Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

William Tecumseh Sherman: Hero, or Villain?

Page 9 of 9 [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Previous topic | Next topic

William Tecumseh Sherman was a
hero 44%  44%  [ 8 ]
villain 33%  33%  [ 6 ]
just show the results 22%  22%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 18

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Dec 2012, 10:03 pm

AnnoyingParrot wrote:

Quote:
These guys seem strangely thrilled at the idea of getting slaughtered. Even kids going into Disneyland aren't this excited.

They thought they were going to win that battle.

Quote:
Also, you can tell that the actors are 21st century. Obesity rates were a whole lot lower back in the middle of the 19th century.

Yeah, well in 1863 they didn't have the luxury at stopping at The Outback or Carrabba's to fatten up on the march from Virginia to Pennsylvania so go figure.

BTW "Gettysburg" was filmed in 1993, not quite the 21st century yet.....

More for your viewing pleasure......
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1NOCtZGMdQ[/youtube]


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Dec 2012, 8:42 am

Raptor wrote:
AnnoyingParrot wrote:
Quote:
These guys seem strangely thrilled at the idea of getting slaughtered. Even kids going into Disneyland aren't this excited.

They thought they were going to win that battle.


Even if they thought that they were going to win: the method of fighting, where two armies line up and shoot at each other, was certainly going to result in large numbers of them being dead. Unless they really thought that the Yankees were going to forget their guns.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Dec 2012, 8:48 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
AnnoyingParrot wrote:
Quote:
These guys seem strangely thrilled at the idea of getting slaughtered. Even kids going into Disneyland aren't this excited.

They thought they were going to win that battle.


Even if they thought that they were going to win: the method of fighting, where two armies line up and shoot at each other, was certainly going to result in large numbers of them being dead. Unless they really thought that the Yankees were going to forget their guns.


That's how battles were fought then. Dumb as it was.....


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Dec 2012, 9:49 am

Raptor wrote:

That's how battles were fought then. Dumb as it was.....


Toward the end of the war, when repeating rifles came into use there was a transition to tactics similar to that of WW I (the so-called Great War). The reason why Napoleonic tactics were used to widely was due (initially) to the inaccuracy of smooth bore and the early rifled weapons. Eventually the mini-ball muzzle loader had aimed accuracy to hit targets at 100 to 200 yards. But habit is hard to break and the commanders kept using Napoleonic tactics. Eventually Grant and Sherman got away from that and used flanking moves and shooting at a distance.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,472
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Dec 2012, 12:33 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Raptor wrote:

That's how battles were fought then. Dumb as it was.....


Toward the end of the war, when repeating rifles came into use there was a transition to tactics similar to that of WW I (the so-called Great War). The reason why Napoleonic tactics were used to widely was due (initially) to the inaccuracy of smooth bore and the early rifled weapons. Eventually the mini-ball muzzle loader had aimed accuracy to hit targets at 100 to 200 yards. But habit is hard to break and the commanders kept using Napoleonic tactics. Eventually Grant and Sherman got away from that and used flanking moves and shooting at a distance.

ruveyn


Truly, those two men were the fathers of modern warfare.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

19 Dec 2012, 1:05 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Raptor wrote:

That's how battles were fought then. Dumb as it was.....


Toward the end of the war, when repeating rifles came into use there was a transition to tactics similar to that of WW I (the so-called Great War). The reason why Napoleonic tactics were used to widely was due (initially) to the inaccuracy of smooth bore and the early rifled weapons. Eventually the mini-ball muzzle loader had aimed accuracy to hit targets at 100 to 200 yards. But habit is hard to break and the commanders kept using Napoleonic tactics. Eventually Grant and Sherman got away from that and used flanking moves and shooting at a distance.

ruveyn


Truly, those two men were the fathers of modern warfare.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I think many historians would disagree. My money is on Clausewitz (who heavily influenced both Lenin and Mao).



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,472
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Dec 2012, 1:38 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Raptor wrote:

That's how battles were fought then. Dumb as it was.....


Toward the end of the war, when repeating rifles came into use there was a transition to tactics similar to that of WW I (the so-called Great War). The reason why Napoleonic tactics were used to widely was due (initially) to the inaccuracy of smooth bore and the early rifled weapons. Eventually the mini-ball muzzle loader had aimed accuracy to hit targets at 100 to 200 yards. But habit is hard to break and the commanders kept using Napoleonic tactics. Eventually Grant and Sherman got away from that and used flanking moves and shooting at a distance.

ruveyn


Truly, those two men were the fathers of modern warfare.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I think many historians would disagree. My money is on Clausewitz (who heavily influenced both Lenin and Mao).


Well, I'll qualify my statement by adding that Grant and Sherman were the first to put modern warfare into practice. While Clausewitz did indeed precede both Grant and Sherman, there is no evidence either general had ever read their Prussian counterpart's writings on warfare, and basically hit on it along with Lincoln quite independently.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Dec 2012, 2:53 pm

Feature films of Union generals seem not to be made: just documentaries.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QosRj_7rBRk[/youtube]

In San Francisco, Gen. Sherman is called "one of America’s greatest army officers" and "one of America’s greatest war heroes."

http://www.sfmuseum.net/bio/sherman.html

Here is his monument, built in 1903 in Washington, D.C.

http://www.dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0000735.htm

It includes statues of naked children and a barebreasted teenager: no way would that be constructed anywhere in the USA today. We're just too prudish.

He was probably considered a big hero in the North after the civil war (obviously, to have been honored with that monument), Probably the average man in the street wouldn't know who he was any more: just some ancient historical figure.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Dec 2012, 3:03 pm

Raptor wrote:
That's how battles were fought then. Dumb as it was.....


If I had been there, I'm sure that I would have been sh*****g in my pants, even if my medicines had been available, and then executed for cowardice.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,472
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Dec 2012, 3:09 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Feature films of Union generals seem not to be made: just documentaries.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QosRj_7rBRk[/youtube]

In San Francisco, Gen. Sherman is called "one of America’s greatest army officers" and "one of America’s greatest war heroes."

http://www.sfmuseum.net/bio/sherman.html

Here is his monument, built in 1903 in Washington, D.C.

http://www.dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0000735.htm

It includes statues of naked children and a barebreasted teenager: no way would that be constructed anywhere in the USA today. We're just too prudish.

He was probably considered a big hero in the North after the civil war (obviously, to have been honored with that monument), Probably the average man in the street wouldn't know who he was any more: just some ancient historical figure.


You'd think they'd find a thinner actor to play Sherman.
But seriously; great explanation of Sherman's strategy of targeting Confederate morale and munitions production, and dispelling of the myth that he was a wonton destroyer.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer