Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Results 221 to 232 of 232

Thread: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

  1. #221
    Ishiyumi no shashu
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    658

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Thats Crap, Guerillas were by no means Models of Virtuous defense but they were Formed as a Nationalist, Anti-French movement.
    Rubbish

    http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300101126

    Keep up!

  2. #222
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Genjo
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,164

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Again, you offer a circular argument while hiding behind Esdaile (While not citing anything in particular.)

  3. #223
    Ishiyumi no shashu
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    658

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Again, you offer a circular argument while hiding behind Esdaile (While not citing anything in particular.)
    No, I'm just stating the position you've taken has been overturned, and Esdaile has gained acceptance in academia as the current orthodoxy. That you haven't read it, or don't know that isn't a fault on my part.

    I'd suggest you read Esdaile. For my part, I will simply continue to restate things until you have a frame of reference to debate.

  4. #224
    Legio XII's Avatar Centurio
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    461

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post


    O rly ?



    Yeah Un-like Lee at the Third day of Gettysburg when he brilliantly sent Pickett....... Oh wait.




    Every Good general has a Bloodbath or two in his draw.



    Lee never had an Austerlitz.
    Ever hear of Chancellorsville, my friend? Outnumbered by more than two to one, Lee sent the Union forces running for dear life. And do not attempt to blame Chancellorsville on incompetent Union generalship. The same can be said of Austerlitz. The inability of the Russians and Austrians to coordinate was key to Napoleon's victory there.

    As for Gettysburg, well, that one I must give to you. There, Lee was out of form. It was largely uncharacteristic of him to attack headlong. (Excluding the Seven Days and Gettysburg).

  5. #225
    Ishiyumi no shashu
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    658

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio XII View Post
    Ever hear of Chancellorsville, my friend? Outnumbered by more than two to one, Lee sent the Union forces running for dear life. And do not attempt to blame Chancellorsville on incompetent Union generalship. The same can be said of Austerlitz. The inability of the Russians and Austrians to coordinate was key to Napoleon's victory there.

    As for Gettysburg, well, that one I must give to you. There, Lee was out of form. It was largely uncharacteristic of him to attack headlong. (Excluding the Seven Days and Gettysburg).
    Lee *lost* at Chancellorsville/ 2nd Fredericksburg.

    He invested half his army in a badly executed flank attack that disrupted barely 1/8th the Union Army, while the rest was free to swing in on Longstreet and to finally storm the heights over Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville was a disaster for the Confederates.

  6. #226
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Genjo
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,164

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    No, I'm just stating the position you've taken has been overturned, and Esdaile has gained acceptance in academia as the current orthodoxy. That you haven't read it, or don't know that isn't a fault on my part.

    I'd suggest you read Esdaile. For my part, I will simply continue to restate things until you have a frame of reference to debate.
    Tigers, i don't get how you have to nerve to talk to me about Napoleonic Academia, when you speak out against Chandler who is regarded by many to have done some of the best English work on the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Ever hear of Chancellorsville, my friend? Outnumbered by more than two to one, Lee sent the Union forces running for dear life. And do not attempt to blame Chancellorsville on incompetent Union generalship. The same can be said of Austerlitz. The inability of the Russians and Austrians to coordinate was key to Napoleon's victory there.
    The fact of the matter is, Hookers army was defeated, but not destroyed. Chancellorsville while significant impressive, was not decisive in that sense.

  7. #227
    Ishiyumi no shashu
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    658

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus View Post
    Tigers, i don't get how you have to nerve to talk to me about Napoleonic Academia, when you speak out against Chandler who is regarded by many to have done some of the best English work on the subject.
    "If it's in a book, it must be true." - Milhouse

    Chandler's Campaigns was not the most complete or accurate when published. Now, decades on, unsurprisingly large parts of it have been shown to be inaccurate.

    Academia is a process.....

    The fact of the matter is, Hookers army was defeated, but not destroyed. Chancellorsville while significant impressive, was not decisive in that sense.
    No, Jackson's flank attack failed in execution, and only disrupted part of a single Federal Corps. This left half of the CS Army fixed while the Federals swung their entire weight on the CS right. In effect Lee executed a reverse manoeuvre sur les derrieres. Meanwhile, the Federals, having drawn Lee away from Fredericksburg, stormed the CS defences, and pushed them back to the North Anna.

  8. #228
    Hanny's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,886

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Lee *lost* at Chancellorsville/ 2nd Fredericksburg.
    Battles in those days were considered won when you held the ground, and the oposing general asked for a ceasfire to collect his wounded and dead, or one side was driven completly from the field.

    Acording to how battles were won, lee won one of his most impressive victorrys here.

    He invested half his army in a badly executed flank attack that disrupted barely 1/8th the Union Army,
    If you know off any flank attack that captured more ground in the same time frame please provide it, otherwise acpt the fatc that this flankl attack was one of the most effective of the entire WBTS. secondly it was 2 cops cut up in its execution.
    while the rest was free to swing in on Longstreet
    And achived nothing when it acording to you was 7/8 of the Union Army hit head on, against less than half of the ANV, and you *think* Jackson flank attack was badly executed. How come it was the Union doing th eretreating then huh?.

    and to finally storm the heights over Fredericksburg.
    At a cost of great loss, and when advancing towards lee rear was sourounded on three sides and forced to run for its life, and gave up F-Burb in the process.

    Chancellorsville was a disaster for the Confederates.
    The only disater is your lack of education on historial events.

    Chandler's Campaigns was not the most complete or accurate when published. Now, decades on, unsurprisingly large parts of it have been shown to be inaccurate.
    Odd how it was lauded by all as what you claim it was not then right? when it first appeared in print, and is still today arguably the best single book on the subject.
    Last edited by Hanny; May 01, 2008 at 07:05 AM.

  9. #229
    Ishiyumi no shashu
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    658

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanny View Post
    Battles in those days were considered won when you held the ground, and the oposing general asked for a ceasfire to collect his wounded and dead, or one side was driven completly from the field.

    Acording to how battles were won, lee won one of his most impressive victorrys here.
    No, victories were generally won by achieving your objectives. The Federal objective was to flank Fredericksburg and take it from the rear, the Confederate objective was to stop them. While Lee stopped the flanking attack, the Federal pinning force (Sedgewick) at Fredericksburg stormed the weakened heights (Early) and won the action.

    What saved Lee was his ability to disengage from Hooker and hit Sedgewick with his right wing.

    If you know off any flank attack that captured more ground in the same time frame please provide it, otherwise acpt the fatc that this flankl attack was one of the most effective of the entire WBTS. secondly it was 2 cops cut up in its execution.
    What has taking a few square miles of unimportant terrain have to do with anything?

    And achived nothing when it acording to you was 7/8 of the Union Army hit head on, against less than half of the ANV, and you *think* Jackson flank attack was badly executed. How come it was the Union doing th eretreating then huh?.
    Well, actually Hooker then started manoeuvring. He sent his right wing (Reynolds and Meade) to the right flank, to start an envelopment of Stuart (was Jackson). However, as he was doing with, it allowed McLaws to disengage and move to attack Sedgewick, who had broken through at Fredericksburg and was moving to sever the CS lines of communication. Sedgewick would eventually be facing the entire CS right wing under Lee. the Federal Right Wing failed to make contact with the enemy (which was collapsing back on it's LoCs).

    With Sedgewick pushed back beyond his startline, Hooker abandoned the battle, even though he now had a 4:1 advantage on the western field.

    Odd how it was lauded by all as what you claim it was not then right? when it first appeared in print, and is still today arguably the best single book on the subject.
    It's nearly half a century old, and relied prettymuch exclusively on secondary sources, many of which were pretty unreliable. Nice as it is, it's been largely superceded in parts. In fact, Chandler himself knows this, many of his later books supercede his earlier works. Campaigns was a fairly good early attempt, but in this case we're arguing over parts even Chandler recognises were wrong.

  10. #230
    Hanny's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,886

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    [quote=67th Tigers;3002172]No, victories were generally won by achieving your objectives.
    The Federal objective was to flank Fredericksburg and take it from the rear, the Confederate objective was to stop them. While Lee stopped the flanking attack, the Federal pinning force (Sedgewick) at Fredericksburg stormed the weakened heights (Early) and won the action.

    [quote]

    Battles were won by how i stated, battle of C-Ville covers all of those events while being part of the campaign, campaigns are not subject to the same rules both sides used to determine who won the filed battles.

    Hookers campaign objectives were not met, so even on your own definition, he lost. When the aoP set out to take F-burg its because its the RR line that allows logistical support rather than sea lift, to be used to supply an advance on richmond, to stop ANV covering it and avoid a head on assault Hooker went wide, with the intention of pulling Lee onto him and out of a high defensable posistion, defeat hem and stroll into and onto a RR supply line that made life easy, as it turned out he achived what he set out to get, but lee thrashed him mentaly in the process, so ended up back where he started and lee still in F Burg, highly entrenched and astride one of the only 2 viable logitsical routes in N virginia by land.
    What saved Lee was his ability to disengage from Hooker and hit Sedgewick with his right wing.
    Lee needed no saving, he had already thrown back hookers entire force and simply ignored it therafter, he hit with almost all the ANV and it was Sedewick was the one who need saving from it, which he did by showing a clean pair of heels.


    What has taking a few square miles of unimportant terrain have to do with anything?
    Its to do with how you quantify the effectiveness of the attack, it as an attack achived the ground taken in the time taken, it caused the entire AoP to retire by its action, if there are examples of other attacks that do this, then they may be compared to show relative cost benifit of both human resources and time taken etc.

    ground that holds your flank and centre taken from you by force is hardly unimportant.


    Well, actually Hooker then started manoeuvring. He sent his right wing (Reynolds and Meade) to the right flank, to start an envelopment of Stuart (was Jackson). However, as he was doing with, it allowed McLaws to disengage and move to attack Sedgewick, who had broken through at Fredericksburg and was moving to sever the CS lines of communication. Sedgewick would eventually be facing the entire CS right wing under Lee. the Federal Right Wing failed to make contact with the enemy (which was collapsing back on it's LoCs).
    Hooker had relenquished command at this point in time ( because his orders were absurd and nonsense due to being in shock) and had ordered a retreat, as well as an advance, so your time line a little difficult to follow, nor did le LoC come through F-burg so was not cut, LoS would have been in the short term and more important, lee never worried overly much about loc when manovering in the fsce of the enemy when seeking to bring them to battle in any event. federal loc is different simnce all actions were delivered via telegraph from the war dept after Hooker went into shock which was why it was piecmeal and uncordinated as it was an untested atempt to control to much over to far with technology not set up to do it yet.

    With Sedgewick pushed back beyond his startline, Hooker abandoned the battle, even though he now had a 4:1 advantage on the western field.
    Hooker gave up well before then and had no direct influence on the last 2 days, which was micro managed from the war dept.


    It's nearly half a century old, and relied prettymuch exclusively on secondary sources, many of which were pretty unreliable. Nice as it is, it's been largely superceded in parts. In fact, Chandler himself knows this, many of his later books supercede his earlier works. Campaigns was a fairly good early attempt, but in this case we're arguing over parts even Chandler recognises were wrong.
    Since he is dead i dont think he know what you think he knows. But as you post, he corrected himself in later works without finding the need to redo what is still arguable the best single work on the subject.
    Last edited by Hanny; May 01, 2008 at 08:52 AM.

  11. #231
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Genjo
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,164

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    "If it's in a book, it must be true." - Milhouse
    Which is Ironic coming from you considering you refer to Esdaile like he's god and one book like it's the bible despite not even to answer basic questions from me.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Chandler's Campaigns was not the most complete or accurate when published. Now, decades on, unsurprisingly large parts of it have been shown to be inaccurate.
    Which parts are these ? I don't expect a reply as i have asked this before and received no answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Academia is a process.....
    A process which you have forsaken completely in favor of plain and un-abated bias.



    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    No, Jackson's flank attack failed in execution, and only disrupted part of a single Federal Corps.
    Disrupted ? For god's sake, if there is anything your good at it's manipulating language. I would use a harsher term to describe an attack which Captured around 4000 men and sent the rest of XI Corps running for their lives.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    This left half of the CS Army fixed while the Federals swung their entire weight on the CS right.
    An attack which failed completely.


    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    In effect Lee executed a reverse manoeuvre sur les derrieres.
    Not really, if this battle constitutes any Napoleonic Phrasing then it would certainly be the double battle. Stonewalls plan is really just an envelopment flanked by a cavalry screen, and although ambitious and successful it was by no means as thorough as the Manouvere Sus les derriers.

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Meanwhile, the Federals, having drawn Lee away from Fredericksburg, stormed the CS defences, and pushed them back to the North Anna.
    Fredricksburg is a town on the map, Hookers intent was for Sedgwick to Destroy Lee's right and then proceed to take the Rebel positions surrounding Chancellorsville Proper in the flank which would of Annihilated the Rebel army then and there. What was planned, and what happened are two completely different things.
    Last edited by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus; May 01, 2008 at 04:51 PM.

  12. #232
    Legio XII's Avatar Centurio
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    461

    Default Re: Robert E. Lee vs The Duke of Wellington

    Quote Originally Posted by 67th Tigers View Post
    Lee *lost* at Chancellorsville/ 2nd Fredericksburg.

    He invested half his army in a badly executed flank attack that disrupted barely 1/8th the Union Army, while the rest was free to swing in on Longstreet and to finally storm the heights over Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville was a disaster for the Confederates.
    Hardly. Might want to re-read the account of that battle. It was a victory for Lee. The end result of the battle was the retreat, some may say rout, of Union forces back across the Rapidan to their starting positions.

    As for saying that Lee invested half his army in a badly executed flank attack, well that is only half correct. Lee did invest half of his army, but the attack was a resounding success. It (the attack by Jackson's half of the Army) rolled up the unprotected flank of Howard's XI Corps, routing the entire Corps. The attack was only halted by the commitment of an entire new Corps, Sickles' III Corps. Even then, it was barely halted.

    At this point the Union forces had formed into a vulnerable salient around Hazel Grove. The Confederates dutifully assaulted it from three sides the next day, and collapsed it. This effectively routed the Corps of Sickles, Couch, and Slocum. However, the assault on the salient had been a long, costly affair, and the assault was not pressed any more that day.

    Meanwhile, Sedgwick had finally taken Marye's Heights, and began to press on to attack Lee's rear. But his Corps was slowed by a single Alabama brigade under Cadmus Wilcox, and was finally stopped when reinforcements arrived from McLaws. And, not bothering to secure his rear, Early, who had withdrawn from the heights, simply moved back into Fredricksburg behind Sedgwick and cut him off. Then, the combined forces of McLaws, Anderson, and Early attacked Sedgewick and drove him back across the Rapidan at Banks Ford.

    In the end, Hooker too withdrew back across the Rapidan and returned to his starting position of a week ago.

    One could hardly call such an outcome a disaster. Fighting an army that outnumbers you by nearly five to two (Longstreet's Corps did not participate in the battle, as it was detached to deal with a threat by a separate Union force near Norfolk.) and preventing them from accomplishing any of their objectives could hardly be called a disaster as you call it. Might want to read up a little more on a battle before you call it a disaster.

    Of course, what I have written is a terribly simplistic summary of the battle. For a far more in depth history of the American Civil War, read Shelby Foote's narrative of the American Civil War. It is a nine-part series well over 2000 pages in length, in total. Barring that, use the internet and actually do some research!!!!! (Novel idea, isn't it?)
    Last edited by Legio XII; May 02, 2008 at 10:52 AM. Reason: Because I ****ing wanted to

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •