Looking like things are going well. I am interested at the reference to Ringgold, who died in the real version of this war. Persumeably our friends know all about the timelines in which he didn't die.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Another excellent battle scene, Director. As always, God (or the devil whichever way you wish to see it) is in the details and you always make sure to add just enough. I particularly loved this line:
Very nice.
Nice post, D. How did you know that The Rock of Chickamauga is one of my favorite generals of the war?
Vann
Vann
An excellent scene... I especially enjoyed the first few paragraphs where you describe the necessity of military discipline.
Nice imagery.Director said:
Both installments were great. I enjoyed your description of Scott and the introduction of Buford (I keep picturing Sam Elliott
). Tossing around familiar names like Bragg and Thomas are a nice touch, too. You are really getting the feel for the period. Congrats.Thank God Scott has no political aspirations. Right?
Indeed. I only recognise the name, prior to reading this AAR at least, due to the theatrics that surrounded the mass hanging of the San Patricios at the Battle of Chapultepec.Director said:
Nonetheless, Buford and co have provided an impressive show of force. The narration of the battle was equally impressive.
At least Scott had no political aspirations. She could be the one Frost plans to work with next...
Vann
Vann
TheExecuter - thanks for the compliment. I did throw in multiple POVs because I couldn't quite see doing it any other way.
We can see that the Mexican cavalry never put their all into an attack and so were beaten more in morale than by casualties.
The next update is VERY tricky. I'm going to do something I NEVER, EVER do and 'speak' for a very famous man. In short, President Daniel Webster will address a joint session of Congress on Texas and Mexico.
Fulcrumvale - this is an excellent question that requires a slightly convoluted answer. In 'Vicky' terms Scott has three or four regular divisions (some with artillery) in Texas and about the same in New Orleans. There are two dragoon divisions in Oklahoma and another division out toward Oregon. The mobilization pool is (I think) 28 divisions at this point. Of course the Navy is vastly superior to the Mexican fleet and is able to transport 3 divisions by sea.
In 'real world' terms you should replace the word 'Division' with 'Brigade' or perhaps 'Regiment' and divide all the numbers by 5. So Scott has 5 or 6 thousand men in Texas and the country can mobilize almost 60,000 militia.
Maps and such will be posted soon.
Historically Scott landed at Vera Cruz and took Mexico City with 10 to 12 thousand men... absolutely absurd when you think on it. Even the Duke of Wellington said the expedition was going to be a disaster. To his credit the Duke also praised Scott as 'the greatest living general' when the invasion succeeded.
J. Passepartout - Ringgold was the father of the horse artillery and was killed in one of the first battles of the war. Here, he isn't dead, at least not yet. Casualties in the officer corps will be (historically) high.
coz1 - that comment may have been out of character for the Thomas we know from the Civil War but he is now decades younger. I thought it was forgivable.
Vann the Red - oh, I like a lot of generals from the Civil War. There are a large number of good men who had one bad day, or rose above their talent, or just weren't personally ambitious enough. Thomas was a brilliant general, an innovator in weapons, tactics, methods... he pretty much invented the self-contained headquarters wagon that mutated into the command caravan of the panzer divisions. He was a meticulous organizer, took excellent care of his men and was never caught at a disadvantage in battle. Think of a happy fusion of McClellan and Sherman... there's Thomas.
Like WInfield Scott, George H Thomas is one of the great 'forgotten' generals of America.
Scott is a New York Whig, with money, social position, public office (General of the Army) and such. His friends are all good solid Whigs too. Not the sort of material Frost would prefer, but she is getting a little less 'choosy' as the clock counts down.
Quintilian - Mexico actually had a good, solid professional army. They had gotten a fair bit of training from European instructors, too. But like European armies they limited their upper-level officer positions to the 'noble', the wealthy and the politically connected, so the army didn't fight up to its potential.
I think the reasons I gave for Mexican cavalry to go looting are legitimate. All cavalry loots and burns if you let them.
Lord Durham - If you've seen a pic of Buford then Elliot is a bit too thin in the jaw. I have to toss around familiar names - there's almost no officer in the Army that we don't know from the Civil War. Once the volunteers start pouring in the 'name dropping' will get even worse.
What, no recognition of Albert Sidney Johnston, formerly of the US Army and now a hard-nosed Texas Ranger?
Scott has had aspirations - he's already run for high office at least once and been decisively defeated. Who knows if military victory will be his key to election? Who knows if military victory is coming? The Mexican army is pretty big!
ComradeOm - I've read up on the 'San Patricios' and I swear I don't know what Scott could have done differently. He captured a bunch of Irish Catholics who had enlisted in the US Army, deserted, joined the Mexican Armyand then took up arms against the US. The court-martials were fair and hanging was the only possible sentence; Scott was too far from home to countenance desertion! But the episode DID spark a lot of Catholic-AntiCatholic hatreds.
Thank you for the compliment. Battle scenes are usually hard for me to write and this one was no exception.
We can see that the Mexican cavalry never put their all into an attack and so were beaten more in morale than by casualties.
The next update is VERY tricky. I'm going to do something I NEVER, EVER do and 'speak' for a very famous man. In short, President Daniel Webster will address a joint session of Congress on Texas and Mexico.
Fulcrumvale - this is an excellent question that requires a slightly convoluted answer. In 'Vicky' terms Scott has three or four regular divisions (some with artillery) in Texas and about the same in New Orleans. There are two dragoon divisions in Oklahoma and another division out toward Oregon. The mobilization pool is (I think) 28 divisions at this point. Of course the Navy is vastly superior to the Mexican fleet and is able to transport 3 divisions by sea.
In 'real world' terms you should replace the word 'Division' with 'Brigade' or perhaps 'Regiment' and divide all the numbers by 5. So Scott has 5 or 6 thousand men in Texas and the country can mobilize almost 60,000 militia.
Maps and such will be posted soon.
Historically Scott landed at Vera Cruz and took Mexico City with 10 to 12 thousand men... absolutely absurd when you think on it. Even the Duke of Wellington said the expedition was going to be a disaster. To his credit the Duke also praised Scott as 'the greatest living general' when the invasion succeeded.
J. Passepartout - Ringgold was the father of the horse artillery and was killed in one of the first battles of the war. Here, he isn't dead, at least not yet. Casualties in the officer corps will be (historically) high.
coz1 - that comment may have been out of character for the Thomas we know from the Civil War but he is now decades younger. I thought it was forgivable.
Vann the Red - oh, I like a lot of generals from the Civil War. There are a large number of good men who had one bad day, or rose above their talent, or just weren't personally ambitious enough. Thomas was a brilliant general, an innovator in weapons, tactics, methods... he pretty much invented the self-contained headquarters wagon that mutated into the command caravan of the panzer divisions. He was a meticulous organizer, took excellent care of his men and was never caught at a disadvantage in battle. Think of a happy fusion of McClellan and Sherman... there's Thomas.
Like WInfield Scott, George H Thomas is one of the great 'forgotten' generals of America.
Scott is a New York Whig, with money, social position, public office (General of the Army) and such. His friends are all good solid Whigs too. Not the sort of material Frost would prefer, but she is getting a little less 'choosy' as the clock counts down.
Quintilian - Mexico actually had a good, solid professional army. They had gotten a fair bit of training from European instructors, too. But like European armies they limited their upper-level officer positions to the 'noble', the wealthy and the politically connected, so the army didn't fight up to its potential.
I think the reasons I gave for Mexican cavalry to go looting are legitimate. All cavalry loots and burns if you let them.
Lord Durham - If you've seen a pic of Buford then Elliot is a bit too thin in the jaw. I have to toss around familiar names - there's almost no officer in the Army that we don't know from the Civil War. Once the volunteers start pouring in the 'name dropping' will get even worse.
What, no recognition of Albert Sidney Johnston, formerly of the US Army and now a hard-nosed Texas Ranger?
Scott has had aspirations - he's already run for high office at least once and been decisively defeated. Who knows if military victory will be his key to election? Who knows if military victory is coming? The Mexican army is pretty big!
ComradeOm - I've read up on the 'San Patricios' and I swear I don't know what Scott could have done differently. He captured a bunch of Irish Catholics who had enlisted in the US Army, deserted, joined the Mexican Armyand then took up arms against the US. The court-martials were fair and hanging was the only possible sentence; Scott was too far from home to countenance desertion! But the episode DID spark a lot of Catholic-AntiCatholic hatreds.
Thank you for the compliment. Battle scenes are usually hard for me to write and this one was no exception.
President Daniel Webster
The Doorkeeper draws in a deep breath and announces, “Mister Speaker! The President of the United States!” Behind him, the doors to the House chamber swing open and Daniel Webster enters. Ponderously he follows the Doorkeeper down the aisles between the desks, nodding occasionally to a Representative or Senator. The atmosphere is solemn, even funereal. All present know why the President has asked to speak to the joint session of Congress: war with Mexico can no longer be postponed. Half the Democratic members are jubilant at the prospect, the other half aghast at the consequences. The Whigs are uniformly against the war, tempered somewhat by their faith that Webster has done what he can to avert the crisis.
From tradition or habit the President wears the clothes his senatorial career made synonymous with his name: a blue coat with brass buttons over a buff vest, topped by a starched white collar stiff and high under his bulldog jowls. He carries no papers or notes; whatever Webster has to say will have been carefully prepared and then committed to memory. Despite his attention to his clothes Webster appears tired and frayed. Even his trademark coal-black hair, once thick and tousled, is gone thin and gray.
Mounting to the rostrum, the President shakes hands with the Speaker of the House, Howell Cobb of Georgia, and with Vice-President Fillmore, before turning to the lectern. The speech he will give will be regarded as one of Webster’s finest, and excerpts from it will be widely quoted. It is best therefore if we imagine ourselves in the gallery now, bending forward to peer over the railing at the famous man below, aged but still in possession of a vast rumbling stentorian voice, about to speak these words for the first time:
“Mister Speaker, honorable members of Congress, I come before you today to speak of matters of grave import for our nation and our people. I come not as a partisan, not as a Massachusetts man, nor yet as a Northern man. I come as an American, as the President of all Americans, interested not in faction, section or party, but as one who desires foremost the preservation of our most sacred trusts: the Union, the Constitution, and the Republic we here serve. Hear me for my cause.”
We can imagine the members of Congress leaning forward over their antiquarian desks as the President outlines the history of the conflict: settlement in Texas, the war of independence, the founding of a new Republic, the unrest that culminates in civil war and General Scott’s proclamation of martial law. He candidly admits the Dallas administration’s failed attempt to negotiate the purchase of California and New Mexico. President de Anaya had been willing to discuss the issue but that willingness led to his removal by the usurping General Santa Anna and an end to all discussion. Webster places no blame: the situation is as it is, he seems to say, in words that echo Henry Clay’s comments on Haiti.
“I speak not of the rightness or wrongness of the border issues in Texas. Such questions might be resolved by reasonable men in honorable ways. This country is no stranger to frank and open discourse with others. We have secured our present boundaries more by negotiation, compromise and diplomacy than by war. I say only that General Scott could not maintain the peace and security so devoutly desired by the inhabitants of Texas while soldiers of the Army of Mexico were allowed to pillage and plunder therein. I assert that, on the part of my administration, all honorable means of resolution of our disputes with Mexico have been exhausted.
“Efforts to encourage President Santa Anna to restrain his men have been met with rebuke and renewed atrocity. The usurper Santa Anna requires the Army of the United States to retreat from the soil of Texas as a precondition of any discussion. Sirs, I spurn that with the contempt that I pray such a demand will arouse in every patriot breast! Retreat! Sir, never while I live shall the American eagle furl her wings in such disgrace!”
Newspaper reports of the speech uniformly comment on the outcry and tumult that followed this portion of the speech. Webster apparently took advantage of the pause while the Speaker restored order to drink some water, and then settled back into familiar oratorical stance: one foot forward a pace, right hand behind his back, shoulders thrown back, head high. One can only imagine the great deep voice rising up through any remaining noise, black eyes blazing like kindled coals as he entered into the heart of his speech.
“I do not concern myself with Texas; her fate is for the people of Texas and the Congress of the United States to determine at some future time. I come here with an awful and terrible purpose, to call forth the sons of patriots in defense of the Union! The olive branch has been offered and scorned; Americans lie dead and wounded at the hand of Mexican aggression! We can no longer abide the insults and provocations of the Dictator Santa Anna. I know full well the gravity of my words and I own I am but a shadow of the great men who fought for liberty and forged a nation – a Union – of a sort unknown in this world before their time. But the preservation of our liberty – of our Union – demands of us that we take up this gauntlet. As our forefathers made a Republic and passed our heritage to us, so we must secure it – and renew it – by our dedication to their ideals, communicating these onward to our posterity in turn. Never did there devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than devolve upon us, for the preservation and extension of the blessings of the Constitution and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live under it.”
Another, shorter pause follows. Webster blots his streaming brow and rallies his strength for the close, all in breathless silence.
“Let us not exult in the false glory of war but rather see it for the great and terrible enterprise it is. May we instead take up this charge in humility and solemnity, but without fear or hesitation. I ask this Congress for its declaration that a state of war exists between this nation and the Republic of Mexico, and for its consideration of such measures as may be required for the successful prosecution of the war.
“If we must embrace war to preserve our liberties then let us do so; I look not to the coming of war but forward to the ending of it. We shall obtain much when our hateful labors are ended: a continent-wide Republic, secure in Union, washed on opposite shores by the great oceans of the world, beautiful – mighty – complete – the pride and envy of every citizen of the world!”
Last edited:
No better man to give that speech, and well portrayed at that. I am struck by much the same pleasure your Napoleon AAR gave me, Director - the wonderful attention to the period and it's people while also giving us this incredibly creative tale involving gizmos and gadgets, time travel and all else. An excellent mixture.
The USA has the will and the means to handily defeat AI Mexico. Somewhere, Frost is laughing manically.
Fulcrumvale said:
I think this will give Frost pause...I'm not particularly sure that this is her vision. If Webster can succeed in promulgating his America, that may thwart Frosts long-term plans. I, for one, will be looking to see how Frost manages to subvert the lofty goals of this new vision.
The vision is strikingly vast though is it not? A 'continent wide republic,' 'beautiful - mighty - complete.' I wonder how far that travels? Presumably as far as it can go?
Nice food for thought...
TheExecuter
Director: ...A glitter from a grove of trees caught his eye – rifle barrels, moving from the shoulder to the level...Those dismounted dragoons were in the open, on the flat and level, unprotected by earthworks...
were these two separate groups of men ? ?
Director: ...
On the heels of the cannon’s defiant blast Buford’s dragoons got off another volley, and with that the lancers had finally had enough.
good thing, too ! !
Director: ...If anyone has suggestions as to how I can better handle this please let me know.
this has to be some of the best writing i have ever seen ! ! so, don't worry about a thing, just keep on keeping on ! !
Director: ...coz1 - that comment may have been out of character for the Thomas we know from the Civil War but he is now decades younger. I thought it was forgivable.
which quote was this ? ? i re-read the passage, but did not see anything that "needed forgiveness" ! !
magnificent updates ! !
were these two separate groups of men ? ?
Director: ...
On the heels of the cannon’s defiant blast Buford’s dragoons got off another volley, and with that the lancers had finally had enough.
good thing, too ! !
Director: ...If anyone has suggestions as to how I can better handle this please let me know.
this has to be some of the best writing i have ever seen ! ! so, don't worry about a thing, just keep on keeping on ! !
Director: ...coz1 - that comment may have been out of character for the Thomas we know from the Civil War but he is now decades younger. I thought it was forgivable.
which quote was this ? ? i re-read the passage, but did not see anything that "needed forgiveness" ! !
magnificent updates ! !
I did not yet manage to sample Webster's speech, but I did read about the Texan Intervention and the ensuing little battle.
I know it's belated, but as I was reading the introduction of the Texas Ranger, I was wondering if that was the (future?) Confederate General from Shiloh (that was that Johnston, not the other, very similarly named general, right?). The description of him not being in uniform tugged at my brain: isn't that what he did during the Civil War, as well? Or am I just making things up (could easily be - sleep-deprived as I am)?
While I do not doubt your assertion that writing battles is hard for you, I do want to say that it doesn't show in the end result. Regardless of whether you're describing Napoleonic Guardsmen, Wallachian Legionaries, Directorate sailors or, now, early American troops, the battle scenes are always interesting, clear (to my mind, at least), exciting and plausible. Very enjoyable.
Hopefully, I'll have a chance to read Webster's oratory tomorrow.
I know it's belated, but as I was reading the introduction of the Texas Ranger, I was wondering if that was the (future?) Confederate General from Shiloh (that was that Johnston, not the other, very similarly named general, right?). The description of him not being in uniform tugged at my brain: isn't that what he did during the Civil War, as well? Or am I just making things up (could easily be - sleep-deprived as I am)?
While I do not doubt your assertion that writing battles is hard for you, I do want to say that it doesn't show in the end result. Regardless of whether you're describing Napoleonic Guardsmen, Wallachian Legionaries, Directorate sailors or, now, early American troops, the battle scenes are always interesting, clear (to my mind, at least), exciting and plausible. Very enjoyable.
Hopefully, I'll have a chance to read Webster's oratory tomorrow.
coz1 - I have been as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. Presuming to put words in the mouth of Daniel Webster is, at the very least, a sin of pride. All I can say is I did try very hard.
The opening is 'adapted' from his speech on the Compromise of 1850. At least one sentence in there is exactly lifted from that speech except for the words 'and extended'.
Thank you for the praise. I think the pace will continue to rise as we hurtle toward the first 'real' crisis, and we will have more attention devoted to our Knightly characters.
Fulcrumvale - yes, we get a Mexican war but with Webster as President it is unlikely the US will demand any territorial concessions. If the US wins, which is no foregone outcome.
TheExecuter - I deliberately phrased Webster's speech in a particular way. His America already extends from Oregon to Maine and Canada to Mexico, so he was not clear in his reference. Does he intend to follow the Whig line and refuse territory? Was that last bit just a rhetorical device? Will Scott get to Sweet Sue before the Mexican locomotive runs her over?
GhostWriter - I've had several people say they were confused, so I assume the fault is mine. Johnston and Thomas kept a group on the hill to attract attention while Buford led two dozen men on a flank attack. So yes, there were two groups of Americans:
/ (Buford's men in the grove)
/
_____xxxxxxxxxxx
_____xxxxxxxxxxx
_____xxxxxxxxxxx (Mexican lancers)
_____**II**II** (Rangers, dragoons and cannon on the hill)
Yep, the Americans put their foot in it. They expected 60 lancers and found almost five hundred... if the Mexican officers had been sharper or more determined the Americans would have been ridden over.
Thank you for the compliment - I am deeply touched. I am more excited about this piece than anything I've written in years.
If you think you've seen good stuff yet you had better hang on tight.
George Thomas was a rather dour, buttoned-down sort of professional officer. The quip, 'Throw them a ball, Watcomb, and let us see if they can dance!' is both a terrible pun and somewhat unlikely for 'solid George' to have said. Still... he's young, and in his first battle. That's my excuse.
Stuyvesant - yes, that is indeed Albert Sidney Johnston. And no, AS was not known for casual dress.
More battle scenes to come...
To All - Thank you for reading and commenting. Your interest, help and constructive criticism makes me want to write more, and better, and I thank you for it.
The opening is 'adapted' from his speech on the Compromise of 1850. At least one sentence in there is exactly lifted from that speech except for the words 'and extended'.
Thank you for the praise. I think the pace will continue to rise as we hurtle toward the first 'real' crisis, and we will have more attention devoted to our Knightly characters.
Fulcrumvale - yes, we get a Mexican war but with Webster as President it is unlikely the US will demand any territorial concessions. If the US wins, which is no foregone outcome.
TheExecuter - I deliberately phrased Webster's speech in a particular way. His America already extends from Oregon to Maine and Canada to Mexico, so he was not clear in his reference. Does he intend to follow the Whig line and refuse territory? Was that last bit just a rhetorical device? Will Scott get to Sweet Sue before the Mexican locomotive runs her over?
GhostWriter - I've had several people say they were confused, so I assume the fault is mine. Johnston and Thomas kept a group on the hill to attract attention while Buford led two dozen men on a flank attack. So yes, there were two groups of Americans:
/ (Buford's men in the grove)
/
_____xxxxxxxxxxx
_____xxxxxxxxxxx
_____xxxxxxxxxxx (Mexican lancers)
_____**II**II** (Rangers, dragoons and cannon on the hill)
Yep, the Americans put their foot in it. They expected 60 lancers and found almost five hundred... if the Mexican officers had been sharper or more determined the Americans would have been ridden over.
Thank you for the compliment - I am deeply touched. I am more excited about this piece than anything I've written in years.
If you think you've seen good stuff yet you had better hang on tight.
George Thomas was a rather dour, buttoned-down sort of professional officer. The quip, 'Throw them a ball, Watcomb, and let us see if they can dance!' is both a terrible pun and somewhat unlikely for 'solid George' to have said. Still... he's young, and in his first battle. That's my excuse.
Stuyvesant - yes, that is indeed Albert Sidney Johnston.
And no, AS was not known for casual dress.More battle scenes to come...
To All - Thank you for reading and commenting. Your interest, help and constructive criticism makes me want to write more, and better, and I thank you for it.
Wonderful speech, D. I assume you found something similar Webster had delivered and altered it for your purposes? I did wonder while reading if describing Santa Anna as a 'Dictator' might be anachronistic...
Vann
Vann
Interesting. Frost gets what she wants but not on her terms. There's going to be a major fight in Congress over the peace terms.
Well there's an interesting moral discussion there but I was alluding to the rather theatrical execution ceremony itself. When, during the Battle of Chapultepec, the American flag was raised above the citadel over thirty prisoners were simultaneously hanged in full view of the battle raging below. Personally I find that to be indefensible both morally and, apparently, legally. But then, as you say, Scott did have a theatrical streak.Director said:
On to the present, and a wonderful speech from Webster. Unlike Vann I found the Dictator reference fitting and it contrasted nicely with the republican sentiment of the speech. Much like it did in Roman days
For a reluctant warleader he has a good martial oratical tone when he wants to use it. Quite heartening stuff from Webster.
And interesting to see a few of the faces I am sure will come back again in a few years time when the civil war striles.
And interesting to see a few of the faces I am sure will come back again in a few years time when the civil war striles.
I've seen his picture, I was referring to the movie Gettysburg. I thought Elliott was excellent as Buford.Director said:
The speech was well handled, the oration captured the period nicely. The only thing that threw me off was the use of present tense. I've always hated it, but that's a personal quibble.
Another fine installment, P.