Master and Commander (movie)

[WSUCougar]

Although I'd have to say my top movie (in terms of anticipation) is still LOTR: The Return of the King, I am also eagerly awaiting Master and Commander starring Russell Crowe. If you're not familiar with the premise, Crowe is a British naval captain during the Napoleanic Wars, fighting against the French. The film is based on the Jack Aubrey series of books written by Patrick O'Brian. I loved the books, but would be thrilled about the movie in any case, since it covers the age of fighting sail, which is probably my favorite aspect of military history.

[MrBug708]

It looks like a great movie. I am also waiting for Alamo

[KWhit]

I like to play "Master and Commander" with my wife. "Moby Dick" is fun too... "There she blows!"

[QuikSand]

$60

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by QuikSand
$60
I don't get it. :confused:

[QuikSand]

$60 = How much would you have to pay me to sit through that movie. My standard way of measuring the majority of movies I have yet to see.

[WSUCougar]

Perhaps you could share your justification for said $60 viewing fee?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Perhaps you could share your justification for said $60 viewing fee?

Just doesn't look like my cup of tea, I don't much care for the period, and I don't much care for Mr. Crowe. I value my time pretty highly - $60 is a reasonably low total, by comparison.

F'rinstance, how about a flick like Radio? $250, minimum.

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Just doesn't look like my cup of tea, I don't much care for the period, and I don't much care for Mr. Crowe. I value my time pretty highly - $60 is a reasonably low total, by comparison.

F'rinstance, how about a flick like Radio? $250, minimum.

Well unfortunately, we live in a capitalist society, and while YOU may think your time is worth that much money, the market may disagree. The market says your 2 hours to see Radio, which was probably given 4 stars by the reviewer at WPOS in Montana, is worth negative 7 bucks. Give or take local market conditions.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Tigercat
Well unfortunately, we live in a capitalist society, and while YOU may think your time is worth that much money, the market may disagree. The market says your 2 hours to see Radio, which was probably given 4 stars by the reviewer at WPOS in Montana, is worth negative 7 bucks. Give or take local market conditions.

FALSE. Two hours of my time is worth a hell of a lot more than seven bucks. Two hours of my time is worth what someone will pay me for it... and by deciding to spend my time in some function other than earning that money, I choose to forego those earnings -- and am essentially "paying" that amount to not be working. The market does indeed set the price for my time - but it has nothing at all to do with the amount that I have to pay to spend that non-productive time in a theater watching a particular movie.

[Fritz]

god, Mrs. must have laid out a fortune getting Quik to the alter.

[Senator]

Did someone say the Alamo? The last of my boyhood heroes destroyed by the PC crowd.

[Tigercat]

Originally posted by QuikSand
FALSE. Two hours of my time is worth a hell of a lot more than seven bucks. Two hours of my time is worth what someone will pay me for it... and by deciding to spend my time in some function other than earning that money, I choose to forego those earnings -- and am essentially "paying" that amount to not be working. The market does indeed set the price for my time - but it has nothing at all to do with the amount that I have to pay to spend that non-productive time in a theater watching a particular movie.

I see, well I don't think movie theatres will ever pay you back for your "opporitunity costs." So eventually your gonna have to suck it in and lose money regardless. Because if you could be losing as much as 250 bucks or more for ANY movie you want to see, your almost going to be sore out of luck if you see a movie produced by God himself.

And if you do ever get a movie theatre to pay you, let me know. I am sure there are plenty of economic profs that wouldn't mind writing chapters and papers on the QS-consumer-gets-paid-economic-exception.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by MrBug708
It looks like a great movie. I am also waiting for Alamo

I am looking forward to both of these as well. I am not certain about the Alamo though. A friend says he did some research on the movie, and some have been critical of it for being too PC. You know us evil Anglos exploiting the Mexican people, stealing their land and such. I almost blew soda all over the person in front of me when I saw the Alamo preview, and they said that the Mexican Army was the "Best army in the world". The U.S. Army at that time had divisions better than the entire Mexican Army. In fact we sent one down there, and kicked their army's collective ass.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Senator
Did someone say the Alamo? The last of my boyhood heroes destroyed by the PC crowd.

Senator,

did you see the special on the Alamo on the History channel last month? At least I think it was the History Channel...anyway, where do you stand on the validity of the journal that claimed Crockett was taken prisoner?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Tigercat
I see, well I don't think movie theatres will ever pay you back for your "opporitunity costs." So eventually your gonna have to suck it in and lose money regardless. Because if you could be losing as much as 250 bucks or more for ANY movie you want to see, your almost going to be sore out of luck if you see a movie produced by God himself.

And if you do ever get a movie theatre to pay you, let me know. I am sure there are plenty of economic profs that wouldn't mind writing chapters and papers on the QS-consumer-gets-paid-economic-exception.

I suspect you're either (a) missing the point of the how-much-would-they-have-to-pay-me concept, or (b) just slightly too big for your britches here.

Either way, your point is taken. Funny, it's been a pretty regular pattern... I identify movies that someone would have to pay me to see, then nobody does, and then I don't see them. Hmm, evernybody wins, it seems.

Thanks for the economics lesson, though.

[Malificent]

While Master and Commander would not normally be my thing, it is directed by Peter Weir, one of my all time favorite directors, so assuming I can find a babysitter, I will probably make my way out to see it.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by QuikSand
...and I don't much care for Mr. Crowe.

Interesting. Were you not a big fan of Gladiator? L.A. Confidential? The Insider?

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I suspect you're either (a) missing the point of the how-much-would-they-have-to-pay-me concept, or (b) just slightly too big for your britches here.

Either way, your point is taken. Funny, it's been a pretty regular pattern... I identify movies that someone would have to pay me to see, then nobody does, and then I don't see them. Hmm, evernybody wins, it seems.

Thanks for the economics lesson, though. I heart Quik. :)

[Anthony]

i like Crowe. Gladiator is my #2 favorite movie of all time. however, like QS, i have some gripes with this movie:

1. i'm just not feeling the time period that the movie is based on.

2. i'm really not into movies that take place in ships/at sea. all of the sets are limited to basically the ship.

3. i don't like Crowe with long blond hair. he doesn't give off that "starving, hungry actor" vibe anymore. he's more like Russell Hollywood now. my true test of what is good acting is when you watch someone on the screen you don't think of that actor in a costume, you see only the character. Maximus was not Russell Crowe in a tunic and a Ceasar haircut. if you ask me his whole "i'm a god" thing started around A Beautiful Mind. to me it was just Crowe with a bad American accent being very aware of himself. i still like him.

i'll probably wind up buying it on DVD, but as far as going through the whole movie experience, no, i just don't see it happening. too many other great movies on my "to-see" list.

[GrantDawg]

Master and Commander is a movie I would like to see, but seeing as my movie going has been severely curtailed recently, It'll be a renter.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by QuikSand

F'rinstance, how about a flick like Radio? $250, minimum.

$250? Damn, Quik. you come cheap these days. I wouldn't see Radio for anything under $1,000. Movie looks god awful and insulting.

Am I the only one who thinks Gladiator wasn't that good of a film? The pre-battle opening scene was fantastic, one of the best opening scenes I've scene, but the battle was quite a let down. The fight scenes in the coliseum were all quite good as well, but all that behind-the-scenes political nonsense between the Emperor and the Senate and all of that was horribly written crap.

Russel Crowe is cool in it and it has a lot of fun little lines to quote at appropriate times and the like, but just not that great. A poorman's Braveheart, I reckon.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
$250? Damn, Quik. you come cheap these days. I wouldn't see Radio for anything under $1,000. Movie looks god awful and insulting.

Am I the only one who thinks Gladiator wasn't that good of a film? The pre-battle opening scene was fantastic, one of the best opening scenes I've scene, but the battle was quite a let down. The fight scenes in the coliseum were all quite good as well, but all that behind-the-scenes political nonsense between the Emperor and the Senate and all of that was horribly written crap.

Russel Crowe is cool in it and it has a lot of fun little lines to quote at appropriate times and the like, but just not that great. A poorman's Braveheart, I reckon.

I can't stand Gladiator. Joquin (or however you spell it) was horrible and I don't care for Crowe either. And the script was pretty silly. What was the progression of the story. Crowe fights in a small arena against ______. He then fights in a bigger arena against _____. Finally, he fights in a super-big arena against tigers or chariots or whichever the last one was.

Yawn.

[Glengoyne]

I consider Gladiator as a sort of "eye-candy" feature. I watch it when I want to see some pretty good looking action scenes. I do like Crowe however. The Insider is a movie I can always watch.

I sometimes watch the first 15 minutes of "The Patriot" to sate my urge for very cool violence.

Another movie with pretty cool action, and some cinematic grandeur is "Last of the Mohicans".

[Leonidas]

I'm a big fan of all those O'Brian books but am hopeful they pull this off, while worried they won't. Crowe is a great enough actor to maybe pull it off, but they seriously miscast the Doctor. The actor playing him is taller than Crowe. It's one of the main points of character development in the series, the contrast in physiques and personalities between Aubrey and Maturin. You just can't have Maturin towering over Aubrey.

I am also worried about the fact they are making a story from the 1st and 10th books of a series. Granted, they at least were smart enough to choose the very two best books of the whole series, but I really wonder how they can maintain great integrity to the books when they are combining stories that actually occurred over a decade apart.

I am thinking about taking my whole shop there for one of those "professional development" sessions one afternoon. The books themselves make for a great read of military history and leadership.

[wbonnell]

What's Obrian's reputation for historical accuracy? Is this movie going to be "hard" history so to speak?

[Buccaneer]

Can someone tell me what is the time period and historical event of M&C?

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Can someone tell me what is the time period and historical event of M&C?

1805- Napoleonic Wars

[Buzzbee]

There was a special last night on the History Channel, I think. History vs. Hollywood. I only saw a brief portion of it but the were discussing what types of food the sailors really would have eaten and what types of weapons they actually would have had. I meant to start a thread about it this morning, but forgot. I honestly thought Bucc would have already been familiar with it. They showed a few clips from the movie and the effects seemed pretty impressive (cannon balls blasting a ship apart).

In regard to Gladiator I thought it sucked. I honestly do NOT understand how Crowe could win best actor. He had what, a dozen or two lines in the whole damned thing? It wasn't a poor man's Braveheart. It was a poor man's Terminator 2, just set way back in the past, and without all the special effects, and without a story line, and without Linda Hamilton.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Buzzbee

In regard to Gladiator I thought it sucked. I honestly do NOT understand how Crowe could win best actor. He had what, a dozen or two lines in the whole damned thing? It wasn't a poor man's Braveheart. It was a poor man's Terminator 2, just set way back in the past, and without all the special effects, and without a story line, and without Linda Hamilton.

I agree- Gladiator is vastly overrated.

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by QuikSand
FALSE. Two hours of my time is worth a hell of a lot more than seven bucks. Two hours of my time is worth what someone will pay me for it... and by deciding to spend my time in some function other than earning that money, I choose to forego those earnings -- and am essentially "paying" that amount to not be working. The market does indeed set the price for my time - but it has nothing at all to do with the amount that I have to pay to spend that non-productive time in a theater watching a particular movie.

QuikSand


Member ID: 66
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 11565 [10.35/day]


Damn. QS's time at FOFC must be pretty valuable. Either that or he is getting paid to read and participate on this board. :D

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Buzzbee
QuikSand


Member ID: 66
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 11565 [10.35/day]


Damn. QS's time at FOFC must be pretty valuable. Either that or he is getting paid to read and participate on this board. :D

LOL. I thought the very same thing when I found this thread.

I've always wondered if Quicksand was actually Jim Gindin. I guess there's been plenty of evidence to refute that theory, but I bet there's an alter-ego lurking around here somewhere.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Senator,

did you see the special on the Alamo on the History channel last month? At least I think it was the History Channel...anyway, where do you stand on the validity of the journal that claimed Crockett was taken prisoner?

I think you are talking about the show "Unsolved History" on the Discovery Channel.

That was a great show (Unsolved History is one of my favorite shows on TV right now) and they brought up some compelling arguements.

To me, the EXACT way he died doesn't matter a whole lot. Captured or not, he died at the Alamo fighting to keep it in US hands.

TroyF

[IMetTrentGreen]

for once, i agree with senator. its the most famous event in my state's history outside of maybe teh jfk assissination, and i have no interest in seeing it. f disney

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by TroyF

To me, the EXACT way he died doesn't matter a whole lot. Captured or not, he died at the Alamo fighting to keep it in US hands.
TroyF

U.S. or the Republic of Texas?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by KWhit
I can't stand Gladiator. Joquin (or however you spell it) was horrible and I don't care for Crowe either. And the script was pretty silly. What was the progression of the story. Crowe fights in a small arena against ______. He then fights in a bigger arena against _____. Finally, he fights in a super-big arena against tigers or chariots or whichever the last one was.

Yawn.

There were also some huge whoppers in that film. Now, granted, for every movie you need to suspend disbelief somewhat. However, asking me to believe that Maximus is seriously wounded, is bleeding profusely, and then somehow manages to fucking WALK FROM GERMANY TO ITALY is a little tiny bit too much for me to stomach. I also did not care for Crowe's performance. I thought it was pretty much just act like you have a big dick performance typical of Sly Stalone or Arnold. He was good in The Insider, very good in A Beautiful Mind, just acceptable in LA Confidential (an overrated film in my book), and pretty much average to below in everything else he has been in.

Oh yes, I have no interest in Master & Commander.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Can someone tell me what is the time period and historical event of M&C?
To elaborate a bit further, England and France were at war almost continually from 1792-1815, with only small breaks from negotiated peace agreements. France went from a revolution against its monarchy in the 1790s to a republic to an empire under Napoleon Bonaparte. All the while England and a variety of European powers (Austria, Russia, Prussia, and many smaller ones) fought against the French.

The Royal Navy was as great a military force for the British at sea as the French Grande Armee was on land. Much like the Germans would try to do prior to World War I, the French tried to build up their fleet to match the British. This was a futile effort; while the French could and did build good ships (their frigates in particular were known for their speed, and they built ships-of-the-line with huge numbers of guns, upwards of 120!), their tactics in battle and the quality of their crew and officers paled in comparison. They were defeated in various major battles, the back-breaker coming at Trafalgar in 1805 when Lord Horatio Nelson led the British to victory over the combined Spanish and French fleets (and then died from his wounds).

I believe the action in the movie involves French and British frigates on a distant station.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by wbonnell
What's Obrian's reputation for historical accuracy? Is this movie going to be "hard" history so to speak?

WB
OBrian has an outstanding reputation for historical accuracy. Historians are generally amazed he gets so many fine details correct for having written the books some 170 years after the fact.

His only shortfall historically is he frequently derived his stories from a combination of actual events, and then applied them to his characters. Some historians are less than thrilled with this technique and have gone out of their way to pick his stories apart by pointing out the fact certain events OBrian transposed to his books actually took place in another place, another year, etc. But they usually acknowledge when it comes to describing the actual events, that he has an uncanny knack for getting small details correct.

I read a bio on OBrian and he also liked to transcribe personal events into the stories. It's widely believed Maturin is his alter ego based on time he spent doing intelligence work in WWII.

I'm more excited about the movie having seen interviews with Russell Crowe, who has read the books and really seems to be into the whole thing. He enjoyed it so much he's seriously considering more movies. If Crowe delivers a good Jack Aubrey then I will probably enjoy it. However I am greatly concerned the movie will go over the top pumping Aubrey as the focal point, when in fact Maturin's affairs were the motivation for what was actually going on around them.

I am also concerned this movie will just go into "The Far Side of the World" scenario, while completely disregaring perhaps the best action sequence of the whole series of books that came from "Master and Commander", that being the capture of the Cacafuego. It was the battle that set the reputation and career of the Aubrey character. Every book thereafter refers to it in some manner. After all, it was how he got his nickname, "Lucky" Jack Aubrey.

[OldGiants]

Originally posted by Leonidas
WB
OBrian has an outstanding reputation for historical accuracy. Historians are generally amazed he gets so many fine details correct for having written the books some 170 years after the fact.

His only shortfall historically is he frequently derived his stories from a combination of actual events, and then applied them to his characters. Some historians are less than thrilled with this technique and have gone out of their way to pick his stories apart by pointing out the fact certain events OBrian transposed to his books actually took place in another place, another year, etc. But they usually acknowledge when it comes to describing the actual events, that he has an uncanny knack for getting small details correct.


Exactly. I've read he rummaged through hundreds of personal journals to get the language and details correct. Indeed, that's whats stopped several of my freinds from enjoying this series, the language is too hard to comprehend. I find myself going to the OED a lot when I read O'Brian--but I like that.

I heartily reccomend these books to everyone, but I do believe its necessary to point out they aren't Elmore Leonard easy to read.

And most of the books are not all that action oriented. I've noticed that the big battles tend to occur on the last ten pages of several of the books. I like the shipboard concerts and the natural history of Maturin as much as the action.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Tigercat

And if you do ever get a movie theatre to pay you, let me know. I am sure there are plenty of economic profs that wouldn't mind writing chapters and papers on the QS-consumer-gets-paid-economic-exception.

Yes, Quiksand you should definitely find an Economic Professor to discuss this with. :D


Edit: and one day I'll learn how to spell. *sigh*

[Senator]

where do you stand on the validity of the journal that claimed Crockett was taken prisoner?


Sorry, I just saw this.

God help me. I agree with TrentGreen. The how is not so important to me as the reason he was there to begin with.

Must go bathe.


SIMMS!!!!

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Senator
Sorry, I just saw this.

God help me. I agree with TrentGreen. The how is not so important to me as the reason he was there to begin with.

Must go bathe.


SIMMS!!!!

I dunno. Although there are countless examples of Santa Anna executing prisoners, his killing of a captive American hero has to cause even the revisionists to withdraw some of their 'favor' for him as an icon.

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

Originally posted by TroyF
To me, the EXACT way he died doesn't matter a whole lot. Captured or not, he died at the Alamo fighting to keep it in US hands.

TroyF

Texan hands.

I recently (a few years ago, which is recent at my age) read an article in Strategy and Tactics which brought up the point that if Houston hadn't pulled a hissy fit with Bowie over who was in command and taken his troops with him, there might not have been a siege at all.

And, in 1836, the Mexican Army was viewed as the most professional and competent in the New World. (Heck, most European military men thought so as late as 1846.)

[Schmidty]

The amount of stick-up-the-ass FOFCers is getting on my nerves.

You people sound like a bunch knee-jerk antites.

[Schmidty]

Dola.

I do understand QS's monetary valuation of his time, since I feel the same about a lot of posters on this board.

$25.00

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Schmidty
The amount of stick-up-the-ass FOFCers is getting on my nerves.

You people sound like a bunch knee-jerk antites.

Is an antite someone who looks up stuff in the dictionary so he can tell someone that antites isn't a word?

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Arbitrary Aardvark

And, in 1836, the Mexican Army was viewed as the most professional and competent in the New World. (Heck, most European military men thought so as late as 1846.)

I can only imagine this opinion was arrived at by evaluating their wonderful splendor on the parade grounds. My understanding of that army at that time was that while they looked very nice in their uniforms, and were quite well equipped, it was merely an illusion of sorts. I don't think the U.S. gave the Mexican army that much credit, else they certainly would have sent a larger force down there to dispatch it.



Also on the note about the movie being too PC. I found this link (http://icnorthernireland.icnetwork.co.uk/news/local/content_objectid=13609285_method=full_siteid=91603_headline=-Disney-Shoots-Itself-in-Foot-at-the-Alamo-name_page.html) regarding the Alamo's postponement.

[Schmidty]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
Is an antite someone who looks up stuff in the dictionary so he can tell someone that antites isn't a word?

$30 please.

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
I can only imagine this opinion was arrived at by evaluating their wonderful splendor on the parade grounds. My understanding of that army at that time was that while they looked very nice in their uniforms, and were quite well equipped, it was merely an illusion of sorts. I don't think the U.S. gave the Mexican army that much credit, else they certainly would have sent a larger force down there to dispatch it.

In 1846 we sent virtually the entire US Federal Army, and many state units, down to fight Mexico. The War of Texan Independance was not directly supported by the US, and featured predominantly Texan irregulars vs. a small portion of the Mexican Army. The Texan's gained independence primarily because it was proving too costly for the Mexican's to contest it.

[wbonnell]

nice!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-master14f.html

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
To elaborate a bit further, England and France were at war almost continually from 1792-1815, with only small breaks from negotiated peace agreements. France went from a revolution against its monarchy in the 1790s to a republic to an empire under Napoleon Bonaparte. All the while England and a variety of European powers (Austria, Russia, Prussia, and many smaller ones) fought against the French.

The Royal Navy was as great a military force for the British at sea as the French Grande Armee was on land. Much like the Germans would try to do prior to World War I, the French tried to build up their fleet to match the British. This was a futile effort; while the French could and did build good ships (their frigates in particular were known for their speed, and they built ships-of-the-line with huge numbers of guns, upwards of 120!), their tactics in battle and the quality of their crew and officers paled in comparison. They were defeated in various major battles, the back-breaker coming at Trafalgar in 1805 when Lord Horatio Nelson led the British to victory over the combined Spanish and French fleets (and then died from his wounds).

I believe the action in the movie involves French and British frigates on a distant station.

Thanks. Unfortunately, nautical and naval history - including the Civil War and Rev War - hold very little interest to me.

Golden Age of Piracy, excepting of course. :)

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Arbitrary Aardvark
In 1846 we sent virtually the entire US Federal Army, and many state units, down to fight Mexico. The War of Texan Independance was not directly supported by the US, and featured predominantly Texan irregulars vs. a small portion of the Mexican Army. The Texan's gained independence primarily because it was proving too costly for the Mexican's to contest it.

I thought the U.S. Army was considerably larger in 1846 than the two battalions(less than 12,000 men) Winfield Scott marched to Mexico City with. I agree that there were a number of regiments, a few companies worth raised by the states(mostly Texas), and it was primarilly this small group that defeated a numerically superior Mexican army time after time in Northern Mexico.

IIRC some of the casualty reports I have seen from the War with Mexico, more closely resemble Dessert Storm casualty reports than contemporary battles. Scott in his first engagement en route to Mexico City suffered a 100 or so casualties, while inflicting between one and two thousand on the larger Mexican force. He also captured more prisoners than he could manage in the same battle.

I have trouble with any attempt to paint the Mexican Army of that day as competent.

[wbonnell]

shoo, you thread jackers! :)

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by wbonnell
shoo, you thread jackers! :)
Awww, not to worry, I enjoy military history discussions (although it is amusing to see the Mexican-American War come out of a thread about Napoleonic naval warfare and a Russell Crowe movie). :cool:

Here's a couple of interesting links on The Alamo and the Mexican Army that attacked it:

Mexican Army (http://hotx.com/alamo/mexarmy.html)

The Alamo - Frequently Asked Questions (http://hotx.com/alamo/faq.html)

As for the Mexican Army in the later war with the U.S., they were clearly inferior in both weapons and tactics, with the exception of their cavalry lancers, which had lost their shock attack effect as the role of cavalry changed with the times. The U.S. Army was bolstered by a professionally-trained officer corps (West Point grads, many of whom would serve in the Civil War), excellent artillery, good equipment, and aggressive command leadership.

By the way, over 100,000 American troops served in that war.

Oh, and Russell Crowe's character did not walk from Germany to Italy...he rode the Praetorian's horse. ;)

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by WSUCougar

... As for the Mexican Army in the later war with the U.S., they were clearly inferior in both weapons and tactics, with the exception of their cavalry lancers, which had lost their shock attack effect as the role of cavalry changed with the times. The U.S. Army was bolstered by a professionally-trained officer corps (West Point grads, many of whom would serve in the Civil War), excellent artillery, good equipment, and aggressive command leadership.

By the way, over 100,000 American troops served in that war.

...

Clearly inferior is how I would describe it as well. One of my friends contends that the U.S. Army of that era was the greatest army ever fielded. When you consider the leadership that you mentioned, featuring R. E. Lee, (Stonewall) Jackson, Meade, Sherman, Longstreet and McClellan for what it's worth as company and regimental commanders, this argument does have it's merit. When I mentioned casualty reports resembling those from the Gulf War, I forgot to add that those achievements were accomplished without the technology gap we had in Iraq. The American Generals aggressively attacked numerically Superior enemies in often fortified positions, and they crushed the Mexican Army in front of them.

When you mention 100,000 American troops serving in that war, you meant the Civil War right?

[Glengoyne]

Dola,

This thread actually made me look stuff up.

We had two armies in Mexico. Scotts "corp", marching to Mexico City and Taylor's force in Northern Mexico. Taylor's force peaks at less than 12,000 men. Most of these are transfered to Scott's control for his assault on the Mexican Capital. Scott led about 12,000 men to Mexico City. Taylor, meanwhile, made due in Northern Mexico with the 4,000 men of the regiments brought into the army when Texas was annexed.

So we sent almost 20,000 troops down to Mexico. This was more than I thought, and I guess it might actually have represented a substantial percentage of the entire U.S. Army of the day.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
When you mention 100,000 American troops serving in that war, you meant the Civil War right?
Nope, the Mexican War. Here's a LINK (http://www.dmwv.org/mexwar/mwstats.htm) (best I could find to document it on short notice) with some stats.

Edit: typo

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Nope, the Mexican War. Here's a LINK (http://www.dmwv.org/mexwar/mwstats.htm) (best I could find to document it on short notice) with some stats.

Edit: typo

I have never seen numbers even approaching those before. To my knowledge, There were only two armies involved. The Mexico City Invasion force, that was landed amphibiously, and the Force that chased the Mexican Army into Mexico. Earlier today, I saw references that showed that Scott's troops were certainly less than 15,000. I also saw that almost all of Taylor's regulars were transfered to Scott for the invasion. Since that meshed with what I "knew" of the war, I was pretty confident.

I am not sure at all how to resolve this. I thought maybe that the volunteer number might include forces not directly involved in teh conflict, but the site you linked says otherwise. Perhaps there was more action in California and the Pacific than I was aware of. Hmmmm