Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Seeing the Elephant
- 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.
"josepharose " wrote:
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."
--- In email@example.com, "Daniel F. Giallombardo"
> have been "momentary," but it's effects lasted all
> day. A complete line of defense did not develop "almost
> 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,
> nothing, I've ever seen developed "almost immediately." I know of
> to think otherwise here. It takes time for orders to be given,
passed to the
> appropriate personnel, and acted upon. We may reasonably criticize
> think may be dilatory actions, but it is difficult for me to
> complaint here; no, it did not happen immediately; but as noted
> "josepharose " wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, GnrlJEJohnston@a... wrote:
> > > Within the discussion of Shiloh, we have ascertained the
> > facts:
> > >
> > > 1. Yes, Sherman and other division commanders were at fault in
> > > evaluating properly the reports from the field of enemy
> > True, but they and Grant also failed to fulfill many other duties
> > concerning intelligence and preparation: patrols, vedettes,
> > reconnaisance, interrogation, entrenchments, dispositions,
> > 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
> > only
> > > momentarily and defense lines developed almost immediately.
> > The surprise may have been "momentary," but it's effects lasted
> > day. A complete line of defense did not develop "almost
> > > 4. Yes, there were some regiments and/or brigades derelict in
> > doing their
> > > duty the first day and initially ran from the enemy. However,
> > 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
> > 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
> > throughout the day. It was their commander's fault.
> > > 6. Once Grant had heard that a battle was going on and arrived
> > the
> > > battlefield, should he be faulted for his actions for the rest
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > get himself captured.
> > > 9. Were there things that should have been different prior to
> > 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
> > 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
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/