View single post by Wrap10
 Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 12:39 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sat Jul 28th, 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 97

  back to top

5fish wrote: Does being aggressive mean you are audacious for Hood was aggressive so his he audacious or reckless. Is not audacity more about being a risk taker then being aggressive.
Taking risks, being aggressive, being audacious - Personally I think they can be one and the same. For me the question isn't whether Lee was any of these. He clearly was. The question is, did he sometimes cross the line from being aggressive or taking risks, to being reckless? I think he clearly did so on occasion. So I don't question that he was an audacious commander. I just think he tended to overdo it.

Would we be saying Lee's audaious if the union had caught wind to Lee's Flanking move at Chancellorsville or just call him a dam fool.

That's a very good point. But I think we might still call him a little of both. Or at least, we'd probably refer to the battle as either a foolish or daring gamble, made by a very audacious commander. In fact, you might refer to it that way in any case, even though it worked. Lee took calculated risks, there is no question about that to me. But I do sometimes wonder about his calculations.


 Close Window