Posted on 10/11/2008 11:27:10 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
So, the gist of the story is that on flat, hard ground with no natural protection for the soldiers, casualties were higher. Do I have that right? Did it take years of study to figure that out?
Tried by War:
Abraham Lincoln
as Commander in Chief
by James M. McPherson
Audio CDLincoln and Chief Justice Taney:
Slavery, Secession, and
the President's War Powers
by James F. Simon
:’)
I guess that explains Lee’s retreat?
bttt
|
|||
Gods |
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
Sounds like geography more than geology. As for making geography work for him there was no better Civil War General than Stonewall Jackson.
On the History Channel I saw a show where they investigated the importance of terrain at Bloody Lane. They showed the line of sight from the road as one person walked the Union line of advance. They topped a hill where they were raked with gunfire, but then descended and advanced under protection of another hill. When they topped that they were right on top of the Confederate position, and overran it.
This is what they concluded, at any rate.
I prefer to think of it as the Battle where one set of my grandparents killed the other set. Not in time to prevent me, of course.... ;o]
So... the brilliant scientists are saying that in a battle, if you take the high ground and dig in your casualties will be much lower.
Who knew?
Next they’ll be telling us that if you station you troops where you can pour enfilading fire onto the enemy you can will battles.
Note also, no mention of Fredericksburg, Balls Bluff, etc. But then, no bias intended on the part of the impartial academics, I’m sure.
“So, the gist of the story is that on flat, hard ground with no natural protection for the soldiers, casualties were higher. Do I have that right? Did it take years of study to figure that out?”
I was asking the same.
Yeah, FWIW, I’d agree with that, his masterpiece being Chancellorsville (which was also his swan song); there were other generals perhaps similarly gifted though, like Sherman; NB Forrest comes to mind (although he seemed to be gifted on a lot of different types of ground :’); Meade has been vilified (mostly starting back at that time, due to a Senator from Michigan who disliked him, plus Meade had very poor relations with the press) but Meade was a great counterpuncher, took the best available ground at Gettysburg, and made Lee come to him for battle; for that matter, Lee and his staff at Fredericksburg had been in the same situation, but of course, versus an inferior opposing general in Burnside.
Wow. Grandparents? Not great-grandparents? Or shouldn’t I have pointed this out? [blush]
I could have said “great-grandparents” but then I would have had to add several “greats.” It’s just easier to say “my grandparents.” You can do the math any way you want to! LOL!!
Who knew? ;’)
Whew. ;’) I have no Civil War veterans in the ancestry (Rev War, yes); (just one great) great-grandfather was a bit too old for the war, and had an old leg injury. Two or three of his brothers-in-law served though. :’)
Welp...I have some in all the wars that have affected this continent, since before “white men” came.
I have a grandfather (with the “greats”) who was lost at sea in the War of 1812.
The list is quite long, but if I can gather up the documentation, I can join DAR. I have some of it...I just have to get off my laurels and compile it all, then send it in.
There is also an organization for the War of 1812, and one of these days....(man...maybe tomorrow, I’ll quit procrastinating.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.