Inspired by going there today: Let's say Burnside avoids a debacle either 1) by getting the pontoons up faster, 2) revising his battle plan once it became clear that the crossing was to be delayed to focus the main attack upstream/downstream of town (focusing on the RR better) and avoid any sort of pitched urban battle, 3) communicating better about Mayre's Height's being a diversion, or 4) simply withdrawing once the town had been seized and selling it to Lincoln as a successful raid in force. Does any of this plausibly change the trajectory of the battle and how does the winter of 1862/early 1863 work out differently if the Union has at least succeeded in forcing the confederates from the battle and have something sellable as a victory? Are there other possibilities for a successful campaign I'm overlooking?
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AHC/WI: Battle of Fredricksburg goes better for the union.
- Thread starter Roger II
- Start date
- Location
- Albany, NY
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Burnside getting the pontoon bridges does open up the opportunity for him to get across the Rappahannock before Lee can even confront him. Though with the weather that caused the Mud March that's a serious question about what good will come from that. It's fairly easy to say "Oh we'll set the stage up for an earlier Chancellorsville" or "We did it lads, overland campaign 1862-63" but you can make the case either way.
Fundimentally though Burnside's record as a Corps commander after his IOTL defeat does not make one optimistic about the operational/strategic situation of any successful crossing into Rebel Virginia.
Fundimentally though Burnside's record as a Corps commander after his IOTL defeat does not make one optimistic about the operational/strategic situation of any successful crossing into Rebel Virginia.
zaffre
fdril
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Pronouns
- he/him
I don't want to inflate the Myth Of Lee too much since, sure, some of the other Union failsons (Pope, Hooker) could have beaten Lee in a campaign under luckier circumstances.
But - put bluntly - the thing about Burnside is that he was genuinely just bad.
But - put bluntly - the thing about Burnside is that he was genuinely just bad.
I mean Re: Zaffre, I think at least one of Pope or Hooker actually probably would've done fine under non-eastern theater circumstances or under circumstances where they could make a mistake or two without being under the microscope.
Yea, this makes me think honestly the median *good for the Union* outcome is that he takes the town quickly, fucks up the railroad and anything militarily useful, and then withdraws to a better defensive position before Lee can actually pick a serious fight. Which if he's lucky goads Lee into doing some kind of dumb shit and if not gives him a raid in force that can be sold to the Northern public as a victory pre-EP (what Lincoln actually wanted).
Fundimentally though Burnside's record as a Corps commander after his IOTL defeat does not make one optimistic about the operational/strategic situation of any successful crossing into Rebel Virginia.
Yea, this makes me think honestly the median *good for the Union* outcome is that he takes the town quickly, fucks up the railroad and anything militarily useful, and then withdraws to a better defensive position before Lee can actually pick a serious fight. Which if he's lucky goads Lee into doing some kind of dumb shit and if not gives him a raid in force that can be sold to the Northern public as a victory pre-EP (what Lincoln actually wanted).