View single post by ole
 Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 05:24 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Posts: 2031

  back to top

Man for man neither side was better than the other. However, it we are talking about particular regiments or brigades that is a different story.

Almost about what I was trying to say, Duke, but you said it better.

There were some rather superior regiments and brigades. The Iron Brigade, the Stonewall Brigade, the Texas Brigade, Hill's Lightning Brigade, Wilder's Brigade ... all of these earned a rep here or there under a superlative commander. And some circumstance.

With some luck and circumstance, each became a name we know and generally figure was a better brigade or regiment. I'm rather fond of the Iron Brigade -- those damn black hat fellers. They were likely better lead than many they ran up against, but that doesn't make them better. (On that, I'd better crawl under my makeshift desk and await incoming.)

But when we get down to the individual, the average mano e' mano was exactly the same. I can't get it in my head that the Iowan was somehow a better fighter than the Georgian or the Alabamian. The littles guy with grit was the equal of every other man. And grit was not a geographical attribute.


 Close Window