Safehold's R E Lee?

Hi Don,

I'd argue it's far more like a 50 year tech advantage [circa WWI] without getting into machine guns, except they're still using black powder, even if they expect to shift to cordite and other more modern explosive fillings within the year.

As to winning the war, either with the ICA's or AK-47's etc, with that much a tech advantage is almost guaranteed.

L

n7axw wrote:

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

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!

While BGV is a marine, I think that a case can be made that the underlying reason for his aggressiveness is due to his exceptional intel courtesy of OWL. It's got to be a LOT easier to be aggressive when you know as much about the enemy as BGV apparently does.

crucisnh wrote:

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!

While BGV is a marine, I think that a case can be made that the underlying reason for his aggressiveness is due to his exceptional intel courtesy of OWL. It's got to be a LOT easier to be aggressive when you know as much about the enemy as BGV apparently does.

True!

Not entirely. He showed pretty clear signs of it even when all he had to go on was a broad hint that there might be stronger forces ahead of him than previously anticipated. Other commanders might have gone cautious; he used the enemy's perception of his own superiority to bait a trap for him.

JB744 wrote:

crucisnh wrote:
While BGV is a marine, I think that a case can be made that the underlying reason for his aggressiveness is due to his exceptional intel courtesy of OWL. It's got to be a LOT easier to be aggressive when you know as much about the enemy as BGV apparently does.

True!

Louis R wrote:Not entirely. He showed pretty clear signs of it even when all he had to go on was a broad hint that there might be stronger forces ahead of him than previously anticipated. Other commanders might have gone cautious; he used the enemy's perception of his own superiority to bait a trap for him.

Hi Louis R,

You are referring to what he did to Windshare at Green Valley?

Along with that, I always thought BGV managed the battle of Haryls Crossing very well.

Don

Sorry, been away.

In fact, it was Haryl's Crossing I was thinking of. At Green Valley he knew he was being steered, and already had a rather shrewd idea why it happened the way it did - so he took the info he was given and ran. Haryl's Crossing, the only real boost he got was from reading between the lines.

n7axw wrote:

Louis R wrote:Not entirely. He showed pretty clear signs of it even when all he had to go on was a broad hint that there might be stronger forces ahead of him than previously anticipated. Other commanders might have gone cautious; he used the enemy's perception of his own superiority to bait a trap for him.

Hi Louis R,

You are referring to what he did to Windshare at Green Valley?

Along with that, I always thought BGV managed the battle of Haryls Crossing very well.

Don

Louis R wrote:Sorry, been away.

In fact, it was Haryl's Crossing I was thinking of. At Green Valley he knew he was being steered, and already had a rather shrewd idea why it happened the way it did - so he took the info he was given and ran. Haryl's Crossing, the only real boost he got was from reading between the lines.

Yeah, based on a message which amounted to little more than "Enemy main body is nearby.", BGV managed to predict and counter just about every move Gahrvai made. If that doesn't say, "tactical genius", I don't know what else does.

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.

You're not reading what I wrote.
Lee's mistake was sending an attack across open ground exposed to enfilading artillery the whole way across.
His subordinates, especially JEB Stuart and Jubal Early, let him down badly. The Union also got some pretty good work from guys like Reynolds and Joshua Chamberlain on Days 1 and 2. Can't recall the name of the general who spotted the problem on the Round Tops (Union left) and sent Chamberlain up there with his 20th Maine but he may have made the most critical decision of the entire battle.
And let's not forget the column of North Carolinians that went in on Pickett's left who actually got into the Union lines and pushed them back until counter-attacks pushed them back. So maybe Lee was only half right/wrong. 'Course they weren't chewed up all the way across by enfilade fire.
I suggest you go back and read Bruce Catton before you waste any time on this modern stuff. He's the historian on whom the old guys here cut their Civil War teeth.
Sorry the delay in responding, but we've been out of internet coverage for a while. Actually, we're sitting in a slip about 50 miles from Chamberlain's Bowdoin College right now.