Want this question answered?
Sherman's strategy was an example of indirect approach and is probably why the Union won. Up until Sherman cut loose the Union's primary strategy was direct approach which resulted in huge loss of life and little progress towards victory. Sherman's action destroyed the confederacy's ability to move supplies or communicate. His strategy dislocated the confederacy and they were unable to effectively respond to the Union's actions during Sherman's advance. Primarily the Unions issue was that it relied too heavily on a new technology to enforce an old dictum of massing forces. This tied the Union to the rail roads and made them predictable. It also made them vulnerable because with the mass of force they developed they were susceptible to strikes against their supply/communication lines. Basically, the Union was more powerful and was playing it safe. The idea originally was consolidate the force, strike a direct blow, and crush the enemy to win the war. This is a strategy that through out history has led to failure of the often more powerful military. However, I think that it appeals to inexperienced leaders and generals egos because the dreams of such a victory are imagined to be not only fast, but glorious. However, this strategy in reality often allows a weaker army to use an indirect approach to check the more powerful army. Sherman recognized the folly of this approach and changes the make up of his army. Sherman moved away from his supplies and lives off of the land. To live off the hand he had to spread out his forces. He used four to six columns and his forging parties acted as a screen. Since he was not tied to a supply line, and his army was dispersed and moving in multiple columns, the confederate generals could not predict where Sherman would strike. Therefore they could not consolidate there forces or economically prepare defenses. Furthermore, since Sherman's action moved through the confederacy it impacted the families of the confederate solders. This split the confederate soldier's loyalties making them choose between fighting for the confederates or protecting their family. My answer is based on my interpretation of B.H. Liddell Hart's writing on the subject of strategy and indirect approach. Sherman's "horns of a dilemma" approach fits into Harts "indirect approach" strategy. In and of itself it seem like a simple and logical approach, but history proves such logic is too often ignored.
Grant's Overland campaign, which was based on attrition. (Grant had ended the system of prisoner exchange.) Meanwhile Sheridan and Sherman were carrying out scorched-earth operations in Virginia and Georgia, which helped to starve the Confederate troops in the field. As these operations were seen to be successful, along with Farragut's liberation of Mobile, the Northern public began to take heart, and voted Lincoln back in November 1864. After that, there was no hope for the Confederates.
The worst one was Andersonville, Georgia. Confederate troops, including the prison-guards, were on half-rations, so there wasn't going to be much left over for the Unionprisoners. It led to gang warfare, murder, even cannibalism - worse than anything seen on a battlefield.
Total war is war in which a country mobilizes all of their people and resources. During the American Civil War examples can be seen in General Sheridan's stripping of southern vital supplies at the battle of Shenandoah. The most well known practitioner of total war in the civil war however is General Sherman's "March to the sea" because he was deliberately destroying all of the south's resources both civilian and military, instead of just military.
No, I have never seen a 1943 Florin stamped into a bottle cap, but I have seen plenty of other coins stamped into bottle caps.
I have no idea. It might be possible in the future.
Read again and you might figure it out.
Yes, it has been seen in georgia many times.
Orion is visible in Georgia (USA) in the winter.
Georgia was seen as the "heart" or keystone of the Confederate States. The bustling new city of Atlanta was not yet Georgia's capital, but it was a busy railhead and an important supply depot and industrial center. Taking Georgia would sever the Atlantic portion of the Confederacy from the Gulf states, and make it virtually impossible to transport food and materiel between the two regions. Grant and Sherman had a careful strategy in going after Georgia. In March 1864 they planned that Sherman would first conquer the Confederate forces around Chattanooga and Atlanta (Army of the Tennessee), then swing north through the Carolinas and meet Grant and Meade's people in Virginia. This was approximately what happened over the next year, although Lee surrendered at Appomattox while Sherman was still a few hundred miles to the south.
The big dipper.
That was literally THE vaguest question I have ever seen in my entire life.
what types of things might you have seen in timbuktu during the height of the songhai kingdom
I doubt it, I have only seen 2 emo people in Georgia, and they were at the Mall of Georgia, I wish there were more of them :(
Yes, the state of Georgia is a physical place that can be visited, it can be seen, it can be touched. Georgia is a concrete noun.
Things Not Seen was created in 2002.
The ISBN of Things Not Seen is 0399236260.