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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Feb 4, 2009
    • 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 2 of 8 , Feb 4, 2009
      • 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 3 of 8 , Feb 4, 2009
        • 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 4 of 8 , Feb 5, 2009
          • 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.