Pickett's Charge: why

[Meadmaker]

He also inherited the Cognomen "Barca", or "lightning" from said father. It's the same name as "Barack".

Hannibal is similar to the name John (Johannes), meaning "A gift from Baal" compared to "A gift from Yahweh". Hasdrubal means "Helped by Baal", "Hasdru" being the same word as "Azra" in "Azrael".


/random trivia

"Barack" means "blessed". Are you sure there' a connection to "lightning". There could be, I suppose, with lightning being so closely associated with gods, but it doesn't seem obvious.

 

[Craig B]

"Barack" means "blessed". Are you sure there' a connection to "lightning". There could be, I suppose, with lightning being so closely associated with gods, but it doesn't seem obvious.

The words sound the same, which doesn't mean they are related. Consider "right" and "write".

Strong's Concordance
baraq: lightning
Original Word: בָּרָק
Transliteration: baraq​

 

[Meadmaker]

Further information about Barak: From the Wikipedia entry for B-R-K:


"This article is about the given name from the Semitic root "B-R-K" meaning "to kneel down". For the given name from the unrelated root meaning "lightning", see B-R-Q. "

There was a Biblical general I had never heard of named Barak, meaning lightning, as opposed to the Biblical name "Baruch", meaning blessed. Both words also ended up in Arabic.

So TubbaBlubba was correct. Given the rest of his post, I thought he probably was, but I "knew" something about the name Barak, so I wondered about it. I did not know that there were two different, but similar, names.


ETA: Although, it does seem that we have strayed quite a long way from Gettysburg, with all this talk of Hannibal. I'll reiterate my previous point on that subject. Pickett's charge happened because Lee still didn't grasp just how good the Union rifles were, and he was still fighting the last war.

 

[Craig B]

Although, it does seem that we have strayed quite a long way from Gettysburg, with all this talk of Hannibal. I'll reiterate my previous point on that subject. Pickett's charge happened because Lee still didn't grasp just how good the Union rifles were, and he was still fighting the last war.

Were not most US troops already carrying rifles before the beginning of the war? The great advance of the day was breech loading, in which the U.S. had once been world leader, with the Hall rifle of 1819, although forty years later most US troops still carried muzzle loaders. Union cavalry adopted breech loading carbines during the war.

Considering that effective breech loaders were available on the market prior to 1861, and even the Spencer repeating rifle - a devastating weapon - it is a mystery to me why Union infantry were not most or all in possession of breech loading rifles by 1863 at the latest. Union cavalry already were, as noted.

Both Prussia and Norway had issued breech loaders to their infantry before the end of the 1840s.

 

[Meadmaker]

Were not most US troops already carrying rifles before the beginning of the war? The great advance of the day was breech loading, in which the U.S. had once been world leader, with the Hall rifle of 1819, although forty years later most US troops still carried muzzle loaders. Union cavalry adopted breech loading carbines during the war.

Considering that effective breech loaders were available on the market prior to 1861, and even the Spencer repeating rifle - a devastating weapon - it is a mystery to me why Union infantry were not most or all in possession of breech loading rifles by 1863 at the latest. Union cavalry already were, as noted.

Both Prussia and Norway had issued breech loaders to their infantry before the end of the 1840s.

The following is based on memories of a book I read more than 20 years ago. Take it for what it is worth. Someone with more knowledge than I can correct any errors.

I believe that most of the Union infantry was indeed in possession of good breech loaders by 1863. However, they weren't in possession of such weapons in 1861, and a lot of Confederates never got the good rifles. Those weapons were the "elite" weapons at the beginning of the war, but became standard issue for Union soldiers during the war. Lee was fighting 1861 weapons in 1863, using tactics based on studying wars that happened in 1815.

 

[Craig B]

I believe that most of the Union infantry was indeed in possession of good breech loaders by 1863.

I don't think that's the case. I'm sure most Union infantrymen at Gettysburg were carrying muzzle loaders, like their Confederate opponents.

ETA Yes, most but not all.

Small arms used by the Union included the most common "Springfield" rifle, the "Austrian Lorenz" rifle, The U.S. model 1842 musket, the Saxon 1857 rifle musket, the U.S. Model 1841 rifle musket that was used by both armies at Gettysburg.
The Confederates used their mainstay the "Enfield", the Richmond Arsenal Rifle Musket .58 caliber, and the Fayetteville Rifle. The Sharps Model 1857 was extremely accurate rifle. the U.S. Sharpshooters used this rifle. The Confederates made copies of this gun for their cavalry troops. Under the leadership of Union General Custer, 2 regiments were armed with Spencer repeating rifles. The English Whitworth rifle was issued to specialist shooters in the Confederate Army.​

The Sharps was also a breech loader, used by cavalry on both sides, as noted. The Springfield and the Enfield were essentially the same weapon, muzzle loading, which used the same cartridges. The Enfield was a UK copy of the US rifle.

 

[Pope130]

Considering that effective breech loaders were available on the market prior to 1861, and even the Spencer repeating rifle - a devastating weapon - it is a mystery to me why Union infantry were not most or all in possession of breech loading rifles by 1863 at the latest. Union cavalry already were, as noted.[/b].

This is a question that could be repeated, with minor variation, for most developments in military technology. The resistance on the part of decision makers to accept innovation seems to trace to a few common causes. One is the reluctance to spend money on new systems when the existing inventory is still serviceable. Another is the feeling that "It was good enough for me when I was a Lieutenant, it's good enough for the troops now."

Specifically to the question of firearms; the worry about waste always seems to come up. "They'll just shoot too fast and waste ammunition, rather than aim carefully." This was given as a reason resisting the change to breech-loaders, cartridge arms, repeaters, auto-loaders and select fire weapons. It certainly is true that deliberate fire is better, but that should be a matter of good training, rather than restricting the capability of the equipment. Sometimes rapid fire is vital, as the 7th Cav discovered when they used single shot carbines against a force partially equipped with repeaters.

At one point the Marines switched from select fire M-16s to a model with three-round burst. They've since discovered that full auto, while it can be wasteful, is at times quite useful, and have gone back to a full select fire capability. Better to spend the time, money and ammo on training, than to Band-Aid the problem with less capable gear.

 

[Checkmite]

Also, Lee's experience of the Union commanders and their troops was that they always faltered at the moment of truth. Lee was a genius of maneuver warfare, a second Frederick the Great.

Pickett's charge should have succeeded. It was mostly dumb luck that it didn't. It wasn't until Grant that the Union finally found a general that could properly weaponize the learnings of Gettysburg.

I have to differ about Pickett's Charge. A great lot of the Union's successes at Gettysburg were the result of unintentional and fortuitous timing, and making lemonade out of a whole basket of lemons; but that was not one of them. Pickett's Charge was doomed from the beginning, it never had any hope of succeeding. It is the resounding consensus of the majority of military historians that the Charge is wholly unjustifiable when one is in possession of all the ground truth (which, granted, at the time Lee was not).

As for Grant...by the time the Battle of Gettysburg began Grant had already been shoving Confederates all over Mississippi for months and had long since captured the state capital and completely surrounded Vicksburg. One day after Lee was repelled at Gettysburg and forced to retreat Grant had captured Vicksburg, accepted the surrender of a 30,000-man Confederate army, and effectively secured the entire Mississippi River for the Union. After Grant was done with Vicksburg, they didn't celebrate the fourth of July in that town for decades. Gettysburg had nothing to teach Ulysses Grant.

 

[Garrison]

I have to differ about Pickett's Charge. A great lot of the Union's successes at Gettysburg were the result of unintentional and fortuitous timing, and making lemonade out of a whole basket of lemons; but that was not one of them. Pickett's Charge was doomed from the beginning, it never had any hope of succeeding. It is the resounding consensus of the majority of military historians that the Charge is wholly unjustifiable when one is in possession of all the ground truth (which, granted, at the time Lee was not).

As for Grant...by the time the Battle of Gettysburg began Grant had already been shoving Confederates all over Mississippi for months and had long since captured the state capital and completely surrounded Vicksburg. One day after Lee was repelled at Gettysburg and forced to retreat Grant had captured Vicksburg, accepted the surrender of a 30,000-man Confederate army, and effectively secured the entire Mississippi River for the Union. After Grant was done with Vicksburg, they didn't celebrate the fourth of July in that town for decades. Gettysburg had nothing to teach Ulysses Grant.

And Vicksburg mean that even if Pickett's charge did carry the field at a high cost it would have been almost irrelevant in the larger picture of the war. Lee's army was in no condition to besiege Washington while Grant had just cut the Confederacy in half.

 

[WayneK]

I have to differ about Pickett's Charge. A great lot of the Union's successes at Gettysburg were the result of unintentional and fortuitous timing, and making lemonade out of a whole basket of lemons; but that was not one of them. Pickett's Charge was doomed from the beginning, it never had any hope of succeeding. It is the resounding consensus of the majority of military historians that the Charge is wholly unjustifiable when one is in possession of all the ground truth (which, granted, at the time Lee was not).

I agree. The Confederate army's real chances for victory were missed on days 1 and 2, not day 3.

Even if Pickett had occupied the Angle, I don't think he could have held it. Meade had ample reserves to send in; Lee didn't.

 

[WayneK]

Longstreet probably had the better solution - get between the Union army and Washington, and make then attack the Army of Northern Virginia.

Essay arguing that such a move was impractical:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjqwZXizvDNAhXD3SYKHTwqCm8QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcivilwartalk.com%2Fattachments%2Fan-essay-on-general-longstreet-s-proposed-flanking-maneuver-pdf.20968%2F&usg=AFQjCNGkvW85nZt6i4Xx4g8iCwudVfeyjA&sig2=62Ce683HWdYI11OD_MrpcA

The authors make a number of arguments. The converging road system that made concentration at Gettysburg easy would have made a flank movement difficult. The union could have easily moved troops to block the movement. In addition, Lee would have had to expose his fragile supply line running back over South Mountain. Anyway, if you're interested, you can look at their arguments.

I agree with Longstreet in principle. With Confederates on union soil, Meade was under pressure to bring on a battle. Lee would have been better off to assume the defensive. Longstreet was accused of wanting to re-fight Fredericksburg over and over, and who can blame him.