The Battle of the Wilderness, Part 1 | Grant Moves South | Animated Battle Map

[@zach7193]

It's great that HHWT would cover the Overland campaign. This channel and Warhawk are the best when it comes to Civil War content.

[@zoanth4]

I'm in Virginia right now for work southwest of petersburg. I like walking the battlefields while watching these videos so I can see who fought and where. I'll be visiting the crater on Friday! Thanks for all the amazing videos!

[@RebHawkins54]

Thank you for taking this on. Very complex battle.

[@brianschroeder7331]

This will be a good few months of viewing enjoyment! Thank you Dr!!

[@paulwallis7586]

The entire overland campaign? There might be a pixel shortage. Good luck!

[@remissrain9207]

Love your detailed videos keep it up brother

[@jimplummer4879]

Grant did not always make the right decision, but he didn't let that stop him either.

[@joeydriskill8416]

I loved the Fredericksburg video and can't wait for the new ones🙌 I used to live around this area and seeing the history is always nice

[@wyatthen55]

We made it boys!!!!!!

[@Shotgunjones.3753]

Awesome, as always. I love your videos and what you are doing. Keep up the good work! Thank you.

[@HistoryGoneWilder]

Thank you so much!

[@johnresto1603]

Just did a tour of the Wilderness this past weekend.

[@darylwilliams7883]

This is going to be good, and so far, so good. I've read a number of accounts of the battle of the Wilderness, and they are as confusing to read now as it was to be part of it when it happened. This graphic really sets things up clearly, and I cannot wait to see how things develop.

[@NickDunnP.E.]

This tournament is critical for the Cats going forward under Cal. We need a deep run! Go Cats!

[@HistoryGoneWilder]

Yes we do.

[@travisbayles870]

I had a Confederate ancestor who was a captain in the 49th Georgia Infantry who was wounded in the leg at the Battle of the Wilderness and died from the effects of amputation

[@Necron990]

The beginning of the end of the Confederacy...

[@daveonwheeler7412]

Dude I'm injoying this

[@HistoryGoneWilder]

I'm so glad to hear it. It's super fun to put together.

[@wmschooley1234]

Dr. Wilder: Here’s a staff ride question for you. Did Grant really have only two options (4:06)? An attack on Lee’s left flank had supply and logistic issues but it would have been an unexpected movement. Lee anticipated a Union attack on his right flank and Grant obliged him. I’ve long wondered “what if” Grant had simultaneously attacked both the right and left of Lee’s army. If the IX Corp had been ordered to travel fast and light relying, less on their own supply lines and living more off the confederate land, would Lee have had the manpower or the generalship to fend off two simultaneous flanking attacks? Even if the IX Corp had been conceived as reconnaissance in force, it would have presented Lee with the dilemma of determining and defending against which of the two Union thrusts were, in fact, Grant’s main point of attack. Respectfully, W.S.

[@stephennewton2223]

Somehow, it seems to me that dividing your forces would allow your opponent a chance to attack either flank. Sounds dangerous.

[@wmschooley1234]

Agreed. Yes there's always a risk in dividing forces. Concentration of force is definitely a maxim. But Grant’s primary objective was always bringing Lee to battle, rendering the ANV combat ineffective and not capturing real estate XI Corp was already separated from the main force to the north and the IX Corp reported directly to Grant not Meade. The north held a significant numerical force superiority over Lee. The harsh terrain of the Wilderness favored Lee. The wilderness both prevented Grant from using his artillery effectively and provided cover for the smaller Confederate force. A simultaneous attack on the Lee’s other flank, while a risk, was also a risk to Lee’s ability to fight what amounts to a two front battle with fewer and more disbursed troops. Historically we know what Grant and Lee both did. My question was prefaced as a “staff ride” question because there actually might have been more than two options open for future army officers to consider in future similar situations. Respectfully, W.S.@@stephennewton2223

[@RealSVTJunkie]

Well done 👍

[@vm.999]

❤

[@danorthsidemang3834]

Automatic appendages down.

[@g.sergiusfidenas6650]

Alfred Pleasonton's sacking probably was more due in-fighting within the Army of the Potomac than poor performance, he was part of Hooker's clique and alongside Sickles, Butterfield and Doubleday he was one of the staunchest opponents of Meade, bunch of mudslingers them all, some of them kept trying to tarnish Meade's legacy after the War and even after the death of the man himself (same thing Schofield did regarding George Thomas). Awful traits aside he was pretty capable, I reckon, he was the one who elevated the cavalry from the place of shame it had sunk to a force that could start disputing the battlefield against Stuart's, after he has kicked out of the East he performed well in the West during Price's Invasion of Missouri, his overblown ego and his penchant for shady tactics while jockeying for position more than his skills (or lack of thereof) were the cause of his relegation to a backwater theater of war for the remaining duration of it.

[@stephennewton2223]

My reading is that the Army of the Potomac never had a competent cavalry commander until Sheridan, and, he made mistakes. Neither Pleasanton, nor, Stoneman was particularly effective.

[@Qigate]

I look forward to every one of these videos.

[@jaseandjen]

Same here! Love when a new video comes out.

[@feistyoldgal8257]

Can't wait to see Part 2. I have a paternal ancestor with the 12th SC under AP Hill who, though wounded in the Wilderness, stayed until Appomattox. Returned to SC.

[@Archangel-pd1rn]

Do the Overland and the Atlanta campaigns at the same time in an alternating fashion! Both start in May 1964 around the same time. Put them in perspective in relation to each other as the high command of the Union would have seen it.

[@BamBamBigelow..]

funny how civil war occurred in relatively close proximity on the map

[@culloden23]

I see what you did there. Well done sir!

[@kzeich]

Thank you!

[@chrisstyles4822]

Awesome, looking forward to this series. I recently visited the Wilderness battlefield a couple weeks ago. Also currently reading Gordon C Rhea’s “Battle of the Wilderness”.

[@HistoryGoneWilder]

You'll pick up on a lot of references that Rhea used in his book because I used his book among others to put these together.

[@wmschooley1234]

👍👍@@HistoryGoneWilder

[@George_L-w7o]

Dr Wilder is absolutely my favorite Civil War KZbinr. He always does an outstanding job. But I have to admit he falls into the same trap as other more seasoned historians, and his map for this battle is completely worthless. He makes the typical mistake of labeling the battlefield as Grant versus Lee. Like other historians, he forgets that Meade was the commander of the army of the Potomac. The wilderness was a battle of the army of the Potomac versus the army of Northern Virginia. Period! It was Meade versus Lee. Grant handled overall strategy and Mead handled all of the tactics. I hate when historians disrespect General Meade. Until I see a map that is labeled Lee versus Meade I consider it worthless

[@HistoryGoneWilder]

I hear where you are coming from, but even though Grant says he will stay out of Meade's business, that quickly changes in the Wilderness and it does become Grant vs Lee. Meade has some say so but he's also being told what to do by Grant and Grant is directing movements of divisions on the battlefields. Meade is always highlighted in this series and I identify his orders as opposed to Grant's orders. But you are right, I should have put Meade on the map alongside Grant. I'm already a couple of weeks in but I'll try to work Meade's name into the maps.

[@George_L-w7o]

That’s fine. Grant is interesting. In many battles with the army of the Potomac, he sits in the rear whittling on a piece of wood. If you look at the historic record, it’s Meade issuing all the tactical orders and all the movements. Most of the time Grant doesn’t know the generals or the dispositions. Meade is grossly overshadowed by Grant. He plays a much larger role. The person who knows this best is Lee. In fact, after signing the surrender document at Appomattox, the first thing Lee says to Grant is, will you please make sure that General Meade knows about this. Lee knew it was Meade who was pounding him all those months.

[@wmschooley1234]

While I agree with both points of view, what might be overlooked in this conservation is that Grant was intended to be in overall command of all union forces. After Grant took overall command, Union army commanders could no longer “do their own thing”. He’s communicating orders to all Union army commanders. While Grant was embedded in the AoP, he was also consulting and issuing orders to Sherman in the west. Troop movements and union attacks were now integrated to achieve and overall and total battlespace objective of crushing the rebellion by applying maximum pressure on confederate forces at all times and all places. This strategy was to prevent confederate forces from effectively using their interior lines. Deep Union offensives in the west also had the effect of highlighting to confederate leadership that some of Lee’s units were also badly needed back in their home states and not in Virginia as part of the ANV. Respectfully, W.S.

[@George_L-w7o]

I agree. Given this, I hope Dr. Wilder is consistent and does not put Sherman’s name on the map for the Atlanta campaign. Might as well just put Grant’s name against Johnston and Hood.

[@HistoryGoneWilder]

@georgelesnick2003 Sherman will be the commander on the Maps for Atlanta, but just like Grant, he was supervising an army (three in Sherman’s case: Army of the Cumberland, Army of the Tennessee, and Army of the Ohio). All three Army commanders will be marked on the map too.