American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Lee's Error at Antietam?
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22072
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Blake [ Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:39 am ]
Post subject:  Lee's Error at Antietam?

Considering that portions of Lee's Army were along the Antietam Creek from September 15 until the start of the battle two days later it is surprising that defensive works were never constructed. Especially since his back was to a river and he was badly outnumbered. Was this more a result of the attitude towards trenches in 1862 or a consequence of the overconfidence felt by the Army of Northern Virginia?

I've never really thought about this much before. How different could it have been if Lee's men were entrenched behind 1864-style works on September 17?

Author:  warhorse123 [ Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Lee's Error at Antietam?

I had never thought of that, General. It's quite the contrast as you pointed out a few years later into the War, I've read several places that every time a unit stopped, they would start throwing up any kind of defensive work they could.
Maybe Lee wanted his troops more in an offensive state if mind over the defensive thinking defensive works would give? Just a thought.

Author:  nsimms [ Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lee's Error at Antietam?

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2019/01/28 ... de-bridge/

There is another link inside this one that goes deeper.

Author:  mihalik [ Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Lee's Error at Antietam?

I think field fortification was a tactic that evolved over time. You don't read much about it in the battles of 1861 and 1862. In 1863 you have fortifications at Fredricksburg, but they were prepared after the 1862 battle while the ANV spent the winter there.

At Gettysburg you have the trenches on Culp's Hill but nowhere else. At Chickamauga Thomas' men cut down trees for protection, but I have never read of any protection for Rosecrans' right wing.

It wasn't until 1864 that field fortification became ubiquitous.

It appears that throughout troops used natural and manmade features such as trees and stone walls for protection, however.

There is a reason there are scenarios in Campaign Peninsula where the entrenching feature is disabled.

Author:  Scott Ludwig [ Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Lee's Error at Antietam?

I think too elements of Antietam's landscape/farm fields allowed for some protection. I also think Lee was banking on the advantage of George McClellan bringing himself to the battle as well. 8) :mrgreen:

That's a neat article Ned, thanks for sharing it! I'll have to watch his presentation later. I spend a lot of time at Antietam and down in the area of Burnside's Bridge, though not always at it. NPS has been redoing the landscape a bit in the area for almost two years now. Made an access ramp down to the bridge from the parking area at the top, which is roughly where Benning had his lines. The parking area I believe is slowly being moved to the backside of the hill and the walls & displays at the top of it are closed off and being removed. Though I haven't confirmed it 100%, I assume it is part land restoration, which if the case, I'm curious to see if research like this has any part of it. It also is an accessibility thing too. The ramp is a slow grade sidewalk that does down the side of the hill. I've got photos I can dig out and if I go to Antietam in the near future, I'll snap some more. It's been really neat to see the work unfold.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/