Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Seeing the Elephant

Expand Messages
  • Daniel F. Giallombardo
    The surprise may have been momentary, but it s effects lasted all day. A complete line of defense did not develop almost immediately. Joe, I m unaware of
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 2, 2003
                                                              "The surprise may have been "momentary," but it's effects lasted all
      day.  A complete line of defense did not develop "almost immediately."    Joe, I'm unaware of your battle field experiences but Viet Nam showed me - in emphatic terms - that combat is a very   fluid situation. Nothing, absolutely nothing, I've ever seen developed "almost immediately." I know of no reason to think otherwise here. It takes time for orders to be given, passed to the appropriate personnel, and acted upon. We may reasonably criticize what we think may be dilatory actions, but it is difficult for me to comprehend your complaint here; no, it did not happen immediately; but as noted above.....

      "josepharose " wrote:

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, GnrlJEJohnston@a... wrote:
      > Within the discussion of Shiloh, we have ascertained the following
      facts:
      >
      > 1.  Yes, Sherman and other division commanders were at fault in not
      > evaluating properly the reports from the field of enemy strength.

      True, but they and Grant also failed to fulfill many other duties
      concerning intelligence and preparation: patrols, vedettes,
      reconnaisance, interrogation, entrenchments, dispositions, planning,
      command, and coordination, among others.

      > 2.  Yes, Sherman gave an impression to Grant that no attack was
      immenent.

      IIRC, it was more than an inpression; it was a statement.

      > 3.  Yes,  the attack came as a surprise, but that surprise lasted
      only
      > momentarily and defense lines developed almost immediately.

      The surprise may have been "momentary," but it's effects lasted all
      day.  A complete line of defense did not develop "almost immediately."

      > 4.  Yes, there were some  regiments and/or brigades derelict in
      doing their
      > duty the first day and initially ran from the enemy.  However, they
      later
      > regrouped and fought bravely.

      Thousands upon thousands of men did not regroup the first day.

      > 5.  Yes, one has to take into consideration that this battle was
      the first
      > time that the troops, (many of them quite young) saw the elephant
      for the
      > first time and many had to clean out their britches afterwards.

      But it wasn't the men's fault that they were flanked and overpowered
      throughout the day.  It was their commander's fault.

      > 6.  Once Grant had heard that a battle was going on and arrived at
      the
      > battlefield, should he be faulted for his actions for the rest of
      that day
      > and the following day.  Not at all.

      There are certain areas which could well be discussed about his
      actions that day.  I'd be very surprised if any commander fought such
      a battle without making at least one significant mistake.  Grant
      wasn't made of marble.

      > 7.  Yes, at no time did Grant ever feel that the total battle was
      lost.  He
      > knew that reenforcements would be arriving in order to turn the
      tide of
      > battle.

      Grant suggested that the day might still be lost; it's in writing.

      > 8.  Once the battle had been started,  was there any Division
      Commander that
      > did not do his duty properly.   No

      Well, Grant seemed to think that Prentiss was faulty for allowing to
      get himself captured.

      > 9.  Were there things that should have been different prior to the
      battle,
      > during the battle, and after the battle.  Yes with hindsight
      prevailing.

      It doesn't take hindsight to realize that the Union forces were
      almost completely unprepared for the attack.

      > 10.  Have we torn, disected, debated, argued, and have been
      frustrated enough
      > to finally put this discussion in one of the mass burial graves at
      Shiloh and
      > go on to other topics.    YES

      Not if there are many incorrect facts and unreasonable assumptions
      still being made concerning the battle, no.

      Joseph

      > JEJ

      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
      DVD Rentals with No Late Fees - Try Netflix for FREE!
      http://us.click.yahoo.com/abvVKB/pEZFAA/46VHAA/GmiolB/TM
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
       
       

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

    • josepharose <josepharose@yahoo.com>
      Mr. Giallombardo: You wrote that: Nothing, absolutely nothing, I ve ever seen developed almost immediately. Thank you for agreeing with me, as I stated
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 2, 2003
        Mr. Giallombardo:

        You wrote that: 'Nothing, absolutely nothing, I've ever seen
        developed "almost immediately."'

        Thank you for agreeing with me, as I stated that, at Shiloh, 'A
        complete line of defense did not develop "almost immediately."'

        You apparently disagree with Mr. JEJ, however, as he suggested
        that "defense lines developed almost immediately."

        Joseph


        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel F. Giallombardo"
        <ParrotheadDan@l...> wrote:
        > "The
        surprise may
        > have been "momentary," but it's effects lasted all
        > day. A complete line of defense did not develop "almost
        immediately."
        > Joe, I'm unaware of your battle field experiences but Viet Nam
        showed me - in
        > emphatic terms - that combat is a very fluid situation. Nothing,
        absolutely
        > nothing, I've ever seen developed "almost immediately." I know of
        no reason
        > to think otherwise here. It takes time for orders to be given,
        passed to the
        > appropriate personnel, and acted upon. We may reasonably criticize
        what we
        > think may be dilatory actions, but it is difficult for me to
        comprehend your
        > complaint here; no, it did not happen immediately; but as noted
        above.....
        >
        > "josepharose " wrote:
        >
        > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, GnrlJEJohnston@a... wrote:
        > > > Within the discussion of Shiloh, we have ascertained the
        following
        > > facts:
        > > >
        > > > 1. Yes, Sherman and other division commanders were at fault in
        not
        > > > evaluating properly the reports from the field of enemy
        strength.
        > >
        > > True, but they and Grant also failed to fulfill many other duties
        > > concerning intelligence and preparation: patrols, vedettes,
        > > reconnaisance, interrogation, entrenchments, dispositions,
        planning,
        > > command, and coordination, among others.
        > >
        > > > 2. Yes, Sherman gave an impression to Grant that no attack was
        > > immenent.
        > >
        > > IIRC, it was more than an inpression; it was a statement.
        > >
        > > > 3. Yes, the attack came as a surprise, but that surprise
        lasted
        > > only
        > > > momentarily and defense lines developed almost immediately.
        > >
        > > The surprise may have been "momentary," but it's effects lasted
        all
        > > day. A complete line of defense did not develop "almost
        immediately."
        > >
        > > > 4. Yes, there were some regiments and/or brigades derelict in
        > > doing their
        > > > duty the first day and initially ran from the enemy. However,
        they
        > > later
        > > > regrouped and fought bravely.
        > >
        > > Thousands upon thousands of men did not regroup the first day.
        > >
        > > > 5. Yes, one has to take into consideration that this battle was
        > > the first
        > > > time that the troops, (many of them quite young) saw the
        elephant
        > > for the
        > > > first time and many had to clean out their britches afterwards.
        > >
        > > But it wasn't the men's fault that they were flanked and
        overpowered
        > > throughout the day. It was their commander's fault.
        > >
        > > > 6. Once Grant had heard that a battle was going on and arrived
        at
        > > the
        > > > battlefield, should he be faulted for his actions for the rest
        of
        > > that day
        > > > and the following day. Not at all.
        > >
        > > There are certain areas which could well be discussed about his
        > > actions that day. I'd be very surprised if any commander fought
        such
        > > a battle without making at least one significant mistake. Grant
        > > wasn't made of marble.
        > >
        > > > 7. Yes, at no time did Grant ever feel that the total battle
        was
        > > lost. He
        > > > knew that reenforcements would be arriving in order to turn the
        > > tide of
        > > > battle.
        > >
        > > Grant suggested that the day might still be lost; it's in writing.
        > >
        > > > 8. Once the battle had been started, was there any Division
        > > Commander that
        > > > did not do his duty properly. No
        > >
        > > Well, Grant seemed to think that Prentiss was faulty for allowing
        to
        > > get himself captured.
        > >
        > > > 9. Were there things that should have been different prior to
        the
        > > battle,
        > > > during the battle, and after the battle. Yes with hindsight
        > > prevailing.
        > >
        > > It doesn't take hindsight to realize that the Union forces were
        > > almost completely unprepared for the attack.
        > >
        > > > 10. Have we torn, disected, debated, argued, and have been
        > > frustrated enough
        > > > to finally put this discussion in one of the mass burial graves
        at
        > > Shiloh and
        > > > go on to other topics. YES
        > >
        > > Not if there are many incorrect facts and unreasonable assumptions
        > > still being made concerning the battle, no.
        > >
        > > Joseph
        > >
        > > > JEJ
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Daniel F. Giallombardo
        Actually, I am saying that nothing, absolutely nothing develops almost immediately. And most especially that is true with infantry troops. I am not agreeing
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 3, 2003
                                                  Actually, I am saying that nothing, absolutely nothing develops "almost immediately." And most especially that is true with infantry troops. I am not agreeing with your general premise, nor am I saying that they should have developed  more quickly; I was merely citing my experience that nothing in combat ever goes exactly as it should, and nothing ever remains the same for very long - unless siege operations are in progress I suppose. I've never been involved in a siege, so I cannot speak from personal experience there, though intuitively that would make sense. To argue that a defense should have developed more quickly, or did develop quickly, in my estimation takes away from the value of the post. We cannot change the times taken, we can, it seems to me, only argue how, or if, the time taken could have, or should have been better used and how. Additionally, I would be remiss to not mention that "almost immediately" can, and does mean a number of things: it can mean faster than the glaciers, or it can mean within minutes, hours, days, etc. depending on the timetable, and/or circumstance.
              I intend no one individual here, but  to argue that this or that general was not ready, less clever, more clever,smarter, better looking, failed to shave that day, etc. is an exercise in the annoying; this type of pedantics diminishes further the entire argument. And again, I'm not agreeing with, or disagreeing with, anyone. Merely my opinion, for whatever that may be worth.
                          Dan

          "josepharose " wrote:

          Mr. Giallombardo:

          You wrote that: 'Nothing, absolutely nothing, I've ever seen
          developed "almost immediately."'

          Thank you for agreeing with me, as I stated that, at Shiloh, 'A
          complete line of defense did not develop "almost immediately."'

          You apparently disagree with Mr. JEJ, however, as he suggested
          that "defense lines developed almost immediately."

          Joseph

          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel F. Giallombardo"
          <ParrotheadDan@l...> wrote:
          >                                                         "The
          surprise may
          > have been "momentary," but it's effects lasted all
          > day.  A complete line of defense did not develop "almost
          immediately."
          > Joe, I'm unaware of your battle field experiences but Viet Nam
          showed me - in
          > emphatic terms - that combat is a very   fluid situation. Nothing,
          absolutely
          > nothing, I've ever seen developed "almost immediately." I know of
          no reason
          > to think otherwise here. It takes time for orders to be given,
          passed to the
          > appropriate personnel, and acted upon. We may reasonably criticize
          what we
          > think may be dilatory actions, but it is difficult for me to
          comprehend your
          > complaint here; no, it did not happen immediately; but as noted
          above.....
          >
          > "josepharose " wrote:
          >
          > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, GnrlJEJohnston@a... wrote:
          > > > Within the discussion of Shiloh, we have ascertained the
          following
          > > facts:
          > > >
          > > > 1.  Yes, Sherman and other division commanders were at fault in
          not
          > > > evaluating properly the reports from the field of enemy
          strength.
          > >
          > > True, but they and Grant also failed to fulfill many other duties
          > > concerning intelligence and preparation: patrols, vedettes,
          > > reconnaisance, interrogation, entrenchments, dispositions,
          planning,
          > > command, and coordination, among others.
          > >
          > > > 2.  Yes, Sherman gave an impression to Grant that no attack was
          > > immenent.
          > >
          > > IIRC, it was more than an inpression; it was a statement.
          > >
          > > > 3.  Yes,  the attack came as a surprise, but that surprise
          lasted
          > > only
          > > > momentarily and defense lines developed almost immediately.
          > >
          > > The surprise may have been "momentary," but it's effects lasted
          all
          > > day.  A complete line of defense did not develop "almost
          immediately."
          > >
          > > > 4.  Yes, there were some  regiments and/or brigades derelict in
          > > doing their
          > > > duty the first day and initially ran from the enemy.  However,
          they
          > > later
          > > > regrouped and fought bravely.
          > >
          > > Thousands upon thousands of men did not regroup the first day.
          > >
          > > > 5.  Yes, one has to take into consideration that this battle was
          > > the first
          > > > time that the troops, (many of them quite young) saw the
          elephant
          > > for the
          > > > first time and many had to clean out their britches afterwards.
          > >
          > > But it wasn't the men's fault that they were flanked and
          overpowered
          > > throughout the day.  It was their commander's fault.
          > >
          > > > 6.  Once Grant had heard that a battle was going on and arrived
          at
          > > the
          > > > battlefield, should he be faulted for his actions for the rest
          of
          > > that day
          > > > and the following day.  Not at all.
          > >
          > > There are certain areas which could well be discussed about his
          > > actions that day.  I'd be very surprised if any commander fought
          such
          > > a battle without making at least one significant mistake.  Grant
          > > wasn't made of marble.
          > >
          > > > 7.  Yes, at no time did Grant ever feel that the total battle
          was
          > > lost.  He
          > > > knew that reenforcements would be arriving in order to turn the
          > > tide of
          > > > battle.
          > >
          > > Grant suggested that the day might still be lost; it's in writing.
          > >
          > > > 8.  Once the battle had been started,  was there any Division
          > > Commander that
          > > > did not do his duty properly.   No
          > >
          > > Well, Grant seemed to think that Prentiss was faulty for allowing
          to
          > > get himself captured.
          > >
          > > > 9.  Were there things that should have been different prior to
          the
          > > battle,
          > > > during the battle, and after the battle.  Yes with hindsight
          > > prevailing.
          > >
          > > It doesn't take hindsight to realize that the Union forces were
          > > almost completely unprepared for the attack.
          > >
          > > > 10.  Have we torn, disected, debated, argued, and have been
          > > frustrated enough
          > > > to finally put this discussion in one of the mass burial graves
          at
          > > Shiloh and
          > > > go on to other topics.    YES
          > >
          > > Not if there are many incorrect facts and unreasonable assumptions
          > > still being made concerning the battle, no.
          > >
          > > Joseph
          > >
          > > > JEJ
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
           
           

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.