|
Yorktown is out on a peninsula, and was a fine position - if you control the ocean and have a fleet that can sail supplies in and you out. Without a friendly fleet around, it's just a trap. I wouldn't be too hard on Cornwallis, since the British had been operating from those types of bases all war. I haven't seen the movie, but when history is dramatic enough Hollywood is happy to use it, right? While I've never heard of burning inside a church, don't underestimate how nasty the war was. There were lots of atrocities by both sides, particularly out in the backwoods away from the main cities and armies.
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:1. What was it about Yorktown that made it such a poo poo defensive position? The impression I got was that Washington knew and Cornwallis should have known and was a dumbass for deciding to go there. I admit I looked this up just now, but Cornwallis didn't decide to go to Yorktown. He was under orders to fortify Yorktown so it could be used as a port and base of supply for a planned campaign against Virginia. It would appear that Yorktown was chosen more because the location was convenient for that purpose than for its defensibility. The British probably expected that if Cornwallis were pressed, they could supply, reinforce, or if necessary evacuate his forces by sea. Unfortunately for them de Grasse drove the Royal Navy out of the Chesapeake, which doomed Cornwallis.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Can anyone in the thread offer some insight or recommend some good books on the Indo-Pakistani Wars?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I admit I looked this up just now, but Cornwallis didn't decide to go to Yorktown. He was under orders to fortify Yorktown so it could be used as a port and base of supply for a planned campaign against Virginia. It would appear that Yorktown was chosen more because the location was convenient for that purpose than for its defensibility. The British probably expected that if Cornwallis were pressed, they could supply, reinforce, or if necessary evacuate his forces by sea. Unfortunately for them de Grasse drove the Royal Navy out of the Chesapeake, which doomed Cornwallis. Yeah, keep in mind that the Union kept a permanent presence on the same peninsula during the American Civil War. So long as the US Navy controlled the seas, Fort Monroe and forces operating out of it were never really threatened.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend be a good book about the early Arab conquests and Khalid Ibn Whalid?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Mel Gibson's Patriot. Jason Isaac's cruel British character was named Colonel Tarleton, and there was a real Tarleton that gave no quarter to the colonials, and then there was a Battle of Cowpens where the actual battle plan of "militia shoots two volleys then retreats behind the continentals, the British pursued and got beaten" even resembles the final battle of that movie. I know that otherwise large parts of that movie are bullshit, most egregiously the scene where the Brits lock up a whole town inside a church and torch everyone inside (actually done by the SS in occupied France) but I was surprised by what parallels there were. The battle in the film is also modeled on the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, in which Nathanael Greene used a similar three-line strategy. Greene's used two successive lines of militia to harass and weaken British lines before they reached the third line of Continentals. Unlike the movie, though Greene retreated in the battle's conclusion. This left the British in command of the field, although they had suffered disproportionately heavy casualties and were unable to pursue Greene. Greene is probably one of the most (if not the most) successful commanders in military history never to have won a battle. The Southern Campaign is an excellent example of a Fabian strategy done very, very right.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Greene is probably one of the most (if not the most) successful commanders in military history never to have won a battle.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Yep. Nathanial Greene was a great General who knew how to run a campaign well. He never really won anything, but he was able to run around the British armies in the area slowly whittling them down to the point where they had to retreat up north rather than continue taking casualties. Its where my town's name comes from, too: Green(e)sboro. Natty Greene's pub is also one of the better brew-pubs in the mid-Atlantic.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Yep. Nathanial Greene was a great General who knew how to run a campaign well. He never really won anything, but he was able to run around the British armies in the area slowly whittling them down to the point where they had to retreat up north rather than continue taking casualties. Holy poo poo, you live in Greensboro too? Do you go to UNCG?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
It's Tavington not Tarleton in the film. Oatmeal for the foxhounds has handy comparison and an examination of Tarleton's Quarter.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Holy poo poo, you live in Greensboro too? Do you go to UNCG? Nah, I went to Elon. Grew up in Greensboro. But not currently there, finishing up Peace Corps service in Africa. Really, really looking forward to pints of beer and burgers in Natty Greenes. Its basically the one good part of GSO.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Its where my town's name comes from, too: Green(e)sboro. Natty Greene's pub is also one of the better brew-pubs in the mid-Atlantic. Military historian (and one of my professors in college) John Lynn named both his sons after General Greene (Nathan and Greene).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Military historian (and one of my professors in college) John Lynn named both his sons after General Greene (Nathan and Greene). Edit: I wonder why not something French? It's his specialty. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:59 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
He's seriously a giant Nate Greene fan. Like a "Washington was sly and everything but Greene was where it's at during the Revolutionary War" kind of guy. I also had a semester with him for a special "History of Terrorism from Ancient to Modern Times" and it was as great as it sounds. And it was during 2005 so right during post-9/11 Iraq War craziness (but just before it went full on civil war).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
My dad wrote a monograph while attending the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth arguing that Nathanael Greene and his campaign in the South was an example of operational art. Really interesting man, it's a shame more American's don't know who Nathanael Greene was considering his role during the revolution.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Mustang posted:My dad wrote a monograph while attending the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth arguing that Nathanael Greene and his campaign in the South was an example of operational art. Attaboy! Now, don't forget to quote the important bits of the monograph...
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Posted on my phone but when I get home I'll try to find it, pretty sure it's online in some us military database somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Perhaps this?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Yep, that's it. I'll have to reread it again once I get home from work. edit: here's another one he wrote about Night Jungle Operations if anyone is interested http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a264506.pdf He was motivated to write that one from firsthand experience from deployments to Central America in addition to working at the Army's now closed Jungle Operations Training Center at Fort Sherman Panamaa. While at JOTC he encountered a lot of really dumb leaders going through the course. One battalion from the 82nd was dead set on conducting night operations despite all the warnings they gave them. One soldier ended up walking off a cliff in the middle of the night to his death while numerous others were injured. You pretty much can't even see your hand in front of your face at night in Panama's Jungles. WW2 veterans from the Pacific theater that later went on to work at what became JOTC said that Panama's Jungles were the toughest they had ever seen. Mustang fucked around with this message at 23:36 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Mustang posted:My dad wrote a monograph while attending the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth arguing that Nathanael Greene and his campaign in the South was an example of operational art. Seriously, this. Greene's a fascinating character in American history who is wildly under-appreciated. He was a Quaker and got kicked out of his congregation because he kept reading military books. His local militia didn't have any officers billets so he joined up as a private. A week later he gets promoted to brigadier general, which is probably the most dramatic rise in the ranks in American military history. He's one of the few people to emerge from the Battle of New York looking halfway competent. As the Continental Army's quartermaster he unfucks the army's completely hosed-up supply chain. Then he single-handedly saves the South after Gates hosed it up and does it with a really small, really lovely army. After the war, he sold most of the land given to him by Congress to pay off his soldier's ration bills and dies broke. I'm obviously hero-worshipping a bit here. But Greene is a legend.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
I had to go remind myself that Nathaniel Greene != Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. It's important to know what historical Nathaniels are okay to admire and what ones aren't.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:I had to go remind myself that Nathaniel Greene != Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. It's important to know what historical Nathaniels are okay to admire and what ones aren't. I don't know if it helps, but Greene spells his name in a weird way, which helps me remember him. (He spells it "Nathanael")
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:I had to go remind myself that Nathaniel Greene != Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. It's important to know what historical Nathaniels are okay to admire and what ones aren't. God, the only 30YW figure I can think of off the top of my head who wasn't a real loving weirdo by our standards or their own is Tilly, and even he presided over the sack of Magdeburg (his involvement is disputed).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:If you restricted your light cavalry figures to people it was morally OK to hang out with, or even look directly at on a sunny day, you could never discuss that arm again. This is a theme I increasingly encounter as an adult - that there's so few people from history that it's okay to like. Not even Teddy Roosevelt.  Forrest is a special kind of Lost Cause fuckery, though, more so than most of the insane murderers that win wars.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
That's why moral relativism is a thing. Hate the people that were assholes in their time, of which Forrest was one, but Roosevelt was mostly not. If you judge them by today's standards everybody in history is an rear end in a top hat, and probably, if you judge us by the standards of 80 years from now, every one of us is an rear end in a top hat too.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Koramei posted:That's why moral relativism is a thing. Hate the people that were assholes in their time, of which Forrest was one, but Roosevelt was mostly not. If you judge them by today's standards everybody in history is an rear end in a top hat, and probably, if you judge us by the standards of 80 years from now, every one of us is an rear end in a top hat too. People have been and always will be terrible and horrible to one another, I don't bother trying to figure out just how bad historical figures were unless it is relevant.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:This is a theme I increasingly encounter as an adult - that there's so few people from history that it's okay to like. Not even Teddy Roosevelt. Lincoln's still pretty solid despite people attacking him for thinking that restoring the Union was more important than freeing slaves (which it isn't morally but Lincoln's letter everyone brings up is him saying as President the union is more important but that he still hates slavery as a person.)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Lincoln's still pretty solid despite people attacking him for thinking that restoring the Union was more important than freeing slaves (which it isn't morally but Lincoln's letter everyone brings up is him saying as President the union is more important but that he still hates slavery as a person.)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:The number of people who do not realize that heads of state cannot afford to think about moral questions like the rest of us do astounds me. I don't know if it's necessary that leaders look a moral questions differently, but rather that personal responsibility has a significant impact on morality. A father must look a moral dilemma from a different perspective than a bachelor.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I don't know if it's necessary that leaders look a moral questions differently, but rather that personal responsibility has a significant impact on morality. A father must look a moral dilemma from a different perspective than a bachelor. It's more that professional responsibility is more important than morality (to a degree). As President Lincoln had a duty to keep the Union together. He didn't have a duty to fee all the slaves.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Can anyone recommend be a good book about the early Arab conquests and Khalid Ibn Whalid? Either Hugh Kennedy's The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State or Walter Kaegi's Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests would be good choices, though they are both pretty serious academic books and so a bit pricey. They are probably the most recent 'general' books on the early Islamic Conquests though - older books would not have taken into account recent historiographical developments (like in archaeology and the more nuanced understanding of Islamic sources we have now).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:This is a theme I increasingly encounter as an adult - that there's so few people from history that it's okay to like. Not even Teddy Roosevelt. In fairness to Forrest, he reversed (or at least moderated) his racism towards the end of his life. For Pillow wass still very much his fault though....
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Ask Us About Military History: Know Your Nates
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Durokar posted:Either Hugh Kennedy's The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State or Walter Kaegi's Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests would be good choices, though they are both pretty serious academic books and so a bit pricey. They are probably the most recent 'general' books on the early Islamic Conquests though - older books would not have taken into account recent historiographical developments (like in archaeology and the more nuanced understanding of Islamic sources we have now).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's more that professional responsibility is more important than morality (to a degree). As President Lincoln had a duty to keep the Union together. He didn't have a duty to fee all the slaves. If we were in an ethics class I'd dispute that, but I think that we're fundamentally talking about the same idea.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Do you think that Hugh Kennedy's The Great Arab Conquests will do? Since neither of the books you recomended seems to be available in English at google books. I haven't read it but academic reviews are all fairly positive. Kennedy is a great writer and a "big name" in the field, so it's a good choice!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
Thanks to those who answered my American Revolution questions. I was reading a book about the firebombing of Dresden, and one story stood out to me because one of the returning B-17s was shot down by flak based in Dunkirk. That was ostensibly in February 1945. What gives? Also, Happy V-E Day, Milhist thread!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
This morning I came upon my roommate fletching in the sunlight and we had a nice conversation about archery. He had brought his Hungarian bow with him and I took a look at it. JaucheCharly, please PM me with your email address if you want to be put in touch with this guy. I told him about your work and he seemed impressed.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I was reading a book about the firebombing of Dresden, and one story stood out to me because one of the returning B-17s was shot down by flak based in Dunkirk. That was ostensibly in February 1945. What gives?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thanks to those who answered my American Revolution questions. The Allies bypassed Dunkirk and did not attempt to retake the city, so there were German troops there who merrily plugged away at Allied aircraft. I interviewed a B-24 pilot who recalled being shot at by Dunkirk flak on several occasions returning from raids in Germany during 1944-1945.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 15:14
|
|