Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I would say Nathan Bedford Forrest, Earl Van Dorn, John Bell Hood, and Leonidas Polk were the four worst Confederate generals. Benjamin Butler, Ambrose Burnside, and the duo of Pope and Halleck were the worst Union generals.
The most conservative generals both sides were Joeseph E. Johnston C.S.A. and George B. MacClellan U.S.A.
The biggest primadonnas were George Pickett, Albert Sydney Johnston, J.E.B. Stuart, P.T.G. Beauregard, and Richard Taylor for the South........Phil Sheridan, James MacPhereson, Winfield Scott Hancock, Joe Hooker, and George Custer (still a colonel during the war but he was a primadonna if ever there was one) for the North.The Domino Theory was very logical and perhaps even prudent during that time. However, retrospect shows us that it was based on false assumptions of Soviet/Chinese cooperation, and the geo-strategic value of Southeast Asia. I have never criticized the theory based on these false assumptions because they were understandable fears that simply could not be wished away. It is not fair for historians to judge McNamara and the others for missing the mark. We had no way of knowing that the Soviet Union was battle fatigued from World War II, and that the Chinese resented the Soviets as competitors. We couldn’t afford to take chances while the missile gap narrowed and the Chinese modernized. We had to make grave choices and we made them. Where the criticism comes in is in the execution of the war in Vietnam itself. Here is where stupidity and political manuvering doomed us to failure. We as a nation are still recovering from the scars from that dark time in American history.
Sounds like a good editorial for the NJQ Online Journal. Anybody want to tackle it? I would submit the thesis that America today resembles the vision Alexander Hamilton had and he would be standing today stroking his chin with satisfaction at the power grabs exhibited by the Federal government. He felt a strong central government would serve an urbanized culture better than the agrarian society Jefferson longed for. Jefferson and Andrew Jackson would probably be mortified by our present government. Tough topic this is. 😀
The American government would have understood the seriousness of what a Hitler dominated Europe would mean. I think FDR would have steadily made his case to go to war with the American people, and at the same time, he would have been picking a fight with Hitler. It wouldn’t have taken much to pee off the Nazis leader. FDR was nobody’s fool, and Churchill would have made darn sure America got involved one way or another. The Japanese just made it so much easier to go to war.
I was asking because I had actually forgotten the difference. I believe the phalanx was a more modern variant of the hoplite formation, but I can’t recall. I was hoping someone could clear this up. I know the ancient Greeks used the hoplite, but the Romans used the phalanx. Anyway, the hoplite formation helped the Greeks defeat the Persians who still advanced in loose rows of infantry. The hoplite formation was the human equivalant to the tank. It required discipline, and to insure the formation held, the leader of the troops positioned himself in the interior corner where first contact would be made. This assured that he would have to fight, and more than likely would die before the battle was over. The idea was that no one was too important to fight, and also the most glory would go to the one in the most dangerous spot. It was a guaranteed trip to the Elysian Fields for the one who held that position. 😀
Okay, let’s do it this way. What advantage did group formations give infantry over non formation infantry in the ancient world. Also, why would the commanding officer of a hoplite formation be placed on the interior corner of the front line? ❓
Sounds like a good idea for an editorial for the NJQ Online Journal. Perhaps the two of you could write different editorials on this subject describing two different aspects of this thesis. I would be eager to see how each of you approaches this subject. 😀
H.H.:
Anytime you want to talk Civil War issues with me or Phid you can also find us at this location:
http://www.oldmandonnie.proboards75.com/index.cgi?
Phid and I swap traffic between our two forums. I wanted to do a history board, but Phid's covers everything and for me to do one is redundant. But my board is good for other types of discussions such as guns and gun history, politics, general discussion etc.....we'd love to have you over there if you're interested. We're a free speech forum so pull up a chair and speak your views with confidence. 😀That’s what Jefferson Davis thought too, but it was not the case. England could get its cotton (much of better quality) from India. The North was a competitor to England, but also a greater market for her goods. The South didn’t have the buying power of the North, and England had no reason to favor one combatant over the other. Now had France joined in on the South’s side via Maximillian in Mexico, things might have been different, and a victory at Gettysburg may or may not have been enough to convince France from getting involved. However, if France had gotten involved on the side of the South, England would surely had gotten involved, too but on the side of the North as England would naturally have taken a side diametrically opposed to France.
Quickly, no the American colonists were not technically justified in their revolt. George III and Prime Minister Grenville were guilty of nothing more than trying to pay the Empire’s bills in the aftermath of the Great War for Empire…(The French and Indian War in North America and the Seven Years War everywhere else). The times of Salutory Neglect had drawn to a close as the ministers of King George began to realize Americans had been smuggling and trading their surpluses with Britain’s competitors and enemies such as the French and the Spanish. Britain began to enforce its Mercantilist trade policies more strictly to control trade routes and the flow of goods. Americans had become spoiled and took for granted that London would keep looking away. But when London began to pay attention to the books again, Americans resented it. Of course there were other controversies such as establishing an Anglican Bishop in North America and the decision to keep a standing army in North America. These and other things (even though they were legal and well within the Empire’s rights) did not set well with the colonists.
You may have something there Phid. Alas, the dating of the Egyptian dynasties are problematic. Historians cannot even agree when Moses led the Children of Israel out of Egypt much less go back further to earlier periods. We’re still learning more and more.
Your theory holds merit. Upton Sinclaire’s The Jungle is another example of how the monotony of the new capitalism killed the spirit and broke the body. However, God reinvigorates his servants in even the worst of circumstances. I really do not believe Capitalism and Industrialism are to blame for godlessness…..the cause is found in men’s hearts. Where man fails to see hope, he fails to see God, and when he fails to see God, he inevitably fails himself.
I agree, well argued. However, Albert Speer did keep the German army well supplied for the most part. The distribution of the supplies was not always prioritized as it should have been. Furthermore, the German soldiers who fought on the eastern front were generally led by generals who were in Hitler’s doghouse and so morale and tactical acumen were not always up to par.
I’ll have to admit, that until reading Skydiver’s post, I never realized we were that close to victory. I always thought that we just settled in to the status quo and were searching for a way out of the war to save face. I wonder if the Nixon Administration even knew how close were actually were. Do you think we would have stepped up our bombing campaign had we known? Was Operation Rolling Thunder that effective? If what you say is true, Skydiver, that makes me even more bitter about that war. 😡
