|
dublish posted:Sure it was. The Army of the Potomac did it every other month. McClellan was the MVP of confederate generals.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
A bit unfair, he was legit talented at building and organizing an army in a way the confederates couldn't. Its just that he would have been better off in a post that focused on that rather than overall decision making.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
We're not retreating! We are simply advancing in a different direction. You'll never advance your own career if you can't learn to see situations clearly, Lieutenant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:A bit unfair, he was legit talented at building and organizing an army in a way the confederates couldn't. It almost seems like he wanted to just turn the confederates back rather than shatter their army, assuming they'd tire out and sober up in a couple months and then everyone would go back to living their lives. That's not entirely out of the neighborhood of contemporary thought, a lot of people didn't think the other side had much of a fight in them, but a lot of people weren't in command of the goddamn Army of the Potomac as it approached Richmond for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
Too far gone to be restored for the kind of money that was available at the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:ok, so, get this. Victorian ideals of manliness were loving mental. This doesn't surprise me, as just about everything else about Victorian times seems loving mental. No, don't mention that cat is pregnant with kittens! It's a social faux pas! Let's not tell women anything about sex, literally at all! That's for the wedding night [I still want to hear about this mentalness, obv.]
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Some Victorian ideals and standards were batshit crazy, but don't forget some ideals laid the foundation of our modern world to counter the crazy nature of things. Sort of like Ying and Yang, but instead of black and white one side is a drug smoking rascist Imperialist tycoon and the other is a middle class liberal who is down for killing child labour.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
zoux posted:Oh I for sure believe they did it, it's just so perfunctory I was wondering if it had some significance in a military context, as if "compliment" had a different meaning in this case. Googling for "military compiliment" is, of course, useless for this purpose. It's worth mentioning that for his part, Longstreet was an extremely pragmatic guy. He even joined the Republican Party after the war (The only major Confederate figure to do so) so that he could try and prevent the North from completely dictating the terms of Reconstruction. (It's also worth mentioning that because of this, he became utterly vilified by Confederate sympathizers, to the point that he was actually blamed for Lee's loss at Gettysburg for not being aggressive enough on the second day).
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:A bit unfair, he was legit talented at building and organizing an army in a way the confederates couldn't. He could have taken Richmond and forced an early end to the war but instead chose not to spend the lives of his own soldiers to do so. It would have been a bloody mess for sure but I think the rest of the war was a bloodier mess. But I'm from Mississippi, so uhhhh, THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
DiHK posted:He could have taken Richmond and forced an early end to the war but instead chose not to spend the lives of his own soldiers to do so. It would have been a bloody mess for sure but I think the rest of the war was a bloodier mess. Oh yeah, he deserves all the poo poo thats given to him in terms of not being aggressive enough, but to make him blatantly incompetent like many do is flat out wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Oh yeah, he deserves all the poo poo thats given to him in terms of not being aggressive enough, but to make him blatantly incompetent like many do is flat out wrong. You can be competent but timid, and by doing so you can be hailed as the greatest general the south ever had.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
So I've mentioned before that my grandfather was in the Royal Navy in WW2 and in the 1990s was penpals with a U-boat veteran . I'm in the process of digitising what I have of their correspondence with the intention of submitting it to any interested archives or museums or what have you, but the German guy's English is pretty bad and also as he was writing on a typewriter there's a lot of weird punctuation and lack of spacing. Is it considered better practice to copy this stuff verbatim, or to attempt to make fixes where I can see what he's trying to say? For example misspellings, clumsy phrasings where he's maybe got a word or two wrong etc. How about punctuation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Owlkill posted:So I've mentioned before that my grandfather was in the Royal Navy in WW2 and in the 1990s was penpals with a U-boat veteran . I'm in the process of digitising what I have of their correspondence with the intention of submitting it to any interested archives or museums or what have you, but the German guy's English is pretty bad and also as he was writing on a typewriter there's a lot of weird punctuation and lack of spacing. Is it considered better practice to copy this stuff verbatim, or to attempt to make fixes where I can see what he's trying to say? For example misspellings, clumsy phrasings where he's maybe got a word or two wrong etc. How about punctuation? always verbatim. spelling, punctuation, bad spacing, lovely english, the whole thing. hell, when i translate the things my subjects write i'll deliberately put grammar mistakes into the english to preserve the flavor HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I'm not a historian, I just work in a library. Keep it as-is if it's going to an archive. If someone wants to put a quote in a book or blog, they can clean it up, but preserve the original syntax, diction, and punctuation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
and fowl language and shooting out of windows
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Verbatim, add footnotes if the meaning is unclear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
your obligation isn't to correct this, it's to preserve it, which means like it was
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:and fowl language and shooting out of windows
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:their cusses are a problem actually, because most of the things that are insults to them would not be insults to us. so i'm not sure what to do sometimes. "he called me a bird!" "uh...ok?" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feygele e: I imagine you probably already know this one and are just wondering how to translate it so disregard. hogmartin fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:their cusses are a problem actually, because most of the things that are insults to them would not be insults to us. so i'm not sure what to do sometimes. "he called me a bird!" "uh...ok?" Motherfucker said my momma was a pelican
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:and fowl language and shooting out of windows Can't blame him. It's so hot in those U-boat's I'd deffo shoot out some windows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:their cusses are a problem actually, because most of the things that are insults to them would not be insults to us. so i'm not sure what to do sometimes. "he called me a bird!" "uh...ok?" What are some good 17th (?) century insults?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:fowl language HEY GAL posted:"he called me a bird!" "uh...ok?" Etymology makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:What are some good 17th (?) century insults? I can't remember who( hegel maybe?) who posted an excellent blog about shaming language, citing a really old british lawsuit. Apparently not being neat and also being without virtue was the worst, as evidenced by the fact that the two goodwives called each other pox faced whores maybe fifty times
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Was retreat not a thing in the American civil war? On the third day in particular if the Confederate army retreats then it is going to be followed by several fresh and battle-ready Union corps and will need to evacuate wounded and artillery over a river (followed by everyone else) in order to escape. At a minimum Lee needed to bloody the Union army hard enough that it couldn't just show up at the crossing point and smash half the army when the other half and all the artillery was on the wrong side. Lee knew that once his army was engaged in battle that it would have to fight it out, which is why he issued campaign orders that nobody was supposed to bring on a general engagement without his instructions and why he didn't just turn away on the second or third day. It's also why everyone agrees Heath hosed up badly. Ordering Pickett's Charge was a colossal mistake by Lee, but focussing on that mistake tends to take people's eyes off the much greater mistake, which is that Lee's army should never have left Virginia in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
I've come around to the thinking that Lee's attack into PA and Maryland was a decent strategy, kind of a best-of-a-bunch-of-bad options deal. His army was starting to have serious supply issues by the time of Chancellorsville, and he saw things getting really bad that winter as the forage in northern VA was pretty much completely exhausted by then. He knew the political situation in the north; the timbre of the political dialogue was really unstable that spring and summer, and he had a new and totally untested opponent who was taking over a badly disorganized and demoralized army. He also had the rapidly devolving situation in the west to think about - once Vicksburg fell the situation in the west looked...rough, to put it charitably. So, he couldn't just park it in VA any longer - they were out of food and the west was collapsing. He had a political situation in the north that was ripe for exploitation, but in order to exploit it he needed a victory, and a big victory, and neither Hooker nor Meade looked like they were going to facilitate another fight in Virginia any time soon. He lacked the transport capacity to get a big formation far enough west to help out at Vicksburg, so it made some sense to at least try and put some wood on the fire of the peace movement by winning a big battle on northern soil. Now, he bungled the tactical fight pretty badly - instead of taking up a position on advantageous terrain and then dictating the battle with maneuver (as he'd done in all the previous victories) he pretty much did the exact opposite. The strategy though was fairly sound.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 15:47
|
|
HEY GAL posted:your obligation isn't to correct this, it's to preserve it, which means like it was Yep, Keep the German guys awkward english. It's also humanising.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I've come around to the thinking that Lee's attack into PA and Maryland was a decent strategy, kind of a best-of-a-bunch-of-bad options deal. His army was starting to have serious supply issues by the time of Chancellorsville, and he saw things getting really bad that winter as the forage in northern VA was pretty much completely exhausted by then. He knew the political situation in the north; the timbre of the political dialogue was really unstable that spring and summer, and he had a new and totally untested opponent who was taking over a badly disorganized and demoralized army. He also had the rapidly devolving situation in the west to think about - once Vicksburg fell the situation in the west looked...rough, to put it charitably. I think that one of the things that the movie Gettysburg gets right, is that Buford was a loving genius for realizing that the Union really needed to hold the heights to win. Because in a Gay Black Lee universe, Gay Black Buford would have just abandoned the ridges in favor of retreating in the face of a superior foe, and then Meade would have been pressed hard to carry out a really stupid offensive against an entrenched ANV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feygele
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:What are some good 17th (?) century insults? My favourite 17c English insult is shot-clog. It means someone who is a social burden (clog) but who is tolerated because he's going to pay the bill (shot). It's so withering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:weirdly enough, the germans i've read do not call one another homos to insult them. although the spanish and italians will, like the guy who yelled "hey soldier! i hosed your mouth!" at a member of the mansfeld regiment to start a fight. Mostly I just noticed the "you're a BIRD" as an insult" and that brought it to mind. It would be a laugh and shrug your shoulders thing in English, but it has a whole different meaning in Yiddish. Not sure if it ever crossed over to common German though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Verbatim, add footnotes if the meaning is unclear. Yeah keep the original and if you feel you can understand the language include your interpretation separately. There is value to making a record from your perspective because in 50 or 100 years time it might be even harder for someone to read the broken English of someone with writing habits from 1940, whereas yours might be helpful as a pointer for people trying to make sense of it, but at the same time you're also trying to preserve the primary source. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Mostly I just noticed the "you're a BIRD" as an insult" and that brought it to mind. It would be a laugh and shrug your shoulders thing in English, but it has a whole different meaning in Yiddish. Not sure if it ever crossed over to common German though. so, the 17th century was completely verkakte?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:My favourite 17c English insult is shot-clog. It means someone who is a social burden (clog) but who is tolerated because he's going to pay the bill (shot). It's so withering. So were musketeers like super generous and well-heeled? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:so, the 17th century was completely verkakte?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Hey thread, I'm going to be in switzerland for the next few days. What are some good museums to go see in that area? Doesn't necessarily have to be in switzerland itself, I'll be able to daytrip to france and germany and maybe italy too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
TimNeilson posted:Hey thread, I'm going to be in switzerland for the next few days. What are some good museums to go see in that area? Doesn't necessarily have to be in switzerland itself, I'll be able to daytrip to france and germany and maybe italy too. Is there a Nietzsche museum? I'd go to that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is there a Nietzsche museum? Lol there's just a mirror on the wall and a little plaque explaining that god is dead and all culture which does not currently exist is not worthy of mention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is there a Nietzsche museum? I think, therefore it does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:So were musketeers like super generous and well-heeled? Some were very generous and cheerful. Others were melancholy drunks with mysterious pasts, and others were defrocked priests with an eye for the ladies. And then there was the occasional hotheaded young Gascon come to Paris to make his name...
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:07
|
|