Gen Sherman...civil war...single handedly burnt atlanta to the ground and wrecked half the state on his march to savanna. Guy was ruthless AF, like a george patton.
Bit of a nutcase. On the winning side so he gets lionized but he is the man who introduced 'total war' to the united states. Personally I think he was a destructive guy that liked killing people and burning things. The other perspective is 'he had to to win the war'. Whether the war was justified is another mmatter, but at the time the north had all but won.
Thank you for reminding everyone here he’s not exactly a “hero.”
He wasn’t burning commies in a hostile shithole.
He was slaying his countrymen in the United States, in a war the North started. I say this as a Yankee who admires Ulysses S Grant. Sherman was quite unnecessarily cruel to dissenting Americans who weren’t Confederate Troops...
As for the rest of the comment: Sherman said "War is all hell.", and it was stated within the context of getting people (particularly elite southerners) to finally get the clue and quit glorifying it. He was fairly successful at this but unfortunately not completely so (because the malady had different roots). Although he and his army were not quite so awful as many like to hyperbolize...it was one of his genius moves: make oneself into the bogeyman...your enemy will practically defeat themselves.
While it is hard to document everything, and such a large army on the move is going to have breakdowns of order, the fact that we have a large number of houses and farmsteads dating from pre-CW times still standing in the areas that army went through does give evidential credence to the claim that it wasn't half as bad as people said it was. In short, it was a great piece of propaganda -- desertion rates within the Confederate armies went up; localities that were or thought they would be in Sherman's path started hording supplies as well...cut an army off from its manpower and supplies, and you are in control; you win.
The manpower was drained from the Confederate armies through desertion, not the Union. And considering the operational abilities of the CW era soldier (and the equipment, supplies used), I don't think it's charitable to call any of them "a handful of boozers". I would challenge anyone today to do even half as well as them with the equipment, supplies, and medical care of the time...we'd probably croak in a few days or possibly hold out for a couple of weeks, truth be told).
Other than that, I don't know what you're trying to suggest (modern military hardware has nothing to do with CW battles). The portion of the Mississippi Division that went on the March was around 60,000 men; that's still a considerable force, and it was spread out and foraging off the land -- and still evidence suggest that it did not engage in the amounts of destruction it was later (and at that time according to Confederate press) accused of. I would use as referral the campaigns of Napoleonic armies in Europe, and the destruction caused by them as a better litmus test. (the Penisular War was particularly nasty; both sides being incredibly guilty)
Biden went down to Georgia, he was looking for a vote to steal.
He was in a bind cause he was way behind but he had a Chinese deal
What's the story with this guy?
Gen Sherman...civil war...single handedly burnt atlanta to the ground and wrecked half the state on his march to savanna. Guy was ruthless AF, like a george patton.
Nice.
Probably the civil war general who burned Atlanta.
Yup. That he was.
General William Sherman
The cliff's notes version is that he basically set everything on fire as he ripped through Georgia.
Why did he set everything on fire?
Bit of a nutcase. On the winning side so he gets lionized but he is the man who introduced 'total war' to the united states. Personally I think he was a destructive guy that liked killing people and burning things. The other perspective is 'he had to to win the war'. Whether the war was justified is another mmatter, but at the time the north had all but won.
Thank you for reminding everyone here he’s not exactly a “hero.”
He wasn’t burning commies in a hostile shithole.
He was slaying his countrymen in the United States, in a war the North started. I say this as a Yankee who admires Ulysses S Grant. Sherman was quite unnecessarily cruel to dissenting Americans who weren’t Confederate Troops...
It’s fucking war... brutality is a given.
Total war against fellow Americans...
I’m not as casual about my countrymen’s suffering.
war is hell
We’ll make Georgia howl again!!
Do you think the cheaters know the howling was literal? For anyone wondering what that sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvfDbODi-vQ
I heard neckties would be involved.
Sherman neckties would be what the railroad rails were subject to.
His army looted, raped, and slaughtered the southern logistical base (slaves helped). It was why General Sherman quipped, "War is hell."
Yes, I know -- I was making a bit of a funny.
As for the rest of the comment: Sherman said "War is all hell.", and it was stated within the context of getting people (particularly elite southerners) to finally get the clue and quit glorifying it. He was fairly successful at this but unfortunately not completely so (because the malady had different roots). Although he and his army were not quite so awful as many like to hyperbolize...it was one of his genius moves: make oneself into the bogeyman...your enemy will practically defeat themselves.
Not everything got documented.
I'm sure there were freebooters tagging along the fringe of the army.
While it is hard to document everything, and such a large army on the move is going to have breakdowns of order, the fact that we have a large number of houses and farmsteads dating from pre-CW times still standing in the areas that army went through does give evidential credence to the claim that it wasn't half as bad as people said it was. In short, it was a great piece of propaganda -- desertion rates within the Confederate armies went up; localities that were or thought they would be in Sherman's path started hording supplies as well...cut an army off from its manpower and supplies, and you are in control; you win.
Well, the population wasn't as large and capable as it is now.
No motor vehicles for mounted troops, no rapid fire small arms like an M4, and no electronic communications like texts to smartphones.
Hard to gather manpower for destruction when you're only a handful of boozers.
The manpower was drained from the Confederate armies through desertion, not the Union. And considering the operational abilities of the CW era soldier (and the equipment, supplies used), I don't think it's charitable to call any of them "a handful of boozers". I would challenge anyone today to do even half as well as them with the equipment, supplies, and medical care of the time...we'd probably croak in a few days or possibly hold out for a couple of weeks, truth be told).
Other than that, I don't know what you're trying to suggest (modern military hardware has nothing to do with CW battles). The portion of the Mississippi Division that went on the March was around 60,000 men; that's still a considerable force, and it was spread out and foraging off the land -- and still evidence suggest that it did not engage in the amounts of destruction it was later (and at that time according to Confederate press) accused of. I would use as referral the campaigns of Napoleonic armies in Europe, and the destruction caused by them as a better litmus test. (the Penisular War was particularly nasty; both sides being incredibly guilty)
The intro of Timecop™ says otherwise.
I was referring to the hangers on for Sherman's Army of the Tennessee during the March to the Sea.
IMO the Thirty Years War was far more destructive in the pre-mechanized era of war.
I was going to ask if you slept with Georgia, maybe go see a doctor
KeK
He looks like Jack Nicholson in The Shining.
All work and no play makes Sherman a dull boy.
14th amendment.