RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Apollo11 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 3:14:33 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Do you own FoF or AACW; I have both.


I don't. But I will have upcoming one... [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"



Bearcat2 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 3:56:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2

... My ancestor was condemned to death and lost his land and possessions to the British before the revolutionary war; he fled to Pa, where he found refuge. 


Was he a Quaker?


No; he was a Huguenot



Joe D. -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 4:30:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2

... My ancestor was condemned to death and lost his land and possessions to the British before the revolutionary war; he fled to Pa, where he found refuge. 


Was he a Quaker?


No; he was a Huguenot


The C of E probably treated French Calvinists as alien Puritans.



Joe D. -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 4:34:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Do you own FoF or AACW; I have both.


I don't. But I will have upcoming one... [:)]


Grigsby's game? It looks very different from the above Wargamer award winners; let us know what you think of it.



John 3rd -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/6/2008 7:06:14 PM)

To say that the Civil War fascinates me is a massive understatement!

I have never found a strategic Civil War game that I liked.  The Talon Soft (now Matrix) games of the Battleground Series were wonderful however!  I played them many times...



JeffroK -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 10:24:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

That's interesting about Sherman. Most objective studies mark Sherman as a brilliant strategist as well as tactician, and the first person to really comprehend and implement strategic warfare's implications for economic production. Sherman's march was the B-17 raid of the civil war. In the south he is reviled. In the north, he's revered and there was a song celebrating Sherman's 1864 slash through the south that was still part of the piano repertoire for intermediate learners that was still being widely used when I was a boy.... "Marching through Georgia."


Shermans March through georgia was into a vacuum, much like patton into france, his 2nd slash northwards from Charleston had more effect on the war by directly threatening the rear of R E Lee's Army.

PS, was he the only General who allowed a city to burn, not bloody likely!



John Lansford -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 11:11:45 AM)

IIRC, Jubal Early burned Carlisle Barracks and much of the surrounding town when he threatened Washington in late 1864...

As for Sherman, it's precisely that he had no significant opposition in front of him until he reached North Carolina that his actions are even now so reviled in the South.  Sheridan was certainly as bad as he was in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864-65, but it's Sherman who everyone remembers.  Destroying defenseless towns and allowing his army to run roughshod over the population while paying lip service to controlling them tends to create long memories among the surviving people...



Canoerebel -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 5:09:34 PM)

Sherman was a great strategist and as best I can tell a good man.  (He is also the source of one one of my favorite quotes; when urged to run for the U.S. Presidency sometime after Grant's term, he declined, saying, "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.")

Sherman's march through Georgia (my home state) achieved important military objectives.  He proved that the South was an empty shell, seriously reduced Southern morale, persuaded a large number of citizens - and soldiers to boot - that the war was a lost cause, disrupted Southern communications, disrupted the harvesting and transportation of crops (Georgia was an important Southern "breadbasket" and Sherman's march came just after harvest and wreaked mayhem on that process); and delivered Savannah, one of only a few remaining Southern ports, into Union hands.

Sherman knew the way to win a war was to break a country's will to fight.  The sooner the war ends the better.

Disclaimer:  I am a native, loyal, and proud Southerner and my ancestors fought for the Confederacy (primarily 3rd Georgia Infantry Regiment), so don't go thinking I'm some Yankee apologist or Sherman fan.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 7:24:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Slavery was not in the economic interests of Northern small farmers and mechanics--it sucked their standard of living down. It decreased the GDP, since it created a large class of people who were--by definition--not consumers, and it impoverished the free people who competed against them in the economy. So elimination of slavery was in their economic self interest.

The North and South were not in economic competition. The South's cash crops were cotton and tobacco. These crops could not be effectively grown in the North. The South sold goods to the North and Europe. If anything the North and Europe had economic incentive to see that the South operated as efficiently as possible, as this would keep the cost of resources low for them.

Also, the average Southerner was also a small farmer. Plantation owners represented a small portion of the southern population.



mdiehl -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 7:30:43 PM)

quote:

As for Sherman, it's precisely that he had no significant opposition in front of him until he reached North Carolina that his actions are even now so reviled in the South.


I am reminded of Will Muny's (Clint Eastwood) line in "Unforgiven." "Well, he should have armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend". If the CSA felt that Sherman's march was objectionable, they should have put an army in his way.



John Lansford -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 7:47:23 PM)

mdiehl, no doubt the South would have had they had anything to confront him with, but Georgia and South Carolina had alread been stripped of any units to feed the war in Virginia and further west.  Not until Sherman reached North Carolina were there enough units found to put a force in front of him worthy of the name.



Joe D. -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 7:48:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


I am reminded of Will Muny's (Clint Eastwood) line in "Unforgiven." "Well, he should have armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend ...


My favorite lines from that move were:

Will Munny: It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.

The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess he had it coming.

Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.



greg_slith -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 8:24:48 PM)

I just finished the American Front series of books by Turtledove.  They are alternative history, so not everybody's cup of tea.  Basically the CSA won the war, stayed allied with Britain and France while the USA allied itself with Germany.  When the 1st World War started the CSA and the USA went after each other again.  Imagine the Civil War fought with early 20th Century weapons. 

Mogami, I haven't seen you around lately.



mikemike -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 8:24:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

As for Sherman, it's precisely that he had no significant opposition in front of him until he reached North Carolina that his actions are even now so reviled in the South. Sheridan was certainly as bad as he was in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864-65, but it's Sherman who everyone remembers. Destroying defenseless towns and allowing his army to run roughshod over the population while paying lip service to controlling them tends to create long memories among the surviving people...



Sherman's march through Georgia was literally child's play compared to what routinely happened during the Thirty Years' War in Germany. In some regions stuff like this happened once or twice every year for thirty years on end. Large parts of Germany lost two-thirds of their population. Central Europe as a whole took a century to recover from that war. And all this happened ostensibly for the defence of the True Religion - both sides claimed that, but it was in reality a contest for power initially fought along religious boundaries. There was a lot of slaughter in the name of God, it could go really hard on you if you went to the wrong kind of church. I think the Thirty Years' War is the main reason why many Western Europeans, and especially Germans, get really uneasy when some politician invokes the name of God too often in connection with a war. We got burned by that - literally. The eyewitness reports about happenings in the Thirty Years' War let the "suffering" of the South look like an episodic unpleasantness. Read what Tilly did to Magdeburg and compare it with what happened to Savannah - absolutely no comparison.



John Lansford -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 8:32:13 PM)

I got through the first couple of those Turtledove novels before realizing he was just putting US figures and locations on a slightly revised version of real history. IMO he was a hack writer with no imagination at all.



greg_slith -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 9:01:27 PM)

I don't know about "hack". The Morman revolt and the southern Red uprising were interesting what ifs. I did make me break out AACW again[:)]. Now if I could only mod SPADs and Albatos'. And Gas.[:D]



Mike Scholl -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 9:10:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

mdiehl, no doubt the South would have had they had anything to confront him with, but Georgia and South Carolina had alread been stripped of any units to feed the war in Virginia and further west.  Not until Sherman reached North Carolina were there enough units found to put a force in front of him worthy of the name.


No.., Actually Hood had taken the Army back to Tennesee to try and strike Sherman's lines of communications. Where he ran into the sad fact that Sherman had more "LOC Garrison Troops" than Hood had army. Whole operation went to Hell at Franklin and Nashville with the Army of Tennesee being all but obliterated.

Another Jeff Davis screw-up, taking the Army out of the hands of J.E. Johnson and giving it to Hood.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 9:39:03 PM)

Hood was worse, but it wasn't like Johnston had run out of reasons for retreating. He never said to Davis that he would fight for Atlanta. He never could find the right position to hold. In his defense, one probably didn't exist, especially after Sherman had learned his lesson at Kennesaw Mt. One thing Davis did know (like Lincoln with Grant) was that Hood would fight until his remaining appendages had fallen or been blown off.

From my reading Sherman's march through South Carolina was far more devastating than his march through Georgia, for obvious reasons.



John Lansford -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 9:45:44 PM)

Mike, what you said doesn't contradict what I said; Hood had already taken his army north to cut Sherman's supply line, failed, and then decided to go further north to threaten Nashville in the hopes to draw Sherman back with him.  Sherman decided to strike out on his own through Georgia and South Carolina and left Thomas to handle Hood. 

Disagree about Johnston; had Davis left him in command, he would have kept right on retreating in front of Sherman.  Once Johnston reached Atlanta he had run out of good defensive positions, and he had already informed Davis he was going to abandon the city without a fight.  All Johnston would have accomplished would have been to preserve the army, but he wouldn't have stopped Sherman and he would have still surrendered in NC as he did anyway.



panda124c -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 9:52:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Slavery was not in the economic interests of Northern small farmers and mechanics--it sucked their standard of living down. It decreased the GDP, since it created a large class of people who were--by definition--not consumers, and it impoverished the free people who competed against them in the economy. So elimination of slavery was in their economic self interest.


In the South slavery was quickly becoming a non viable economic system, mainly due to the Royal Navy's blockade of slave ports which cause the prices to rise. Thus only the very rich could afford to have and maintain slaves (it was cheaper to hire an Irishman).
Also it was not in the economical interest of the North to see the South industrialize to replace slave labor with machines unless, of course, the machines were bought from the North.

There was not a single or simple reason for the Civil War, states rights as opposed to strong federal government was a very big part of it all. So we see today our strong central government The South showed all the problems with strong states rights and a weak central goverment.

Up until the Emancipation Proclamation, Union troop were confiscating slaves just like they confiscated property and then putting them too work.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 9:53:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Hood was worse, but it wasn't like Johnston had run out of reasons for retreating. He never said to Davis that he would fight for Atlanta. He never could find the right position to hold. In his defense, one probably didn't exist, especially after Sherman had learned his lesson at Kennesaw Mt. One thing Davis did know (like Lincoln with Grant) was that Hood would fight until his remaining appendages had fallen or been blown off.



Thing was that Joe Johnson wasn't going to get his men killed in hopeless attacks. Davis, Bragg, Hood and the like seem to have remembered the Mexican War to much, and assumed that all that was needed to chase the Yankees back home was a good spirited bayonet charge. Bragg launched 11 of them at the Hornet's Nest, Hood left his Brigade "dead on the field" at Antietam. Johnson learned much quicker from Seven Pines that defense was definately the stronger tactic in the Civil War. He may have lacked Lee's ability to "get into the head" of his opponants, but no one ever had an easy time pushing an army commanded by Johnson around. Nor did he squander troops. Had he remained in command, Sherman would never dared cut loose from his supply lines on his "March to the Sea". It would have been the same slow slog as it was to get from Chattanooga to Atlanta. And a lot more Southern troops would have seen the end of the war.



John Lansford -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 10:26:53 PM)

Johnston had the great advantage of terrain in northern Georgia as he retreated down to Atlanta.  All those ridges and if he was outflanked out of one position, there was always another one just a few miles further south.

Once he got to Atlanta, though, he ran out of defensible terrain.  He knew it too, which is why he was already preparing to abandon Atlanta when he was sacked.  Once he lost Kennesaw Mountain he knew his days of keeping Sherman's army limited to specific approaches was over; Sherman could use his superior numbers and keep him on the run just as Grant did Lee after his Petersburg defensive lines collapsed.  Johnston would have retreated to Savannah or Charleston and either surrendered there or just kept right on retreating until he joined Lee at Petersburg (one of his suggestions, only with Lee coming south to join with him).



Bombsight -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 10:32:43 PM)

Re: the border between Texas and Mexico.
The agreement that Santa Anna made following his capture at the Battle of San Jacinto was texas independence with a border at the Rio Bravo (Rio grande River). This was a "stretch goal" by Sam Houston. The historical border between Texas and Coahuila/Nuevo Leone during Spanish rule and continued into Mexican rule was the Nueces River. This agreement led to a disputed stretch of land between the two rivers. It was in this stretch of land that the opening battles of the Mexican War (Palo Alto and Resaca de Palma) were fought. This disputed stretch of land probably prompted that noted Whig congressman, Abraham Lincoln, to make his "spot resolution".

Sixth generation Texan speaking.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 11:06:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pbear


Up until the Emancipation Proclamation, Union troop were confiscating slaves just like they confiscated property and then putting them too work.


How does that work when slavery is illegal in the North?



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 11:08:23 PM)

Scattershooting:

Agreed, Johnston would never had made the hopeless attacks such as Malvern Hill or Franklin. Hood seemed to have 'lost it' when he realized how close he had come to trapping Scholfield. I would disagree that his flanking moves around Atlanta, espcecially Peachtree Creek, were hopeless (reminiscent of his ANV days). He had the same problems as every other commander of the AoT, a lack of loyalty and trust in his corps commanders (something he had contributed to in bringing down Johnston).

Agreed, Johnston was one of the first Civil War generals to figure out the strength of the defense.

Shiloh came before Seven Pines so I don't think its fair to criticized the tactics used there, if there were any actually used. It was the first major battle out west and AS Johnston was to blame as well.

I would blame Lee not Hood for getting his brigade slaughtered at Antietem. Hood didn't get an incompletely concentrated ANV caught w/ a river to its back, only one bridge and generally poor defensive terrain. The fighting was desperate for a reason, Hood was outnumbered anywhere from 3-1 to 5-1 in the cornfield. His counterattack on Hooker's corps, confused him enough to 'no mas' the rest of the day.

Interesting 'what if' speculation about maneuvers after the loss of Atlanta. He certainly couldn't have done worse. I'd put that in the 'never could happen' category though; Davis hated Johnston too much to leave him in command after losing Atlanta imo.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/7/2008 11:16:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: pbear


Up until the Emancipation Proclamation, Union troop were confiscating slaves just like they confiscated property and then putting them too work.


How does that work when slavery is illegal in the North?


IIRC there was slavery in Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't change anything in the Union states, just in those areas captured in the CSA. Lincoln successfully avoided setting a specific policy about what to do with captured slaves for commanders to follow until the EP. What happened varied from commander to commander w/ Lincoln retaining a form of a veto over their actions.

Forgot to add that Lincoln had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. Only by constitutional amendment after the war was slavery abolished. He only was able to issue the EP by grossly distorting his war powers granted to him under the Constitution.



John Lansford -> RE: Historial Reputations/Accounts True? (4/8/2008 12:49:32 AM)

Johnston was inherently unable to do anything but stand in a defensive position and fight; the few times he tried offensive maneuvers were either desperate attacks such as at Bentonville, or to try and take advantage of defensive positions that split up the attacking force.  He had zero grasp of strategy, however,  and his inability to get along with other generals and his political bosses made him impossible to work with.  He was forever building strawmen for why he couldn't hold a particular position, usually due to a perceived lack of supply or shortage of men, and his tactical handling of a battlefield appeared to be mostly based on finding the quickest route back to the next defensive position.

No, I'm not impressed with him as a general.  Any Civil War era general with any defensive ability at all and the terrain advantages he had in northern Georgia should have been able to delay Sherman as well as he did. 



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125