Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Get your Civil War on

13»

Posts

  • ZaylenzZaylenz Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    To bring this back to battles and tactics and such, earlier in the thread someone mentioned the South was hoping that England and France would break the Union Blockade and come to the rescue of the South. From my understanding, while this would have been possible early in the war, as the war went on this became less and less likely. This is mainly because the British and French navies were actually afraid of the US Costal naval forces near the end of the war, because the Union Navy was actually as big or bigger than the British navy and French navy by that point. I wasn't able to find any links showing the size of the various navies of the world during this time, as my Google-Fu has failed me. It's been a while since I studied the Civil War, so I'm wondering if anyone can confirm my memory.

    Also, unrelated to the above, the American Civil War is one of my bigger proofs that the whole Democratic Theory of War is utter bullshit. I consider the Confederacy (or at least it's various States) to be Democratic and they willingly went to War with the Democratic Union, so the idea that two democracies would never go to war with each other because the public wouldn't allow it is complete bullshit. Give them enough reason and it's just as likely two democracies would go to war as any other type of country.

  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood Slip Like Freudian. Playing Yourself Like Accordion.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Ambrose Burnside has been my favorite Civil War figure since I read about the battle of the Crater.

    What a moron.

    5UZDe2J.jpg
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Man I can't believe the fucked-up situation at the first Bull Run.

    Hey guys what should we do today?

    "Let's go watch people shoot each other up close!"

    But isn't that dangerous?

    "Nah."

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • EndomaticEndomatic Registered User
    edited April 2009
    He'd also been stunned when a cannonball hit a house he was leaning on

    Oh yeah, that's right!

    So he was stunned, injured, and not confident in his army, yet he still would not relinquish command to someone certainly more physically capable than him, if not strategically.
    Wouldn't he have spent most of his time in a bed? Meaning most of the information he was basing his decisions on could have potentially come 2nd, or 3rd hand.

    He must have had quite the ego before this battle.

    He was a pretty competent commander in smaller battles then? It must have come from success somewhere.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Cloudman wrote: »
    Ambrose Burnside has been my favorite Civil War figure since I read about the battle of the Crater.

    What a moron.

    Also, sideburns.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • SkannerJATSkannerJAT Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I always dug on Lincolns Reunification policies. The South cannot secede from the Union and therefore were never NOT a part of the US. Was a cool way to turn things around. And while reconstruction didn’t go great, I think this attitude helped with people’s feelings after the war, no matter where they were from.

    We just had a thing in Jamestown with "Military through the Ages" including a lot of re-enactors from Civil War units. Very cool stuff. Average life expectancy of the day was 33 years old. I feel like I should be on social security now.

    Side note, five friends and I were given cards with symptoms to describe to the doctor of a field hospital. I have much more respect for the medicine of the age as only one of us was going to likely die. Granted that was from the mercury she was prescribed then the diarrhea she had.

  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Zaylenz wrote: »
    To bring this back to battles and tactics and such, earlier in the thread someone mentioned the South was hoping that England and France would break the Union Blockade and come to the rescue of the South. From my understanding, while this would have been possible early in the war, as the war went on this became less and less likely. This is mainly because the British and French navies were actually afraid of the US Costal naval forces near the end of the war, because the Union Navy was actually as big or bigger than the British navy and French navy by that point. I wasn't able to find any links showing the size of the various navies of the world during this time, as my Google-Fu has failed me. It's been a while since I studied the Civil War, so I'm wondering if anyone can confirm my memory.

    Heh, though at 626 to the French 500 odd and the British near 600, the USN was rather outclassed when it came to the big ships, with British and French ironclads being vastly better and many of the US numbers being river craft. 'sides this was the US at full steam against the peacetime French and British, they could have built more and unpacked stuff from the reserve if they wanted to interfere. Far more important to the Union would be the stuff they were importing from Britain and France, if those two closed trade then the Union would run out of powder, small arms and naval plate as fast as the confederacy did.

    The British and French establishments considered intervening due to their economies relience on slave cotton and dislike of union tariffs, but when it was realised that they had years worth of cotton in the warehouses, could get it nearly as easily from India and Egypt, and whoever won the cotton would still be shipped they stopped caring. Public opinion in both nations was firmly on the union side, and once the war became explicitly about slavery neither could politically do anything considering the enormous anti-slavery efforts both Britain and France had undertaken in the decades previously.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Dis' wrote: »
    Zaylenz wrote: »
    To bring this back to battles and tactics and such, earlier in the thread someone mentioned the South was hoping that England and France would break the Union Blockade and come to the rescue of the South. From my understanding, while this would have been possible early in the war, as the war went on this became less and less likely. This is mainly because the British and French navies were actually afraid of the US Costal naval forces near the end of the war, because the Union Navy was actually as big or bigger than the British navy and French navy by that point. I wasn't able to find any links showing the size of the various navies of the world during this time, as my Google-Fu has failed me. It's been a while since I studied the Civil War, so I'm wondering if anyone can confirm my memory.

    Heh, though at 626 to the French 500 odd and the British near 600, the USN was rather outclassed when it came to the big ships, with British and French ironclads being vastly better and many of the US numbers being river craft. 'sides this was the US at full steam against the peacetime French and British, they could have built more and unpacked stuff from the reserve if they wanted to interfere. Far more important to the Union would be the stuff they were importing from Britain and France, if those two closed trade then the Union would run out of powder, small arms and naval plate as fast as the confederacy did.
    Also the British and French needed most of their ships just to defend their colonial empires, so it's not like they could just send over their whole fleet to America for a few years. The Union navy, on the other hand, would be pretty much all available to protect their coast.

  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood Slip Like Freudian. Playing Yourself Like Accordion.Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    Ambrose Burnside has been my favorite Civil War figure since I read about the battle of the Crater.

    What a moron.

    Also, sideburns.
    His only useful contribution to society.

    5UZDe2J.jpg
  • MalaysianShrewMalaysianShrew Registered User
    edited April 2009
    That reminds me. Gunpowder was a funny thing back then. One of the main ingredients was bird poop. As such, bird poop was a very valuable commodity. In fact, wars were fought over bird poop. Before WW1, Germany was worried about going to war with Britain because there was no large stores of bird poop left in europe. This meant that Germany was forced to import all it's bird poop and Britain controlled the seas. Luckily for Germany, a bird poop substitute was invented during the war allowing them to carry on the war effort despite a distinct lack of bird poop.

    Never trust a big butt and a smile.
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Dis' wrote: »
    Zaylenz wrote: »
    To bring this back to battles and tactics and such, earlier in the thread someone mentioned the South was hoping that England and France would break the Union Blockade and come to the rescue of the South. From my understanding, while this would have been possible early in the war, as the war went on this became less and less likely. This is mainly because the British and French navies were actually afraid of the US Costal naval forces near the end of the war, because the Union Navy was actually as big or bigger than the British navy and French navy by that point. I wasn't able to find any links showing the size of the various navies of the world during this time, as my Google-Fu has failed me. It's been a while since I studied the Civil War, so I'm wondering if anyone can confirm my memory.

    Heh, though at 626 to the French 500 odd and the British near 600, the USN was rather outclassed when it came to the big ships, with British and French ironclads being vastly better and many of the US numbers being river craft. 'sides this was the US at full steam against the peacetime French and British, they could have built more and unpacked stuff from the reserve if they wanted to interfere. Far more important to the Union would be the stuff they were importing from Britain and France, if those two closed trade then the Union would run out of powder, small arms and naval plate as fast as the confederacy did.
    Also the British and French needed most of their ships just to defend their colonial empires, so it's not like they could just send over their whole fleet to America for a few years. The Union navy, on the other hand, would be pretty much all available to protect their coast.

    What? Colonial empires didn't work that way, the bulk of a nations fleet was kept guarding the home coast and nearby waters or in storage ready to be used against attackers and/or anyone who looks at them funny. The empires were patrolled by small detachments and gunboats - the First Opium War for example involved less than 50 British ships. Its much better to have overwhelming defence and home that you can deploy elsewhere if necessary than to be caught with your pants down.

  • BogartBogart Mr. Lady Anime Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Endomatic wrote: »
    He'd also been stunned when a cannonball hit a house he was leaning on

    Oh yeah, that's right!

    So he was stunned, injured, and not confident in his army, yet he still would not relinquish command to someone certainly more physically capable than him, if not strategically.
    Wouldn't he have spent most of his time in a bed? Meaning most of the information he was basing his decisions on could have potentially come 2nd, or 3rd hand.

    He must have had quite the ego before this battle.

    He was a pretty competent commander in smaller battles then? It must have come from success somewhere.

    He was a fairly vigorous and pugnacious commander, constantly telling anyone who would listen that his superiors were fools and that he should be given command. Lincoln wanted rid of Burnside and a few of McClellan's troublemakers and gave Hooker his wish. He wrote Hooker a note counselling him that he should ease off on the bullshit.

    Hooker's plan was actually pretty sound. He just didn't follow through at the vital moment and then let himself be led by Lee.

  • ThomamelasThomamelas “Three films a day, three books a week and records of great music would be enough to make me happy to the day I die.” Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Zaylenz wrote: »
    To bring this back to battles and tactics and such, earlier in the thread someone mentioned the South was hoping that England and France would break the Union Blockade and come to the rescue of the South. From my understanding, while this would have been possible early in the war, as the war went on this became less and less likely. This is mainly because the British and French navies were actually afraid of the US Costal naval forces near the end of the war, because the Union Navy was actually as big or bigger than the British navy and French navy by that point. I wasn't able to find any links showing the size of the various navies of the world during this time, as my Google-Fu has failed me. It's been a while since I studied the Civil War, so I'm wondering if anyone can confirm my memory.

    It's a kind of weird period in naval history. So it's not the easiest one to get numbers for because ship classes changed kinda quickly. But the reason the English didn't break the blockade was political rather then military. They really didn't consider the South to be viable till around the second Battle of Bull run, and they were pissed at the North for the Trent affair early in the war. Also, they had a bunch of panics about France and it kept them focused in Europe.

  • LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Bogart wrote: »
    Notwithstanding questions about Lee's moral character, I'm interested to know in what regard he's held by Americans. Is he held up as the foremost military genius the country's produced?

    As I recall, Patton and Eisenhower are held in better regard than Lee.

    There's also Grant and Sherman, who are held in some esteem for being the only bastards to say "hey, if we fight gentlemanly the South kicks our asses. The hell with that business". Sherman, in particular, is a very controversial figure for his "total war" methodology, but is held in regard because he basically broke the South with his campaign.

  • BogartBogart Mr. Lady Anime Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Bogart wrote: »
    Notwithstanding questions about Lee's moral character, I'm interested to know in what regard he's held by Americans. Is he held up as the foremost military genius the country's produced?

    As I recall, Patton and Eisenhower are held in better regard than Lee.

    There's also Grant and Sherman, who are held in some esteem for being the only bastards to say "hey, if we fight gentlemanly the South kicks our asses. The hell with that business". Sherman, in particular, is a very controversial figure for his "total war" methodology, but is held in regard because he basically broke the South with his campaign.

    Eisenhower? Really? As a diplomatic man in charge of an alliance of generals who often couldn't stand each other he was probably peerless, but in terms of military skill I didn't think he'd be put up to the level of a Patton or Lee (or even Grant, for that matter). He was just what was needed at the time, but I don't think he'd be able to stand up with the best combat generals of WWII (like Patton, Rommel, or Zhukov).

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    At Eisenhowers level of command soothing fragile ego's of primadonna generals was his main job. Everything else is a subordinate's job.

    Also I second Grant/Sherman their "fuck this chivalry bullshit, this is war!" was acctualy a lot more honest than Officer and a Gentleman espoused by Lee. The Civil war was a WAR not a tea-party.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Bogart wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Notwithstanding questions about Lee's moral character, I'm interested to know in what regard he's held by Americans. Is he held up as the foremost military genius the country's produced?

    As I recall, Patton and Eisenhower are held in better regard than Lee.

    There's also Grant and Sherman, who are held in some esteem for being the only bastards to say "hey, if we fight gentlemanly the South kicks our asses. The hell with that business". Sherman, in particular, is a very controversial figure for his "total war" methodology, but is held in regard because he basically broke the South with his campaign.

    Eisenhower? Really? As a diplomatic man in charge of an alliance of generals who often couldn't stand each other he was probably peerless, but in terms of military skill I didn't think he'd be put up to the level of a Patton or Lee (or even Grant, for that matter). He was just what was needed at the time, but I don't think he'd be able to stand up with the best combat generals of WWII (like Patton, Rommel, or Zhukov).


    Perhaps not, but the strategic brilliance of Normandy gets Eisenhower a lot of credit. Patton is well regarded for North Africa and the Bulge, but it's held as fairly certain that he didn't have a great strategic mind, at least on the scale that Eisenhower did. Patton was a fantastic tactician and commander, but did suffer from not quite getting the 'big picture' like other major commanders did.

    Also, Eisenhower won whereas Lee lost. Seems to put Eisenhower a bit higher up the totem pole.

    Though, it must be said, I really do not get the fetishistic idolatry of Lee in the south. Granted, I'm a northerner, but Lee is such a sacred cow that it's a little astonishing.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    90% of what I know about the Civil War I learned playing Civil War Generals II. Amongst other things, that it is almost impossible for the South to actually win.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Bogart wrote: »
    Notwithstanding questions about Lee's moral character, I'm interested to know in what regard he's held by Americans. Is he held up as the foremost military genius the country's produced?

    Not the foremost.

    His skill is honored, but I think what allows that skill to be honored is the perception that he personally was honorable and was doing what he did for the most idealistic reasons rather than being simply a pro-slavery hypocrite who held state's rights up like a fig leaf.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Bogart wrote: »
    Notwithstanding questions about Lee's moral character, I'm interested to know in what regard he's held by Americans. Is he held up as the foremost military genius the country's produced?

    I'd go with Winfield Scott.

    For 50 years Scott managed to avoid the common pitfall of always trying to fight the previous war. As opposed to Patton, who as late as 1933 - after he'd commanded tanks in WWI - was still arguing for horse-mounted cavalry over armor and mechanized infantry. Talk about wanting to fight the last war, Patton wanted to go back a century and fight Napoleon. Even the Duke of Wellington called Scott "the greatest living soldier" after Scott's brilliance in the southern Mexican campaign (where Lee served under him), in which he defeated Santa Anna multiple times and defied Wellington's earlier predictions that the campaign was doomed.

    In 1859 Scott told President Buchanan to strengthen federal forts in the South in case of rebellion (Buchanan ignored him). Yet even though he was a Virginian like Lee, Scott never betrayed the US. Once the ACW started, he came up with the plan to blockade Southern ports and divide the Confederacy along the Mississippi, which was widely ridiculed, yet would become the blueprint for a drawn-out Union victory when most Americans were predicting the Civil War would end quickly.

    And if it wasn't enough that Scott could fight you at the battle (Chippewa), campaign (Veracruz), and theatre (ACW) level, he was also a kickass diplomat. He played key roles in settling the South Carolina nullification crisis and twice avoiding war with British Canada. Heck, some Mexicans wanted to make him King during his time as military governor.

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    You know, for a country with such a huge military tradition, U.S. doesn't have many famous military minds - at least on the scale of people like Napoleon, Alexander the Great or Hannibal, etc. I've always thought it was odd, but maybe it's because the country became independent so late on that they weren't able to get into revolutionizing tactics early on.

    People always mention Washington, and while he is as famous as the people mentioned above, I don't think he was on their level when it comes to military command.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    You know, for a country with such a huge military tradition, U.S. doesn't have many famous military minds - at least on the scale of people like Napoleon, Alexander the Great or Hannibal, etc. I've always thought it was odd, but maybe it's because the country became independent so late on that they weren't able to get into revolutionizing tactics early on.

    People always mention Washington, and while he is as famous as the people mentioned above, I don't think he was on their level when it comes to military command.

    Cornwallis on the other hand was a military genius

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Dis' wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Also the British and French needed most of their ships just to defend their colonial empires, so it's not like they could just send over their whole fleet to America for a few years. The Union navy, on the other hand, would be pretty much all available to protect their coast.

    What? Colonial empires didn't work that way, the bulk of a nations fleet was kept guarding the home coast and nearby waters or in storage ready to be used against attackers and/or anyone who looks at them funny. The empires were patrolled by small detachments and gunboats - the First Opium War for example involved less than 50 British ships. Its much better to have overwhelming defence and home that you can deploy elsewhere if necessary than to be caught with your pants down.

    Not so much for actual warfare (it's not like any country at that time could feasibly invade England) but for protecting their merchants, collecting tariffs, enforcing the ban on the slave trade, and just generally as a show of force to any colonies that might think about rebelling.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    You know, for a country with such a huge military tradition, U.S. doesn't have many famous military minds - at least on the scale of people like Napoleon, Alexander the Great or Hannibal, etc. I've always thought it was odd, but maybe it's because the country became independent so late on that they weren't able to get into revolutionizing tactics early on.

    People always mention Washington, and while he is as famous as the people mentioned above, I don't think he was on their level when it comes to military command.
    I think the reason is that most of America's wars are relatively recently, and the scale of warfare has become so huge that it's hard for one brilliant general to really shine in a war the way Hannibal or Alexander did. I can't think of any military leader from the last 200 years that can be really be compared to them, can you? Maybe Napoleon, and he just barely squeaks in under the 200 year mark.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    You know, for a country with such a huge military tradition, U.S. doesn't have many famous military minds - at least on the scale of people like Napoleon, Alexander the Great or Hannibal, etc. I've always thought it was odd, but maybe it's because the country became independent so late on that they weren't able to get into revolutionizing tactics early on.

    People always mention Washington, and while he is as famous as the people mentioned above, I don't think he was on their level when it comes to military command.
    I think the reason is that most of America's wars are relatively recently, and the scale of warfare has become so huge that it's hard for one brilliant general to really shine in a war the way Hannibal or Alexander did. I can't think of any military leader from the last 200 years that can be really be compared to them, can you? Maybe Napoleon, and he just barely squeaks in under the 200 year mark.

    Fame and ability don't always go together. Just compare Hannibal or Napoleon to say, Subutai or even Scipio the Elder. Scipio beat Hannibal and still isn't as well-known. Subutai's Mongols took on anything Europe could throw at them - Hospitallers, Templars, Teutonics - and beat them all easily. The only thing that stopped him was that the Mongols didn't have absentee voting.

  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    You know, for a country with such a huge military tradition, U.S. doesn't have many famous military minds - at least on the scale of people like Napoleon, Alexander the Great or Hannibal, etc. I've always thought it was odd, but maybe it's because the country became independent so late on that they weren't able to get into revolutionizing tactics early on.

    People always mention Washington, and while he is as famous as the people mentioned above, I don't think he was on their level when it comes to military command.
    I think the reason is that most of America's wars are relatively recently, and the scale of warfare has become so huge that it's hard for one brilliant general to really shine in a war the way Hannibal or Alexander did. I can't think of any military leader from the last 200 years that can be really be compared to them, can you? Maybe Napoleon, and he just barely squeaks in under the 200 year mark.
    How about Erwin Rommel?

    And we've had a few great generals. Eisenhower comes to mind, and Norman Schwarzkopf wasn't half bad himself.

    MWO User Name: Gorn Arming
    StarCraft II User Name: DeadMenRise
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    One reason the US hasn't had that many "great generals" is probably because in the last 150 years (Mexican war on say) our wars have either relied heavily on being a much bigger gorilla (Mexican war, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, WWI with the 100K fresh US troops a month flooding Europe, first Gulf), against insurgencies (Vietnam, Second Gulf, Afghanistan) and/or part of a broad coalition (Korea, WWII). Unless one counts the ACW or Pacific theater of WWII the US has never gone mono a mono against a like opponent which usually helps

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Unless one counts the ACW or Pacific theater of WWII the US has never gone mono a mono against a like opponent which usually helps

    You probably shouldn't count the Pacific war, America had three times the manpower, six times the industrial base, and buckets of allies and resources. America's inevitable victory was, as Yamamoto predicted, a matter of time and political will.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    One reason the US hasn't had that many "great generals" is probably because in the last 150 years (Mexican war on say) our wars have either relied heavily on being a much bigger gorilla (Mexican war, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, WWI with the 100K fresh US troops a month flooding Europe, first Gulf), against insurgencies (Vietnam, Second Gulf, Afghanistan) and/or part of a broad coalition (Korea, WWII). Unless one counts the ACW or Pacific theater of WWII the US has never gone mono a mono against a like opponent which usually helps

    Well, Santa Anna (Mexican War) thought he was good. He used to go around all the time proclaiming himself the "Napoleon of the West." Then Scott kicked his face in.

    All in all I think the US has produced its fair share of generals considering the short time the country has existed. It's a lot easier to pick out great generals from a country's history when there's 500 or 1000 or 2000 years to pick from, whereas the US has less than 250.

  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    BubbaT wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    One reason the US hasn't had that many "great generals" is probably because in the last 150 years (Mexican war on say) our wars have either relied heavily on being a much bigger gorilla (Mexican war, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, WWI with the 100K fresh US troops a month flooding Europe, first Gulf), against insurgencies (Vietnam, Second Gulf, Afghanistan) and/or part of a broad coalition (Korea, WWII). Unless one counts the ACW or Pacific theater of WWII the US has never gone mono a mono against a like opponent which usually helps

    Well, Santa Anna (Mexican War) thought he was good. He used to go around all the time proclaiming himself the "Napoleon of the West." Then Scott kicked his face in.

    All in all I think the US has produced its fair share of generals considering the short time the country has existed. It's a lot easier to pick out great generals from a country's history when there's 500 or 1000 or 2000 years to pick from, whereas the US has less than 250.

    True.

    Though again, I'm pretty sure the longer-lasting countries have plenty of same-level generals as well...they are just overshadowed by military prodigies like Napoleon.

  • SkutSkutSkutSkut Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I had a great great grandfather that was involved in some big battle, either Bull Run or Gettysburg, I forget. I'll have to ask my grandpa next time we go visit him.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Bogart wrote: »
    Your understanding of the era of the Napoleonic Wars is limited, and that's being generous. And it's not as if the American Civil War didn't have a good deal of marching towards the enemy in a line (Pickett's Charge, for example, or the advance against the stone wall in Fredericksburg).

    Speaking of Fredericksburg, Burnside (and to a lesser extent Sumner) would have made a good villain in a Chuck Norris movie. "Hey, we have like 50 ninjas. Should we attack him all at once, and try to concentrate our force to overwhelm him? No, let's attack him 1 at a time so he can concentrate on each of us individually."

    How to not assault a fortified position

  • DelzhandDelzhand motivated battle programmerRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    The Civil War was kind of like a golden age of infantry warfare, before vehicles and planes and shit came and ruined everything. The tactics were simple and easy to understand, but basically revolved around sending a bunch of guys to go kill some other guys. It was basically just like a big paintball match except people died.

    Well, paintball matches rarely jumpstart new literary eras. The age of American Realism probably would have never happened without the Civil War. Also, how do you manage to show up and say something stupid in every thread I read?

    jk0Btsj.png
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Delzhand wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    The Civil War was kind of like a golden age of infantry warfare, before vehicles and planes and shit came and ruined everything. The tactics were simple and easy to understand, but basically revolved around sending a bunch of guys to go kill some other guys. It was basically just like a big paintball match except people died.

    Well, paintball matches rarely jumpstart new literary eras. The age of American Realism probably would have never happened without the Civil War. Also, how do you manage to show up and say something stupid in every thread I read?
    Gift, Curse, etc.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.