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

Re: [civilwarwest] Hardee's Night March: Battle of Atlanta July 21 22

Expand Messages
  • Patricia Swan
    Castel says that Bates and Walker during the attack were relying solely on small arms. Doesn t seem to comment about others.
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 3 9:57 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Castel says that Bates and Walker during the attack were relying "solely
      on small arms." Doesn't seem to comment about others.

      Bill Bruner wrote:
      >
      > Does anyone know what artillery, if any, Hardee took with him?
      >
      > Bill Bruner
      >
      >
    • keeno2@aol.com
      In a message dated 2/3/2009 11:32:55 A.M. Central Standard Time, banbruner@bellsouth.net writes: Does anyone know what artillery, if any, Hardee took with
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 3 12:56 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 2/3/2009 11:32:55 A.M. Central Standard Time, banbruner@... writes:
        Does anyone know what artillery, if any, Hardee took with him?

        Haven't the foggiest, Bill. But I'm confident that someone knows.
         
        ken


        Great Deals on Dell Laptops. Starting at $499.
      • Bill Bruner
        ... relying solely ... Thank you for your response. I have recently driven the route that Hardee took and can see why artillery could have been a serious
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 4 1:44 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Patricia Swan <pbswan@...> wrote:
          >
          > Castel says that Bates and Walker during the attack were
          relying "solely
          > on small arms." Doesn't seem to comment about others.


          Thank you for your response. I have recently driven the route that
          Hardee took and can see why artillery could have been a serious
          impediment though I'm sure it would have come in handy when he
          unexpectedly encountered Sweeny.

          The only "other" was Cleburne. His march was as difficult as Bates
          and Walker's and I saw no mention of artillery in his march or in the
          ensuing battle. So until otherwise informed I am going to assume no
          artillery was taken.

          Thanks again
          Bill Bruner
        • Patricia Swan
          Bill, I believe also that they speak of how heavily wooded parts of the terrain were and I agree with you that it s hilly. The trees would also make bringing
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 4 6:08 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill,
            I believe also that they speak of how heavily wooded parts of the
            terrain were and I agree with you that it's hilly. The trees would also
            make bringing up cannon more difficult as the men would likely have to
            chop their way through sections. Certain Cleburne often used artillery
            effectively, so no mention of his use at B of A might mean that the guns
            encountered impediments. It's sad that the area is so built up today.


            Bill Bruner wrote:
            >
            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>, Patricia Swan <pbswan@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Castel says that Bates and Walker during the attack were
            > relying "solely
            > > on small arms." Doesn't seem to comment about others.
            >
            > Thank you for your response. I have recently driven the route that
            > Hardee took and can see why artillery could have been a serious
            > impediment though I'm sure it would have come in handy when he
            > unexpectedly encountered Sweeny.
            >
            > The only "other" was Cleburne. His march was as difficult as Bates
            > and Walker's and I saw no mention of artillery in his march or in the
            > ensuing battle. So until otherwise informed I am going to assume no
            > artillery was taken.
            >
            > Thanks again
            > Bill Bruner
            >
            >
          • hank9174
            ... relying solely ... That makes sense. Civil War artillery is usually used defensively. Pre- attack bombardments give away the element of surprise and are
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 4 8:17 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Patricia Swan <pbswan@...> wrote:
              >
              > Castel says that Bates and Walker during the attack were
              relying "solely
              > on small arms." Doesn't seem to comment about others.
              >

              That makes sense. Civil War artillery is usually used defensively. Pre-
              attack bombardments give away the element of surprise and are seldom
              effective anyway. Plus artillery has a difficult time changing fields
              of fire, directions and targets during an attack.

              But on the defensive? I'll take a battery of napoleons any day...


              HankC
            • Bill Bruner
              ... would also ... have to ... artillery ... the guns ... today. ... I find it difficult if not impossible to imagine what the terrain would have been like in
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 4 6:49 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Patricia Swan <pbswan@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Bill,
                > I believe also that they speak of how heavily wooded parts of the
                > terrain were and I agree with you that it's hilly. The trees
                would also
                > make bringing up cannon more difficult as the men would likely
                have to
                > chop their way through sections. Certain Cleburne often used
                artillery
                > effectively, so no mention of his use at B of A might mean that
                the guns
                > encountered impediments. It's sad that the area is so built up
                today.
                >
                >
                > Bill Bruner wrote:
                > >
                > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com


                I find it difficult if not impossible to imagine what the terrain
                would have been like in 1864. (I had mapped out a much shorter route
                from modern maps only to discover these roads did not exist at the
                time.) I did not notice the route being espeacially hilly, but I was
                driving a modern truck on modern hwys (some not so).

                Perhaps it is sad that the area is so built up. Yet I found the
                trip quite compelling. For me it combined a sense of discovery and
                nostalgia at the same time. Many of the landmarks were familiar from
                my childhood but some of the detours were very unexpected.

                Bill Bruner

                > > <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>, Patricia Swan <pbswan@>
                wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Castel says that Bates and Walker during the attack were
                > > relying "solely
                > > > on small arms." Doesn't seem to comment about others.
                > >
                > > Thank you for your response. I have recently driven the route
                that
                > > Hardee took and can see why artillery could have been a serious
                > > impediment though I'm sure it would have come in handy when he
                > > unexpectedly encountered Sweeny.
                > >
                > > The only "other" was Cleburne. His march was as difficult as
                Bates
                > > and Walker's and I saw no mention of artillery in his march or
                in the
                > > ensuing battle. So until otherwise informed I am going to assume
                no
                > > artillery was taken.
                > >
                > > Thanks again
                > > Bill Bruner
                > >
                > >
                >
              • swan_pat_estelle
                Bill, I can t agree more that visiting the site of this battle, or others for that matter, is much more compelling than even can be imagined. IMHO it s almost
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 5 8:10 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bill,
                  I can't agree more that visiting the site of this battle, or others
                  for that matter, is much more compelling than even can be imagined.
                  IMHO it's almost essential to understanding what the men encountered
                  and why things turned out the way they did. Visiting the Battle of
                  Atlanta takes more initiative than many others because the routes are
                  not laid out and one must navigate a modern landscape imposed on that
                  of 1864. I did notice that the State of Georgia has put up markers at
                  certain strategic locations.

                  Pat-estelle

                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bruner" <banbruner@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Patricia Swan <pbswan@>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Bill,
                  > > I believe also that they speak of how heavily wooded parts of the
                  > > terrain were and I agree with you that it's hilly. The trees
                  > would also
                  > > make bringing up cannon more difficult as the men would likely
                  > have to
                  > > chop their way through sections. Certain Cleburne often used
                  > artillery
                  > > effectively, so no mention of his use at B of A might mean that
                  > the guns
                  > > encountered impediments. It's sad that the area is so built up
                  > today.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Bill Bruner wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  > I find it difficult if not impossible to imagine what the terrain
                  > would have been like in 1864. (I had mapped out a much shorter route
                  > from modern maps only to discover these roads did not exist at the
                  > time.) I did not notice the route being espeacially hilly, but I was
                  > driving a modern truck on modern hwys (some not so).
                  >
                  > Perhaps it is sad that the area is so built up. Yet I found the
                  > trip quite compelling. For me it combined a sense of discovery and
                  > nostalgia at the same time. Many of the landmarks were familiar from
                  > my childhood but some of the detours were very unexpected.
                  >
                  > Bill Bruner

                  lling than
                  >
                  > > > <mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com>, Patricia Swan <pbswan@>
                  > wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Castel says that Bates and Walker during the attack were
                  > > > relying "solely
                  > > > > on small arms." Doesn't seem to comment about others.
                  > > >
                  > > > Thank you for your response. I have recently driven the route
                  > that
                  > > > Hardee took and can see why artillery could have been a serious
                  > > > impediment though I'm sure it would have come in handy when he
                  > > > unexpectedly encountered Sweeny.
                  > > >
                  > > > The only "other" was Cleburne. His march was as difficult as
                  > Bates
                  > > > and Walker's and I saw no mention of artillery in his march or
                  > in the
                  > > > ensuing battle. So until otherwise informed I am going to assume
                  > no
                  > > > artillery was taken.
                  > > >
                  > > > Thanks again
                  > > > Bill Bruner
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.