Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 18th, 2012, 12:09 PM   #501

USMC's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 492

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopeforus View Post
Nor did I. Yankee made the statement Lee didn't win on Northern territory
and I just made a comment Early did. I would never post such an insane
idea that Early was a better general than Robert E. Lee.
Like your Avatar, in my humble opinion, it seems to me that General Jackson was one of their best. General Lee was an excellent General and better than most of what the Union had to work with, but if General Jackson had lived to fight in the future battles, I think the dynamic of the Confederate cause on the battlefield would have been different. Would the south had won their independence? That I do not know because of the attrition rate favored the Union, but I do not believe the battle of Gettysburg would have been fought, by Lee, the way it was had General Jackson been there. This, of course, is just my humble opinion.
USMC is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 18th, 2012, 12:11 PM   #502

Hopeforus's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Where I retired.
Posts: 209

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyriddick View Post
But it's a significant failure. The point is that Jackson was inconsistent.
I guess you mean 7 days.

Quote:
You can not assume that he would have been "on" at Gettysburg.
Percentage wise, he was capable of taking the hill.

Quote:
Moreover, if you look at Jackson's greatest victories they were victories of movement.
What do you think the march to Gettysburg was, a sleigh ride?

Quote:
There was no significant movement at Gettysburg. It was an old-fashioned meat-grinder.
You are correct after the first day.

Quote:
Having Jackson would not have been decisive for Lee at Gettysburg.
If you say so.

You are not making any sense.

2 day march to Manassas.
Marches from one end of the Valley to the other.
From McDowell to Front Royal, and 2nd Winchester?
It may behoove you to study some books concerning Stonewall Jackson.

Last edited by Hopeforus; November 18th, 2012 at 12:42 PM.
Hopeforus is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 12:54 PM   #503

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,575
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
Like your Avatar, in my humble opinion, it seems to me that General Jackson was one of their best. General Lee was an excellent General and better than most of what the Union had to work with, but if General Jackson had lived to fight in the future battles, I think the dynamic of the Confederate cause on the battlefield would have been different. Would the south had won their independence? That I do not know because of the attrition rate favored the Union, but I do not believe the battle of Gettysburg would have been fought, by Lee, the way it was had General Jackson been there. This, of course, is just my humble opinion.
What's the basis of your belief that Gettysburg would have been any different?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopeforus
You can not assume that he would have been "on" at Gettysburg. Percentage wise, he was capable of taking the hill.
Assuming you're referring to the first day of Gettysburg, what percentages and which hill? And given that Jackson was weak in meeting engagements, you could make a reasonable assumption that he'd be less than his best at Gettysburg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopeforus
What do you think the march to Gettysburg was, a sleigh ride?
Ewell made excellent time to Gettysburg, so there's no reason to assume this would have made a difference.

Last edited by Viperlord; November 18th, 2012 at 12:59 PM.
Viperlord is online now  
Old November 18th, 2012, 01:37 PM   #504

Hopeforus's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Where I retired.
Posts: 209

One reason I don't like 'what ifs'.
They always end being a pi$$ING contest over a dead man.
That is my opinion as all the other post I made on this thread.
Hopeforus is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 03:45 PM   #505

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,575
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopeforus View Post
One reason I don't like 'what ifs'.
They always end being a pi$$ING contest over a dead man.
That is my opinion as all the other post I made on this thread.
Odd that you don't like them, since you were perfectly happy to discuss what-ifs in this thread before your premises were questioned.
Viperlord is online now  
Old November 18th, 2012, 04:27 PM   #506

USMC's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 492

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopeforus View Post
One reason I don't like 'what ifs'.
They always end being a pi$$ING contest over a dead man.
That is my opinion as all the other post I made on this thread.
I know what you mean.
USMC is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 04:37 PM   #507

USMC's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 492

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
What's the basis of your belief that Gettysburg would have been any different?


.
I have no concrete proof one way or the other, that is why I said this was just my personal opinion here. If I had to answer why I have that opinion, then I would say that I believe General Jackson had a talent as a tactician on the battlefield. He was a seasoned officer with a weird light around him, similar to Lee.
USMC is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 04:42 PM   #508

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,575
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
I have no concrete proof one way or the other, that is why I said this was just my personal opinion here. If I had to answer why I have that opinion, then I would say that I believe General Jackson had a talent as a tactician on the battlefield. He was a seasoned officer with a weird light around him, similar to Lee.
I would merely point out that even devoted admirers of Jackson, such as historian Robert L. Krick and Jackson's biographer James Robertson, admit tactics was not at all his strong suit. One of his greatest weaknesses was a tendency to commit troops piecemeal during battle; notably, at Brawner's Farm, Jackson was stopped cold by a outnumbered rookie brigade, despite having the element of surprise. He also bungled at Kernstown, and at every engagement during the Seven Days. There's also a near-loss at Cedar Mountain to an inferior force on his record. In another tactical mishap, he and his subordinates decided a certain piece of ground at Fredericksburg was impassable; Union forces used that same ground to flank his line and initiate a desperate struggle for Prospect Hill, which Jackson won only through weight of numbers. Jackson's talent was in operational movements.
Viperlord is online now  
Old November 18th, 2012, 04:56 PM   #509

USMC's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Indiana
Posts: 492

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
I would merely point out that even devoted admirers of Jackson, such as historian Robert L. Krick and Jackson's biographer James Robertson, admit tactics was not at all his strong suit. One of his greatest weaknesses was a tendency to commit troops piecemeal during battle; notably, at Brawner's Farm, Jackson was stopped cold by a outnumbered rookie brigade, despite having the element of surprise. He also bungled at Kernstown, and at every engagement during the Seven Days. There's also a near-loss at Cedar Mountain to an inferior force on his record. In another tactical mishap, he and his subordinates decided a certain piece of ground at Fredericksburg was impassable; Union forces used that same ground to flank his line and initiate a desperate struggle for Prospect Hill, which Jackson won only through weight of numbers. Jackson's talent was in operational movements.
Well, I guess I stand corrected. Maybe we can compare his losses versus Grant's?
Possibly that is why he tended to commit troops "piecemeal".
USMC is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 05:02 PM   #510

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,575
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC View Post
Well, I guess I stand corrected. Maybe we can compare his losses versus Grant's?
Possibly that is why he tended to commit troops "piecemeal".
Why did he commit troops piecemeal, and what does Grant have to do with this? I was questioning the basis of the assertion that Jackson was a great tactician. If you're attempting to refer to casualty numbers, your example seems odd in this context; piecemeal commitment of troops would tend to lead to higher losses. Consider Dwight Eisenhower's classic remark on how it's less costly to take a hill with a division than a brigade. There's plenty of examples of this from the Civil War as well.

Last edited by Viperlord; November 18th, 2012 at 05:07 PM.
Viperlord is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
lee, robert


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Robert E. Lee WHAT IF mister Speculative History 8 May 10th, 2009 05:17 AM
Robert E. Lee kahn American History 33 March 20th, 2009 07:40 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.