Well, Gettysburg is probably the most overhonored place in American History. What do I mean by that? If you ever been there, you can hardly go to any place that is even remotely untouched and left in it's natural state. Now, honors to the brave men is fine. They sacrificed alot for both sides.
But, when I went to Gettysburg, I was bummed out by the hundreds of statues that dotted every couple yards.
Now with that said: Why do people want to desecrate the monuments?! A couple years ago, several Union monuments had been vandalized, one of them lost his arm. Come on people, leave the hallowed places of America be. They stand as monuments of democracy and freedom.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Book Review on Armchair General
It's not Civil War, but, it's cool stuff.
So, in 2007, I wrote a book review for Armchair General Magazine. It's still on the website and it's been 2 years! You can find it at:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/patriot-battles-book-review.htm
How cool is that?
So, in 2007, I wrote a book review for Armchair General Magazine. It's still on the website and it's been 2 years! You can find it at:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/patriot-battles-book-review.htm
How cool is that?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Army of the Potomac vs. Army of Northern Virginia (MMG Style)
It was a week after the MMG OOB came out before I finally got the MMG OOB to work. This is what was posted on the MadMinute Games Forum.The fighting began as Texans arrive on the scene and try to attack my dismounted Cavalry. A fierce firefight ensued as both sides called up reeinforcments.
Flanked, the Texans are routed to a small creek while thier Alabamian comrades are routed to a cornfield. Thier commanding officer, trying to stop the rout, rides forth, right into my boys waiting guns. He is killed before he hits the ground.
At this, the Rebels turn and fight again, catch my men in a deadly crossfire with artillery and two brigades. The fighting seesaws back and forth as we both push each other back. Both sides lose many men in point blank duels.
A battery of cannon blasts away dozens of men with grapshot, and a deadly fight ensues over possession of the cannon. Two Irish regiments
capture a gun, then a rebel sharpshooter regiment charges them, throwing them into confusion and shoving them from the guns. One last regiment is thrown in, and all six cannons fire at the exact same time, all throwing canister at the same time, and the regiment is thrown back. Finally, I order a cavalry charge, and finally, the battery is taken.At the same time, the rebels are broken and fall back upon thier reserves. At the same time as I push my Maine Brigade forward and turn thier flanks by advancing on thier rear. But, they run right into 6 regiments of cavalry, and after some fierce fighting, they break and run like chickens.
The rebels are scattered now all over the field, but, they still carry alot of fight. Six times they rout a regiment, then are forced to fall back. During this time, "Phantom Menace" sends a report, ranting about the day is lost, and his Maine brigade needs reeinforcments. He is killed immediatly after the report is recieved.
After the death of him, seven enemy officers are killed in attempts to rally thier men. The enemy breaks, and nearly four regiments are lost and they will cause my men no trouble. Their last artillery battery keeps up a steady fire, trying to save thie army from total disaster. I send my cavalry in another charge, which picks up all but one cannon. It will keep up a pesky fire that does no damage.
Finally, after thirty minutes of pure agony for the rebels, they mount several cavalry charges once again the brave Maine boys. They break, and Chamberlain is killed during this exchange. The Maine boys head for the woods and refuse to come back out until the cavalry is cleared out of thier front.
I send my zouvees against the cavalry, along with an Iron Brigade regiment. Together, they rout the enemy cavalry. During this time, the rebels make one last charge, with a full sized regiment against a badly mangaled cavalry regiment. A classic duel starts, which ends with the rebels in total rout.With that, major victory!
Score: 10,624
Losses: 3,034
Enemy losses: 2,938
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Was the South or North Right
That is probably the biggest of all contreversies when it comes to the Civil War. What most people don't realize is that both sides had excellant points. Let me point out a few I have thought of over the past while (meaning 3 points each side). Let us start with the South.
South:
1. The Founding Fathers had been for the right that man has to speak up against things they feel threatening from the government. Whether they meant rebillion when the North had not yet really taken away rights is questionable.
2. The Constitution did not condemn seccesion.
3. There had not been a true definition given over the power the state level governments had compared to the central government.
North:
1. The nation had been made centralized for the purpose of perserving democracy and defnding the common man from tyrany. Had the South succedded in breaking away, democracy would have failed and the common man would lose his rights, especially since power hungry nations would have gobbled up the remnants of the United States.
2. The Constitution did not support seccesion.
3. Many in the South were leaving to keep thier slaves. That was not a legit reason to leave the Union, and the North had the right to treat the South as traitors, since they were techinically that.
Conclusion: I think overall the North was right, but, the South sticking up for themselves allowed the Nation to define what was what and what would become of the new Union created.
South:
1. The Founding Fathers had been for the right that man has to speak up against things they feel threatening from the government. Whether they meant rebillion when the North had not yet really taken away rights is questionable.
2. The Constitution did not condemn seccesion.
3. There had not been a true definition given over the power the state level governments had compared to the central government.
North:
1. The nation had been made centralized for the purpose of perserving democracy and defnding the common man from tyrany. Had the South succedded in breaking away, democracy would have failed and the common man would lose his rights, especially since power hungry nations would have gobbled up the remnants of the United States.
2. The Constitution did not support seccesion.
3. Many in the South were leaving to keep thier slaves. That was not a legit reason to leave the Union, and the North had the right to treat the South as traitors, since they were techinically that.
Conclusion: I think overall the North was right, but, the South sticking up for themselves allowed the Nation to define what was what and what would become of the new Union created.
Friday, March 27, 2009
I Corps Commander
Mad Minute Games, when they were making an OOB (Order of Battle) for all members of thier site for the game, Take Command 2, they asked all members to put what they would like to command. I love the game and decided to try my luck at getting a command.
I asked if I could be the commander of the I Corps of the Army of the Potomac, and it was amazing when I played it for the first time and saw myself leading troops into combat.
They reorganized it over the past year, and since I've been unable to play it, promoted another man in my stead. But, they promised me a command when I am able to return to playing; hopefully my old command.
I asked if I could be the commander of the I Corps of the Army of the Potomac, and it was amazing when I played it for the first time and saw myself leading troops into combat.
They reorganized it over the past year, and since I've been unable to play it, promoted another man in my stead. But, they promised me a command when I am able to return to playing; hopefully my old command.
Was Hooker Drunk at Chancellorsville
Now, it is common knowledge that Joseph Hooker was a drinker. But, new information is of the opinion that Hooker was not drunk at Chancellorsville. Unearthed in recent years is some things that point to Hooker not being drunk.
1. Hooker swore off liquor arely days before his Chancellorsville Campaign. This would explain his 'losing nerve' which migh have been withdrawls!
2. Hooker did not make clear choices and this is a sign of most alcholics going off the booze. They can't think clearly.
3. Before Chancellorsville, he was known as a stout fighter.
4. Hooker threw up violently during the battle of Chancellorsville, something that happens to addicts going off booze.
4. After Chancellorsville, during Chattanoga, he was again fighting like he once did.
5. Hooker's own reason why he lost gives us a clue to he was going through withdrawls: "I was not hurt by a shell and I was not drunk. For once I lost confidence in Hooker, and that is all there is to it." What man leaving his booze has faith in himself? He goes crazy because he is trying not to drink, and his body is going crazy on him because it has no liquor.
6. The War Committe itself asked if he was drunk, and one good Reverand Henry Ward Beecher stated that Hooker had abstained from alchol, and the only known treatment for his wond was a tiny bit of whiskey.
7. Colonel Sharpe of the Secret Service said that any man who said Hooker was drunk "lies through his teeth."
8. The ultimate testimonial: Darius Coach in his After Action Report, himself says that it was this very reason he lost: he wasn't drunk!
As such: Hooker was not drunk. He just tried to swear it off at the wrong time.
1. Hooker swore off liquor arely days before his Chancellorsville Campaign. This would explain his 'losing nerve' which migh have been withdrawls!
2. Hooker did not make clear choices and this is a sign of most alcholics going off the booze. They can't think clearly.
3. Before Chancellorsville, he was known as a stout fighter.
4. Hooker threw up violently during the battle of Chancellorsville, something that happens to addicts going off booze.
4. After Chancellorsville, during Chattanoga, he was again fighting like he once did.
5. Hooker's own reason why he lost gives us a clue to he was going through withdrawls: "I was not hurt by a shell and I was not drunk. For once I lost confidence in Hooker, and that is all there is to it." What man leaving his booze has faith in himself? He goes crazy because he is trying not to drink, and his body is going crazy on him because it has no liquor.
6. The War Committe itself asked if he was drunk, and one good Reverand Henry Ward Beecher stated that Hooker had abstained from alchol, and the only known treatment for his wond was a tiny bit of whiskey.
7. Colonel Sharpe of the Secret Service said that any man who said Hooker was drunk "lies through his teeth."
8. The ultimate testimonial: Darius Coach in his After Action Report, himself says that it was this very reason he lost: he wasn't drunk!
As such: Hooker was not drunk. He just tried to swear it off at the wrong time.
New name
To give the blog an uplift, I've done few twicks, which should give this a better feel and a cooler look. I've also changed my name to my alias on another site, "Youn' Fighting Joe Hooker".
Monday, March 23, 2009
Which Side Washington Would Have Been On
There has been some debate on which side our friend Mr. Washington would have been on if he was alive at the time of the Civil War. It was and is the opinion of many that Washington would have been with ths South, seeing as he owned slaves.
He would have joined them as soon as he would have joined the British in 1812. In other words, that's chrap!
He stated on several occassions that those who sought to tear down the United States would be condemned by the Almighty, and he pitied them for their foolishness.
Many still would claim he was for the South due to the Revolution. He, however, le troops against the Whiskey Rebillion. To believe he woud be against the Union is wrong. He would have defended it to the death.
According to many from the Confederate side during the attack on Little Round Top, many, hundreds claimed seeing George Washington's spirit during Chamberlains' Charge. Was the general there? No one knows. But, it is sure to be understood and clear as mud that he would have perserved the Union.
He would have joined them as soon as he would have joined the British in 1812. In other words, that's chrap!
He stated on several occassions that those who sought to tear down the United States would be condemned by the Almighty, and he pitied them for their foolishness.
Many still would claim he was for the South due to the Revolution. He, however, le troops against the Whiskey Rebillion. To believe he woud be against the Union is wrong. He would have defended it to the death.
According to many from the Confederate side during the attack on Little Round Top, many, hundreds claimed seeing George Washington's spirit during Chamberlains' Charge. Was the general there? No one knows. But, it is sure to be understood and clear as mud that he would have perserved the Union.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Sherman: Hero or Monster
Was Sherman a hero or monster? That has haunted the Civil War historian for nearly 2 centries. Let us look at the facts:
1. According to Rules of War established, Sherman was actually permitted to "borrow" from the natives. When an invading army entered enemy territory, they were suppose to write a long letter to the local authorities, describing thier needs, and the authorities were suppose to give them all the food and items they needed. When none was found, the invaders were allowed to take as much as needed. Sherman followed this.
2. The rule of combat is for every defender, 3 attackers will die. This is true with the Civil War. If Lee had over 40,000 men when Grant attacked, it's probable that 15,000 would be shot in a vigoruos assualt. By scaring and harassing the locals, many men felt compelled to leave the front lines to protect thier famalies. Desertions were rampant in both the ANV and AOT. Many thousands were saved, and maybe a couple months of war was skimmed off.
3. Most of the destruction was done by vagabonds and deserters. Sherman was not really for too much wanton destruction, but, the bummers (deserters who wanted to loot and plunder) did. Only 40% of the damage was really Sherman evoked. The rest was lawlessness.
4. If a family was present, thier homes didn't get burned down.
5. Of course, many things were entirely Sherman's fault, as not putting out the fire in Charleston until a little while after the fact is a big example.
Conclusion: Sherman did what he needed too. Was there a better way? There always is. But, he ended the Civil War sooner then any other general on either side.
1. According to Rules of War established, Sherman was actually permitted to "borrow" from the natives. When an invading army entered enemy territory, they were suppose to write a long letter to the local authorities, describing thier needs, and the authorities were suppose to give them all the food and items they needed. When none was found, the invaders were allowed to take as much as needed. Sherman followed this.
2. The rule of combat is for every defender, 3 attackers will die. This is true with the Civil War. If Lee had over 40,000 men when Grant attacked, it's probable that 15,000 would be shot in a vigoruos assualt. By scaring and harassing the locals, many men felt compelled to leave the front lines to protect thier famalies. Desertions were rampant in both the ANV and AOT. Many thousands were saved, and maybe a couple months of war was skimmed off.
3. Most of the destruction was done by vagabonds and deserters. Sherman was not really for too much wanton destruction, but, the bummers (deserters who wanted to loot and plunder) did. Only 40% of the damage was really Sherman evoked. The rest was lawlessness.
4. If a family was present, thier homes didn't get burned down.
5. Of course, many things were entirely Sherman's fault, as not putting out the fire in Charleston until a little while after the fact is a big example.
Conclusion: Sherman did what he needed too. Was there a better way? There always is. But, he ended the Civil War sooner then any other general on either side.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Lee vs. Grant: Who is the Better One
This is probably the greatest contreversy of them all. Who was better, Lee or Grant. I've decided to do it an intresting way. I will compare the results throughtout the entire war.
Battles Won
Grant: 18 battles
Lee: 8 Battles
Captured (Cities, Forts, Armies)
Grant:2 Forts, 5 major cities, 3 Confederate Armies
Lee: Nothing
Time as Overall Commander
Grant: 1 year and 5 months
Lee: 3 months; lost
Men Lost
Grant: 136,000 men.
Lee: 168,000 men.
Overall, Grant proved superior in every aspect of the war. He captured more, won more and did everything more.
Now, I am not saying Lee was a bad general. Lee was a superb general. He outwitted army after army. But, in the end, Grant won.
As was once said: Lee was the best tatician in the war (even in his battles with Grant, Grant rarely broke the Confederate lines), but Grant was the best stratigist. Taticians win battles, strategists win wars.
Battles Won
Grant: 18 battles
Lee: 8 Battles
Captured (Cities, Forts, Armies)
Grant:2 Forts, 5 major cities, 3 Confederate Armies
Lee: Nothing
Time as Overall Commander
Grant: 1 year and 5 months
Lee: 3 months; lost
Men Lost
Grant: 136,000 men.
Lee: 168,000 men.
Overall, Grant proved superior in every aspect of the war. He captured more, won more and did everything more.
Now, I am not saying Lee was a bad general. Lee was a superb general. He outwitted army after army. But, in the end, Grant won.
As was once said: Lee was the best tatician in the war (even in his battles with Grant, Grant rarely broke the Confederate lines), but Grant was the best stratigist. Taticians win battles, strategists win wars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
