- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't agree. Strategy is planning. Tactics is strategy in motion. This can appy to any portion of a battle or campaign.
Maybe, but I still think IF he fought it, he still would have fought it with the reckless abandon he fought most of his engagements.
That is not how the military uses it. Once the enemy is in sight, it's tactics(broad comment, used to illustrate not to be 100 % true).
I don't know about that. Yes, Hood changed after Gettysburg... similar to Ewell after Groveton, but Hood was always a gambler and preferred a head on approach to tactics. Good for a brigade commander, Disasterous for an army commander.
I don't agree. Strategy is planning. Tactics is strategy in motion. This can appy to any portion of a battle or campaign.
I agree, but, Hoods battle plan at Franklin made wreckless abandon look like extreme caution. Forrest was so pissed off over the plan that he said something to the effect of, "If you were a whole man, I would beat you within an inch of your life...goddamn you!". I can't remember his exact words, but I think that's close.
It could have been worse, I guess; Bragg could have still been in command.
most of you know me as a Clausewitz disciple...as he put it, strategy is the employment of battles to end the war, for what that is worth.
Yeah, good point. If they had left Johnston in command, they would have still been unable to stop Sherman, but the army would have been saved.
Clausewitz was kinduva **** nut, too. Not completely, but purdy much. I like his ideas on maneuver, but that's where he and I part company.
Yeah, good point. If they had left Johnston in command, they would have still been unable to stop Sherman, but the army would have been saved.
That's fine, pretty much everyone who reads vom kriege interprets it differently and come out with different judgments. I for one found it difficult but very insightful and applicable to modern day warfare as it pertains to strategy/policy/politics.
Joe Johnston often led to the rear. I find that to be his major fault. He was fine defensibly, but otherwise Johnston had a history of remaining in place or pulling back early.
Maybe we would be better off if the Confederacy had won the war... I mean, assuming that the end result was two countries, not one that was controlled by the Confederate constitution. Think about it, all the industry and science was concentrated in the north, all the international influence, and most of the infrastructure, food, and water. I have no doubt that the international community would have shunned the CSA for its continued practice of slavery, and it would have been far poorer than it was.
The USA would have continued on its path, becoming a world power, and would likely have outsourced a lot of labor to its poor cousin to the south, much as we presently do with Mexico. And we would have a USA untarnished by the modern republican party, meaning no Reagan corporatism, no religious right, and no Bush wars...
Who knows, maybe we'd have managed a better relationship with the Soviets and wouldn't have screwed up the Middle East. Modern terrorism might never have existed.
Damn, now I wish we'd just let the south go, and saved ourselves all this trouble...
Joe Johnston often led to the rear. I find that to be his major fault. He was fine defensibly, but otherwise Johnston had a history of remaining in place or pulling back early.
If Albert Sydney Johnston hadn't died at Shiloh, the entire war in the west would have been very, very different, IMO.
Maybe we would be better off if the Confederacy had won the war... I mean, assuming that the end result was two countries, not one that was controlled by the Confederate constitution. Think about it, all the industry and science was concentrated in the north, all the international influence, and most of the infrastructure, food, and water. I have no doubt that the international community would have shunned the CSA for its continued practice of slavery, and it would have been far poorer than it was.The USA would have continued on its path, becoming a world power, and would likely have outsourced a lot of labor to its poor cousin to the south, much as we presently do with Mexico. And we would have a USA untarnished by the modern republican party, meaning no Reagan corporatism, no religious right, and no Bush wars...Who knows, maybe we'd have managed a better relationship with the Soviets and wouldn't have screwed up the Middle East. Modern terrorism might never have existed.
Damn, now I wish we'd just let the south go, and saved ourselves all this trouble...
The North. Preservation of the Union was the most important factor, and slavery was nothing short of a flagrant hypocrisy in a country that claimed to offer and value liberty.
Well, I just spent 2 hours reading this thread from start to finish. I knew very little about the minutiae of the causes of the war or the strengths and weaknesses of the main military players. Now I do. This has been a wonderful, impressive advertisement for the strength of argument, knowledge and intelligence of DP members.
I'm sorry that I don't have the historical education to contribute, but I did want to express my appreciation for a terrific read and for the manner of debate that all posters (El Cid excepted) have shown here. Congratulations! Sincerely.
Now, would anyone be interested in a thread on The Wars of the Roses, the Spanish Civil War, or the Hundred Years' War? I'd be able to contribute a lot more to those.
:applaud:applaud:applaud
The righteousness of the South would have eventually put the debauchery of the North on full display. Materialism and recognition aren't everything. The world the North built is Soddom and Gommorah.
Does owning people count as materialism?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?