0
Did General lee surrender to Genaral grant at the batlle of chancellorville?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
No.
Chancellorsville was Lee's last big victory and his greatest triumph, beating the Union General Hooker through subtle deception tactics, greatly helped by Stonewall Jackson, who was mortally wounded here.
It was almost two years later that Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, at the end of the Overland Campaign. This effectively ended the Civil War.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What were the Biggest battles of Civil war?
The biggest battle of the American Civil War was the batlle at gettysburg.
Who won the batlle of Shiloh?
The Union forces are considered to have won the Battle of Shiloh, although it was not the type of victory any army wants. General Grant and his army were surprised by the Confederate army under General Albert Sydney Johnston and after the first day the Union army was pushed back over a mile to the river when fighting was over for the day. General Johnston had been killed in battle that first day. During the night another Union army Under General Don Carlos Buell arrived at the scene. The combined armies then attacked the regrouping Confederate army and was able to force it to retreat. Th Union army had been totally surprised by the attack and had about 14,000 casualties but it held the ground. The Confederate army managed almost total surprise, but did not achieve its objective of driving the Union army out of the area and lost about 10,000 casualties.
What is the difference between the military strategy of the American Civil War and the First World War?
The American civil war was an intresting war tactics wise. With the recent invention of the reapeating rifle, new strategy need be developed. Lee often followed the teachings of napolean and attempted to get the better ground and hold it. however he also utilized napoleanic charges. a great example is the failure at Gettysburg with pickett's charge. Northen generals were also educated in a napoleanic matter, an example is the right wheel forward used by Col. Chamberlain on Little Round Top at Gettysburg. WWI was much different. With the innovation of the tank,chemical warfare and ultra-effective machine guns WWI was a war fought mainly in trenches. I would like to improve the answer stated above as follows: the American Civil war was mainly a "war of movement"; the WWI was mainly a "war of position". In my opinion, also the WWI could had mainly been a "war of movement" as actually it had commenced or, at least, had not the belligerent Nations forgotten the "lessons" given and the "experiences" made during the American Civil War, the "war of position" would have been less predominant, probably lowering the terrible losses and shortening its duration. Here is a striking example: during the batlle of Spotsylvania, Col. Upton (then General), endorsed by Gen. Grant, put into practice an idea of his: how to get through a strong line of entrenchments by a little task force "perforating" the same in a certain, chosen, point , making then able to following greater units to attempt a large scale breakthrough of the whole enemy front. The experiment had been successful although only in its first phase. It was reiterated with other variants during successive phases of that campaign. The failure of the fully exploitation of the success was due to lack of experience but I do think that it should have been worth the be studied and performed at least by all the General Staffs of the Western Country. But we have to wait until the year 1917, to see the same principles put in practice in their full strategical meanings when, during the WWI, a young German Lieutenant, Erwin Rommel leading some 120 shocking troopers succeded in "perforating" the Italian Front at Caporetto, action which, well exploited led to the whole collapse of the 1st and 2nd Italian Army's front, with acceptable losses for the attackers. Now I would like to draw the readers and contributors' attention upon following deeds: 1) all the most important Nations which, then, were among the belligerent of the WWI, sent military observers to witness, embedded in both, Union and Confederate Armies the Civil War military events; 2) the acquaintance they acquired, in terms of military tactical and strategical innovations, worth to be reported to their governments should have been but a very poor one if: a) during the wars of: 1866, 1870, Zulu, Dervish, Boer and so forth, Austrian, German, French and English troopers were sent to fight most in flamboyant uniforms, in thick lines, most the cavalry provided with breast armours and lances, the outcome of a battle depending on the impact of the mass and the use of the "sacred bayonet" b) none of them adopted the repeating rifle until the last 15 years or so, of the century; the Prussians fighting the crucial war of 1870 against the France using the somewhat defective one shot breach-loader rifle "Dreyse" c) also the great von Moltke, Chief of Staff of Prussian and then of German's Army, commenting the American Civil War said about : "it was a series of disordered fighting carried on by disorganized masses of poor skilled and undisciplined men, ready to flee and to desert". 3) or wasn't it rather a matter of old fashioned outlook of the European Military Establishment towards all the Armies outside Europe, which have been considered (at the time but also until the WWII) worth but of scarce military competence? In my opinion, yes it was, and it was inherited by all generations of rank officers who succeeded to them in studying, developing and updating the tactical and strategical doctrine of war among their General Staffs. So that the American Civil War remained a thing of but a little more than insignificant event, leading to erase from the memory all the useful "lessons" which that event had at the cost of huge losses but in vain taught. The outcome was that all Europeans Armies entered the WWI quiet keeping a somewhat outdated and crazy "mentality", of which please find some examples of the beginning of the war: The French Infantry wore red trousers and kepis, by that way making easier the enemies to shot them. Their attacks were carried on by masses aiming to solve the situations not by the fire and manoeuver but mainly by the impact. On the Eastern Prussia, the Germans although being aware they were going to be greatly outnumbered but confident in their supposed moral and professional superiority neglected to cover themselves effectively before to be invested by the coming up Russians armies. The Austrians who, at the same day of the breakout of the hostility, launched 9 or so cavalry divisions into Russian territory without infantry support, with no useful task. Etc., etc. No wonder, therefore, if after having exhausted all possible mean to maintain a "fluid" way of carrying on the operations, the belligerents of each side being not able to prevail upon their enemies, they both had no other alternative but to get buried in a net of endless entrenchments which led to a stalemate destined to endure until the last months of the war. But worse, they hadn't foreseen such a situation of stalemate and so, they couldn't get ready effective countermeasure to get through within a reasonable lapse of time not only because of the reckless and arrogant mentality of their own but also that of their predecessor military leaders formerly on charge. To conclude I do think that, both the American Civil War and the WWI have not had great difference in their general global strategy. Both of them were wars of attrition which ended with the total collapse, moral and material of one of the fighting party, although, in my opinion, the first one was carried on with more cleaverness and more sensible tactical and strategical skill, which must be considered astonishing when we have to think that their military leaders were mainly not "military professional people" in the true sense of the word.
Who was the union general in the first batlle of bull run?
Irvin McDowell
What was the name of the union general who led northern forces in the batlle of Gettysburg?
George G. Meade.
When was Jay Batlle born?
Jay Batlle was born in 1976.
When was Julio Vega Batlle born?
Julio Vega Batlle was born in 1899.
When did Julio Vega Batlle die?
Julio Vega Batlle died in 1973.
When was César Batlle Pacheco born?
César Batlle Pacheco was born in 1885.
When did César Batlle Pacheco die?
César Batlle Pacheco died in 1966.
When did Lorenzo Batlle Pacheco die?
Lorenzo Batlle Pacheco died in 1954.
When was Lorenzo Batlle Pacheco born?
Lorenzo Batlle Pacheco was born in 1897.
When did Luis Batlle Berres die?
Luis Batlle Berres died in 1964.
When was Luis Batlle Berres born?
Luis Batlle Berres was born in 1897.
When did Lorenzo Batlle y Grau die?
Lorenzo Batlle y Grau died in 1887.
