| Author |
 Topic  |
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
 Posted - 12/20/2007 : 12:44:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ericb
Another example would be the Confederate Arm in the Civil War. One could say they were fighting the Napoleonic War (lots of maneuvering and trickery) which served them well so far as the Union Army was fighting the same war but when the Union Army under Grant and Sherman started fighting World War 1 the Confederates didn't stand a chance.
I think you’re spot on with this point. Robert E. Lee in particular was a very Napoleonic general, but remember that the maneuvering and trickery was meant to bring about a battle of annihilation with the Army of the Potomac. He thought that if he could destroy one Federal army, then the North would give up on the war. The thought that Grant and Sherman pre-figured the grand strategy of World War I is a good one too. Credit can be given to both for realizing that winning would require mobilizing all resources available to bring pressure to bear all across the Confederacy rather than continuing to fight a bunch of independent maneuvering campaigns in hopes that one might score a knock-out.
I’m going to really P.O. people by saying this, but the Union had the far better generals at the end of the Civil War. Robert E. Lee was a great tactician (although how much of that was due to Stonewall Jackson is a big question), but he never really understood grand strategy. If anything he was always goofing up any attempt by the Confederacy to develop a grand strategy by refusing to release his men to fight were they would do the most good. The other butternuts to a man – with maybe the exception of Johnston – were pretty mediocre at best. |
 |
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
|
|
Neville
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Spain
1590 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 3:00:06 PM
|
To ericb and R. Dittmar:
I'm no expert, but I think I still have my History lessons fresh.
1) On the subject of regular armies and feudalism:
Ericb is right. The cost of an army was considered so high armies were created and disolved whenever war demanded them. During peacetime soldiers would live off their war spoils (if any), then used to become part of criminal class.
One of the many reasons the Spanish empire crumbled was that the many military campaigns we were involved in took their toll on the finances. Can't remember the details, but at several points the different kings had to rely on foreign bankers to avoid bankrupcy.
2) On cavalry: Cavalry was never, as far as I know, the base of any medieval army. It wasn't always useful and was harder to maintain than infantry. Most importantly, cavalry was restricted to nobility, the only ones who could afford to buy and maintain a horse and its equipment, which was the obligatory requisite to become a knight.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight#The_medieval_institution
Of course, as centuries went, cavalry became more open to other classes, but during feudal times this is how it was. |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2007 : 3:25:31 PM
|
The thing about China, it's culture, and war is that we are constantly reminded of how the Chinese invented or discovered many things. Gunpowder, rocketry, early firearms.
That's all fine and dandy, but their culture did not allow for some upwardly mobile, independently minded individual to seize upon those early inventions and improve them. Modernize them. Such things would upset the established social pecking order, so they were suppressed.
It's even worse with the Ottomans, whose non-existant banking system and subservience to the Sultan effectively quashed investment in new ideas. At Lepanto the Sultan's forces still relied heavily on archers. Firearms were common in the world. Everyone knew how to make them. The Sultan could certainly afford them. But he purposefully decided NOT to arm his men with them wholesale. This was a cultural limitation, not a logistical or financial one. In contrast, European armies passed them out like candy.
Historians often make the case that the Church and/or nobility often sought to suppress technology that threatened the social order, longbowmen, crossbows, firearms, etc., but banning such technology was never seriously considered by anybody.
EricB, I don't know that I agree with your assessment of German strategy after 1941 being one of trickery and subterfuge. When they had the forces for it, they attacked. Kursk in 1943 was hardly an example of trickery and subterfuge. Or of hit and run guerrilla style tactics. The Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes, while kept a secret, was a grand attempt at driving a wedge back to Antwerp and throwing the Allies into disarray. |
|
|
|
Ericb
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
648 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2007 : 05:57:06 AM
|
quote:
EricB, I don't know that I agree with your assessment of German strategy after 1941 being one of trickery and subterfuge. When they had the forces for it, they attacked. Kursk in 1943 was hardly an example of trickery and subterfuge. Or of hit and run guerrilla style tactics. The Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes, while kept a secret, was a grand attempt at driving a wedge back to Antwerp and throwing the Allies into disarray.
Carrier, I should have been more clear, I was only refering to their strategy for 1939-1941. While they didn't use hit and run guerilla tactics they did depend on trickery and subterfuge in the early days of the war. The whole point of Blitzkreig was to sow fear and confusion among an enemy who had more men and material than they did. Once the Germans got stuck in the more positional warfare of 1942 and beyond their days were numbered. All three cases, Japanese, German and Confederate you have powers who fought enemies who were, on paper at least, more powerful then they were so they had to fight wars of quick strikes that would demoralize the enemy who would then cease to want to fight. All three were fighting wars that they only could win if they could convince their enemies not to want to fight it. Once their enemies were geared up to win, there was simple no way for the Japanese, Germans or Confederates, to win their respective wars.
"I reserve the right to look as well as be boring." - Robert Fripp |
|
|
|
Greenhornet
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1791 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2007 : 1:46:55 PM
|
R. Dittmar
I answered this before. The Federals (They were fighting for the domination of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, many of them admitted that and Garribaldi refused to fight for them because of it) had burned and starved the South out.
They had over 150,000 repeaters and breech-loaders, a ratio of one in ten for their army. The South had a ratio of one in FORTY-EIGHT for theirs. Also, the South could not reload, buy or make a SINGLE rimfire round for the repeaters.
At it's peak, the Federal army numbered almost a million men, The confederates numbered les than 200,000.
In one battle, Grant sent several artillery batterys home because they took up too much room on the field.
90% of the war was fought in Southern territory and whatever the Federals could not consume or carry away, they destroyed. When Sherman went "marching through Georgia", he was not doing anything unusual.
Early in 1865, our diplomats offered to OUTLAW SLAVERY if England would recognise us as a nation. (They were told it was too late)
By The Way, Sherridan was attached to the Prussian army durring the Franco-Prussian war and he told them that they were being TOO GENTLE with the French! His campagne in the Shennendoa Valley was required reading in the German war college well into the 20th century. Guderan and Rommel learned their "scorched earth" tactics from the Yankees.
"The Queen is testing poisons." CLEOPATRA, 1935 |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2007 : 3:00:08 PM
|
"Our" diplomats, Greenhornet?
I've read that the Confederacy even approved a measure to raise more troops by offering slaves their freedom if they fought in the Army.
It was too late for that, as none of the black troops made it to the battlefield in time to make a difference.
The problem with that measure is that it was a tacit acknowledgment that an elected centralized government DID have the authority to grant freedom to slaves, who were considered private property. That was the main gripe that sparked secession, so abrogating it that way really made the whole thing kind of pointless.
A book I read called "Dixie Betrayed" noted that by the end of the Civil War the Confederacy had done many of the things the Northern states had done which sparked secession in the first place. |
|
|
|
R. Dittmar
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
420 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2007 : 3:21:44 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Greenhornet
R. Dittmar
I answered this before. The Federals (They were fighting for the domination of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, many of them admitted that and Garribaldi refused to fight for them because of it) had burned and starved the South out.
They had over 150,000 repeaters and breech-loaders, a ratio of one in ten for their army. The South had a ratio of one in FORTY-EIGHT for theirs. Also, the South could not reload, buy or make a SINGLE rimfire round for the repeaters.
At it's peak, the Federal army numbered almost a million men, The confederates numbered les than 200,000.
GH,
I hope I didn't too literally p@#* you off because I suspect we are both big Civil War buffs. I've just come to believe over the years of reading about the war that the Confederate cause was not a lost one. There's no doubt that the South was ill-equipped and under-manned but you can say the same thing about the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and both armies were fighting in what was essentially the same cause.
Just to point up what a close run thing the whole affair was right up until the end, consider what might have happened had Davis not replaced Johnston with Hood before the battle of Atlanta. As cautious as Johnston was, there's no doubt in my mind that he would have dug in around Atlanta and forced Sherman into besieging the city. With Grant stuck at Richmond and Sherman stuck at Atlanta, there would have been a good chance that Lincoln would have lost the election and McClellan then would have ended the war.
And even after Atlanta was lost because Hood almost broke his army attacking Sherman, he still could have regrouped to harass Sherman's supply lines. The "march to the sea" might be looking pretty dumb in retrospect had Hood followed on Sherman's heels constantly attacking detached units when he could. Hood was the one who decided to march in the opposite direction and give Sherman free rein to tear up the country. |
|
|
|
Greenhornet
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1791 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2007 : 12:46:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Citizen CarrierA book I read called "Dixie Betrayed" noted that by the end of the Civil War the Confederacy had done many of the things the Northern states had done which sparked secession in the first place.
The South had secceeded because the north, particularly New england, had repeatedly violated the US constitution. "Bleeding Kansas" was a result of the Republican Party refusing to recognise their defeat in the Kansas state elections, They held new "elections" where onlt Republicans were alowed to vote, declaired themselves the winners, set up a new state cpaital and declaired war on anyone who disagreed.
quote:
Originally posted by R. Dittmar
GH,
I hope I didn't too literally p@#* you off because I suspect we are both big Civil War buffs.
No, just "mildly annoyed" because I have to write that stuff again.
quote:
I've just come to believe over the years of reading about the war that the Confederate cause was not a lost one. There's no doubt that the South was ill-equipped and under-manned but you can say the same thing about the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and both armies were fighting in what was essentially the same cause.
Thanks for saying that, but the American Collonies had material, finacial and political support from other countries, including the all-important recognition as a country. (Or at least a legitamate rebelion)
quote:
Just to point up what a close run thing the whole affair was right up until the end, consider what might have happened had Davis not replaced Johnston with Hood before the battle of Atlanta. As cautious as Johnston was, there's no doubt in my mind that he would have dug in around Atlanta and forced Sherman into besieging the city. With Grant stuck at Richmond and Sherman stuck at Atlanta, there would have been a good chance that Lincoln would have lost the election and McClellan then would have ended the war.
The record shows that Lincoln only approved of Sherman's plan after he was assured that his troops could vote in the field and that the votes would be counted by Republican officers. (Make of that what you want, I don't want to start a new argument)
quote:
And even after Atlanta was lost because Hood almost broke his army attacking Sherman, he still could have regrouped to harass Sherman's supply lines. The "march to the sea" might be looking pretty dumb in retrospect had Hood followed on Sherman's heels constantly attacking detached units when he could. Hood was the one who decided to march in the opposite direction and give Sherman free rein to tear up the country.
After Atlanta, Sherman was living off the land. Before the Siege of Atlanta (there was one), Forrest was begging his superiors to let him attack Sherman's supply lines, but he was only alowed to do so AFTER Atlanta. Sherman even wrote a letter (To Grant, I think) saying that he would SUPPLY Forrest if he went into Tennesee. This from the man who said that they should "get" Forrest, even if it killed 10,000 of their men "and bankrupt the Treasury". |
|
|
|
Citizen Carrier
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
322 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2007 : 2:24:07 PM
|
Your assesment of "Bleeding Kansas" leaves out the numbers of non-Kansas residents who crossed over from Missouri in order to vote it in as a pro-slavery state. During the election of a delegate for the territory to Congress, less than half the votes cast were by registered voters.
At one location, only 20 ballots out of the 600 cast were made by legal residents. At the time, Kansas had 2900 registered voters. Around 6000 ballots were cast. The proslavery forces won.
The Missouri men repeated this electoral performance on March 30, 1855 when the state legislature was elected. A staunchly proslavery legislature was the result. After a week in Pawnee, KS that legislature moved to Shawnee Mission, KS on the Missouri border and started passing proslavery legislation.
It is unlikely that Kansas would have went slavery in those elections without the interference of carpetbaggers from Missouri. The climate and soil of most of Kansas is not suitable to the kind of agriculture that most benefits from slave labor. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked