Re: [civilwarwest] Re: The viability of Attack in the West versus the East
- --- William H Keene <wh_keene@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com,A difference from ancient and medieval battles
> <iceman1977_01@...> wrote:
> > Something I've been thinking of recently, that
> might stimulate a
> > good bit of discussion:
> > Most of us are familiar with the standard canard
> of modern-day
> > assessments of ACW-era tactics, particularly the
> > "invincibility" of the tactical defense. It's a
> general article of
> > faith among the academics that "most Civil War
> battles were won by
> > the defender"---or, even further, that the
> majority of tactical
> > attacks were stopped dead in their tracks, with
> little of no
> > material success in the interim. Certainly the
> majority of battles
> > in the Eastern Theater are borne out by this
> conclusion---at First
> > Manassas, most of the Seven Days' Battles, Cedar
> Mountain, 2nd
> > Manassas, Antietam, Fredericksburg, the last two
> days of
> > Cold Harbor, Petersburg, and others.
> > However, most of the battles in the Western
> Theater don't seem to
> > fit this analsysis: Fort Donelson, Shiloh,
> Perryville, Stones'
> > --all of these were battles were the initial
> attack was quite
> > successful, sometimes dramatically so. At
> Chickamauga and the
> > battles around Chattanooga, we even have battles
> where attacking
> > forces facing defenders that possessed "superior"
> ground managed to
> > succeed in overwhelming these static, fortified
> positions. Only
> > during the Atlanta Campaign do the battles in the
> Western Theater
> > start to resemble those of the Eastern: attacks
> that are costly
> > furthermore, almost completely unsuccessful.
> > Why is this?
> I dont think the difference is as clear as you
> claim. While attacks
> in some western battles that you mention did show
> initial success --
> Donelson, Shiloh, Perryville, Corinth -- the attacks
> were all
> defeated in the end. I could just as easily list
> battles in the east
> wherein attacks also enjoyed initial success but
> were then halted --
> Gaines Mill, Cedar Mt, Antietam, the US left wing at
> Jackson at Chancellorsville, the Confederates on Day
> 1 and Day 2 of
> Gettsyburg. I could also point to attacks in the
> east that carried
> the day -- Longstreet at 2nd Manassas or Jackson at
> Furthermore, you theory about the openness of
> terrain in the east
> makes it worth pointing out that the battle known as
> the Wilderness
> occureed in the East.
was that a large proportion of modern armies could be
be routed, and a relatively small group could hold up
the attackers while the army reformed.
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
- I was asking Ray for a source on Jackson.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ronald black" <rblack0981@...>
>versus the East
> How many sources do you want? Take your pick.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ngreadermail
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:45 PM
> Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The viability of Attack in the West
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "raymondohara" <raymond-
> > --- In email@example.com, "Ronald black"
> > wrote:----------
> > >
> > > Ray:
> > > They didn't go to Jackson.
> > > Ron
> > >
> > when grant began the next campaign. they were at jackson.
>1/2/2008 11:29 AM
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: