But Lee would have just beaten said Army, and the moral of the Confederates would have been at it's zenith and the moral of the Union at it's lowest ebb. It could well have turned into yet another Bull run type disaster for the Union. And keep in mind there wasn't a whole lot of love for the Union in Maryland.
Favorite Historical Battle?
- Thread starter radomu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- news of 1944
But Lee would have just beaten said Army, and the moral of the Confederates would have been at it's zenith and the moral of the Union at it's lowest ebb. It could well have turned into yet another Bull run type disaster for the Union. And keep in mind there wasn't a whole lot of love for the Union in Maryland.
The Pacific or Vietnam? Not! And why ...
In general, the media worldwide has given far more attention to the European theater than the (heavily) US only efforts in Pacific.
I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the capture and/or withdrawl of large, imperalist militaries from their colonies.
Ironically, that also means the very few, staunch, brave British or French soldiers (among a handful of others) that continued to fight in the theater are also forgotten.
Heck, you'll often find far more interest in the Pacific in Australia than any where else in the Commonwealth (or western world for that matter).
I love Australians, because they see many things that others in the Commonwealth (and the western world) do not.
And they've also tried to stem the tide of genocide in their part of the world as much as they can, even after we've left.
I also really get tired of Europeans who not only forget the atrocities of their own nations, but the Japanese, when the talk about the US.
Unfortunately, because the US dropped two atomic bombs, that seemingly silenced all the atrocities that occurred and were "standard practice" by the Japanense.
Of course, at least the Japanese stopped after WWII, and you cannot say the same about the British or, especially not, the French at times.
In fact, many of the "Crimes Against Humanity" trials against the Japanese broke down because not only lack of sizeable interest due to those in western Europe.
They broke down because of the seemingly double-standard actions of the west post-war (especially the British and, even more so, the French in nearby SE Asia).
That was always the problem the US ran into, until it finally "put its foot down" in 1956, even enlisting the Soviets against British-French interests.
Of course, that's also the cause for our military size replacing theirs, to secure the same resources for our allies in the EU.
Oh the irony of that change around a half-century ago -- makes you wonder if we really should have stepped into that crap in the first place.
There are no lessons, no studies, no interest in general, except by Baby Boomers and a few, civics concerned Generation-X'ers.
I take great interest in the Battle of Khe Sahn because my father was there, and plan to travel to Vietnam possibly this winter to see it first hand (along with much more of Vietnam).
The US dollar goes far there, and they are not adverse to American tourists at all (unless you start arguing with them over their wars of independence where almost 3 million died, of course).
I'm not.
In general, the media worldwide has given far more attention to the European theater than the (heavily) US only efforts in Pacific.
I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the capture and/or withdrawl of large, imperalist militaries from their colonies.
Ironically, that also means the very few, staunch, brave British or French soldiers (among a handful of others) that continued to fight in the theater are also forgotten.
Heck, you'll often find far more interest in the Pacific in Australia than any where else in the Commonwealth (or western world for that matter).
I love Australians, because they see many things that others in the Commonwealth (and the western world) do not.
And they've also tried to stem the tide of genocide in their part of the world as much as they can, even after we've left.
I also really get tired of Europeans who not only forget the atrocities of their own nations, but the Japanese, when the talk about the US.
Unfortunately, because the US dropped two atomic bombs, that seemingly silenced all the atrocities that occurred and were "standard practice" by the Japanense.
Of course, at least the Japanese stopped after WWII, and you cannot say the same about the British or, especially not, the French at times.
In fact, many of the "Crimes Against Humanity" trials against the Japanese broke down because not only lack of sizeable interest due to those in western Europe.
They broke down because of the seemingly double-standard actions of the west post-war (especially the British and, even more so, the French in nearby SE Asia).
That was always the problem the US ran into, until it finally "put its foot down" in 1956, even enlisting the Soviets against British-French interests.
Of course, that's also the cause for our military size replacing theirs, to secure the same resources for our allies in the EU.
Oh the irony of that change around a half-century ago -- makes you wonder if we really should have stepped into that crap in the first place.
Vietnam is a margin note in the textbook of Generation X and Generation Y (which my wife, a teacher, calls "Generation Buttcrack") history classes.
There are no lessons, no studies, no interest in general, except by Baby Boomers and a few, civics concerned Generation-X'ers.
I take great interest in the Battle of Khe Sahn because my father was there, and plan to travel to Vietnam possibly this winter to see it first hand (along with much more of Vietnam).
The US dollar goes far there, and they are not adverse to American tourists at all (unless you start arguing with them over their wars of independence where almost 3 million died, of course).
Since I love classical history...
The Battle of Lake Trasimene
During the Second Punic War, Hannibal's army of around 50,000 attacks a highly trained Roman army of 40,000. The numbers say it should have been equally matched. The reputation of the Roman legion says it should have been an clear Roman victory. The result? Hannibal annihilates the Romans with a killed-to-loss ratio of 20:1. One of ancient Rome's largest defeats ever, and possibly the most tactically perfect ambush in the history of the world.
The Battle of Lake Trasimene
During the Second Punic War, Hannibal's army of around 50,000 attacks a highly trained Roman army of 40,000. The numbers say it should have been equally matched. The reputation of the Roman legion says it should have been an clear Roman victory. The result? Hannibal annihilates the Romans with a killed-to-loss ratio of 20:1. One of ancient Rome's largest defeats ever, and possibly the most tactically perfect ambush in the history of the world.
Bannockburn
Antietam
Saratoga
Lake Erie
Tours
Antietam
Saratoga
Lake Erie
Tours
:eek:
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I respectfully disagree. It's a whole lot different fighting a traditional field battle than trying to lay siege to a city. As I pointed out, look at Grant's siege of Petersburg....Vicksburg as well. It is extremely difficult to break through well dug-in troops fighting a defensive war. It's much more likely that a political event to end the war would have happened than a successful capture of Washington by the Army of Northern Virginia.
Anyway, it's all conjecture since none of this ever took place....we'll never know. It's fun to speculate though.
dick van cock
Closed Account
tunsty vs. Hotrod11inches
Did anyone read the book "If the South Won Gettysburg"? I read it about 20 years ago. Non-fiction up until evenign July 2, 1863. Fiction from that point on. Lee takes Longstreet's advice. Cover of book has Neil Armstrong planting Conferate Flag on the moon.
Dude, your avatar isn't funny, or amusing, or cool, it's mindbogglingly offensive.
Change the fucking thing.
But there weren't a lot of troops defending Washington at the time of the Gettysburg battle and there wouldn't have been near enough time to bring in new troops or to set up adequate defenses, let alone set up well dug-in defensive positions.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
^^^
We could go back and forth all day on this. There weren't very many troops protecting Richmond either....until Lee's army was basically pushed back into it. Who knows how long it might have taken Lee to regroup for an attack on Washington after a major battle like Gettysburg? Who knows how quickly Meade could have repositioned his army to defend the capital? Like I said....it's all speculation. If you want to get in the last word, go ahead but I'm finished making my point.
We could go back and forth all day on this. There weren't very many troops protecting Richmond either....until Lee's army was basically pushed back into it. Who knows how long it might have taken Lee to regroup for an attack on Washington after a major battle like Gettysburg? Who knows how quickly Meade could have repositioned his army to defend the capital? Like I said....it's all speculation. If you want to get in the last word, go ahead but I'm finished making my point.
Sorry, don't see it ...
I also don't see the South being the incubator of technology without the North.
We settled the Germans in Huntsville and central Florida was our farthest, eastern point south with the fewest hurricanes.
As far as Texas, that was more '50s-'60s politics than anything, although it did lead to a major electrical engineering stronghold as a result.
I don't see the CSA surving long into the 20th Century.
I also don't see the South being the incubator of technology without the North.
We settled the Germans in Huntsville and central Florida was our farthest, eastern point south with the fewest hurricanes.
As far as Texas, that was more '50s-'60s politics than anything, although it did lead to a major electrical engineering stronghold as a result.
The author had the CSA breaking up into 3 or 4 smaller countries. I don't think the book went much past the 1870's. The cover was just supposed to be funny.
i'd have to say the battle at thermopylae, simply because it's portrayal in the movie 300 was KICKASS!
Battle of the Catalaunian Fields (451) - Last major military operation of the Roman Empire
Battle of Manzikert (1071) - The beginning of the end of the Byzantine Empire
Battle of Manzikert (1071) - The beginning of the end of the Byzantine Empire
the battle of Midway and the battle of Guadalnacal where in the south pacific USMC and US Navy gave the hardest times to The Japanese Imperial Marine. Aces like Bong, Mc Guire and Greg "Pappy" Boyington are some of the heroes of these battle that helped Admiral Chester W Nimitz to establish a whole dominance of the US NAVY and USMC and beat the Japanese. Let's not forget Colonel Doolittle raid on Tokyo which proved very successful.
Violator79
Take a Hit, Spunker!
Definitely ...
As I said before, a lot of this is lost in focus for most media outlets because it didn't involve Europe.
It took years, but yeah, the US Navy and Marines quickly established themselves as not so inferior to the Japanese purity.
Made them change their entire strategy and allowed the less experienced (at the time) US Navy take on more favorable numbers.
As I said before, a lot of this is lost in focus for most media outlets because it didn't involve Europe.
Battle of the Leyte Gulf. The sloppiness of Halsey's decision to go after Osawa after seeing Kurita's battle fleet approaching the San Bernadino strait and the subsequent bravery of the sailors in the "sub-battle" off Samar in turning back a superior force render this battle one of the mst interesting of all time, as it could have set the US pacific campaign back by at least half a year.
Similar threads
