home

Author Topic: American Civil War  (Read 3317 times)

Offline Feanor Fire Heart

  • His Royal Highness
  • Posts: 4571
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #75 on: October 19, 2009, 10:31:14 PM »
yeah but they also fought for the north and south during the war too.
Something we as painters and hobbyists should always remember:
“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
― Jake the Dog

Offline Union General

  • Posts: 884
  • Kicking butt since 1863.
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #76 on: October 19, 2009, 10:34:36 PM »
yeah but they also fought for the north and south during the war too.

They did!  :happy:

-The General
I like your thinking  Mr. General  what a Genius

Offline wissenlander

  • Pure of Heart
  • Posts: 7470
  • The original Graf of Brennenburg
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #77 on: October 19, 2009, 10:35:51 PM »
If you were on the continent, your ethnicity probably participated in some fashion. :wink:
Me and Wissenlander had babies!

not together.

finding photographic evidense that Wiss smiles is going to be hard...

Offline Feanor Fire Heart

  • His Royal Highness
  • Posts: 4571
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #78 on: October 19, 2009, 10:38:50 PM »
even Quebecois?  :icon_wink:
Something we as painters and hobbyists should always remember:
“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
― Jake the Dog

Offline Union General

  • Posts: 884
  • Kicking butt since 1863.
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #79 on: October 19, 2009, 10:59:14 PM »
I like your thinking  Mr. General  what a Genius

Offline Feanor Fire Heart

  • His Royal Highness
  • Posts: 4571
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #80 on: October 19, 2009, 11:11:33 PM »
ooo and little known fact, after the war some confederates left the US and established their own colony in Brazil.  Where they still live today with the southern lifestyle (minus the slave plantations).

haha I remember watching "road rules" when I was a young punk and they stopped somewhere to participate in a ACW reenactment.  They evenly distrubuted the team on both sides.  Oddly enough the black guy was on the confederates.  He voiced his concerns in to the "private monologue cam" that he was afraid they would treat him badly.  He was quite shocked how open they were to him and he made a lot of life time friends.  Moral of the story, its just renactment, not a hate group haha.  I guess its a classic case of "dont judge a book by its cover"
Something we as painters and hobbyists should always remember:
“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
― Jake the Dog

Offline jlutin

  • Posts: 3239
  • In Development Now
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #81 on: October 20, 2009, 01:48:51 AM »
A good part of the Union Army was fightin the redskins at the same time.
Obama has spent more time playing golf than meeting with Republicans, his Deficit Commission, his Job Council and his Cabinet COMBINED.

Offline Big Time

  • Posts: 629
  • Resident alcoholist
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #82 on: October 20, 2009, 05:11:08 AM »
Battles:

Is it just me or does anyone else think Grant should not have engaged Lee at the Wilderness. Numerical superiority does not constitute a reason to launch an attack through a nightmare terrain like that. Grant's aggression helped speed the war to it's conclusion, but like Pickett's Charge, throwing away troops like that borders on the immoral.

Question: How awesome is Brigadier Gen. John Buford? Answer: Gettysburg, Day One and Very Awesome. Granted the Confederates were blinded by a lack of recon (Stuart's fault) but Buford capitalized on that and put up one hell of a defense.
Work is the curse of the drinking classes.
-Oscar Wilde

Offline Feanor Fire Heart

  • His Royal Highness
  • Posts: 4571
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #83 on: October 20, 2009, 05:15:57 AM »
I remember in middle school I read the book "johnny skedaddle" its about a drummer boy from the new pork bower boys who was at the battle of the wilderness.  Then lived in the south after the battle.  Yeah the wilderness was a bad idea.  Wasnt it also the first time an explosive land mine was used?

buford was awesome.
Something we as painters and hobbyists should always remember:
“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
― Jake the Dog

Offline Gustavus Magnus

  • Posts: 582
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #84 on: October 20, 2009, 05:46:54 AM »
The general concept of the moving through "The Wilderness" in itself wasn't a bad idea. Lee initiated the attack and Grant wasn't about to disengage when he had a significant superiority in numbers.  Had he withdrawn, he would have appeared to be as gutless as McClellan.
Grant knew that he had the manpower to press the attack, which would reduce Lee's limited men and resources and not let Lee regain the intiative, which Lee was repeatedly able to do with Grant's predecessors.  On the first half of the second day, the Union was doing extremely well and had pushed Lee back. They just did a very poor job of protecting either flank and ended up having to fall back.  If Longstreet hadn't arrived in time, Lee likely would have been forced to withdraw and the battle would have been a clear victory for Grant. 
On a side note, this area was bad luck for the Southern generals.  Longstreet was shot by his own troops only a few miles from the spot where Jackson had been shot the year before by his men.
When the attack through the Wilderness didn't work, Grant shifted a bit to try at Spotsylvania Court House, and when that didn't work, he moved to Cold Harbor.  Of the three battles, Cold Harbor was the mistake and Grant frequently admitted and regretted the mistake.

I'm hoping that Walmart does not end up building a store right next to the Wilderness battlefield.
Gustavus Magnus, of Bögenhafen; Mercenary Captain, Explorer, Spy, Scout, and Outrider.

Offline jlutin

  • Posts: 3239
  • In Development Now
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #85 on: October 20, 2009, 12:04:54 PM »
Grants strategy was always to find the enemy, engage him and while he's engaged use his unengaged units to go around, flank or cut him off from his support.  Not just a calvary strike (ala the confederates) but an in force, supported, infantry flanking move.  The kind of force that can flank, then occupy.

I don't think Grant would have passed up any chance to engage the enemy, no matter how unattractive.  The battle might go bad, but while he is "losing" the battle, the enemy is faced with pressing an attack or falling back to support his rear who is threatened.

Grant knew he had a vastly superior army (in numbers, supply and logistics).  That was his superior weapon and he knew it.
Obama has spent more time playing golf than meeting with Republicans, his Deficit Commission, his Job Council and his Cabinet COMBINED.

Offline Union General

  • Posts: 884
  • Kicking butt since 1863.
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #86 on: October 21, 2009, 12:42:23 AM »
AND the Union already had superior numbers to begin with. That, and a better-developed infrastructure of roads, canals, industry, and, particularly, railroads to move troops and supplies.

Grants strategy was always to find the enemy, engage him and while he's engaged use his unengaged units to go around, flank or cut him off from his support.  Not just a calvary strike (ala the confederates) but an in force, supported, infantry flanking move.  The kind of force that can flank, then occupy.

I don't think Grant would have passed up any chance to engage the enemy, no matter how unattractive.  The battle might go bad, but while he is "losing" the battle, the enemy is faced with pressing an attack or falling back to support his rear who is threatened.

Grant knew he had a vastly superior army (in numbers, supply and logistics).  That was his superior weapon and he knew it.

Also on that note, with superior numbers comes fighting with near-unlimited resources. The casualties taken on the part of the Confederacy would be much more hard-felt than that of the Union. Sounds immoral, I know, but it's from a purely tactical standpoint.


-The General
I like your thinking  Mr. General  what a Genius

Offline t12161991

  • Posts: 3397
  • Let's Go Blue!
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #87 on: October 21, 2009, 12:58:34 AM »
UG, my understanding is that that last point was the basis for the entire campaign after the Wilderness- hurt them until they could be hurt no more, then kill them. And that's what he did (killed the idea of rebellion at least).
Grutch:  Careful, someone I know on a forum I visit works for Sony.  He says they aren't to be trusted.

Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes
Hail! Hail! to Michigan
The leaders and best!

10-2

Offline Union General

  • Posts: 884
  • Kicking butt since 1863.
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #88 on: October 21, 2009, 01:00:48 AM »
UG, my understanding is that that last point was the basis for the entire campaign after the Wilderness- hurt them until they could be hurt no more, then kill them. And that's what he did (killed the idea of rebellion at least).

Exactly!  :biggriin:

-The General
I like your thinking  Mr. General  what a Genius

Offline Fog Of Waagh

  • Posts: 546
  • Be better then a man, join the waagh effort!
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #89 on: October 21, 2009, 01:13:41 AM »
You can kinda compare the North to the Imperial guard in 40k.
Scream WAAAGH and let slip the Boars of war!

Offline t12161991

  • Posts: 3397
  • Let's Go Blue!
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #90 on: October 21, 2009, 01:35:30 AM »
Without the Tanks. And superior weapons.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2009, 01:39:02 AM by t12161991 »
Grutch:  Careful, someone I know on a forum I visit works for Sony.  He says they aren't to be trusted.

Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes
Hail! Hail! to Michigan
The leaders and best!

10-2

Offline Union General

  • Posts: 884
  • Kicking butt since 1863.
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #91 on: October 21, 2009, 01:46:47 AM »
Without the Tanks. And superior weapons.

But we DID have superior weapons...  :happy:

Hurrah for the breech-loaders, repeaters, et cetera et cetera...

-The General
I like your thinking  Mr. General  what a Genius

Offline Feanor Fire Heart

  • His Royal Highness
  • Posts: 4571
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #92 on: October 21, 2009, 02:05:10 AM »
and the over abundance of irish immigrants...
Something we as painters and hobbyists should always remember:
“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
― Jake the Dog

Offline t12161991

  • Posts: 3397
  • Let's Go Blue!
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #93 on: October 21, 2009, 02:07:34 AM »
I was talking the other way around for superior weapons.  :icon_redface:
Grutch:  Careful, someone I know on a forum I visit works for Sony.  He says they aren't to be trusted.

Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring heroes
Hail! Hail! to Michigan
The leaders and best!

10-2

Offline wissenlander

  • Pure of Heart
  • Posts: 7470
  • The original Graf of Brennenburg
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #94 on: October 21, 2009, 11:32:43 AM »
I sway to and fro quite often on whether Grant was teh awesomez.  It was remarkable for the time that he understood the total war concept, but there's a little part of me that can never truly appreciate calling assault after assault and sacrficing so many.  I'm sure he shortened the war, but it's still quite a pill to have to swallow.

I don't really think he was a butcher, quite the contrary.  I've not read many biographies, but his is one that I have and I appreciate him as a general.  Just not way up on the totem poll for me.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2009, 11:35:32 AM by wissenlander »
Me and Wissenlander had babies!

not together.

finding photographic evidense that Wiss smiles is going to be hard...

Offline Union General

  • Posts: 884
  • Kicking butt since 1863.
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #95 on: October 21, 2009, 06:11:20 PM »
The later era of the war was more like World War I with muskets than anything...  :ph34r:


-The General
I like your thinking  Mr. General  what a Genius

Offline Inarticulate

  • Posts: 1600
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #96 on: October 21, 2009, 06:19:54 PM »
I think the best part of the Civil War was when Lee surrendered. And the whole saluting each other etc.

It could almost come out of some corny American movie that fades into a rippling US flag with some heroic music in the background.
I for one welcome our new flying cat overlords.

Offline wissenlander

  • Pure of Heart
  • Posts: 7470
  • The original Graf of Brennenburg
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #97 on: October 21, 2009, 06:23:58 PM »
Twas very classy.  Chamberlain was awesome.
Me and Wissenlander had babies!

not together.

finding photographic evidense that Wiss smiles is going to be hard...

Offline Union General

  • Posts: 884
  • Kicking butt since 1863.
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #98 on: October 21, 2009, 06:27:43 PM »
Twas very classy.  Chamberlain was awesome.

That he was, good sir. That he was...  :-)


-The General
I like your thinking  Mr. General  what a Genius

Offline wissenlander

  • Pure of Heart
  • Posts: 7470
  • The original Graf of Brennenburg
Re: American Civil War
« Reply #99 on: October 23, 2009, 03:13:31 PM »
I'm borrowing this quote from Soth.  I figured I'd put it here because it makes more sense then to clog up another thread with our nonsense.

Sorry guys, but when it comes to being invaded we (the Belgians and their ancestors) are the experts by experience.

The quote reminded me of a story:

A buddy of mine went to Georgia and went on a tour down there (don't remember about what, though).  The tour guide asked him where he was from and he said Virginia, to which the tour guide expressed 'The Yankees are coming.'

 :Ohmy:

I received that in a text message.  I was so flabergasted that I couldn't really put my thoughts into a succinct enough compression to give him a rebuttal at the time.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2009, 03:16:38 PM by wissenlander »
Me and Wissenlander had babies!

not together.

finding photographic evidense that Wiss smiles is going to be hard...