Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No need to start with an easy question, right?   Ok so I'm going to keep this short because its 3 am where I live lol . The short answer to your question is, they tried exactly what you are saying

Lee marched onto Gettysburg and met the Yankees on their own turf.  We all know how that story ends.  And so, 1stVermont slinks back to the USB as Lee did over the Rappahannock River. Though, des

"Hannibalbarca" was banned as spammer (There were multiple reports leading to case that he is our old spammer "1st Vermont").

Posted Images

3 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Taken from 1862 Army Officer's Pocket guide, regarding the amount of space occupied by an armed soldier and their position in rank and file. (which can be converted to battle front,)

"Frontage & Interval 21– The soldier occupies a front of 20-inches (1.67 feet) and a depth of 13 inches (1.083 feet), without the knapsack.  The interval between the ranks is 13 inches.  In column, therefore, one man, without a knapsack, occupies a depth of 26-inches (2.167 feet).  The knapsack added 3-inches to the total.  For general planning purposes, a soldier occupied a frontage of 2-feet and a depth of 2½ feet.  Assuming that men marched in a column of fours (A frontage of roughly seven to eight feet): ... " 

You keep this in your pocket, do you? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't the Union arrest all southern officers instead of "honorably" let them join the rebel forces. It seems that would have saved a lot of trouble. Once Lee decided not to lead the Union army f.x., have the man arrested on the spot.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-4 at 9:36 PM, A. P. Hill said:

Taken from 1862 Army Officer's Pocket guide, regarding the amount of space occupied by an armed soldier and their position in rank and file. (which can be converted to battle front,)

"Frontage & Interval 21– The soldier occupies a front of 20-inches (1.67 feet) and a depth of 13 inches (1.083 feet), without the knapsack.  The interval between the ranks is 13 inches.  In column, therefore, one man, without a knapsack, occupies a depth of 26-inches (2.167 feet).  The knapsack added 3-inches to the total.  For general planning purposes, a soldier occupied a frontage of 2-feet and a depth of 2½ feet.  Assuming that men marched in a column of fours (A frontage of roughly seven to eight feet): ... " 

This is awesome stuff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Koro said:

Why didn't the Union arrest all southern officers instead of "honorably" let them join the rebel forces. It seems that would have saved a lot of trouble. Once Lee decided not to lead the Union army f.x., have the man arrested on the spot.

 

Cool question! For most resigning officers, these men had not actually committed a crime (yet). Technically, as officers in the United States Army, they had the right to submit their resignation. Not all of them intended to join Confederate forces either. Major Robert Anderson, of Fort Sumter fame, planned to resign his commission and go to Europe if Kentucky seceeded; so that he might avoid invading his native state of Kentucky. Since Kentucky did not secede, Anderson stayed.

Resigning officers did commit a crime by resigning, only by participating in the Rebellion. thus, by the time they had violated the law, they were out of the reach of the government. One notable exception to this is Brigadier-General Gideon Pillow, who  joined the Confederacy before resigning his US Commission and, in 1862, shamefully abandoned his men at Fort Donelson rather then surrendering with them, for fear of execution for treason. Major-General Floyd did likewise. Floyd had been Secretary of War under Buchanan and, when his state seceded, tried to move the Harper's Ferry armoury supply of ordinance to Texas...This is why Brigadier-General Simon Bolivar Buckner surrendered an army he had never commanded to Grant. 

The other aspect of this was Lincoln's policy. At the beginning of the secession crisis, Lincoln attempted a policy of "Masterful Inaction." This was, in effect, a directed wait-and-see strategy. Lincoln pledged to hold remaining forts and post offices, but would do nothing else. Arresting Southern officers in the army would have been highly volatile, and pushed the erring states further into secession. For Buchanan's part, the man had already pathetically stated that secession was illegal but so to was stopping it, and thus in profound impotency, had done next to nothing, save for refusing to give South Carolina Fort Sumter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - so it seems accepted that Lincoln would have gorilla pressed the crippled Davis from the top of the cage onto the commentators table before walking off with groupies to the sound of something by Ted Nugent. 

 

Now next question. For some reason Grant and Lee meet in a bamboo forest wearing kimonos and have a traditional samurai duel with katanas. Who'd you place your bet on? Again, reasons would be nice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keepbro said:

Ok - so it seems accepted that Lincoln would have gorilla pressed the crippled Davis from the top of the cage onto the commentators table before walking off with groupies to the sound of something by Ted Nugent. 

 

Now next question. For some reason Grant and Lee meet in a bamboo forest wearing kimonos and have a traditional samurai duel with katanas. Who'd you place your bet on? Again, reasons would be nice. 

Hard to say, Lee is the larger man, however Grant is his junior by 15 years. I'm going to go with Grant, because Lee would probably start with an over-complicated move. Grant would just go for the kill. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

Hard to say, Lee is the larger man, however Grant is his junior by 15 years. I'm going to go with Grant, because Lee would probably start with an over-complicated move. Grant would just go for the kill. 

Lee was already suffering from heart disease at Gettysburg that would go on to kill him just 5 years after the war's end. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry gentlemen, but I disagree with both Mr. Mercanto and Fred.

Lee was the smarter of the two, in that situation, he would have done exactly like Indiana Jones and just pulled his revolver and ventilated Grant.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee would think Grant beneath him, so Grant would have to issue the challenge. 

As soon as Grant offered the challenge, a hundred young Confederate officers would stand in line to defend Lee's honor. 

The only people who would stand up for Grant are Jim Beam and Jack Daniels. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by Corporal Bridge
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Corporal Bridge said:

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?

Welcome to the party. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Lee would think Grant beneath him, so Grant would have to issue the challenge. 

As soon as Grant offered the challenge, a hundred young Confederate officers would stand in line to defend Lee's honor. 

The only people who would stand up for Grant are Jim Beam and Jack Daniels. 

Well that and basically the Northern population. He was the most popular man in America after Lincoln.

And don't know Jack Daniels ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corporal Bridge said:

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.

I believe the best way to put it is simply this: Officers were initially elected by them men in the regiment.  Quite often they were the ones who were popular enough to recruit the unit in the beginning, all but ensuring their election as commanding officer. Other times it was the militia captain who brought his company in and then stayed a captain in the regiment when the company was accepted.  This ran into problems with how long were the appointments for and if the person elected was actually up to the task.  It meant many an officer was ill at ease to discipline their men or risk working them too hard.  Not all states chose to set up their regiments this way though.  This was done away with in 1862 in the Union army.  The reason it was done away with is that there was an extreme number of problems with the officer elections electing sub-standard officers.  Instead Governors were allowed to name the commanding officers (usually the Colonel, Lt Colonel and often Majors) and lower officers could still be elected.  In this case many of the Governors chose to look for men with West Point training or military experience to lead the regiments.  They would look for men who were born in the state or lived in the state for a good amount of time.  This way they could put a solid man in charge and then perhaps hide a political appointee in another post of the regiment.

A few examples: 20th Maine: Adelbert Ames was named its actual first commander.  West Point class of 1861 and veteran of early Civil War campaigns.  J.L. Chamberlain was appointed 2nd in command due to his intellectual abilities.

1st Minnesota (for Mr. Mercanto): Willis Gorman named commander.  Mexican American War regimental commander and veteran of Buena Vista and Humantela.  

2nd Minnesota: Horatio Van Cleve named commander.  West Point class of 1831.

3rd Minnesota: Henry C. Lester, 1st MN veteran

As the war went along the number of veteran officers for each state increased rapidly and therefor many new regiments called officers from other regiments who had earned distinction in action to lead the new regiments.  This streamlined the approach and led to better officer selection.

In the Southern Arms, the election process carried on much longer and was eventually done away with also because too many solid officers were ousted for being too tough on their troops.  In some cases A.S. Johnston, J.E. Johnston, and R.E. Lee all used measures to circumvent the idea.  For instance the Southern Army adopted a separate "Regular Army" commission to ensure that veteran officers of proper education would not be superseded by political appointees.  The regular army rank always superseded the volunteer rank in the Southern Army.  An officer with a regular army rank of Colonel would always outrank an officer in the volunteer or militia with the rank of Colonel.  Made for a mess at times but it did keep political zealots on the back burner whenever possible.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Murphy_(governor)

Edited by Corporal Bridge
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reading some very interesting history books. 

Did you know that at the same time the American Civil War was being fought (which many people consider the first modern war) there was also an extremely nasty civil war being fought in China too? In fact more than a few military historians believe it to be the first true instance of the concept of total war since the rebels (the Taiping) forcibly conscripted everyone into their armed forces (and had a bloody good go at it by all accounts).

American Civil War casualties (estimated) : 1.5 - 2 million casualties.  

Chinese Civil War casualties : best guess 20-30 million casualties but some people think maybe 100 million casualties (which I guess unlikely so I think its probably around 30 million which is still a jaw dropping-ly huge number and only beaten in the slaughter stakes by the lovely time being had by all during WW2). One particular siege was so brutally unpleasant that the Yangtze river (which for those who don't know is one of the largest rivers in the world and comparable in size to the Nile and Amazon) was actually blocked by dead bodies. As in an actual dam made out of human bodies. Across a river that at certain points is so wide that you cannot see across it.

Also bear in mind that, unlike the ACW, a lot of the soldiers in the CCW weren't equipped with actual guns (they were reserved for more elite troops) so a lot of the carnage was done hand to hand. 

What I find interesting is that here's a conflict which by most accounts is the 2nd most unpleasant war in history and it seems to be overlooked just because a more trendy, hip and modern war was being fought on the other side of the world.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Keepbro said:

Just reading some very interesting history books. 

Did you know that at the same time the American Civil War was being fought (which many people consider the first modern war) there was also an extremely nasty civil war being fought in China too? In fact more than a few military historians believe it to be the first true instance of the concept of total war since the rebels (the Taiping) forcibly conscripted everyone into their armed forces (and had a bloody good go at it by all accounts).

American Civil War casualties (estimated) : 1.5 - 2 million casualties.  

Chinese Civil War casualties : best guess 20-30 million casualties but some people think maybe 100 million casualties (which I guess unlikely so I think its probably around 30 million which is still a jaw dropping-ly huge number and only beaten in the slaughter stakes by the lovely time being had by all during WW2). One particular siege was so brutally unpleasant that the Yangtze river (which for those who don't know is one of the largest rivers in the world and comparable in size to the Nile and Amazon) was actually blocked by dead bodies. As in an actual dam made out of human bodies. Across a river that at certain points is so wide that you cannot see across it.

Also bear in mind that, unlike the ACW, a lot of the soldiers in the CCW weren't equipped with actual guns (they were reserved for more elite troops) so a lot of the carnage was done hand to hand. 

What I find interesting is that here's a conflict which by most accounts is the 2nd most unpleasant war in history and it seems to be overlooked just because a more trendy, hip and modern war was being fought on the other side of the world.

Is....is this a serious post by Keepbro...? :o

This is a really cool point I think. One reason for this is due to China's isolationism. Its Civil War simply did not have a huge impact on the rest of the world, as the Chinese empire had little contact beyond the South East Asian world. The Civil War occurs in a global context, helping to shape the economic and political future of the entire Western world. 

The other reason is basically racism I think. Its the same reason why there are more books about twelve Great War poets then the the 1 million+ soldiers of colour that fought in the war. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

Is....is this a serious post by Keepbro...? :o

 

I tried to keep it slightly stupid....

Look I'm sorry ok. It's hard trying to work 2 jobs, look after a manic 5 year old and a crazed pregnant wife AND cope with a video game addiction all whilst suffering from mental health issues (aspie). Comedy can't just happen all the time. 

Question: Whatever happened to Harper's Ferry? I'm guessing Harper lost his boat to crazed rebs during their Maryland campaign but did he ever get it back?

Edited by Keepbro
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Keepbro said:

Question: Whatever happened to Harper's Ferry? I'm guessing Harper lost his boat to crazed rebs during their Maryland campaign but did he ever get it back?

Maybe he parked it in some Cold Harbor for the duration of the conflict. With all these anacondas running around it would have been a wise decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...