Overrated Battles

Originally posted by cavalry4ever Lee's army escaped to Virginia in pretty good shape.

but this is just as much true for Gettysburg. tactcially the battles were not too different actually, also the strategical outcome was the same. the southerners route to the north was only closed by Sheridans valley campaign.

Originally posted by Sparten Temujin, at Gettysburg, Lee lost soime of his best and most experienced men, men he was never able to replace. 25000 casualties, almost all from battle hardened formations.

You know, the Confederate command had little regard for the importance of Vicksburg - look at the commander there.  They felt that as long as the CSA controlled the banks of the Mississippi south to New Orleans, the river was not very important!     The Union generals were in virtual agreement that the control of the valley would lead to control of the rail communications, and the CSA would not be able to regain control ever.

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 23-Mar-2008 at 12:54

Originally posted by Temujin but this is just as much true for Gettysburg. tactcially the battles were not too different actually, also the strategical outcome was the same. the southerners route to the north was only closed by Sheridans valley campaign.

Besides the fact that CSA lost its best troops and generals, it could never replace, Gettysburg is the first major battle when Union stood its ground and won without a question, followed by the retrait. If Lee won this battle he would cut northern states in half and this was his plan. Also important think to remember is that some of best Union troops from Gettysburg were shipped to New Your to put down a major revolt. There was a serious discontent through Union states and sentiment was pushing toward negotiation with CSA. One more Confederate victory and history would look quite different. You have to also understand that lasted over three years with liittle to show on Union side. The fact that union did not pursue the Confederates after this battle will help in choosing Grant as Union Army Commander. The fact that Grant will get his command without string attached, free of political interference may be related to gen. Reynolds which died heroically at Gettysburg. He was considered to be brightets Union general and did not accept command because Lincoln refused ti give him the free hand. The idea was planted and that is what gen. Grant will get.

You keep forgetting that Pennsylvania was sitting on very important communication and trade routes and Maryland was neutral with a lot of Confederate sympathizers ( look up Baltimore riots).
Sheridan Valley campaign was an aberration. South lost war and did not pay attention to Shenandoah Vaolley. Sheridan was dispatched by Grant to finish what was becoming a major annoyance for Union. Lot of peple thought that it was a poor use of man and skills of CSA gen. Yubal Early to fight something that had no chance of succeeding.





Edited by cavalry4ever - 23-Mar-2008 at 02:04

Hastings was an extremly important battle as it decided the fate of England(The Nation that would later own a quater of the world!!!). As well as this the battle was no way a fore gone conclusion.Harold held a strong position on the hill that the Normans spent the whole morning trying to capture and the only way they did was by drawing Harolds troops off it when they ran away. 

Have to say anyone saying Hastings was unimportant obviously hasn't studied English history. At the beginning of 1066 England was an Anglo-Saxon country, with Anglo-Saxon people, nobility, laws, culture etc. By the end it was a Norman country with not only different rulers but different culture, laws, rights, social standing and allegances. The appearance and order of England - not to mention it's future - was profoundly changed by the victory.

were there any missions in 1945?

Marathon and Salamis.

For the Persians it was just a frontier battle and thats it like all the other frontier battles in those days. Plus Persians ruled the eastern half of the greek world and they didn't distroy their civilization or culture or even rule them directly.

Originally posted by chean Have to say anyone saying Hastings was unimportant obviously hasn't studied English history. At the beginning of 1066 England was an Anglo-Saxon country, with Anglo-Saxon people, nobility, laws, culture etc. By the end it was a Norman country with not only different rulers but different culture, laws, rights, social standing and allegances. The appearance and order of England - not to mention it's future - was profoundly changed by the victory. The next few years would see a ruthless culling of all the old Anglo-Saxon nobility and their replacement with new Norman barons, the start of castle building on a near unmatched scale in English history and a brutal subjugation of the common people. This was as a result specifically of the battle of Hastings, because if William had lost there it's highly unlikely he would have been able to try again (if he had managed to survive the battle that is!).

yeah we know about Normans and their local importance for Britian but English are not Normans. the failure here is to understand that the Normans were only a sidenote in world history, a phenomenon limited to the middle ages. there is no serious argument Normans were responsible for future English/British exploits.

in fact German U-boats in ww1 sunk more total tonnage than in ww2.