Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gman on January 15, 2011, 12:18:58 PM
-
Anyone else as stoked as me for this HBO series coming for 2012 ish? The actors chosen are amoung the best in our generation IMO, and Gettysburg and Gods and Generals being my two favorite movies, I cannot WAIT.
Michael C Hall
Wiiliam Peterson
Will Patton
Paul Giamati as Longstreet, my fav
Bill Paxton as Stonewall Jackson, again, awesome
D.B. Sweeny
Noah Whyle
Dwight Yokam
Damian Lewis (Maj Winters from Band Of Brothers fame, again awesome)
Powers Booth
Walton Goggins from The Shield
With over 50 major speaking roles, the cast just continues to improve weekly, I'm spinning around excited for this, and I believe it'll be HBO's biggest success ever, maybe even eclipsing Band of Brothers as the most expensive TV mini series in our history, and rightfully so given the import of the subject matter.
http://www.toappomattox.com/To_Appomattox.html
-
Looks pretty good so far. It seems like they're covering the whole war. I'm wondering who they'll get to play Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain if he appears.
-
Don't get to excited just yet. Most of the movies and shows today don't even cover the scale of that tme period, or the accuracy of the time period.
-
WOW, and with the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War coming up. A few of us are planning to attend a few events each year starting with Bleeding Kansas.
-
looks like a great series.
i thought Damien Lewis did an outstanding job playing Maj. Winters in "Band of Brothers", can't wait to see how he does here
-
Don't get to excited just yet. Most of the movies and shows today don't even cover the scale of that tme period, or the accuracy of the time period.
How would your rate Band of Brothers then? Considering you, nor your great grandparents were around for the events, how can you criticize them?
I'm sure in the next 5-10 years when movies about fighting in Afghanistan come out, it won't exactly match up with my nearly 2 years of experience in that country, but it doesn't mean I can't enjoy and appreciate them just the same.
Common, jump on the bandwagon, this is going to be GREAT!
I'm wondering who they'll get to play Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain if he appears
They'd have to include him, especially considering his role at Little Round Top, winning the CMOH there, and then being present and in command of a large body of forces AT Appomattox. Also, his command to salute and render honors to the confederates as they passed by will be a big moment in the series I'm sure, likely the final episode. He gained a lot of respect from the South from this I've read. I'm wondering who will play him as well, should find out fairly quickly I bet.
-
I honestly think Jeff Daniels captured Chamberlains character perfectly. He was absolutely superb in the roll. Wouldn't mind seeing him in this production. I think another actor is going to have some big shoes to fill to top his portrayal
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/4155-7141.gif)
-
I'm wondering who they'll get to play Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain if he appears.
R Lee Ermey :devil
-
Anyone else as stoked as me for this HBO series coming for 2012 ish? The actors chosen are amoung the best in our generation IMO, and Gettysburg and Gods and Generals being my two favorite movies, I cannot WAIT.
Michael C Hall
Wiiliam Peterson
Will Patton
Paul Giamati as Longstreet, my fav
Bill Paxton as Stonewall Jackson, again, awesome
D.B. Sweeny
Noah Whyle
Dwight Yokam
Damian Lewis (Maj Winters from Band Of Brothers fame, again awesome)
Powers Booth
Walton Goggins from The Shield
With over 50 major speaking roles, the cast just continues to improve weekly, I'm spinning around excited for this, and I believe it'll be HBO's biggest success ever, maybe even eclipsing Band of Brothers as the most expensive TV mini series in our history, and rightfully so given the import of the subject matter.
http://www.toappomattox.com/To_Appomattox.html
i dont really get excited over HBO,Starze shows anymore ever since dennis hopper died. he was one of my favorite actors ever since i saw he movie "speed" :(
-
• Paul Giamatti (JOHN ADAMS), James "Pete" Longstreet
:huh
-
How would your rate Band of Brothers then? Considering you, nor your great grandparents were around for the events, how can you criticize them?
I'm sure in the next 5-10 years when movies about fighting in Afghanistan come out, it won't exactly match up with my nearly 2 years of experience in that country, but it doesn't mean I can't enjoy and appreciate them just the same.
Hollywood always messes up historical facts for the sake of keeping a (paying) audience watching.
I wasn't in the sand box, but I was an extra in three civil war movies and I can tell you that they mess everything they touch up.
Jeff Daniels would be the best bet for Chamberlain. If I can find some of my old 35mm pics I will try to scan them in of the Gods and Generals set, got some of C.Thomas Howell and Daniels milling around betwen takes.
-
Bill Paxton as Stonewall? Just can't see that. They should get Stephen Lang. He played Jackson VERY WELL in Gods and Generals.
-
Wow, I just developed a MAJOR interest in the American Civil War recently, and this miniseries is announced.
Thats just soo perfect! CANNOT WAIT!
also. LOVED, Gods and Generals (Even though the dialouge was gut wrenching at times) and am wanting to see Gettysburg desperately.
RALLY BEHIND THE VIRGINIANS!
(http://www.militaryartgallery.com/images_3_b/b_thomas_stonewall_jackson.jpg)
-
Maybe they will let me play Pvt. Pleasant Preston Claytor, 34th Virginia Infintry, Company G
-
WOW, and with the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War coming up. A few of us are planning to attend a few events each year starting with Bleeding Kansas.
heLLOOO....it was the 'War of Northern Aggression'
-
Paxton may be able to pull off Jackson... Will require some intensity. Jackson was a genuine screwball in many respects, especially away from combat.
Kix Brooks does resemble Hancock, but can he generate the dynamic and powerful presence that Hancock brought to command? We'll see...
I like Paul Giamatti, but Longstreet was another commanding presence on the field. We will see the full measure of Giamatti's talent if he can pull it off.
I think that Will Patton was a great choice to play Lee. Especially when compared to short, fat Charlie Sheen's Quaalude-like portrayal of Lee in Gettysburg.
I'm looking forward to seeing the result.
-
fat Charlie Sheen's Quaalude-like portrayal of Lee in Gettysburg.
I laughed out loud at that one.
I think Duval did a MUCH better job in Gods/Generals, particularly in the first half of the film.
I can't really disagree with anything in the last few posts, but I think everyone should give Bill Paxton a chance, I think he has it in him.
-
I honestly think Jeff Daniels captured Chamberlains character perfectly. He was absolutely superb in the roll. Wouldn't mind seeing him in this production. I think another actor is going to have some big shoes to fill to top his portrayal
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/4155-7141.gif)
+1
-
Especially when compared to short, fat Charlie Sheen's Quaalude-like portrayal of Lee in Gettysburg.
Don't you mean Martin Sheen?
-
Don't you mean Martin Sheen?
One and the same. I don't like either of one of them
-
That line in Gods and Generals with Robert Duval gave me chills. And the statement he made is the reason why sympathise with the Confederate position.
"I never thought I would see the day where a president of the united states, would raise an army to subdue his own people. No sir, I cannot lead it.... I WILL NOT lead it"
And when a squad of Union soldiers asked a bedraggled Confederate prisoner looking upon them with contempt. "You have no slaves, and no land. What are you fighting for?" he replied "Because you are down here and not up there"
Got to love Ken Burns documentary.
-
That line in Gods and Generals with Robert Duval gave me chills. And the statement he made is the reason why sympathise with the Confederate position.
"I never thought I would see the day where a president of the united states, would raise an army to subdue his own people. No sir, I cannot lead it.... I WILL NOT lead it"
And when a squad of Union soldiers asked a bedraggled Confederate prisoner looking upon them with contempt. "You have no slaves, and no land. What are you fighting for?" he replied "Because you are down here and not up there"
Got to love Ken Burns documentary.
Yet, we have been taught for decades that 650,000 boys died over slavery
-
Just remember, its the ones that win the war that write the history books.
-
heLLOOO....it was the 'War of Northern Aggression'
Hey there, do you know anything about Bleeding Kansas.
-
Hey there, do you know anything about Bleeding Kansas.
Eh...I grew up in Manassas, I think the only field trip we DIDNT have was to Gettysburg
-
Eh...I grew up in Manassas, I think the only field trip we DIDNT have was to Gettysburg
Kansas was the ember that sparked the civil war, 3 months after, they declare as a free slave state. Bleeding Kansas is was a war with Kansas (anti-slave) and Missouri board ruffians (pro-slavery) from 1854-1860. This event is where John Brown is from. Bleeding Kansas was over shadow in history books do to the main war.
-
Don't you mean Martin Sheen?
Yes, I did mean Martin... Charlie isn't short or fat... Just insane.
-
Just remember, its the ones that win the war that write the history books.
Oh, here's my favorite account of this, and this was precisely how I was taught in school:
1492, CE, Columbus discovers the Americas (Which is hardly true, Amerigo Vespucci did)
1607, CE, 1st American colony established
1620, CE, Puritans establish Plymouth colony, first Thanksgiving held with (oddly) full support of the Indians
1733, CE, 13th American colony established
1776, CE, United States declares independance
1812-1815 CE, War of 1812
1861-1865, American Civil War
1917-1918, United States fights in World War I
1941-1945, United States fights in Pacific Theatre
1944-1945, United States fights in European Theatre
What happened during the 108 years between Columbus and the Puritans? What happened between 1607 and 1733 in the colonies? Firstly, there were the explorations of the Americas by other Europeans. Nextly, there was the complete and brutal domination, removal or oblideration of the Native American tribes- and don't give me and baloney about "manifest destiny" we had no right to that land.
Furthermore, the United States enjoyed a rather comfortable establishment with England, but economic mismanagent ended a rather strong bond between the two. Between the revolution and civil war, the government was far from idillic. Corruption was rampant, and George Washington was nearly talked into becoming a military dictator.
This trend continued until around the turn of the 20th century, as the government began to settle down. The US did not win World War I, rather, it delivered an even then paltry 250,000 troops to the front. Stranger still, even when the United States crushed Japan, students are only taught about either Midway or Pearl Harbor. Iwo Jima, Tarawa et al. are simply skipped. However, when the United States helped defeat the equally brutal Germany, teachers extoll the landings and bocage fighting as 'heroic' and 'brave'. The United States only entered the European Theatre for only 10 months, June 1944 to April 1945, and although the fighting was brutal, it was nothing compared to what the Soviet Union had to do. In analogy, we seemed "stronger" just as a sprinter is faster than an marathon runner, but the sprinter need only run a few hundred meters before collapsing.
In reality, we merely stole the coup de grace from the USSR, and claimed it as our own. Germany was already crumbling under the pressure from East and West, and needed but a few months to tumble down. The D-Day landings took less than a few days, the battle of the Kessel lasted months.
It's strange the way we teach the student body about history, it is far less US centric, and involved much nastier methods from all parties.
-Penguin
-
In reality, we merely stole the coup de grace from the USSR, and claimed it as our own. Germany was already crumbling under the pressure from East and West, and needed but a few months to tumble down. The D-Day landings took less than a few days, the battle of the Kessel lasted months.
Yea, and we defiantly want to crack that egg don't we?
-
Yea, and we defiantly want to crack that egg don't we?
I'm sorry, but you've lost me there. :headscratch:
-Penguin
-
I'm sorry, but you've lost me there, care to elaborate?
-Penguin
Give Glory to the USSR? Who which killed millions of their own civilians during the reign of their Empire.
Yea, and we were very close into going into nuclear war with for about 50 years. Yea, it is so unfair.
-
Give Glory to the USSR? Who which killed millions of their own civilians during the reign of their Empire.
Yea, and we were very close into going into nuclear war with for about 50 years. Yea, it is so unfair.
No, not give glory, at least mention their efforts to take down Hitler! Yes, I do know the horrors of their regime. From the purges to the starvation of the Ukrainians, these guys were anything but nice. However, they proved to be an invaluable ally in the war.
I dare venture no further than the 50s, since I don't want Skuzzy's banstick inserted into some of my rather rather 'tender' bodily cavities.
-Penguin
-
The United States only entered the European Theatre for only 10 months, June 1944 to April 1945, and although the fighting was brutal, it was nothing compared to what the Soviet Union had to do.
-Penguin
A few references that may enlighten you...
Let's start with the air war.
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/wwii_combat_chronology.pdf (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/wwii_combat_chronology.pdf)
Browse thru the various documents on US ground combat in North Africa, Sicily and Italy prior to 1944 on the US Army Combined Arms Research Library..
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8 (http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8)
Need we discuss the value of Lend Lease to the Soviet Union's survival in 1942 and 1943?
Also, various sources state that the US suffered 137,000 dead, and 198,000 wounded in WWI, plus there were in excess of American 2 million troops in Europe when Germany asked for a ceasefire.
Seriously, let's not deviate from the thread. Start a new one to debate US participation in world wars....
-
The US did not win World War I, rather, it delivered an even then paltry 250,000 troops to the front.
250,000? well maybe in the beginning of 1917.. However by the end of the war 4.7 million Americans would end up serving. Where a little over 2 million troops would make it to France with 1.3 million seeing combat.
And 'yes' the US bringing in millions of fresh troops in the war contributed to it ending when it did. I'm not saying it was the only factor(The German high seas fleet was already well contained before the US entered), but if you take away that support, WWI doesn't end November 1918.
-
Kansas was the ember that sparked the civil war, 3 months after, they declare as a free slave state. Bleeding Kansas is was a war with Kansas (anti-slave) and Missouri board ruffians (pro-slavery) from 1854-1860. This event is where John Brown is from. Bleeding Kansas was over shadow in history books do to the main war.
It actually started in 1820 with the Missouri compromise.
-
A few references that may enlighten you...
Let's start with the air war.
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/wwii_combat_chronology.pdf (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/wwii_combat_chronology.pdf)
Browse thru the various documents on US ground combat in North Africa, Sicily and Italy prior to 1944 on the US Army Combined Arms Research Library..
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8 (http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8)
Need we discuss the value of Lend Lease to the Soviet Union's survival in 1942 and 1943?
Also, various sources state that the US suffered 137,000 dead, and 198,000 wounded in WWI, plus there were in excess of American 2 million troops in Europe when Germany asked for a ceasefire.
Seriously, let's not deviate from the thread. Start a new one to debate US participation in world wars....
Lets not confuse anyone with the facts. ;)
-
A few references that may enlighten you...
Let's start with the air war.
http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/wwii_combat_chronology.pdf (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/wwii_combat_chronology.pdf)
Browse thru the various documents on US ground combat in North Africa, Sicily and Italy prior to 1944 on the US Army Combined Arms Research Library..
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8 (http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8)
Need we discuss the value of Lend Lease to the Soviet Union's survival in 1942 and 1943?
Also, various sources state that the US suffered 137,000 dead, and 198,000 wounded in WWI, plus there were in excess of American 2 million troops in Europe when Germany asked for a ceasefire.
Seriously, let's not deviate from the thread. Start a new one to debate US participation in world wars....
:Self Facepalm. After several years of AH2, how could I have forgotten about the air war? You have a point, however, reread my post, you'll notice why I said only ten months (Hint: It's what particular theatre the US entered). However, the Italian Theatre brings up an interesting new question... :headscratch:
Thanks for snapping me back to reality, there must have been some other stuff going on in my head. :salute
One other thing, though, those links lead to a HUGE database, would you mind posting the links/ page numbers to/of the pages you're using as evidence?
-Penguin
(If I'm wrong on other points, I'll admit it)
-
I honestly think Jeff Daniels captured Chamberlains character perfectly. He was absolutely superb in the roll. Wouldn't mind seeing him in this production. I think another actor is going to have some big shoes to fill to top his portrayal
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/4155-7141.gif)
Agreed, Sheen I think did the best Lee and Tom Berenger was outstanding as Longstreet.
The women look to be all miss cast all being about 100 times more attractive then their RL counterparts
Paige Turco with the right hairdoo and make up might be able to pull it off but Helen McCrory is too young looking and much too skinny in the face.
I have someone better in mind but I cant get the name to come off my fingertips
-
:Self Facepalm. After several years of AH2, how could I have forgotten about the air war? You have a point, however, reread my post, you'll notice why I said only ten months (Hint: It's what particular theatre the US entered). However, the Italian Theatre brings up an interesting new question... :headscratch:
Thanks for snapping me back to reality, there must have been some other stuff going on in my head. :salute
One other thing, though, those links lead to a HUGE database, would you mind posting the links/ page numbers to/of the pages you're using as evidence?
-Penguin
(If I'm wrong on other points, I'll admit it)
I'll make it easy... Easy to read/view web pages, without searching databases.
Operation Torch:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/optorch4.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/optorch4.pdf)
Operation Husky:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/husky/default.aspx (http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/husky/default.aspx)
Operation Avalanche: A 20 minute documentary...
http://www.factualtv.com/documentary/Crusade-in-Europe-Assault-on-Italy (http://www.factualtv.com/documentary/Crusade-in-Europe-Assault-on-Italy)
Don't forget the Battle of the Atlantic.....
-
Agreed, Sheen I think did the best Lee and Tom Berenger was outstanding as Longstreet.
The problem was the script and the wardrobe. Those unifoorms were too clean for someone out campaigning in such filthy conditions.
When they showed Jackson in God's and General's the cleanliness of his uniform was appauling, that they would over look one of the biggest details of Jackson's biggest setbacks which was the condition of his uniforms. On one occasion some Ladies presented Gen. Jackson with a brand new uniform and he still refused to wear it. When you watch the movie though, his uniform is spiffy clean.
My wife says " it's just a movie "
I say that if your going to re-create the past and re-tell a story of the history of this country then you shold go to all possible lengths to make sure that story is projected to the viewer in the proper way.....the way it happened.
-
I'll make it easy... Easy to read/view web pages, without searching databases.
Operation Torch:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/optorch4.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/optorch4.pdf)
Operation Husky:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/husky/default.aspx (http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/husky/default.aspx)
Operation Avalanche: A 20 minute documentary...
http://www.factualtv.com/documentary/Crusade-in-Europe-Assault-on-Italy (http://www.factualtv.com/documentary/Crusade-in-Europe-Assault-on-Italy)
Don't forget the Battle of the Atlantic.....
Thank you, sir, it seems like I was off by about a year. Am I correct?
-Penguin
-
The problem was the script and the wardrobe. Those unifoorms were too clean for someone out campaigning in such filthy conditions.
When they showed Jackson in God's and General's the cleanliness of his uniform was appauling, that they would over look one of the biggest details of Jackson's biggest setbacks which was the condition of his uniforms. On one occasion some Ladies presented Gen. Jackson with a brand new uniform and he still refused to wear it. When you watch the movie though, his uniform is spiffy clean.
My wife says " it's just a movie "
I say that if your going to re-create the past and re-tell a story of the history of this country then you shold go to all possible lengths to make sure that story is projected to the viewer in the proper way.....the way it happened.
I noticed the uniforms as well. And while we're at it. The beards were just a bit too neat. But thats a wardrobe and make up dept snaffu
But I was referring to the quality of work both did as actors portraying their characters.
I think each did a fine job in pulling off the characters they were portraying Berenger in particular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3myVtAjpkFo
On an ending note. we visited Gettysburg the summer before last. It was my second trip there.
It was a HOt summer day just as it was back then and my daughter and I decided to take the hike taken during Pickets Charge.
did I mention it was HOt just like that day? LOL
One hell of a long walk in that heat. and we were walking on a beaten down path and not across ground that had in all probability been plowed that spring making the ground softer and thus a bit more laborious to walk over.
My the time we reached the stone wall (high water mark) we were beat and thirsty and dreading the long walk back. And were werent wearing any gear or carrying any muskets.I cant even imagine what it must have really been like. Hot sun with the clothing they wore then, under fire. I wonder how many collapsed out of sheer heat exhaustion.
That clump of trees Yonder doesnt look all that bad from the opposing hill.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq198/Drediock/Personal/20090825_0923.jpg)
Till ya walk it there and back that is. I think you can see by the look on my daughters face that she's about had it
And yea, thats me.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq198/Drediock/20090825_0917.jpg?t=1295396258)
Anyway. Anyone ever gets the chance you gotta do the walk on a hot summer day.
Bless the souls of those who did it for real all those years ago cause its alot tougher then it looks.
And just for chuckles.
this is the view of little round top from the top of Devils Den
Chamberlains position was in relation to this picture in the woods and to the right.
I mention this because it is another slight innacurracy i the movie.
the terrain at Chamberlains position is pretty much the same as you see here. only with alot of trees. And ALOT of big rocks. That you see very little of in the movie.
That charge. down hill over those rocks. Had to be "the damnedest thing" anyone ever saw.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq198/Drediock/Personal/20090825_0930.jpg)
-
Hot is an understatement. At last year's Gettysburg event there was five re-enactors that went down with heat exhaustion. For anyone that does decide to make the trip to Gettysburg, Make sure you go when they are having the event for the battle. If your at the actual battlefield when the re-enactment is going on the sounds of muskets and cannon going off in the distance will chill your soul.
In 2004 I travelled to Charlestown,S.C. to be in the burial parade for the hunley crew members. Long story short...it was a four mile walk in 80 degree weather. There was 1200 of us in that parade and atleast 30 or more fell out on the death march as some were calling it.
-
My wife and I visit Gettysburg every two years... We spend our days wandering the battlefield and the evenings walking the town and having a quiet dinners. Back in 1996, I wrote my Thesis on the Gettysburg campaign. I avoided the "what-ifs" and concentrated on Lee's predicament... He could stay in Pennsylvania only as long as he could avoid having to concentrate his army. Once concentrated, he had no more than 5 days of 3/4 rations and fodder. After that, he would be forced to start for home. Living off the land, without any supply line is precarious at best. This, as much as any reason, was why Lee prosecuted the fight so hard. Time was not on his side.
-
I'm sure they'll gloss over the War in Missouri. Shame, too. that was a civil war WITHIN the Civil War and interesting history in its own right.
-
My wife and I visit Gettysburg every two years... We spend our days wandering the battlefield and the evenings walking the town and having a quiet dinners. Back in 1996, I wrote my Thesis on the Gettysburg campaign. I avoided the "what-ifs" and concentrated on Lee's predicament... He could stay in Pennsylvania only as long as he could avoid having to concentrate his army. Once concentrated, he had no more than 5 days of 3/4 rations and fodder. After that, he would be forced to start for home. Living off the land, without any supply line is precarious at best. This, as much as any reason, was why Lee prosecuted the fight so hard. Time was not on his side.
Just out of curiosity, why then was Sherman's March so successful? I suspect it's because he never really stopped for a big battle, or he pillaged more, or something?
-
The Confederates didn't have an equal force to commit against Sherman in an outright fight. Joe Johnston was bumping into Sherman here and there through spring and into summer 1864. He was replaced by John Bell Hood who being the aggressive type took Sherman on in several engagements successfully getting his bellybutton kicked in the process. Hood's tactics were essentially the equivalent of telling someone you're going to walk up to them and punch them in the face and then trying to do so. It doesn't and it didn't work and it killed a lot of southern boys in several disastrous battles highlighted with numerous frontal assaults and many tens of thousands of casualties. He ended up holing up and being beseiged in Atlanta before getting out in the autumn of 1864.
So yeah, Sherman stopped a few times along the way to fight. There were quite a number of factors at play and the best Lee, Johnston, Hood and Davis could have ever hoped to do was prolong the fight as the raw numbers Grant and the Federal Army had to throw against the Confederates were incredible.
The good news is they spared Savannah. I love that town.
-
Just out of curiosity, why then was Sherman's March so successful? I suspect it's because he never really stopped for a big battle, or he pillaged more, or something?
fear. fear spreads faster than any army can march.
-
Just out of curiosity, why then was Sherman's March so successful? I suspect it's because he never really stopped for a big battle, or he pillaged more, or something?
Gen. Lee was a southern gentleman and did not believe in living off the country side as Gen. Sherman did. If you ever have the chance to read about the foraging done by Gen. Sherman's army it will disgust you at the way they treated citizen's.
Although Gen. Jubal Early told the town of Chambersburg,Pa. that if he did not recieve one million dollars he would burn down the city, he ended up taking what he could carry off after getting a small amount of cash from several locals, the he burnt the buisness district to the ground.
The end result is that Gettysburg was no more than an excursion for shoes that turned sour. Had Gen. Jackson not been gunned down by a member of the 18th N.C. a month earlier, hH would have taken the hill that Gen. Ewell failed to take and took the high ground.
-
Gen. Lee was a southern gentleman and did not believe in living off the country side as Gen. Sherman did. If you ever have the chance to read about the foraging done by Gen. Sherman's army it will disgust you at the way they treated citizen's.
Although Gen. Jubal Early told the town of Chambersburg,Pa. that if he did not recieve one million dollars he would burn down the city, he ended up taking what he could carry off after getting a small amount of cash from several locals, the he burnt the buisness district to the ground.
The end result is that Gettysburg was no more than an excursion for shoes that turned sour. Had Gen. Jackson not been gunned down by a member of the 18th N.C. a month earlier, hH would have taken the hill that Gen. Ewell failed to take and took the high ground.
It's very doubtful that Jackson would have been able to take either Culp's Hill or Cemetery Hill. Jackson would have faced the same issues. Much of the 2nd Corps was completely disorganized and scattered within the town, or trying to reform north of the town. Johnson's Division, the only major unit under Ewell that had not yet been engaged, stretched back for three miles. It would take several hours to get up, form up and attack up Culp's Hill. In the meanwhile, there was a Union Brigade already on the Hill, digging in and building breastworks.
As to attacking Cemetery Hill, Buford's Brigade (having suffered only 127 casualties fighting much of the day) had been shifted to the north base of the hill and drove off two Confederate Regiments of Smith's Brigade that had formed up south of the town. Buford advanced his troopers, whose breach loader carbines put down a Division sized volume of fire, causing the Confederates to break and race back into the town.
By the time that the 2nd Corps was reasonably reorganized, there were in excess of 13,000 Federal Troops on the two hills, with the Slocum's Corps coming onto the scene. Not to mention the three dozen guns of Union artillery already in place. I'm convinced that any piecemeal attack on either hill would have repulsed with severe loss. Besides, Hancock was in command, and he was hoping the Confederates would do exactly that. Lee lacked good intel on not only Union strength on the hills, but on the organization of Ewell's beat-up Corps. Rhodes's Division was shot to pieces. Early's division was scattered and beat up. Billy Smith withdrew his largely unbloodied Brigade from pursuing the retreating remnants of the 11th Corps after Buford chased his soldiers back into the town.
I have no confidence that Jackson would have had any success in place of Ewell....
-
The Confederates didn't have an equal force to commit against Sherman in an outright fight. Joe Johnston was bumping into Sherman here and there through spring and into summer 1864. He was replaced by John Bell Hood who being the aggressive type took Sherman on in several engagements successfully getting his bellybutton kicked in the process. Hood's tactics were essentially the equivalent of telling someone you're going to walk up to them and punch them in the face and then trying to do so. It doesn't and it didn't work and it killed a lot of southern boys in several disastrous battles highlighted with numerous frontal assaults and many tens of thousands of casualties. He ended up holing up and being beseiged in Atlanta before getting out in the autumn of 1864.
So yeah, Sherman stopped a few times along the way to fight. There were quite a number of factors at play and the best Lee, Johnston, Hood and Davis could have ever hoped to do was prolong the fight as the raw numbers Grant and the Federal Army had to throw against the Confederates were incredible.
The good news is they spared Savannah. I love that town.
Sherman had to deal with Hood before he captured Atlanta. Indeed, Hood was responsible for most of the damage to the city when he ordered that everything useful to the Yankees that could not be carried off by the Confederates, be blown up or burned. Hood elected to move into Tennessee, in the hope that Sherman would follow. He didn't need to follow, and was quite glad to see Hood go. As we know, Hood destroyed his army with suicidal attacks at Franklin and Nashville. Both Schofield and Thomas kicked Hood's butt big time.
Johnston had few troops to impede Sherman, and Sherman was able to avoid having to concentrate his army, which allowed them to live off the land. In Pennsylvania, Lee had no choice but to concentrate (Lee's army pilfered the Pennsylvania countryside, taking whatever they wanted, offering worthless promissory notes and script in exchange) as he was correctly concerned that Meade could isolate the three widely scattered Corps and defeat them in detail. Lee had no choice but to forage as he had no supply line whatsoever. That was in his plan from conception.
-
It's very doubtful that Jackson would have been able to take either Culp's Hill or Cemetery Hill. Jackson would have faced the same issues. Much of the 2nd Corps was completely disorganized and scattered within the town, or trying to reform north of the town. Johnson's Division, the only major unit under Ewell that had not yet been engaged, stretched back for three miles. It would take several hours to get up, form up and attack up Culp's Hill. In the meanwhile, there was a Union Brigade already on the Hill, digging in and building breastworks.
As to attacking Cemetery Hill, Buford's Brigade (having suffered only 127 casualties fighting much of the day) had been shifted to the north base of the hill and drove off two Confederate Regiments of Smith's Brigade that had formed up south of the town. Buford advanced his troopers, whose breach loader carbines put down a Division sized volume of fire, causing the Confederates to break and race back into the town.
By the time that the 2nd Corps was reasonably reorganized, there were in excess of 13,000 Federal Troops on the two hills, with the Slocum's Corps coming onto the scene. Not to mention the three dozen guns of Union artillery already in place. I'm convinced that any piecemeal attack on either hill would have repulsed with severe loss. Besides, Hancock was in command, and he was hoping the Confederates would do exactly that. Lee lacked good intel on not only Union strength on the hills, but on the organization of Ewell's beat-up Corps. Rhodes's Division was shot to pieces. Early's division was scattered and beat up. Billy Smith withdrew his largely unbloodied Brigade from pursuing the retreating remnants of the 11th Corps after Buford chased his soldiers back into the town.
I have no confidence that Jackson would have had any success in place of Ewell....
Truth be told, I think there's a lot more glorifying of Jackson than what he FULLY deserved. There's long-standing controversy that the name "Stonewall" came not from a determined stand at Bull Run, but because he sat on his rear end while Bee and Bartow were getting shot to pieces and was late in relieving them. The flanking action at Chancellorsville was as much a product of Lee's tactical ability and Hooker's failures as it was any brilliance on the part Jackson.
-
I have no confidence that Jackson would have had any success in place of Ewell....
Then you need to go back further and read more. Gen.Jackson would have taken that hill, especially since it was unoccupied. Gen.Jackson was a genius at tactics and didn't take no for an answer.
Example: Battle of Harpers Ferry,Va.
He occupied the Maryland hieghts come hell or high water.
Example: Battle of South Mountain
Gen.Jackson again tells his troops to occupy a difficult position which wins the day.
-
HBO :salute
-
Then you need to go back further and read more. Gen.Jackson would have taken that hill, especially since it was unoccupied. Gen.Jackson was a genius at tactics and didn't take no for an answer.
Example: Battle of Harpers Ferry,Va.
He occupied the Maryland hieghts come hell or high water.
Example: Battle of South Mountain
Gen.Jackson again tells his troops to occupy a difficult position which wins the day.
Maybe you should actually read what Widewing has to say instead of repeating pop-culture myth by rote.
-
Then you need to go back further and read more. Gen.Jackson would have taken that hill, especially since it was unoccupied. Gen.Jackson was a genius at tactics and didn't take no for an answer.
Example: Battle of Harpers Ferry,Va.
He occupied the Maryland hieghts come hell or high water.
Example: Battle of South Mountain
Gen.Jackson again tells his troops to occupy a difficult position which wins the day.
OK. Question: Gen. Jackson vs. Chuck Norris?
Hmmmmm?
:noid,
Wab
-
Sorry it was early when i posted my last post. I did not mean Battle of South Mountain, i meant the 1862 valley campaign.
-
Then you need to go back further and read more. Gen.Jackson would have taken that hill, especially since it was unoccupied. Gen.Jackson was a genius at tactics and didn't take no for an answer.
Example: Battle of Harpers Ferry,Va.
He occupied the Maryland hieghts come hell or high water.
Example: Battle of South Mountain
Gen.Jackson again tells his troops to occupy a difficult position which wins the day.
Well, I guess that I'm as well read on Jackson as anyone.... You gloss over Jackson's failures, such as his inability to accomplish anything during the Seven Days battles. His inability to get along with other senior officers, even to the point of trying to courts-marshal A.P. Hill for an imagined infraction. Jackson was a borderline lunatic. Yes, he had a talent for tactics and was extremely aggressive on occasion. That would not be enough to capture a well defended, heavily wooded hill with a battered and scattered Corps that had marched for 12 hours and fought a hard fight. Oh, and Culps Hill was not unoccupied, which is another myth. The 11th Corps began falling back through Gettysburg around 4 PM. By then, Wadsworth's Division was scaling Culps Hill, with one Brigade already in place. By 5 PM, the entire Division was on the hill, building breastworks. At 5:30 PM, Hancock sent a message to Meade stating that he had 20,000 men in position to defend both hills and pronounced his position one that "cannot be well taken". Within a half hour, a quarter of Slocum's Corps was on the field, with a total of 27,000 troops at his disposal to fend off any Confederate attack having arrived by sundown. Every study I have seen has stated categorically that Ewell could not possibly have organized an attack with more than 7,000 troops prior to 6 PM. Ewell was cautious, but not at fault for not assaulting either of the hills immediately.
-
I think when Lee said "he had lost his right arm", when Jackson died, says alot more than what you have.
Just remember there were some on Ike's staff that didn't think Patton could get to Bastogne in time.
-
Just remember there were some on Ike's staff that didn't think Patton could get to Bastogne in time.
And Lee also thought 15,000 men could take Cemetery Ridge in a frontal assault.
-
Widewing,
I don't know where you got that info about the hill being unoccupied. At the time that Gen. Ewell was told to advance if practical, at that time the hill was empty, he thought about it to long. After fierce campaigning with Jackson you would think that Gen. Ewell would have recognized this fact, but alas he is no artillery genieus as his commander.
-
Widewing,
I don't know where you got that info about the hill being unoccupied. At the time that Gen. Ewell was told to advance if practical, at that time the hill was empty, he thought about it to long. After fierce campaigning with Jackson you would think that Gen. Ewell would have recognized this fact, but alas he is no artillery genieus as his commander.
He didn't get his information from the screenplay adapted from Michael Shaara's novel.
-
Todd,
Widewing is probably one of the most reliable guys on this board when it comes to being able to pull out legitimate documentation on whatever subject he's discussing. I swear, he's got scans and microfilm of pretty much everything. :noid
-
I think when Lee said "he had lost his right arm", when Jackson died, says alot more than what you have.
Just remember there were some on Ike's staff that didn't think Patton could get to Bastogne in time.
Understand Lee's context... Lee certainly felt the loss of Jackson, as he did the wounding of Longstreet in the Wilderness.
Most Civil War historians with no agenda agree that Jackson would not likely have been successful at taking either hill after 5 PM on July 1. There were simply too many Federal troops, with too much artillery.
Ewell's problem at 4 PM, July 1 and Patton's problem on December 21, 1944 were utterly different.
Not even the legendary Stonewall could push off 20,000 Federals, dug-in behind breastworks, with just 7,000 men. Especially when those Union troops were led by the formidable Winfield Scott Hancock, who was without doubt, the boldest General in the Army of the Potomac. He wasn't called "Hancock the superb" for nothing....
-
Widewing,
I don't know where you got that info about the hill being unoccupied. At the time that Gen. Ewell was told to advance if practical, at that time the hill was empty, he thought about it to long. After fierce campaigning with Jackson you would think that Gen. Ewell would have recognized this fact, but alas he is no artillery genieus as his commander.
Coddington's "The Gettysburg Campaign, A Study in Command". This is the "Bible" of Gettysburg studies. Begin with Map 6, and then begin reading on page 297, paragraph 2.
After 40+ years of studying the War Between the States, even doing my Masters Thesis on the Gettysburg Campaign, I've read just about every account, every official history, every study and analysis of the battle. Add to that countless books and articles.
Ewell was told to attempt to take Cemetery Hill (no mention of Culps Hill in Lee's order) if at all practicable. I'll say again that Lee had very poor intel of the condition of the 2nd Corps and what they were facing. Ewell also commented that he wanted to push up the hill as soon as possible. So, once again, I will state that Ewell's Corps was in no condition to do so for at least an hour, probably much longer. Rodes units were largely wrecked... Early's Division was completely disorganized by pursuing the 11th Corp through the town. Units were scattered all over the town, regiments and brigades would take time to reform to the north of the town. Intermingled with the Confederates were hundreds of Union prisoners. Smith was just arriving and Johnson was two hours from being on the field. (Edit: I forgot to mention that Smith's scouts reported that a very large body of Union infantry was seen to be advancing down the York Pike, which would put them on Ewell's left flank, which was largely hanging in the air. This startled Ewell, who ordered a scouting party out to confirm the sighting. About two hours later, they returned and stated that large bodies of Federal troops with artillery and ammunition trains were indeed advancing, but on Hanover Road and the Baltimore Pike, which would not place them on his direct left flank. Few could argue that Ewell was timid in assaulting either hill when there was a real concern that his left flank was in danger.)
Lee saw the high ground and knew that if the Federals reinforced the hill, pushing them off would be very difficult. So, he passed his order onto Ewell via Walter Taylor.
Aside from Coddington, two other books that are useful and easy to read (Coddington is not an easy read) are Stephen Sears, "Gettysburg" and Noah Trudeau's, "Gettysburg, a Testing of Courage". These three will present a definitive understanding of the battle, its tactics, strategy and leadership. Moreover, the second two are extremely well written and thoroughly entertaining. What all three also do is cut through the mythology of the battle, both Union and Confederate.
-
You gentlemen may enjoy this brief study..... Take note of the messages and telegraph messages included at the end of the document...
http://www.history.army.mil/StaffRide/Gettysburg/gettysburg_2010.pdf (http://www.history.army.mil/StaffRide/Gettysburg/gettysburg_2010.pdf)
-
You gentlemen may enjoy this brief study..... Take note of the messages and telegraph messages included at the end of the document...
http://www.history.army.mil/StaffRide/Gettysburg/gettysburg_2010.pdf (http://www.history.army.mil/StaffRide/Gettysburg/gettysburg_2010.pdf)
Have you ever considered writing a history book of your own?
-Penguin
-
Have you ever considered writing a history book of your own?
-Penguin
I am currently working on a history based fiction manuscript.. No timetable on completion.
-
He didn't get his information from the screenplay adapted from Michael Shaara's novel.
You shouldn't assume.
Rather than sitting in a library or using google I go out and experience the Civil War. I have driven thousands of miles and spent countless hours with my head buried in the war between the states. From private collections to the library of congress I have researched to feed my addiction.
The main thing in my life is the war between the states. It is my main interest. It use to be aces high, but about three years ago after obtaining permission from several private collections I don't have time for aces high anymore, as I will never have enough free time to cover all the information I have been given access to.
If ten people saw a fight you would get ten different opinions on what happened. In this case I am offering one of those mentioned.
I was simply adding my .02 to the discussion.
-
either way I'm enjoying the discussion between widewing and todd. :aok
-
Poor Todd, Widewing is :ahand to him.
-Penguin
-
Poor Todd, Widewing is :ahand to him.
-Penguin
Not at all... Todd is an enthusiast, a guy who spends his money and time reliving history. He has read many of the eyewitness accounts of the battle, and has been honest in that these accounts may differ from others. This is a common factor found; with varying accounts reporting different events while on the same portion of the battlefield. I very much appreciate Todd, and welcome discussion of the events surrounding Gettysburg.
-
Not at all... Todd is an enthusiast, a guy who spends his money and time reliving history. He has read many of the eyewitness accounts of the battle, and has been honest in that these accounts may differ from others. This is a common factor found; with varying accounts reporting different events while on the same portion of the battlefield. I very much appreciate Todd, and welcome discussion of the events surrounding Gettysburg.
Oops, overstepped the mark. :eek:
-Penguin
-
I am currently working on a history based fiction manuscript.. No timetable on completion.
Those are my absolute favorite sort of books! (Michael Crichton and Ken Follet come to mind)
-
Since we seem to have historians on other periods of history other than WW2, Is any one interested in Napoleonic warfare? Particularly the Peninsular War? If so, be interesting to cross brains with you!
<S>
-
I'm pitifully ignorant, mind dumping some of your vast reserves onto me?
-Penguin
-
Of the Peninsular? Drop us a PM about what particular aspect you want to hear about, I'll try and help out
-
The war of Spanish independance from the french. The origin of Guerilla Warfare in Europe, and Arthur Wellsly The Iron Duke's campaign to liberate the peninsula.
-
It's a great period to study. There is so much mis-information about many of the battles and also how he campaign as such was run. Its amazing to look into it!