QuoteSeven of today's most controversial Bible scholars reveal their shocking conclusions about the origins of Christianity. Based on the best-selling religious studies book by Joseph Atwill, this documentary shows that Jesus is not a historical figure, the events of Jesus' life were based on a Roman military campaign, his supposed second coming refers to a historical event that already occurred, the teachings of Christ came from the ancient pagan mystery schools, and the Gospels were written by a family of Caesars and their supporters, who left us documents to prove it.
Dissecting the history and literature of this time, the scholars show that the Gospels are a sophisticated pro-Roman multi-layered allegorical text that could not have been written by simple Jewish fishermen. Noting that the history officially provided by the Church does not hold up to rigorous scrutiny, the scholars agree that Christianity was used as a political tool to control the masses of the day, and is still being used this way today.
Much like the ancient era from which Christianity emerged, we are currently on the brink of an immense paradigm shift, and studying this history can help us understand modern-day politics, and give us the much-needed perspective for coming up with solutions to today's problems, in order to create the better world that we envision.
Featured scholars are Joseph Atwill, Robert Eisenman, John Hudson, Kenneth Humphreys, Rod Blackhirst, Acharya S / D.M. Murdock, and Timothy Freke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmEScIUcvz0&t=881s
This really makes sense to me, and I want to believe it, but of course, the things I want to believe are exactly those things I must be the most skeptical of.
This is the type of material that I like to think is correct. But I too, have to remain skeptical. I don't think Acharya S is noted for being all that accurate. I have not read any of Atwill, so I have another task for myself. If this material is compared to Carrier, I think it makes it another nail in the Jesus is a myth coffin.
I had the book years ago, and read it tw0 or three times, but I don't have it any more. I'd like to find another copy, or even an updated version, if there is one.
Atwill is a crack pot.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664
QuoteAtwill is the one dude I get asked about most often.- And now apparently even Dawkins is tweeting about Atwill, thanks to his upcoming venture into England later this month to sell his weird Roman Conspiracy variety of Jesus mythicism. To get the gist you can check out his PR puff piece. Thomas Verenna has already written a deconstruction of that. Notably even Acharya S (D.M. Murdock) doesn’t buy Atwill’s thesis, declaring that she does “not concur with Atwill’s Josephus/Flavian thesis†and that “the Flavians, including Josephus, did not compose the canonical gospels as we have them.†Robert Price has similarly soundly debunked his book, even after strongly wanting to like it.
Christianity arose out of Roman society, at least one corner of it. It didn't arise in Chinese society. So in that sense it is very Roman. And from Constantine onward to Theodosius ... it was very much a political and imperial project. Ditto official Christianity at that time in Armenia and in Ethiopia. Which is to say, once the meme has been created and is being successfully circulated in society ... we have documentation on that.
What made it a meme and who actually originated it, is less clear, but for me Paul was responsible. And as a bit of a salesman, as he is portrayed in Last Temptation of Christ.
Where this Caesar's Messiah actually fits, is in the invention of rabbinic Judaism, not pre-Constantine Christianity ... that the authors don't address.
So where did Paul and his competitors get their inspiration? Kabbalah.
Of course the evidence for this "paul" character is pretty slim, too.
No, Atwill has a silly theory. He imagines that because there are jews today that he can make a shitload of money selling this preposterous story uh, I mean, telling a yarn so silly that idiots will fall for it.
Among other things the notion that the Romans would have given a shit about the "jews" in 70 AD is laughable. They had just crushed the Great Revolt in the old fashioned Roman way.... and they were still wiping the blood off their swords. The "Jews" were not a problem for Vespasian, the newly victorious emperor. He inherited an empire that was bankrupt, its capital had been burned in the final battle and which faced revolts from Civilis in Germany and Vindex in Gaul. Yet, with all that to deal with, Atwill would have us believe that Vespasian, who btw, had no extensive background in Syrian/Judean affairs, nonethless was more worried about a potential rising of a nation he had just crushed.
It makes no fucking sense.
I happen to agree, that the Flavians weren't that brilliant. Vespasian was a mule driver, Titus was a fop, and Domitian was mad.
The Paul of the Church of course, isn't the real Paul. Part of the Epistles aren't his, and the remainder are edited.
And let's not forget that no one seems to have heard of this paul guy until after Marcion created the first xtian canon. But Marcion was a heretic so how can that be?
Quote from: Minimalist on December 20, 2018, 01:09:05 AM
And let's not forget that no one seems to have heard of this paul guy until after Marcion created the first xtian canon. But Marcion was a heretic so how can that be?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment
Marcion was closest to the original Pauline church of course ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
Paulinism and Johannine church were both gnostic, as was Marcionism.
The idea that Paul was ever acceptable to the Jewish Church in Jerusalem is laughable of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus
The books by Robert Eisenman show the tie-in between Jewish Gnosticism (Dead Sea Scrolls) and the early Christian movement.
Nearly full copies of the Pauline corpus date to around 200 CE, 150 years after Paul.
The muratonian fragment dates anywhere from the late 2d to the 4th century AD - hardly evidence of much of anything.
"Papias" writings, if they ever existed, have vanished and we know of him only through some alleged transcriptions by later writers. One of whom, Eusebius, was famed for stretching the truth. Later xtians created any number of legendary figures to connect their doctrines back to the so-called "apostles."
We do know for certain that Justin writing c 160 in an apology addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius never heard of anybody named Paul. This is odd because he does refer to Marcion, Paul's "publicist" if you like. For that matter, Justin does not refer to any of the so-called "gospels" either. He does refer to something called the "Memoirs of the Apostles" but these references do not match up to any of the gospels currently in use.
And, for the record, while some Greco-Roman writers make mention of xtians, no one until Celsus writing c 180 AD ever mentions anyone named "jesus" either. Apparently, he was a fairly late addition to the tale!
Again, mostly correct. If you go by actual physical manuscripts, and take the minimal view (nearly complete copies) vs the maximal view (smallest early fragment implies complete version (as found later) existed at the earlier date) ... there was little that existed before approximately 200 CE. And none of the manuscripts or fragments are original, they are all copies. Really good manuscripts in quantity are limited before 400 CE even. And those all show some scribal variations.
So ... the whole Protestant thing of relying on the Bible ... is of limited value. I think the Catholic/Orthodox folks knew this back in Constantine's day, hence the reliance on bishops to determine truth, not scriptures. With Constantine, all the clergy became civil servants in the Roman Empire, and Sunday became the official day of rest. That wasn't so, back when this was all Jewish and the Gentiles hadn't mutated it to their own purposes. Shabbat was still a sabbath, they added an additional Solar/Pythagorean worship at dawn on Sunday. At Alexandria Troas, Paul was preaching at Havdalah service ... just before sundown on a Saturday. Shabbat runs from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
I used to listen on Sunday mornings to a program on KGO called God Talk, with Brent Walters:
QuoteHe is a professor of religion at San Jose State. And he owns one of the country's largest private collections of religious books and papers with some of the earliest biblical sources ever discovered. For this, he has been called a heretic.
https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/KGO-GodTalk-earns-Brent-Walters-heretic-label-2325350.php
Every week he'd talk about early Christian history - but I've since forgotten most of it.
There are precious few historical markers in any of the writings of this so-called pauline corpus.
One that there is 2 Corinthians 11
Quote32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.
Xtians twist their scrotums into a pretzel trying to insist that the Aretas in this line is Aretas the 4th who is last seen in history fleeing the armies of Lucius Vitellius the Imperial Legate of Syria in 37 AD after foolishly attacking Herod Antipas, a Roman ally. Aretas IV died in 40 surviving that long only because Tiberius died and Vitellius decided to wait for further orders from Caligula. Vitellius' main job was to keep an eye on the Parthians, not to clean up some shithole in the desert, and if the Parthians were going to try anything it would be during the confusion brought on by the death of the emperor.
What is interesting here is that Josephus reports that Aretas III also of Nabatea
did take control of Damascus and held it for 20 years. The problem for jesus freaks is that those 20 years were between 84 and 64
BC which doesn't do any of this jesus shit a whole lot of good, does it? In 64 BC, Gnaeus Pompeius and his legions came rolling through the region and it was he who took Damascus from Aretas III and no Roman historian subsequently mentions that the Romans ever gave Damascus to anyone.
I have never run into any xtian apologist who is willing to tackle this anomaly. They all act as if I am suddenly speaking Greek!
Unbeliever - SFgate article mentions the Didache in the first paragraph. This document is crucial for early Jewish Christianity.
Another completely anonymous writing. Some considered it canonical, others rejected it. Some scholars think it was late second century, others that it was first century.
What do you make of it?
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 20, 2018, 01:27:57 PM
I used to listen on Sunday mornings to a program on KGO called God Talk, with Brent Walters:
https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/KGO-GodTalk-earns-Brent-Walters-heretic-label-2325350.php
Every week he'd talk about early Christian history - but I've since forgotten most of it.
God Talk! I'd forgotten that one. I used to listen to that show quite a bit.
Some think it is 4th century. No one knows.
Much as with the alleged Papias one does wonder why xtians, who were in total control of what they copied and preserved, considered these writings to be so insignificant that they let them rot away.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 20, 2018, 05:11:25 PM
Some think it is 4th century. No one knows.
Much as with the alleged Papias one does wonder why xtians, who were in total control of what they copied and preserved, considered these writings to be so insignificant that they let them rot away.
The church didn't care, until 1500 and the printing press, and colloquial translations. It was all about bishop oligarchy.
That ignores the obvious fact that an awful lot of monks spent an awful lot of time copying these items of holy horseshit over and over and making a load of mistakes while doing so as Bart Ehrman has pointed out to the irritation of xhristards everywhere.
Agreed they were writing for themselves as literacy in the West declined precipitously among the other classes and the church inserted itself in political life by being the ones who could read and write messages. Things were only slightly better in the East.
You do raise the interesting point of who were the intended recipients of all these letters and gospels and so forth. Suppose "paul" did write a letter? Who did he address it to? Who could read it if it got there? After all, xtians love to pretend that it was the lower classes who they recruited from.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 19, 2018, 08:17:51 PM
This really makes sense to me, and I want to believe it, but of course, the things I want to believe are exactly those things I must be the most skeptical of.
Well, as much as I think there is no evidence of a historical Jesus (and certainly not a deity aspect of any sort), I also don't believe in conspiracy theories like that about the Romans.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 19, 2018, 10:40:15 PM
Atwill is a crack pot.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664
My thoughts about religions and deities are actually quite simple. There are no deities and any belief structure requiring one is the product of people who can't stand reality.
We went from ignorant people who didn't know what the sun and moon were, to slightly less ignorant people who wondered about lightning and storms and tides, to somewhat observational people who examined things without background knowledge to people who have a way of examining observations without supernatural fears. Well, "mostly"
Every step reduced our ignorance and superstition. Let's keep going that way, OK?
Quote from: Minimalist on December 21, 2018, 12:37:32 AM
That ignores the obvious fact that an awful lot of monks spent an awful lot of time copying these items of holy horseshit over and over and making a load of mistakes while doing so as Bart Ehrman has pointed out to the irritation of xhristards everywhere.
Agreed they were writing for themselves as literacy in the West declined precipitously among the other classes and the church inserted itself in political life by being the ones who could read and write messages. Things were only slightly better in the East.
You do raise the interesting point of who were the intended recipients of all these letters and gospels and so forth. Suppose "paul" did write a letter? Who did he address it to? Who could read it if it got there? After all, xtians love to pretend that it was the lower classes who they recruited from.
Well, let's imagine that the monks did their work of copying religious texts for the direct purpose of promoting deeply-held and honest beliefs. I used to trace Marvel superheroes and villains from comic books (not that I exactly believed they were real, but let's allow the analogy).
The difference is that I never thought the Fantastic Four or Galactus was real. The religious types, dreaming of a perfect being, did. If I met a "perfect being" I would probably try to kill it (a la Star Trek Meets God I forget the episode number). A deity would be the end of us.
Fortunately, there isn't one.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 21, 2018, 12:37:32 AM
That ignores the obvious fact that an awful lot of monks spent an awful lot of time copying these items of holy horseshit over and over and making a load of mistakes while doing so as Bart Ehrman has pointed out to the irritation of xhristards everywhere.
Agreed they were writing for themselves as literacy in the West declined precipitously among the other classes and the church inserted itself in political life by being the ones who could read and write messages. Things were only slightly better in the East.
You do raise the interesting point of who were the intended recipients of all these letters and gospels and so forth. Suppose "paul" did write a letter? Who did he address it to? Who could read it if it got there? After all, xtians love to pretend that it was the lower classes who they recruited from.
In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom ... by John Dominic Crossan
Paul was recruiting from the god-fearers who were attached to the synagogues. Often these were manumitted gentile slaves, who had been owned by Jewish masters. When you are manumitted, your pater familias leash is handed to a different master. In Rome, a slave became a dependent of a patron, usually his former master. Everyone had to have a patron. The whole society was based on a client/patron network.
You went from slave to employee and lackey (visit the boss/mafiosi every morning, to see if he needed his dick polished). There were reasons why gentiles didn't make full conversion to Judaism (circumcision). Gentiles (outside of the Middle East) viscerally opposed circumcision. Also there is the meat issue (that hamburger was dedicated to Zeus, so how can you, as a Jew, eat it?). Manumitted Jewish slaves of course, didn't have to convert, were already circumcised, and were plugged into the kosher meat market.
Paul's efforts were very disruptive of the synagogue. Paul wanted to do this, because his apocalyptic utopia was multi-ethnic. Most Messianic pretenders weren't like that, they were strictly ethnic. And by disrupting the synagogue, this potentially drew the attention of the Roman authorities. The build up of gentiles boycotting the gentile meat market (aka animal sacrifice at temples) also drew the attention of the Roman authorities. In the days of early police work, investigation was primarily done by torture.
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2018, 07:02:01 AM
In Search of Paul: How Jesus' Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom ... by John Dominic Crossan
Paul was recruiting from the god-fearers who were attached to the synagogues. Often these were manumitted gentile slaves, who had been owned by Jewish masters. When you are manumitted, your pater familias leash is handed to a different master. In Rome, a slave became a dependent of a patron, usually his former master. Everyone had to have a patron. The whole society was based on a client/patron network.
You went from slave to employee and lackey (visit the boss/mafiosi every morning, to see if he needed his dick polished). There were reasons why gentiles didn't make full conversion to Judaism (circumcision). Gentiles (outside of the Middle East) viscerally opposed circumcision. Also there is the meat issue (that hamburger was dedicated to Zeus, so how can you, as a Jew, eat it?). Manumitted Jewish slaves of course, didn't have to convert, were already circumcised, and were plugged into the kosher meat market.
Paul's efforts were very disruptive of the synagogue. Paul wanted to do this, because his apocalyptic utopia was multi-ethnic. Most Messianic pretenders weren't like that, they were strictly ethnic. And by disrupting the synagogue, this potentially drew the attention of the Roman authorities. The build up of gentiles boycotting the gentile meat market (aka animal sacrifice at temples) also drew the attention of the Roman authorities. In the days of early police work, investigation was primarily done by torture.
Now THERE is a good post Burach! Do that more.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 21, 2018, 07:05:48 AM
Now THERE is a good post Burach! Do that more.
Death to religion!
Double death to Christianity!
Triple Death to Republicans!
like that?
I have long scholarship in early Christianity/Judaism. And a lot of Comparative Religion study (mostly Buddhism). But those aren't the majority interest here. Here people like Giant Robot Movies, gay times, political dysfunction.
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2018, 07:10:31 AM
Death to religion!
Double death to Christianity!
Triple Death to Republicans!
like that?
I have long scholarship in early Christianity/Judaism. And a lot of Comparative Religion study (mostly Buddhism). But those aren't the majority interest here. Here people like Giant Robot Movies, gay times, political dysfunction.
Nah, not the same. And I don't see much about Giant Robot Movies. I will grant Munch his "gay times". And political dysfunction is about the same as religious dysfunction.
And you don't have to spout religious intolerance. A calm cool refutation of all superstitions will do just fine.
Cavey
Quote from: Cavebear on December 21, 2018, 07:17:08 AM
And you don't have to spout religious intolerance. A calm cool refutation of all superstitions will do just fine.
Cavey
Yeah, but the religious will tell you that that is the same as intolerance. They have to have all of their superstitions in tact or they will want to kill you--in the name of god.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 21, 2018, 10:11:51 AM
Yeah, but the religious will tell you that that is the same as intolerance. They have to have all of their superstitions in tact or they will want to kill you--in the name of god.
If a new religious world arrives, I'm dead. I couldn't fake it for a day.
But what is the actual "evidence" that Crossan uses? From a review I read its the same old epistles, Book of Acts, church tradition horseshit with a new spin.
I suggest Richard Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus" as a less reverential discussion of this stuff. The evidence for any single person named "paul" is as weak as that for any earthly "jesus." I find this fact compelling even if jesus freaks run screaming from the room.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 21, 2018, 11:15:41 AM
But what is the actual "evidence" that Crossan uses? From a review I read its the same old epistles, Book of Acts, church tradition horseshit with a new spin.
I suggest Richard Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus" as a less reverential discussion of this stuff. The evidence for any single person named "paul" is as weak as that for any earthly "jesus." I find this fact compelling even if jesus freaks run screaming from the room.
Well, none of the biblical books were written "at the time" of course. So they are all fake. They are just what some religious fanatics THOUGHT the people they imagined as apostles would say. And, none of that stuff would be real at any time.
I always expect that anything claimed as a miracle is false simply because is offends the laws of physics or some other currently-understood facts.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 21, 2018, 11:15:41 AM
But what is the actual "evidence" that Crossan uses? From a review I read its the same old epistles, Book of Acts, church tradition horseshit with a new spin.
I suggest Richard Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus" as a less reverential discussion of this stuff. The evidence for any single person named "paul" is as weak as that for any earthly "jesus." I find this fact compelling even if jesus freaks run screaming from the room.
I agree--Carrier's work is the best in the field. And I hope somebody on the christian side would take up Carrier's challenge--use the same rules of studying history as he does and show how Jesus could be/is a real person. That will never happen, of course.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 21, 2018, 11:56:36 AM
Well, none of the biblical books were written "at the time" of course. So they are all fake. They are just what some religious fanatics THOUGHT the people they imagined as apostles would say. And, none of that stuff would be real at any time.
I always expect that anything claimed as a miracle is false simply because is offends the laws of physics or some other currently-understood facts.
Isn't a miracle simply the religious way of saying--I don't know how that works!
Most books are not written at the time, of course. The difference is that books which purport to present facts tend to give their sources for those facts. How different are the so-called gospels?
We do not have 4 gospels. We have one. Mark. The next two are fan fics in modern parlance. Merely expansions of the original. Then there is John which is a total re-write of the original because obviously the author of "john" was embarrassed that Mark portrayed his hero godboy as some sort of mealy mouthed pussy.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 21, 2018, 07:17:08 AM
Nah, not the same. And I don't see much about Giant Robot Movies. I will grant Munch his "gay times". And political dysfunction is about the same as religious dysfunction.
And you don't have to spout religious intolerance. A calm cool refutation of all superstitions will do just fine.
Cavey
Democrats = BS
Republicans = BS
OK? Secular superstitions. Free lunch for certain folks, who vote for me.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 21, 2018, 11:15:41 AM
But what is the actual "evidence" that Crossan uses? From a review I read its the same old epistles, Book of Acts, church tradition horseshit with a new spin.
I suggest Richard Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus" as a less reverential discussion of this stuff. The evidence for any single person named "paul" is as weak as that for any earthly "jesus." I find this fact compelling even if jesus freaks run screaming from the room.
Read the book. Archeology shows what was going on. Not what Marxists project into the past with their magical dialectical materialism.
Or you can say, as I do, that history is bunk. Unless you can personally interview George Washington and cross examine him under enhanced interrogation ... you have nothing. Maximalist vs minimalist. But either way, propaganda for some agenda or other.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 21, 2018, 11:56:36 AM
Well, none of the biblical books were written "at the time" of course. So they are all fake. They are just what some religious fanatics THOUGHT the people they imagined as apostles would say. And, none of that stuff would be real at any time.
I always expect that anything claimed as a miracle is false simply because is offends the laws of physics or some other currently-understood facts.
Same as all JFK assassination books. They weren't written in 1963 ... so they are all false.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 21, 2018, 12:00:56 PM
Isn't a miracle simply the religious way of saying--I don't know how that works!
Materialists put words in spiritualist mouths, even when spiritualists don't already put their own foot in their own mouths ;-)
Nobody here, except maybe Pops and I know what "miracle" means. And that is OK, y'all don't have to.
There is the bottom up view of reality, and the top down view of reality. They are both true, and contradict each other. Baruch Spinoza understood this.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 21, 2018, 12:22:05 PM
Most books are not written at the time, of course. The difference is that books which purport to present facts tend to give their sources for those facts. How different are the so-called gospels?
We do not have 4 gospels. We have one. Mark. The next two are fan fics in modern parlance. Merely expansions of the original. Then there is John which is a total re-write of the original because obviously the author of "john" was embarrassed that Mark portrayed his hero godboy as some sort of mealy mouthed pussy.
None of the gospels are original or contemporary. They are evangelical novellas ... to recruit gentiles and Hellenized Jews. This period lasted until about 135 CE, when the last of the Messianic Jews and the Hellenized Jews were wiped out by the Romans. Paul was the cross-over ;-) ... both messianic and Hellenized. His group survived better, because it was pro-Roman from the beginning.
What is what?
Gospels are fictional, are religious novellas, as were popular at the time, but usually in pagan terms. Recruitment propaganda. Maccabean literature did that for Jewish folk.
Epistles are edited and sometimes invented, as church to church communications ... but also sometimes whole sermons. Romans and Hebrews are sermons. Revelations on the other hand is an LSD trip. They did have hallucinogens back then.
The original scripture was the Septuagint ... the Greek OT. Then Paul's epistles were added along with other miscellany. The gospels/acts were written last. This was a whole industry by gnostic groups; pagan, Jewish and Christian.
If you want to see the original inspiration, as it is being made, read the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary. These are fictions, but they describe the gnostic process. This process may have included fasting, meditation, sleep deprivation and other austerities, and hallucinogens.
The disciples (of all new sects) were the hippies of their age. Peace bro.
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2018, 12:47:43 PM
None of the gospels are original or contemporary. They are evangelical novellas ... to recruit gentiles and Hellenized Jews. This period lasted until about 135 CE, when the last of the Messianic Jews and the Hellenized Jews were wiped out by the Romans. Paul was the cross-over ;-) ... both messianic and Hellenized. His group survived better, because it was pro-Roman from the beginning.
Try telling that to the fundies. Those fuckers think people were taking dictation from fucking jesus!
Quote from: Minimalist on December 21, 2018, 12:58:40 PM
Try telling that to the fundies. Those fuckers think people were taking dictation from fucking jesus!
Find blind idiot on the street. Push him into the middle of traffic. Virtuous that. You are much too used to fishing, by dropping dynamite into a barrel.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 21, 2018, 11:15:41 AM
But what is the actual "evidence" that Crossan uses? From a review I read its the same old epistles, Book of Acts, church tradition horseshit with a new spin.
I suggest Richard Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus" as a less reverential discussion of this stuff. The evidence for any single person named "paul" is as weak as that for any earthly "jesus." I find this fact compelling even if jesus freaks run screaming from the room.
What I find interesting about "the apostle" Paul is how much he directly contradicted what Jesus taught.
https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html
This is just one site I picked, there are many others.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 21, 2018, 12:00:56 PM
Isn't a miracle simply the religious way of saying--I don't know how that works!
Actually, "no". The religious claim to really know how a miracle works. Caused By God! They never say "I don't know how that works". They say "God Did It".
OK, but the word "God" is just a sound some people make when they mean "I don't know."
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 21, 2018, 02:02:59 PM
OK, but the word "God" is just a sound some people make when they mean "I don't know."
Oh yeah? Try to get them to not capitalize the word...
And also, I once drove some Islamists nuts trying to differentiate the word for a Roman "god" and "Allah" in English and Arabic.
Well, I bet that was fun!
LOL
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 21, 2018, 02:51:39 PM
Well, I bet that was fun!
LOL
Yes it was. "Allah" was so much the one and only god to them, they really couldn't manage a word for anyone else's "god", even an ancient one. In fact just putting the word "god" (which they translated as "Allah") in lower case distressed them greatly. So, of course I did early and often.
Ah, those were the days. But I got bored torturing simple theists. You folks are MUCH more fun...
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2018, 01:02:49 PM
Find blind idiot on the street. Push him into the middle of traffic. Virtuous that. You are much too used to fishing, by dropping dynamite into a barrel.
I find I have to play every team on the schedule. They are not all going to be the 1927 Yankees. Most of them will be the 1962 Mets.
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2018, 01:02:49 PM
Find blind idiot on the street. Push him into the middle of traffic. Virtuous that. You are much too used to fishing, by dropping dynamite into a barrel.
Too easy. Just rearrange the furniture and stick razor blades in it. Fishing is a whole different thing. The skill is making a bass think a piece of plastic tastes good.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 21, 2018, 02:02:59 PM
OK, but the word "God" is just a sound some people make when they mean "I don't know."
Unbeliever is just a word people say when ... I don't have creativity for more than that?
Quote from: Cavebear on December 21, 2018, 02:49:21 PM
Oh yeah? Try to get them to not capitalize the word...
And also, I once drove some Islamists nuts trying to differentiate the word for a Roman "god" and "Allah" in English and Arabic.
Amateurs ... G-d, God, god etc.
Driving islamists nuts is child's play!
Quote from: Minimalist on December 22, 2018, 10:33:24 AM
Driving islamists nuts is child's play!
Any literalists, really. Anyone who thinks that Moby Dick is real history, not great literature. Though of course it is based on real events, as all fantasy more or less does (see voyage of the whale ship Essex).
But Moby Dickers rarely burn anyone at the stake for refusing to believe in the Great White Whale.
Now, the Great Orange Turd....
(https://collegian.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Idiot-Donald-Trump-American-Slander.jpg)
is a different story.
We could appropriate Bush's nickname for Karl Rove and apply it to Trump: Turd Blossom.
If I use Karl Marx to execute you, is that OK? Particularly if Karl Marx supported the Union, not the Confederacy?
I hope Marx did not think that the Civil War was about freeing the slaves? When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation entire Union regiments deserted. They had signed up to preserve the union, not to end slavery.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 24, 2018, 03:29:54 PM
I hope Marx did not think that the Civil War was about freeing the slaves? When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation entire Union regiments deserted. They had signed up to preserve the union, not to end slavery.
Really? Marx wanted to free all people (ala Rousseau) from all primitive technology and even more primitive social structures. The ultimate progressive. With advance beyond all known technology and social structures, the result would have to be a leisure utopia, like Raisa in Star Trek Next Gen. Yes, Marx was pro-Union, but in a bigger picture short of way.
Correct, only New England puritanical nut cases like John Brown wanted to free the slaves (false messiahs for false utopias). Lincoln himself said, the reason to not enslave Black-folk wasn't because they were equal, but because the effort to suppress them destroyed White virtue. The Union wasn't so happy when in WW I, all those Black sharecroppers moved North to work in the war industries.
QuoteLincoln himself said, the reason to not enslave Black-folk wasn't because they were equal, but because the effort to suppress them destroyed White virtue.
Remarkably close to Robert E. Lee's opinion.
QuoteThere are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things.
Robert E. Lee 1856
Quote from: Minimalist on December 22, 2018, 10:33:24 AM
Driving islamists nuts is child's play!
Yeah, but they are violent fruitcakes. A lot like medieval Christians and modern Hindus. They are all mentally children. With AK-47s and bombs.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 22, 2018, 05:31:07 PM
But Moby Dickers rarely burn anyone at the stake for refusing to believe in the Great White Whale.
True, the Ahabs self-eliminate. Rather considerate of them. Its the ones who other-eliminate than cause me grief.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 24, 2018, 03:29:54 PM
I hope Marx did not think that the Civil War was about freeing the slaves? When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation entire Union regiments deserted. They had signed up to preserve the union, not to end slavery.
"When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation entire Union regiments deserted"... References please?
I agree that freeing the slaves was not initially the Union goal, and many union soldiers were quite biased against slaves, but I'm reasonably well-read about the Civil War and regiments deserting for
any reason was pretty unlikely.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 24, 2018, 07:17:04 PM
Remarkably close to Robert E. Lee's opinion.
Regarding Lincoln's views on equality of Black slaves and Whites:
""I believe the declara[tion] that 'all men are created equal' is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others---individuals, free-states and national government---are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed. That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter to James N. Brown" (October 18, 1858), p. 327. "
Lincoln, ever the pragmatist.
QuoteIf I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
Lincoln, letter to Horace Greeley, Aug. 1862
Quote from: Minimalist on December 25, 2018, 07:45:10 PM
Lincoln, ever the pragmatist.
Yes, he would have. His singular goal as President was to preserve the Union. But his personal feelings were that all people were created equal.
If he believed that Blacks were inferior, he would not have expressed his desire to free them. Would he have expressed a thought that horses should be freed as equals? His younger experiences included observations that Blacks were fully human and improperly enslaved.
I invite your attention to this link.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-and-lees-views-on-slavery/
Lincoln often referenced "All men are created equal". He was a member of a political party that considered that that idea included Blacks. It seems reasonable to conclude from his early and later actions that he held to those beliefs.
It is hard to separate the language of the time from the beliefs of individuals. And it is hard for politicians to speak their beliefs straight-forwardly sometimes. Sometimes you had (and still do) have speak the language of the voters. Guessing true thoughts of people before us using the language of the time can be very complicated.
Agreed. But the men who answered the call of this type of recruiting poster in October, 1861 ( in the aftermath of First Manassas ) were not called to free slaves but to save the union. Lincoln understood that. Remember that he got less than 40% of the vote in 1860. His position was shaky.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1d/93/4f/1d934f7f04e30bb4dc539282b27c62ab.jpg)
Quote from: Minimalist on December 25, 2018, 09:15:05 PM
Agreed. But the men who answered the call of this type of recruiting poster in October, 1861 ( in the aftermath of First Manassas ) were not called to free slaves but to save the union. Lincoln understood that. Remember that he got less than 40% of the vote in 1860. His position was shaky.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1d/93/4f/1d934f7f04e30bb4dc539282b27c62ab.jpg)
OK; Look when I say Lincoln agreed that slaves were people and some Union soldiers didn't agree, you can't then call me out suggesting I wasn't saying that. I totally agree that many northerners either didn't care all to much about slavery or didn't know much about it.
It took some time...
But what I asked you for were references about your claim that entire union regiments deserted over the issue. If you have them, fine, and I will learn something new. But if you don't, just say so and we will go on from there.
Hey, sometimes I discover I've made a statement I couldn't support through evidence, and I learn from THAT too. That doesn't even mean the statement was incorrect, just not very evidential.
But please do respect a request for evidence and acknowledge if it is hard to provide.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 25, 2018, 07:29:01 PM
Regarding Lincoln's views on equality of Black slaves and Whites:
""I believe the declara[tion] that 'all men are created equal' is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others---individuals, free-states and national government---are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed. That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter to James N. Brown" (October 18, 1858), p. 327. "
But careful to not repeat fake Lincoln quotes, put in his mouth to meet Republican party ideology. I think you are quoting the real thing.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/abraham-lincoln-quote-about-capitalism-and-corruption/
Quote from: Cavebear on December 25, 2018, 07:13:59 PM
True, the Ahabs self-eliminate. Rather considerate of them. Its the ones who other-eliminate than cause me grief.
Ahab got his whole ship sunk. He was other-eliminator.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 25, 2018, 07:22:32 PM
"When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation entire Union regiments deserted"... References please?
I agree that freeing the slaves was not initially the Union goal, and many union soldiers were quite biased against slaves, but I'm reasonably well-read about the Civil War and regiments deserting for any reason was pretty unlikely.
I agree with you. Usually Union troops were unruly because of the bad food ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on December 25, 2018, 08:59:53 PM
Yes, he would have. His singular goal as President was to preserve the Union. But his personal feelings were that all people were created equal.
If he believed that Blacks were inferior, he would not have expressed his desire to free them. Would he have expressed a thought that horses should be freed as equals? His younger experiences included observations that Blacks were fully human and improperly enslaved.
I invite your attention to this link.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-and-lees-views-on-slavery/
Lincoln often referenced "All men are created equal". He was a member of a political party that considered that that idea included Blacks. It seems reasonable to conclude from his early and later actions that he held to those beliefs.
It is hard to separate the language of the time from the beliefs of individuals. And it is hard for politicians to speak their beliefs straight-forwardly sometimes. Sometimes you had (and still do) have speak the language of the voters. Guessing true thoughts of people before us using the language of the time can be very complicated.
Lincoln initially wanted to ship the freed slaves to Liberia, our original African colony. Frederick Douglass dissuaded him. Different African-American leaders down the decades, have come down on both sides of this issue ... should African-Americans bother remaining American?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/128th_Illinois_Infantry_Regiment
The 128th Illinois is probably the best known example. Obviously, the army had a deep seated desire to cover the story up. Then there was this in which the issue was shoehorned into a story about other reasons for desertion. I'm surprised they didn't mention army chow as a cause.
http://civilwardailygazette.com/lincoln-grants-temporary-amnest-to-deserters/
Actually, the most in depth discussion I ever saw of it was in Ken Burns' The Civil War. But its nine hours long and I don't have the time to go looking through it to give you chapter and verse.
Enlistment terms were strange then as during the American Revolution. Amazing to fight a war on such amateur terms. The other strange aspect was popular election of regimental officers. It worked for Grant, but probably not for many others. Men wanted to serve with men they knew, from their hometown, not West Point grads.
I read something about soldier-choice of officers once. Years ago in a newspaper article.
I've thought about that. It seems to me that, since most units had little control over where they went or where they fought on command from above, their field commanders weren't the ones deciding where or when they fought.
So, the most logical thing was for them to actually choose among themselves a group leader who inspired them to go charging insanely into a hailstorm of bullets by example. Utterly insane, of course, but you did what you did according to the thoughts of the time.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 01:11:30 AM
I read something about soldier-choice of officers once. Years ago in a newspaper article.
I've thought about that. It seems to me that, since most units had little control over where they went or where they fought on command from above, their field commanders weren't the ones deciding where or when they fought.
So, the most logical thing was for them to actually choose among themselves a group leader who inspired them to go charging insanely into a hailstorm of bullets by example. Utterly insane, of course, but you did what you did according to the thoughts of the time.
It was very democratic. In ancient Athens, there were 10 generals, all elected to office. The Spartans were professionals however.
I should add that the era of elected minor officers was temporary. Before the US Civil War, officers lead the way with sword in hand. During the Civil War, sharp-shooters caught on really quick that shooting the officers led to a failure of sustained attack. In later wars, where officer-training began to matter more and expected to shoot back, officers were less visible and so were shot less often.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 29, 2018, 09:33:17 AM
I should add that the era of elected minor officers was temporary. Before the US Civil War, officers lead the way with sword in hand. During the Civil War, sharp-shooters caught on really quick that shooting the officers led to a failure of sustained attack. In later wars, where officer-training began to matter more and expected to shoot back, officers were less visible and so were shot less often.
Specifically ... in the larger armies of the US Civil War, there weren't enough West Point grads available, and most of them fought for the South.
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2018, 10:10:19 AM
Specifically ... in the larger armies of the US Civil War, there weren't enough West Point grads available, and most of them fought for the South.
Indeed , many did, and THAT is why tghe Union had a hard time of battles at first. Training and experience matters. But the Union struggled on and found talented general among their own ranks.
And lest this be a Union/Confederacy debate (of which I have little interest, I searched. A Top Ten had both.
http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/bestgenerals.html
Top Ten countdown (and I agree in "general" - pun acknowledged):
Sheridan
Stuart
Meade
Tomas
Forrest
Sherman
Jackson
Cleburne
Lee
Grant
I had to look up Cleburne...
"Cleburne is probably the most underrated general in either force during the Civil War, but he repeatedly withstood vastly superior forces under some of the best generals to earn his sobriquet "Stonewall Jackson of the West."
And to check, I went to Wikipedia...
"Born in County Cork, Ireland,[1] Cleburne served in the 41st Regiment of Foot, a Welsh regiment of the British Army, after failing to gain entrance into Trinity College of Medicine in 1846. He immigrated to the United States three years later. At the beginning of the Civil War, Cleburne sided with the Confederate States. He progressed from being a private soldier in the local militia to a division commander. Cleburne participated in many successful military campaigns, especially the Battle of Stones River, the Battle of Missionary Ridge and the Battle of Ringgold Gap. He was also present at the Battle of Shiloh. His strategic ability gained him the nickname "Stonewall of the West". He was killed in 1864, at the Battle of Franklin. "
I learn something new every day in every discussion...
Grant was one of those "elected" officers, but he was a West Point grad and had war experience. Everything would have changed if Lee had taken up Lincoln's offer. Usually (except in civil war) it is external threat that makes the states combine into one entity. Otherwise local politicians tear it all apart.
On the other side of the coin both George Pickett (CSA) and George Custer (USA) finished last in their respective classes at West Point.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 31, 2018, 04:54:47 PM
On the other side of the coin both George Pickett (CSA) and George Custer (USA) finished last in their respective classes at West Point.
Cavalry officers were famous for that. Artillery officers had the best grades, then infantry and cavalry dead last. But they did know which end of a horse was which -)
As long as they salute the asshole on the horse...........
Quote from: Minimalist on January 01, 2019, 02:33:47 PM
As long as they salute the asshole on the horse...........
Notice brilliant cavalry thinking ... divide forces in the face of a superior enemy, with inadequate reconnoiter.
Massed cavalry charges did not work so well at Waterloo, either. Although they did work at Eylau.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 01, 2019, 05:08:54 PM
Massed cavalry charges did not work so well at Waterloo, either. Although they did work at Eylau.
Timing and weather. Eylau was frozen ground and a snow storm. Waterloo was a rain and soggy ground. That and tactically the French cavalry was useless against the British squares. Cavalry is for exploiting unprepared or retreating forces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8lzv_Elwjg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEUjWxdXdEk
At Waterloo, a completely different situation for both sides ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIDvyGifRE0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97dBfdNrf9A
Quote
Timing and weather.
And woe to the commander who ignores, either. As Napoleon said, "battles are won or lost in a quarter of an hour."
A last place person at West Point probably has some talents.
Grant was 21st in the class of 1843. Lee was 2nd in the Class of 1829. Guess who developed the winning strategy?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 02, 2019, 05:50:30 AM
A last place person at West Point probably has some talents.
Grant was 21st in the class of 1843. Lee was 2nd in the Class of 1829. Guess who developed the winning strategy?
True. But resources count too. The Union always had industry, the South had ... cotton.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 02, 2019, 05:50:30 AM
A last place person at West Point probably has some talents.
Grant was 21st in the class of 1843. Lee was 2nd in the Class of 1829. Guess who developed the winning strategy?
Frontal attacks against entrenched positions are winning strategies only if you know you can replace your losses. Even Grant knew he fucked up at Cold Harbor.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 02, 2019, 09:27:14 PM
Frontal attacks against entrenched positions are winning strategies only if you know you can replace your losses. Even Grant knew he fucked up at Cold Harbor.
Yes. But what always confuses me is why not attack on the flanks?
OK, I do understand something about Civil War tactics.
1. You could only know what you could see.
2. Couriers carrying info about where the enemy was was always outdated.
3. Subordinate generals often didn't act as ordered (and sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad ones).
4. Knowledge of the local terrain was always "iffy".
But one thing that seemingly should have been obvious was that frontal attacks were suicidal. I've just never understood that part.
When the Union attacked Confederate posions, it was almost always against entrenchments or at least barriers of felled trees and they lost. And on the few occasions where the Confederates attacked Union positions, they lost equally. Obviously, they weren't dumb. So why?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 05, 2019, 07:40:52 AM
Yes. But what always confuses me is why not attack on the flanks?
OK, I do understand something about Civil War tactics.
1. You could only know what you could see.
2. Couriers carrying info about where the enemy was was always outdated.
3. Subordinate generals often didn't act as ordered (and sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad ones).
4. Knowledge of the local terrain was always "iffy".
But one thing that seemingly should have been obvious was that frontal attacks were suicidal. I've just never understood that part.
When the Union attacked Confederate posions, it was almost always against entrenchments or at least barriers of felled trees and they lost. And on the few occasions where the Confederates attacked Union positions, they lost equally. Obviously, they weren't dumb. So why?
Bad/good terrain. The first Union general who arrived at Gettysburg said "good terrain" for the Union, if they could hold the high ground. The first high ground to the E of Gettysburg (Seminary ridge) was flanked on the right, by the Confederates. But the Union was able to fall back to an even stronger plan B (Cemetery Ridge). The wooded N end of Cemetery Ridge formed a hook that protected them from a flanking attack on the right. Big Round Top was an in-line hill that protected them from a flanking attack on the left. The Confederates on multiple occasions tried to flank both the right and left.
So why not just go well past Cemetery Ridge on either end? Because it takes time, and the enemy can see you doing it, and reposition. Also with maneuvering, at some point you put your line of supply up for grabs by the opposition cavalry. Needless to say, the frontal attack on Day 3 at Gettysburg was a mistake, as was the prior frontal attack at Fredericksburg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQXdV4pJIx4
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2019, 10:34:25 AM
Bad/good terrain. The first Union general who arrived at Gettysburg said "good terrain" for the Union, if they could hold the high ground. The first high ground to the E of Gettysburg (Seminary ridge) was flanked on the right, by the Confederates. But the Union was able to fall back to an even stronger plan B (Cemetery Ridge). The wooded N end of Cemetery Ridge formed a hook that protected them from a flanking attack on the right. Big Round Top was an in-line hill that protected them from a flanking attack on the left. The Confederates on multiple occasions tried to flank both the right and left.
So why not just go well past Cemetery Ridge on either end? Because it takes time, and the enemy can see you doing it, and reposition. Also with maneuvering, at some point you put your line of supply up for grabs by the opposition cavalry. Needless to say, the frontal attack on Day 3 at Gettysburg was a mistake, as was the prior frontal attack at Fredericksburg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQXdV4pJIx4
OK, given that you actually presented a reasonable post I must (sigh) reply.
1. Regarding the specific battle of Gettysburg, Lee lost because Stuart was off gallivanting north collecting horses and wagons by beating up local militia while Meade gathered his forces and too the high ground. And Lee depended on his cavalry for intell.
2. For once, Lee wasn't in a place where he knew the terrain better than his opponent.
3. And Lee had personal weaknesses. One was that he couldn't NOT attack due to his personality. Another was that he had little experience in attacking fortified positions. He was as bad at it as any Union General.
4. Lee failed to comprehend the value of the Round Tops. And when he did, he lost both attempts. By 1863, the Union army was as professional as the Confederate army. And old "Snapping Turtle" Meade was exactly the Commander the Union needed at the time
5. When Lee tried to turn the north flank with cavalry, he was surprised to find the Union had good horsemen too. Say what you will about Custer's future failure, but he beat the crap out of the Confederate cavalry that day.
6. We all know about Pickett's Charge, but not everyone knows that Longstreet, Lee's 2nd, knew it was doomed. He could not even give the command to go forward, sensing the futility to come.
But there is something more important. A failure of strategic comprehension that baffles me. Meade was entrenched on the hills and could not well move off. Lee could have moved his forces at will.
Without ever having discussed this with anyone previously other than a Confederate re-enacter who was a co-worker, all Lee had to do was slide his army to the south of Gettysburg and march toward Washington DC. Lee's army was sufficient for the taking of the Union capital and by all understanding of the politics of the time, would have essentially ended the war.
That Lee did not suggests several things.
1. That he was not strategically-minded.
2. That he was unsure of how to maintain his army in "foreign" territory (and keep in mind his original skill was as a Quarter-master).
3. He understood how to win battles in territory he knew well but not how to "win the war".
So, accounting for Lee in history, if I needed a General to face someone like Napoleon on home territory, Lee would be a good choice. But when faced with the unknown, he wasn't. Lee was possibly the best CIC homeboy ever. But outside of his familiar grounds, he lost big time and every time.
My apologies to any of my friends who still raise the Conderate flag.
But aside from all that, the Confederates never had a chance. The Union had all the industry, better ammo, transport, and they even fought the Indians (no great mark of pride) at the same time.
The best thing I can say about Lee is that, had he honored his oath of office to the Federal Govt, the war would have lasted maybe a year and about 100,000+ young men would have lived to return to their farms and slavery would have ended sooner. and more peacefully.
Just a few thoughts...
The short answer to your question is that advances in military weapons outpaced the tactical imagination of the commanders. While they had moved away from the Napoleonic concept of columns they had only gotten so far as long lines which was a throwback to the 18th century and meant to maximize firepower. The thing is that a line is nothing but a thin column and far more unwieldy to maintain in battle conditions. With a smoothbore French or British musket - and many were still in use at the beginning of the CW - the effective range was something up to 80 yards. Beyond that a hit was dumb luck. But rifled muskets were far more effective at ranges up to 250 yards and rifled cannon and exploding shells added to the carnage up to 1,000 yards.
As far as attacking the flanks go that also is on the commanders. The terrain in northern Virginia especially in the Wilderness and at Spottsylvania was such that trying to find the enemy's flank and then march an army to it were daunting prospects. Any commander who dug a line with his flanks "in the air" as the saying went should have been court-martialed. So while Lee, who graduated from West Point as an Engineer Officer, may have been the first to realize that digging a hole afforded his men great protection, he also seemed to have a better than average understanding of the tactical advantages of finding a proper defensive position.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker pushed the XIth Corps out to his right and had them dig in facing the confederates. The flank was "in the air" not anchored against any sort of natural obstacle and Jackson's scouts soon detected it. In a daring march, Jackson using the superior knowledge of the local roads executed a flawless forced march around the union flank, made a surprise attack and sent the XIth corps running in panic. Only nightfall saved the Union Army from disaster.
At Gettysburg, the Confederate attacks on Little Round Top were meant to be flank attacks as the 20th Maine was the last regiment on the line. They held. But it wasn't as if Lee didn't understand the potential gain.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 05, 2019, 12:03:16 PM
The short answer to your question is that advances in military weapons outpaced the tactical imagination of the commanders. While they had moved away from the Napoleonic concept of columns they had only gotten so far as long lines which was a throwback to the 18th century and meant to maximize firepower. The thing is that a line is nothing but a thin column and far more unwieldy to maintain in battle conditions. With a smoothbore French or British musket - and many were still in use at the beginning of the CW - the effective range was something up to 80 yards. Beyond that a hit was dumb luck. But rifled muskets were far more effective at ranges up to 250 yards and rifled cannon and exploding shells added to the carnage up to 1,000 yards.
As far as attacking the flanks go that also is on the commanders. The terrain in northern Virginia especially in the Wilderness and at Spottsylvania was such that trying to find the enemy's flank and then march an army to it were daunting prospects. Any commander who dug a line with his flanks "in the air" as the saying went should have been court-martialed. So while Lee, who graduated from West Point as an Engineer Officer, may have been the first to realize that digging a hole afforded his men great protection, he also seemed to have a better than average understanding of the tactical advantages of finding a proper defensive position.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker pushed the XIth Corps out to his right and had them dig in facing the confederates. The flank was "in the air" not anchored against any sort of natural obstacle and Jackson's scouts soon detected it. In a daring march, Jackson using the superior knowledge of the local roads executed a flawless forced march around the union flank, made a surprise attack and sent the XIth corps running in panic. Only nightfall saved the Union Army from disaster.
At Gettysburg, the Confederate attacks on Little Round Top were meant to be flank attacks as the 20th Maine was the last regiment on the line. They held. But it wasn't as if Lee didn't understand the potential gain.
I'm impressed. And I owe an apology. It was Grant who was Quartermaster; Lee was the Engineer as you said. I don't get enough discussions like this to keep those details straight.
But, yes, of course, the flanks developed as the war went on. What was once a straight-on attack became more indirect and both sides learned to develop the kinds of crossfire exemplified in trench warfare at places like Petersburg.
I was re-watching an episode of Connections 2 just a few days ago where James Burke discussed how to avoid blind zones with star forts in medieval times and immediately thought of US civil war entrenched defenses.
Oops hit the send button when I didn't mean to...So I understand what you are saying about straight-on attacks (massed firing with somewhat unaimab;e weapons) at first but that became less of a concern as Union soldiers got rifled weapons and the Confederates it not (except what they collected on the battlefield. In fact, I am reminded of the Confederate soldiers who complained the Yankees could load up on Sunday and fire all week.
I do understand the difference between "digging a hole" and forming a defensive barrier. The Confederates were very skilled at "intrenching" and throwing felled trees above their firing positions. The Union was compelled to attack, and thereby suffer greater losses.
And yeah, they had to work a while to find generals who could use their strengths.
But it is worthwhile to note that Sherman usually outflanked his opponents during his "March To The Sea", so the skill was not unknown or impossible. And Grant DID finally flank around enough to pin Lee onto Richmond and Petersburg.
It is also worth noting that Grant had to get at Lee every whichway and sometimes you just have to beat someone with a club. In the Civil War, defense almost always won by 2-1. And the Union soldiers were in territory they usually knew little about.
Horrid mess...
One of the stupidest comments ever made by Abe Lincoln was this:
(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-you-are-green-it-is-true-but-they-are-green-also-you-are-all-green-alike-abraham-lincoln-70-12-36.jpg)
Said to General McDowell prior to the First Manassas campaign.
While true he totally failed to grasp the inherent difference between attack and defense. Beauregard was sitting along Bull Run Creek, dug in at the crossings and waiting. McDowell had to march his army through stifling heat and humidity a distance of 25 miles just to get there. He then determined to make a flank march to turn the Confederate left but the troops were worn out by the bungling of the commanders and it took hours to get them across the creek. I've been to Bull Run Creek. With a little effort you could piss across it but it has steep, muddy, banks and would have been impassable to wagons or artillery caissons except at the crossings. So while McDowell's inexperienced troops struggled to figure out where to go Beauregard's inexperienced troops had time to react to their situation. As the federal troops drove the scattered rebel units from one hill to another Jackson, Wade Hampton and JEB Stuart had time to form a defensive line as Johnston's troops arrived by rail. Jackson's charge against an exhausted enemy which thought itself on the verge of victory only to face another formidable obstacle caused them to rout and panic. They took the rest of the army with them all the way back to Washington. Despite winning, the Rebs were unable to organize themselves for a pursuit or the war might have ended that day.
On a personal note, in 1991 I took my son, who was also a CW buff, on a tour of the battlefields in the region. We were in Manassas 3 days short of the 130th anniversary of the battle, mid July. The temperatures were in the upper nineties and the humidity was even higher. We were in shorts and t-shirts and carrying nothing more than a camera and walking on the nicely maintained footpaths installed by the National Parks Service. And we were fucking dying. I told him "imagine what it would be like in a wool or flannel uniform carrying your musket, ammo, and some sort of pack and having to climb up and down those hills and ridges." Later in the war a veteran army could have done it. But in 1861 it was a recipe for catastrophe.
It's also true that while McDowell outnumbered the Rebs by about 1.5 - 1 both sides only managed to actually get less than 20,000 men into actual combat. As bad as the training and discipline of the soldiers was the officers down to company level did not know what the fuck they were doing.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 05, 2019, 01:55:16 PM
One of the stupidest comments ever made by Abe Lincoln was this:
Said to General McDowell prior to the First Manassas campaign.
While true he totally failed to grasp the inherent difference between attack and defense. Beauregard was sitting along Bull Run Creek, dug in at the crossings and waiting. McDowell had to march his army through stifling heat and humidity a distance of 25 miles just to get there. He then determined to make a flank march to turn the Confederate left but the troops were worn out by the bungling of the commanders and it took hours to get them across the creek. I've been to Bull Run Creek. With a little effort you could piss across it but it has steep, muddy, banks and would have been impassable to wagons or artillery caissons except at the crossings. So while McDowell's inexperienced troops struggled to figure out where to go Beauregard's inexperienced troops had time to react to their situation. As the federal troops drove the scattered rebel units from one hill to another Jackson, Wade Hampton and JEB Stuart had time to form a defensive line as Johnston's troops arrived by rail. Jackson's charge against an exhausted enemy which thought itself on the verge of victory only to face another formidable obstacle caused them to rout and panic. They took the rest of the army with them all the way back to Washington. Despite winning, the Rebs were unable to organize themselves for a pursuit or the war might have ended that day.
On a personal note, in 1991 I took my son, who was also a CW buff, on a tour of the battlefields in the region. We were in Manassas 3 days short of the 130th anniversary of the battle, mid July. The temperatures were in the upper nineties and the humidity was even higher. We were in shorts and t-shirts and carrying nothing more than a camera and walking on the nicely maintained footpaths installed by the National Parks Service. And we were fucking dying. I told him "imagine what it would be like in a wool or flannel uniform carrying your musket, ammo, and some sort of pack and having to climb up and down those hills and ridges." Later in the war a veteran army could have done it. But in 1861 it was a recipe for catastrophe.
It's also true that while McDowell outnumbered the Rebs by about 1.5 - 1 both sides only managed to actually get less than 20,000 men into actual combat. As bad as the training and discipline of the soldiers was the officers down to company level did not know what the fuck they were doing.
Actually, I can never decide whether that was a wise observation or just encouraging words to a new General. It makes some sense either way.
Forgive a joke (since you mentioned pissing across Bull Run) 2 guys need to pee while crossing a bridge. They stand on opposite sides. One says (jokingingly) "man that water is cold" And his friend says "and deep".
OK. Yes, that was a really strange battle. Neither side really knew what to do (in spite of the Mexican/American War). It was total chaos, with actual spectators coming out to watch (and really mess up movements) thinking war was all glory and brave charges as if no one would actually be hurt and the one battle would solve everything.
So sad to remember in hindsight...
I'm glad you mentioned the difficult conditions of wool dress uniforms and the heat or I would have. I spent years in Petersburg nearly gasping for air at night in bed, so I know.
First Bull Run ... Jackson was instructor at VMI. He knew what he was doing.
Grant did the greatest outflank of the war, in the Vicksburg campaign. He tried the same thing in Virginia, but the terrain was less helpful to the attacker.
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2019, 02:49:09 PM
First Bull Run ... Jackson was instructor at VMI. He knew what he was doing.
Grant did the greatest outflank of the war, in the Vicksburg campaign. He tried the same thing in Virginia, but the terrain was less helpful to the attacker.
No, he didn't. He was just a math teacher. But he did have a real talent for war. IIRC, someone said something like "he would suddenly decide to do something, then do it without any hesitation". I know I utterly botched that, but the gist is right.
In the West, there were wide open spaces but also impassible barriers. Vicksburg was a success partly because Grant "would punch his head through a brick wall" (another paraphrase) and because Pemberton thought he could withstand a siege and disobeyed orders to save his army by leaving.
The union also controlled the rivers which were essential in the West.
Quotethinking war was all glory and brave charges as if no one would actually be hurt and the one battle would solve everything.
Humans can be incredibly stupid, especially when someone else is doing the dying.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 05, 2019, 02:58:19 PM
No, he didn't. He was just a math teacher. But he did have a real talent for war. IIRC, someone said something like "he would suddenly decide to do something, then do it without any hesitation". I know I utterly botched that, but the gist is right.
In the West, there were wide open spaces but also impassible barriers. Vicksburg was a success partly because Grant "would punch his head through a brick wall" (another paraphrase) and because Pemberton thought he could withstand a siege and disobeyed orders to save his army by leaving.
Math teacher? Yes, so that disqualified him how? So then you take it back and say "a real talent for war". Of course ... he being a West Point graduate and renowned Mexican War veteran. What was Joshua Chamberlain? He knew what he was doing too, though a language professor, without prior military experience, but from a family of veterans.
So yeah, have some more coffee before you post again and embarrass yourself.
Um.... one of my uncles was a barber but I can't cut hair.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 07, 2019, 05:04:26 PM
Um.... one of my uncles was a barber but I can't cut hair.
I wasn't implying Lamarkism ... but I would be surprised if family stories didn't influence him. If his family were Tories who escaped from America to Canada, he might have turned out different.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 07, 2019, 05:04:26 PM
Um.... one of my uncles was a barber but I can't cut hair.
As if you must be like your Uncle...
Certain skills are not inheritable.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 09, 2019, 11:48:19 AM
Certain skills are not inheritable.
But if Galileo had been born in Inner Mongolia, no telescope would have been invented by him. He might have found a new way to ferment yak milk though.
Galileo didn't "invent" any telescopes, he just used one to look at the sky.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 09, 2019, 07:17:30 PM
Galileo didn't "invent" any telescopes, he just used one to look at the sky.
He invented the first one that could view the heavens. A Dutch guy invented it for terrestrial use. Or do you just hate Italians?
Quote from: Baruch on January 09, 2019, 06:59:20 PM
But if Galileo had been born in Inner Mongolia, no telescope would have been invented by him. He might have found a new way to ferment yak milk though.
One thing is certain - he wouldn't have been locked up by the fucking pope.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 11, 2019, 11:20:23 AM
One thing is certain - he wouldn't have been locked up by the fucking pope.
No, but he would have lived to 120 living on yak milk ;-)
I wonder. Do they really live longer or does it just feel that way?
Quote from: Minimalist on January 11, 2019, 06:01:11 PM
I wonder. Do they really live longer or does it just feel that way?
Could be ;-) If you are raised on yak milk, are you wrinkled like an 80 year old, when you are 20? ;-)) That could explain anomalous longevity.
Quote from: Minimalist on January 09, 2019, 11:48:19 AM
Certain skills are not inheritable.
Well, I could be technical and say that few skills are inheritable, but some might be. Tall parents might produce a good basketball player. With a lot of training... On the other hand, I have skills neither of my parents did that I developed on my own.
Though you might argue my skills were some combination of theirs. Get's tricky.