An Empty Village Jul 27, 2009 13:45:46 GMT -5
Post by bc on Jul 27, 2009 13:45:46 GMT -5
The idea of "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat" has to do with a substantive defeat that is reversed by some action that results in the force that was nearly victoriuos being defeated..
Your definition seems to imply that any time the an enemy force showed up there would be the posibility of defeat. Therefore any good result would be a victory.
Ray, you are applying a stricter standard and definition that what I meant when I said it. I was applying it in a general and generic nature. More of pun. Besides if we look at a thousand battles, there is really no way to quantify or objectively determine if a battle would have turned out differently had some military move not been made so snatching victory from the jaws of defeat has no objective standard. Same applies for those who could say that when Custer divided his forces, he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
When I said it, I was applying it to an end run or flank attack to the D fords to keep pressure off of Calhoun. That was suggestive with a scenario where Custer was under heavy pressure coming to Calhoun and then decided to hit their flank to stop them. Application is no different than if a skirmish line had opponents close to their lines and you mount a charge to drive them off. They could have been defeated but for that charge. That said, I believe that Custer was not under much pressure at Calhoun when he first moved there and his move there was part of his attacking at the D fords.