Every civil war battle be like>5000 confederate soldiers vs 9000 union soldiers>4000 confederate death vs 6000 union deaths>no strategic objectives obtained by either side>a resounding confederate victory
It's called aura my good man.
>>18645787
Bump
>>18647879Lee had the option to implement a Fabian strategy, similar to the approach taken by Washington and later Joe Johnston.
Lol.
>>18647879Civil war history be like "The units involved in the charge were led by colonels Zedekiah Abdingdale, Lycomedes Darlington, and Bo Hill. But the maneuver quickly devolved into a massacre for both sides. Wrote Colonel Hill in his memoirs, 'I grieved not for my lost leg, for in an hour's span, well-nigh 400 of our boys lost life entire, and I felt merely the grim edge of such butchery.' "
>>18647879The Union started winning when they stopped being pussies and started measuring success in casualty ratios not in positions.
>>18647879And mutts will call this war "kino"
>>18649597The Fabian strategy is hideously destructive to your own homeland, and the entire reason Lee joined the Confederacy was to not make war on his home state of Virginia. Implementing the Fabian strategy would have effectively negated that purpose, because it requires you do essentially make war on your own home in every practical sense.
>>18649786I find that people inordinately fascinated with the American Civil War have a really romanticized view of war in general, and care more about the little intrigues and interpersonal drama of the war's key figures than the conflict itself. Basically, it's just a soap opera, to them.
>>18649798Feels more like rightoids wanting to larp as the Co federates like how they larp as Nazis and are obsessed with WW2, there are far more interesting wars in the 19th century
>>18649784Grant (rightly) concluded that prolonging the war would lead to even more death and destruction in the long term, so it was worth paying a steep, bloody price if it could assuredly end the war. And a war of attrition heavily favored the Union. It takes a certain kind of cold blooded person to make that calculation, even if it is ultimately supposed to be averting a worse loss of life.
>>18649794Which was the right opportunity for a defensive stance due to geographic distance in the West? The South had no industry, so harassing Union supply lines worked to slowly retake Nashville under Jackson and possibly New Orleans by Earl Van Dorn.
>>18649805>ESL
>>18649794And yet they still wound up doing it, though far too late to matter. A lot of the destruction of Sherman's March, for example, was actually inflicted by the Confederates trying to employ the Fabian strategy. The stories about farms and storehouses burned out, and railways ripped up, were actually done by the Confederate army to deny food and easy transport to Sherman's army.
>>18649597No he didn't because he would've been sacked and replaced. Few in the Confederacy were willing to fight that type of war. It runs counter to our nature as Southerners and Sam Houston called it from the start.
>>18649819>The South had no industryNot true, they just didn't have nearly as much as the north. If they had no industry at all, they never would've been able to wage a serious war. After a few months they would have exhausted their stored provisions and supplies, and where would they get more? The Union had blockaded their ports. Sure, some stuff would get through, but enough to continually supply a war effort? No way. They had very limited industry, just like they had more limited use of rail. Most of the rail in the US at the time was in the north, but the South still had several major rail lines that were important to their economy, and the war effort.
>>18649832>>18649597Might actually work.https://www.warhistoryonline.com/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-south_won-watch-x.html
>>18649828>No he didn't because he would've been sacked and replaced.This. The Fabian strategy is NEVER popular even if it is effective. The Roman consul after which it was named was despised by the Roman people for it, though in their case it wasn't just the financial costs it imposed, but also the "cowardly" nature of it. The Romans were not a very subtle people when it came to war.
>>18649821You lost
>>18649851CHAZ lost
>>18649851Cope lmao
>>18647879Half of those yankees were probably immigrants and coloreds
>>18649674kek
>>18649784They actually still did the latter, it's how they took so many positions through maneuver instead of attack
>>18651803It is noteworthy that Ace Lee or retreat Joe Johnston could employ a maneuver (counter turning movement)https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/rethinking-gettysburg/
>>18649805>Indian
I'm much more interested in the causes of the war than the military history itself.
>>18649674I FUCKING HATE 1870'S INDIAN WARS INSIGNIA ON CIVIL WAR FORAGE CAPS
>>18653320Possible adopted by western rangers of Dixielandhttps://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/original-civil-war-indian-wars-2015962234
>>18653363yes, that's cavalry insignia - the emblem on Pepe's (paki-made) kepi is denoting 1870's US infantry
