Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352 
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Dec 11, 2021 18:49:51 GMT
‘Abe Lincoln and FDR Play Chess’. The guy in Berlin loses even faster, if possible. In what sense, chess or World War II? If the latter, then Lincoln will need to be caught up with 1940s geopolitics and military capabilities to be of significant help. He may have been no dummy, but… |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 11, 2021 19:35:32 GMT
The guy in Berlin loses even faster, if possible. In what sense, chess or World War II? If the latter, then Lincoln will need to be caught up with 1940s geopolitics and military capabilities to be of significant help. He may have been no dummy,
One can assess his ability as a grand strategist.The point is that Lincoln, like FDR, knew next to nothing about the nuts and bolts of operational or tactical evolutions, but could learn rapidly and he could take good advice unlike Churchill or Stalin. That is why good presidents pick good generals and admirals. What he, Lincoln did know already: was industry trumps agriculture, trade trumps theft, diplomacy trumps multi-front wars and economics is the heart of warfare. Also free men fight harder and last through hellish fights better than slaves. It is frivolous to suggest that a failed landscape artist and mere messenger boy, too incompetent to be trusted with a rifle, would be able to beat a master railroad lawyer, a conniving Illinois politician and a once in a century orator at either chess or war. One would need his equal to match Lincoln. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Dec 11, 2021 19:46:03 GMT
In what sense, chess or World War II? If the latter, then Lincoln will need to be caught up with 1940s geopolitics and military capabilities to be of significant help. He may have been no dummy,
One can assess his ability as a grand strategist.The point is that Lincoln, like FDR, knew next to nothing about the nuts and bolts of operational or tactical evolutions, but could learn rapidly and he could take good advice unlike Churchill or Stalin. That is why good presidents pick good generals and admirals. What he, Lincoln did know already: was industry trumps agriculture, trade trumps theft, diplomacy trumps multi-front wars and economics is the heart of warfare. Also free men fight harder and last through hellish fights better than slaves. It is frivolous to suggest that a failed landscape artist and mere messenger boy, too incompetent to be trusted with a rifle, would be able to beat a master railroad lawyer, a conniving Illinois politician and a once in a century orator at either chess or war. One would need his equal to match Lincoln. So, to make proper use of his acumen and ability to learn quickly, we're assuming Lincoln is caught up with 1940s geopolitics and military capabilities here? Got it. However, I didn't blow this up into something that takes the same figures and plops them into a more extreme scenario than first suggested. As such, I'd like to bring it back to the original scenario and ask what you think a chess game between them might look like? |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 12, 2021 5:03:03 GMT
However, I didn't blow this up into something that takes the same figures and plops them into a more extreme scenario than first suggested. As such, I'd like to bring it back to the original scenario and ask what you think a chess game between them might look like? I think FRR would overplay his queen and Lincoln P@WNS him for a n00b. Checkmate in 10 moves. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,815
Likes: 13,200
|
Post by stevep on Dec 12, 2021 12:41:50 GMT
However, I didn't blow this up into something that takes the same figures and plops them into a more extreme scenario than first suggested. As such, I'd like to bring it back to the original scenario and ask what you think a chess game between them might look like? I think FRR would overplay his queen and Lincoln P@WNS him for a n00b. Checkmate in 10 moves.
Don't know. Their both pretty intelligent but FDR is notoriously sneaky and duplicitous while a lot of people question Lincoln's handling of the USCW. Both his chopping and changing of generals and that he nearly lost it early on by blundering into war with the UK over the Trent Affair. It took Steward, a notorious hot-head himself to persuade Lincoln not to go to war with the UK. Provided FDR's not forced to default the game for cheating I suspect he would have the edge. Assuming of course that both actually played the game and not knowing if either of them were significantly better at it.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 12, 2021 13:34:26 GMT
I think FRR would overplay his queen and Lincoln P@WNS him for a n00b. Checkmate in 10 moves.
Don't know. Their both pretty intelligent but FDR is notoriously sneaky and duplicitous while a lot of people question Lincoln's handling of the USCW. Both his chopping and changing of generals and that he nearly lost it early on by blundering into war with the UK over the Trent Affair. It took Steward, a notorious hot-head himself to persuade Lincoln not to go to war with the UK. Provided FDR's not forced to default the game for cheating I suspect he would have the edge. Assuming of course that both actually played the game and not knowing if either of them were significantly better at it.
To stick to the topic, and to clarify the book on Lincoln; Lincoln had to sort through the human material he had until he could field a winning management team. He had no Marshall to pick out generals for him. He began with McDowell and found that man a dud. For the longest time he tried McClellan and found the man to be impossible to prod and too timid to get in there and spill blood. He tried Pope (politics) and found the bombast was unable to meet his own words. Then came Burnside who had planning ability but was lacking in that "command presence" in himself much less to inspire confidence in others. There was Hooker, but a cannonball knocked the iron out of him. Then Meade was the monkey in the barrel. Not flashy, not great and really not much of a general by the Napoleonic metrics, but he did have two qualities; he did not panic and he did not lose. Then Lincoln found his B team for the Western Department (Sherman, Thomas and surprisingly Burnside), and he could bring in his winner, Grant, to manage the Eastern Department. The Trent Affair tends to be exaggerated by British historians. Palmerston was not a complete idiot, though he was something of a ninny. The UK had as much to lose from a war economically as the Americans did. Seward actually was the one in favor of a go to "unify the country". It was Lincoln who threw on the brakes. "One war at a time." is what he told Seward. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,815
Likes: 13,200
|
Post by stevep on Dec 12, 2021 15:08:39 GMT
Don't know. Their both pretty intelligent but FDR is notoriously sneaky and duplicitous while a lot of people question Lincoln's handling of the USCW. Both his chopping and changing of generals and that he nearly lost it early on by blundering into war with the UK over the Trent Affair. It took Steward, a notorious hot-head himself to persuade Lincoln not to go to war with the UK. Provided FDR's not forced to default the game for cheating I suspect he would have the edge. Assuming of course that both actually played the game and not knowing if either of them were significantly better at it.
To stick to the topic, and to clarify the book on Lincoln; Lincoln had to sort through the human material he had until he could field a winning management team. He had no Marshall to pick out generals for him. He began with McDowell and found that man a dud. For the longest time he tried McClellan and found the man to be impossible to prod and too timid to get in there and spill blood. He tried Pope (politics) and found the bombast was unable to meet his own words. Then came Burnside who had planning ability but was lacking in that "command presence" in himself much less to inspire confidence in others. There was Hooker, but a cannonball knocked the iron out of him. Then Meade was the monkey in the barrel. Not flashy, not great and really not much of a general by the Napoleonic metrics, but he did have two qualities; he did not panic and he did not lose. Then Lincoln found his B team for the Western Department (Sherman, Thomas and surprisingly Burnside), and he could bring in his winner, Grant, to manage the Eastern Department.
Again this is a matter of debate. It would have been disruptive for the UK but a total disaster for the union going to war with Britain at that point. Unless they quickly came to terms they would almost certainly lose the south due to the impact a war with Britain would have on their economy and ability to wage war.
The best example of this is a thread on the site mentioned above. Not so much the TL itself, which unfortunately seems to be dead but the discussion the author invited that makes up most of the 1st dozen or so pages where he invites comments on what factors would come into play. This also calls into question Lincoln's initial attitude which is often represented as you mention.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 12, 2021 15:35:46 GMT
Again this is a matter of debate. It would have been disruptive for the UK but a total disaster for the union going to war with Britain at that point. Unless they quickly came to terms they would almost certainly lose the south due to the impact a war with Britain would have on their economy and ability to wage war. Canada. The best example of this is a thread on the site mentioned above. Not so much the TL itself, which unfortunately seems to be dead but the discussion the author invited that makes up most of the 1st dozen or so pages where he invites comments on what factors would come into play. This also calls into question Lincoln's initial attitude which is often represented as you mention. Except that in the US archives we have the cabinet minutes where Lincoln sets Seward down, and not the other way around. The man who noted it was Gideon Wells; secretary of the American Navy. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,815
Likes: 13,200
|
Post by stevep on Dec 12, 2021 20:32:53 GMT
Again this is a matter of debate. It would have been disruptive for the UK but a total disaster for the union going to war with Britain at that point. Unless they quickly came to terms they would almost certainly lose the south due to the impact a war with Britain would have on their economy and ability to wage war. Canada. The best example of this is a thread on the site mentioned above. Not so much the TL itself, which unfortunately seems to be dead but the discussion the author invited that makes up most of the 1st dozen or so pages where he invites comments on what factors would come into play. This also calls into question Lincoln's initial attitude which is often represented as you mention. Except that in the US archives we have the cabinet minutes where Lincoln sets Seward down, and not the other way around. The man who noted it was Gideon Wells; secretary of the American Navy.
you say that as if the union army could seriously threaten Canada. With what unarmed mob would that be or are they prepared to abandon Washington to a boosted rebel military to launch an attack with their existing forces before they run out of guns, gunpowder, horses or money - the most prominent problems they would face.
Interesting. Its the version I have heard in the past but the people on the USCW site I mention, some of whom at least have studied it in immense detail say otherwise. You could be right in which case Lincoln did the right thing backing down and hence - getting back to the original point he's wasn't as prone to fatal error as I had been thinking.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Dec 12, 2021 20:52:21 GMT
'Alec Guiness Returns As A Ghost In 2021'. And wearing Jedi robes, to boot.  |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Dec 13, 2021 21:54:58 GMT
'George Patton and Robert E. Lee Become Neighbors'.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 13, 2021 23:00:57 GMT
Canada. Except that in the US archives we have the cabinet minutes where Lincoln sets Seward down, and not the other way around. The man who noted it was Gideon Wells; secretary of the American Navy.
you say that as if the union army could seriously threaten Canada. With what unarmed mob would that be or are they prepared to abandon Washington to a boosted rebel military to launch an attack with their existing forces before they run out of guns, gunpowder, horses or money - the most prominent problems they would face.
Interesting. Its the version I have heard in the past but the people on the USCW site I mention, some of whom at least have studied it in immense detail say otherwise. You could be right in which case Lincoln did the right thing backing down and hence - getting back to the original point he's wasn't as prone to fatal error as I had been thinking.
One war at a time. The British military, on land, at the time, had two problens, it was fresh off the Indian army rebellion of 1857 and despite Robert Peel's efforts to apply lessons learned, there was this fellow in command. The British army was not anything of which the Union was to be afraid or concerned. Canada was toast anytime the Union wanted it. Besides.... MAP.  Like Russia (Moscow and the surrounding territory), the area to control in Canada is really very small. Take Newfoundland (^^^) and Britain loses the whole of Canada. Plan Crimson in a nutshell and even that duffer, the Duke of Cambridge, knew it. The thing that was frivolous about it, was that Washington and London growled at each other, but neither pushed the issue because: a. Lincoln did not want a two front war. b. Palmerston did not want a factory worker rebellion over the slavery issue. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,815
Likes: 13,200
|
Post by stevep on Dec 14, 2021 14:17:04 GMT
you say that as if the union army could seriously threaten Canada. With what unarmed mob would that be or are they prepared to abandon Washington to a boosted rebel military to launch an attack with their existing forces before they run out of guns, gunpowder, horses or money - the most prominent problems they would face.
Interesting. Its the version I have heard in the past but the people on the USCW site I mention, some of whom at least have studied it in immense detail say otherwise. You could be right in which case Lincoln did the right thing backing down and hence - getting back to the original point he's wasn't as prone to fatal error as I had been thinking.
One war at a time. The British military, on land, at the time, had two problens, it was fresh off the Indian army rebellion of 1857 and despite Robert Peel's efforts to apply lessons learned, there was this fellow in command. The British army was not anything of which the Union was to be afraid or concerned. Canada was toast anytime the Union wanted it. Besides.... MAP. Like Russia (Moscow and the surrounding territory), the area to control in Canada is really very small. Take Newfoundland (^^^) and Britain loses the whole of Canada. Plan Crimson in a nutshell and even that duffer, the Duke of Cambridge, knew it. The thing that was frivolous about it, was that Washington and London growled at each other, but neither pushed the issue because: a. Lincoln did not want a two front war. b. Palmerston did not want a factory worker rebellion over the slavery issue.
The union army was a mass army quickly assembled with a very small core. As such it was fighting largely with very simple tactics, especially early on in the war. Despite being increasingly equipped with rifles the tactics were largely those of Napoleonic times with men trained to fire at mass targets as if using muskets, although increasingly using cover due to the lethality of massed rifles. In the rebel army it faced a very similar force but with less resources, demographic, technological and fiscal as time went on. The British army, having been through the Crimean war, then units being used in the Indian mutiny and then the war with China - which also saw the 1st overseas use of Indian units - has learnt a lot. Its already fully equipped with rifles - which it will take the union quite a time to manufacture as imports will now be cut off - and its regulars are trained to take aimed shots, at up to 500m where the terrain allows, as well as fight in loose order. They also have superior field artillery at this point. Coupled with the sizeable numbers of Canadian militia, which can be trained and equipped by the British.
In 1861/62 the union is also still highly dependent on imports of guns, lead, gunpowder and many other items for a large scale war. It can replace most if not all of them but only with considerable expense and time which it will struggle to win. A lot of information on this is in that link I posted a couple of days back which goes into a lot more details than I can.
How is a blockaded union going to break that blockade then project that power several hundred miles to the north against by far the largest navy in the world and manage an amphibious invasion? Then protect and supply that force against Britain and Canada?
Slavery isn't an issue. Apart from you yourself arguing that Britain wasn't greatly concerned by it  : a) This is a private matter between the US and the union over illegal actions taken by the US resulting in criticism by every leading European nation, including Imperial Russia which knows its in no shape for another war, especially against Britain and is likely shortly to trigger its own revolt in Poland which will keep it distracted anyway. I never suggested that Palmerston would do anything like recognise the south as he's too canny a character to do that. Although one danger for the union is that such a clash might prompt France to do so. You shouldn't underestimate the anger in Britain at Wilkes action and the potential threat it posed to British trade of allowing such a precedent to stand.
b) At the moment the USCW is clearly not about slavery. Lincoln has said so himself and removed an army commander who has sought to free slaves and currently made no move to end slavery at all. He dare not as it would mean serious unrest in the loyal slave states. It needs the bitterness of a long and bloody war, the successes in 1863 onward and possibly also the need, at least the desire, for black troops for Lincoln to be in a position to openly move against slavery. Plus the Nov 62 successes by radical Republicans.
Steve
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Dec 14, 2021 15:55:34 GMT
‘Bernie Sanders Becomes A Desert Hermit’.
(Because the word sand is in his name.)
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Dec 14, 2021 17:56:07 GMT
The union army was a mass army quickly assembled with a very small core. As such it was fighting largely with very simple tactics, especially early on in the war. Despite being increasingly equipped with rifles the tactics were largely those of Napoleonic times with men trained to fire at mass targets as if using muskets, although increasingly using cover due to the lethality of massed rifles. In the rebel army it faced a very similar force but with less resources, demographic, technological and fiscal as time went on. The British army, having been through the Crimean war, then units being used in the Indian mutiny and then the war with China - which also saw the 1st overseas use of Indian units - has learnt a lot. Its already fully equipped with rifles - which it will take the union quite a time to manufacture as imports will now be cut off - and its regulars are trained to take aimed shots, at up to 500m where the terrain allows, as well as fight in loose order. They also have superior field artillery at this point. Coupled with the sizeable numbers of Canadian militia, which can be trained and equipped by the British. 1. The British knew that they could not reinforce Canada much above 50,000 men. They tried and failed. 2. The British pattern 1860 Enfield was no better than the Model 1857 Springfield. 3. The British learned nothing from India or from the Crimean War. What happened to Gordon? 4. So it takes six months to ramp up Phoenix Iron Works? 5. The Royal Artillery, if one includes the Indian artillery after the units are subsumed into the British army, consists of about 100 field batteries or 600 field guns. Most of those are in India and are not going to leave (Russians, Afghans and Chinese). Those which can cross the ocean, about 40 field batteries optimistically, are not going to match the gun park of the Army of the Tennesse, much less the Army of the Potomac. 6. The US modeled its artillery after the French and went on to develop the Parrot and Columbiad guns. This was clearly the equal to the Whitworth and Armstrong guns which the British used. 7. US brown powders come into service around 1855. These propellants were safer than the British powders which blew up so many imported Confederate "British" field guns. 8. Canadian militia numbered about 35,000 and were "rabble". Plus the Union can exploit the IRISH in Canada and in Ireland as well as the Quebecois. One thinks the Indian Rebellion was bad. Try a full blown Quebecois revolt. 9. Seapower is based on geography. The British have ONE suitable naval base in the New World... Halifax. That is number one target for an overland campaign from Maine. Also, if one looks at the American army navy campaign in the Western Department, one notices... a. David Dixon Porter. b. 90 days from keels to over 20 ironclad gunboats to dominate the Mississippi and the Ohio Rivers. c. Grant. d. 150,000 troops. e. Shiloh. f. Vicksburg. g. Farragut. h. Mobile Bay. Point? The St. Lawrence is a river. The Americans are good at riverine warfare and amphibious warfare: much better than the British ever were or will be. (Gordon again.) Those "amateur mobs" will do a number on the Ontario peninsula. That means Ontario, Montreal, Toronto and Quebec are gone. Those SOLDIERS are not Napoleonic. They are the product of the Mexican American War. This is a mistake that European scholars keep making about the American army of the American civil war. The officer corps is not replaying Napoleon. They are veterans of the Scott and Taylor campaigns. They have "First Nations" fighting experience. If anything, one should see how the Americans maneuver and deploy in northern Virginia in the Overland Campaign or in north Georgia to get an idea of what the British can expect. Or examine the river campaigns in western Tennessee or the fighting around Chattanooga, or the campaigns in Mississippi. The British are going to find combined arms a considerable surprise along with Union cavalry. In 1861/62 the union is also still highly dependent on imports of guns, lead, gunpowder and many other items for a large scale war. It can replace most if not all of them but only with considerable expense and time which it will struggle to win. A lot of information on this is in that link I posted a couple of days back which goes into a lot more details than I can. That site has some seriously deficient scholarship. (Refer to the Lincoln Seward Trent exchange.). Union imports were about 25% when the states outfitted their militias. Once the Federal arsenals and the private contracted arms works got going, that dropped to 5% around April 1862, for the Union. The Confederates maintained about a 60% importage throughout their brief existence. How is a blockaded union going to break that blockade then project that power several hundred miles to the north against by far the largest navy in the world and manage an amphibious invasion? Then protect and supply that force against Britain and Canada? Great Lakes / St Lawrence and overland from New England and upper New York State. The Bay of Fundy is a key sea-power point. How are the British going to power project steam ships into it? That is the question. The Americans are within steam range and can sustain steamships from their bases. The British are not. Slavery isn't an issue. Apart from you yourself arguing that Britain wasn't greatly concerned by it : a) This is a private matter between the US and the union over illegal actions taken by the US resulting in criticism by every leading European nation, including Imperial Russia which knows its in no shape for another war, especially against Britain and is likely shortly to trigger its own revolt in Poland which will keep it distracted anyway. I never suggested that Palmerston would do anything like recognise the south as he's too canny a character to do that. Although one danger for the union is that such a clash might prompt France to do so. You shouldn't underestimate the anger in Britain at Wilkes action and the potential threat it posed to British trade of allowing such a precedent to stand. 1. The Russians were aware of their weaknesses. They hid their navy in American ports during the Russian British contretemps of 1862. 2. And there were the French. 3. If the American diplomats were stirring up British factory workers and recruiting Poles and Germans to immigrate to America to fight to free the slaves, then I wonder in what other shenanigans they would engage? b) At the moment the USCW is clearly not about slavery. Lincoln has said so himself and removed an army commander who has sought to free slaves and currently made no move to end slavery at all. He dare not as it would mean serious unrest in the loyal slave states. It needs the bitterness of a long and bloody war, the successes in 1863 onward and possibly also the need, at least the desire, for black troops for Lincoln to be in a position to openly move against slavery. Plus the Nov 62 successes by radical Republicans. This slavery issue was why the Confederates rebelled and committed treason. And I must apologize for my thread derailment. If we want to discuss this frivolous topic further we should move it to an "Americans Take Canada after the Trent Affair Blows Up" thread. In the meantime, Robert E. Lee decides that Thomas Jefferson was a complete twit and Abraham Lincoln instead is an all right chap. |
|
: