|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 24, 2017 1:08:32 GMT
Got just over 50% the way thru Custer and the Sioux, Durnford and the Zulus by Paul Williams. Save your time and money, I give it 1 in 5 stars. The writing and editing are sloppy, often using wrong dates that may or may not be corrected later. Examples are stating that the Black Hills campaign occurred in 1875 (later corrected to 1874 with no acknowledgement of error) and the Rosebud fight occurring on July 17, 1876. I lost it when the author started wildly stating as fact his conjectures of Custer's actions and statements after turning up the bluffs and insisting that Cooke's note to Benteen intended for him to go to Reno. Of course no proof is offered. At least he stayed away from the "drunk, coward" nonsense.
Discussion of LBH and Isandlwana along with comparisons is a worthy topic of discussion. Unfortunately this book should be avoided as a resource but may have merit as a bird cage floor liner or for wrapping catfish.
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 24, 2017 2:48:03 GMT
You obviously have no respect or concern for birds and dead catfish. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 24, 2017 3:27:41 GMT
Perhaps Count Rumpravager von Buttswatter would enjoy receiving this authors monthly newsletter. Only problem is that Williams targets Custer for blame.
As to your unfair accusation that I hate birds and dead fish I respond with a resounding "Nonsense!!" Birds in a cream sauce and blackened catfish are to be admired! 😉
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 24, 2017 4:29:05 GMT
Thanks for that. When I saw the Count's name I damned near swallowed an ice cube.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 24, 2017 12:27:16 GMT
Thanks for that. When I saw the Count's name I damned near swallowed an ice cube. Glad to add a little humor to the discussion. I've returned the e-book at the 52% mark. Got tired of the drivel. Most of my Isandlwana knowledge comes fron online articles, Wikipedia.org and the films "Zulu Dawn" and "Zulu." Can anyone recommend a truly outstanding book on the subject? Thanks to all in advance. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 24, 2017 12:40:00 GMT
"Washing of the Spears" is the only one I could recommend, however my go to place for comprehensive accounts would be to Chard or Justin. They would I expect be the ones with the best answers for you.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Apr 24, 2017 12:51:08 GMT
"Washing of the Spears" is the only one I could recommend, however my go to place for comprehensive accounts would be to Chard or Justin. They would I expect be the ones with the best answers for you. Thank you! Best, David
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 25, 2017 16:37:08 GMT
That was the critical error. That is why you choose where you camp carefully, dig it in, no matter how long you intend to stay, half a day, a month, whatever/ You have chosen a position that can be defended. You have improved it to strengthen that defense. Why in the name of Christ Almighty then would you venture outside the area YOU have chosen for battle, only to give battle on someone else's terms. I don't care if you are stopping for a pee break, you had better be prepared to defend nature's toilet. These things are always important, but especially important if you are fighting Gauls, Britons, Zulus, or Sioux, whose only great advantage is in numbers. Good armies learn what it takes to fight outnumbered and win. The others just die. Would you agree that Grant should have ordered his command to fortify their positions at Shiloh prior to the battle? Grant and Sherman spent many a word explaining this omission after the battle and War. Reasons such as: 1) Troops were so green better to have spent all the time in training and not digging; 2) Using fortifications would have weakened the fighting spirit of the soldiers; 3) Digging in would have shown fear of the Rebel Army. The idea of bravery being impaired by use of fortifications certainly died, along with hundreds of good men, at the stonewall below Marye's Heights at the battle of Fredericksburg in December of 1862. The Union's Irish Brigade was bleed white by the Confederates and yet still both sides made charges across open fields until their was the beginning of a change in the summer of 1864 with Grant's Overland Campaign. Sad very sad that commanders could not adapt to the fast changing tools of modern warfare. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 25, 2017 17:43:04 GMT
I would not be in agreement with any commander, regardless of time and place, who upon stopping does not fortify and improve his position, and the improving would be a continuous process as long as the position was occupied. Grant and Sherman were serving up cover your butt Victorian Era bullshit in an attempt to deflect criticism. Training is important. Green they were. No frigging excuse. Dig and then train.
I am as familiar with Fredericksburg as I am with my own back yard. The assault on Marye's Heights was an unforgivable blunder. Burnside had the right idea in making a river crossing and driving Barksdale out of the town. After that he should have built up a sufficient force, enough to hold the town from counterattack. While he was doing that put another, but stronger, force across opposite Hamilton's Crossing and rolled up that ridgeline east to west.
The ACW is not unique in the annals of warfare with regard to commanders not fully understanding the technology in their hands. Learning curves in warfare are always smeared with a great deal of blood.
The only guy who I can recall during the ACW who understood that technology made the defense the strongest element of warfare was Longstreet. You see it repeatedly from 62 to 64. Yet, outmoded ideas and Victorian values trumped all of his repeated warnings. We were still doing this silly shit in the Span Am, and WWI.
If one wishes to begin to understand how eventually changes came about in how battles were fought there are no better places to start that with "On Infantry" by Lieutenant Colonel John A. English, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, and "Infantry In Battle" by Colonel George C. Marshall, Commandant, U.S, Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia. Then see how these concepts evolved with "Death Ground" and "Towards Combined Arms Warfare" whose authors escape my memory at the moment.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Apr 25, 2017 18:58:42 GMT
Would you agree that Grant should have ordered his command to fortify their positions at Shiloh prior to the battle? Grant and Sherman spent many a word explaining this omission after the battle and War. Reasons such as: 1) Troops were so green better to have spent all the time in training and not digging; 2) Using fortifications would have weakened the fighting spirit of the soldiers; 3) Digging in would have shown fear of the Rebel Army. The idea of bravery being impaired by use of fortifications certainly died, along with hundreds of good men, at the stonewall below Marye's Heights at the battle of Fredericksburg in December of 1862. The Union's Irish Brigade was bleed white by the Confederates and yet still both sides made charges across open fields until their was the beginning of a change in the summer of 1864 with Grant's Overland Campaign. Sad very sad that commanders could not adapt to the fast changing tools of modern warfare. Regards Dave Dave, True. In addition in the book "Lee and Grant" by Gene Smith, he states that the battle he regretted the most was Cold Harbor. Be Well Dan
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 27, 2017 2:54:02 GMT
Dan I have not read Mr. Smith's book but looks like it will be on my short list to get. Cold Harbor was the price the Union paid for having Grant command the armies. His hit them where they were was the change the North needed in strategy came with his Overland Campaign. After 40 plus days of combat, Grant's army was worn down physically and the morale of the Army of the Potomac was rock bottom. The most eyeopening aspect of this battle was the behavior of Union soldiers on the morning of June 2 when they sewed their names in their uniforms after hearing of the coming assault. This fatalistic behavior indicate to me these men were just numb period. Death/Life mattered not just move on. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 27, 2017 3:38:10 GMT
Nonsense. Sewing their names on their uniforms was in widespread practice, since solders on both sides realized shortly after First Manassas that this was not going to be a cakewalk and in war people get killed real dead, real fast.
Forty days of combat. The other side was also in forty days of combat and they were losing.
The way Grant conducted that campaign assured that there would not be two hundred thousand more Americans dying in 1865 and 1866 or 67.
If a soldier is not numb, he is not in combat.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 27, 2017 10:05:35 GMT
Were they numb or had they reached down further than they ever thought they could and put it on autopilot. That description does not come from me, but much wiser person. Training/experience kicks in.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 27, 2017 14:11:57 GMT
Sometimes, everyone, including me, looks at the American Civil War in terms of romance and pageantry. It was nothing of the kind. I was war, a place where there is no romance, no pageantry, just death, maiming, destruction, and most of all individual and collective despair.
Grant saw it for what it was, and was determined to apply, unlike his predecessors, unrelenting pressure on the enemy, and not allow them a moments peace to recover, until they were completely defeated. I believe, in fact I know, he was correct. He made some tactical errors, Cold Harbor being one, but he accomplished what he set out to do. Was Cold Harbor any worse than Malvern Hill, or the third day at Gettysburg? No. Neither of these two accomplished anything. Cold Harbor did.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Apr 28, 2017 0:44:25 GMT
I have never harbored a view of the War being romantic, heroic perhaps as a child but not now. Cold Harbor is the only battle where soldiers sewing names and labels in the coats has been mentioned. I suppose 40 days of campaigning watching the wagons of wounded heading north had to adversely affect the troops. The initial turn south by Grant was widely cheered but the bloom was off the lily by June 3, 1864.
Malvern Hill and the 3rd day at Gettysburg were brutal and bloody but look at the schedule of the Overland Campaign leading up to Cold Harbor:
The Wilderness May 5-7 Spotsylvania Court House May 8-21 Yellow Tavern May 11 North Anna May 23-26 Totopotomoy Creek May 28-30
Constant contact and fighting for both sides had to be numbing for any human. QC you know well that I have no military training or much knowledge but I do know people. The conditions, water quality and availibility, seweage, dietary concerns, filth and disease had to reduce the effectiveness of any soldier and create mental problems. Patriotism had run its course and they wanted to know when others would have a chance ot serve their country. Confederates had their backs to the wall, while fighting behind barricades, but they ranout of fortidude and patriotism along with starvation. Regards Dave
|
|