- ... Little ... and ... His supply line from Rolla didn t contain him enough since he moved across Arkansas and, after failing to find a way to Little Rock, heMessage 1 of 59 , Feb 4, 2003View Source--- In email@example.com, "carlos_detweiller
<carlos_detweiller@y...>" <carlos_detweiller@y...> wrote:
> I think Curtis probably could have been contained, although, ILittle
> believe he was more or less contained for all practical purposes by
> reach of supply line from Rolla, MO.
> He was forced to pull back into southern MO instead of taking
> Rock because his resupply couldn't reach him and the land could notand
> supply enough forage for his army and animals.
> In reality, there wasn't much to accomplish in northern Arkansas
> I believe Curtis felt like Van Dorn was going to try to invade MOHis supply line from Rolla didn't contain him enough since he moved
> again, this time from the southeast.
across Arkansas and, after failing to find a way to Little Rock, he
took Helena. My question was based on wondering if Van Dorn would
have kept Curtis from making this march, and Helena would not have
been lost to the Confederacy.
- Sustaining your army off enemy resources while preserving you own is very useful to your moral. Will wrote:TwoMessage 59 of 59 , Feb 7, 2003View Source
Sustaining your army off enemy resources while preserving you own is very useful to your moral.
"Will <wh_keene@...>" <wh_keene@...> wrote:
Two thoughts in reaction to Madelon's question:
1) Offensive campaigns 'liberate' areas theoretically disposed to
join the Confederacy (ie: Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) or lost
through previous advances of the enemy.
2) Offensives campaign create opportunities to engage the enemy on
your terms in his territory. Victories in this situation could have
much greater impact on the will of the enemy populace and thus
greater political impact than defensive victories within one's own
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, meheatherington@j... wrote:
> In light of Hank Clark's recent notion about the 'offensive' North
> the 'defensive' South, I have another question.
> If, with Hank, we stipulate that "all CSA successes were strictly
> offensive" (whilst acknowledging that this is a mere stipulation,
> the Hunley, torpedos, etc.), then what, really, did the South
> gain by taking the offensive?
> My understanding is that the Confederacy's oft-repeated political
> (failing either European recognition or one grand knock-out Cannae
> would bring the North militarily to its knees) was simply to
> Union, keep up the fighting for so long that squeamish Northern
> (apparently assumed to be less stout of heart than their Southern
> counterparts) would sue for a cessation of hostilities, after which
> South would stagger away, content to be let alone. Winning by
> not-losing, so to speak; victory by endurance.
> So how does a flair for the offensive, with its glamor *and* its
> attrition rate, advance that rather low-keyed wait-'em-out grand
> Or does anybody in the Southern high command think that far ahead?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now