History questions not worth their own thread II

[LightSpectra]

The point I made might be at a tangent to your question but is still pertinent. Longstreet, the man you put forward as the war's best commander hardly shone when he got his opportunity for independent command either, did that cause you to rate him as moderately competent too, or dismiss it since as a corps commander he generally operated under another general's supervision?

I don't think Longstreet had the charisma or energy to be a commander-in-chief. That means Lee is superior in this regard, but that's not a compliment to Lee, that's only telling of the fact that the Confederate Army didn't have anybody exceedingly competent at the helm. I praise Longstreet for having a keen tactical sense and highly innovative staff system (I recently read an article that compared Longstreet to Moltke).

Part of an army commanders job is to understand his immediate subordinate's abilities and utilise them to achieve his goals, so I don't see Lee using Longstreet's talents and advice as a negative point to Lee's generalship but a positive one. Saying Lee wasn't very talented without Longstreet and Jackson is like saying that Napoleon wasn't much good without Davout or Lannes.

Knowing which subordinates are worth listening to, and when to do so, is a positive trait. But there's still a place to assign credit to various levels in the hierarchy, and we're able to do that because we have an in-depth knowledge via memoirs of whose ideas were what. If commander X wins every battle, then his Chief of Staff commander Y departs, and then X loses every battle, it's (except in rare circumstance) rather evident that Y was the one running the show. Such is an exaggeration of what I think of Lee and Jackson/Longstreet, but is it not a mark against Lee that he disregarded Longstreet's advice about engaging at Gettysburg and a giant assault on the third day, to which then Longstreet resigned in frustration, to which then Lee performed markedly poorer from that point out?

 

[Dachs]

The problem with the July 3 assault at Gettysburg wasn't the idea, it was the management thereof. Which Lee decentralized onto men who either bordered on insubordination (Longstreet) or who were insufficiently prepared to manage it (Alexander). Nobody thought to have the ammo train at hand, for instance, which prevented the artillery from continuing to give the attacking infantry fire support, as it would have in Lee's original conception. Now, you can lay this to a failure in Lee's overall generalship - not keeping a tight grip on operations and being aware of what his army could and could not do - and there's a lot of stuff to back that criticism up, at Gettysburg. But it wasn't a case of Longstreet being the Cassandra and Lee being the obstinate Priam.

 

[privatehudson]

I don't think Longstreet had the charisma or energy to be a commander-in-chief. That means Lee is superior in this regard, but that's not a compliment to Lee, that's only telling of the fact that the Confederate Army didn't have anybody exceedingly competent at the helm. I praise Longstreet for having a keen tactical sense and highly innovative staff system (I recently read an article that compared Longstreet to Moltke).

If you argue that Lee wasn't exceedingly competent you have to demonstrate how it would have been possible for a commander in his position - with his resources and knowledge of the situation - to have done considerably better than Lee did. I'm not saying he didn't make mistakes since that would be silly but I don't see that much to criticise in the way he fought the war.

Knowing which subordinates are worth listening to, and when to do so, is a positive trait. But there's still a place to assign credit to various levels in the hierarchy, and we're able to do that because we have an in-depth knowledge via memoirs of whose ideas were what. If commander X wins every battle, then his Chief of Staff commander Y departs, and then X loses every battle, it's (except in rare circumstance) rather evident that Y was the one running the show.Such is an exaggeration of what I think of Lee and Jackson/Longstreet, but is it not a mark against Lee that he disregarded Longstreet's advice about engaging at Gettysburg and a giant assault on the third day, to which then Longstreet resigned in frustration, to which then Lee performed markedly poorer from that point out?

I'm not saying Longstreet should deserve no credit. However Lee's performance at and after Gettysburg was adversely affected by more factors than whether Longstreet was around or not. Of course Lee missed Longstreet, with Jackson gone he was one of the few commanders he could rely on to perform well in any given situation. Despite their record at divisional level neither AP Hill or Ewell would even come close to that and that in itself would have had a significant impact on Lee's strategy and tactics.

 

[vogtmurr]

Knowing which subordinates are worth listening to, and when to do so, is a positive trait. But there's still a place to assign credit to various levels in the hierarchy, and we're able to do that because we have an in-depth knowledge via memoirs of whose ideas were what. If commander X wins every battle, then his Chief of Staff commander Y departs, and then X loses every battle, it's (except in rare circumstance) rather evident that Y was the one running the show. Such is an exaggeration of what I think of Lee and Jackson/Longstreet, but is it not a mark against Lee that he disregarded Longstreet's advice about engaging at Gettysburg and a giant assault on the third day, to which then Longstreet resigned in frustration, to which then Lee performed markedly poorer from that point out?

The outcome at Gettysburg, according to some, also had something to do with the fact that Longstreet delayed carrying out Lee's orders.
on the 2nd day:

Longstreet's attack was to be made as early as practicable; however, Longstreet got permission from Lee to await the arrival of one of his brigades, and while marching to the assigned position, his men came within sight of a Union signal station on Little Round Top. Countermarching to avoid detection wasted much time, and Hood's and McLaws's divisions did not launch their attacks until just after 4 p.m. and 5 p.m., respectively

on the 3rd day:

Despite Lee's hope for an early start, it took all morning to arrange the infantry assault force. Neither Lee's nor Longstreet's headquarters sent orders to Pickett to have his division on the battlefield by daylight. Historian Jeffrey D. Wert blames this oversight on Longstreet, describing it either as a misunderstanding of Lee's verbal order or a mistake

Whether it was miscommunication by Lee or Longstreet's vacillation which you've alluded to, a genuine tactical opportunity was lost, giving the Feds time to prepare a strong position with covering artillery fire. Not that I subscribe to the noble cause writers who go so far as to label Longstreet as a traitor. Lee didn't do all that bad after Jackson/Longstreet under the circumstances. The Overland campaign against a union army twice as large was more damaging to Grant's reputation than Lee's, and how could the latter avoid being forced to defend Petersburg and Richmond, unless he planned a guerilla campaign with the CSA capital in Federal hands ?

 

[Dachs]

If criticism can be leveled at Lee for poorly managing his subordinates at Gettysburg, Longstreet deserves the same criticism for failing to keep his own July 2 attack in hand. Lee started with one plan, Longstreet modified it, then failed to prevent Hood from modifying it further before Hood was wounded. Half of Longstreet's corps was almost totally out of control for most of the attack.

 

[vogtmurr]

As I remember it from that epic PBS civil war series, Longstreet did not do in a timely fashion, what Lee had every right to expect of him. And Lee had the good grace to accept full responsibility, his sense of professionalism required it.

 

[LightSpectra]

Baloney that it was Longstreet's fault. That's a myth that the Lost Causers invented because Longstreet was the only ex-Confederate to be pro-civil rights after the conclusion of the war. Lee took the blame because it was his fault: he ordered a massive infantry attack against a heavily fortified, flat position without proper artillery support. Longstreet delayed the attack for very good reason; had the attack begun earlier, the Union defenses would've been just about as practicable, but the Confederate infantry would've been more vulnerable due to a lack of artillery barrage. The idea was terrible to begin with.

 

[Dachs]

What're you talking about, the July 2 attack or the July 3 attack? In the latter case, delay isn't what Longstreet should be censured for.

 

[LightSpectra]

What're you talking about, the July 2 attack or the July 3 attack?

The July 3 attack. I do think Longstreet blundered a bit on the 2nd though.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, the July 3 attack was full of cockups all over the field on the Confederate side. Lee didn't communicate his intentions very well, Longstreet didn't organize things very well, nobody got the ammo train up in preparation for the assault, nobody ever sent in the second wave, and so forth. Total mess.

 

[LightSpectra]

Longstreet's one of those commanders whose operational skill largely depends on his emotional state. Early 1862 was the lowest point of his career, because his had lost almost his whole family to disease and suffered from rather severe depression. I don't blame him, also, for drudging himself around on July 3 of Gettysburg, because he had to order an attack he knew would fail.

Contrast all of the above to Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg and Chickamauga; in these battles, Longstreet proved himself to be the closest thing the American Civil War saw to military genius. Except maybe Emory Upton.

 

[Dachs]

Upton was cool because he was my great-great-great grandfather's regimental commander.

I think that whether or not you think the July 3 assault on Cemetery Ridge was doomed to fail, you can't help but think that Longstreet's management of the whole thing helped it to fail. Meh. I try not to be given to fellating any particular military commander, but if I were to try it in the ACW, it'd be either Grant or Sheridan.

 

[vogtmurr]

Baloney that it was Longstreet's fault. That's a myth that the Lost Causers invented because Longstreet was the only ex-Confederate to be pro-civil rights after the conclusion of the war. Lee took the blame because it was his fault: he ordered a massive infantry attack against a heavily fortified, flat position without proper artillery support. Longstreet delayed the attack for very good reason; had the attack begun earlier, the Union defenses would've been just about as practicable, but the Confederate infantry would've been more vulnerable due to a lack of artillery barrage. The idea was terrible to begin with.

The idea was risky, and so was the war. But we can't presuppose it was hopeless because of the outcome, if we are going to analyze the participants. We don't know what might have happened had Longstreet followed orders on the 2nd, but it changed the picture. Would not a responsible commander have been ready on the 3rd, or was he still resisting the order to attack ? Pickett was under his jurisdiction, and a large artillery force was amassed in support, his delays ensured it would be a bloodbath. edit; though I agree a compelling case exists to respect Longstreet's advice to Lee. Lee takes fair criticism for thinking his troops were invincible and allowing the attack to go ahead anyway. and as someone else pointed out "I believe it had something to do with the yanks"

whatever shared blame there is, unfortunately for Longstreet it doesn't support the argument that Lee's reputation depended to a greater extent on brilliant and reliable subordinates, though that same argument persists for all commanders. But I will support the theory that the presence of Stonewall Jackson may have made a difference at Gettysburg, whom Lee was accustomed to. Who else would have done any better than Lee's defense with exhausted troops in the overland campaign and Petersburg ?
edit: crossposted.

 

[Xanikk999]

At what point in the development and divergence of romance languages (Early french, spanish, italian), could speakers of these new languages not understand the other speakers of these new romance languages?

Is my assumption right that in very late latin before the development of these languages people living in the old roman provinces in the years after the fall of the Roman empire that they probably could understand each other before these languages really diverged?

 

[Agent327]

That sounds like a reasonable assumption. However, nothing definitive can be ascertained, as all Romance languages derive from the spoken (or Vulgar) Latin, wheras the written from followed classical Latin - at least until the development of the romance novel. Somewhere between the 5th and 10th centuries these Vulgar forms developed into Romance languages, distinctive from one another. So the first (romance) novels are actually a testimony to the evolution of the Romance languages; they are the first written evidence.

 

[Louis XXIV]

At what point in the development and divergence of romance languages (Early french, spanish, italian), could speakers of these new languages not understand the other speakers of these new romance languages?

Is my assumption right that in very late latin before the development of these languages people living in the old roman provinces in the years after the fall of the Roman empire that they probably could understand each other before these languages really diverged?

It's really difficult to say because there are accounts of travelers understanding each other into the Middle Ages. But it's an entirely different question about how well they understood each other (I've heard people say that, as a Spanish speaker, they can understand Italian, and I know for a fact that it doesn't work that way for everyone).

I'm trying to remember the studies that were done to determine that there was a different language. Unfortunately, my memory is lacking, so this is going to be very vague. Basically, as plenty of literature and, often, court documents, used Latin, it's very difficult to say when things became significantly different. Even during the days of Julius Caesar, the common people did not speak Latin as we know it. My instinct tells me that the dialects were obviously distinct well before the fall of the Empire, but I don't think that means they were unintelligible until a long time after.

 

[bombshoo]

My guess would be it varied from region to region depending on the amount of influence of Germanic or other invaders in a particular area. I don't really see how you can say there was an exact date for anywhere considering it was probably a very gradual evolution. Probably individual words at a time as accents changed and regional slang came into use.

 

[Bill3000]

My guess would be it varied from region to region depending on the amount of influence of Germanic invaders in a particular area. I don't really see how you can say there was an exact date for anywhere considering it was probably a very gradual evolution. Probably individual words at a time as accents changed and regional slang came into use.

Christ no. One of the most fundamental rules of language evolution is that sound change (on a timescale larger than a generation, that is, the timescale we care about) is regular and unconditional - "accents" (the correct word is dialect) do not change on an individual word basis, but happens everywhere and without regards to parts of speech.

For example, the classic western romance change is the voicing of unvoiced stops (/p/ /t/ and /k/) to voiced stops (/b/ /d/ and /g/ respectively) between vowels. This happens to every word. Exceptions mean that the word was borrowed, perhaps from a dialect which doesn't have the change, or it has a more specific environment. e.g. latin FOCUS, Spanish fuego, Portuguese fogo.

Vocabulary shifts aren't the main cause of mutual unintelligibly of languages - sets of systematic sound changes tend to be. Slang refers specifically to lexical items used by a specific social group - we're already referring to the popular register here, not some subroman subculture. While there were semantic shifts and word borrowings, the vocabulary shifts have already started in the vulgar Latin period anyway, which was earlier.

In addition, invasions don't have any effect on the fundamentals of a vernecular language the outside of word borrowings, unless there's a language shift of course - which tend to be influenced by people switching their tongues.

Also, we do have empirical evidence of a rough date in which the Gallo-Romance dialects became mutually unintelligible with formal Latin. At the third Council of Tours in 813, priests were ordered to preach in the vernacular language — either in the rustica lingua romanica (Vulgar Latin), or in the Germanic vernaculars — since the common people could no longer understand formal Latin.

It seems certain that in the sixth century, and quite likely into the early parts of the seventh century, people in the main Romanized areas could still largely understand the biblical and liturgical texts and the commentaries (of greater or lesser simplicity) that formed part of the rites and of religious practice, and that even later, throughout the seventh century, saints' lives written in Latin could be read aloud to the congregations with an expectation that they would be understood. We can also deduce however, that in Gaul, from the central part of the eighth century onwards, many people, including several of the clerics, were not able to understand even the most straightforward religious texts

 

[bombshoo]

Christ no. One of the most fundamental rules of language evolution is that sound change (on a timescale larger than a generation, that is, the timescale we care about) is regular and unconditional - "accents" (the correct word is dialect) do not change on an individual word basis, but happens everywhere and without regards to parts of speech.

For example, the classic western romance change is the voicing of unvoiced stops (/p/ /t/ and /k/) to voiced stops (/b/ /d/ and /g/ respectively) between vowels. This happens to every word. Exceptions mean that the word was borrowed, perhaps from a dialect which doesn't have the change, or it has a more specific environment. e.g. latin FOCUS, Spanish fuego, Portuguese fogo.

Vocabulary shifts aren't the main cause of mutual unintelligibly of languages - sets of systematic sound changes tend to be. Slang refers specifically to lexical items used by a specific social group - we're already referring to the popular register here, not some subroman subculture. While there were semantic shifts and word borrowings, the vocabulary shifts have already started in the vulgar Latin period anyway, which was earlier.

In addition, invasions don't have any effect on the fundamentals of a vernecular language the outside of word borrowings, unless there's a language shift of course - which tend to be influenced by people switching their tongues.

Also, we do have empirical evidence of a rough date in which the Gallo-Romance dialects became mutually unintelligible with formal Latin. At the third Council of Tours in 813, priests were ordered to preach in the vernacular language — either in the rustica lingua romanica (Vulgar Latin), or in the Germanic vernaculars — since the common people could no longer understand formal Latin.

Guess I was way off.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Also, we do have empirical evidence of a rough date in which the Gallo-Romance dialects became mutually unintelligible with formal Latin. At the third Council of Tours in 813, priests were ordered to preach in the vernacular language — either in the rustica lingua romanica (Vulgar Latin), or in the Germanic vernaculars — since the common people could no longer understand formal Latin.

The Vernacular had shifted from classical Latin noticeably by 50 BC. 813 was well after the shift was on its way. The main features found in all romance languages (au -> o, us -> o, removal of neuter tense) can be seen on graffiti and a couple of individuals' names by this point. I think the next noticeable changes is the words used for yes (si, oc, oui) and the use of S for plural vs. the i/e thing in Italian.

Local languages did have an impact too, but I agree it was relatively minor. French does some weird Gallic thing for counting and probably has some German or Celtic words, Spanish eventually added some Arabic words. That's really about it, though.