 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 141 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
5fish wrote:Does being aggressive mean you are audacious for Hood was aggressive so his he audacious or reckless. Is not audacity more about being a risk taker then being aggressive.
Taking risks, being aggressive, being audacious - Personally I think they can be one and the same. For me the question isn't whether Lee was any of these. He clearly was. The question is, did he sometimes cross the line from being aggressive or taking risks, to being reckless? I think he clearly did so on occasion. So I don't question that he was an audacious commander. I just think he tended to overdo it.
Would we be saying Lee's audaious if the union had caught wind to Lee's Flanking move at Chancellorsville or just call him a dam fool.
That's a very good point. But I think we might still call him a little of both. Or at least, we'd probably refer to the battle as either a foolish or daring gamble, made by a very audacious commander. In fact, you might refer to it that way in any case, even though it worked. Lee took calculated risks, there is no question about that to me. But I do sometimes wonder about his calculations.
Perry
Thanks,
Insightful, yes, one must wonder where he got his calculation for Pickett's Charge and Ft. Stedman or did he know they where just rolling the dice hoping for providence. I will admit I think Lee was never reckless as one would say.
I think of the first a day at Gettysburg and he held back Anderson Div. in reserve instead of bring him to the field for he lack the man power to push the union troops off the hill. With Anderson Div. brought early to the field he would have had the man power to push the union troops off the hill. If he was audacious he would have used Anderson Div. but instead he played it safe.
Rumbling thoughts..