Britannia's Fist: From Civil War to World War

[mowque]

A necro, I was surprised when I saw Dure posting.

 

[MrP]

A necro, I was surprised when I saw Dure posting.

Good grief, a resurrection of a two-year-old argument? That's pretty impressive, in a not particularly favourable way.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Oopsie:

Good grief, a resurrection of a two-year-old argument? That's pretty impressive, in a not particularly favourable way.

Chalk that one up to me being stupid.

 

[Timmy811]

I was hoping this meant a third book was come out soon. I'm very annoyed. <_<

 

[67th Tigers]

Okay, feeding the troll a little....

Yes, it would. But then Longstreet led the bigger corps in Lee's army and lacked the disastrous records of Jackson at Cedar Mountain and the entirety of the Seven Days. *shrugs*

No, Longstreet's wing was always roughly the same size as the other(s). His combat record was quite chequered, with a couple of successes to his credit but some awful performances as well

If Old Slow Trot could rout a force of equal size before Grant even got started, McClellan's being deceived by MacGruder and Johnston has nothing to attribute to it except that McClellan was a Halleck/Buell. You can say that Fitz-John Porter beat General Lee more than any US general in the war save General Grant.

What's this? I guess there is a veiled reference to Thomas's forces assaulting Missionary Ridge against his orders. Then a repeat of the old, but untrue, myth that Magruder (no c)and Johnston deceived McClellan with quaker guns and the like, combined with a dig at two other generals you don't like. Then an attempt to shift McClellan's successes to Porter, because you like him.

McClellan *had* 75,500 troops against Lee's 35,000, he as usual refused to commit any troops to actually fight or to actually direct the battle. He's somewhere around the John French school of competence.

Again, you've overestimated McClellan and underestimated Lee, using figures straight out of Early's Lost Cause mythology. Then you totally misunderstand the nature of battle management and make a swipe against another general in another war you don't like.

Except Fitz-John Porter and in every single case McClellan interpreting Porter's victories as defeats, ESPECIALLY Malvern Hill. Which admittedly is easy to do when you're dining with a French Viscount and leaving it to your one fighting general to win and declare his victories defeats.

Go look at a map. Look at the Federal far right. Learn about Lee's attempted turning movement. Malvern Hill was not a viable position.

 

[Mark 4 Morrel Barrel]

Oh God he's back
*groans*

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Oh God he's back
*groans*

This sort of thing doesn't contribute anything to the thread and is highly unwelcome in contentious topics.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Yes, it would. But then Longstreet led the bigger corps in Lee's army and lacked the disastrous records of Jackson at Cedar Mountain and the entirety of the Seven Days. *shrugs*



If Old Slow Trot could rout a force of equal size before Grant even got started, McClellan's being deceived by MacGruder and Johnston has nothing to attribute to it except that McClellan was a Halleck/Buell. You can say that Fitz-John Porter beat General Lee more than any US general in the war save General Grant.

You cannot say that McClellan has any responsibility for that any more than Buell does for Logan's Cross Roads or Halleck for the Henry-Donelson campaign. McClellan *had* 75,500 troops against Lee's 35,000, he as usual refused to commit any troops to actually fight or to actually direct the battle. He's somewhere around the John French school of competence.

You've been warned and kicked before for your giant line-by-line pedantic derails, and now you bump a two-year-old thread to revive a dead argument? Don't do that.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Okay, feeding the troll a little....



No, Longstreet's wing was always roughly the same size as the other(s). His combat record was quite chequered, with a couple of successes to his credit but some awful performances as well



What's this? I guess there is a veiled reference to Thomas's forces assaulting Missionary Ridge against his orders. Then a repeat of the old, but untrue, myth that Magruder (no c)and Johnston deceived McClellan with quaker guns and the like, combined with a dig at two other generals you don't like. Then an attempt to shift McClellan's successes to Porter, because you like him.



Again, you've overestimated McClellan and underestimated Lee, using figures straight out of Early's Lost Cause mythology. Then you totally misunderstand the nature of battle management and make a swipe against another general in another war you don't like.



Go look at a map. Look at the Federal far right. Learn about Lee's attempted turning movement. Malvern Hill was not a viable position.

Don't accuse other people of being trolls, especially while you're responding to them. If you think he's trolling, ignore his post and report it.