Post by brittanymartinat on Oct 20, 2010 21:50:54 GMT -5
OK so i am having troubles with this. Let me get this straight. We start out with these 2 men, a General and a Colonel who, in my opinion must have had at least some common sense and war experience otherwise how would they have achieved those ranks? (unless of course, the Americans always had unfit people leading their armies in battle... 
). Anyways, so there are these two "leaders" who each have a fairly large army to command. Colonel Arnold's is approx. 1,100 men at the start and General Montgomery... well he had more men than the British. Then through a series of mishaps (i.e. poor battle training, Overland march ridiculously hard, starving men, etc.) They both end up with pathetic little armies who were unfit to fight by the the time they converge at Quebec city. Yet throughout the whole time they never made an effort to get in contact with each other and say "hey, maybe this isn't such a great idea". 
they still were naive enough to think that there was actually some sort of advantage to fighting more, strong, well trained soldiers, with less, weak, unfit, and poorly trained soldiers on the enemy's turf during whether that they were not used to. And everybody's okay with this?!?!? 
I have a hard time believing that out of everyone who was involved in planning with Montgomery and Arnold (it couldn't have been just them making this plan, there must've been others involved at some point) for the Americans, that nobody saw how incredibly naive, and frankly speaking, out right "stupid" this battle plan was. To use those armies to attack a fortified Canadian position during a snow storm? An okay plan? Please. 
). Anyways, so there are these two "leaders" who each have a fairly large army to command. Colonel Arnold's is approx. 1,100 men at the start and General Montgomery... well he had more men than the British. Then through a series of mishaps (i.e. poor battle training, Overland march ridiculously hard, starving men, etc.) They both end up with pathetic little armies who were unfit to fight by the the time they converge at Quebec city. Yet throughout the whole time they never made an effort to get in contact with each other and say "hey, maybe this isn't such a great idea". 
they still were naive enough to think that there was actually some sort of advantage to fighting more, strong, well trained soldiers, with less, weak, unfit, and poorly trained soldiers on the enemy's turf during whether that they were not used to. And everybody's okay with this?!?!? 
I have a hard time believing that out of everyone who was involved in planning with Montgomery and Arnold (it couldn't have been just them making this plan, there must've been others involved at some point) for the Americans, that nobody saw how incredibly naive, and frankly speaking, out right "stupid" this battle plan was. To use those armies to attack a fortified Canadian position during a snow storm? An okay plan? Please. 
