Who were the Incompetent commanders and what is your reason?

[hellboy30]

Originally Posted by El.Cid

I have a life, so digging out some volumn or whatever else and looking up gun counts is not worth my time.

[semperpietas]

Originally Posted by hellboy30

[El.Cid]

Originally Posted by cici

El Cid,

You stated that "We" in your post were so proud. So it sounded presumptuous on your part to speak on behalf of others. I was just taking the same liberties as you had in my response to you..

Actually, I only speak for myself. Me, myself and I. In the plural. Very presumptuous and also rather arrogant I am told.

Originally Posted by cici

You can create any thread you want, post anything and I could care less. You mentioned McClellan in a post and all I was pointing out was that there had been very recently an entire thread with a great many posts on Mac and that you could make a post there. No real need to start a new one.
..

Thank you sooooo much! Wow, really appreciate someone looking out for me. So hard and complicated to start a thread. Oh wait, I did not start a thread, I just raised a question about a commander. hmmmm

Originally Posted by cici

I was trying to help out in pointing you in a direction where you could make a comment. Also said that the search function would help in finding a topic.

Well if you are that concerned, send a private message and ask the question if a person would like your assistance. Otherwise when you post a comment as such in a public forum, you give the impression of being a snob. Someone trying to tell others what questions they can ask.

Originally Posted by cici

From there you decided to be a Smart A_S.

And lots try to beat on me. and they are still trying.

[R. Evans]

You've got a double post there El Cid. You can delete one if that's not too presumptous to suggest.

[hellboy30]

Originally Posted by R. Evans

You've got a double post there El Cid. You can delete one if that's not too presumptous to suggest.

I got it.

[R. Evans]

Originally Posted by hellboy30

I got it.

[El.Cid]

Originally Posted by semperpietas

No.... but I do remember a particular someone who tried to contemptuously relate that my argument had no value because I did not have the leadership "experience" he proclaimed to have. That is when I got snarky.
And a general question: And how does one challenge an expert without evidence?

Seems I recall that a certain person starting questioning what real experience was also and how that related to how soldiers and officers performed in the Civil War and why people fought.
So yes, actual experience does have something to do with a discussion on competence and combat experience.
You cant talk about cooking if you never held a frying pan in your hands and felt the grease splatter on your arms.

Question, who gets to decide who is an expert and what is evidence? This is a total elitist question. Does, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", sound familiar?

Originally Posted by semperpietas

Except you have yet to put a single source up. Generally when someone does not provide at least a single source.

You still dont get it. This is a "subjective" topic. There are no right or wrong positions. You want to say that Lee was incompetent or Meade, Grant, Sherman, Johnston (either or both) feel free and for what ever your reasoning.
It's like voting for the President. No matter how poor of a job the guy does, how bad he screws up the economy, he gets voted back in. Go figure!

Originally Posted by semperpietas

Except may I remind you that while scholars may disagree about troop counting and there are cases when the Official Returns do not agree and in those cases we must examine other evidence and then draw conclusions as to which is more accurate.

And then new consider documents and critical examination of documents (see Mr. Young III's new book on Lee's Army during the Overland Campaign or the recently discovered Hood papers) which may completely change how scholarship views particular events. While we will never know right down to the number exact strengths, troops returns (with additional calculations) can give us a pretty good idea of the size of and troops commitments of respective orders of battle.

Need I remind you this is a chat forum, not the lecture hall at good ol U. This is the internet, people from all walks of life come here. Some of us just to pass ideas or have a discussion.
All self proclaiming experts and scholars can kiss

Originally Posted by semperpietas

Books are better because they, unlike documentaries, have bibliographies which contain the primary sources that they have examined and studied to support the conclusions they come to (at least most books do. Not all). Documentaries don't have this same type of academic backing. The best a documentary can do is a a talking head. And often the talking heads don't have the power to correct scripts in said documentary. And unlike a book, Documentaries do not go through Peer review (in which other experts in the field go over the book as a kind of fact check. Again not all books, depending on the publisher, undergo this process).

What!!!! More ELITIST crap. Dont give me a lecture on why you are more reliable than someone or something else! OMG! Do you actually believe the things you are saying? Well probably you do otherwise no one would take you really seriously. Keep patting yourself on the back, you can get the other elitist too.

Originally Posted by semperpietas

And if you don't want to spend your time doing the research or referencing sources, just back out when you get called out by someone who has a source. End of discussion, move on, no harm done, and the next day no one remembers it.

This reminds me of claimants for a throne all with their pedigrees to show how much better they are than the commoner. Oh, if you dont show your sources you are not qualified enough to discuss this issue with me". I just cannot believe this elitist attitude!
This is just like West Point elitist that think less of ROTC grads because they did not come from the point.

Originally Posted by semperpietas

You have a point there. Books are for a serious study on the matter. Films and games are a tool that can introduce people to history (I caught the ACW bug watching the film Glory). But films are not always historically accurate and can even be dangerous tools for planting agendas or certain views of history (see Gone with the Wind). Yet even then are some people dedicated to subject. Although it appears to be going through development Hell, To Appomattox has a team dedicated. For example, the people who made Scourge of War: Gettysburg had an extensive bibliography and even consulted Eric Wittenberg when they made the East Cavalry Field scenarios for the game. Yet it is a game that is not going to be one hundred percent accurate to the events that occured simply due to game-play reasons.

Who is talking about films? As for planting agendas, every media does it including books. So dont get on some higher standard then others. We all know the level of journalism these days or maybe the lack is a better word.

Originally Posted by semperpietas

I expect you to admit when you are incorrect on a point. That point being that Lee never launched another offensive after Gettysburg (in both the tactical and strategic meanings of the word), in which I provided examples and sources and you have not refuted one.

When I am wrong I admit it, but you dont. Just because he turns and sets an ambush does not make it an offensive. Every time a force launches an attack, does not make that attack part of some offensive.
Just because you find some book that wants to call it an offensive still doesnot make it one.
You want to call it an offensive, then do it. But dont try to force me to call it that also.

Originally Posted by semperpietas

I do remember you chastised Eric Wittenberg in that particular thread (in the ACW forum here) because he criticized a painting that had taken liberties with the weapons of the cavalry. Given that Wittenberg is an acknowledged expert on American Civil War Cavalry in the Eastern theater with access to thousands of primary documents, I find that somewhat presumptuous.

Acknowledged expert? Whatever and to make sure that no one feelings get hurt everyone should be called an expert.

[Eric Wittenberg]

Originally Posted by El.Cid

Acknowledged expert? Whatever and to make sure that no one feelings get hurt everyone should be called an expert.

Hey, troll--when you've accomplished what I've accomplished in this field--when your work wins awards, and when you actually make a worthwhile contribution to the body of knowledge--then your opinion will matter. Until then, you would be well advised to STFU, troll.

You are dismissed.

[hellboy30]

The way this thread has degenerated, I'm going to close it for a few. Perhaps we can pick this up at a later date.