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

RE: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil War + more Bell Hood

Expand Messages
  • Bill Merritt
    Sorry, I can t give any more details of the other squares, though I shall ask. It was a discussion, a few years ago, on the Gettysburg Discussion group. I got
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry, I can't give any more details of the other squares, though I shall ask. It was a discussion, a few years ago, on the Gettysburg Discussion group. I got bounced by that group (voluntarily, really), after a real heated discussion on Dan Sickles. I have another source, though, and shall get back to you.

      tmix <tmix@...> wrote:

      I know of 2 squares in the ACW and they were individual efforts as opposed to interlocking compositions which was the norm in Napoleonic times.

      One of the squares was at Chancellorsville which helped take out Stonewall and the 2nd was on the far right of the Confederate line on day one at Gettysburg. Another possible one may have been formed on Day 3 to repulse Kilpatrickļæ½s stupid charge. Buford and Gamble had the good sense to not attack the CSA square on the 1st day but did make sure to worry and occupy the infantry units.

      Could you give me some details on any other squares you may know of?

      Tom M.

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
      Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:44 AM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil War + more Bell Hood

       

      I have heard of eight times where a square was formed in the Civil War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were formed next to each other, but, from what I have read, only one square was formed at a time in the CW.

      tmix <tmix@...> wrote:

      I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be
      tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death. This
      would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved, inter
      mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort of a
      given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the infantry
      would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the better
      of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
      Tom M.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@...]
      Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil
      War + more Bell Hood

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
      > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
      > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
      > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
      > casualties.
      > Tom M.
      >

      Tom, 

      I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
      squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
      fire" damage.  Are there any statistics concerning this?

      Joe






      Yahoo! Groups Links






       

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