History questions not worth their own thread III

[Louis XXIV]

Well, I would presume the idea would be to have something closer to the Hamiltonian proposal of government (President serves for life). I've also heard the rumor that it was a group of people wanting an American Thermadorian Reaction. Although, more likely, we're just talking about a crowd of people offering it or no one offering it and it's just a legend.

 

[germanicus12]

Got a question that has been nagging me for a while about the American Civil War:

How important was the Battle of Shiloh for the Union? (Don't get me wrong, I know it was an important battle, but was it really as important as most historians claim? Like Gettysburg?)

I have read some reports that it was the most important battle of the war in terms of morale and the outcome of the war, as a Confederate victory would have demoralized the Union even more, especially after the devastating failure of McClellan in the east and probably would have forced Lincoln out of office in the next election and the ensuing peace. (Not to mention that Shiloh was the one of the biggest reasons Grant was given command of all Union forces later.)

If you could share with me some of your opinions or help me understand why it was or was not as important as they claim, you would be helping my brain rest for once.

 

[Dreadnought]

Got a question that has been nagging me for a while about the American Civil War:

How important was the Battle of Shiloh for the Union? (Don't get me wrong, I know it was an important battle, but was it really as important as most historians claim? Like Gettysburg?)

I have read some reports that it was the most important battle of the war in terms of morale and the outcome of the war, as a Confederate victory would have demoralized the Union even more, especially after the devastating failure of McClellan in the east and probably would have forced Lincoln out of office in the next election and the ensuing peace. (Not to mention that Shiloh was the one of the biggest reasons Grant was given command of all Union forces later.)

If you could share with me some of your opinions or help me understand why it was or was not as important as they claim, you would be helping my brain rest for once.

Probably the most significant outcome was that it resulted in the death of A.S. Johnston. I think, beyond that, it put the Confederates on the back foot in that theatre, while beforehand the initiative was very much up for grabs; it also was the foundation for the Confederate mindset of "simple defense" rather than a sustained attack against the Union. The battle was also instrumental for the Union because, afterwards, Mr. Bragg took command of the Army of Tennessee, and we all know how that ended.

I think a Confederate victory would have gone a long way in letting them win the war, but I don't know if it is the greatest chance they had at winning.

 

[Dachs]

Got a question that has been nagging me for a while about the American Civil War:

How important was the Battle of Shiloh for the Union? (Don't get me wrong, I know it was an important battle, but was it really as important as most historians claim? Like Gettysburg?)

Shiloh was chiefly important because of what it was not: it was not a Confederate victory. In theory, Johnston and Beauregard's offensive could have resulted in the destruction of Halleck's forces in detail: first Grant, then Buell. This wouldn't have crippled the Federal war effort, but it would have been a serious setback. The traitors might stand a chance at recapturing western Tennessee in that event.

Of course, all that would really do is reverse the disastrous decision by Johnston to abandon western Tennessee entirely a few months prior, so...lol?

Probably the most significant outcome was that it resulted in the death of A.S. Johnston. I think, beyond that, it put the Confederates on the back foot in that theatre, while beforehand the initiative was very much up for grabs; it also was the foundation for the Confederate mindset of "simple defense" rather than a sustained attack against the Union. The battle was also instrumental for the Union because, afterwards, Mr. Bragg took command of the Army of Tennessee, and we all know how that ended.

I think a Confederate victory would have gone a long way in letting them win the war, but I don't know if it is the greatest chance they had at winning.

Pft. Johnston got mythologized as a great general because he died fighting early on, before he screwed up too many times like Stuart or Pickett. Conveniently, his fangirls forget that he had literally just made a present of western Tennessee to Grant, and that he was utterly abysmal at managing operations in Kentucky before that. Losing him did more for his career, retrospectively, than a victory at Shiloh would have. Say what you like about Bragg, he at least used the Army of Tennessee like an actual army at Stones River.

 

[Caseyboy97]

Was The largest empire on earth the Mongol Empire?

Just Curious.

 

[madviking]

Depends on your definition...

Largest contiguous land empire (by area), yes.

 

[Dreadnought]

Pft. Johnston got mythologized as a great general because he died fighting early on, before he screwed up too many times like Stuart or Pickett. Conveniently, his fangirls forget that he had literally just made a present of western Tennessee to Grant, and that he was utterly abysmal at managing operations in Kentucky before that. Losing him did more for his career, retrospectively, than a victory at Shiloh would have. Say what you like about Bragg, he at least used the Army of Tennessee like an actual army at Stones River.

Bragg was great at fighting -- that is, fighting his own subordinates.

By no means am I a AS Johnston fanboy, but at the same time, its hard to judge how he would have done if he was not killed. Bragg made more of a mess in Kentucky than Johnston, and, while true that his handling of the war in Tennessee left something to be desired, his attack at Shiloh was a bold maneuver. Had he stayed alive, I'd be willing to argue the Confederates would have won. I'd blame PGT more than Johnston over that loss.

 

[Dachs]

Bragg was great at fighting -- that is, fighting his own subordinates.

By no means am I a AS Johnston fanboy, but at the same time, its hard to judge how he would have done if he was not killed. Bragg made more of a mess in Kentucky than Johnston, and, while true that his handling of the war in Tennessee left something to be desired, his attack at Shiloh was a bold maneuver. Had he stayed alive, I'd be willing to argue the Confederates would have won. I'd blame PGT more than Johnston over that loss.

Bragg made more of a mess in Kentucky because he actually fought there. He may have been an utterly abysmal commander - I am about as far from a Bragg apologist as you can get (since I'm not a fan of traitors in general) - but if I were Davis or anyone who wanted the South to win the war, I'd rather have Bragg in charge of the Army of Tennessee than Johnston. Whereas Bragg actually put up a fight and tried invading Kentucky, Johnston was just kinda like 'eh' and left. What a wuss. Way to totally waste a valuable propaganda target and handy resource base.

There's absolutely zero reason to assume that Johnston would have done particularly well at any future Tennessee campaign. He bungled everything he did in the West except the runup to Shiloh, which he did right chiefly because of a) luck and b) a sense of wounded pride, and then he promptly bungled Shiloh by stupid lead-from-the-front nonsense while running a supposed plan that he didn't even follow.

 

[Dreadnought]

Bragg made more of a mess in Kentucky because he actually fought there. He may have been an utterly abysmal commander - I am about as far from a Bragg apologist as you can get (since I'm not a fan of traitors in general) - but if I were Davis or anyone who wanted the South to win the war, I'd rather have Bragg in charge of the Army of Tennessee than Johnston. Whereas Bragg actually put up a fight and tried invading Kentucky, Johnston was just kinda like 'eh' and left. What a wuss. Way to totally waste a valuable propaganda target and handy resource base.

There's absolutely zero reason to assume that Johnston would have done particularly well at any future Tennessee campaign. He bungled everything he did in the West except the runup to Shiloh, which he did right chiefly because of a) luck and b) a sense of wounded pride, and then he promptly bungled Shiloh by stupid lead-from-the-front nonsense while running a supposed plan that he didn't even follow.

Eh, its tough for me to look after Bragg sympathetically after he blundered the post-Chickamauga maneuvers. Granted, he did hold Tennessee for awhile, but then again, he made no maneuver to help defend Vicksburg. Also, the guy just couldn't take a hint from anyone, even his (rather talented) subordinates. He always had to do it his way. I don't blame Hardee for refusing to serve with him. Now, Hardee might have made for an interesting commander of the Army of Tennessee

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, Bragg was worse than a lot of other choices, but the point is that he wasn't worse than Johnston.

 

[Louis XXIV]

See if anyone can help me out. I remember hearing about some famous Renaissance doctor during the plague years who ended up catching the plague and documenting his own symptoms. Then he recovered and continued to treat it. Anyone have a clue who I'm talking about? A quick google search could have been a bing commercial for how helpful it was.

 

[carmen510]

In Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America, Lerone Bennett Jr. states that "the first black immigrants (Antoney, Isabella, and the Jamestown group) were not slaves... the first black settlers accumulated land, voted, testified in court and mingled with whites on a basis of equality."

Does anyone have any sources that collaborate with this account? I would prefer primary sources, although I understand that accounts of blacks in Virginia before the 1630s are almost nonexistent.

He also claims that "the letters and diaries of traders show that down to the eighteenth century they had no conception of Africans as racial pariahs. On the contrary, many of these traders said Africans were their equals and superior to many of their countrymen back home."

I would GREATLY appreciate any links to these documents, if they do indeed exist.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The book doesn't have endnotes?

Anyway, does anyone know why Brittany was never considered as a potential site for the Invasion of France in WWII?

 

[vogtmurr]

It was too easy to pin an invader there with relatively modest defenders across the narrow, hilly peninsula, much like the Italian campaign that was still slowly grinding away. For similar reasons, small commonwealth forces actually landed in Brittany when France fell in 1940 to do just that; maintain a toe hold on the continent and allow other French forces to escape. Brittany was also further from the channel ports, and being rugged, probably few good beaches. But I think the biggest reason by 1944, was the allies were strong enough to force where the action was, and make it a decisive battle for France, cutting off the German defenders in Brittany and Cotentin peninsula. I don't know of an actual excerpt from high command to this effect, but I believe I read something from Churchill about Brittany in another context, which would make Brittany pretty well rejected early in the High Command's decisions.

 

[Dachs]

What works in Advance Wars doesn't usually work in real war.

 

[carmen510]

The book doesn't have endnotes?

It has no endnotes or footnotes, simply a select bibliography. As you can probably tell, it's not really that useful since there's a huge amount of sources which I can't sift through, because I don't have access to many of the works listed. I'm just asking if anyone has read some sort of account similar to this which they can recall.

 

[Terrance888]

I have a question.

I think we all know how urban combat is. (Brutal and Confusing) as well as rural combat (wide areas, large fronts, breakthroughs ect WWII Eastern Front/Desert War in North Africa/Desert Warfare with Isreal)

But what is Suburban warfare like?

You have buildings (some really tough here to survive tornadoes) and trees blocking areas. You have small roads and yards with cover. You have the random electrical lane which is completely unblocked. Add in various shopping centers of various construction, relative distance to the nearest highway (close) and you have a tactical mishmash: Fight it like an Urban Conflict street by street or a conflict of maneuver: just blow out each defending structure on its won with tanks/missiles, cut the trees, and move on?

 

[Laurwin]

interesting, suburbs. Probably a lot depends on the zoning and street plan, building types, what terrain is there actually along the way, and forces available. Some strategy thoughts:

From the defenders perspective I think it would or wouldn't make sense, to defend the outlying suburbs of a city (civilian evacuation?) in that case I think conventional battle tactics and technique would be mostly used by both forces in the suburbs, that tend dot the outlines of major European cities. Then the defender would try to disengage and entrench in the city. (better cover, underground bunkers, metros, logistics, harbors, stockpiles etc..) City will of course become a battleground though.

A direct city battle does favor the defender somewhat, with all the possible confines, killing zones, improvised AT weapons from top buildings, restricted paths for attacker's artillery shells etc...

I guess the situation where attacker must choose wether to fight a city battle, or suburbs battle, he already decides that the city is a worthwile objectice as such, so throwing tactical nukes at the city won't really be helpful. (like in civ5)

Suburbs battle would to some extent mean that he tries to avoid collateral damage and destroy the enemy forces outside, city fight means that the objective is kind of important.

As to the actual battle techniques and tactics in sub-urban fighting and urban fighting, not an expert tbh

 

[Yui108]

I have a question.

I think we all know how urban combat is. (Brutal and Confusing) as well as rural combat (wide areas, large fronts, breakthroughs ect WWII Eastern Front/Desert War in North Africa/Desert Warfare with Isreal)

But what is Suburban warfare like?

You have buildings (some really tough here to survive tornadoes) and trees blocking areas. You have small roads and yards with cover. You have the random electrical lane which is completely unblocked. Add in various shopping centers of various construction, relative distance to the nearest highway (close) and you have a tactical mishmash: Fight it like an Urban Conflict street by street or a conflict of maneuver: just blow out each defending structure on its won with tanks/missiles, cut the trees, and move on?

Shockingly, there have been few serious campaigns in suburban America.

 

[Terrance888]

I know

I guess this is more a Theoretical Military question anyway. Should I ask it elsewhere? And where to?