The Late Great Stonewall: A Southern Victory TL

DaHound mate go easy or your TL will become a flamewar and some mod will most likely closing it in the end.

Now do not think I am criticizing you for I ain't, and while I don't completely agree with Johnrankins, (I think classifying is battles as either defeats, Pyrrhic wins or statements is an exaggeration), we have to agree Lee took huge casualties on his battles, yes in most of them the enemy took more than him, but the Union could take those losses, the CSA couldn't.

Using Wiki for his battle record I got that he took almost 120,000 casualties over the all war, inflicting almost 160,000 to the Union. Statistically he as more casualties than the other Generals, but only because he lead the AoNV from 1862 to the end of the war, if a Union General had been in command of the AoP the same amount of time Lee was commanding the AoNV he would be bellow that General, but given that that didn't happen we have to accept that Lee is the general with the greatest casualty rate.

We don't know that. Among Southern Army Commanders both Johnstons, Bragg and Beuregard all took less percentage casualties. I think Grant, Thomas, and Sherman at the least would have taken less casualties than Lee.
 
We don't know that. Among Southern Army Commanders both Johnstons, Bragg and Beuregard all took less percentage casualties. I think Grant, Thomas, and Sherman at the least would have taken less casualties than Lee.

I just pointed a potential scenario not a fact and I don't claim otherwise.
 

DaHound22

Banned
Percentage casualties is what I said. Outside of Fredricksburg , 2nd Bull Run and Cold Harbor Lee generally had a higher percentage of his troops as casualties than his enemy and as a whole he had higher percentage of his men as casualties than any other Army Commander If you lose 12% of your troops and your enemy loses only 10% you are going to be ground into dust even if you lose less in numbers.

Building dugout canoes or whatever to take a defended island , disembarking and then going across again is NOT a good plan. You are going to be shot to pieces.

Yes but wasn't my plan. If you go back and read through the posts, you'd see that I don't even have AoNV crossing at that place until half of the army is already attacking. There's more than one place to cross the Susquehanna
 
Yes but wasn't my plan. If you go back and read through the posts, you'd see that I don't even have AoNV crossing at that place until half of the army is already attacking. There's more than one place to cross the Susquehanna

There two things that the CSA won't have: time or secrecy. It is too far north. If it ever gets that far north it is not going home. Lee is NOT God, if he fights an enemy where is easily cut off from supplies (food by itself is not enough) he needs ammo. Unlike Sherman in Georgia he is going to be fighting a lot of enemies as the Union has reserves , trains and supplies. After Hood went snipe hunting in TN Sherman didn't need much ammo as there was no one in front of him.
 

DaHound22

Banned
DaHound mate go easy or your TL will become a flamewar and some mod will most likely closing it in the end.

Now do not think I am criticizing you for I ain't, and while I don't completely agree with Johnrankins, (I think classifying is battles as either defeats, Pyrrhic wins or statements is an exaggeration), we have to agree Lee took huge casualties on his battles, yes in most of them the enemy took more than him, but the Union could take those losses, the CSA couldn't.

Using Wiki for his battle record I got that he took almost 120,000 casualties over the all war, inflicting almost 160,000 to the Union. Statistically he as more casualties than the other Generals, but only because he lead the AoNV from 1862 to the end of the war, if a Union General had been in command of the AoP the same amount of time Lee was commanding the AoNV he would be bellow that General, but given that that didn't happen we have to accept that Lee is the general with the greatest casualty rate.

This is true, and i appreciate the advice, in fact I think I might just ignore the naysaying for a while and get on with the TL (I haven't added to the TL sense page 2 of this thread)
 

DaHound22

Banned
There two things that the CSA won't have: time or secrecy. It is too far north. If it ever gets that far north it is not going home. Lee is NOT God, if he fights an enemy where is easily cut off from supplies (food by itself is not enough) he needs ammo. Unlike Sherman in Georgia he is going to be fighting a lot of enemies as the Union has reserves , trains and supplies. After Hood went snipe hunting in TN Sherman didn't need much ammo as there was no one in front of him.

Actually as already shown like on almost every page at least 2 they had about a week, so they do have time. And they have overwhelming manpower for this particular fight. And better soldiers for this particular fight. And the better generals for when they do finally meet the AotP.
 
Actually as already shown like on almost every page at least 2 they had about a week, so they do have time. And they have overwhelming manpower for this particular fight. And better soldiers for this particular fight. And the better generals for when they do finally meet the AotP.

Even if they take Harrisburg they are not going home. Taking Harrisburg will take time and time is something they don't have. Even if they took Harrisburg in an hour they still don't have the time to go back. It is a long, long way from Pennsylvania to Virginia.

Also they won't have a week, they will be lucky if they have two days. There is Union militia all over the place and Union Army Reserves to boot and Harrisburg is on the rail lines. They won't stop Lee but they will slow him down and cause him to waste ammo. As long as he is outside of Virginia every horse that dies, every cannon that is destroyed , every round of ammunition expended and every wagon that is captured is going to be VERY hard to replace. The Union doesn't have that problem.
 
You stated any Union general would have taken more casualties than Lee, the question then becomes why didn't the other Southern Army Commanders take more casualties than Lee?

Given that the army of the Potomac suffered more casualties than the army of northern Virginia OTL, if one general had spent the full war leading them then, if everything goes OTL, he would had suffered more casualties.

Johnston - took part in both the first Manassas and the Peninsula Campaign but in both cases he didn't took command (Beauregard and Lee lead the armies, the first as a professional courtesy because Johnston didn't knew the terrain, the second because Johnston was injured). Took control of the Western Theater, leading the CSA forces during both the Vicksburg, Atlanta and Carolinas Campaigns. Is first battle, the first were he took direct command, was the Battle of Seven Pines and is second was the Battle of Jackson, almost a year latter. As Bragg he would always be on the defensive.

Bragg - fought at Shiloh as a Corps commander, before gaining the command of the Army of Mississippi, latter renamed Army of Tennessee. Commanded the said army from 1862 to 1864 when he was appointed as Military Adviser to Davis. His only major victory on the Western Theater was in the Battle of Chickamauga were he lost almost 20,000 men, after the battle he had his army routed by Grant during the Chattanooga Campaign. He only managed to win one victory and lost most of the Campaigns and Battles while in command, despite being on the defensive, compared to Lee, that always tried to take the initiative, his defensive stance explains his lower casualty rate.

Beauregard - fought at First Bull Run, Shiloh and Corinth before being sent to coastal defenses, failing to take command of any large formation before being put in command of the Department of the West in late 1864. Compared to Lee that went from 1862 to 1865 commanding an army that was on constant fighting.
 
Given that the army of the Potomac suffered more casualties than the army of northern Virginia OTL, if one general had spent the full war leading them then, if everything goes OTL, he would had suffered more casualties.

Johnston - took part in both the first Manassas and the Peninsula Campaign but in both cases he didn't took command (Beauregard and Lee lead the armies, the first as a professional courtesy because Johnston didn't knew the terrain, the second because Johnston was injured). Took control of the Western Theater, leading the CSA forces during both the Vicksburg, Atlanta and Carolinas Campaigns. Is first battle, the first were he took direct command, was the Battle of Seven Pines and is second was the Battle of Jackson, almost a year latter. As Bragg he would always be on the defensive.

Bragg - fought at Shiloh as a Corps commander, before gaining the command of the Army of Mississippi, latter renamed Army of Tennessee. Commanded the said army from 1862 to 1864 when he was appointed as Military Adviser to Davis. His only major victory on the Western Theater was in the Battle of Chickamauga were he lost almost 20,000 men, after the battle he had his army routed by Grant during the Chattanooga Campaign. He only managed to win one victory and lost most of the Campaigns and Battles while in command, despite being on the defensive, compared to Lee, that always tried to take the initiative, his defensive stance explains his lower casualty rate.

Beauregard - fought at First Bull Run, Shiloh and Corinth before being sent to coastal defenses, failing to take command of any large formation before being put in command of the Department of the West in late 1864. Compared to Lee that went from 1862 to 1865 commanding an army that was on constant fighting.

Which shows if you are the clearly weaker party don't go on the offensive on enemy territory if you can help it. It made sense in VA where you can actually regain territory but Antietam and Gettysburg were just plain stupid. The CSA didn't have to win by conquering the North and was incapable of it in any case, it just had to outlast it. Throwing people away on foolhardy attacks outside your territory doesn't help.
 
Which shows if you are the clearly weaker party don't go on the offensive on enemy territory if you can help it. It made sense in VA where you can actually regain territory but Antietam and Gettysburg were just plain stupid. The CSA didn't have to win by conquering the North and was incapable of it in any case, it just had to outlast it. Throwing people away on foolhardy attacks outside your territory doesn't help.

I thought we were talking about casualty rates not battle/campaign plans.

Either way let's just stop this and let the poor OP do his TL without flaming it to the gates of oblivion.

DaHound one last piece of advise. Add the words WANK to the TL name (even if you don't think it is), that way you can write in TL in peace, for some members don't like the idea of a Union Screw they won't be as fast to criticize because "it's a Wank".
 
I thought we were talking about casualty rates not battle/campaign plans.

Either way let's just stop this and let the poor OP do his TL without flaming it to the gates of oblivion.

DaHound one last piece of advise. Add the words WANK to the TL name (even if you don't think it is), that way you can write in TL in peace, for some members don't like the idea of a Union Screw they won't be as fast to criticize because "it's a Wank".

Actually with me it is less the what but the how. It is one thing for the CSA to win . I can even see it winning a battle or two in the near north but Harrisburg is simply too far north. Gettysburg was really pushing it (One reason why the CSA lost) , Harrisburg is complete suicide. I would have far less objections to a "Longstreet was right" scenario where Lee chooses the terrain and Meade attacks him. He still won't destroy the AOTP but he could beat it up quite a bit. He has to do that somewhere other than the middle of PA to pull that off though.

Also the Union had to attack to win Lee didn't, at least not Union territory. If the commander who would replace Lee wouldn't stupidly attack Union territory when he didn't have to he would have less casualties not more.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Gingrich's books were better than I thought, and he kept his opinions to a minimum (surprisingly).

Not the best, clearly, but still miles better than Harry Harrison, TSmith121...:D
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Harrison's Civil War AHs aren't much to my taste, either.

His books were quite good. If you haven't read them, I heartily recommend them.

Tried one but the repeated incidents of US commanders trying to restage Fredericksburg seemed rather off.

Yeah, Gingrich's books were better than I thought, and he kept his opinions to a minimum (surprisingly). Not the best, clearly, but still miles better than Harry Harrison, TSmith121...:D

Harrison's Civil War AHs aren't much to my taste, either.

There's a reason BROS was begun, actually.:D

Best,
 
Top