• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gettysburg[W:176]

StillServing said:
And this fully illustrates the fundamental issue...your knowledge of military operations is so deficient that we are constantly attempting to translate what you think you are saying to what anyone else might understand.

Stating that a withdrawal beats a retreat is fully meaningless to anyone who has any military experience. They are both essentially the same thing. The Army's doctrine ADRP 3-90 explains that a withdrawal is a task "in which a force in contact disengages from an enemy force and moves in a direction away from the enemy." The Army does not use the word retreat as a tactical task. Withdrawal is the closest task that the Army has to the civilian vernacular of retreat.
Click to expand...

link? the latest download of Wikipedia, usually wins.

A withdrawal is a type of military operation, generally meaning retreating forces back while maintaining contact with the enemy.
 
Higgins86 said:
So I just finished a great book called " Killer angels" which was a great introduction to the US Civil War, I don't really know a ton about the civil war but I have the bug now and have another book on the way. I did finish" Killer angels" with a couple of questions and I was hoping someone on here might be able to
tackle them for me.

1. Why was ( and still is) Lee considered a great General? From what I read his tactics cost the confederates that battle and Pickett's charge was a calamity.

2. If Lee had listen to Longstreet do you think the confederates could have won that battle?

3. If the confederates had won do you think that would have ended the war? If yes do you think the Union would have accepted the two state scenario or would they have eventually looked to retake the South?
Click to expand...

This looks like a long thread on one of my favorite subjects, so I think I will stick to answering the OP and continuing from there.

1. When it comes to any "great" historical figure you have to look at both the entire body of his/her works, as well as the spin machine both of his time and afterward. You also have to remember that Lee was a risk-taker...and in the case of Gettysburg, his risks did not pan out as he hoped.

2. That is a question that has been debated ever since and the best answer I can give is "shoulda, woulda, couldas and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee". Nothing is certain when it comes to a battle of that scale.

3. Just like question 2...fun to speculate but pointless in fact.
 
Jarhead1369 said:
This looks like a long thread on one of my favorite subjects, so I think I will stick to answering the OP and continuing from there.

1. When it comes to any "great" historical figure you have to look at both the entire body of his/her works, as well as the spin machine both of his time and afterward. You also have to remember that Lee was a risk-taker...and in the case of Gettysburg, his risks did not pan out as he hoped.

2. That is a question that has been debated ever since and the best answer I can give is "shoulda, woulda, couldas and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee". Nothing is certain when it comes to a battle of that scale.

3. Just like question 2...fun to speculate but pointless in fact.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, there was not adequate artillery support for the confederate assault force.
 
danielpalos said:
this thread would have been a better read, but frivolous right wing spammed it with their uselessness.
Click to expand...

This thread would have been a better read, but frivolous danielpalos spammed it with their uselessness.

lol. back to the reserve.

You have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals.

under an authorized midget anaconda strategy;

Buford was dismounted cavalry, not dis-mounted infantry. An extra brigade should have been assigned through midget anaconda.

i am not the one whining i am too inferior to maneuver an argument before a superior force.

A midget anaconda plan would be a completely additional strategy.
 
Fledermaus said:
This thread would have been a better read, but frivolous danielpalos spammed it with their uselessness.

lol. back to the reserve.

You have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals.

under an authorized midget anaconda strategy;

Buford was dismounted cavalry, not dis-mounted infantry. An extra brigade should have been assigned through midget anaconda.

i am not the one whining i am too inferior to maneuver an argument before a superior force.

A midget anaconda plan would be a completely additional strategy.
Click to expand...

lol. Yes, and you had nothing but fallacy and no questions you could continue any rational line of reasoning with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom