New Book credits George Armstrong Custer with saving the Union at Gettysburg

Max Sinister

Banned
Always that Custer guy. If he hadn't been that stupid and getting killed by the Indians, nobody'd remember his name today.
 

Peter Cowan

An interesting theory. My understanding was that Stuart's job was to harrry a potential retreat of the Union Army assuming Pickett's charge was a success. In this scenario it might be very effective.

The idea of a simultaneous attack seems a bit farfetched - it might work on a map but with poor communications (horseback over 5-6 miles) and innaccurate watches, chances of success seem more limited. Even more so as the CSA forces had no real idea as to what was there to meet them.

As it was, Stuart ran into a US brigade some 2-3 miles from the battlefield and was effectively removed from the battle. Custer was just one Union commander, albeit one with a good PR instinct, so i can't see how he alone saved the Union at Gettysburg.

Given that Pickett's charge failed, would an attack by a few thousand cavalry really amount to much?
 

robertp6165

Peter Cowan said:
Given that Pickett's charge failed, would an attack by a few thousand cavalry really amount to much?
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if Stuart had gotten through and launched a simultaneous attack on the Union rear, would Pickett's Charge have failed? Could be that the Yankees have to draw off some forces from the center to meet Stuart, allowing Pickett to break through.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
I remember seeing this scenario before. My understanding was that Custer's success was seen mainly as a good example of how effective the new Spencer repeating carbines, which he was equipped with, actually were.

One other book I saw it in was a collection of scenarios where the South wins at Gettysburg. The upshot, after 7 or 8 other versions of how Lee could have won, was that it would have made little difference anyway, because he still would have had to face an even bigger Army around Washington, and this when cut off from supplies, depleted by Gettysburg and deep in enemy territory.

That is assuming he attacked Washington, it might have been a different thing if he went to New York.
 

wkwillis

Play different, lose different

If Stuart wasn't taking Custer out of the battle, Custer would have been busy attacking the Confederates someplace lese.
 

Disen

The 20th Maine was in reserve at the center of the line on the 3rd day, believed to be at its safest position. As damaged as they were, they were still in reserve. Meanwhile, Buford's cavalry was not far off guarding the supply trains. That constitutes sufficient reserve for a flank movement. Beyond that, I don't see how Lee could immediately find it well to cover-up the truth of the flank of the Union line that day for the sake of Stuart when Stuart's abandon of Lee for the past week had probably caused the circumstances before them in the first place.

On that third day, there was very little the Confederacy could have done to win the field. Longstreet, in that was correct, and yet, his countermeasures were probably equally as dangerous.
 

pisces74

I depends on your point of view. Could a thousand confederate cav, rout the union army from their center, granted the morale of the union army was low, but they had to know that they outnumbered the enemy. It was a clear lack of agression that kept the union from winning earlier in the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top