Fredericksburg: Animated Battle Map 

You guys ROCK!! Thanks for your hard work

The narration is certainly appreciated. However, a few pronunciation errors were noticed.

Very good job you did, thanks!

@@lucasjohnson2995 Yes, the narration is great. If at all possible, pronunciation of Gen. Sturgis' name should be corrected.

Make one on the battle of cassino ww2

No, it is a botched portrayal. See my comments above or watch it again and pay attention.

Dwight Crapson Yep, your last name fits you. 30 people agree with op. Maybe it is you who should pay attention.

How does it make said failure more understandable?

@@ReverendMeat51 Decision to make an attack after Lee reinforced a function of Burnside's insecurity and pressures from Lincoln. It was a stupid attack given the setting. A more confident, an experienced general would not have attempted it.

Understandable? Yes. Forgiveable? Not with a lot of people. General Burnside definitely did the wrong thing that day.. and at least 7,500 Union Troops met their deaths, because of it!

Just watched the Series Gallipoli on Prime. Same thing different war. It's really criminal.

He charged up the hill like 13 times. After like the 5th failed attempt, Burnside should have retreated. The union got slaughtered.

Seriously, Zapp Brannigan has better battle tactics then this idiot.

Michael Lipschutz this was basically the Union's equivalent to Picket's charge.

The union could have found other fords to cross before Gen Lee fortified his defenses.

@@liamgriffin218 true.... both cases men were slaughtered uselessly

Clearly Gen. Lipschitz should have been in command = after watching one video he thinks he's Patton. Seriously, though, dude. Can't you stop for ONE second and imagine what it would have been like for a General 150-years ago with vastly imperfect information about what you are facing and what your enemy is doing and cut the man some slack? At least he was taking the fight to the Confederates which is 1Mx better than his predecessor. And while he did lose many men and IN HINDSIGHT should have stopped the siege much earlier, his actions brought about an end to the war MUCH, MUCH sooner than McClellan's lollygagging; thus, SAVING tens of thousands of lives. Try thinking outside the obvious HINDSIGHT/2020 (vision not the year.)) box.

I laughed

Watching my mother in law wake up every morning is more painful.

Later the battle of Cold Harbor under Grant is pretty painful too.

@@SClark-ww3vi But it's succeeded to push Rebs tho.

@@charjl96 Sorry, I can't here you over the sound of Sherman and Grant annihilating the south

Cool, I'll have to study this one.

I used to live in Independence Missouri, and I would visit Lexington battlefield often. I used to love seeing the cannonball in the courthouse LOL.

I do not understand why in the heck did Burnside boot just wait until the pontoons were available before he marched? Why march before they're ready, knowing there could be delays

"Catchy"

Maekar I Targaryen - Burnside was incompetent, that’s why. Once the Confederates beat him to Fredericksburg, he should’ve went somewhere else. The truth of the matter is, the Confederates had the best generals, at least until the end of the war. Once Sherman and Grant came along, things changed. Before them, frankly, they sucked.

@@alan30189 They were there, but the Staff was too busy calling Grant a drunkard and Sherman crazy (which he actually was but it didn't effect him in the field). It took 2 years for Lincoln to see through his general staff and decide to promote winners instead of "good" officers. Grant and Sherman were winning from the word go save the occasional setback.

@@D4rkc14ymor3 Yes, Grant was in the western theater at the beginning, then after his success there, became the Commanding General for the Union. Sherman had a nervous breakdown in 1861 and took a leave of absense until coming back and fighting alongside Grant, until Grant's move north. Grant encouraged him to come back.

No, cause there was a major supply road behind Lee's hill and Marye's Heights. It's called Plank Road after the planks laid down to keep the heavy Confederate supply carts from sinking into the mud. Ammo was not an issue because of this road, both during Fredericksburg AND Chancellorsville. Plank Road is still a major thoroughfare through Fredericksburg today, although paved.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The guy Burnside had replaced was sacked for his lack of decisive, confrontational action; he therefore marched off to Fredericksburg for a decisive, confrontational action that would take the Confederates by surprise. Except all surprise was forfeit because of the pontoons, they were strongly entrenched after almost two weeks of waiting, and Washington was still breathing down his neck looking for positive results after McClellan's failure at Antietam. Not attacking here and now, regardless of the circumstances, would surely mean his dismissal. His larger battle plan also hindered on keeping Longstreet's troops contained on Marye's Heights so that they couldn't participate in the larger battle for Prospect Hill. It was foolish of him to keep sending men into the slaughter like that but I'm sure he was getting increasingly desperate for a sign of success, while also finding it increasingly hard to determine the Confederate's true strength due to the carnage and smoke. Perhaps one more assault *could have* seen their forces dislodged from Marye's Heights; we've already engaged them with three divisions, surely they must be breaking by now right?

Macabre!

The Romans under Marcus Licinius Crassus made that same assumption at the Battle of Carrhae when faced with massed Parthian horse archers. Spoiler warning: the Parthians did not run out of arrows and had brought in thousands by camel.

"What are you going to do? Have us walk straight at them again?" "Why yes! How did you know?" "Because it's what you've had us do the past 18 times!" "That's the brilliance of it! They'll never see it coming! Only a madman would do it 19 times!"

No, not if you pay attention to the silly things the narrator says. See my post above for details, or better yet, watch the video again and pay attention this time.

@Leslie Franklin - Absolutely.

It was indeed the will of the Lord which so often we do not understand. Isaiah15:8

If the pontoons showed up when expected, the battle would have been very different. Burnside's tactic was good. But waiting for the pontoons, then attacking after Lee was ready was suicide. Many lives would be saved if Burnside turned away.

The plan that would have made a lot of sense when the pontoons were late: 1. Leave a screening force of about 15,000 facing Fredericksburg, and make it look larger than it is by having lots of fires at night, noise, etc. 2. Send most of the remaining forces (around 100,000, still larger than the ANV) to cross on pontoons about 10 miles away. Try your best to make this move fast and secret. 3. One of two things will happen: Either Lee figures out what you're up to and moves away from Fredericksburg and allows your screening force to now attack with light opposition, or he doesn't in which case you now have got the majority of your army across and can now attack Lee from the flank or rear and push him away from that critical railroad. If Lee tries to counterattack at Fredericksburg, your screening force can slow Lee down enough due to the river crossing to get your main body back to the area. 4. Another option, if your large crossing is successful elsewhere, is to set up on high ground between Fredericksburg and Richmond, cutting Lee's supply, and make Lee turn back and fight you on ground of your choosing. Apparently, both Lee and Burnside considered this, and Lee guarded against it, but Burnside decided he couldn't pull it off.

@@thexalon That's a good idea. Makes sense.

@@thexalon Nice plan but one problem-expecting Burnside to come up with it let alone successfully doing it. The man was cursed in every operation he was in charge of. (See 'The Battle of the Crater'.)

@@tomservo5347 Yes, he was cursed but [as mentioned above] he never wanted the job and had twice turned down an opportunity to succeed McClellan as head of Union forces.. I mean, at least he didn't have a false sense of self...

Can confirm, but I actually hear more pronunciation of the "y" personally. I grew up literally within Chancellorsville battlefield, just outside of Fredericksburg. Nice story as well, that's a new one.

There was no Mee-ger the proper pronunciation is M-ar @@iamnadexey

Kevin Cobley Many Union soldiers would have been grateful.

After they waited there for 10 days I think they should have changed their minds on their plan because they had lost the element of surprise, allowed the defenses to build, and allowed support to arrive

@@coolmanjack1995 ...If you really look at battles of the Civil War, it will become apparent to anyone with common sense that Edwin Stanton, the secretary of war was a traitor. He was actually a southern democrat who was involved with the assassination of Lincoln after the war. He deliberately stalled the arrival of the pontoon bridges to allow the south to mobilize. What should have been a union victory ended up being a defeat. If not for Stanton, the war probably would have ended much sooner. But the people he was working for wanted as much death as possible. When I heard in this video that Burnside had contacted the war department requesting pontoon bridges, I already knew things weren't going to turn out well for the union.

@@Tboy439 What are you on about? Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, wanted to remove him from his post once he took office. He was nearly impeached by radical republicans as a result. During the war, Stanton was one of Lincoln's most staunch supporters. He wanted to court martial McClellan after he refused to support Pope at Bull Run and rejected the Halleck's orders. He helped draft a proposition to arm slaves in the south to help put down the rebellion. He consistently opposed measures that would concede to the south's demands. When Buchanan wanted to withdraw from fort Sumter, he threatened to resign. He wanted to fight to keep the Union together, in contrast to secessionists and those who would appease them. For God's sake, he organized the manhunt for John Wilkes Booth! How does any of that point to him being a traitor, let alone a collaborator in his president's assassination?

Yes. Hooker was one of the generals that spoke to the other commanders and knew it was useless. Burnside hated Hooker, but had to relent when it was painfully obvious the attack was a colossal failure. Kirkland requested a white flag, but was denied. He went out there knowing he could be shot. When Union troops saw what he was doing, he was cheered.

@@shrapnel77 I think it’s important to note that the heights attack was meant to be diversionary and the attack on the south was supposed to be the main focal point, problem was that Franklin basically half assed the attack in the south and did not send timely reinforcements when Meades division actually made a breakthrough

RIP.

Was there not a single Lt. that could tell his men “It’s just one gun, let’s go take it”?

Good thing they couldn't.

@@ThePcbdznr Perhaps a confederate win could have prevented the wholesale slaughter of the Native tribes residing on the great plains

@@davidcolley7714 no the opposite actually

@@mrbrainbob5320 Nonsense

@@davidcolley7714 the Confederates were evil

I Agree

A good plan can adapt. A good blacksmith would never strike after his iron has cooled

Did my reputation proceed me, or was I too quick for it?

Please stop. The adults are trying to have a conversation.

sounds reasonable .

Umm, progress? Yes, that's a busy area, and things got zoned and built before anyone paid attention. Wouldn't matter now, because History is being stripped away

@@morganottlii2390 There was no marking of the location, whatsoever. Which is why I only said that I seem to have found it. I wasn't suggesting that having businesses was a problem. The problem was the lack of a historical marker.

I was just at the battlefield a couple of weeks ago. Who prevented it from being defaced?

He wasn’t relieved by grant. He was replaced shortly after Fredericksburg and replaced by General George Gordon Meade. Meade was in command later during Gettysburg.

@@siraxolotl2634 Grant didn't relieve him as overall Commanding General. Grant relieved him of duty, period. I should have been more specific. Burnside failed for the final time at Peterburg with the disaster at the crater. Grant sent him back to Washington for good after that. That was what I was refering to.

John Flanagan okay. Now I get what ya meant. 😂

Just an aside..no critiscism. Hooker was the General who took over in the East after Burnsidel. Meade relieved Hooker.

John Flanagan I know. I just like to pretend that hooker never led the union army because of how incompetent he was. XD

Not intense but a bloody one.

@@serenade4926 Not intense?

@@ottomatic3123 I meant it's more bloody than intense.

Longstreet was right. It was nothing but murder.

777Outrigger 🤔....Col. Porter Alexander, in charge of CSA Artillery, said... “not even a chicken could live on that field” referring to the overlapping fields of fire. Burnside was a fool... woefully unfit to lead the Army... mediocre Division commander at best. I’ve been to the battlefield back in 2010. One of the least preserved because it was such an overwhelming Confederate victory. 🇺🇸🇺🇸

@Doug Bevins Longstreet argued against Pickett's Charge, but got overruled.

@Doug Bevins This is not about Gettysburg, it's about Fredericksburg. But I see by your other remarks that you are rather adept at using nothing but sophistry. But I would surmise that you are an American, so such lack of scholarship is to be expected

@Doug Bevins What Longstreet advice are you saying was wrong? Perhaps Lee was just too overconfident at Gettysburg; why else got into PA and charge against a well-defended Union position?

That is exactly my thought! I love the narration and the graphics are perfect. But I longed for an after action summary, with losses n army size.

Army of the Potomac - 12,653 casualties: 1,284 KIA, 9,600 WIA, 1,769 MIA. Army of Northern Virginia - 5,377 casualties: 608 KIA, 4,116 WIA, 653 MIA. MIA includes captured and missing.

@@broncoremy Thank you!!!

Faugh ballagh

learned something new

It's actually pronounced more like Maaar ... rather than Mah-ur.

And where did the term "Sideburns" come from? Yes, they were originally called Burnsides.

@@HemlockRidge Ya im for Rhode Island lmao

Hi Malcolm, Depending on where your historical interests lie, you may want to look into some or all of the following channels: -->Montemayor -->Baz Battles -->EmperorTigerstar -->Kings and Generals -->Military History Visualized -->Eastory For real-time battles, you may also consider checking out a playlist on my channel titled "Epic Battles" which contains historical battles recreated in real-time using the Medieval 2: Total War engine as well as fantasy battles and others that I found entertaining. Let me know what you think. All the best, Kyle PS -- If you're seeing this twice, it's because I'm reposting the same comment but without the links in case RU-vid flags the first version as spam. Also edited to fix the spacing error that's occurring.

www.battlefields.org/learn/maps

I dont think you realize that the south was losing on all fronts besides the eastern front.

@@mrbrainbob5320 This battle was fought in December, 1862...so the South was NOT losing at all. Up to this point in the war, the South had the Union largely on the run and had outfought and outmaneuvered them in most of the engagements since Bull Run. Lincoln had become frustrated with this fact, which is one reason Burnside was in command and not GM. It would not be for another six months that the tide would turn for the North, as its logistical might began to take its toll on the South which could not replace men and equipment like the North could. Gettysburg was a real turning point and the South from that point was fighting a defensive war, and no longer waging offensive campaigns. But historians agree the South had better military leadership and won battle after battle in spite of being outnumbered in the early years of the war.

@@nuancolar7304 like you said this is 1862 and the south had just finished being blockade and grant in on his way cutting the south in 2 from the Mississippi river. So yes the south was losing on all fronts besides the eastern front.

@@mrbrainbob5320 Everybody knows the South eventually lost the war, but you are talking about campaigns which were as yet undecided at the time of Fredericksburg. I’m talking about the fact that, as of late 1862, the Confederacy was still waging OFFENSIVE operations. The tide had not yet turned on the Confederacy, but it was about to happen. The Confederacy had just invaded two Union states. Just before Fredericksburg the Confederacy actually threatened Washington DC itself after it defeated Union forces at Second Manassass. Yes, Lincoln had ordered Grant to press into his Vicksburg Campaign, but this was the beginning - not the end - of that engagement. The Vicksburg Campaign was just starting (December 1862, the same month as the Battle of Fredericksburg) and would take six full months before Vicksburg fell, which only then cut the South in two. As for the blockade, the blockade was not “finished” in 1862 but just beginning. It was poorly organized at first and only effective during daylight hours - the Union could not stop much of the shipping occurring during the night. For example, the South was equipped with British 1853 Enfield rifles and other supplies and provisions from England, and this came in via blockade runners. An estimated 900,000 rifles alone were imported for this - many right past Union blockade ships. Eventually, the blockade tightened in 1864 when Union commanders improved their tactics and received additional vessels cutting off many of the blockade runners. The South was not losing the war from the outset, and that was due largely to the military leadership that outclassed that of the Union. There were many in Congress and even in Lincoln's cabinet in late 1862 who wanted to recognize Southern independence, and this was largely due to their military successes and the carnage of going against the Southern armies. Lincoln was steadfast in his determination to preserve the entire union of the North American continent, and the rest is history. I say again - had Lee accepted command of Union forces when offered, the Civil War would have been over much, much sooner.

@@nuancolar7304 ok but my point is the south was always going to lose ,just it would have taken longer this was a war of attrition and the south was losing day by day besides on the eastern front.

not at this battle

I agree. It was a very precise and well laid out video but I wish there would have been a synopsis of some sort at the end.

Union: 122,00 strong, 1,284 killed, 9,600 wounded, 1,769 captured/missing Confederates: 78,000 strong, 608 killed , 4,116 wounded, 653 captured/missing

@@FrAnC3sCoN123 Thank you. It's appreciated.

What if Franklin had supported Meade with more than one brigade, could the AoP have been split in two and defeated in detail? And to directly answer your question, what would've prevented the AoP from crossing further downstream and turning Longstreet's flank while Jackson was getting into position? (Yes, Jackson would've loved doing that, lol.)

Honestly, only a idiot would either commence attack on such position, while it took quite a brain dead person to loose such a defensive fight.

Chancellorsville was most likely the last, but Wilderness and Spotsylvania were both technically wins. After the latter, it was just a scramble to stay on inside lines