CAESAR'S MESSIAH: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus - OFFICIAL VERSION

[Cavebear]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[Cavebear]

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...

[Baruch]

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.

[Minimalist]

On the other side of the coin both George Pickett (CSA) and George Custer (USA) finished last in their respective classes at West Point. 

[Baruch]

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 -)

[Minimalist]

As long as they salute the asshole on the horse...........

[Baruch]

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.

[Minimalist]

Massed cavalry charges did not work so well at Waterloo, either.  Although they did work at Eylau.

[Baruch]

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

[Minimalist]

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."

[Cavebear]

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?

[Baruch]

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.

[Minimalist]

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.

[Cavebear]

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?