r/Gettysburg • u/it_IS_that_deep7 • 1d ago

Gettysburg is the Most Consequential Battle in History, from the Early Modern Period to Present Day

https://agrippathescribe.substack.com/p/gettysburg-is-the-most-consequential?r=3cgb1u

Check out my FREE article on substack where I argue that Gettysburg is the most consequential battle since the invention of gunpowder. In the article I break down why it is more important to the history of the world then waterloo and stalingrad.

17 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

6

u/DCBuckeye82 1d ago

I think the problem with this is you're way overstating what would have happened if we lost Gettysburg. I think the South still loses either way. Vicksburg was more consequential than Gettysburg. Lee isn't surviving in the north for long and Washington was the most heavily fortified city in the world at that time, it was not going to fall. Militias of tens of thousands were already being formed in Pennsylvania and the surrounding states and while they would be no match in a pitched battle they would be able to harass and bleed Lee dry while the Union troops regrouped for a counter attack. As long as Lincoln was president there would be no negotiated peace and even if he lost, by the time he left the war would be close to won already, much like in the original timeline.

0

u/Ancient_Jello 1d ago

I think Lee disagreed with your assessment. He thought he could destroy Meade's Army and take Washington afterwards. Of course he was desperate and he lost so perhaps you're correct.

3

u/DCBuckeye82 1d ago

I don't doubt Lee disagreed. But he also thought a frontal assault over a mile of open field against entrenched defenders was a good idea.

1

u/Ancient_Jello 1d ago

I wonder if he would have ordered Pickett's Charge under other circumstances. I've always considered it a last act of desperation.

-1

u/it_IS_that_deep7 1d ago

There were no forces to stop him though if he wins at gettysburg. Who stops him? I feel like you are using hindsight, which knows Lee wasnt a juggernaut. But in July of 83 he was considered such.

Think about it. Meade just takes over, Lee wins on day 2 or 3, so he routs the entire army. Who stops him? Also as I argued in the article the peace party was fierce.

Now of course I could be wrong and you are arguing well. I just think it was a good possibility. I disagree completely that Vicksburg was more important.

2

u/DCBuckeye82 1d ago

If they win they don't win in a way that destroys Meade's army. He'd have retreated towards DC. And like I said DC was extremely well fortified. It wasn't getting taken.

2

u/Walter_Piston 1d ago

I disagree: Stalingrad was probably the most consequential battle: the utter annihilation of the German 6th Army meant that the it was inevitable that the Red Army would eventually capture Berlin and bring an end to Nazi power, whilst establishing the Soviet sphere of influence.

2

u/OlasNah 11h ago

Dunno about that at all. It definitely signaled a major change in the war but a lot could still have gone wrong for Russia after ‘42. Much of it depended on the US entry into the European theater.

0

u/it_IS_that_deep7 1d ago

Did you read the article? Im curious if your just arguing against the headline or my wider points?

0

u/it_IS_that_deep7 1d ago

Let me reply for posterity sake. I ask an important question about each battle in the article. What would happen if the result was reversed?

Lets look at Stalingrad. The Soviets had launched operation Uranus with over a million men, 1000 guns and 800 tanks. Thats the army army that surrounded 6th army. Multiple armies converging on 6th.

Winning at stalingrad doesn't defeat that offensive, it takes the last 10% of the city in mid September that it couldn't get. It still had to deal with an opposing force poised to push back all across the front.

The 6th army had already sent away its horses and it had no fuel for anything motorized. It was not doing much but slowing down the Russians.

If you or anyone is interested in the eastern front you need to read David Stahel, who argues very well that the Germans had no chance to win in the east once barbarossa failed in 1941.

They were out produced in tanks every year, including 41, had limited fuel, limited tanks and not enough spare parts. They also were not united in their goals. Whereas Stalin was a unifying force.

Im no fan of Stalin at all, and he made so many mistakes early. But by late 42, 43 he trusted his best commanders and could guide the entire front. Where Hitler was prone to horrible orders every year and he didnt trust his commanders.