 |
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
Inferior, for a simple reason.
Stonewall had a notorius weakness, he loved to SLEEP.
He couldn't function unless he got a decent night's rest, this appears in several campaigns, but when he was rested, WATCH OUT.Also, he had problems both getting along and picking subordinates.
He inspired his men to amazing feats in forced marches, his 'Flying infantry" was something to behold (as many of them lacked shoes!  )
His own knickname, given by Bernard bee, is believed to have been scarcastic, not a sign of affection (we will never know the truth, Bee was killed at first bull run).
http://www.civilwarhome.com/jackbio.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
If you know Lee's campaigns well enough to break them down and do not consider him a great general then I see no point in trying to change your mind. |
That is another misdirection attempt, if you believe your position, say why.
quote:
We can debate forever and I would be glad to discuss it but you seem to be more interested in winning an argument than stimulating conversation. |
nonsense.
Your now attempting to read my mind.
I said why I believe as i do, I ask you to do the same.
quote:
Greatness is in the eye of the beholder. Napoleon took 450,000 men into Russia and only 20,000 came back home. I could easily find fault with his greatness in that. You can then list all of his great qualities and so forth. More than willing to discuss it but no argument for me. |
And he lost, but it's also true that few of that army was French, and that Boney didn't give a fig that it was lost.
quote:
Now, I find it interesting that you seem to believe that it was possible that France and England might have recognized the South if Lee had won at Sharpsburg. Do you believe that war could have actually broken out between these nations and the North? |
Not war, but Napoleon the III was looking for an excuse to recognize the confederacy, and a crushing victory would have swayed the more cautious British into a join recognition declaration, and that would have meant active European support (naval facilities, munitions, loans, ect, and the Confederacy would not support the Monroe doctrone, giving the French a free hand in Mexico, where they did try to install a European puppet, Maximillian).
quote:
The question in my mind is what might have happened if Lee had won at Gettysburg. |
Something similar to the baove answer, BUT only if Lee followed up a win with a rout, somthing he was loathe to do time and again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Jackson was a narcoleptic. That is an illness. Of course that he suffered from that disorder could have been an assumption by historians.
Jackson was a religious fundamentalist who believed in being faithful to his duty before God and that his particular duty to God was to give them the bayonet.
His relations with his subordinates often surfaced when he did not percieve in them the same level of fanaticism towards duty that he did. I don't know that it was a weakness, in fact, I would say his insistence on getting more out of his men than they thought they could give was a large reason for his success.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Jackson did strategy in one campaign
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Maybe so, but he was sorely missed at Gettysburg. |
Yes, most feel he would have taken more of the high ground in the first day's fight.
I also believe that Lee was loathe to attempt a flanking movement against the Federal left because it would have required splitting his forces to a large degree. This was something he might have been more willing to do if Jackson was present.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
He should have attacked the federal right, his own left, and Lee is the harshest critic of Jackson's lethargy, it drove him to distraction, so it has nothing to do with me. |
Hmm, to get behind the round tops Hood wanted to move to the right, the Confederate right, the Federal left.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
The Federal right was achored firmly on Culp's Hill. Troops entrenched there after nightfall of the first day. Meade was very slow to occupy the round tops and that is where most observers including Longstreet and Hood saw an opportunity.
The action on the Federal left on the second day was not a flanking attack.
Turning the left might have been a better choice simply because Chamberlain wasn't there.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
I am pretty sure you just called me a loser and in response I want to simply say that I am not Harry Turtledove. Whoever the hell he is. |
Turtledove has written a series of alternate history books based on the possibility of a Confederate victory in the Civil War. In the 20th century the North becomes an ally of Germany allowing the Confederacy to save humanity from the Union cause once again. His works are truely a collection of garbage concocted by a sick mind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Chris, you got a map showing the positions after the first day?
Or were you talking about going around the left instead of Pickett's charge?
By this point in the battle the Federals had the round tops occupied.
At any rate, unless there was a crossing at the creek a flank set on a hill achored to a creek is a pretty strong position.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Thanks for the link. I remember that Lee had considered attacking the left on the second day and felt it was not a good choice in part because the troops there had fought the day before and their commanders did not think they could make any headway. Also, that position had been reinforced. I have heard little discussion in the past about a flanking attack on the left.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Sorry jimmy, it sure was, Longstreet tried to turn Sickles' flank, and was repulsed at little round top. |
Yes, you are right in that but I am refering to Hood's and Longstreet's requests to move to the right earlier in the day to occupy big round top and sweep around the flank rather than the more direct attack that was executed. Southern troops actually occupied big round top but not in strength and were pushed off.
This is the famous point of contention, that if Longstreet had been able to move to the right as he wanted that the battle could have been won. This was suggested by Longstreet on the eve of the first day and repeatedly through the second day until the attack was finally launched.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
And it goes back to Stuart out galavanting around instead of doing his job. |
Lee had a loose command structure and is generally faulted for it but it had both advantages and disadvantages. A field commander could not see what his unit commanders could because of terrain and distance. By allowing his commanders to follow their inititive advantages could be pressed quickly while a tighter command structure might only yield lost opportunities.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-08-2002 22:52
What strategy did Jackson create? I've only read of his skill as a tactitian, and yes, he was quite brilliant in this regard. But I've not read anything about him taking part in strategy...
|