Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group

Drusus Nero

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Drusus Nero last won the day on September 24 2015

Drusus Nero had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Drusus Nero

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Professional Chaser of Own Children
  • Interests
    Anything military, destroying political correctness, making the art world realise that their overpriced 'modernism' can be turned out by my 5 year old but a good portrait she cannot do.

Recent Profile Visitors

306 profile views
  • Ron

  1. Although glossing over many points,....conceded....I believe Burns does a fine job marrying pictures, voices, sounds and commentary. Certain of the actors impressions of voices remain with me every time I read something concerning ACW. The voice of Lee is compelling, and Forrest; and Sam Watkin's voice makes me laugh so much i find it hard to think of him sounding any other way. The format was obviously a big hit, because other Burn's efforts have not deviated one iota from the style and content first realised in this series. Now all we need is something on SHILOH for the purists. I'm not sure that Burns actually gave much to the true role of Shiloh in determining attutudes, tactics, and the effect the results had on strategy in the Western theater, but no matter, it brought alive a subject matter that can be there for genrations to come, which was it's entire reasoning to begin with, for the children of today and tomorrow. The very last episode actually brought a tear to my eye...no lie. Joshua Chamberlain describing his last reunion as "A trancendental experience" hit home hard, and made me wonder why a film such as "Gettysburg" could portray an obviously over-educated and very thoughtful humanitarian like Chamberlain as a mustachio chewing doofus just going along for the ride. Just on that same film, "Gettysburg", I also thought Martin Sheen was miscast as Robert E. Lee. Lee was NOT a typical "southren boy" as Martin made him out to be. Lee, to my mind, had more in common with the uprightness and aristocratic 'airs' that are often acscribed to George Washington. "Noble countenance" is the phrase normally used, and Martin should have done his homework. On the other hand, Sam Elliot's portrayal of Cavalry General John Buford, chuckling in the tower of the Lutheran Theological Seminary was just perfect...and if not, then Buford as he would have liked to be seen. Not much credit is ever given to the command performance of Buford, who damned near set the entire battle on it's head, IF the situation had developed as he would have liked it. Christopher
  2. and I am sorry. I should have said all this in the Donelson Threads Just a newbie mistake... Haven't "seen the elephant" .Not yet .
  3. I have one, and only one , reservation about this above post. "Both had to be addressed, but it does not require 15,000 men to fight gunboats" Yes... "..perhaps 600-1,000 men. Everyone else should have been outside, prepared to meet the land attack." This decision, I know, sounds as if it's the 'usual incompetance' of the Confederate Commanders at Donelson/Henry/Heiman. But ask yourself this. Maybe, given the weather conditions, (I do beleive there were feet in depth of snow, with sleet and driving rain for the period of their occupation. ) Please correct if wrong. With the commanders staring down the barrel of what was, for them, a powerful Union assault, their estimations as to the time of this assault commencing might not have been as we see them. Hindsight and all that. They might have believed the weather would intervene to buy Sticking 14,000 men, outside a fort, in driving sleet, with uniforms already in poor condition from the winter elements, sounds like a bad move for a garrison already staring down the barrel of a Union assault. Sitting your people inside a comparitively warm Fort is IMOH, a good move. Feel free to pick this apart. I'm just a beginner here, and will defer to the experts at all times Pillow, additionally, was quite well aware of who he was facing, and what the circumstances might be (hightailing it). He might have faced a serious protest from positioning troops in the snow, wet, and with powder stores not so dry. For a political appointee like him, (he had to petition Davis after his resignation), protests from troops over bad placement, treatment or handling in fowl weather meant something to him, as they did to all politicals, even ones like Pillow with real Mexican/American experience. The Fort probably seemed like the best option at the time. I know Donelson wasn't the best example of southern engineering, (in fact, was the construction of this fort even supervised by an engineer at all? Seems not from it's placement and other factors.) Grant, too had environmental hassles at Donelson. His memoirs tell of this, speaking of the great suffering and privations his troops went through for the entire campaign. Luckily, the "shoddy" uniforms might have provided an avenue for excusing accusations of incompetance. These, and other internal complaint hassles would dog him at Shiloh. And after. Only Lincoln saved him...."I can't spare this man. He fights." You are now free to make me look amatuerish I believe the 'shoddy' was actually compressed cardboard. Falling apart in the rain and snow.....terrible what greed can do.
  4. Feel free to pick this apart to your heart's content, Ozzy. It's what this poster is here for.
  5. This would all depend on how certain Pierre was of Wallace's location and time. What about straggling? Confederate forces must have appeared very strung out by this stage. Some troops sitting in captured campsite, some tending wounded, others making their way to and fro. It all sounds like a bit of a mess. Beauregard's desire, in my view, to "finish off" Grant indicates that his intelligence of wallace's movements was not as sound as we beleive. Or, that he gained the impression that Wallace wasn't turning up at all!! and then theres the issue of the sheer strength of the Union position around Pittsburg. Confederate forces had spent much of the afternoon frontally assaulting positions. they'd just tried it one more time, and been repulsed. Any NEW commander, as Pierre was to the job, (he'd only been in it for a matter of hours), would most likely, call a halt, Johnston had been trying to prove his critics incorrect, and had paid the price for impetuosity, and for personally leading troops into battle. Beauregard, iIm sure, was mindful of not committing the command mistakes of Johnston, so called a halt, simply on the assumption that "Discretion is the better part of valour" And can't you imagine Beauregard's aides saying to Pierre.... "Not again!, Sir I don't know where half of my units ARE! Were hungry, and our wounded are swamping the field! Lets collect ourselves, and have some 'sloosh'...please?"
  6. Hello and g'day....wherever you are..... Just posted on the info area...oops...wrong place. Better here. My fascination with this battle, and my deire to visit the Park, stems from a wargame i played many years ago called "Fury in the West". A simple design, it had many errors and inconsistancies, but was the only 'title' I could find. Playing the game left more questions than it answered. For the first day, as the Confederates, I deployed my pieces in such a way as to get a result that enabled the Rebs to push very hard at the Union lines. You got to the point, however, where Union play solidified, and you could not turn a flank easily without 'straggling' half your army away. The whole thing was palatable, but unsatisfying, so, I read a little about the battle, and found that Confederate chances on day 1 WERE as I expected and found. I then chanced across a design, a magazine game called "Hell Before Night", that was as accurate as it was frustrating to play( the mapwork and order of battle were superb, with indivdul regiments forming divisions that could be busted apart, by both enemy action or by yourself). Gone were the grand sweeps of Rebs, replaced by HARD bitten fighting after the surprise was over. It included much in the way of historical trivia, and played like a dream when trying to reshape strategy on both sides. All this gave me a want to visit a battle park that seemd to be a sidebar in a host of other ACW sites on the tourist trail. Situated where it is, this didn't surprise me at all. So, when I got to the "Armchair General" site a few days ago, a poster called Guthrie, seeing my breathless enthusiasm for this battle, pointed me toward this site. He asked me, because I was from Australia, if I was "Ozzy". You'all know I'm not, because the person he was referring to has peppered your site with good stuff, and I much look forward to picking his and other experts brains on this site. So, here I am, ready to have my general and patchwork knowledge of this most incredible, crucial, and least known battle major battles, filled in... I'm all ears......and eyes....and sences. Someday, i'll sit with Perry on that picket fence, and close my eyes....and be transported back to a time when the Union wasn't so confident, when the South still had it's No.1 soldier alive and WAS confident, and when U'S. Grant fresh from Donelson, was out to prove he wasn't a drunk, had interests other than horses and wood whittling, and liked to sit in the evenings with his ol' bud, W.T. Sherman, and talk horses. Salute'.......
  • Create New...