Narrow CSA Victory

And the French had locked one army into Metz and allowed another to be encircled, outnumbered, out of supply, and essentially smashed trying to break out; in some ways, it is quite analogous to the rebels at Appomattox.

And since we're talking about the rebels and the US, that's what was meant, not the larger scale of Nineteenth Century conflict, but it holds equally true...

None of which was going to apply at Shiloh, since obviously, the US forces were not encircled, outnumbered, out of supply, and in a position where they'd have to attack to break out.

Best,

My point is it was possible, when as you put it, "movement and maneuver is based on the pace a marching man carrying his weapon and ammunition and rations could sustain" to obtain an annihilating victory. The attackers were not always slower than the defenders. Your example of Appomattox is another case in point.
 
In regards to possible British intervention in the ACA, hadn't the British at every level lost any taste for land combat in North America after the War of 1812?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Which was among the exceptions listed...

My point is it was possible, when as you put it, "movement and maneuver is based on the pace a marching man carrying his weapon and ammunition and rations could sustain" to obtain an annihilating victory. The attackers were not always slower than the defenders. Your example of Appomattox is another case in point.

Which was among the exceptions listed...

And which was not possible at Shiloh April 6, obviously. Kind of challenging to encircle a force with a navigable river at its back and a riverine squadron in support, especially when the army artillery was lined up along the river and there were two fresh divisions (Lew Wallace's and Nelson's) on the field, along with the remainder of Grant's infantry, which had been fighting all day - as had the rebels. Fatigue cuts both ways.

shiloh-fremaux-map-925.jpg


Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Pretty much...

In regards to possible British intervention in the ACA, hadn't the British at every level lost any taste for land combat in North America after the War of 1812?

Pretty much... there's a reason they were happy enough to come to terms in 1814, even before Napoleon left Elba and got the Continent riled up again in 1815...

Given the economic and military realities of the empire by the 1860s, and the fact Britain's strategic interests lay in Europe, the Mediterranean and its littoral, and points east, even more so.

British North America was a strategic sideshow for the British, as were the West Indies by the middle of the Nineteenth Century; there's a reason they withdrew the garrison in 1871.

http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/page-507-eng.asp

Best,
 
Sorry for the late-ish bump.

So, so far I've seen two ideas I liked. One being a confederate victory at Shiloh, and the other being Daily taking Washington, both of which I have been convinced is possible. So, any thoughts on these two specifically?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Daily?

Sorry for the late-ish bump. So, so far I've seen two ideas I liked. One being a confederate victory at Shiloh, and the other being Daily taking Washington, both of which I have been convinced is possible. So, any thoughts on these two specifically?

Daily? Do you mean Early?

What is it that has convinced you either of these is possible, other than wishful thinking?

Best,
 
Sorry for the late-ish bump.

So, so far I've seen two ideas I liked. One being a confederate victory at Shiloh, and the other being Daily taking Washington, both of which I have been convinced is possible. So, any thoughts on these two specifically?

Shiloh is sorta-kinda viable with a PoD before the battle; it'd be a blatant Union-screw (move the river squadron, slow up the reinforcements, etc.) but it's at least possible to manage.

A PoD to allow Early to take Washington is so far back that you butterfly away his campaign entirely. Even if he somehow breached the defenses, he didn't have the manpower to do more than raid the city for booty.
 
Top