Corporal Bridge
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Corporal Bridge
-
-
It's a board game my good gentlemen particularly a pen and paper RPG. It's a closest thing I've ever seen to a royal Navy careers sim. And FYI I do love Pirates!!What Pirates did well was getting that swashbuckling feel down!
Privateer and gentlemen, we're really good at stimulating the career and social aspects of being officer in the King's Navy.
But there's room for improvement for example to give you a listing of not just Naval ranks and responsibilities but different positions you can hold on this ship or on land.
-
We had an incredibly few amount of medals prior to the Civil War because it was a European custom. What would later become the Medal of Honor was given to enlisted men for a very long time got 80 years and its predecessors were pretty much certifications little Badges of honor and little bit of a pay raise. But we did have the Medal of Honor that involved during the Civil War given to many men that pretty much hold the standard during major battles.
-
12 minutes ago, Mr. Mercanto said:
Perhaps they are, though I personally do not feel they have committed this error. At least not Blight, I am not as familiar with Goodwin since I generally don't read biographical history. Some might say that the great movers and shakers of history always expect to much of their fellows. Not to be too philosophical, but I think human kind only strives forward when it expects to much, or at least a good deal, of itself.
I'm still very new to the subject even though I took an entire class on it I have only the most basic understanding. Academically in my mind I set the baseline or the gold standard when it comes to scholarly works with McPherson. I know some of you may disagree but I feel he's the most encompassing. My other readings have been letters of the New Jersey 14th regiment I read about 80 letters for the course of the class or six different individuals serving in the same regiment. my teacher pick that one because they're literally from the college is county I was attending. And then I read about Frank Murphy and his experience in the 13th New Jersey regiment. And it's kind of wild How many different perspectives are going on just in a local Northern State. Some were fighting for the Union and thought the Emancipation Proclamation was suicide, and others if they were products of the Great Awakening how to deep abolitionist streak and then every flavor of individuals and their convictions.
So my question is where are some other great Scholars I can do for personal research of the war.
I'm personally a huge fan of social history so I love to know about the individual experiences.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
I would say it is philosophical, not mystical. But, agreed, there is very little nuts and bolts discussion of military events and a lot of touchy-feely metaphors.
You got to understand when this is written this is one of the key guide to strategy for 2000 years. Literally they are running up on formal Army when the majority of the world with still doing Clan raids. Just look at the sophistication of the Egyptians or the other great Empires it still doesn't meet the Chinese sophistication of warfare Special comparing to this era during that periods. We always forget that that collection of works is ancient. So for many of us today it comes off like common sense.
-
1 hour ago, Mr. Mercanto said:
I suppose I fall into the position that it must be interpreted with both. On the one hand, history needs to be contextualized to be understood. Indeed, much of the confusion about the causes of the war, Emancipation, et cetera, exist because our views are anachrnoistically imposed on historical contexts.
However, the Civil War is a seminal event in American history, and the questions over which it was fought are not yet entirely resolved, and resonate today. The public memory of the war is as much a crucial area of Civil War historioraphy as any other, perhaps more crucial, if like myself you view historians as having a responsiblility to aid the public in understanding the framework and context of the country, community, et cetera. In this respect, I would argue that the Civil War must also be viewed with modern eyes.
So in a sense, I think Civil War historians need to walk a fine line of doing both. Either way, Foner and McPherson use undeniably excellent research, as does Blight; and their contributions to the historiography have been tremendous.1 hour ago, Mr. Mercanto said:We will have to agree to disagree on that. I happen to agree with Downes, Blight, and Foner that a "Golden Opportunity" did exist during Reconstruction, and that, no matter how you sice it, traitors were allowed to be citizens, and loyal men cast into apartheid; and it was done to appease the traitors, all due to race. These ideas are not exclusive to these historians, such contemporary views in the 1860s and 1870s are very well documented.
Indeed, the Civil War was not about racial egalitarianism, but I think Reconstruction in many respects was. Obviously Reconstruction had several agendas, and one can argue if Reconciliation failed them by failing to secure racial equality and create a truly pro-Union South, or if it succeeded by creating in the South a power structure which could embrace the Union. All of this depends on which agenda one decides fits Reconstruction.
My own view is that Reconstruction should have aimed to deconstruct the power structures that created secession and the war, above all the planter class and the hegemony of racism. Such would achieved by the appropriation of planter property for social uplift of white yeomens and Freedmen, and by racial equalty. Failing this, Reconstruction settled for allowing the old antebellum families to return to power, a new system of laws restablish racial hierarchy, and a memory of the war to flourish that celebrated treason, and buried the memory of Southern Unionists, black and white. In doing so, Reconstruction failed to destroy the heart of secession, and thus, in my estimation, was a failure.My Civil War Professor I'm a little Community College happens if a personal friends with McPherson yay for living in New Jersey! All I got to say Battle Cry Freedom is one of the most encompassing books on topic of the Civil War. McPherson coulda made it ten thousand Pages longer with 10,000 more footnotes pretty but he had to make it reable.
I believe myself to reconstruction should have gone on for maybe 30 or 50 years. It was ended far blame Johnson for this putting the planter Elite back in the power. It should have been long enough to allow the old Confederate generals to die and not getting power so there could be in the mind of the Next Generation not this loss cause Mythos the idea of a leased racial equality.
-
1
-
-
If the Pathfinder won the election how much you would think that would effected the Civil War instead of having Buchanan?
-
On 5/22/2017 at 9:53 PM, Buford Protege said:
To break it down, much of the army was built up of men fresh off the boat or had no where else to turn for the enlisted ranks. These men often knew little english to start out or were part of failed revolutions in Europe and all they knew was how to fight. Much of the officer ranks were populated by West Point trained officers by the time the Civil War rolled around. The upward mobility in the peacetime army moved about as fast as a glacier. Robert E. Lee after his West Point Graduation in 1829 did not receive the full rank of Lt. Colonel until 1855 when two new cavalry regiments were created. It was usually you had to wait until someone retired, resigned or died to advance in ranks. Hence why Jackson was no more than a Major and Lil Mac was but a Captain despite each having over a decade in the service (Jackson rose 3 ranks in Mexico and then never promoted after). Fortunately it was not like the English system where commissions were bought and sold by the landed gentry, see the charge of the light brigade and the general English cavalry debacles of the Crimean War to see how that goes. Wellington even disliked using his cavalry at Waterloo as the commander bought his generalship rather than earned it.
The commissions were usually men of experience in military or pathfinding expeditions (or the rare political appointment) out west if they were not West Point graduates. The army began to focus on West Point as a training ground when Winfield Scott began putting more and more emphasis on the institution. It was the Mexican-American War where many a later Civil War general learned how to lead men under fire. T.J. Jackson with his little artillery section, Grant his infantry company, Lee leading scouting parties etc.
Many other officers found themselves learning their trade in the numerous campaigns against the Natives throughout the western U.S. Lee once remarked that John Bell Hood was one of the few men who seemed to enjoy chasing Comanches across Texas. J.E.B. Stuart was wounded fighting on the plains. David Gregg would face his first combat as a company commander in a fighting withdrawal in the Pacific Northwest and saving multiple companies of cavalry (and protecting Charles S. Winder's howitzers in the meantime). I could go on and on but this makes for a general basis.
So my question is how did the militia play into all of this? I know there a vital in the revolution even though that can still be argued and vital in the war of 1812. But I know during the Mexican American war is when are nation started having his volunteer regiments. Which is a weird fusion between the two officers are elected but It set number of years contracted.
-
For all my navel classic ship the lovers out there one of its both an RPG and wargame back in the 80s. The privateer reminded me of Sid Meier pirates! But for the naval officer side is pretty much a career simulator starting off as a lieutenant even letting you play as midshipman's all the way up to flag officer. And they have a very interesting system of awards responsibilities it a rpg!! Outside of the naval combat it's pretty much a career simulator!
-
2
-
-
There's a period in China call the period of disunity that's War lasted longer than Americans been nation.
https://etcweb.princeton.edu/asianart/timeperiod_china.jsp?ctry=China&pd=Disunity|Tang
-
19 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:
As for the fact that many officers rose high despite their young age it's the very nature of war that is the cause of it. War is by excellence a matter that cannot be trifled with and eventually as the conflict drags on skill becomes the only factor taken into account. That is why you'd see 24 yo like Upton (USA) or JH Kelly (CSA) become Brigadier General thus outranking many of their senior.
For that very same reason Grant and Sherman became untouchable despite their (unjustified?) reputation (drunkard/madman). Forrest is another good example as he became a Lt General despite his lack of diplomacy/civility.
Poor Utpon kill himself later in life.
I wonder because they is great character system in Traveller series lf pen paper rpg. And I can use a system like that to Miha character are older age if they're old enough they could have fought in the Mexican-American War if they choose. It's a great wave building concert and then in the background the wars and eventually happen. And depending on their experience the connections and where they are life is what rank they're going to start at in the conflict.
Also I have a massive love of social history. I'm if I'm not mistaken there were colonel that were as young as 23.
What was the Army like prior to the Civil War what type of men join did and what type of men land commission or enlisted? And what were the conflicts prior to the Civil War but after the Mexican-American or you can count the Indian Wars as well if anyone has a list. Oh yeah and I forgot Philipp busting what's going on time.
-
In my studies when the things I learned to at least it really hurt the north for a while was that they did not fill the depleted regiment with veteran men instead they would start from scratch again with a whole new fresh volunteers that was one of issues in north.
Thank you so much for the information I was wondering how long that went on for.
I'm proud he was my governor at one point of my corrupt state. He lied about his age to join when he was the tender age of 16 he was part of the New Jersey 13th regiment within two weeks of signing up he saw the Battle of Antietam. Of course the New Jersey 14th is the slightly more legendary one.
-
6 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
Welcome to the party.
Thank you good sir! It's funny my interest in the Civil War is it in battle I'd like to know if your political and social reasons and Life to Go on during it. I would love to make a game from the lowest perspective of a private all the way to the General in a realistic fashion. Also this is the era of incredibly young regimental officers and Generals. How did they rise so high? And what did the real life application of the regimental volunteer system look like especially when it came to elections of officers which is the same vein of the old militia system. Literally Andrew Jackson was election Major General of the Tennessee militia activities halfway to political godhood and the American south.
-
My knowledge of the Civil War is very limited mostly it comes from taking community college classes in New Jersey. The class reading material wss McPherson Battle Cry Freedom, Upon the Tent Field and Billy Yank Governor both by Bernard A. Olsen, and Company Aytch. My professor for course was Mister Olsen himself. He's may not be a renowned scholar but both his books are utterly gorgeous well organized and great primary source material. I still up question though how exactly were the officers elected in the volunteer companies?
-
1
-
The Civil War: Everything You Wanted to Know but Were too Afraid to Ask!
in General Discussions
Posted
The plan to leave the union was already in motion before Lincoln won the election. And in the end of the day the war was fought over slavery. The Radical Republicans themselves as more of a minority within the Republican Party. You got to remember Lincoln was a moderate Republican. Legality of the situation was put the bed by Jackson with how he handle the notification crisis. When's the South fired on Fort Sumter they kicked off the war. Since no Nation recognize the Confederacy as being a country, it gave Lincoln a lot of leeway and how to manipulate the presidential powers and his position as being commander-in-chief. I don't think gradual emancipation would have happened peacefully. The southern Planters are far too heavily invested in the system. And their past actions of both funding filibuster campaigns in the Caribbean and South America, as well as pushing Border Ruffians into Kansas, and they're constantly threatening to leave the union over slavery and then finally did. I did not think it was going to happen peacefully.