Safehold's R E Lee?

IMHO BGV isn't Safehold's R.E. Lee, but maybe Duke Eastshare is.

BGV has full access to OWL and so has an unfair advantage over other generals in the results he gets. He is very aggressive, but then he is a marine!

DE's actions are based on scout and "spy" reports, better than R.E. Lee received, but he couldn't spy on the enemy himself in real time. So far, he has been very aggressive on the defense, meaning he draws his opponent into attacking him in a very good defensive position. I don't know if that makes DE like Lee but he may be a better general than BGV.

BTW how did the Temple find out about the Esthyr's Abbey attack so quickly? If BGV's security is as good as it is supposed to be, all the AoG should know before an attack on Faikyn is that they lost communication.

"lost communication with", in wartime, is a synonym for "captured". except, of course, for when in means "killed"

It helps if the last message out is to the effect of 'under attack', which I'm confident the semaphore crew would have sent on their own initiative as soon as the explosions started. That's not particularly necessary, however. Losing contact with the end of the semaphore chain is a pretty broad hint all by itself.

JB744 wrote:IMHO BGV isn't Safehold's R.E. Lee, but maybe Duke Eastshare is.

BGV has full access to OWL and so has an unfair advantage over other generals in the results he gets. He is very aggressive, but then he is a marine!

DE's actions are based on scout and "spy" reports, better than R.E. Lee received, but he couldn't spy on the enemy himself in real time. So far, he has been very aggressive on the defense, meaning he draws his opponent into attacking him in a very good defensive position. I don't know if that makes DE like Lee but he may be a better general than BGV.

BTW how did the Temple find out about the Esthyr's Abbey attack so quickly? If BGV's security is as good as it is supposed to be, all the AoG should know before an attack on Faikyn is that they lost communication.

PeterZ wrote:...
How was he a traitor? He served his sovereign state of Virginia from which he derived his citizenship both to the state and to the union. When his state withdrew from the union, he remained loyal to the state in which he was a citizen.

He swore an oath to the USA. To wit: “I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.”

He broke it.

Louis R wrote:"lost communication with", in wartime, is a synonym for "captured". except, of course, for when in means "killed"

It helps if the last message out is to the effect of 'under attack', which I'm confident the semaphore crew would have sent on their own initiative as soon as the explosions started. That's not particularly necessary, however. Losing contact with the end of the semaphore chain is a pretty broad hint all by itself.

The attack took place on a clear day, IIRC - since BGV's men were using heliographs - so the next station down the chain must have been able to see the significant amounts of smoke/flames from the assault - esp the mortars etc - after all it must be in direct line of sight from the St E's semaphore station, and probably only about 10-15miles away max!

Weird Harold wrote:

saber964 wrote:Lee won most of his battles against a numerically superior foe with innovative tactics and audacious maneuvering.

True, but he won most of the battles, but he still lost the war. BGV has won all of his battles -- so far. I just hope he doesn't carry the "reincarnation of R. E. Lee" too far.

The biggest reason the CSA lost was lack of industrial production and capacity. The CSA had to import nearly all of it firearms from England and France. The city of Pittsburgh had more steel and iron making capacity then the entire CSA and lack of population. The only way the CSA could have won was to have England and France intervene militarily on the CSA's behalf.

jgnfld wrote:

PeterZ wrote:...
How was he a traitor? He served his sovereign state of Virginia from which he derived his citizenship both to the state and to the union. When his state withdrew from the union, he remained loyal to the state in which he was a citizen.

He swore an oath to the USA. To wit: “I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.”

He broke it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75369.html

That Oath supersedes his State Citizenship? At that time citizenship was recognized through the State and if the State secedes from the Union, the citizenship follows along with it. Pursuant to this, he declined promotions and crucial commands in the Union Army as hostilities loomed and finally resigned his commission.

How was this an act of a traitor? He never misled the Union. He declined opportunities to harm the Union prior to hostilities breaking out. He resigned his commission when he could not serve that cause any longer.

PeterZ wrote:...

PeterZ wrote:...
How was he a traitor? He served his sovereign state of Virginia from which he derived his citizenship both to the state and to the union. When his state withdrew from the union, he remained loyal to the state in which he was a citizen.

...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75369.html

That Oath supersedes his State Citizenship? At that time citizenship was recognized through the State and if the State secedes from the Union, the citizenship follows along with it. Pursuant to this, he declined promotions and crucial commands in the Union Army as hostilities loomed and finally resigned his commission.

How was this an act of a traitor? He never misled the Union. He declined opportunities to harm the Union prior to hostilities breaking out. He resigned his commission when he could not serve that cause any longer.

Well, to put it in the Safehold universe, how would Cayleb treat, oh, say, Eastshare if he decided his Temple Loyalist leanings and his prior allegiances to the Church were just too strong, he resigned his commission, and led a Church Army that killed 100s of thousands of Charisans? How does Stohnar feel about the generals who did that same thing in HIS military?

saber964 wrote:Lee won most of his battles against a numerically superior foe with innovative tactics and audacious maneuvering.

Weird Harold wrote:True, but he won most of the battles, but he still lost the war. BGV has won all of his battles -- so far. I just hope he doesn't carry the "reincarnation of R. E. Lee" too far.

saber964 wrote:The biggest reason the CSA lost was lack of industrial production and capacity. The CSA had to import nearly all of it firearms from England and France. The city of Pittsburgh had more steel and iron making capacity then the entire CSA and lack of population. The only way the CSA could have won was to have England and France intervene militarily on the CSA's behalf.

The manpower differential was a significant factor as well. Especially after Grant got promoted - the Union could afford to trade casualties, even at unfavorable rates, whereas the Confederacy didn't have anywhere close to sufficient pools of manpower to sustain the attrition.

Plus, let's not forget that most of the battles - and thus civilian casualties and terrain/infrastructure collateral damage (ie trashed farmland, rail lines, bridges, etc) happened in the Confederacy.

Kytheros wrote:
Plus, let's not forget that most of the battles - and thus civilian casualties and terrain/infrastructure collateral damage (ie trashed farmland, rail lines, bridges, etc) happened in the Confederacy.

That was true late in the war, but early on - and up to the midpoint, many of the largest and bloodiest battles were in the North. Antietam and Gettysburg come to mind. Pennsylvania is hardly in the South, and Maryland never was technically either.

IMO the American Civil War is a very Hot Topic so can we just discuss "who is Safehold's R E Lee" without discussing "Lee was a traitor" or "The South was the injured party" or "the Southern states had a right to leave the Union"?