|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| richfed |
Posted - May 28 2006 : 09:05:02 AM
Let's get this over with quickly - not that it need be. Is Washington the Warrior within 6 Degrees? Sure, what occurred with Washington at Jumonville Glen in western Pennsylvania has everything to do with the story of The Last of the Mohicans even being allowed to be conceived. However, be that as it may, Washington the Warrior uses bits of the LOTM soundtrack as its own! Yep, I heard The Courier & British Arrival in there! [Not to mention bits from Gladiator & Braveheart!!]
Long ago, somewhere here on these forums, I wrote something about how remarkable a story the tale of George Washington is. Cherry tree aside, his legend is momentous. And, weirdly enough, true. Most incredible of all, is that this man created, realized, lived out his own destiny. I can't think of any other person who managed that on such an epic scale. From sparking the French and Indian war with an ill-conceived ambush to becoming the very first President of these United States - the Father of our Country. Of course, in between was another war caused, eventually, by that same spark, the American Revolution. Without the spark, no F&I War; no Stamp Act to pay for it; no colonial uprising; no Revolution; no country to be president of.
That is the essence of Washington the Warrior. Dealing almost exclusively with his warrior years - OK, calling him America's first action hero might be a little hokey  - from Jumonville to Yorktown, it does touch briefly on his early years and his gentleman farmer years between the wars. Just a bare hint of what was to be after the war was won. So, if you are looking for insight into Washington the President, or Washington the Husband ... forget it. This is about, Washington the Warrior.
The fact that he made it through alive is reason enough to believe some sort of God-controlled destiny was at work here. Two bouts of tempting death on his pre-Jumonville diplomatic venture. The debacles at Fort Necessity & Braddock's Defeat, almost constant exposure to cold, starvation, and disease, numerous occasions where he rallied his troops by brazenly riding BETWEEN the lines of fire ... amazing courage.
The story is thoughtfully & clearly told with excellent narration & historical commentary. The computer generated imagery is very cool. It is a great tribute to a great man, leader of the many great men who laid down their lives to allow the creation of the United States of America. George Washington is clearly a great and amazing man. Unusual, too. After all is said & done, after baffling & finally defeating the most powerful army of the day, he relinquishes power ... amazing personal fortitude & integrity.
This is a man who once had a "day" of recognition in this country. Washington's Birthday - a National Holiday. No more. Today, in our politically correct society, he has been lumped together with all the other Presidents. His day is gone. It has been replaced with Martin Luther King Day! There is no comparison. And that is not meant as a slap at King. The measure of greatness that is Washington's is way beyond the common man's, equaled, perhaps, only by some of his contemporaries ... Jefferson, Franklin ... and maybe a few more after their time ... Lincoln ... ??
Washington led a rabble of an army through unimaginable hardships. He held them together for years. He forged a Nation. From that spark in the wilderness in 1754 through leading the first United States soldiers to sacrifice their lives for their country, to becoming the first President of the Nation he Fathered ... what a great story.
It is well told in this History Channel Memorial Day Special: Washington the Warrior!.
See it, and remember our first fallen heroes this Memorial Day. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Highlander |
Posted - May 31 2006 : 9:01:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fitzhugh Williams
Braddock has received a lot of blame for the loss, and each time someone does a film they never fail to mention how a European-trained general was out of his element in the American wilderness. But if you look at the way he deployed his troops, and the precautions he took, he did as well as anyone would have done. The French had no scouts and literally ran into the British. The first three vollies killed the French commander and broke the line, if it can be called that. It should have been the end of the battle. That it was not is due in part to luck, to Dumas, and to the complete inactivity of Gage. I really think Braddock was better than he has been made out to be. If he had just a little more luck he would have been the hero of the battle. And what if another person had been in command of the same troops in the same place, like for instance Davoust. Davoust would have won. But what would he have done differently. Anything? Or would he just have been luckier?
If you notice,Washington blamed Braddock the least.Everyone shares some of the blame with that defeat.If anything,Braddock can be blamed for NOT going by the book at the end.It was Thomas Gage who failed to take the hill to their right.While Washington did not inherit the command of the army after Braddock was mortally wounded(in contrast to what was said by author Edward Lengel,since Gage and Ralph Burton still survived)I'm certain that he did what he could with organizing the withdrawl. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - May 31 2006 : 2:11:04 PM
This was posted on another board. I thought it might be if interest.
quote:
"I knew personally the celebrated Quaker Potts who saw Gen'l
Washington alone in the woods at prayer. I got it from himself, myself.
Weems mentioned it in his history of Washington, but I got it from the
man myself, as follows:
"I was riding with him (Mr. Potts) in Montgomery County, Penn'a near to
the Valley Forge, where the army lay during the war of ye Revolution. Mr.
Potts was a Senator in our State & a Whig. I told him I was agreeably
surprised to find him a friend to his country as the Quakers were mostly
Tories. He said, 'It was so and I was a rank Tory once, for I never
believed that America c'd proceed against Great Britain whose fleets and
armies covered the land and ocean, but something very extraordinary
converted me to the Good Faith!" "What was that," I inquired? 'Do you see
that woods, & that plain. It was about a quarter of a mile off from the
place we were riding, as it happened.' 'There,' said he, 'laid the army of
Washington. It was a most distressing time of ye war, and all were for
giving up the Ship but that great and good man. In that woods pointing to
a close in view, I heard a plaintive sound as, of a man at prayer. I tied my
horse to a sapling & went quietly into the woods & to my astonishment I
saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on
one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of
the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye
Crisis, & the cause of the country, of humanity & of the world.
'Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. I left him alone praying.
'I went home & told my wife. I saw a sight and heard today what I never
saw or heard before, and just related to her what I had seen & heard &
observed. We never thought a man c'd be a soldier & a Christian, but if
there is one in the world, it is Washington. She also was astonished. We
thought it was the cause of God, & America could prevail.' "He then to me
put out his right hand & said 'I turned right about and became a Whig.'"
Diary and Remembrances
Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden
|
| zinvor |
Posted - May 31 2006 : 10:53:09 AM
Isn't being an inspirational leader enough reason to be a great person? I think it surely is, that's the main thing. You can be the greatest master of military science and still not able to do a real THING, the one that won't be forgotten. There are thousands and thousands of examples, in any area, and especially when we're talking about war.
In fact I think even if Washington was illiterate he'd still be one of the Greatest.He DID change the world.
And as for mistakes everyone makes his own. He wasn't perfect and ideal but that's not required. The thing is that his unvalued merits outweight all his minuses.
|
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - May 31 2006 : 12:02:20 AM
Braddock has received a lot of blame for the loss, and each time someone does a film they never fail to mention how a European-trained general was out of his element in the American wilderness. But if you look at the way he deployed his troops, and the precautions he took, he did as well as anyone would have done. The French had no scouts and literally ran into the British. The first three vollies killed the French commander and broke the line, if it can be called that. It should have been the end of the battle. That it was not is due in part to luck, to Dumas, and to the complete inactivity of Gage. I really think Braddock was better than he has been made out to be. If he had just a little more luck he would have been the hero of the battle. And what if another person had been in command of the same troops in the same place, like for instance Davoust. Davoust would have won. But what would he have done differently. Anything? Or would he just have been luckier? |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - May 30 2006 : 8:05:59 PM
They were not 'separated' from the main body, as much as they were marching in advance of it, thus the name 'Advance Party' or vanguard. Originally they were to march about a quarter-mile in front of the rest of the army (Approximately 400 yards). And "yes", they did run, probably panic brought about by watching the 'experienced' rangers and light horse running back toward the main body, after first contact. There were many blunders that day, much like Grant's Defeat in '58, and correcting anyone of them could very well have resulted in another massacare... one of natives and Frenchmen.
YMH&OS,
The Sarge |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - May 30 2006 : 4:07:32 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but these were the ones that were separated from the main body by a few hundred yards (maybe more?), and are the ones who, after Gage did nothing except take fire for a very long time, finally broke and ran into the reinforcements being moved up. It would have been nice to see some scouts and light horse as well as mitre caps. If I remember correctly, it showed only the hat companies and they had the celery-green facings. I was really disappointed that John Mckay was not shown at Fort Necessity. After all, they were a South Carolina Independent Company, even if they did surrender. But, you know, in one scene they showed the painting recently done of Fort Necessity, and while they were talking about Washington, the camera zoomed in on Mckay. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - May 30 2006 : 3:48:17 PM
If you are saying that the front ranks of the advance party (With the exception of the light horse & rangers) was occupied by the grenadiers, then you are 100% correct. However, the advance party, under Colonel Gage, numbered around 300 men, and two guns, and they did not separate before engagement. This part of the account was echoed in the separte letters from Captain Orme, Sir John St. Clair, Lieutenant Harry Gordon RE, and an anonymous letter (Which historians generally agree to have been penned by Captain Gabriel Christie, Sir John's chief assistant). These men, with the exception of Captain Orme, were with the advance party during the initial engagement. Now, one may note the lack of grenadiers in the film clip, and be correct in doing so, but historically, the hatmen of Gage's detachment were in the same column as the grenadiers, at the start of battle.
YMH&OS,
The Sarge |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - May 30 2006 : 12:44:06 PM
But, the forward units, which the film was seeking to portray, were two companies of grenadiers under Gage. Following them were 150 other troops, hat companies of the 44th or the 48, I believe. Also, in front of them, there were scount and six mounted troopers of Stuarts Light Horse. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - May 30 2006 : 10:06:34 AM
quote:
Fitz stated: The lead British units were shown as hat companies when in reality they were grenadiers. British at Braddock's shown wearing SC Independent uniforms.
Well Fitz, the vanguard consisted of not only the grenadiers, Poulson's carpenters, light horse and artillery detachments, but included Gate's New York Independent Company* as well. Gate's Coy were hatmen, and their uniform was the standard red, faced-green, with no lace, worn by all independent companies. So, that part of the show was actually correct.
YMH&OS,
The Sarge
*NOTE: The above order of battle can be found within the Cumberland Papers, published under the title Military Affairs In North America 1748-1765. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - May 30 2006 : 09:23:40 AM
I only got to watch the first part (taped the rest), but I see that the History Channel did their usual sub-standard work. For instance, in the return from Venango in 1753, one of the most quoted statements made by Washington is that he and Gist wore Indian dress and matchcoats. They did not show that. When on campaign, the French all wore blue uniforms with turn-up caps. They never wore turn-up caps, and the uniform only when on duty at a fort. They showed nothing of John Mckay at Fort Necessity, and he was Washington's co-commander and signed the document of surrender ahead of Washington. Braddock's Defeat was depicted as an ambush, when in reality the French were just as surprised as the British. The lead British units were shown as hat companies when in reality they were grenadiers. British at Braddock's shown wearing SC Independent uniforms. When they showed a painting of the wounding of Braddock, the camera zooms in on what is supposed to be Washington, when he is painted on the other side of Braddock. I could go on. And on.
PS. This is one reason my wife will not watch an 18th century movie with me.
Seems like LOTM was a lot more accurate. Anyone who complains about LOTM accuracy (and many have) should be forced to watch the History Channel! |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - May 30 2006 : 08:12:26 AM
The out come is what sets him apart, - not that he had normal traits. |
| Highlander |
Posted - May 30 2006 : 03:00:28 AM
I would like to see the whole picture of GW is all.Clearly,he was not the same person at 40 as he was at 20.I'm sure that the viewers would be interested to know that in his early years, GW once had warrants out for his arrest for horse theft,wanted General Forbes to use the Braddock Road because of his stake in the Ohio Company and tried to cheat his men out of their F&I land grants for pennies on the dollar.I would even suspect that he killed the indian who took a pot-shot at he and Christopher Gist(I would have) when he wrote in his journal to Gov.Dinwiddie that they (wink,wink,nudge,nudge)let him go.His account of the Jumonville Affair also proves that he was a master of spin. |
| Highlander |
Posted - May 30 2006 : 02:49:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Wilderness Woman
quote:
...Washington got 14 of his men killed by "friendly fire" at Ligonier in November of 1758?
I would imagine that this incident... this mistake... haunted him for the rest of his life, as it would any great man of honor. Again... he was not perfect.
It DID haunt him for the rest of his life,and he even wrote about it in his memoirs.Just wondering if The History Channel will cover it.Now that I've viewed it twice this evening,I see that they did not. |
| 42ndNCO |
Posted - May 29 2006 : 9:15:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Monadnock Guide
It absolutely asounds me how we, as a country can't wait to find something negative to say/post about anyone & everyone. I'd be willing to bet he looked up some girls dress in the fourth grade, we just haven't found about it yet!
...Well, there was that minor obsession with Sally Fairfax...
The thing that sets Washington apart, aside from his privileged life, or perhaps even in spite of it, is that nothing sets him apart. He had his failings and vices just like the rest of us (a terrible temper, gambling, painfully shy, etc,).
However, despite these shortcomings, he was able to accomplish all that we're familiar with. For a more detailed list, I'd recommend anything written by Richard Brookhiser.
Yes, Sarge, GR II screwed himself (royally, you might say) when he passed on giving Mr. Washington a lousy commission.
Happy Memorial Day and thanks to all our vets@!!  |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - May 29 2006 : 8:11:42 PM
Well I certainly hope that none here think that I am slandering him, for I include both the positive and negative attributes of his personality. As I noted above, Washington was a charasimatic figure; so much so, that he managed to win over most of the powerful and influential people he dealt with, without any externally visable effort (i.e. Braddock).
He was ambitious however, and his most coveted path to social status was a regular commision in the British Army (He even went as far as to make a formal petition to the Horse Guards in London). If Braddock had survived, I am most certain that he would have offered Washington a lieutenancy in either the 44th or 48th regiment. Thankfully, this did not happen, for instead of him going down in history as the leader who kept the Continental Army together during its darkest hours, and becoming our first president, he instead would have probably finished out his life as an unknown half-pay captain, who still suffered from his campaigning in the fever islands.
It sure is funny how one little turn in history can change the whole equation. I often wonder, if after Yorktown, that King George III didn't craddle his head in his hands, and weep, "Why didn't dad give this damned Virginian a regular commission!"
YMH&OS,
The Sarge |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - May 29 2006 : 7:45:51 PM
WW, - I'm sure that's true. Having said that, there's isn't a country in the world that hasn't had "friendly fire" problems in the past, - and will have them in the future also. In fact one of my uncles survived a "frendly fire" accident in the Pacific theatre during WWII. Nearly four hundred were killed in that event, a bombing error. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - May 29 2006 : 7:33:52 PM
quote:
...Washington got 14 of his men killed by "friendly fire" at Ligonier in November of 1758?
I would imagine that this incident... this mistake... haunted him for the rest of his life, as it would any great man of honor. Again... he was not perfect. |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - May 29 2006 : 1:17:15 PM
It absolutely asounds me how we, as a country can't wait to find something negative to say/post about anyone & everyone. I'd be willing to bet he looked up some girls dress in the fourth grade, we just haven't found about it yet! When we do though, - look out!!! Many other men had his military qualifications I'm sure, perhaps better. It's the overall outcome of his life that sets him apart. From what I've read, he could have pretty much written his own ticket, - and probably be president or even king for life. How many others with same the drive, ambition and egos involved would have acted in the manner he did? My guess is not one. The fact that they "might" have more talent in one area here or there, - doesn't mean they've have acted as he did in the end. In fact, there's probably a good chance we'd have some sort of monarchy today - if anyone except Washington had been where he was at that time in history. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - May 29 2006 : 12:30:46 PM
I have always felt that the Washington of later years was very different from the early Washington. He make mistakes and he learned from them. Good men do that. To me that says more about the man that if he were always to have done the right thing all the time. His life was a progression. That is the real story that should be told. I hope they tell it that way. |
| Highlander |
Posted - May 29 2006 : 12:03:37 PM
Yes,but does this documentary illustrate how Washington got 14 of his men killed by "friendly fire" at Ligonier in November of 1758?  |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - May 29 2006 : 09:51:50 AM
Rich, thank you for that beautifully written critique/essay. Everything you have said, I am in total agreement on, and I could not have said it nearly as well as you have.
A scholar I am not, but I know greatness when I see it. No matter how you slice and dice it; regardless of the inevitable criticisms that show up (for he was, afterall, human and therefore not perfect!); this man was plain and simply a great man. I do not see how anyone can deny it.
Believing as I do that God provides all our destinies and that it is up to us to reach out and grab them and fulfill them... I believe that George Washington did just that. He grabbed his destiny, and he fulfilled it. And we are the recipients of the results. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - May 28 2006 : 8:01:08 PM
quote:
richfed noted: And, yes, he flubbed badly at Jumonville/Necessity ... but at Braddock's Defeat? He was an aide ... not much more. The errors were not his.
Good point Sachem, except that Washington was more than just a 'gentleman volunteer', he had General Braddock's ear; this was noted, with more than a tinge of jelousy, by Braddock's official aide-de-camp, Captain Orme. General Braddock, although obstinate and obtuse at times, did value the opinion of Washington as a man who had 'been there, done that', as far as wilderness campaign experience. It was Washington who suggested that Braddock take a flying-column to the forks, leaving the slower baggage behind, and Braddock privately agreed, this was contrary to his otherwise cautious campaign. (See Washington's letter, dated 28 June, in Braddock Road Chronicles 1755)
YMH&OS,
The Sarge |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - May 28 2006 : 4:54:50 PM
Very well written Rich, - I saved it, and mailed it to a couple of folks. How many could have, through sheer will power kept that Army together during the weather and supply problems that he, and they endured? He may indeed have been ambitious, so what? He also had a much larger vision of things, - something lacking in true politicains. Be they military or civilian. I'm looking forward to watching/recording that program, - thx. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - May 28 2006 : 2:33:42 PM
I agree that he had no part in Braddock's Defeat, but he was Braddock's aide, and usually in a defeat of that magnitude everyone gets painted with the same brush. The fact that he did not seems to indicate that he was well liked back in Virginia and had some very influential friends. And how does a man in his early twenties develop that many strong alliances? Don't know, but he seems to have done it. Like Sarge says, the guy had charisma. Now the real mover and shaker was Franklin. It seems like he could always come through in any situation. Without him France might well have stayed out of the Rev War. No French, no guns, no 10,000 troops with Rochambeau, no fleet with de Grasse, no Yorktown, no win for Washington. Then, on the other hand, France might have avoided their revolution.
What if Franklin had been younger. Do you suppose he might have run for President in 1788? Would he have been elected? What kind of president would have have made? Certainly he was popular with the women, another presidential trait. |
| richfed |
Posted - May 28 2006 : 12:57:58 PM
quote:
The F&I war would have happened with or without Washington. Governor Dinwiddie and the Ohio Company had their plans for the land west of the mountains, and if it had not been for Washington, then Dinwiddie would have sent someone else
Maybe so ... ah, but Fitz ... would "someone else" have gone on to greatness? Or have been a mere footnote - and a minor one at that?
And, yes, he flubbed badly at Jumonville/Necessity ... but at Braddock's Defeat? He was an aide ... not much more. The errors were not his. He was known - IN HIS TIME - as the "hero of the Monongahela". Yeah, he had friends, alright. One, at least ... the Man upstairs!  Where were his earthly friends when the war was going badly and everyone was crying for Gates?
quote:
he had a trait which few people do, he had charisma.
Sarge, the documentary makes clear this very point!
Enjoy! |
|
Around The Site:
~ What's New? ~
Pathfinding
|
Mohican Gatherings
|
Mohican Musings
|
LOTM Script
|
History
|
Musical Musings
|
Storefronts on the Frontier
Off the Beaten Trail
|
Links
Of Special Interest:
The Eric Schweig Gallery
|
From the Ramparts
|
The Listening Room
|
Against All Odds
|
The Video Clips Index
DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
 |
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.24 seconds |
 |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
