Safehold's R E Lee?

I would hafta say DE is closer to Bobby Lee than BGV. DE made a serious mistake in underestimating the reaction capabilities of Harless' forces. RL made a serious mistake when he underestimated the power of the enfilading artillery fire from the Union left.

My opinion of RL dropped considerably the day I walked Cemetery Ridge. The unit markers along the center of the ridge read infantry, infantry.... When you get down to the left and line swings to the right the markers read btry, btry, btry, btry...
I stood and looked up the field and all I could think was "how could he not have seen this? I'm sure he took the pain of this mistake to his grave.

Hi Saber964,

Let's also remember the union was "fighting with one hand behind its back" as a noted southern historian pointed out.

REL was pretty good at defense but several historians have pointed out he sucked at attacking prepared defenses, as Malvern Hill and Gettysburg demonstrate among others.

Neither BGV or DE have yet to fully demonstrate their abilities, particularly in that area, but their weapons are far more formidable, and growing ever more deadly so any comparison later becomes increasingly silly.

L

saber964 wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:*quote="saber964"*Lee won most of his battles against a numerically superior foe with innovative tactics and audacious maneuvering.*quote*

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.

He resigned his commission in the U.S. Army before accepting a commission from Virginia. That was in keeping with observing and obeying the rules and articles for the government of the armies of the U.S. Officers had the ability to do that which is why roughly 50% of the pre-Civil War U.S. Army officers "went south." (Of course some officers from southern states "went north.") In 1975, Lee's full rights of citizenship were posthumously restored by a joint congressional resolution (a congress that was controlled by the Democratic Party) effective June 13, 1865.

Enlisted soldiers did not have that option which is why that portion of the Union Army stationed in Texas, such as a good chunk of the 2nd U.S. Cavalry, were interned when Texas succeeded until they could be exchanged.

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.

JB744 wrote:
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.

BGV could easily and should have had SS scouting ahead to sweep up supply convoys and capturing semaphore stations. The SS would be accompanied by semaphore operators supplied with "captured" codes and routine messages to maintain traffic. 3 semaphore teams would be enough to keep up the illusion that nothing was happening.

My point was that something unexpected may have happened that disrupted the advance, like the weather turned warmer for longer than the forecast. In a small way this might be one of the set backs for Charis we have been expecting.

USMA74 wrote:

jgnfld" quote="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.

He resigned his commission in the U.S. Army before accepting a commission from Virginia. That was in keeping with observing and obeying the rules and articles for the government of the armies of the U.S. Officers had the ability to do that which is why roughly 50% of the pre-Civil War U.S. Army officers "went south." (Of course some officers from southern states "went north.") In 1975, Lee's full rights of citizenship were posthumously restored by a joint congressional resolution (a congress that was controlled by the Democratic Party) effective June 13, 1865.

Enlisted soldiers did not have that option which is why that portion of the Union Army stationed in Texas, such as a good chunk of the 2nd U.S. Cavalry, were interned when Texas succeeded until they could be exchanged.[/quote]


Let's not forget that a rare few northerners went south. Also the CO of the Vicksburg garrison LTG John C Pemberton was from Philadelphia, PA

EdThomas wrote:I would hafta say DE is closer to Bobby Lee than BGV. DE made a serious mistake in underestimating the reaction capabilities of Harless' forces. RL made a serious mistake when he underestimated the power of the enfilading artillery fire from the Union left.

My opinion of RL dropped considerably the day I walked Cemetery Ridge. The unit markers along the center of the ridge read infantry, infantry.... When you get down to the left and line swings to the right the markers read btry, btry, btry, btry...
I stood and looked up the field and all I could think was "how could he not have seen this? I'm sure he took the pain of this mistake to his grave.

ET, It wasn't Lee that made the mistake - I forget where I read it (perhaps "The Court Marshal of Robert E. Lee"?) but on arrival, he had ORDERED one of his subordinates to take the high ground (He wasn't 2nd in his class at West Point for nothing) but that person disobeyed him (thinking it was too dark, the Feds were NOWHERE nearby, and he could just move up the next morning).

I was pretty relieved when I read that, as I was also dismayed that the man considered one of the best American officers EVER (his conduct during the 1848 War w/Mexico was inspiring, and Lincoln DID offer to put him in command of the US Army) would have made such a blunder. Turns out he didn't, but he had to make the best he could of a bad situation.

ColonialBoy wrote:

EdThomas wrote:I would hafta say DE is closer to Bobby Lee than BGV. DE made a serious mistake in underestimating the reaction capabilities of Harless' forces. RL made a serious mistake when he underestimated the power of the enfilading artillery fire from the Union left.

My opinion of RL dropped considerably the day I walked Cemetery Ridge. The unit markers along the center of the ridge read infantry, infantry.... When you get down to the left and line swings to the right the markers read btry, btry, btry, btry...
I stood and looked up the field and all I could think was "how could he not have seen this? I'm sure he took the pain of this mistake to his grave.

ET, It wasn't Lee that made the mistake - I forget where I read it (perhaps "The Court Marshal of Robert E. Lee"?) but on arrival, he had ORDERED one of his subordinates to take the high ground (He wasn't 2nd in his class at West Point for nothing) but that person disobeyed him (thinking it was too dark, the Feds were NOWHERE nearby, and he could just move up the next morning).

I was pretty relieved when I read that, as I was also dismayed that the man considered one of the best American officers EVER (his conduct during the 1848 War w/Mexico was inspiring, and Lincoln DID offer to put him in command of the US Army) would have made such a blunder. Turns out he didn't, but he had to make the best he could of a bad situation.

It's been a while sinse I've been over this stuff, but wasn't Pickens supposed to be coordinating with Longstreet who more or less left him hanging out to dry?

Don

n7axw wrote:...

It's been a while sinse I've been over this stuff, but wasn't Pickens supposed to be coordinating with Longstreet who more or less left him hanging out to dry?

Don

PICKETT was just following orders. Longstreet reportedly strenuously argued for a flanking move. (The quickest glance at the battle map of the day will show why.) According to some sources [ http://scienceviews.com/parks/longstreet.html ] he had given orders to start this move but Lee countermanded and ordered the direct attack.

Longstreet was arguing with Lee the entire time trying to prevent Pickets charge. But Lee went ahead with it anyways cause hey, "Suuuuuper Genius".

I'm not a big Lee fan myself, I think he is highly over rated, definitely a competent defensive general, but he lost the war on his failed offensives. Comparing DE or BGV to him is kind of insulting. They are head and shoulders better then Lee, even if RFC is doing all sorts of tie ins with BGV. Sure he had early success, but to be fair the early Union generals were abysmal. Longstreet always impressed me more as Confederate generals went.

Some people have been arguing that Duke Eastshare screwed up by the numbers or something based on what happened to Army of Cliff Peak in the woods. Yea they got pounded, and yes the initial wave of mounted brigades almost broke and were over run. But even if they were, even if all of second corps was mauled, it still would have been worth it for the final result. Not only was the Army of Shilo completely destroyed, they are now in prime position to CRUSH the Army of Glaciarheart in the spring. The expectation that Charis can win every battle painlessly is nonsense.

Direwolf18 wrote:Longstreet was arguing with Lee the entire time trying to prevent Pickets charge. But Lee went ahead with it anyways cause hey, "Suuuuuper Genius".

I'm not a big Lee fan myself, I think he is highly over rated, definitely a competent defensive general, but he lost the war on his failed offensives. Comparing DE or BGV to him is kind of insulting. They are head and shoulders better then Lee, even if RFC is doing all sorts of tie ins with BGV. Sure he had early success, but to be fair the early Union generals were abysmal. Longstreet always impressed me more as Confederate generals went.

Some people have been arguing that Duke Eastshare screwed up by the numbers or something based on what happened to Army of Cliff Peak in the woods. Yea they got pounded, and yes the initial wave of mounted brigades almost broke and were over run. But even if they were, even if all of second corps was mauled, it still would have been worth it for the final result. Not only was the Army of Shilo completely destroyed, they are now in prime position to CRUSH the Army of Glaciarheart in the spring. The expectation that Charis can win every battle painlessly is nonsense.

The comparisons really aren't fair, or for that matter, very enlightening. Lee faced and won his victories against an opponent who was superior in both numbers, quality of equipment and logistics. His only real advantage was at the beginning of the war he had a superior officer corp and better calvary. Eventually he was denied even those advantages as those northern boys learned to ride, and after a lot trial and error the cream rose to the top in the union army which ended up compentantly officered and generaled as a result of experience.

Compare that with DE and BGV with their Chisholmian officers, visits from seijins and in BGV's case the ability to monitor the snarcs. Add into that superior logistics, weapons with at least a hundred year tech advantage. The only consistent disadvantage we've seen has been with the numbers of men the Temple can bring to the party.

Lee would have been willing to kill for the advantages DE and BGV could take for granted. And with those advantages he would have won the war.

Don