 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 23rd, 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
I guess we just have different opinions of what is devastating then.....
I guess so. Admittedly it’s a semantic distinction, but I don’t consider either attack to be “devastating” because neither seriously threatened the Army of the Potomac, and neither significantly impacted the outcome of the battle. A better case can be made for Longstreet’s, but only in the negative sense that it saved the Army of Northern Virginia from collapse, and reversed Hancock’s morning gains. As for Gordon’s, it briefly created some excitement, but was not, and could not have been, a serious threat. Neither Meade nor Grant considered it so, and they were entirely correct.