Printable View
Hey,
I’ve been trying to figure out a certain kind of troops.
I’m certain they fought with the Union , don’t know about the confederate’s though.
Problem is that I don’t know the name in English.
In Dutch it’s “Zoeaven”
They wore red trousers, blue jackets with red stripes and a strange kind off red kepi.
You mean 'zouaves' I think, just google it.
Some of the most famous Civil War units, and those probably with the most distinctive uniforms, were the Zouaves (pronounced zoo-AHV). Many wore red baggy pants, white leggings, a jacket trimmed in red, and a tasseled red fez or turban. Their uniforms made them stand out on the battlefield, but many of these units also stood out because of their reputations as hard and steady fighters.
The Zouave uniform of the American Civil War actually had its origins in North Africa in the 1830s. Men from the Zouaoua tribe of Algeria were organized into the French army in 1831 (France had colonized parts of North Africa). They wore this distinctive uniform, and as their fame as fighters grew, more and more French soldiers joined their ranks. By the time of the Crimean War in 1854, the Zouave units were composed entirely of Europeans. Their exploits in that war added to their reputation gained in North Africa. When newspapers from around the world, including the American Harper's Weekly, ran stories and illustrations, their fame spread. In the mid-19th century, it was France that set the tone for military fashion and tactics.
With the outbreak of the Civil War, many Zouave units were raised on both sides. For example, Ellsworth raised the 11th New York Infantry or "Ellsworth's Fire Zouaves" from the New York City Fire Department. Louisiana, with its French culture and traditions, raised the majority of Zouave units for the Confederacy. Their uniforms and experiences in the war varied greatly, but many served with great distinction and upheld the tradition established by the Algerians and the French. After the first year of the war, most Confederate Zouave units shed their flashy garb. However, many in the Union army kept their Zouave uniforms for the entire conflict.
Source: http://www.nps.gov/anti/zouaves.htm
That can't be true, we all know that frenchmen are just a bunch of cowards. ~:rolleyes:
:)
Their not cowards,...
They just don't know how to fight ^^
Is that really necessary? Why go around picking a political fight in a thread like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Upxl,
Look up "Wheat's Tigers." It was a distinguished Confederate battalion that fought at 1st Manassas (Bull Run) and in many other battles.
Zouaves were a mixed bag. Some fought well, some didn't. It was just a uniform afterall. Much of this has to do with who led them, "luck of the draw" on the field, and how their initial fight went.
In several respects the uniforms were a poor choice for the ACW battlefield, as they made men more prominent targets. The flashy uniforms were a powerful recruiting tool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Well, it was quite tempting, given the things we can read there and there in the backroom. Not a political fight at all, just pointing out the really crappy attitude shown by some members (except if the level of suckyness of my ancestors is now a common political topic)
But yeah, it doesn't belong to this topic, and I shall refrain from spamming it with non-related stuffs.
A link with infos about the 'french' zouaves (in french only):
http://g.lacoste.free.fr/table_des_matieres.htm
Another link about the Zouaves during the Civil War (in english) :
http://www.geocities.com/zouavedatabase/usa/8thmo.html
Tnx Harvest.
Quote:
After watching some of the Tigers break through a stubborn federal line, a jubilant and grateful Gen. Jubal A. Early shouted, "Those damned Louisiana fellows may steal as much as they please now!"
Though bunch of blokes.
*cough Burnetts 13th calvary cough* here is all you need uxplhttp://www.angelfire.com/tx/RandysTexas/
hehe
http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/RandysTexas/list.html
This wouldn't have anything to do with Texan pride now would it? :)
If anyone has some more on the civil war you’re more then welcome to share.
Of course not... SFTS is the most anti-nationalist there is around, the epitomy of non-bias.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Upxl
Anyway, Harvester in Red, the uniform really did make the soldiers stand out, but at the time it was only just becoming half-bad. The infantry still stood tall and in dense formations, it would have made little difference if they had worn olive drab, khaki or even splintered camo from what they did wear. Even less compared to the semi-dark blue of most Union units. And the Confeds simply ran out of uniforms, but at least they were sensible enough to use grey (as fights might go into forests where you could hide).
The big problem with red is that the enemy will see you before you see them in most instances. It also means that they are likely to know which side you are on immediately, while you might not be so sure about their identity (or might even be wrong.) Identification was a big factor in many ACW battles, particularly early ones. True open field, set-piece battles were rare. A lot of it was fields broken by trees, streams and hills as well as large tracts of timber.
Never understood the uniforms of the Union.
After all those centuries of warfare you would expect them to know the colors where a bad idea.
Anyway,
Here's another question...
Who would you say was the greatest officer in the civil war?
As if there was a contest... ROBERT E LEE:charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by Upxl
Agreed!Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Depends on what your criteria for it is.
If it is Broad Tactician (managing the entire army within a battle), then most certainly Lee, is it Motivation and Morale, then I don't know (it could perhaps even be argued that it could be McClellan~:eek:). If it is Strategist and Logistics then Grant is by far the best...
Too many factors and too many were only good in on particular department.
Harvest, I agree that Zouaves were not dressed for efficiency in concealment, that much is obvious I think. But their particular dress did make them feel better, and fostered a stronger esprit de corps. At the time of the war it was perhaps still better than efficient and rather boring clothes (would of course only work if only a minority were dressed this way).
And the identification... Well Zouaves had little trouble getting identified, while several Union units that wore grey got blasted by FF. Grey was better, but obviously not a good choice (and was dropped quite soon from the Union forces).
In forests the Zouaves might have been identified earlier, but given the range of the weapons inside woods it made little difference. When the musket or rifle became efficient enough to use in woods there would be no chance of mistakes (the enemy would clearly be blue or grey/mottled collection) unless it was a case of those grey Union forces.
Not really. Europe had no idea, and that is what the uniforms were modeled on. Actually there was a mix of colors used: butternut, gray, blue (various shades), red, even green (Vermont, I think.) Early in the war both sides had many state and local militia regiments in the "other side's color." Caused a lot of trouble with friendly fire as well as lack of fire, as did the similar flags (no, not the later rebel battle flag; the original Stars and Bars.) And rebels often used captured blue jackets and pants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Upxl
Depends on category. Lee was probably the best battlefield full army commander. Nathan Bedford Forest was the best small army commander (wasn't really suited stylistically for full corps level command.)Quote:
Anyway,
Here's another question...
Who would you say was the greatest officer in the civil war?
Grant was strategically/logistically probably the strongest. Sheer determination and bold action were probably his greatest strengths. He could fail repeatedly, and still keep working the problem until he solved it. He had great composure when things seemed to be out of control around him. I didn't appreciate him early on, but after studying his Vicksburg campaign, Fort Donelson, and what he did at Chattanooga, I've gained great respect for him despite the many mistakes he made. The man was not afraid to make a mistake...unlike McClellan or Joe Johnston.
What Lee did for Southern survival, Grant did for eventual Northern victory. Both were masters of those they faced, until the only thing left was for them to face one another.
Time for some controversy - I think Lee was the best defensive general - his attempts at attacking (strategically) never worked very well. His victories tended to be defensive battles based on an agressive stance. If you consider some of his best performances - especially Chancerlorsville, his greatest in my opinion, - his basic stance was in defence.
To my mind the best all round general was Stonewall Jackson. His Valley campaigns were exemplar examples of a smaller force pinning down larger forces and taking an aggresive strategic stance. Add to that the way he inspired his troops and terrified the enemy then I think Stonewall is your man - he probably saved the Confederacy at the 1st Manassas.
Finally - how can you call Bedford Forrest a fine general - the man was not much more than an outlaw, who showed his true colours when he founded the KKK.
I will now retire to my bunker and await the brickbats!!~:hide: :cheers:
But you are ignoring the difficulty of strategic attack. Nobody did it particularly well all the time. The defender has too many advantages, and these pile on the longer an offensive continues, and the deeper an attacker tries to push. You see this on both sides with many different commanders. You can make many more mistakes on defense than you can on offense.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Kurt
Lee used aggressive defense. He attacked while on defense and tried to dictate the campaigns that way. Until he met Grant he was successful in that regard.
And no, his stance at Chancelorsville was not defense. Instead it was an aggressive offense against a formerly pursuing foe. Lee knew how to "play the man" on the other side. Lee took chances and in many cases it worked.
Stonewall was good, and he had great strategic sense for fighting in the Valley. However, if you study his campaigns closely there are some big problems.Quote:
To my mind the best all round general was Stonewall Jackson. His Valley campaigns were exemplar examples of a smaller force pinning down larger forces and taking an aggresive strategic stance. Add to that the way he inspired his troops and terrified the enemy then I think Stonewall is your man - he probably saved the Confederacy at the 1st Manassas.
Jackson was extremely harsh on subordinates. Some of it was justified, some of it was not. Nearly everyone around him tendered their resignations at one point or another. Study the mutiny that occurred in the Romney campaign, or his mistreatment of Garnett after Kernstown. Jackson was brilliant in many ways, but he had personality traits not unlike Bragg.
Jackson had some major problems at times too, and had he not been so successful in other ventures he might be remember for Kernstown or Cedar Mountain.
I suspect that Stonewall would not have been effective at full army command (for some of the same reasons as Forrest.)
Have you actually studied Forrest? It doesn't sound like you have. I loathe his politics and his view of people's "place" in society, but at war he did not operate as an outlaw. In fact, he despised irregulars who preyed on the civilians of both sides. Forrest did not operate as an irregular. There were plenty who did in various theaters, those are your outlaws.Quote:
Finally - how can you call Bedford Forrest a fine general - the man was not much more than an outlaw, who showed his true colours when he founded the KKK.
I will now retire to my bunker and await the brickbats!!~:hide: :cheers:
When I studied Forrest I didn't expect to find much in common with him. Instead, I found someone with vastly different racial/political views but who I share a number of personality traits with (some good, some bad.) NBF had a strong sense of right and wrong--it's just that many of us would disagree about certain aspects of what he considered so. When those lines were crossed and he felt wronged he reacted strongly. He had a "get more than even" approach. NBF was passionate, and he let this cloud his judgement at times. He also did not fight by the book, or accept conventional wisdom as gospel. He was not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom. And when he got into the thick of things he became larger than life, doing things people didn't think possible. All of these are similar to my own personality--so studying his mistakes helps remind me of my own weaknesses and temper some of my own tendencies. I know it may sound wierd, but I can understand this guy and connect in a way that I can't with many historical figures.
Regardless of his personality or politics, he was a genius on the field. He knew how to conduct the warfare of the time. He used other's traditional tactics against them. He committed the bulk of his forces to the key point, and did not worry about large reserves (of the Napoleonic style.) So while outnumbered greater than 2:1, he usually had local superiority. And the man understood momentum like no other. Brices Cross Roads is one of the great masterpieces. While it was a small battle, it demonstrated his mastery of all aspects of battle.
Forrest's major blemish in war comes from the massacre at Fort Pillow. Yet from studying the incident as best I can tell he did not encourage slaughter, instead he failed in his duty to restrain it. That is a serious thing, but not the bloodthirsty vengeful rage that some would like to characterize it as. Remember, he had been injured when *several* of his horses were shot out from under him during reconnaisance of the position. He did not lead the attack as a result, so he was not there ordering a slaughter. I won't condone what happened, but there is a lot more to Fort Pillow than a superficial examination will reveal. With a small works refusing to surrender, serious carnage was almost guarranteed. That CSA soldiers often abused and killed negro soldiers is documented and happened repeatedly, not just under Forrest. My take on it is that Forrest (and his men) were angered by the refusal of the garrison to surrender an untenable position. This forced a costly assault, but one whose outcome was already certain. By staying in the rear (uncharacteristically) Forrest in effect gave his angry soldiers free hand to deal with negro troops. He should have advanced to stop it immediately but did not.
I will also point out that Forrest was the first Grand Wizard, but he did not form the KKK. More importantly he orderd the Klan disbanded in 1869, stating that it was "being perverted from its original honorable and patriotic purposes, becoming injurious instead of subservient to the public peace." It had became more a group of outlaws, and that did not fit with Forrest's personality--he hated the irregulars that acted this way during the war, and had many rounded up and shot during the war.
Forrest's views softened in later years. He is a fascinating man and defies any simple classification. He would be an excellent subject for a serious movie. If it was done right with rigorous attention to historical information the audience would both love and hate him at the same time and have trouble pigeonholing him either as a racist, or as a paragon of Southern leadership.
Red harvest
On the whole I broadly agree with your points.
Lee is arguebly the best aggressive defence general in history let alone the ACW, but was not so good on the offensive. From a strategic offensive point of view McCellan's Peninsula campaign was brilliant in its plan and concept - shame he couldn't perform on the battlefield. Strategically, Sherman's drive to the sea again was brilliant in concept, but I am not sure of the calibre of the enemy he was facing.
However, if the aim is to find the best all round general, then I still stand by Stonewall.
Maybe I was a little harsh on Forrest. I see him as a talented cavalry commander and a good mobile forces commander. But like many of these generals - and I would include Jeb Stuart and Sherman in this - I never get the feeling that they are where the really critical action was. The west was extremely important and the Union's eventual sucess in that area did put a stranglehold on the South, but I always feel that the war was always going to be won in the east in the area between Washington and Richmond. The contribution of thes generals was considerable, but they could never loose the war in an afternoon.~:cheers:
Kurt,
The war WAS won in the West. ~D The East was just a coup de grace. Even the eastern generals couldn't lose a war in an afternoon...although they tried. ~;)
Sherman had a good strategic grasp and was extremely good at the logistics. He wasn't all that great on the field...fortunately, he faced Joe Johnston, then Hood, so that his strategic/logistical skill would prevail and whatever shortcomings he had were not exploited by his enemies.
The more I study each general, the more I find lacking in each. There are few that one can look back in retrospect and find who were nearly always on top of their game. Very few of them every had sufficient command level to make a definite conclusion about. Others were very skilled in certain ways, but I think would have been unable to fulfill some of the broader requirements of higher command.
About Stuart. I don't think he was as great as his legend. He was too much into the chivalric cavalier concept and daring deeds. He had the fortune of having the finest cavalrymen available early in the war, and he was quite gifted in using them effectively. However, he seems to have failed to grasp what was happening as the war changed around him. This was shown at Brandy Station, Gettysburg, and his mortal wounding at Yellow Tavern.
Red
You could argue that the war was won in the west in that it enabled the North to strangle the South by cutting off its resources - but you could say the same about the naval blockade and the diplomatic efforts to keep the south isolated.
If you consider the ACW as the first modern war and the first where resources and industrialisation were critical, then it is inevitable that the South will loose, despite the skill of its generals and men - the North just has too many men and resources. The only way they could pull the rabbit out the bag is by taking Washington. But both serious incursions into the North tended to be more about taking the pressure off Richmond than taking Washington - and both lead to serious Confederate losses - Anteim and Gettysburg. Maybe the only battle where it could have been won on the day was the first Bull Run~:cheers:
Seriously doubt that... While the South got the generals the North got the regulars. They were what prevented a real rout at the first Bull Run, and they would not let the Confederates do that to them, they were just that much better troops. They couldn't win the battle for th North but at the same time they would almost always be able to stall any catastrophic event.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Kurt
To me it seems that these hardened professional soldiers are always overlooked, at least in the first half of the war (after that there were many volounteers that could be equal to them).
At Antietam one of the worst mistakes was in putting the only regular corps in reserve, their abilities and tenacity could have broken the rebel lines.
I'm not convinced that resources and industrialization are critical only to modern wars. I tend to think that economic issues were critical in all conflicts. How did Rome win the 2nd Punic War if not by resource might, mostly a seemingly inexhaustible manpower?
Ajax
Capturing Washington or Richmond early in the war would have been a huge political victory, but it isn't certain that either would have ended the war. It would have ended an administration for certain. Both sides believed that it would end the war...but then again, neither side really thought the other would go to war...or that the war would continue after the first major battle...etc. Capturing Washington might have been a sufficient political disaster that the war would have ended, but it would not have been a sufficient military set back. In the end the capture of Richmond only effectively ended the war because there was really nothing else substantial left to fight over politically/geographically.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Kurt
The blockade was not all that successful in shutting off resources until the very end (last 6 to 9 months when Wilmington was taken out of the action.) It however made blockade running more expensive and unreliable as a means of support. It is surprising how effective blockade running was. The irony is that the South failed to make proper use of it when it could (the first 2 years.) That is when it most needed weapons from abroad. States Rights was a poor method of organizing a foreign supply system, since it produced uncoordinated competing efforts--often supplying high value consumer goods rather than war materiel. The CSA's King Cotton policy had effectively shot them in the foot financially in the first few years and hindered their own war effort.
When the South began to take steps to improve its supply and finances from abroad, it had already suffered sufficient setbacks (in the West ~;) that it was having trouble with credit and diplomatically the approach would necessarily be "wait and see." (What is amazing is that the European merchants actually thought the U.S. would pay the CSA's war debts if the CSA lost. It is an absolute mystery to me why they would have believed that the U.S. would pay those who had violated the blockade to supply the CSA war effort.) It took easing the self-imposed cotton blockade to provide some backing to CSA borrowing.
By the time the war ended the South was starving not because of the blockade, but because its traditional breadbaskets had been ravaged by war. This was already happening simply as a consequence of maintaining large field armies and forage, well before the policy became intentional. Several strategic CSA material sources (like copper) had been lost earlier as a result of action in the West.
In the campaigns that led to Antietam and Gettysburg, Lee sought two major things: political victory through a major victory on Union soil, and a reprieve for Virginia from occupation by several armies. Lee understood that in order to bring in the harvests, Union armies needed to be kept out of Virginia as long as possible. While he failed in the former goal, he did succeed in this latter goal to a considerable extent. The same concern about maintaining Virginia's support capacity had led to the battering of McClellan earlier to eject his massive army from the state. By 1864 Lee could no longer do this.
Lee played his cards well, I don't see that any others could have done better. Unfortunately for the CSA, he did not have a counterpart in the West. Instead the Union had Grant who made a habit of capturing whole CSA armies...Donelson, Vicksburg...and finally Lee's.
.
I remember a 30 episode TV series from childhood days, it was called The North and the South. Started in pre-war years when two lads (one northern and one southern) attend the westpoint and they eventually become generals in their respective armies and fight each other, although they were pals.
.
Remember that one too... Patrick S*something*ze (impossible name). It even aired again not too long ago here in Denmark.
I believe there is a point when one of the two meet another friend on the field of battle, and being enemies. Quite odd really if that happened.
.
It's a fond childhood memory for me. ~:) I was about 7 when they aired it.
Not much older than that, I was reading a book; largeish size, paperback, like 300 pages, published by the American counsel or something, on a part of American history. I remember reading about the civil war with great interest for hours. For whatever reason mom removed it later. ~:mecry:
.
Maybe she was just cleaning up?
I have lost countless things when my mother cleaned up my room or found stuff she didn't understand.