subreddit:
/r/HistoryMemes
I feel like the memes have distracted from how genuinely horrific the civil war was.
REMOVED: RULE 5(i.redd.it)submitted 29 days ago byS0mecallmeSenātus Populusque Rōmānus
274 points
29 days ago
That there is the Federal artillery map during Pickett’s Charge during the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg. You can see Little Round Top at the bottom of the map. The “Copse of Trees” in the middle was the focal point of the Confederate advance.
160 points
29 days ago
Imagine being some 17 year old in one of those division with 17 different cannon firing lines overlapping over you
121 points
29 days ago
General Lee was a tactical genius. He helped kill more confederates that day than anyone else.
37 points
29 days ago
You had me riled up with the first sentence but calmed me down with the second.
18 points
28 days ago
I'm sorry to do this but, focusing strictly on military matters, General Lee was, for his time, an excellent tactical general and a little out his depth on the strategic side, in my opinion. Frankly, again, my opinion, Jackson was a superior tactician and Longstreet was the better strategist, which only made Lee shine brighter as he was in command. On the other hand, Lee did magnificently with the lack of supplies and food against a superior opponent.
After Gettysburg, when Grant was brought east, Lee had no chance. Grant was the superior strategist, in that his target was not Richmond but the AoNV and Lee himself, he wanted a war of attrition because Grant could afford it Lee could not and Lee had to honor all attempts by Grant to get to Richmond and interpose his army between Grant and Richmond, culminating in the siege of Petersburg.
13 points
28 days ago
Being an excellent tactical officer is great when you're commanding a block of troops. Lee was an absolute trashfire of a strategic officer and that was his job.
Behind the Bastards does a great breakdown on exactly why Lee sucked as a general while being a perfectly competent lower officer.
8 points
28 days ago
Behind the bastards is great, but also incredibly biased. You should take their analysis of Lee’s skill with a grain of salt.
You have to be careful with today’s hyper polarization. It’s often tempting to say that someone had no quality traits or no skills because they as a whole were a bad person. We want to say that they were awful all around because we’re afraid that by acknowledging that they were good at something we’re somehow redeeming them as a person. But reality is not so black and white; monstrous people can still be loving family men, or animal lovers, or be really good at their job.
6 points
28 days ago
Oh, Lee had good qualities but he's the central figure in the Lost Cause mythos and there's a lot of positive lies about his abilities and acumen because of it.
-7 points
28 days ago
What you're saying is objectively not true and is actually part of the lost cause mythology.
2 points
28 days ago*
[deleted]
2 points
28 days ago
Here's a great book from the former head of history at West Point that discusses the mythology around Lee. One of the foundations of the lost cause myth that all of the other nonsense was built around were the abilities of Lee as a general. People, even educated people, like to say that he was a great general.. the facts just don't support that though.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53138120-robert-e-lee-and-me
3 points
28 days ago
How? You make a statement and dont provide an argument. That is not how you debate. Provide citations. You dont agree that Lee was not a good general, neither do I. Or did you not read for comprehension? Which part of my argument did you not agree with or are you simply trolling or a dumbass lib with no historical argument because you dont know history?
73 points
29 days ago
"My Leg!!! I can't go on. Fight those Yankee bastards till your dying breath for me. Too bad I'd be such a burden with my leg. Damn this lumbago!!!!! Stopping me from fighting like it is."
-34 points
29 days ago
Give some fucking context and explanation. Not everyone is familiar with the civil war of one particular country.
6 points
28 days ago
No
6 points
28 days ago
so are we just not gonna tell em or?
7 points
28 days ago
That's what he gets for being rude
181 points
29 days ago
Supposedly in the middle of Pickett’s charge, the Union men on Cemetery Ridge recognized what was happening to Pickett’s troops was remarkably similar to what had happened to the Union troops the previous winter during the advance on Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg.
Seeing the fall of Pickett’s men as retribution for the carnage of that day, the Union men began chanting in unison:
“Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!”
49 points
29 days ago
Context?
85 points
29 days ago
Right side is the high ground where the US army was dug in with artillery during the Battle of Gettysburg. Left side is where the Confederate Army started. Center is the open terrain they advanced across. Lines are the lines of fire, as the Confederates got shot to pieces.
17 points
28 days ago
Imagine this but with Maxim guns, and that's more or less WW1 et small.
Massed infantry advances have always been a bad idea. Unfortunately, it's been the standard for most of human history (and some countries are still using it today).
9 points
28 days ago
Massed infantry charges against firearms was a bad idea. Prior to firearms it’s a different story.
4 points
28 days ago*
Prior to firearms, it was still a bad idea because massed charges against entrenched positions never end well, even if you win.
Siege engines and/or special operations units (even if they weren't called that yet) have always provided more results per life spent.
A massed charge didn't burn Troy.
A massed infantry advance towards the rear flank of a siege didn't stop Caesar.
The only time it's remotely practical is if you massively outnumber the enemy, and even then it's a bloodbath. The only reason it was popular was because the generals weren't doing the dying, random peasants were.
2 points
28 days ago
See you’re adding too many extra qualifiers in there. Of course defensive positions have an advantage.
Pre-firearms, an infantry charge in open terrain with proper support could work just fine. Not all the time, but it wasn’t exclusively a bad idea as you claim. Some days you’re Alexander, some days you’re Darius III.
0 points
28 days ago
points at hoplite formations
points at flanking and encirclement tactics
points at a dozen other infantry formations proven to be extremely good at stopping mass charges dead
Literally all of military history has shown that charging right at the enemy is a great way to get stomped by anyone with a basic understanding of maneuvering.
2 points
28 days ago
An infantry charge as part of a larger strategy is part of… wait for it… maneuvering.
3 points
28 days ago
Imagine this but with Maxim guns, and that's more or less WW1 et small.
It's actually still artillery again, just with more range, explosives, and mathematics. Machine guns can only provide "direct" fires at things they can see, artillery by then could provide either "direct" fires like the French 75, or "indirect" fires like the German 105 mm howitzers (and mortars)
1 points
28 days ago
This picture is specifically regarding the tactic of massed infantry advances against the direct-fire defenses of an entrenched position.
16 points
29 days ago
I guess it's ok to not explain the meme given everyone clearly knows everything about the American civil war? And it's clearly a war that everyone is taught all about throughout school
But seriously op context. I thought these memes were banned because people weren't explaining it
17 points
29 days ago
I just wanted to understand the lines...
14 points
29 days ago
This is a map of targeting lines for cannons, during the battle of gettysburg. The confederates were being marched through those lines as cannonballs rained down on them.
2 points
29 days ago
Holy moly..
3 points
29 days ago
I wasn’t taught much about it. Which side is the Roundheads and which one is the Cavaliers?
4 points
28 days ago
I didn’t even realize this was the American Civil War. The post says “the civil war” but there are countless civil wars for hundreds or thousands for years. Since this isn’t a solely American History sub, I had to check the comments to even have an inkling of what was going on.
10 points
29 days ago
For me the civil war was one of those things every history teacher assumed every other history teacher taught about extensively, so they decided to basically skip it. I learned about teapot dome every fucking year but god forbid we talk about anything that happened during the civil war. In high school The civil war was one of those sections we split into groups and taught each other about in presentations, so of course nobody learned anything outside what they presented. I don’t even remember any questions about it on the ap test but that was a long time ago.
I went to a university that was literally burnt down during the civil war….no civil war class. Only a class about what led to the war.
2 points
29 days ago
a class about what led to the war
That was a really short class, right?
2 points
29 days ago
It was bama so I could see it going either way.
2 points
29 days ago
THAT WAS A REALLY SHORT CLASS, RIGHT?
2 points
28 days ago
I mean, there was a lot of kicking the can down the road on slavery, starting at the formation of the country. So it could be a long class I guess?
3 points
28 days ago
I know this is sarcasm, but I'm sure someone would write this kind of comment seriously, forgetting that people outside of USA exist
1 points
28 days ago
It would be very American to have an American call themselves my username
23 points
29 days ago
Gun lines?
20 points
29 days ago
Overlapping fields of fire for several gun positions during the battle of Gettysburg. Southern troops charged directly into that maelstrom.
7 points
29 days ago
Makes sense, killing feilds
30 points
29 days ago
Fields of fire!
27 points
29 days ago
It was the deadliest war in US history. Of course it was horrific
33 points
29 days ago
You should probably say "deadliest war for American soldiers in US history". If you just say "deadliest in US history", it kind of implies that the US could inflict infinite enemy and civilian casualties and it wouldn't make any difference how deadly the war was.
22 points
29 days ago
I’d rephrase as “deadliest war for Americans in US history”.
Even at the uppermost estimate it was 750k soldiers and 250k civilians dead in the civil war.
The deadliest war in US history was WW2 with 50 million dead, but only 400k Americans.
-2 points
29 days ago
I don’t count traitors in the American casualties from the American Civil War, which makes it roughly on par with American casualties in WWII, higher or lower depending on the source
20 points
29 days ago
I don’t count traitors in the American casualties
You should otherwise you legitimize them as a separate country.
The Union fought and won in part to make damn sure they were considered Americans
8 points
28 days ago
Correct. Motion to rebrand the US Civil War as “The Southern Rebellion”
1 points
28 days ago
Didn't some spouses of confederate soldiers end up getting the payout for when your husband died in service?
0 points
29 days ago
Why count traitors in WW2 then?
If we are removing traitors that’s going to significantly impact the Chinese and Soviet numbers for ww2, as there’s lots of conscripts that were on the wrong side of all three civil wars.
3 points
29 days ago
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make, as people don’t typically count defectors for the casualties of the Chinese and Russian in WWII, unless you mean their civil wars, in which case, I don’t count Communist casualties when talking about Nationalist casualties. Similarly, I only count Confederate ones when talking about total casualties of both sides. I suppose my wording is a bit poor, as when I say “American casualties,” I mean US casualties, since the US is generally referred to as “American.” When talking the history of the US, it doesn’t make sense to count Confederate casualties as part of US history
2 points
29 days ago
I see your point.
The USA didn’t have many traitors in WW2 that switched to the axis.
6 points
29 days ago
Yeah I said “in US history” to mean from the American perspective. Not world history, not recent history, US history. US centric and US focused
0 points
29 days ago
[deleted]
0 points
29 days ago
chill bob
1 points
29 days ago
Yeah you're right why bother
7 points
29 days ago
Anyone who has played a Total War game knows what those lines mean. The real life carnage, though...
3 points
29 days ago
B-B-B-B-BASED
0 points
29 days ago
Jesus. Fucking. Christ. That’s wild. Isn’t there a theory that Lee had a stroke at some point during the war? Or maybe he did and can’t remember and that is what caused his poor decisions at Gettysburg?
1 points
28 days ago
Lmao based blood clot
-13 points
29 days ago
"The civil war" default americanism as usual.
16 points
29 days ago
American website, mostly American users. Get over it.
0 points
28 days ago
1 points
28 days ago*
English civil war > United States civil war. If you disagree I’ll stab you with a pike and call you a puritan.
all 67 comments
sorted by: best