Greatest unit of the war

Look at who had the last laugh at the Cornfield. Yep, the Iron Brigade.
And, in actuality, a Union Corps was smaller then a Confederate Corps, especially before Gettysburg. They had half the army in the two Corps, which meant 20,000+ men in either Corps. Even if you take away Hill's 5,000 men, You had 35,000 men in both Corps= safely 17,500 men each. And, also, Lee shifted his men to diffrent areas, making the numbers higher with out endangering his line.
The Union Army though had 6 Corps. and, out of 80,000 men, they only had roughly 13,333 men each. Believe me, I just used a calculator to figur it out. 20,000 didn't even get into action. So, they really only had 60,000 men in action.

So, in effect, what you're saying is, that the number of men the Union actually put into the battle outnumbered the South 2-1? Good point, I like it.

Well, all depends. There was about 140 union cannon. Each took 9 men to operate. So, you would have about 9,360 men for artillary duty. So, in actuality, only 50,640 Infantry men were actually engaged. So, they were really number wise very close.

15,000 men still makes a huge difference.

Yeah, if Lee's in charge.

i think the iron brigade because i've learned so much about them.

Believe me, learn about BOTH units. Both are very intresting.

I keep saying, the main reason they were so successful was the fact that they were sent in when the enemy was tired and worn out. I have yet to be proved that the enemy was in top condition and weren't at all tired when hit (Spotslvania being the exception.) And, the Texas Brigade lost several battleflags at the Cornfield. They did not drive the enemy completely from the field. As a matter of fact, they gave the advantage to the enemy and fell back, leaving the Cornfield in the hands of the First Corps. So much for a sweeping victory.

They (the Texans) decimated the I Corps. I thought that was your whole point, that the I Corps was already tired when initially hit? Or are you saying that they (the IB) were tired when attacked, they regained their strength while running back to their lines, and then advanced again, and didn't get tired the second time around?

Hey! Someone else voted for The Orphan Brigade!!! I'M NOT ALONE!!! lol

I'm saying that the First was able to get it when Hood fell back. Read the post closer. And, there was other units that penetrated to Dunken Church may I remind you. forces Hood to fall back, First gets the field.

It wasn't the I Corps that retook the field, but union reinforcements. And the whole object of the Texans' attack was to land a punishing blow on the Hooker's corps and drive it out of the cornfield, not to take the cornfield and hold it. Against the odds they were facing, it would have been suicide to try and defend the cornfield. Their attack was so successful though, it lasted too long, and Hood's boys suffered many casualties for their daring.

In the words of the Last Full Measure book, it was too successful. I think that had it not been such an advance they had made, they wouldn't have had to give up so much. I mean, even withdrawing from an area you fought so long, even if it wasn't the objective is very morally defeating.

Iron Brigade General wrote:

In the words of the Last Full Measure book, it was too successful.

I thought I just said that

come on, man, don't steal my lines next time lol.

You said so successful. I said too successful. And, I said it quoting a book.

Iron Brigade General wrote:

I keep saying, the main reason they were so successful was the fact that they were sent in when the enemy was tired and worn out. I have yet to be proved that the enemy was in top condition and weren't at all tired when hit
(Spotslvania being the exception.)

Ok, IBG, you're either having a major brain freeze, or maybe you've never even heard about the Battle of Chickamagua. Well, for your info, the battle took place in Georgia, only months after Gettysburg, during union General William Rosecrans' invasion into that state. The Confederate army, commanded by Gen. Braxton Bragg, set out to destroy the union invaders after being reinforced by Gen. James Longstreet's large detatchment from the Army of Northern Virginia. This detatchment included his own corps, which contained the legendary Texas Brigade, which had fought its way to an astounding record from Gaines Mill to the Devils Den. Anyway, it was a major confederate victory, thanks to Longstreet's men, namely Hood's old division. Thus, once again, the Texas Brigade gives the Confederacy another victory against a fresh union opponent completely rested and anything but weary.

But I guess you never learned that............

And yet, did you forget that Rosecranes opened a hole in his line to close another "hole" in his line? That Confederate victory was a fluke. It had little to do with any tactics on the part of the rebs. It was purely a mistake that had bad consegunses.

You know, now that I pause to think about it, it becomes apparent to me that you don't know anything about the Texas Brigade, or their theater of the war, if you continue to stand there and say that the Texans only achieved success because they fought a worn-out enemy. All you have to do is look at the facts to see how far off the mark you are.

Hood's Texas Brigade was a distinguished brigade in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. According to Harold B. Simpson, historian of Hood's Texas Brigade, the Texas Brigade was to Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia what the Old Guard was to Napoleon and the Imperial Army of France--first in the advance--shock troops in battle--the rear guard in retreat.

The Civil War record of the Texas Brigade was magnificent. The Brigade fought in every battle engaged in by the Army of Northern Virginia except Chancellorsville, which it more than made up for by fighting at Chickamauga, Knoxville and Suffolk. The Texans fought in 38 engagements including six of the greatest battles of the war--Gaines' Mill, Second Manassas, Sharpsburg, Gettysburg, Chickamauga and the Wilderness. In all of these engagements, the men of the Brigade distinguished themselves and drew praise upon them from all who observed their conduct. Among those who praised them often was Robert E. Lee. Of all his troops, Lee favored the Texans the most and often referred to them as "My Texans." Several times during the war, Lee requested more Texas troops, once remarking that he relied on his Texas regiments "in all tight places." In October 1864, while waiting for some of his troops to form for an assault, Lee asked a staff officer if all commands were formed for the advance. "None but the Texas Brigade, General," answered the staff officer. Lee then said, "The Texas Brigade is always ready."


Just a glance at casualty figures for the Texas Brigade during the Civil War will show that the Texans were generally in the thickest of most fights which they were engaged. Total Civil War causalities for the 1st, 4th and 5th Texas regiments was nearly 62%. At Shaprsburg, the Texas Brigade had a casualty rate of 64.1%, the third highest battle loss of any brigade, Union or Confederate, during the war. In the same battle, the 1st Texas Infantry suffered the highest single battle loss of any regiment, Union or Confederate, during the war--82.3%


The Texas Brigade fought a fresh opponent at:

1. Gettysburg (think the Devil's Den)
2. Second Manassas (Longstreet's stunning flank attack)
3. Chickamauga (overran Wood's last brigade and sent the rest running)
4. The Seven Days
5. countless other engagements, with the ANV, and detatched

These are the facts. I really don't think there's anything left for you to say.

oooooooohh, MAJOR BURN IBG! lol well, IBG was bound to lose from the start, I mean the texas brigade is so much better than the iron brigade, any time.

IBG... you did get burned... really bad...

Ah, but alot can still be said. May I remind GS that the III corps protecting the Cornfield and the Devils Den was very thin in the way of being stretched out. Sickles commited a blunder by advancing his force out from Little Round Top then trying to cover every avalible physical feature. Read Civil War Times Magazine article on it. And Bruce Cattons Glory Road. Both point out that Sickles could never have held that line, even a force less known then the Texas Brigade could have broken it.

Edit: Please stop attacking me for every post I make Stuart. I am just stating facts. I ask you to please stop being so aggresive towards me. I am not the enemy here. If that is not an attack you made with that post, please don't post it in bold, that comes off as an attack.

Sorry, IBG, there were no aggresive intentions there. I mearly highlighted the most important points of my responses, I assure you there was no "attack" there. I find the need to highlight the main points of my posts, because they tend to be alittle long, and if people don't want to read the whole thing, I make it easy for them to read the most important sentence(s).

And, so far, your only responses have been nothing but excuses, that the Union armies committed blunders that made a southern victory inevitable. This is a pitiful form of debate. Yes, I am fully aware of Sickle's ill-advised and irresponsible attempt of defending the salient at Gettysburg, but the yankees defending the Devil's Den, opposing the Texas Brigade, were comprised of not only infantry, but artillery also. Not only that, they were in an incredibly easy position to defend. They had every advantage, except, they were facing the Texas Brigade.

Every battle has a winner, and a loser. More often than not, the loser is only thus because of a mistake made somewhere. If you are going to turn around and tell me every time that the Texas Brigade deserves no credit for its victories because a union general committed a blunder, then there is no point to my discussing this topic with you. Edit:(no offense, only I think you're alittle too dead-set on this)

You know, for everything you have said, you forgot to mention that Hood's Brigade repulsed a night attck by a Union Cavalry regiment at Gaine's Mill (You didn't even mention this), at Bull's Run they can overran the Union army when they only had two new York regiments (which you only said they overran the flank) even looking the way they were coming, at Chickimauga they fell on the flanks of suprised Yanks who thoguht they had troops to thier right (you said they crashed into the enemy like the line was still fully intact), thier first battle was just as witnesses who had cannon balls exploded right over thier heads, during Chncellorsville were at Norfolk, not even getting to fight the Union troops that over ran several forts. Did you simply forget about these, or thought they, were unimportant to your defense of Hood's Brigade. Or did you not know as much as you proffese?
And this is coming from a guy 'who didn't know anything about Hood's Brigade' and I didn't even need a book to say all this.

Wow, you sound pretty upset IBG. Please remember that I was not attacking you personally in anyway, at any time. Please take a deep breath and accept the following:


If you notice, the engagements I listed were offensive victories for the Texas Brigade. And I honestly don't see how it helps to prove your point when you list the battles the TB didn't fight in....how is that relevant lol? Remeber that it is the army commander's decision who goes into the fight, not the unit itself. You might want to do some reading on military protocol.

If you read closer, you'll notice that I didn't say anything about Chancellorsville, did I? Because Hood did not engage in that battle, it was completely irrelevant. Do you see?

And once again, you are only saying that it was the north's errors that allowed the TB to succeed. Can't you come up with something new?

At 2nd Bull Run, you said that it was only two New York regiments that were guarding the flank; what you conveniently didn't mention was that they had close-up artillery support and were positioned on a dominant hill, a very nice defensive position, and they were still overrun by the TB.

And I didn't have to go through a book either, IBG. But when I do, you're really dead lol!

And one more thing, you said that the TB saw their first battle only as witnesses; is that supposed to be a bad thing? I'm sure they weren't the first...

I'm sorry if I offended when I said I couldn't help but think you knew next to nothing about the TB. But most of your posts backed me up on that.....


So in conclusion, once again, the engagements I listed for the TB were only offensive victories. If you notice, I didn't list Fredericksburg. (defensive victory, though they weren't that heavily engaged)

And if IBG comes back one more time with one of his "it was the union commanders fault" posts, I swear I'm going to fall down laughing....

Boys, I suggest you both take a deep breath hold it for, oh let's say a couple of years and then I will be in command I think that you both have made good arguements for your side but I think you have taken this to a new level of fighting.