Hooker not outflanked and crushes Lee at Chancellorsville

Hooker was more brash than brave. If he wins at Chancellorsville, he might be more willing to pursue Lee, but then Lee will do the same sort of defensive attrition war that he used against Grant to prolong the war so long. Hooker will be handed a defeat sooner or later, and then become overly cautious. Grant will as OTL be brought in after his victory at Vicksburg. It seems to me that Chancellorsville in this timeline takes the place of Gettysburg, with Hooker taking the place of Meade.

Or is there some variable I'm forgetting that is a game-changer? The fact that he is defeated on Virginian soil?
 
The question is can Lee be able to do the attrition warfare he did against Grant in this time line? If he is very badly damaged fighting Hooker and Sedgewick hits him with 25,000 fresh troops he might be so wounded as to be unable to do anything except slow Hooker down a bit.
 
The question is can Lee be able to do the attrition warfare he did against Grant in this time line? If he is very badly damaged fighting Hooker and Sedgewick hits him with 25,000 fresh troops he might be so wounded as to be unable to do anything except slow Hooker down a bit.

Okay. Let's start wtih the idea of him suffering 50% more casualties than OTL.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm

Lee would lose about twenty thousand men.

That leaves him with about forty thousand.

Longstreet's two detached divisions, if returned in full (as opposed to only three of Pickett's five brigades) would be up to around eighteen thousand men. Say fifteen to be consistent with an earlier statement, though...

55,000 vs. 120,000. Rounding and approximating for convenience.

For comparison, the Wilderness by their figures is 53,000 vs. 83,000 after the casualties are subtracted.

Meanwhile, the two years men will have their enlistments expire in June (and not late June), as well quite a few nine months men. All things considered, that's not as bad as what happened in 1864.

I wouldn't want to be Lee in this situation, but he can probably get in Hooker's way again.

However, if Lee is facing more like this https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4952390&postcount=20 - he's not going to have much to put in Hooker's way.


So a lot depends on how badly he fares.

And what additional reinforcements (besides Longstreet with Hood's and Pickett's divisions) he gets.
 
Okay. Let's start wtih the idea of him suffering 50% more casualties than OTL.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm

Lee would lose about twenty thousand men.

That leaves him with about forty thousand.

Longstreet's two detached divisions, if returned in full (as opposed to only three of Pickett's five brigades) would be up to around eighteen thousand men. Say fifteen to be consistent with an earlier statement, though...

55,000 vs. 120,000. Rounding and approximating for convenience.

For comparison, the Wilderness by their figures is 53,000 vs. 83,000 after the casualties are subtracted.

Meanwhile, the two years men will have their enlistments expire in June (and not late June), as well quite a few nine months men. All things considered, that's not as bad as what happened in 1864.

I wouldn't want to be Lee in this situation, but he can probably get in Hooker's way again.

However, if Lee is facing more like this https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4952390&postcount=20 - he's not going to have much to put in Hooker's way.


So a lot depends on how badly he fares.

And what additional reinforcements (besides Longstreet with Hood's and Pickett's divisions) he gets.


And he could always pull a Little Mac snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by retreating after he wins the battle.
 
And he could always pull a Little Mac snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by retreating after he wins the battle.

I don't think Hooker will do that. If Lee is on the run, he'll pursue.

After all, his plan will have worked. He has no reason to assume that he's about to be jumped on from the rear and both flanks.
 
I don't think Hooker will do that. If Lee is on the run, he'll pursue.

After all, his plan will have worked. He has no reason to assume that he's about to be jumped on from the rear and both flanks.

Most likely but there is some chance that will happen. However I don't think Hooker is as cowardly as Little Mac.
 
Hooker was more brash than brave. If he wins at Chancellorsville, he might be more willing to pursue Lee, but then Lee will do the same sort of defensive attrition war that he used against Grant to prolong the war so long. Hooker will be handed a defeat sooner or later, and then become overly cautious. Grant will as OTL be brought in after his victory at Vicksburg. It seems to me that Chancellorsville in this timeline takes the place of Gettysburg, with Hooker taking the place of Meade.

Or is there some variable I'm forgetting that is a game-changer? The fact that he is defeated on Virginian soil?

There is a very big variable: Lee's not going to be using breastworks at this phase. He'll want an open-field fight ala Gettysburg. That's 70,000 men against 60,000 so Lee could if he really struggled and was willing to accept horrendous casualties still defeat Hooker in an open-field fight, but he'd wreck his army doing that and the ATL more bellicose Fighting Joe Hooker would simply send Sedgwick in to attack on the third day of the battle.

The question is can Lee be able to do the attrition warfare he did against Grant in this time line? If he is very badly damaged fighting Hooker and Sedgewick hits him with 25,000 fresh troops he might be so wounded as to be unable to do anything except slow Hooker down a bit.

And that opens a whole set of cans of worms, that leaves the primary Confederate army under command of Braxton Bragg and would all but guarantee Grant captures Vicksburg after a short siege. The war would end in 1863.
 
And that opens a whole set of cans of worms, that leaves the primary Confederate army under command of Braxton Bragg and would all but guarantee Grant captures Vicksburg after a short siege. The war would end in 1863.

Maybe 1864, if things go well, for a given definition of well, for Lee (as opposed to first being gutted by Hooker and then Sedgewick gets the honors of finishing off the ANV).

But the ANV lasting until 1865...

Not as anything worth calling an army. :D Not when the premise of this is that Lee gets his ass handed to him at Chancellorsville.

Lee can replace 20,000 men in the short term, but only in the sense the Confederacy's pool of ready troops hasn't been depleted yet. The rest of the campaigning...if Hooker pushes it, it won't take Grant in the East to break Lee.
 
Maybe 1864, if things go well, for a given definition of well, for Lee (as opposed to first being gutted by Hooker and then Sedgewick gets the honors of finishing off the ANV).

But the ANV lasting until 1865...

Not as anything worth calling an army. :D Not when the premise of this is that Lee gets his ass handed to him at Chancellorsville.

Lee can replace 20,000 men in the short term, but only in the sense the Confederacy's pool of ready troops hasn't been depleted yet. The rest of the campaigning...if Hooker pushes it, it won't take Grant in the East to break Lee.

A question arises of whether or not Lee would retain his command after the disaster of a successful Union campaign in Spring 1863. Lee the Invincible has produced a disaster worse than anything anyone else in the Confederacy has done, which puts Davis in a bind.
 
A question arises of whether or not Lee would retain his command after the disaster of a successful Union campaign in Spring 1863. Lee the Invincible has produced a disaster worse than anything anyone else in the Confederacy has done, which puts Davis in a bind.


True, Chancellorsville in this TL will NOT be "Lee's Masterpiece" but "Lee being an idiot by dividing his army in front of a superior enemy"!
 
A question arises of whether or not Lee would retain his command after the disaster of a successful Union campaign in Spring 1863. Lee the Invincible has produced a disaster worse than anything anyone else in the Confederacy has done, which puts Davis in a bind.

In OTL Lee submitted his resignation after Gettysburg, accepting full blame and saying someone more fit to lead the army should be appointed. Davis replied he didn't have anyone more fit to lead the AoNV than Lee.

Even if Lee fails badly at Chancellorsville, Davis will keep him. Davis believes Lee is his best general and he's probably right.
 
True, Chancellorsville in this TL will NOT be "Lee's Masterpiece" but "Lee being an idiot by dividing his army in front of a superior enemy"!

Not so sure that he would divide his army in an open-field fight here, but it would certainly be considered as another Malvern Hill against someone willing to follow up such a victory with a massive attack. 70,000 troops against 60,000 could lead to another Lee tactical victory against that 70,000, and then Sedgwick starts the collapse of the ANV with his own attack.

In OTL Lee submitted his resignation after Gettysburg, accepting full blame and saying someone more fit to lead the army should be appointed. Davis replied he didn't have anyone more fit to lead the AoNV than Lee.

Even if Lee fails badly at Chancellorsville, Davis will keep him. Davis believes Lee is his best general and he's probably right.

Gettysburg, however, was a battle that like Shiloh the CSA initially treated as a victory, and in 1863 Davis and Lee had enough prestige that this would apply. In the ATL Lee's had the Seven Days', Second Bull Run, the disaster at Antietam, the passive victory at Fredericksburg and then this. You could presumably see James Longstreet take over command of the Army of Northern Virginia.
 
Not so sure that he would divide his army in an open-field fight here, but it would certainly be considered as another Malvern Hill against someone willing to follow up such a victory with a massive attack. 70,000 troops against 60,000 could lead to another Lee tactical victory against that 70,000, and then Sedgwick starts the collapse of the ANV with his own attack.



Gettysburg, however, was a battle that like Shiloh the CSA initially treated as a victory, and in 1863 Davis and Lee had enough prestige that this would apply. In the ATL Lee's had the Seven Days', Second Bull Run, the disaster at Antietam, the passive victory at Fredericksburg and then this. You could presumably see James Longstreet take over command of the Army of Northern Virginia.


True, his plan might have changed if Jackson is hurled back but that isn't going to stop Sedgwick. Longstreet might be an improvement for the CSA, he is much more cautious than Lee but not as much as Johnston. He is very unlikely to throw away his men in frontal assaults.
 
True, his plan might have changed if Jackson is hurled back but that isn't going to stop Sedgwick. Longstreet might be an improvement for the CSA, he is much more cautious than Lee but not as much as Johnston. He is very unlikely to throw away his men in frontal assaults.

Eh, Longstreet did make frontal assaults if ordered to do so. His real benefit is both experience and the proper ability to direct a large number of troops and not having the kind of tactical-strategic myopia that led to the Confederates taking heavier losses than the Union in all major battles. After this kind of defeat, however, he's got next to nothing to work with and an aggressive, powerful Union army moving south.
 
Eh, Longstreet did make frontal assaults if ordered to do so. His real benefit is both experience and the proper ability to direct a large number of troops and not having the kind of tactical-strategic myopia that led to the Confederates taking heavier losses than the Union in all major battles. After this kind of defeat, however, he's got next to nothing to work with and an aggressive, powerful Union army moving south.


Being ordered to is one thing ordering it is another. Lee ordered frontal assaults on quite a few occasions. Pickett's Charge being the most famous.
 
Being ordered to is one thing ordering it is another. Lee ordered frontal assaults on quite a few occasions. Pickett's Charge being the most famous.

Right. Regardless I think that the scenario of a large open-field engagement of 60,000 troops against 70,000 is not one that appeared during the US Civil War very much, the only case I can think of is Second Bull Run with 52,000 troops against 60,000 and the numbers on both sides were rather smaller. Who would win that kind of fight is an interesting question, it would be the Civil War version of the Battle of Leipizig.
 
Being ordered to is one thing ordering it is another. Lee ordered frontal assaults on quite a few occasions. Pickett's Charge being the most famous.

I have trouble imagining him not ordering it just out of caution in the sense Snake and I make fun of Johnston.

Pete was a hard fighter. Assuming he'll be reluctant to attack (assuming there's a realistic chance of success) is like assuming Jackson surviving is necessarily a plus in this situation.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Eh, Longstreet did make frontal assaults if ordered to do so.

I think it's fair to point out that four of the biggest tactical assaults of the entire war were conducted by Longstreet: the second day at 2nd Manassas, the second day at Gettysburg, the second day at Chickamauga, and the second day at the Wilderness (every one of them on the second day of the battle-interesting coincidence). Of these, 2nd Manassas and Chickamauga were two of the most successful attacks of the entire war, and Longstreet's assaults at Gettysburg and the Wilderness can arguably be said to have been successful, too. At least partially, anyway.
 
I have trouble imagining him not ordering it just out of caution in the sense Snake and I make fun of Johnston.

Pete was a hard fighter. Assuming he'll be reluctant to attack (assuming there's a realistic chance of success) is like assuming Jackson surviving is necessarily a plus in this situation.

That, however, assumes he has enough troops to attack with and enough time to form a kind of solid front. In this case the victorious Union armies may or may not give him that time, that depends on their own losses in the ATL campaign and what Hooker decides to do after said losses.

I think it's fair to point out that four of the biggest tactical assaults of the entire war were conducted by Longstreet: the second day at 2nd Manassas, the second day at Gettysburg, the second day at Chickamauga, and the second day at the Wilderness (every one of them on the second day of the battle-interesting coincidence). Of these, 2nd Manassas and Chickamauga were two of the most successful attacks of the entire war, and Longstreet's assaults at Gettysburg and the Wilderness can arguably be said to have been successful, too.

I quite agree, Longstreet, however, might not have the time or troops available to do anything depending on how the ATL battle affects Hooker's army and what he decides to do after his victory. If Longstreet has enough time then yes, Hooker could run into serious trouble. The word if is the key one, however.
 
Top