• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pickett's Charge: why

bigred

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
22,686
Location
USA
I still cannot fathom how one of the greatest Generals ever made one of the worst, most glaringly boneheaded decisions ever ie to do this. I'm sure theories abound.....what do you Civil War buffs think? Simple arrogance and overconfidence due to prior victories? Misjudged the Union troops in some way? ?? How does a guy so smart do something that would make Forrest Gump go :boggled:
 
I still cannot fathom how one of the greatest Generals ever made one of the worst, most glaringly boneheaded decisions ever ie to do this. I'm sure theories abound.....what do you Civil War buffs think? Simple arrogance and overconfidence due to prior victories? Misjudged the Union troops in some way? ?? How does a guy so smart do something that would make Forrest Gump go :boggled:
He failed to turn the Union flanks, so he decided to go for the centre of their line.
 
I still cannot fathom how one of the greatest Generals ever made one of the worst, most glaringly boneheaded decisions ever ie to do this. I'm sure theories abound.....what do you Civil War buffs think? Simple arrogance and overconfidence due to prior victories? Misjudged the Union troops in some way? ?? How does a guy so smart do something that would make Forrest Gump go :boggled:

Partially overconfident. Partially that he wasn't one of the "greatest ever generals. " (he looks good next to some of the union generals opposite him. .. that's not the same as being as being a master tactician. He believed in his troops, and his troops believed in him. )
 
the south/lee thought the attacks on the flanks
had resulted in a transfer of the union's center troops to both ends
it did not as the union had plenty of troops
then the southern cannons bombarded the center BUT overshot
union cannons did not counter fire at that time
making the south think the cannons had been knock out
and troops in the center shell shocked or worse
but as the south cannon over shot none of that happened
and the charge failed against a strong defense

blame the missing jeb stewart who was off stealing wagons
instead of reporting troop movements and numbers
for lee's poor intel and results
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Historien/strategist seem to disagree, at least the few stuff I read, seem to say that even if he had managed the charge, the loss would still have been so that they would not have been able to hold the place and it would not have changed the global outcome. IOW : it was not msotly dumb luck, it was actual bad tactics, bad preparations (some troops were not prepared by sunrise) with the union having a good grasp at what was attempted and be able to prepare for it.

ETA: That is what i understand skeeming history buff site at least
 
1: He almost had to gamble. He had already taken 15,000 causalities in the first two days and his army was exhausted. He was undoubtedly hoping the Union was in the same boat. The problem was that he no longer had the strength to continue operating in Union territory against a numerically superior foe that was only going to keep getting bigger. There were about 40,000 Union troops in and around Washington, so if he moves in that direction at this point, he could find himself between those men and the army of the Potomac, out numbered 2 to 1 or better with dwindling supplies.

Additionally, I think Lee realized that he needed a real win here in order to dishearten Northerners and try to negotiate a peace. A stalemate gains him absolutely nothing and costs valuable men and materials. If he pulls out at this point, where does he go that he could be effective? As a result, I think he realizes that he has to withdraw to Virginia or attack.

He has already hit both flanks and been repulsed. He knows the bulk of the Union's strength is on the flanks, so he almost has to hit the center if he's going to attack.

2. He underestimated the Union artillery and Confederate artillery was unable to effectively neutralize Union artillery. Meade actually anticipated the possibility that Lee might hit the center, especially since he had moved so many troops to the flanks. He positioned artillery across the battlefield accordingly so that they could fire on the center if needs be.

3. He overestimated the ability of his troops to maneuver under Union fire. In order to effectively hit the Union line and force a break through, Confederate forces needed to be able to maneuver across the battlefield in a somewhat coordinated manner. This is because breaking through is not enough. Lee needed the bulk of the army to come down in a fairly tight area in order to both push through and then put in reinforcements to hold and expand the breach. As Union fire broke up units and broke down the organization of the army, it became impossible for the plan to work even if enough men had made it to the wall to make the initial breakthrough because there would be insufficient forces to exploit the gap before the Union could respond.

4. Lastly, I think he overestimated his army's ability. They always managed to prevail and do the seemingly impossible, so I think he really probably believed that they could do so here as well. These were battle harden, experienced soldiers determined to win, and I think Lee really deluded himself into believing they could do so here as well.


I really think the charge was a combination of underestimating Union strength, artillery, and leadership, mixed with an exaggerated notion of what his army could accomplish and the realization that in order to win the larger war, he needed a major victory on Northern soil to break the North's will to fight.
 
1: He almost had to gamble. He had already taken 15,000 causalities in the first two days and his army was exhausted. He was undoubtedly hoping the Union was in the same boat. The problem was that he no longer had the strength to continue operating in Union territory against a numerically superior foe that was only going to keep getting bigger. There were about 40,000 Union troops in and around Washington, so if he moves in that direction at this point, he could find himself between those men and the army of the Potomac, out numbered 2 to 1 or better with dwindling supplies.

Additionally, I think Lee realized that he needed a real win here in order to dishearten Northerners and try to negotiate a peace. A stalemate gains him absolutely nothing and costs valuable men and materials. If he pulls out at this point, where does he go that he could be effective? As a result, I think he realizes that he has to withdraw to Virginia or attack.

He has already hit both flanks and been repulsed. He knows the bulk of the Union's strength is on the flanks, so he almost has to hit the center if he's going to attack.

2. He underestimated the Union artillery and Confederate artillery was unable to effectively neutralize Union artillery. Meade actually anticipated the possibility that Lee might hit the center, especially since he had moved so many troops to the flanks. He positioned artillery across the battlefield accordingly so that they could fire on the center if needs be.

3. He overestimated the ability of his troops to maneuver under Union fire. In order to effectively hit the Union line and force a break through, Confederate forces needed to be able to maneuver across the battlefield in a somewhat coordinated manner. This is because breaking through is not enough. Lee needed the bulk of the army to come down in a fairly tight area in order to both push through and then put in reinforcements to hold and expand the breach. As Union fire broke up units and broke down the organization of the army, it became impossible for the plan to work even if enough men had made it to the wall to make the initial breakthrough because there would be insufficient forces to exploit the gap before the Union could respond.

4. Lastly, I think he overestimated his army's ability. They always managed to prevail and do the seemingly impossible, so I think he really probably believed that they could do so here as well. These were battle harden, experienced soldiers determined to win, and I think Lee really deluded himself into believing they could do so here as well.


I really think the charge was a combination of underestimating Union strength, artillery, and leadership, mixed with an exaggerated notion of what his army could accomplish and the realization that in order to win the larger war, he needed a major victory on Northern soil to break the North's will to fight.

If Lee could have knocked out the Union guns, it would have been much more of a fight. He ultimately would have still lost it, but savage fighting probably would have swirled around The Angle for awhile before Meade, with his short interior lines, repulsed the attack.

Meade (and his artillery) doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves for winning that battle. When Sickles disobeyed orders and marched out to the Peach Orchard, it threw all of Meade's plans into disarray, and he had to wing it until the sun set.
 
If Lee could have knocked out the Union guns, it would have been much more of a fight. He ultimately would have still lost it, but savage fighting probably would have swirled around The Angle for awhile before Meade, with his short interior lines, repulsed the attack.

Meade (and his artillery) doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves for winning that battle ...
Is this true? I think I've read it somewhere. The fuses Lee had for his shells were manufactured by various companies for the campaign. Some were inexpertly manufactured by companies inexperienced in work of that kind, and they burned longer than the gunners set them for, before initiating the explosion of the projectiles. This had been noticed during firing range tests. and it was intended to recalibrate these fuses on the next scheduled rest day. But the battle happened before that day; and the Confederate shells were bursting at ranges about a hundred yards longer than intended.
 
Last edited:
Well, a) Lee wasn't a great general. And b) he figured that the Union had reinforced the flanks and weakened their center.
 
1: He almost had to gamble. He had already taken 15,000 causalities in the first two days and his army was exhausted. He was undoubtedly hoping the Union was in the same boat. The problem was that he no longer had the strength to continue operating in Union territory against a numerically superior foe that was only going to keep getting bigger. There were about 40,000 Union troops in and around Washington, so if he moves in that direction at this point, he could find himself between those men and the army of the Potomac, out numbered 2 to 1 or better with dwindling supplies.

Additionally, I think Lee realized that he needed a real win here in order to dishearten Northerners and try to negotiate a peace. A stalemate gains him absolutely nothing and costs valuable men and materials. If he pulls out at this point, where does he go that he could be effective? As a result, I think he realizes that he has to withdraw to Virginia or attack.

He has already hit both flanks and been repulsed. He knows the bulk of the Union's strength is on the flanks, so he almost has to hit the center if he's going to attack.

2. He underestimated the Union artillery and Confederate artillery was unable to effectively neutralize Union artillery. Meade actually anticipated the possibility that Lee might hit the center, especially since he had moved so many troops to the flanks. He positioned artillery across the battlefield accordingly so that they could fire on the center if needs be.

3. He overestimated the ability of his troops to maneuver under Union fire. In order to effectively hit the Union line and force a break through, Confederate forces needed to be able to maneuver across the battlefield in a somewhat coordinated manner. This is because breaking through is not enough. Lee needed the bulk of the army to come down in a fairly tight area in order to both push through and then put in reinforcements to hold and expand the breach. As Union fire broke up units and broke down the organization of the army, it became impossible for the plan to work even if enough men had made it to the wall to make the initial breakthrough because there would be insufficient forces to exploit the gap before the Union could respond.

4. Lastly, I think he overestimated his army's ability. They always managed to prevail and do the seemingly impossible, so I think he really probably believed that they could do so here as well. These were battle harden, experienced soldiers determined to win, and I think Lee really deluded himself into believing they could do so here as well.


I really think the charge was a combination of underestimating Union strength, artillery, and leadership, mixed with an exaggerated notion of what his army could accomplish and the realization that in order to win the larger war, he needed a major victory on Northern soil to break the North's will to fight.
This, to which I would add one small but, I think, critical element: Lee's reliance on psychological victory over physical victory. That is poorly worded, but I think you will get the gist.

Lee was a great general, but his greatness was not in strategy - at which he excelled but was not genius - nor was it in tactics - at which his was good but reliant upon his subordinates for the true execution. Jackson was by far the better general in this regard. No, where Lee excelled was in inspiration of his own forces and demoralization of his enemies, helped along by his prodigious memory and unsurpassed ability to size up his opposing commanders, most of whom he knew well either from his time at West Point or in the Mexican-American War.

Lee neither expected to nor aimed to beat down the North, either in whole or in the part of an Army. Rather, he aimed at their morale and played upon his aura of invincibility. His troops had never let him down to any great degree, and he expected them to continue to do the impossible. He considered Pickett's Charge possible because he had a flawed assessment of the tactical situation but more importantly because he had an overblown trust in the esprit of his troops and the weakness of the bluecoats.

That, plus he had to as was said above.
 
I still cannot fathom how one of the greatest Generals ever made one of the worst, most glaringly boneheaded decisions ever ie to do this. I'm sure theories abound.....what do you Civil War buffs think? Simple arrogance and overconfidence due to prior victories? Misjudged the Union troops in some way? ?? How does a guy so smart do something that would make Forrest Gump go :boggled:

A book that might help even though it does not cover the Civil War:
https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-M...y+of+military+incompetence+by+norman+f.+dixon
 
I still cannot fathom how one of the greatest Generals ever made one of the worst, most glaringly boneheaded decisions ever ie to do this. I'm sure theories abound.....what do you Civil War buffs think? Simple arrogance and overconfidence due to prior victories? Misjudged the Union troops in some way? ?? How does a guy so smart do something that would make Forrest Gump go :boggled:

Because....Lee wasn't as great as people like to make him out to be. For certain, Lee was no Sherman - who absolutely understood the psychology underlying that war, so always knew best how to fight it. Lee got lucky for a long time until guys like Grant and Sherman came along and showed that he was nothing unique. For most of the war, Lee was like one-eyed man in the land of the blind: he wasn't great, but he was a damned sight better than most of the fools he fought against.

Show me a general...like Sherman, for instance....who fully understood the motivations of the enemy and then, and only then, will I even consider whether or not he was great. And...those guys are much harder to find than you think. For instance, I've never seen one American General - not one - who understood the grievances of either the Japanese (in WW2), the Germans (WW2) or the Vietnamese.
 
Did a part of Lee STILL not grasp what rifled muskets could do to attacking forces? I know the tactics always lag behind the technology, but by the time Gettysburg rolled around, the generals should have had a good idea of what taking a position defended by men with rifled guns would require.

Longstreet certainly knew. Was Lee still in the mindset of smoothbore warfare when he ordered the charge?
 
Because....Lee wasn't as great as people like to make him out to be. For certain, Lee was no Sherman - who absolutely understood the psychology underlying that war, so always knew best how to fight it. Lee got lucky for a long time until guys like Grant and Sherman came along and showed that he was nothing unique. For most of the war, Lee was like one-eyed man in the land of the blind: he wasn't great, but he was a damned sight better than most of the fools he fought against.

Show me a general...like Sherman, for instance....who fully understood the motivations of the enemy and then, and only then, will I even consider whether or not he was great. And...those guys are much harder to find than you think. For instance, I've never seen one American General - not one - who understood the grievances of either the Japanese (in WW2), the Germans (WW2) or the Vietnamese.
Can't agree with your blanket criteria nor even with its application here. By your know-the-motivation standard as you are applying it, you would have to exclude Hannibal and Alexander.
 
Can't agree with your blanket criteria nor even with its application here. By your know-the-motivation standard as you are applying it, you would have to exclude Hannibal and Alexander.

Actually, I would include Hannibal but exclude Alexander. Hannibal might have failed, but he knew exactly what the Romans were and he knew that Carthage's only hope was to wipe out the Roman Empire.

On the other hand, there is the Greekling...Alexander. Alexander did quite well with the Government, Alliances and Army his daddy left him...but he totally lost the plot in Afghanistan and India (places where he should have never gone). In fact, Alexander showed his true colors - the depths of his immaturity - when he savaged Thebes and lost the support of much of the Peloponese. Philip - his father - was by far the better warrior and diplomat, and had Philip lead those Armies, he would have taken out Rome after he dealt with Persia, and Rome should have been nothing but a Historical Footnote.
 
Last edited:
Did a part of Lee STILL not grasp what rifled muskets could do to attacking forces? I know the tactics always lag behind the technology, but by the time Gettysburg rolled around, the generals should have had a good idea of what taking a position defended by men with rifled guns would require.

Longstreet certainly knew. Was Lee still in the mindset of smoothbore warfare when he ordered the charge?

Certainly Lee understood the concept, but he believed that he would:

1.) Outnumber the enemy in the center 2.5 or 3 to 1;
2.) Use a massive artillery bombardment to disrupt the Union line and prevent excessive fire into his own line, thereby nullifying a large part of the threat posed by the riflemen; and,
3.) He did not know that Union artillery from all over the field was in position to defend the center.

Also, Lee was prone to making very critical tactical mistakes from time to time. If you look at Antietam for instance, Lee essentially traps himself against the Potomac with only one small possible route of retreat. Had McClellan been any other Union general, its likely that the army of Northern Virginia might have suffered a massive blow, perhaps even effective annihilation. Consider that 1/3 of Union troops didn't even fire a shot because of McClellan's over cautious nature. Lee barely escaped that battle, and it was because of the incompetence of the enemy commander and the steadfastness of his own men versus any brilliant generaling on Lee's part.

While Lee definitely showed a certain brilliance of command at times, especially in his ability to inspire and lead, he also was far from a flawless tactician.
 

Back
Top Bottom