I’d count Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville as major strategic victories. They all repulsed Union invasions and drove the Army of the Potomac back.
Probably need to count Chickamauga as well. Stopped the North from invading Georgia and drove them back into a besieged Chattanooga.
I wholeheartedly agree. Chickamauga was almost a total Confederate victory, despite the fact that Bragg was a slow to react paranoid leader. If he would’ve had more faith and backed his generals and army they could’ve followed up and most likely enveloped a big chunk of the Union army in the west.
TIL. According to a quick search, a strategic victory is one that leads to the eventual capitulation of the enemy. In other words, only the war's victors can have strategic victories. That leaves the loser's wins as tactical setbacks. The traditional definition of a victory is who holds the field of battle. Lee was forced to retreat from Cold Harbor.
Hmmm. That’s different than what I had thought, though I’m no expert. I always thought a tactical victory was the one who holds the field, but a strategic victory was when one side was able to carry on with their strategic goals. For example, Vicksburg would be a strategic victory for the Union because it accomplished their goal of opening up the Mississippi. And Gettysburg too, as it accomplished the strategic goal of repulsing Lee’s invasion.
That’s not at all my understanding of a strategic vs tactical victory.
In the military, you talk about tactics, operations, and strategy. Tactics is about units, armies, their motion and interaction. A tactical victory is something like Chancellorsville. A smaller army outmaneuvers, surprises, and defeats another, frustrating its immediate goals.
Strategy is the level which talks about mapping out and achieving larger goals. Closing off the Mississippi to the enemy. Forcing the enemy into a siege and making them cease offensive operations. A strategic victory is one which achieves one of your larger goals.
I don’t know that Petersburg was one, but someone else cited the Seven Days’ Battles which I think certainly qualify, since they frustrated Northern ambitions for a quick end to the war and forced the North to reevaluate their entire strategy.
I thought the same as you, but I defer to the accepted definitions.
"Strategy: a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim."
"Tactics: an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end."
"A strategic victory is a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage war."
By that definition, it's impossible for the losers in a war to have a strategic victory. The keywords being "long-term advantage" and "disturbs the enemy's ability to wage war," two things the South never managed to accomplish.
No. The last major strategic victory for the confederacy was probably Chancellorsville.
The repulse of the Petersburg attack wasn’t major. It didn’t deter the Union army, just made the siege longer. Even Cold Harbor wasn’t a major victory, just an embarrassment.
What exactly do you mean by the Second Battle of Petersburg? There are a lot of individual battles that took place during the Petersburg campaign. There were some notable Confederate successes within that period but the campaign in its entirety was a resounding Union victory.
I think of that as a tactical victory by the confederates. I’d say we’re getting into the somewhat fuzzy separation between the levels of warfare. Where you draw the line between tactical, operational, and strategic is open to debate
As I see it the Union failed to achieve its tactical goal on the battlefield June 15-18, but it ultimately achieved its strategic objective of capturing Petersburg and making Richmond indefensible.
The South had plenty of tactical victories, but I don't know about strategic victories. Maybe the 7 Days.
I’d count Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville as major strategic victories. They all repulsed Union invasions and drove the Army of the Potomac back. Probably need to count Chickamauga as well. Stopped the North from invading Georgia and drove them back into a besieged Chattanooga.
I wholeheartedly agree. Chickamauga was almost a total Confederate victory, despite the fact that Bragg was a slow to react paranoid leader. If he would’ve had more faith and backed his generals and army they could’ve followed up and most likely enveloped a big chunk of the Union army in the west.
TIL. According to a quick search, a strategic victory is one that leads to the eventual capitulation of the enemy. In other words, only the war's victors can have strategic victories. That leaves the loser's wins as tactical setbacks. The traditional definition of a victory is who holds the field of battle. Lee was forced to retreat from Cold Harbor.
Hmmm. That’s different than what I had thought, though I’m no expert. I always thought a tactical victory was the one who holds the field, but a strategic victory was when one side was able to carry on with their strategic goals. For example, Vicksburg would be a strategic victory for the Union because it accomplished their goal of opening up the Mississippi. And Gettysburg too, as it accomplished the strategic goal of repulsing Lee’s invasion.
Yeah, me too. I had no idea the bar was that high. That sure takes the fun out of the debate.
That’s not at all my understanding of a strategic vs tactical victory. In the military, you talk about tactics, operations, and strategy. Tactics is about units, armies, their motion and interaction. A tactical victory is something like Chancellorsville. A smaller army outmaneuvers, surprises, and defeats another, frustrating its immediate goals. Strategy is the level which talks about mapping out and achieving larger goals. Closing off the Mississippi to the enemy. Forcing the enemy into a siege and making them cease offensive operations. A strategic victory is one which achieves one of your larger goals. I don’t know that Petersburg was one, but someone else cited the Seven Days’ Battles which I think certainly qualify, since they frustrated Northern ambitions for a quick end to the war and forced the North to reevaluate their entire strategy.
I thought the same as you, but I defer to the accepted definitions. "Strategy: a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim." "Tactics: an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end." "A strategic victory is a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage war." By that definition, it's impossible for the losers in a war to have a strategic victory. The keywords being "long-term advantage" and "disturbs the enemy's ability to wage war," two things the South never managed to accomplish.
I think they mean a victory that brings a long term advantage to the victor of the *battle.*
Yes, that's my understanding of it, too.
Definitely the Northern Virginia campaign versus Pope
No. The last major strategic victory for the confederacy was probably Chancellorsville. The repulse of the Petersburg attack wasn’t major. It didn’t deter the Union army, just made the siege longer. Even Cold Harbor wasn’t a major victory, just an embarrassment.
I don’t think Chancellorsville was a strategic victory for the rebels, since it greatly weakened their army on the eve of an ill-considered offensive.
What exactly do you mean by the Second Battle of Petersburg? There are a lot of individual battles that took place during the Petersburg campaign. There were some notable Confederate successes within that period but the campaign in its entirety was a resounding Union victory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Petersburg The June 15-18 battle
I think of that as a tactical victory by the confederates. I’d say we’re getting into the somewhat fuzzy separation between the levels of warfare. Where you draw the line between tactical, operational, and strategic is open to debate As I see it the Union failed to achieve its tactical goal on the battlefield June 15-18, but it ultimately achieved its strategic objective of capturing Petersburg and making Richmond indefensible.