Well I did that recently as part of a French record for the Napoleonic Wars and there is much more agreement than not. There are differences on outcomes to be sure but as long as you have a consistent standard it doesn't much matter. Britishbattles.com has a pretty good list of major British battles.
Depends on how you count things I guess. Our recent record is definitely not as good and it is not really our military's fault in most respects. A large part of being successful in war is knowing when and who to fight; ask Napoleon.
Of course this borders on the forbidden political zone.
I was just quoting Bill Murray in Stripes, he said we were 10-1-1, I think we won the Gulf War in 1991, so that would bring it up to 11-1-1. I know some could argue that we're still losing, but at that time we won the military action.Depends on how you count things I guess. Our recent record is definitely not as good and it is not really our military's fault in most respects. A large part of being successful in war is knowing when and who to fight; ask Napoleon.
That is correct but Clint was right and Bill was wrong about the last 2 up to that point. Korea was a draw a best and we all know about the loss.
That is correct but Clint was right and Bill was wrong about the last 2 up to that point. Korea was a draw a best and we all know about the loss.
Actually I didn't count them, I took Murray's quote at face value, except for Korea.
While I am not happy to admit it, technically the ACW was a win for the US. Ultimately is worked out to be a win on other levels but the short run was not very pleasant or appropriate to say the least.
Well, they preserved the Union against the alleged Rebels, so I guess you have to count it as a US victory, although did anyone really win?
which was what was puzzling Michael when he posted his comment.
Seriously good questions, perhaps for the same reasons that the Japanese were not as vilified as the Germans for their war crimes. I suppose that could be a topic of it's own, by I dare not go there for fear of the policitcal outcry that will destroy the thread, not to mention the suspensions and deletions that it would cause.Bill
Whilst reading over the posts on the thread I have just noticed your above comment as a part answer to my Chelmsford theory as an appositive to Custer's vilification and scapegoat for the US Indian policy. You state that Libbie Custer may have done a better job of keeping the myth alive than Custer ever could which I agree with in part because surely her ideal was to turn Custer into a shining knight of the Plains and it doesn't really answer why he now has the reputation of "murderous Indian killer" whilst hardly any historian describes Chelmsford as a "murderous Zulu killer"
We tend to see her couple of books on her husband as the main thrust of keeping the Custer myth alive until she died but she had a heck of a lot of support from all kinds of 19th century US Literati. In actual fact her books originated out of a suggestion from Frederick Whittaker- who had scribbled out the very first book on Custer's life a few months after the LBH- as a means of generating cash for her to survive as Custer had left her almost penniless and remember his salary stopped on the evening of the 25th June 1876.
Immediately following the massacre Custer was blamed for the whole disaster especially by the press (read the July 7th edition of the New York Herald to get the gist); Grant; Sherman and even Sheridan followed with very blunt comments that placed the cause of the debacle on Custer's shoulders. It was perfectly logical to most Americans to blame the defeat on the man who was in command and the Democratic press used the catastrophe to blame Grant's faltering Republican Administration as one would expect and it definitely put a damper on the 1876 centennial celebrations taking place across the country that July.
But then something extraordinary happened!
Poets; writers; painters; seized upon the story (long before Libbie who was too grief stricken for those first few years following his death) not to add to Custer's blame but somehow turned Custer's Last Stand into a powerful if somewhat anachronistic symbol of the American Centennial year. Custer became the sacrifice to the nation's progress- a martyred soldier of all the great struggles that had gone before and a beacon of those to come. The irony of the conquerors being conquered was completely lost on them instead the populace became blinded by this soldier alone with his brave troopers on a wilderness hilltop surrounded by a fiendish foe. Others followed in the media adding to the myth so that Custer and his final battle became a towering legend. As I have stated before it is perhaps the most single event from America's frontier past that most foreigners recognize. History proves it was not just Libbie who put GAC in the history books it had already started long before she put pen to paper to put bread on her table.
However, that I suppose still doesn't answer why he fell from grace and singularly still carries America's sins for the treatment of the native North American-whilst dear old joint instigator of a colonial war Frederick Thessiger hardly carries a Zulu blemish on his character
Reb
Great information as always Bob but you seem to have dismissed out of hand my notion of a difference based on the location of the events. So how many Zulu settlements were there in England anyway?Bill
Whilst reading over the posts on the thread I have just noticed your above comment as a part answer to my Chelmsford theory as an appositive to Custer's vilification and scapegoat for the US Indian policy. You state that Libbie Custer may have done a better job of keeping the myth alive than Custer ever could which I agree with in part because surely her ideal was to turn Custer into a shining knight of the Plains and it doesn't really answer why he now has the reputation of "murderous Indian killer" whilst hardly any historian describes Chelmsford as a "murderous Zulu killer"
.....
However, that I suppose still doesn't answer why he fell from grace and singularly still carries America's sins for the treatment of the native North American-whilst dear old joint instigator of a colonial war Frederick Thessiger hardly carries a Zulu blemish on his character
Reb
