why did the North lose so many battles despite having a massive numerical advantage?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
why did the North lose so many battles despite having a massive numerical advantage?
why did the North lose so many battles despite having a massive numerical advantage?
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
twitter femboy homosexual
A righteous and Godly fury borne from a desire to seek vengeance against treasonous Southern snakes led to many poor tactical and strategic decisions. Ultimately it doesn't matter for the traitors were cast down regardless.
Bad generals. Eventually however, Sherman and Grant fricked them over good.
Even grant loses a shit ton of soldiers. My understanding is war had become very defensive advantaged, not to the levels seen in ww1 but it helped a ton already,
Also the southern man was more likely to have shot guns before? But both of these are me speculating
It was the quality of the general officers. When Lincoln asked why the US Army could be in the heart of Mexico in 6 months, but could so much as set foot in Virginia's third deep county in 2 years, he was told, "the men would took American troops into Mexico are now employed keeping troops out of Virginia."
Sherman, Grant, Sheridan, etc. had to resort to a scortched earth policy, and even then it took 4 years to beat an under equiped and under fed army half the Union's size.
The Union won in the end, but the confederate flag still makes yankees seethe to this day.
Lincoln was a massive micromanager and had no idea how wars were won and kept ordering Union advancement into southern territory without a plan of action
He only did that because his moron generals were just sitting on their hands
It's better to lose battles and win the war than to win battles and lose the war.
deep
moronic generals and McClellan being too much of a pussy to end the war.
So why did the North win after losing so many battles?
>outnumber enemy 2 to 1.
>much more industrial output therefore more and better weaponry, food, and equipment.
It's a mystery
Then why does this thread exist? Just to cope?
Yes.
Vae victis.
The north knew from the start they had a massive numerical and material advantage, so they just threw their men into the meat grinder, while the South was forced to think and behave more strategically. This became increasingly true as the North's need for a victory became more desperate. They were ok with taking huge losses as long as they could claim they won something. There were moments during the war when Union leadership legitimately feared that the public would abandon the war effort.
Imagine actually winning the battles and STILL suffering more casualties.
The problem is, you're only looking at large battles in the eastern theater. Entire CSA armies were captured in the west without much fighting.
>Imagine actually winning the battles and STILL suffering more casualties.
I mean that isn't uncommon, especially when one side has a huge numerical advantage.
>The problem is, you're only looking at large battles in the eastern theater.
So in other words, the main sense of the civil war.
>So in other words, the main sense of the civil war.
That's why you lost Cletus.
>you lost because we captured 1/10th of the Confederacies fighting power
Your ancestors weren’t even in America at the time.
Come to Pennsylvania, ZOGdog, and I’ll give you a proper “history lesson” about why the Eastern theatre was the only theatre.
>doesn’t understand how offensive efforts differ from defensive ones
wait, the North was on the offensive? so it was a war of Northern aggression?
General Cartman Lee
Yankcucks seething and making excuses for their inferiority itt
Lanchesters laws only matter if troop quality is of equal terms.
At the start of the war plenty of north troop formations had plenty of city boys who probably had much less experience hunting and shooting as the more rural southern forces. the south had better troop quality early. but as battles were fought and union men became more accustomed to battle then lanchesters laws kicked in.
same thing happened in the paraguayan war. Troop quality counts, but numbers count more.
The north won more battles than the south, that’s why they won the war
If you showed 1860s Yankees what America would become in the 40s they’d have joined the South. If you showed America today they’d have gone Mongol mode on blacks before invading South America and bee-lining for every hamlet in Europe which had an ashkenazi in it.
The South also wanted to turn America into Brazil, just by using a slightly different method. You're a left-wing idiot who worships israelites, just like all the rest.
>the south wanted to make Brazil
Brazil abolished slavery and had no Anglo Saxons in it.
Anglos don’t make Brazil
>you’re left wing
Nope
>you love israelites
I don’t
You can pretend to be cynical but the truth persists, the South was infinitely more sovlful and struck a balance of White Elite autism and African village peasant culture, producing the most unique place in history.
>if you told Yankees in 1860 that America would be full of Black folk in the future they would side with people who wanted to breed even MORE Black folk throughout the country!
Why are Dixiecopers so fricking moronic? It can't be the inbreeding.
>you want to have MORE dogs?
Well yes there’s nothing inherently wrong with dogs.
>no if you have them they must be allowed a seat at the human table and entitled to everything you have
Why are Zogdogs like this?
What the hell is wrong with Yankee larpers?
It didn't lose that many. The Western theater was a debacle for the South, and the East wasn't spectacular for them either. The Army of Northern Virginia's four major successes have done a lot of work carrying the myth of confederate superiority on their back. They certainly happened, and caused a great deal of pain for the union, but they don't represent most of the war.
No point in arguing with wikipedia historians though. You will never read a book on this war, despite your deep emotional investment in it.
What is Chickamauga
The sole Confederate success in the West of any note. It was also far from decisive, and proved to be nothing more than a slight delay, much like all of Lee's victories.
They actually do represent most of the war as most of the major battles were fought by the AoNV.
You say their superiority is a myth yet when outmanned, out teched, outgunned, and Half the time out of food and ammo, they still managed to Whip what was essentially a proto-20th century army.
Looking at the list of battles rated by the CWSAC and the national park service, the Union won 201 battles, the confederates won 119 battles, and 65 were inconclusive. The Union has an almost 2:1 win rate over the Confederacy, so I'm not really sure what you're arguing.
Like I said above, it's really Lee's victories in the Peninsula Campaign, Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville that the entire neo-Confederate narrative is based on. Take even one of these away, and the myth is seriously weakened. The people pushing the tale of Southern superiority here are so illiterate that they routinely say things like "the southerners were rural so they were better marksmen," and other absolutely insane nonsense.
>the southerners were rural so they were better marksmen
But they were. Do you seriously think Massachusetts had as many hunters and such as Alabama?
>what is the midwest
flat farmland
>farmland
What the frick do you think they do in Iowa?
Yes.
it's wasn't so much marksmanship as it was drilling. The US main drill manual was the Hardee manual before the war, although some militias (state armies) of the north were still using Winfeild Scott's manual. There were many others, but Hardees was the best by far as it was developed for the rifle, and not the musket. After Hardee said "frick Lincoln", the Union got butthurt and switched drill manuals, which went as well as could be expected. The movements were more complex, slow, etc. The CSA troops were just trained better for the rifle.
The Hardee manual was not written by Hardee, it was translated from French by Hardee and he put his name on it.
How do you square your opinion with the fact Westpoint made it a point to explain why Southerners were better soldiers than northerners?
Majority of Northern troops came from cities in Europe or the US.
Majority of Southerners came from rural areas.
Rural northerners like Pennsylvanians did well. Urban northerners did not.
>myth
Myth of what? The South dominated the battlefield. That is simply a fact.
>it was northern strategy to lose a bunch of men
Well how come Lee invaded twice and didn’t lose anywhere near the number of men the north lost in just one of their invasions?
So many invasions and the North could not even once have a battle like Lee.
the meta of gun-based warfare is attackers always lose more
>the meta of gun-based warfare is attackers always lose more
What is operation barbarossa
>whoever wrote this thinks it's a serious rebuttal
>he doesn't know the CSA enacted a military a year before the Union did
*draft
Strength in numbers. The military draft at the time was actually extremely unfair and punishment was brutal if you dodged.
Black folk, of course, were largely exempt from the draft.
The CSA had a draft as well
oh woah look it's another ''anon looks at wikipedia pages and bases all historical and logical facts on casualties'' thread.
I sure do love this board being smart and totally interesting.
The north was incompetent but people like to overplay people like Ulysses. Mostly, the north vs south was industrial production vs agriculture.
South had the home field advantage and they were the good guys.
Why is the South so butthurt despite the war ending over 150 years ago?
Same reason the south is passive aggressive. The real test of a defeated people is their ability to face force directly. Same reason they say "oh bless you" as an insult is because the north defeated them so thoroughly that they have no more right left in them. They feel their original fight was unfair but will not raise up arms because they are defeated.
>look how mad these people who don’t even know we exist are
>see how obsessed they are
>we are not obsessed we make threads everyday but those impoverished hicks who don’t even have internet, they are the ones obsessed with these threads
Do you find catharsis here?
Pure northern incompetence, the skilled generals who knew shit sided with the south, whereas the second rates were with the north
It wasn’t about slavery. It was about rights. The right to choose whether to own slaves or not.
>but don’t slave’s get a say
Well much like a fetus, the slaves did not have personhood, they were not political entities entitled to the same rights as they massas.
Listen, no one here is saying you need to own slave or slavery is good, we only support the right to choose.
You should support a woman’s right to choose what they do with their property, whether it be the entity with no political rights in their womb or the entity with no political rights on their plantation.
I thought libtards were the party of freedom and rights
well, kinda. The deep south was seceding mostly over the lack of western slavery (amongst other reasons), which would have cost the slave holding aristocrats their power hold on Congress and thus their lobbying power to maintain the south as a feudal region. The upper south was seceding about half a year after the deep south, only after Fort Sumter, and in protest to Lincoln breaking the constitution with an illegally declared war designed to subjugate the deep south to his whim. It was a blend of multiple greivances, ranging from western slavery to the Morill tariff, the Walker tariff, state sovereignty, congressional authority, etc.
It’s a meme about hypocrisy of Unionlarpers. I know the hypocrisy of lefties is wide spread and has been observed and denounced with results as weak as the leftists they refer to. I just thought it’s an interesting though experiment because slavery and abortion both use the same “we don’t support x, we support the right to choose to do x, those who it affects don’t have political rights so their opinions don’t matter.”
Generals were treating the Confederates as a rebellion rather than a hostile nation so they didn't go full Sherman until Sherman. Also South had home field advantage, the ability to use more guerilla tactics if they wished, and apart from a couple exceptions, better generals.
>they didn’t start committing war crimes until later on
South = sovl
North = soulless
Imagine winning battle after battle and still losing the war lmao
politically appointed generals in the east along with both sides being "unprofessional" armies in terms of leadership and men meant that a decisive victory in the field was never achieved.
in the west the Confederates got the shit beaten out of them from day 1
That said, the writers of the war were unbelievable, Vicksburg and Gettysburg on the 4th with the most famous speech in American history being totally off the cuff and not recorded, like that shit happened.
They didn't? The south was getting BTFO pretty much everywhere except the eastern theater for the first three years of the war, and then in the eastern theater too once Grant got there.