Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Grant smoked because he liked smoking, it was not limited to times when odors needed to be masked. Grant was a pipe smoker when the war began and continued to be one until after the victories at Forts Henry and Donelson. Admirers began sending him congratulatory cigars and Grant switched from his pipe to the free stuff. Word got out that he was a cigar smoker and this caused more free ones to be sent. It wasn't odor, it was economy.
Grant smoked because he liked smoking, it was not limited to times when odors needed to be masked. Grant was a pipe smoker when the war began and continued to be one until after the victories at Forts Henry and Donelson. Admirers began sending him congratulatory cigars and Grant switched from his pipe to the free stuff. Word got out that he was a cigar smoker and this caused more free ones to be sent. It wasn't odor, it was economy.
Hi GS, I didn't limit it to times, of masking odor either I believe he enjoyed it too. I'm reiterating what I've learned while visiting his house in Galena, Illinois and read on sites for history and Grant.
I'm sure the many pictures/paintings of him with a cigar, promoted the items well. As well as supplied him with 'samples'
Hi GS, I didn't limit it to times, of masking odor either I believe he enjoyed it too. I'm reiterating what I've learned while visiting his house in Galena, Illinois and read on sites for history and Grant.
I'm sure the many pictures/paintings of him with a cigar, promoted the items well. As well as supplied him with 'samples'
Tia Dalma
Yeah I've never heard of that in all my civil war readings(masking odor). Sounds like an internet rumour type thing. Although - he was notoriously weak stomached. In his autobiography he mentions in Shiloh he couldn't sleep because of the sound of the nearby wounded and had to move.
That's true, Grant was squeamish about the sight of blood, it is well reported that he ordered his beef cooked well done because he didn't like seeing the juices flowing when he ate.
But this cigar/odor idea makes little sense. The man smoked 20 cigars a day on days when there were no bodies around to generate any odors, and there were a lot more days like that then there were days with battles and bodies.
So...if he smokes 20 cigars a day when there is no odor needing to be masked, and he smokes 20 a day when there is odor, you can't argue that he was smoking to mask the odors.
He killed him...as he thought Aetius wanted to be a military dictator like Julius Ceasar[/i]-seems to be a theme of war throughout history
LOL.....yeap that theme has happened alot thru out the ages.
However as for the Roman Empire (not the republic) there was only one true ''Military Dictator'' for it's 500 years as Julius Ceasar was about it. Oh there were other generals who assumed power but always as an emperor and not military dictator like for example general/emperor Vespasian 69 A.D. and general/emperor Severus 193 A.D.
Would general Aetius had assumed a dictatorship if Valentinian III had not killed him.........who knows as my gut tells me he realised that Rome was at it's historical end and he may have done so to try to protect what he could but he would had probably only controlled Italy proper as the provinces were already gone in 454 at his death as they were totally surrounded by all these different barbarian peoples i.e. the Franks in Gaul, the Vandals in North Africa, the Visigoths in Spain, the Ostrogoths in the western balkans and Burgundians and Alamanni in Germany as what little was left forever disolved 20 years later in 476 A.D.
Yeap a tragic ending for him but he is my all time favorite general in roman history. Oh yeah the military got it's revenge as the imperial guard assassinated emperor Valentinian the following year as a revenge for General Aetius.
At the risk of incurring all kinds of rath, and I would never call him a hero, but I have always felt sorry for Judas. Things didn't work out the way he planned, but being an intregal part of the story, the world might be a very different place if he had not acted in the manner in which he did. Whether that would be a good thing or not depends on your point of view.
Another good candidate for this thread is Chief Black Kettle of the Cheyenne. His luck was so bad that he managed to be present at two of the three largest maascres of Plains Indians by whites. The ironic thing is that Black Kettle was a peacemaker who devoted himself to trying to prevent war between Indians and whites. He recognized the military superiority of white civilization and talked a large segment of the Cheyenne into peacefully accepting the treaty which confined them to reservations. A different element of the Cheyenne called the Dog Soldiers, refused to abide by the treaty and launched murderous raids on white settlements. To punish them, the Colorado militia attacked Black Kettle's peaceful village at Sand Creek. Black Kettle flew both the American flag and a white flag outside his teepee, but this counted for nothing as 163 Cheyenne, mostly women, children and elderly men, were murdered, including Black Kettle's wife. He managed to escape.
Despite this outrage, Black Kettle still worked for peace, signing two more treaties and accepting an even smaller amount of reservation land. He relocated to another peaceful village along the Wa****a River, and was there when it was attacked by Custer and elements of the 7th Cavalry, again to punish Indians that they could find for the acts of ones that they could not catch. This time Black was shot to death along with another 100 or so women and children.
At the risk of incurring all kinds of rath, and I would never call him a hero, but I have always felt sorry for Judas. Things didn't work out the way he planned, but being an intregal part of the story, the world might be a very different place if he had not acted in the manner in which he did. Whether that would be a good thing or not depends on your point of view.
"For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: 'It might have been'"
-- John Greenleaf Whittier (from Maud Muller)
I, too, thought of Judas. He was a man of great ability and promise, but serious character defects led to his tragic fall. Of the twelve disciples he may have been the most gifted, but ambition and greed overcame his rational thinking. He is certainly one of history's most tragic figures.
BTW...the censored portion of my previous post referenced the Wah-Shee-Ta river, which is how it is pronounced but not how it is spelled. Apparently the board censoring mechanism is unable to distinguish four letters by themselves and four letters within a word.
Isn't this rather absurd?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it was both.
I believe he enjoyed it too. I'm reiterating what I've learned while visiting his house in Galena, Illinois and read on sites for history and Grant.
