| Author |
 Topic  |
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 20 2004 : 3:37:47 PM
|
The History Channel has been running the program, “Command Decisions” since July. The half-hour program covers a different battle, from all time periods and all over the world, each week in a quiz show format. The subjects it covers are more for the novice; so many of you may be bored with its content. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, it’s sometimes not too innovative.
This Friday, October 22, they will cover the Little Bighorn. Neil Mangum, former historian and superintendent at LBH, and currently one of my board members of the Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield, will be interviewed along with Ernie Lapointe, great grandson of Sitting Bull. I will also be included.
I’ve been interviewed many times for television, but this one was the most fun. All three of us were interviewed for two hours or more each. They covered all possible subject matter regarding the LBH, both before and after the battle. The first comment I made to them was, “There is no way you’ll be able to cover all this material in a half-hour.” I was right, but it was fun answering the questions.
I’m not sure of the time, but it shows at 7:30 MST.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on October 20 2004 3:41:23 PM
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 21 2004 : 02:43:34 AM
|
I received an email from the producer of this program advising me of the times it will be shown.
Friday, October 22 at 9:30 p.m. ET/PT. Be sure to check your local listings for times and programming variations that may be provider-specific.
Additional airdates are as follows:
Saturday, October 23 at 1:30 AM
Saturday, October 23 at 1:00 PM
Sunday, October 24 at 11:30 PM
Monday, October 25 at 3:30 AM
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
  |
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 21 2004 : 06:13:01 AM
|
| I'll enjoy watching!! |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 22 2004 : 10:39:11 PM
|
Bob--
I enjoyed the show!
Regards, |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 23 2004 : 11:43:55 AM
|
Bhist
I'm sorry, I didn't. But you and Sitting Bull's descendent were far and away the best part and quite good by any standard.
This show comes too close to the things that I've decried for years here to pretend otherwise. I have to say I'm surprised that the History Channel and the people and organizations represented by their presence on the show would support the claims and presentation. I couldn't watch the whole thing, a shoe having hit the screen and off button about ten minutes in, so if the last half contradicts me I am contrite. But, also confident.
"Command Decisions" by title and content implies or states that:
The Indians had a command structure and that Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull were the commanders. Not since Ambrose' idiotic book has this falsehood been so lovingly presented. I especially liked the two people playing Custer and Crazy Horse nose to nose glaring into each other's eyes, "re-enactors" being an all around favorite plus the whole idea of making it a personal duel of strategic military genius which, you know, I think we can all agree defies comment.
In dead seriousness, the advent of Reno into the trees presents, according to this show, the Indian Command Structure with three and only three choices. Surprisingly, Letting The Bozos Run Out of Ammo In Ten More Minutes isn't one. The only options to the Command Structure are, and I'm not making this up: 1. attacking with hatchets (not clubs, not spears, not bows and arrows, but only hatchets...), 2. rifle fire, or 3. making a fire to burn them out. Apparently there was only one correct answer: rifle fire. Which, thank God, the Sioux Command made!
But they did all three, if you suppose tree infiltration included guys with the odd hatchet. And after explanations of why the others wouldn't work (but they would have...) they vanish from the screen and number two grows bigger and is highlighted.
All the while about ten re-enactors, white and red, gallump pointlessly around the screen which is emphasized rather than hidden by slow motion playback. And what spells History like a Sioux with tan lines from shorts and socks, eh? Then the shoe hit.
I understand the need to churn the chum to keep interest up and all that, but when something called The History Channel offers up a program you have a right to expect better work than this. And a lot of their shows are JUST like this. To have a show partially about a non-existent Indian Command and Control is like a show about Sioux Foreign Policy 1865-1891 or Sioux Literature of the 1500's. In the former you'd need a representative government (absent) and in the latter a written language (absent). This is a show designed to appeal to the Wannabe military buff who doesn't know anything beyond the arrival of his next Soldier of Fortune.
Really, I'd be interested to hear this presentation defended as history. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 23 2004 : 2:16:23 PM
|
| Brilliant analysis, Warlord. Only you could reach that conclusion. At least consistent with your fetish, but you have a ways to go if you equate being civil with pandering or worse, and critique to claims of omnipotence. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2004 : 06:49:53 AM
|
--and back to the show. And the notion of an Indian "Command Structure".
Doubtless they had a "tribal leader" structure, which probably became their "command structure" when under attack (or, attacking). But at LBH (from all that I've read) I never got any hint that the Indian leaders did anything except "lead by example"--which meant that if Crazy Horse went somewhere, a certain # of Indians would automatically follow. If he then went somewhere else, they'd go there. With him probably giving a "follow me boys" hand signal, or the like.
And it appears that most of the Indian leaders were initially flummoxed by the Custer attack and mostly reacted to what they saw the soldiers doing..Sitting Bull, Gall, and Crazy Horse included.
So I'm not one who believes the Indians had any command structure in the sense that they had "central" authorities who would issue "commands" and "orders" in the sense that we might consider them.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2004 : 10:00:34 AM
|
But, currently, Sitting Bull isn't even considered a war leader at this battle whatsoever. He'd been promoted up and out to spiritual leader, and wasn't expected to fight or participate. He apparently didn't, in any case, if his relatives there are to be believed. Gall, once raised to 'chief' status by the whites later on to counter Sitting Bull's declining prestige, is now being admitted as pretty much a big guy, good warrior, no chief, and certainly not in charge of any major element of action.
You wouldn't know this from the first ten minutes of the show. This was "The History Channel", don't forget. That implies a certain level of accuracy that I didn't see. Rather, they tried to make it a mano a mano combat between Custer and CH, who knows why, although CH didn't wear headdresses as they portrayed him. Did anyone who saw the entire show think it better than I did? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2004 : 12:55:06 PM
|
I thought Bob and Neil presented themselves well, but the show itself...ugh. Along with DC, I enjoyed the "charge with hatchets" option although the tidbit that Crazy Horse while fighting Reno's battalion saw Custer's command on the bluffs is, in my opinion, not supported by anything more than one Indian's recounting (Red Horse?) and the overwhelming need to present it as Custer vs. Crazy Horse. Also, there was hardly any mention of the Cheyenne and their contributions.
So, overall, if grading the show it would receive a D.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2004 : 2:25:17 PM
|
| Certainly no better than a D. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 16 2004 : 10:27:19 AM
|
I saw a very good show this morning on the History Channel's Investigating History series about the Civil War battle of Mine Creek, KS. One of the two brigade commanders in that battle for the Union was Col. Frederick Benteen. Since the battlefield is only an hour south of me, I may take a swing down there this weekend. Here is the blurb from the History Channel's web site:
"October 25, 1864--the sky is clear and the air brisk in Kansas. Perfect weather for soldiers as they charge into battle. At the Battle of Mine Creek, 2,800 Union Cavalry soldiers defeat a Confederate cavalry of 7,000--in a mere half-hour. The bravery and cunning exhibited ranks the battle alongside the charges at Gettysburg and Brandy Station. What made this a successful battle for the Union Cavalry and why is it excluded from historical records? The battle unfolds through interviews with members of the Mine Creek Battlefield Foundation and local historians, archival letters, diaries, and the one known historical account of the battle written by Lumir Buresh in 1977. And as we walk the battlefield with a tactician from the U.S. Army, we divulge new information about its size, weapons used, and the brigades that met there from all over the country to fight at Mine Creek."
Here is a link to more information regarding the battle.
http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=sph&p=/MineCreek/Introduction/
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on November 16 2004 10:32:49 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 16 2004 : 1:09:57 PM
|
I didn't see it. I've been weaned, at this point. Whenever I see fat old men in spiffy uniforms on horseback.....
But, I did read the Wichita State university site's posting on it, thank you, and learned that Benteen was the one who commanded that portion of the 7th that survived at LBH. Minor error, but I thought it was Reno and they are a University.
Also, I did see the silly show previous on the History Channel about the cruiser San Diego, which blew up and sank in 1918. Long story short, the evidence they used to suggest that the ship was hit by a torpedo was the sort of superficial visual evidence that Admiral Rickover pointed out was incorrect in his analysis of the USS Maine, now generally conceded to have been a coal fire next to a magazine and an internal explosion. Despite all the graphics, it was all hearsay and questionable analysis that tried to cover up the fact they'd discovered nothing new other than that the damage was slightly aft of where first reported.
On the other hand, the blonde babe was hot. Still, I'm really upset with the quality of these shows of late. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 07:13:56 AM
|
saw a very good show this morning on the History Channel's Investigating History series about the Civil War battle of Mine Creek, KS. One of the two brigade commanders in that battle for the Union was Col. Frederick Benteen. Since the battlefield is only an hour south of me, I may take a swing down there this weekend. Here is the blurb from the History Channel's web site:
I see Mine Creek listed as a skirmish.Also difficult to see how a confederate force of 7000 cavalry were still in the field so late in the war and in Kanas of all places.Not casting Doubt just asking. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 2:43:25 PM
|
Maybe they were better served in Kansas than in the East, being destroyed by Sheridan's cavalry...
Nathan Bedford Forrest was in the Western Theater, running around with a couple thousand cavalry. Perhaps they were doing the same thing, raiding and trying to waste Union resources used to chase them futilely. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
Edited by - El Crab on November 17 2004 2:45:42 PM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 5:00:09 PM
|
being destroyed by Sheridan's cavalry...
I don't think Sheridans cavalry did too much destroying.In fact I can't think of a single Battle where the Union cavalry played a significant part.Even at Gettysburg they fought as infantry. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 7:01:31 PM
|
| El Crab: Western Theater ok, but if Forrest ever operated west of the Mississippi its news to me. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 7:54:40 PM
|
Well, Forrest wasn't skirmishing with Sheridan. Maybe Western Theater was the wrong term, but he was not fighting near Lee's army.
EDIT: Mine Creek was early in the war, before Union cavalry had really gotten the measure of the Rebels. So I don't know why they were out there, but they were. I was thinking it was later in the war.
The Union Cavalry fought as infantry at Gettysburg? I'm sure you're forgetting the happenings over at Hanover, the third day at Gettysburg. What about Brandy Station? Yellow Tavern? Aldie? Sayler's Creek? Five Forks? Winchester? Trevilian Station? Cedar Creek? Tom's Brook? Granted, these aren't the major battles of the war, they are battles between Union and Confederate cavalry. Sheridan's cavalry in the Shenandoah destroyed Early's army and laid waste to the countryside. They were operating separately of Grant's army.
Of all places to claim Union cavalry fought as infantry and never played a signifigant part, but an essentially Custer-centric forum? Have you read anything on Custer's Civil War record?
The Civil War changed how cavalry operated, to a degree. They operated as both cavalry and mounted infantry. But there were still plenty of mounted charges and mounted fighting. Read "Custer Victorious" by Gregory Irwin if you still feel otherwise.
Union Cavalry was responsible for cutting off Lee's retreating army, dividing it and essentially ending the war by doing so. Perhaps we should do more reading on the Union cavalry's role in the ACW.
Hanover
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/pa001.htm
"Maj. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart’s cavalry, which was riding north to get around the Union army, attacked a Union cavalry regiment, driving it through the streets of Hanover. Brig. Gen. Farnsworth’s brigade arrived and counterattacked, routing the Confederate vanguard and nearly capturing Stuart himself. Stuart counterattacked. Reinforced by Brig. Gen. George A. Custer’s brigade, Farnsworth held his ground, and a stalemate ensued. Stuart was forced to continue north and east to get around the Union cavalry, further delaying his attempt to rejoin Lee’s army which was then concentrating at Cashtown Gap west of Gettysburg."
Yellow Tavern
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va052.htm
"As the battle between Grant and Lee raged at Spotsylvania Court House, the Union cavalry corps under Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan embarked on a cavalry raid against Richmond. After disrupting Lee’s road and rail communications, Sheridan’s cavalry expedition climaxed with the battle of Yellow Tavern on May 11. The outnumbered Confederate cavalry was defeated, and Maj. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart was mortally wounded. Sheridan continued south to threaten the Richmond defenses before joining Butler’s command at Bermuda Hundred. After refitting, Sheridan rejoined the Army of the Potomac on May 25 for the march to the southeast and the crossing of the Pamunkey."
Trevilian Station
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va099.htm
"To draw off the Confederate cavalry and open the door for a general movement to the James River, Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan mounted a large-scale cavalry raid into Louisa County, threatening to cut the Virginia Central Railroad. On June 11, Sheridan with the Gregg’s and Torbert’s divisions attacked Hampton’s and Fitzhugh Lee’s cavalry divisions at Trevilian Station. Sheridan drove a wedge between the Confederate divisions, throwing them into confusion. On the 12th, fortunes were reversed. Hampton and Lee dismounted their troopers and drew a defensive line across the railroad and the road to Gordonsville. From this advantageous position, they beat back several determined dismounted assaults. Sheridan withdrew after destroying about six miles of the Virginia Central Railroad. Confederate victory at Trevilian prevented Sheridan from reaching Charlottesville and cooperating with Hunter’s army in the Valley. This was one of the bloodiest cavalry battles of the war."
Opequon
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va119.htm
"After Kershaw’s division left Winchester to rejoin Lee’s army at Petersburg, Lt. Gen. Jubal A. Early renewed his raids on the B&O Railroad at Martinsburg, badly dispersing his four remaining infantry divisions. On September 19, Sheridan advanced toward Winchester along the Berryville Pike with the VI and XIX Corps, crossing Opequon Creek. The Union advance was delayed long enough for Early to concentrate his forces to meet the main assault, which continued for several hours. Casualties were very heavy. The Confederate line was gradually driven back toward the town. Mid-afternoon, Crook’s (VIII) Corps and the cavalry turned the Confederate left flank. Early ordered a general retreat. Confederate generals Rodes and Goodwin were killed, Fitzhugh Lee, Terry, Johnson, and Wharton wounded. Union general Russell was killed, McIntosh, Upton, and Chapman wounded. Because of its size, intensity, and result, many historians consider this the most important conflict of the Shenandoah Valley."
Tom's Brook
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va121.htm
"After his victory at Fisher’s Hill, Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan pursued Early’s army up the Shenandoah Valley to near Staunton. On October 6, Sheridan began withdrawing, as his cavalry burned everything that could be deemed of military significance, including barns and mills. Reinforced by Kershaw’s division, Early followed. Maj. Gen. Thomas Rosser arrived from Petersburg to take command of Fitz Lee’s cavalry division and harassed the retreating Federals. On October 9, Torbert’s troopers turned on their pursuers, routing the divisions of Rosser and Lomax at Tom’s Brook. With this victory, the Union cavalry attained overwhelming superiority in the Valley."
Waynesboro
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va123.htm
"On February 27, Maj. Gen. Philip Sheridan with two cavalry divisions rode from Winchester up the Shenandoah Valley to Staunton. Turning east, the Federals encountered the last remnant of Lt. Gen. Jubal Early’s Valley army at Waynesboro on March 2. After a brief stand-off, a Federal attack rolled up Early’s right flank and scattered his small force. More than 1,500 Confederates surrendered. Early and a few of his staff evaded capture. Sheridan crossed the Blue Ridge to Charlottesville and then raided south, destroying the James River Canal locks near Goochland Court House. He joined forces with the Army of the Potomac near Petersburg on March 26 for the opening of the Appomattox Campaign."
Five Forks
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va088.htm
"Gen. Robert E. Lee ordered Pickett with his infantry division and Munford’s, W.H.F. Lee’s, and Rosser’s cavalry divisions to hold the vital crossroads of Five Forks at all hazard. On April 1, while Sheridan’s cavalry pinned the Confederate force in position, the V Corps under Maj. Gen. G.K. Warren attacked and overwhelmed the Confederate left flank, taking many prisoners. Sheridan personally directed the attack, which extended Lee’s Petersburg lines to the breaking point. Loss of Five Forks threatened Lee’s last supply line, the South Side Railroad. The next morning, Lee informed Jefferson Davis that Petersburg and Richmond must be evacuated. Union general Winthrop was killed; “Willie” Pegram, beloved Confederate artillery officer, was mortally wounded. Dissatisfied with his performance at Five Forks, Sheridan relieved Warren of command of the V Corps."
Sailor's Creek*
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va093.htm
"On April 6 at Sailor’s Creek, nearly one fourth of the retreating Confederate army was cut off by Sheridan’s Cavalry and elements of the II and VI Corps. Most surrendered, including Confederate generals Richard S. Ewell, Barton, Simms, Kershaw, Custis Lee, Dubose, Hunton, and Corse. This action was considered the death knell of the Confederate army."
*Tom Custer was shot in the face while charging Confederates in this fight.
Appomattox Station
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va096.htm
"Custer’s division captured a supply train and twenty-five guns, driving off and scattering the Confederate defenders. This unique action pitted artillery without infantry support against cavalry. Custer captured and burned three trains loaded with provisions for Lee’s army."
|
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
Edited by - El Crab on November 17 2004 7:56:23 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 9:16:20 PM
|
That didn't take long.
However, before you drown in mind numbing cliches involving measures having been gotten, you should probably know the the war in the east was yet another one of supply and logistics and Yankees had it and the rebels did not. The rebels had no provision system worthy of the name for horses (or men, really - the states handled it unbelievably selfishly and badly), and, if I recall, the cavalryman had to supply his own, what he could afford. As both horse and men grew thin and weak in the rebel units, the heroic Union cavalry - with numerous government horses (and endless men) stuffed and sleek with grain and care and led by officers with electric blue eyes that get so uncomfortable to read about - started to win. A lot.
Why they won has less to do with thrilling leadership than metabolism. If Stuart or Forrest had the material Sheridan and Custer had, it can be doubted that the ratio of battles won would have been retained. That could be because the other side "has your measure" or simply "ate food with some regularity." Compared to the rebels, the Yankees ate well. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 17 2004 : 10:42:16 PM
|
The turning point in the cavalry fights came before the Confederacy started suffering logistical issues.
And in the later battles, it was Union cavalry v. Confederate cavalry and infantry.
If you truly knew your Civil War info, you'd know that the Union misused its cavalry in the first few years. Union higher-ups didn't feel they needed it for more than vedette/picket/screening/scouting.
We could debate this for a long time. The Confederates defeated many a Union force despite their being outnumbered. And JEB Stuart beat the **** out of Union cavalry until they shook up the command structure.
We can make excuses for everything. Someone has to win, and someone has to lose. And when a particular group is winning for a long time, kicking the other side's ass and that suddenly stops, there's more than one reason for it.
If a basketball team shoots 25%, did they shoot poorly or was it the other team's defense? Its both. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 11:01:17 AM
|
quote:
EDIT: Mine Creek was early in the war, before Union cavalry had really gotten the measure of the Rebels. So I don't know why they were out there, but they were. I was thinking it was later in the war.
October 25, 1864 was the correct date Crab so it was in the latter stages of the war. As far as trans-Mississippi battles, it was the end of the war except for scattered bushwacking here on the border and in mid-Missouri. Mine Creek was the culmination of Price's raid from Arkansas with the hoped full objectives of taking St. Louis, Jefferson City (capitol of Misery...errr, Missouri) and Kansas City. That raid did not accomplish any of its objectives and was defeated here in Kansas City at the battle of Westport. Price's army was retreating when Mine Creek occurred. Speaking of cavalry, most of the fighting done by the Union during Price's movement westward along the Missouri river valley was by cavalry: battles of the Little Blue and Big Blue specifically. One of the regiments involved, I believe the 11th Kansas, figured prominently in those two battles and in 1865 lost men at Platte Bridge when Lt. Caspar Collins was killed and at Red Buttes where Sgt. Custard and his men were slain in 1865. Actually, you might indirectly blame Price for Sand Creek as the Union was so concerned about the invasion/raid that it had pulled so many of its men from the western frontier guarding the Overland Trail that the Federal government acquiesced to Governor Evans and let him form his 100 day regiment which was later led by Chivington at Sand Creek.
Buford's men did fight as infantry during their holding action on the first day. But wasn't one of the more significant events leading up to Gettysburg the fact that the Union cavalry successfully screened Stuart's cavalry from Lee's army thus keeping Lee in the dark about the Union army's location?
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 1:52:09 PM
|
El Crab & Co
Fine posts.The civil war is an old favourate of mine but am a bit stale on it now.I'v been to Gettysburg twice and Fredericksburg.
I think the Napoloenic wars saw the last of the great cavalry charges where cavalry action alone could turn battles.The rifled musket put an end to all that.With the rifle, unbroken infantry could engage massed cavalry at 400 yards and the increased range of the artillery rendered massing for an attack nigh impossible.
I think most of the battles you mention were cavalry v cavalry and I always thought the Shenandoah valley campaigns were no more than diversionary.
If memory serves me correctly there is a very good description of a Union cavalry action in a book by the name of STONEWALL JACKSON AT CEDAR MOUNTAIN.[Robert K Kirk]]Needless to say it came to grief. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 18 2004 : 1:59:10 PM
|
Logistics and food and all that were an issue for the confederates from day one. As early as 1862, Lee was concerned about feeding his army, and the northern trips were at least in part to feed and clothe his men (that shoe factory) and graze the horses (and steal some). When you have few remounts, hungry horses, and tired men, you tend not to scout sufficiently and get surprised a lot which Stuart did starting at Brandy Station and getting worse almost weekly. The South was lush and should have been able to feed and clothe its people and army but could do neither.
I'm shattered to be thought ignorant of the Civil War, especially by those who scream their ignorance using explanation points instead of periods, and will have to enter a 12 step for self esteem. But those who nightly dream of Custer with his blue eyes floating in through their bedroom window aren't particularly receptive to the prozaic issues of life, like food and energy, and really seem to think a slight caliber change or organizational chart switch are key rather than three to one advantages in men, consistent food and remounts, a real Navy, that sort of thing.
The change in the fortunes of the Union Army, or at least the Army of the Potomac, was due the universally admitted idiots who led it until Meade. Pope, McClellan, Burnside weren't going to win under any circumstances and, despite the huge advantages they had, didn't. There are some basketball teams you can hand the ball to and just chat while they take the offensive. Their shooting percentage won't change. They just stink. Don't argue. I live in Denver, and for the ten years until Carmello, opposing teams studied for their GED's or realty license when the Nuggets had the ball. The secret of success, as Jackson and Lee knew, was a lousy opponent. When the AOP became merely competent, with their huge other advantages they won. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 19 2004 : 02:39:58 AM
|
So the Confederate cavalry, which virtually owned their Union counterparts, despite usually being outnumbered, was defeated when merely confronted with competent Union commanders? Oh, ok.
Were there any talented officers on either side? Sounds like they shouldn't have even bothered fighting. The South should have just surrendered immediately, since they were logistically at a disadvantage from the get-go. Oh, but they were winning the war up until Gettysburg. Wonder how that happened. Oh, that's right, talented leadership. Something the Confederates had and the Union did not. Until around, Gettysburg.
So again, explain why the Rebel cavalry dominated until right around Gettysburg, with their logistical supply already being inferior and being outnumbered. And suddenly they were on even terms.
Here's some exclamation marks!!!! Wouldn't want to make you cite real reasons, only petty, unsubstantiated and downright childish insults. Twelve step program? For self esteem? I know you don't mean me, because if anything, I should seek out a twelve stepper for overconfidence.
If anything, Mr. Dark Clown Prince of Denver, we should investigate your disdain for those who pretend to serve the US Military. Perhaps this has something to do with your missing out on Vietnam. Perhaps we're looking at someone with their own insecurities. I think you look down on those who play soldier, since you yourself could not. Not that you wanted to. But hey, those who spout military doctrines as if they lived them need to be policed. And who better than someone that did not serve, and certainly isn't bashful to mention it? You're doing your part, aren't you? After all, calling out those who impersonate what you never were is practically the same thing as serving. You're protecting the integrity of the very people you never served with. Can't have impostors sullying the names of those who fought for this country. Even though that doesn't include you. Or that you even wanted to, for that matter. Hey, we all have our hobbies, right? I myself enjoy reading, playing golf, working on my car and movies. You enjoy belittling others, using big words, hearing yourself talk on your little masturbatory website, pining for the woman who intros your little diatribes and issuing backhanded insults to those who just want to talk about an inconsequential battle and its intricacies. Oh, and turning off programs that have old, fat white guys playing soldier. Can't forget that crime against humanity. Perhaps, in your next career, you can produce these shows and push for the budget to have a cast of actors trained, clothed and choreographed to be accurate. I'm sure the bigwigs who sign off on these programs would choose spending extra money over those who already are versed in the choreography and equipment and are willing to do so for peanuts. Because it interests them. Heaven forbid someone does something they enjoy. Even if it means impersonating a 20 year old from 1864. And who knows, they probably did serve their country. A lot of people have, you notwithstanding. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 19 2004 : 05:13:34 AM
|
| Gosh DC and you advised meto brace myself? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Bhist on the History Channel
