The biggest problem I have had with alternate histories such as Sterling's
Guns of the South, is the lack of accuracy in the historical analysis. For
those who believe that the South could have ever won, I recommend that they
look at the Civil War series that was on PBS. It is quite obvious that all the
North had to do was bring the other arm out from behind its back and bring the
full force of it military and industrial weight to the issue. The North had an
enourmous supply of troops and equipment to draw upon. General Lee knew that
he had to maintain the Army of the South as a force intact, because he did not
have any ready replacements. Once it was lost During the North's expeditionary
campeign, it was lost forever. Sterling's rifles would have been captured at
the cost of a Northern Brigade and then mass produced in the very Northern
factories that were the true cause of the Civil War. If the South had not
surrendered when it did, there would have been far worse devestation than
Sherman's March to the Sea. The only chance the South had to win was to
capture Washington or get the British fleet to lift the blockade and provide
assitance. Neither of these events were likely to occur. I too do not believe
that the United States, or what is left of it, would ever bend its knee to any
crown. All of this coming from a son of a Southerner...
----------
> From: Phillip E. Pournelle <pepourne@nps.navy.mil>
Even though this is kinda off topic...I guess I will through my two cents in.
First...I thought Turtledove wrote Guns of the South....maybe not. I agree
that there was no way the South could have won a military victory...It could
have possibly made Lincoln and his generals look bad enough to cause the North
to pull out of the war.
Christopher K Smith
> The biggest problem I have had with alternate histories such as
He did. I haven't read it, but a friend has been recommending it to me
strongly (then again, maybe she's a little biased, being from The South
herself?;). I've been reading his 'WorldWar:' series this week, which
I think is quite good. Been trying to think of DS2/SG2 scenarios/stats
for that era.
Mk
> Christopher K Smith wrote:
I read that book...Yes Turtledove wrote it...The south won because time
travellers from an alternate future came along, and gave the south
ak-47s, and all the ammo, and instant coffee/food packs they could eat.
They were able to make the war too expencive (on men/supplies) for the
north, so the north settled.
It rubs me the wrong way too...but the writting was pretty good.
> Donald Hosford wrote:
You guys are missing the point, the South wasn't trying to win a military
victory, but a political one. If they could make the war costly enough
politically for the North the partition of the country would be accepted as a
fait accompli. A victory at Gettysburg, for example would have been too
costly; politically speaking; to keep the war effort going. You must remember
that there was strong opposition to the war in the North all during that time.
In hindsight it looks inevitable, but at the time no one knew what would
happen.
> On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, Christopher K Smith wrote:
> Even though this is kinda off topic...I guess I will through my two
That depends on what you call a victory in this case. In Turtledove's Guns of
the South, all Lee did was to march into Washington, and even that was with
plenty of help from the South African mercenaries. However, the question of
would this end the war is up for debate.