Scourge of War Boards

Armchair General wrote:

O. O. Howard wrote:

I would have to agree with Hancock the Superb on this one though. Going into the Gettysburg campaign I think you can be pretty sure that the Army of Northern Virginia felt pretty sure of itself and the likelihood of defeating the Army of the Potomac. You can also be pretty sure that the AOP had experienced a lot of defeats and would have found it hard to imagine themselves winning a clearly decisive victory over the ANV in its entirety.

You're all forgetting Malvern Hill, a year before Gettysburg. The entirety of AOtP was on that hill and saw the damage that they inflicted on the rebel masses. At the end of July 1st (1862) they knew they had clearly won a 'complete' victory over the ANV. So from then the Army knew that they could win, they just didn't have the proper commanders to get the job done.[/quote]

Complete (Clearly Decisive) Victory? Hardly...the ANV was still on field, ready for a fight, the next day. AoP did not have the resources, ability, or willingness (and, perhaps, the leadership) to counter-attack and destroy the ANV. The ANV was allowed to retreat intact, although badly scarred. The ANV fought for another two years. Was it a Union Victory? Certainly! But a "complete victory"?

J

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Armchair General wrote:

O. O. Howard wrote:

I would have to agree with Hancock the Superb on this one though. Going into the Gettysburg campaign I think you can be pretty sure that the Army of Northern Virginia felt pretty sure of itself and the likelihood of defeating the Army of the Potomac. You can also be pretty sure that the AOP had experienced a lot of defeats and would have found it hard to imagine themselves winning a clearly decisive victory over the ANV in its entirety.

You're all forgetting Malvern Hill, a year before Gettysburg. The entirety of AOtP was on that hill and saw the damage that they inflicted on the rebel masses. At the end of July 1st (1862) they knew they had clearly won a 'complete' victory over the ANV. So from then the Army knew that they could win, they just didn't have the proper commanders to get the job done.

Complete (Clearly Decisive) Victory? Hardly...the ANV was still on field, ready for a fight, the next day. AoP did not have the resources, ability, or willingness (and, perhaps, the leadership) to counter-attack and destroy the ANV. The ANV was allowed to retreat intact, although badly scarred. The ANV fought for another two years. Was it a Union Victory? Certainly! But a "complete victory"?

J[/quote]

The Army of the Potomac didn't have to counterattack. They could have stayed on that hill until the end of time, if McClellan had allowed them to. And yes, the Army of Northern Virginia was still in position to attack the next day, but if they did, Hunt's artillery would have done the exact same thing. There were so many guns lined up wheel to wheel on that hill that the ground shook for miles when they were all firing at the same time. The Confederates suffered five thousand casualties with absolutely nothing to show for it. McClellan chose to retreat to Harrison's Landing and a lot of officers and men in the ranks were furious. Philip Kearny even tottered on calling McClellan a coward. The rank and file in the AOTP were ready to hold that hill until the rebels were reduced to noting but bloody scraps of flesh, so I think it could be called a complete victory.

Chamberlain wrote:

Federal, Union Blue !!!!


Chamberlain

As the old saying went, "A Yankee is only worth the price of his shoes!"

J :woohoo:

O. O. Howard wrote:

I would have to agree with Hancock the Superb on this one though. Going into the Gettysburg campaign I think you can be pretty sure that the Army of Northern Virginia felt pretty sure of itself and the likelihood of defeating the Army of the Potomac. You can also be pretty sure that the AOP had experienced a lot of defeats and would have found it hard to imagine themselves winning a clearly decisive victory over the ANV in its entirety.

You make a good point in regards to the Rebs believing the probability of their winning. But they knew full well they were outnumbered and outgunned, as always. And when you can win against superior numbers, your beating the odds that are against you.

As for the Union soldiers at Gettysburg, I'm not entirely convinced that they might have found it hard to imagine they would win. Because they were being invaded, and were defending their own turf.

Ephrum wrote:

O. O. Howard wrote:

I would have to agree with Hancock the Superb on this one though. Going into the Gettysburg campaign I think you can be pretty sure that the Army of Northern Virginia felt pretty sure of itself and the likelihood of defeating the Army of the Potomac. You can also be pretty sure that the AOP had experienced a lot of defeats and would have found it hard to imagine themselves winning a clearly decisive victory over the ANV in its entirety.

You make a good point in regards to the Rebs believing the probability of their winning. But they knew full well they were outnumbered and outgunned, as always. And when you can win against superior numbers, your beating the odds that are against you.

As for the Union soldiers at Gettysburg, I'm not entirely convinced that they might have found it hard to imagine they would win. Because they were being invaded, and were defending their own turf.

Certainly fighting on their own soil was in the AOP's favor, not unlike the ANV in Virginia. It is a powerful motivation. I was referring mostly to the status of the army at the beginning of the campaign, at which time they had no idea that they would be fighting on their home turf. It looks like the "away team" seemed to lose most of the time in the first part of the war in the east.

Fortunately, the AOP is the home team for Multiplayer! That should definitely be factored in somehow! What kind of bonus would you like to give us? Maybe some fresh fruit and shoo fly pie on the march. And since we're back in PA, we'll take some scrapple too!

Another good point O.O. Howard. At the start of the campaign, I'm sure the AoP didn't know they would be fighting on the Home field.
I must say, I've enjoyed this discussion. Hancock and yourself have made great points and given me a few things to consider. B)

As for the Union home field advantage in Multi-Player.........I wouldn't have it any other way!

Armchair General wrote:

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Armchair General wrote:

O. O. Howard wrote:

I would have to agree with Hancock the Superb on this one though. Going into the Gettysburg campaign I think you can be pretty sure that the Army of Northern Virginia felt pretty sure of itself and the likelihood of defeating the Army of the Potomac. You can also be pretty sure that the AOP had experienced a lot of defeats and would have found it hard to imagine themselves winning a clearly decisive victory over the ANV in its entirety.

You're all forgetting Malvern Hill, a year before Gettysburg. The entirety of AOtP was on that hill and saw the damage that they inflicted on the rebel masses. At the end of July 1st (1862) they knew they had clearly won a 'complete' victory over the ANV. So from then the Army knew that they could win, they just didn't have the proper commanders to get the job done.

Complete (Clearly Decisive) Victory? Hardly...the ANV was still on field, ready for a fight, the next day. AoP did not have the resources, ability, or willingness (and, perhaps, the leadership) to counter-attack and destroy the ANV. The ANV was allowed to retreat intact, although badly scarred. The ANV fought for another two years. Was it a Union Victory? Certainly! But a "complete victory"?

J

The Army of the Potomac didn't have to counterattack. They could have stayed on that hill until the end of time, if McClellan had allowed them to. And yes, the Army of Northern Virginia was still in position to attack the next day, but if they did, Hunt's artillery would have done the exact same thing. There were so many guns lined up wheel to wheel on that hill that the ground shook for miles when they were all firing at the same time. The Confederates suffered five thousand casualties with absolutely nothing to show for it. McClellan chose to retreat to Harrison's Landing and a lot of officers and men in the ranks were furious. Philip Kearny even tottered on calling McClellan a coward. The rank and file in the AOTP were ready to hold that hill until the rebels were reduced to noting but bloody scraps of flesh, so I think it could be called a complete victory.[/quote]

My mistake...thought we were talking about GB, not Malvern Hill.

J

I had no idea that a lively discussion between Ephrum and I could ever start this!

Good points, all around!

I do like the home team advantage.

Maybe some civilians will decide to take a potshot at poor Lee's head in the game! B)

Hancock the Superb wrote:

I had no idea that a lively discussion between Ephrum and I could ever start this!

Some discussions die a pre-mature death, others just take on a life of their own. That's part of the fun of being part of a community like this.

Regarding Malvern Hill,

"I, Philip Kearney, an old soldier, enter my solemn protest against this order for retreat. We ought instead of retreating should follow up the enemy and take Richmond. And in full view of all responsible for such declaration, I say to you all, such an order can only be prompted by cowardice or treason." Philip Kearney

I'd say Kearney was probably way on the other side of "totter."

Regards,

Greg B)