It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Rober E. Lee actually a great strategist???

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Should Longstreet have attacked if ewele didn't???

I can't remember the set up off the top of my head, but attacks are usually done in tandem expecting one or more sides to draw fire from the others. Charging solo could have been suicidal.

As well as I can remember everytime I have heard of Longstreet arguing he was right, lol.

Or at least the historian always adds a "yea he disobeyed the order, but.,.,."

Also ANY military leader that disobeys orders AND keeps his job (head lol) must be REALLY good at the job..




posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I was refering to Lee and pickets charge.

You said a chunk of lees motivation when he ordered that charge was out of frustration after Longstreet and ewel had disobeyed orders.


Disobeying orders makes you a bad soldier..

Ordering your men into a suicidal charge because your pissed at a couple officers make you a crap commander.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: dragonridr

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain saved the entire battle, when he gave the order to charge down Little Round Top and prevented the Northern Army from being flanked.


That wasn't military genius that was dumb luck. It was so crazy that it was misinterpreted as this and on men charging. But I guess acts of desparation can provide unusual if not comical results.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: dragonridr

I was refering to Lee and pickets charge.

You said a chunk of lees motivation when he ordered that charge was out of frustration after Longstreet and ewel had disobeyed orders.


Disobeying orders makes you a bad soldier..

Ordering your men into a suicidal charge because your pissed at a couple officers make you a crap commander.


Yes Lee knew they were running short on supplies they had to ration bullets and food. He knew he couldn't sit there for days slugging it out. As each say passed and his plans failed he became more desperate to end this battle.

His plans on the first two days were destroyed by his own generals. So by day 3 I tend to think he had lost it. Because he gives the attack order while yelling at longstreet for his failure. Point to the hIll and says the enemy is there! In other words he felt instead of being in position longstreet took his men on a tour of the countryside. So by day 3 he had all ready made to attempts to flank the union line. So instead he'd take a huge gamble.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

There were no orders for Longstreet to attack on July 1st, I don't know where you're getting this information but it's wrong. Lee had no idea what he was facing (due to Stuart's absence) when A.P Hill's men ran into Buford's cavalry.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I think that applies to all "crazy comeback" type situations.. some one has to be brace enough do something that is stupid in any normal situation ..

King Henry was stupid for marching tho France with all archers and then you have Ashrencourt.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I think that applies to all "crazy comeback" type situations.. some one has to be brave enough do something that is stupid in any normal situation ..but just right for that one.

King Henry was stupid for marching tho France with all archers and then you have Ashrencourt.
edit on 19-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I've never heard a lee story that over shadows that decision...

It was counter to EVERY rule of warfare. It is like Brett farve running the ball the wrong direction for an touchdown for the other team..

Or Nolan Ryan pitching a full game of balls no strikes..

Except I've never heard a good lee story that justifies him being Brett farve in the first place.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Regnor
a reply to: dragonridr

There were no orders for Longstreet to attack on July 1st, I don't know where you're getting this information but it's wrong. Lee had no idea what he was facing (due to Stuart's absence) when A.P Hill's men ran into Buford's cavalry.


Yes there was he was supposed to help Ewell take Culp’s Hill, then to move on to Cemetery Ridge. Instead he never puts his corps in to the battle. And Ewell unclear about his orders doesn't push on after his victory at culps ridge.

Had Ewell pushed on and Longstreet men where there thus would have been a very short battle. Because I have no doubt longstreet would have taken cemetery Ridge when he saw the Union army in retreat.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: dragonridr

I've never heard a lee story that over shadows that decision...

It was counter to EVERY rule of warfare. It is like Brett farve running the ball the wrong direction for an touchdown for the other team..

Or Nolan Ryan pitching a full game of balls no strikes..

Except I've never heard a good lee story that justifies him being Brett farve in the first place.


Never said it was a good excuse simply that Lee's fear about the lack if supplies led to his decision. Throw in the frustration of having to baby sit his second in command I think he made an incredibly stupid decision. But if the charge had worked we would say it was genius. Charges in history has worked in the most unlikely situations. Had stonewall Jackson led that charge for example he'd have taken the hill.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I think Stonewall was is overstated as well...

Not to the level lee was.. Stonewall was ver good and super efficient and does have accomplishments to point at , but he died early and that always gets used as a rallying cry..

I think Forrest by a mile then, Jeb Stewart and Longstreet were actually the smartest people in the room.
edit on 19-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: dragonridr

I think Stonewall was is overstated as well...

Not to the level lee was.. Stonewall was ver good and super efficient and does have accomplishments to point at , but he died early and that always gets used as a rallying cry..

I think Forrest by a mile then, Jeb Stewart and Longstreet were actually the smartest people in the room.


Jackson's big advantage is his whole military career consisted of his smaller army defeating a much larger force. His tactics were shall we say unorthodox but effective.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Jackson was a religious extremist , task master..

Well.. kinda the best parts of those things for a commander to be..

He was as fearless as anyone willing to endure any hardships is men did, but pushed them like crazy..

He deserves accolades for military strategy. But was he the best in the south???


My vote is Forrest.. then Jeb.

Lee was good at really intricate plans were everything had to go right.

You ever heard stonewalls opinion of slavery??

It's crazy to an atheist but ubber logical to someone with his beliefs.

He believed god put various people into bondage as part of gods plan, but that the masters were ordained by god to treat their slaves well because god could reverse the roles any day..



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

That was the logic of southern baptists at the time it was actually pretty typical for the time. And the reason for the split in baptists. The northern baptists let's just say they thought that was stupid.

PS I think many people underestimate the abilities of many generals in the civil war. They see it as dare I say primitive but they don't bother to look at t her strategy involved. For example meade was a military genius as well the battles of the civil war are still taught today to train future leaders.
edit on 8/19/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I think it has most to do with the unwillingness for that Times generals to adapt to gunpowder...

Which lasted arguably till WW1 where French cavaliers went into battle with sabers and plumed helmets. Looking exactly like those in Napoleons day.


Line fighting should have ended a century or 2 befire it did. The meat grinder they chose to put their men through instead of changing I think kinda lessens them all.

For example I've never heard a story of forestt line fighting...


Oodles of casualties for little or no gain..

I think it hurts their legacies compared to the ancient greats lie Alexander.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Oh and just like today I'm sure most southerners said they felt that way, but didn't believe it enough to actually live by it.

If so then slavery wouldn't have been what it was.. or at least not to the level it was.. spare the rod and spoil the child and all..


Jackson ACTUALLY seems to have believed it lol.. that said with his conviction I bet those who broke the rules were felt with very harshly.




top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join