellan's first ever time leading in battle, he was too late to fight in Mexico, was an observer at Crimea, and spent most of his military career in an intellectual pursuit of fame. He knew his strategy, he just couldn't perform very well, and a lack of combat experience as a lower-level officer didn't help him either.

[@KevinTheID]

@@nickgraff9413 That's an excellent point, his lack of practical experience is a serious contributing factor and the inflation of his abilities in the press probably contributed to him being overconfident but at the same time consternation about losing that image if he suffered a significant battlefield defeat.

[@king231190]

He reminds me a lot of Bernard Montogemery. His command style was similar. He would also group up soldiers and wait to have an exceeding advantage and then grind down the enemy . However where McClellan was a coward and indecisive Montogemery was not. Both where egoistic. One history remembers fondly the other not.

[@barbiquearea]

President Lincoln remarked about General McClellan's endless requests for more reinforcements, that sending General McClellan more reinforcements "was like shoveling flies across a barn."

[@jacobhamilton7106]

I just want to point out before more comments pop up concerning it, but the Confederate flag used in this video is indeed the Stars and Bars original flag of the South used up until 1863. They're not rewriting history, they're being historically accurate.

[@chrismartindale7840]

I often wonder if they use the Confederate Battle Flag (The Stainless Banner) because it looks pretty cool. A shame it has such a dark history attached.

[@chadlewisdchc2973]

McClellan truly wanted to be remembered for his enormous victories against overwhelming odds, odds that never existed cuz they were all in his head

[@pablopablo3834]

McClennan "I heard reports they have a battalion of bigfoots riding on Gryphons. Retreat!!!"

[@jonbaxter2254]

The man literally found the cheat sheet, and still couldn't manage a full win.

[@gregorferry3249]

"Having gloriously fled an inferior foe for the safety of James River". Wonderful! Your script is magnificent!

[@Maverick0451]

Absolutely brilliant!! This series hits home to me as I have family that fought on both sides of this conflict, and I have been to MANY of the battlefields of this war in both the eastern and western theatres. I would LOVE to see some info boxes in here like you do in the WWII videos, there are loads of stories of individual acts of bravery and stories of small unit actions to be described on the micro level while the strategic story is being played out through narration and the beautiful illustrations!! Thank you as always for the excellent work, I will be a lifelong channel member, and I look forward to all the future content, especially the remainder of the Pacific campaign and the start of the Eastern Front!!

[@theawesomeman9821]

In the American North, the battle at Manasses is called the 2nd Battle of Bull Run.

[@snake1kl]

If Napoleon was in charge of McClellan's forces he would have ended the war in one or two battles

[@chrismartindale7840]

I imagine that is true in many cases. Napoleon is one of the better generals of all time.

[@barbiquearea]

If the Union had someone of Napoleon's caliber, the CSA might have fought the Union asymmetrically like Joe Johnston had wanted. It might have turned into another Peninsular War.

[@Reese8531]

@@chrismartindale7840Napoleon is by by far the best general ever!!

[@peterjensen2483]

Given that tactics and especially command and control is still the same as in the Napoleonic wars, I think the “what if Napoleon commanded” scenario is a good one. Given that Napoleon often faced suoerior enemy numbers in campaigns, its reasonable to think he would have ended the conventional part of the civil war pretty quickly

[@chrismartindale7840]

@@Reese8531 ever is debatable. But he is way, way up there. In case you're wondering, I think the best general ever was General Erich Von Manstein. His 'mobile defense' was genius and most modern day generals on the defensive use a variant of it. If Hitler had listened to him and launched an immediate counterattack on the Kursk salient, he likely would won the battle of Kursk and who knows how that would have changed history.

[@guydreamr]

If you're not going to use the army, I should like to borrow it for awhile. - Lincoln to McClellan, shortly before relieving him of his command

[@Myrkin]

Nothing is more frustrating than your teammate snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[@markzepp481]

As a Ravens fan I’m all to familiar with that

[@brianivey73]

Love that you're doing the American civil war. You make the best videos!

[@brokenbridge6316]

McClellan is proof positive on how best to train n supple n army but not on how best to use it against an enemy. Great video. Can't wait for the next one in this series to come out.

[@ListenToPowerViolence]

McClellan was loved by the troops because he was so risk averse and protective of them.

[@marcbartuschka6372]

Well yes and no. I understand that the soldiers thought so, but I also guess many more than "necessary" died because his shortcomings wasted quite some good chances in dealing significant and even decisive blows to the enemy.

[@TheReaperEagle]

@@marcbartuschka6372 Soldiers don't want to die in war. You have to spend their lives to win a war. That's how war works. McClellan didn't accept this. The problem is that pre-WWII, most soldiers who died during war didn't die from battlefield wounds but camp diseases. The shorter the war, the better their chances of survival. Grant knew this, and while he hated sending soldiers to die, he'd rather they died in battle than in hospital.

[@Thechezbailey]

Exactly ​@@TheReaperEagle, the camp diseases were pretty horrible indeed.

[@oldfrend]

mclellan was loved until his men realized he was a coward and would shame them with loss after loss. they wanted to live, but they wanted to win as well.

[@القاسمالشرعبي]

Thank you for your great efforts, the episodes are always wonderful. Your fans from Yemen ❤

[@giod6266]

One must admire General Lee for what he was achving by having almost nothing and always being outnumberd..

[@mmsalsa]

I actually rebuke general lee, he fought against the very spirit of what freedom is meant to represent in usa. All men are created equal(except dark skin men and women).... usa is simply an economic zone and the culture is one of money worship.

[@NotSimpleHistory]

The Battle of Antietam is a grim reminder of how brutal the Civil War truly was. It’s haunting to think that a single day of fighting led to such staggering casualties, and yet it was a pivotal moment in shaping Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

And the dead that came from that war is still more than the combined deaths of all the wars the US fought after that even to this day...

[@deviousnate7238]

26:08 "An-Ti-tem", not "Ant-i-et-am"

[@Heimdllr]

Yes that bugged me too. But better just to call it the battle of sharpsburg.

[@muhammadscott571]

For some reason in AZ we call it Anthem Don't ask me why that's just the way I always heard it called

[@dardell2001]

The more I learn about the battles of the Civil War the more I'm convinced that Lee wasn't all that successful. He just faced a lot of incompetent generals more often than not.

[@lucashunskor3333]

That’s something I’ve come to realize as well. Its funny people call Grant the “Butcher” but you had a greater chance of dying in Lee’s army than Grants if you look at the numbers

[@bradleypaul9729]

Lee was a good general however compared to the average Americans perception he is by far the most overrated general in history. Truth is that not only was he not the best general in the Civil war he wasn't even the best Confederate general.

[@bradleypaul9729]

Additionally you have to take into account that Grant was having to constantly attack Lee in prepared fortified positions and trenches during his Virginia campaign. A basic rule in modern warfare is to always expect higher causalities on the offensive side when attacking fortified positions.

[@Davin-yv4xv]

Welcome to early American military history. Pretty much everything before the Spanish American war was America getting extremely lucky over and over.

[@jonshive5482]

@@lucashunskor3333 Which numbers? In practically every battle of the Overland Campaign Grant lost considerably more men than Lee: Wilderness was a confused series of firefights in woods where Grant's overwhelming numbers didn't count, while Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor were mostly one-sided struggles in which Union troops frontally assaulted Confederates in fortified positions. Grant lost around 70,000 men (KIA and WIA) in those battles and other smaller engagements while Lee's losses were barely half that. Likewise direct Union attacks on Petersburg were bloodily repulsed with heavy loss. Of course given that most fatalities came from natural causes in unsanitary conditions without proper hygiene it's possible poorly supplied Confederates suffered more than Union soldiers, but while I don't have those numbers it's doubtful it closes the gap with combat fatalities. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

[@DonyellBryant-b6z]

Thank you for the video. I love the movie Gods and Generals.

[@kevind7396]

I did my dissertation on Pope. While I think he had some disadvantages--no ability to pick subordinates, getting stuck with McDowell, Sigel and Banks as corps commanders, little time to get to know the army and region--he was tactless and did himself no favors with his big mouth.

[@ArmchairFilmCritic]

another great video. McClellan was a good trainer of infantry but a hopeless commanding or field general. Usually Jackson was a good if not eccentric general, I was a bit surprised he didn’t brief or give instructions to his sub-ordinates at Cedar Mountain, quite an oversight. In the end he won the battle but with high casualties, probably why he held his position for 2 days after the battle.

[@stevecooper7883]

I'm guessing Jackson was tired for the day and it either slipped his mind or retired for the evening. Typically he liked to micromanage so it was out of character to leave such a matter unattended.

[@phenom568]

Good video as always. A couple things. Its not Anti - et - am, its An - tiet - am. I visited the battlefield this last summer and before that I couldn't understand why Lee decided to make a stand here and why the casualties were so high. As soon as you get to the battlefield it becomes quite apparent. The entire battlefield is a mix of medium sized hills and little rolling hills through the land. You can't see more than a hundred yards in front of you. Its a quite good for defense but your troops are basically firing point blank into each other. At bloody lane the fighting had to be around 50 yards because you couldn't see the other side before then. Also the blue ridge mountains are absolutely stunning, its a picturesque site.

[@starmanfaned]

I visited Antietam also..it’s an amazing place

[@القاسمالشرعبي]

I hope that in the coming days episodes will be released about the War of the Spanish Succession. It is an interesting, complex and historically wronged war.

[@mattries37315]

@20:55 McClellan did not do nothing for 18 hours, for once he actually did something with speed. For the past century historians have assumed that the boast telegram was sent earlier than it was, it was actually 12 hours later. That said McClellan while a good organizer and strategist was a piss poor battlefield commander as seen in the battle of Antietam and believed there were 100K Confederate soldiers on the other side of every hill, creek, river, forest, road, and whatever other natural or man-made obstacle between him and Richmond that the Confederacy somehow provisioned. The man could have won the war on at least two occasions (maybe more), but did not have the fortitude to do so.

[@neptunestylev]

When McLellan woke up in a nightfit I bet you he saw Lee in the corner of his room 😂

[@joshdoldersum9132]

McClellan reminds me of the Band of Brothers depiction of Lt. Sobel.

[@cosmedelustrac5842]

And to think that Lee was offered command of the Union army by Lincoln. Things would have played out very differently had that hapenned.

[@Lili_Chen2005]

The Confederacy might have gotten someone good like Johnson while a Unionist Lee ignored everything west of the Appalachian mountains. 😅

[@brendanzhang7488]

@@Lili_Chen2005 u relaized during this part of the war, He was only in charge of the Virginia army? and then when they started losing he became commander in chief

[@Lili_Chen2005]

@brendanzhang7488 Lee had tremendous influence with Davis, who notoriously played favorites. His official position was indeed the AoNV, but he absolutely had a great deal of say in who got priority on weapons and reinforcements. He likewise had to approve troops transfers from his own command to another and very seldom did so, even when the western theater commanders pleaded with both him and Davis. Unofficially he had amounted the influence to hold defacto control, especially by 1864.

[@coolcatfelix2605]

Love the civil war content! Keep it up!

[@SomaticChannel]

Man I’m always checking for the next episode. So good!

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thanks!

[@simenonhonore]

Very interesting detail explaining the thinking of the key players - thanks.

[@Ganymede1001]

Ive been anxiously waiting on this !!🙌🏻🙌🏻☺️

[@jkfortyseven]

“was as diplomatic as a brick to the face” is a great line

[@abdallaha92]

Whoever wrote "as diplomatic as a brick to the face" deserves a raise. A big, big raise

[@tripsaplenty1227]

0:44 "Can I have like 20 bucks" "no"

[@me0101001000]

OooOooOOOooHH NoooOOOooOO

[@bengriffith1586]

Oh man it's killing me having to wait for more of these videos

[@aagelman80]

Great as always!

[@chasechristophermurraydola9314]

My guess is the next episode will cover the battle of Fredericksburg, the emancipation proclamation and the battle of Chancellorsville.

[@ukaszw.5461]

Moje ulubione bitwy w wojnie secesyjnej.

[@chasechristophermurraydola9314]

@@ukaszw.5461wow why are they your favorite civil war battles if you don’t mind me asking and in case you are wondering what my favorite civil war battles are they are Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg, Petersburg, New market and bull run.

[@Daniel-tr6qo]

I see what you did at the 3 minute mark, sneaking in chamberlain. Jeff Daniels did a hell of a job rocking that mustache

[@toopers1]

Will you cover the Western Theater in the long Version of the Series?

[@KingsandGenerals]

Yep

[@christianstough6337]

A couple of things I wish you had included. Jacksons soldiers bacchanal at Popes supply depot. Lee's ultimate plan of destroying the bridge on the Susquehanna and dividing the North from east and west. Assuming a victory over McClellan, the only thing that would have faced him afterwards would have been raw militia. If the performance of the Militia at the battle of Richmond Ky is any indication, this would have been very bad news for the North. If this had played out, it would have been a huge game changer. Three things prevented this from happening: The size of Lee's army was about 20, 000 too small. The lost orders meant McClellan would move faster than usual. McClellan was unlikely to be destroyed by Lee assuming close odds. Defeated and pushed back, sure, but destroyed, not likely.

[@icegoblin6694]

Would you all consider adding a map scale to the battle maps? Sometimes it’s difficult to imagine the scale/distance some of these battle lines/advances cover.

[@Alec.40]

Awesome video thanks

[@Ranchor489]

This entire war is actually a very good lesson on how to deploy and utilize a smaller army against an unseemingly endless enemy that can remobilize and resupply more than you ever could, even if it ended on the larger army's victory. All those rapid deployments and unconventional movements would later gain international acclaim that would see other nations want Confederate generals to teach their armies.

[@adamsnow4979]

The confederates lost so

[@Ranchor489]

@@adamsnow4979 Yes, I wrote that.

[@ianblake815]

Lee was a bobcat while McClellan was an earthworm

[@bert8373]

Agood read-Return to Bull Run:The Campaign and Battle of 2nd Manassas by John J. Hennessy👍👍

[@ilhamiata769]

"Having gloriously fled an inferior foe for the safety" That line is crazy :DDDDD

[@archanarajan7086]

Hi, would love to know when your series on the French Wars of religion are coming out

[@KingsandGenerals]

Hoping for 2025, but not sure.

[@jaohonaxa]

I’ve always fond it odd how many people call Lee one of the best generals considering the majority of his career was spent fighting against the most incompetent morons in the history of the American military.

[@raetekusu1]

"Lost Cause" Myth and all that. The Confederate generals, while talented, were ultimately made to look better by both Southern propaganda that still survives, coupled with the Union generals being bad fits for the job. Soon as the Union got the right men in the right places (i.e. Grant and Sherman), the Confederacy folded in two in record time.

[@Arrowfodder]

Yes he was no Napoleon, no Suvurov, Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Eugene etc. He is greatly overrated, he isnt even the best general on the confederate side.

[@phenom568]

You could say the same thing about Napoleon. Was Austerlitz Napoleons genius or allied incompetence? Its better to focus on the man not his opponents. Lee isn't Napoleon but I would take Lee over most of the generals in the Napoleonic wars. Lee's defense against Grant in 1864 is quite impressive given that he was outnumbered at least 2 to 1.

[@perennem_equitem_57]

​@@phenom568 I don't blame you there, other than kutuzov, wellington, and Schwarzenberg napoleon didn't fight much talent. However Lee was a fine tactician but a poor strategist and even worse logistical planner. He allowed his army to be caught in a war of attrition against a force with more man power and better logistics. I think while he was good, somebody like Johnston would've been a better fit.

[@Arrowfodder]

Napoleon faced rather stiff opposition in Italy as well not to forget, all far more experienced at command than the generals that Lee faced. The main thing I see with Lee is how he tried to fight in a Napoleonic way, big grandiose deciding battles etc, but lacked the men, training and experience to fully do so. His army wasnt ready, the structure and resources needed wasnt there. He could win battles but never destroyed the army of the Potomac. So while its true that one could blame Lee's hunt for a new Austerlitz as a reason for why he in the end failed I think one also can argue that he also didnt have the means to fully master the napoleonic art of war.

[@georgescott6620]

I always see the battle of Antietam as having the potential of being a Friedland with an army caught with its back to a river, yet such caution and lack of quality staff work just lets what could have been war winning moment disappear despite a significant investment of blood and bullets.

[@Arrowfodder]

It seems to me that both sides were bad at pursuing and destroying the opposite army after victories, instead they could retreat, regroup and then try again. Perhaps its due to the inexperience of the cavalry arm? I mean many generals were trained on Napoleonic tactics so they should have realised the need to follow through on their victories.

[@georgescott6620]

@@Arrowfodder I think that is certainly part of it. Much of the decisive manoeuvres that were expected form in battles in Europe seem to fall apart or fall to exist at all in the civil war and I do wonder if it was a certain reluctance to escalate against their countrymen that tragically resulted in far more death and destruction.

[@TheReaperEagle]

@@Arrowfodder That you had to destroy the enemy during the retreat was well known, and many generals did try. The problem was that America's geography is so much more rugged than Europe's that pursuit became impossible due to exhaustion. Many times, both soldiers and horses were too worn out winning the battle to give chase.

[@overworlder]

Incredible the overwhelming advantages held by the Union in the East were thrown away again and again, for three years until Grant arrived. People attacked Grant for incurring casualties to win the war, but never seem to condemn the others, Meade excepted, who in their confusion and incompetence threw lives away for nothing. Fredericksburg the most horrifying of all. Also stirring to see Buford doing his thing, which always seemed to add value.

[@pnutz_2]

I'm getting some North Africa Campaign vibes here of someone with a big material superiority pissing it away by coordination failures and being played by the one guy over and over

[@Arashmickey]

[McClellan eyeing Lee from across the room]: This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them!

[@sicily7220]

2 things are true: 1.the North may have encounter larger losses without the organization skills of McClellan getting Northern Army into fighting force. 2. The North would not have won with McClellan in charge and may have extended the war by 3 years. McClellan did not have broad sense how communicate battle strategies nor developed intelligence network to give more accurate intelligence on the South's disposition. My opinion: McClellan was good at preparing an army, but not good to use an army in a war.

[@charlesfaure1189]

He was bad at the parts of the job that required courage from the general in command.

[@-RONNIE]

Thank you for the video

[@thebeanman99]

Hearing a Brit pronounce Antietam is like nails on a chalkboard 💀😂

[@ojutay8375]

He's actually Canadian

[@jasonrichardsondvi177]

@@ojutay8375that doesn’t make it better

[@ojutay8375]

@@jasonrichardsondvi177 I was wrong he is British 🤢

[@marknewton6984]

Why can't the English speak English??

[@michaelquinn8064]

try listening to americans try to pronounce anything makes us feel the same

[@bigsarge2085]

Fascinating!

[@andrewmorfill776]

When Jackson attached Pope’s column to prevent flanking I think you meant “tactical purpose was achieved” rather than “strategic purpose”. Tell me how I’m wrong but strategy would be “counter attack the Union and move north to capture Washington”. Tactics would be things like this attack on a column.

[@aarondemiri486]

Love videos about the American civil war

[@shabeenahamed9954]

Can you please make a video on the history of lakshadweep islands

[@jonnyladuke2616]

I would love to see a video on the Battle of Firaz where a combined Sassanid-Byzantine army fought agains the Rashidun Caliphate

[@MongoIndyleo]

I hadn't realized that the Civil War legitimately could've been a short, less destructive war and that the Union was to blame for not making it so. Think of how different the history of the US would be different if the Union had immediately smacked down the South.

[@oldfrend]

not necessarily true. even if we'd beaten them early, their morale was quite high even late into the war. they needed the fight beaten out of them or they'd have just come back for more. grant and sherman proved that later in the war, pummeling them with death and destruction and still they fought on and on and on in the siege of richmond and sherman's march to the sea.

[@barppoots4378]

Like and commenting for the algorithm. Will watch when the 10 hour long video comes out.

[@stevecooper7883]

19:00 Lee actually did receive a "few score" or about 80 volunteers in Western Maryland, the issue as you said was any slaveholders or pro confederate families in the area had already been imprisoned or fled their neighbors.

[@ahmed54th72]

I request to make new video series on World War 1. I can’t find you any video of World War 1 except Gallipoli campaign. So please make it!

[@1armstrong607]

Watching the original getting ready for the sequel:)

[@nathanappleby5342]

Lee issuing objectives to Longstreet and Jackson and letting them achieve them on their own was exactly the Prussian way of war in the 1860s and 70s. The key to this being a success was Lee being able to trust them since they knew what they were doing. Lee showed that, despite being a graduate of the West Point class of 1829, just 14 years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, he had adapted to the modern command methods advocated by Moltke in Europe. It is rather dismaying that it took the Union in the east a year and a half to get the right generals in the right places to command the army and fight a battle the way they were supposed to. An example of General Meade knowing what it took to fight a modern war was at Frostown at the Battle of South Mountain when his Pennsylvania Reserves attacked the position using established fire and maneuver tactics. Meade was, without a doubt, one of the best Union generals in the Civil War.

[@Arrowfodder]

Isnt it more likely that Lee learnt this from his studies on Napoleonic warfare at West Point? Napoleon after all used the same system with his cores, his most trusted commanders being able to act independent with their cores. Davout, Lannes and Soult being prime exemples. So my take is that Lee was implemeting this in his army.

[@nathanappleby5342]

@Arrowfodder That would make more sense.

[@goldenfiberwheat238]

18:44 Harper’s ferry was where John browns raid was right?

[@bman8036]

Yes

[@bman8036]

Big supply depot at the time

[@cloudduel13]

I live these videos.

[@KingsandGenerals]

Thanks

[@indyspotes3310]

After years of hearing the announcer gracefully flow through the most unpronounceable names and places throughout history, his mispronunciation of "Antietam" shocked me so much it actually made me laugh. Oh well, it was a good run...

[@Arturino_Burachelini]

The General Clusterfudge 😅

[@HistStory-ns]

thanks you

[@kevinbourke1847]

20:45 191 battle plans

[@mechanicalturk5202]

Battle of Antietam was done dirty in this. Bloodiest single day in American history and we get 3mins on it, wew...

[@rodm8113]

Thanks

[@patrickg301]

I think its safe to say the confederacy had many fine leaders in the right place at the right time in the beginning of the war. The union did not. By all rights the war shouldn't had lasted more then 2 years. The Norths finacial,industry and navy alone should had seen to that. Resources abundant in the north and limited in the south. Basically Mclellans strong point was logistics and training. But he was never a actual fighting general like Lee. What drew out the war was Lincoln having to sift through the chaff to find the diamond. Once found the war went bad quickly for the confederacy. Grant didn't play. He new he had superior logistics and resources and the confederacy did not. He did what any war general would do who holds all the cards. He attacked. Again again and again on all fronts. Even landing smaller armies in south Carolina, Florida and Texas. I think though that these events happened as they must when you don't have a Lee at your disposal at the beginning of conflict. The conflict itself must harden shape and refine the commander so that, when ready he is tempered and sharpened to a knifes edge and ready to cut...

[@adamfrazer5150]

Insult for the day : calling someone a McLellan 😏

[@windunursetyadi]

I didn't lose! I merely failed to win!

[@stevecooper7883]

Receive intelligence, sit on it all day. The McClellan way 😎

[@gregthornton988]

Good video like always. Couple little nit picks though. 1. It’s not Anti-et-am, it’s An-tiet-am. 2. Also I know you created the little Betsy Ross flag asset for the Revolution series, but maybe update the Union battle icons with the appropriate 1861 US flag. Yes I know some units carried historic flags as well but the standard 1861 flag would have been the most used in 1862.

[@carlosfilho3402]

Sometimes it seems that Mcland's ideas about believing that Lee had a larger army seemed to be about him having more soldiers. But he seems to really believe it.

[@gumbyshrimp2606]

Lee is the best!

[@christianstough6337]

Some nit picks. Pretty sure Lee held his ground the day after Antietam and then retreated the following day. Most folks put his army size at around 40,000 once the battle start.

[@justindie7543]

Robert E Lee reminds me alot of Hannibal or Charles XII of Sweden. Strong general, but ultimately fighting in vein for a weak state.

[@roihanfadhil2879]

Lincoln: "Attack them!" McClellan: " No!" Lincoln: "You now have superiority army, you should attack them, common!" McClellan: "Still, No!" Lincoln: "You are fired!" McClellan: "So, I am running for presidential election!"

[@ZaccusMaximus69]

"I didn't lose. I merely failed to win!"

[@Semperfi1917]

Is that Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain at 2:53??

[@christianstough6337]

Something to consider about 'bad generals' in the Civil War. These armies were made out of nothing with little time to train to become a skilled army. They had to learn as they went. Most of these men understood that a poor order or plan or decision would get 100's to 1000's of men killed due to their blunder. As if they had killed them personally with their stupidity. The weight of this responsibility was heavy on most generals which made them hesitate or behave cautiously.Two generals, Joe Johnston and McClellan would go down as over-cautious, but the men under them were quite appreciative of their caution. Secondly, the scale of the units they were in command over was far above what any of these commanders had experienced before. Which makes many of these Generals look like fools. Some grew into their roles , others did not, and some were good at brigade or division, but not so good above that amount. On a side note, the reason I think Lee regarded McClellan highly after the war is that Lee was always looking to destroy his opponents army. With a larger army, Lee might very well have done this on a number of occasions. However, McClellan never game him an opportunity to do this. Sure, McClellan was not Grant or Sherman, or even Thomas, and he was maddeningly slow, but he was certainly better than Pope, Burnside, Hooker and possibly Meade.

[@nomooon]

3:08 I wonder what went wrong with his inspirational speech so much that it made people quit...

[@JonathanLundkvist]

So when do we get to the Western Theatre? Ft Donaldson, Shiloh? Vicksburg etc?

[@KingsandGenerals]

In a few episodes

[@pericoparakeet6104]

Hopfullyvwe get a new and improved napoleonic wars series

[@rmhouser19861]

Good, but I always feel this channel slightly misleads and misses key points. Antietam for example.. two points.. 1) the middle collapsed because at the same time Nelson Miles began to maneuver to place enfilade fire on the sunken road , an order was confused by Lt Col Lightfoot who replaced Gordon. Instead of turning to confront Nelson, Lightfoot thought he was ordered to fall back. When the rest of the brigade saw this, they too thought they were supposed to fall back. Thus, due to BOTH confusion and Miles the Confederates withdrew back from the sunken lane. 2) Burnside didn't really force himself across the bridge that now bears his name. Lee's right by this time has about 3k men, but it was really only Tomb's 400 Georgians actually holding the bridge. They held up Burnside from crossing. It was Burnside's fording of Sneavy's Ford and Tomb's brigade running low on ammunition that finally caused the Georgians to fall back. Ferrero's union boys certainly assaulted with gusto as well. A final bonus point, McClellan held back a full half of his army. Had he committed his forces to any one of the breakthroughs in the battle, but ESPECIALLY Burnside, he could have trapped Lee and the war might have ended. At the very least the war would have been vastly shortened. Burnside's attack threatened Lee's rear and his ONLY avenue of retreat down the Harper's Ferry Road. Oh well...

[@TheDawg1212]

Will you be going over the battles to the west such as Shiloh or Vicksburg?

[@KingsandGenerals]

Yep

[@Lordchill781]

NOW I KNOW WHAT TO DO

[@byronswain7569]

What game was used to make the machinima footage?

[@therob4371]

I know McClellen is a fool, but why is he wearing a Confederate uniform at 20:45?

[@EdReypapi23]

From Shenandoah valley the Civil War is part of it local culture