Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Though McDowell's army was disrupted and panic stricken there was a garrison in reserve in Washington they could have rallied behind.? Furthermore, after Jackson turned the tide, his army and Beauregard's were exhausted from the fighting and were too green to fight an offensive on such a short notice.? There was absolutely no chance for them to pursue.? They did well enough to eek out the victory they did.? You must remember that the first half of Bull Run they took a severe licking.? Washington was never even in their sights I assure you.
My post was more of a what if they could have pursued, could Bull run have been a turning point? And many believe that there was a window of oppurtunity for nearly two weeks after the battle while the federal army was reorginzing that the south could have went on the offinsive and possibly have been sucsessful.Johnston and Beauregards armies totaled about 30,000 men, of which 17,000 bore the brunt of the fight. Holmes ,Ewell and Early saw no action at all, while some, including Longstreet saw very little. So there were some reserves. But yes it was probably impractitical,what with the weather and all.It's something historians will be arguing about for generations as they already have.? But like I said it was a what if.The simple fact of the matter was, if the south could not win the war early on they wernt going to win it at all. Fewer resources and men. Grant used that to his advantage and the outcome was inevitable.
The Longest Day
Isnt that the one who's credits read like a who's who of hollywood legends?What about Apocolypse now?
One could also argue that reconstruction was a tool for the radical republicans to punish the south, (something they figured Lincoln would never do) Something needed to be done, the south was in ruins. It was a constant tug of war with those who wanted, like Lincoln, to lift the south back to its feet and reunify the country and those who wanted to punish the south. Â
Phid, a ver good book to read is Stephen Ambroses; Undaunted Courage. It really is one of the best on L&C.
It's about a war with Russia over oil (go figure) he describes the KGB doing most things regular army would, from movment of troops and equipment to actual combat, mostly covert kind of stuff rather than front line fighting, But it surprised me as well because like you I thought they were the equivelent of our FBI or CIA.
Most of my study and reading deals with things before 1900. Twentieth century is more of a minor intrest to me. But I have to say I never really thought in terms of how FDR's terms in office changed the federal government, but your right it did take on a different personality after FDR. Do you think it was his policys alone, or the depression and the war afterwards that caused the change?
I don't think that everything in the Old Testament is meant to be taken literally.?
True, there are many things that are symbollic. What examples of history do you think are not litteral?
I think you summed it well. It takes more then one 'thing' to make a leader. He has to have the intelligence, the personality, and the desire. But it does make a difference when his time is. There would heve been no Elvis Presley if he had been born in 1835 rather then 1935. Hitler (born 1889) and history were right for each other, it was waiting for him. People and events, time, and the road not taken, there are an infinate number of ways humanity and histroy could have gone.
I think that charisma is definitely a part of it.? I also think that it requires an element of military intelligence (Napoleon), as well as timing (Hitler).? This is an interesting topic, and I think I'll make a new thread on it.
All good points, you can have all the charisma in the world but if you dont have the mind for it or history is not ready for you, then it wont matter.
