Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Nostalgia
Topic Started: Sep 22 2009, 03:13 PM (680 Views)
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Atticus
Sep 23 2009, 08:21 PM
Screw it, I'm going to argue my point.

The point is, I not trying to impugn or disrespect his bravery and war wounds. There is nothing wrong with bravery and such, but it isn't smart in the long run. I don't agree with our generals being far away from the action, but you must understand that technology is much more advanced, and the general doesn't need to be on the battlefield to understand the situation and correctly relay information to his troops. Imagine if Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was shot just a little bit higher on that first wound. Then he would have died and The Union would have lost a great general. Plus if he had died, his troops would have no one to lead them and would break from the lines after well coordinated attacks by the enemy. Imagine if every general rode into battle with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, pretty soon we would have a shortage of generals.

Patton was an example of someone who was able to mix these two together very well. He often drove out to battles and watched them, also times personally swimming across a river they were to cross the following day. He hated the fact that many had their HQ way to far away from the battlefield, but he also understood that the General need to be somewhat close, yet far away to asses the situation and make the necessary calls and relaying information. But if it was too close, then a stray shell or bomber could take out the HQ and the Commanders there.

You don't have to ride into battle and receive wounds to be a good general. Maybe that's why the Union lost twice as many Soldiers than the confederates. The confederates had better generals, while the Union had crappy ones, which often times lead to the deaths of many men. The Union won only because they had more soldiers, weapons, better industry, and more men. If the Confederates had the same number of troops, industry, and supplies, then they would have easily won.

I understand the honor and glory in leading your troops to battle, but sometimes it just isn't very smart. I'm not trying to impeded on anyone's honor.
You can't say James Shields was not a good commander based off of one of General Banks's defeats. If you want an idea of how good a commander Shields was, you have to study his actions in both the Mexican-American War and the American Civil War, and study why those battles went that way.

Shields knew what he was doing, but he had an idiot for a superior when he was facing Jackson. He wasn't being supplied, and his orders were over-ridden. How the hell can you win in such a situation? The fact that he beat Jackson once, that it was because of a trap he had set, and that he was the only man to ever beat Jackson shows he was a good commander.

That he got wounded in so many engagements, that he led from the front with his men, that he set up several Irish communities, and that he was the only man to ever be a US Senator for three different states makes him a hero. Why else would Illinois persist to have him represent their state in the National Statuary hall, and why else would Irish senators have so tirelessly defended him?

Shields's fame has passed, but that's no reason to dishonor him. I was particularly insulted that you would so quickly insult my ancestor based off of so little knowledge.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Menhad
Member Avatar
ET2(IDW)
Atticus
Sep 23 2009, 10:15 PM
T.O.
Sep 23 2009, 09:40 PM
Listen I graduated with a 2.8

My freshmen I got 1.9

My 8th grade year I got a .166 gpa :lol:

In the military all they care about is your ASVAB score.
Not if you want to get into West Point :sad:
Screw West point :dry:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

T.O.
Sep 24 2009, 05:53 PM
Atticus
Sep 23 2009, 10:15 PM
T.O.
Sep 23 2009, 09:40 PM
Listen I graduated with a 2.8

My freshmen I got 1.9

My 8th grade year I got a .166 gpa :lol:

In the military all they care about is your ASVAB score.
Not if you want to get into West Point :sad:
Screw West point :dry:
whats wrong with west point?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Atticus
Sep 24 2009, 07:02 PM
T.O.
Sep 24 2009, 05:53 PM
Atticus
Sep 23 2009, 10:15 PM
T.O.
Sep 23 2009, 09:40 PM
Listen I graduated with a 2.8

My freshmen I got 1.9

My 8th grade year I got a .166 gpa :lol:

In the military all they care about is your ASVAB score.
Not if you want to get into West Point :sad:
Screw West point :dry:
whats wrong with west point?
He's a Squid.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
T.O.
Sep 24 2009, 05:53 PM
Atticus
Sep 23 2009, 10:15 PM
T.O.
Sep 23 2009, 09:40 PM
Listen I graduated with a 2.8

My freshmen I got 1.9

My 8th grade year I got a .166 gpa :lol:

In the military all they care about is your ASVAB score.
Not if you want to get into West Point :sad:
Screw West point :dry:
Ditto. Screw West Point.

We've been over this. Modern-day West Point produces stick-up-their-ass officers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply