Scourge of War Boards

I believe Maj.Gen. Winnfield Scott Hancock is the real Union hero of Gettysburg not Meade. Hancock was there at many key moments and turned what looked like a defeat into a victory. Of course that is my opinion I want to here everyone else's opinion. So feel free to say what you wish as long as it does not spark a problem.

The army was like a a massive oversized football team- in that you can't rely on any one person, you need the whole team to pull out a win. It helps if you have a great running back, but you also need a quarterback who looks over the entire situation, and a defense that can stop the opponents. Then one of the most important needs would be an offensive line, which would be the private soldiers. Without them and their discipline, the army was nothing. So I think it's hard to point at any one person and say they were the hero of Gettysburg, but Hancock certainly helped.

Armchair General , that was very well put, I like the analogy that you used, but if I had to vote on one person, I’ll say that Daniel Sickles altered or changed the whole course of the battle.

Had he not advanced and disrupted General Longstreet there might not have been a Pickett’s charge.

davinci

I agree that it was a cast of many in the AoP that helped in the victory.

I've read that Hancock's appearence at Cemetery Hill on day1, gave a bit of a morale boost to the troops that had fallen back to that point.


And I agree that Sickles' move to the Peach Orchard/Wheatfield worked out to the Union advantage, even though the move fulfilled Hancock's prediction that they would soon come tumbling back.

Not an opinion...FACT! Were it not for Hancock's gathering up of troops and redirecting their positions, Barksdale's Mississippi boys would have severed the Union line along cemetery ridge the 2nd day. Whether the Rebs could have sustained their position is another question, but history proves he was an exceptional leader this day.

RebBugler wrote:

Not an opinion...FACT! Were it not for Hancock's gathering up of troops and redirecting their positions, Barksdale's Mississippi boys would have severed the Union line along cemetery ridge the 2nd day. Whether the Rebs could have sustained their position is another question, but history proves he was an exceptional leader this day.

I think it was more of a 'FACT' that the 1st Minnesota sacrificed hundreds of lives to give Hancock the few moments to reassemble the lines. The Minnesotans charged an entire brigade, and got hammered, but lasted just long enough

There are so many seemingly inconsequential events which turn out to be major turning points in battle, you cannot point to just one event (or man, or unit) and say for fact that was the responsible party for a battles success.

You also have to consider things which were not done, orders not followed, and the inaction of a few officers/soldiers. Even a change in weather or time of day, might have been a turning point.

To say one officer was majorly responsible for winning the battle, would be showing disrespect to the men who had to actually gather the courage to follow his orders, and sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the rest of their fellow soldiers.

Plus, I would say luck is almost always a factor for an army's success.

I would have to agree with the line of thinking of Armchair General, Ephrum and Ugly Elmo. Hancock was awesome on all three days and most certainly A heroe of Gettsburg. I don't think anyone, however, can claim the title of THE heroe of Gettysburg. There were thousands of them from the high command down to the enlisted men in the battlelines.

Excuse me sirs,

I plan to be the hero of Gettysburg, for in multiplayer, once called upon, I shall secure victory!

Thank-you for discussing my fate...prematurely!

There will be no need for any gallant charges! Only flanking moves and lightning attacks and cannister-firing artillery!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: