I sort of had one little observation that the combined discussion we had the other night tended to confirm also. If Fort Davidson was not in a defendable position, and would be vulnerable to artillery barrage, then why was it there in the first place? We all pretty much agreed that it was intended as a 'safe base', a place from which patrols could be sent and resupplied, and a defensive position that could oppose irregulars who might otherwise control the area. The concept was the same at the Alamo. It also was vulnerable to prolonged artillery barrage followed by a general attack. The parallels are there. Contrast this with the forward fire base concept in Vietnam. These were also vulnerable to barrage and general attack.

One of the concepts of war, however, is that troops are put into harm's way. They are aware of the risks, and commanders do everything that they can to prevent serious incursions, but nonetheless, you have to have a logistical train to the troops, and a forward base of supply. Fort Davidson met that need for the Federal troops. The supply train was the St. Louis and Iron Mountain railroad, and Fort Davidson was the forward base.

I'd be curious as to what others think here as well.