Jan…
First, I did not say U. S. Grant was a great general(see my list above on this page.) So your “utmost respect for both” of us does not apply here. Unless, of course, you are referring to more than one of Yanny’s multiple personalities….Oh, that’s my excuse! So it cannot be multi-Yannys to whom you refer.
Second, your argument would have been more acceptable without the “Shut Up.”
Third, SHUT…UP!!
Notice the socially acceptable manner in which the third point was made. The pause between the two words emphasizes the friendly manner in which the speaker is letting the listener know ‘I cannot believe you said that.’ The volume shown by the capital letters indicates ‘I don’t believe it!’ Most importantly the two exclamation marks demark a definte terminus is recommended for the listeners inane remarks. :roll: :wink:
EJ, i wasnt even talking to you with any of those posts (not intended to sound rude or anything, just stating the truth) i was talkin to yanny, and the “both” you mentioned were yanny and the rules of the forum, not you.
This is mostly correct. All generals, being officers, must go through either what you mentioned or OCS. The schools are also a necessity to advance that high, and battlefield experience would help if they can get it.*
thank you for the correction, i knew it was something like that :wink:
*This is only applicable to the US army.
yes, i forgot to make the distinction.
@Grigoriy:
later example, of luring the enemy into an attack
British vs. French, 1415 AD
Battle of AgincourtWas this actually planned by England? I thought the French insistence on attacking made the British stand and defend, and they happened to have an excellent location to fight at.
I have read so. French and English were standing in their positions some times, each of one side of the mud so to say. Then King Henry moved his lines a bit forward, so that the French were within the very maximum distance for his longbows. Firing them lead to the French charge… that’s what i read at least
So, in reality, it was a minor(British) offensive move that caused the major(French) offensive move on a major(British) defensive postion.
The French should have done what they do best…moved(left.)
Maybe the North had a good supply. However, I just read The Gray Fox by Davis. In it he mentions that some Confederate states ordered pikes for their units(1861).
Look no further than the Stonewall of Jackson. ;) Those Virginians were really something. 8)
NOTE: I am surprised that no one mentioned NBF before me.
When did you mention NBF?
good general doesn’t throw away lives. A good general finds a way to win the battle at the least possible cost to his men.
I have to disagree with your way of thinking. Caring to much for your men will often lose more battles than not. He who tries to save everyone, saves no one. Grant wasn’t a great general but a was at least a very good one. Lee “threw away lives” before, too.
I have to agree with you the north is always painted as bad military wise and they one by just a bare margin but then how do we get the name sherman on a tank….
I wouldn’t say so at all. Just look at Custer, Buford, Hancock, et al. The Union was in no shortage of good generals - a big part of it was something Janus mentioned, “politics.”
:D I done good.
:wink:
@TG:
I have to agree with you the north is always painted as bad military wise and they one by just a bare margin but then how do we get the name sherman on a tank….
I wouldn’t say so at all. Just look at Custer, Buford, Hancock, et al. The Union was in no shortage of good generals - a big part of it was something Janus mentioned, “politics.”
I have heard some southerners talk about it (north having weaker generals) as more of a “holier than thou” context…. that is what I was talking about in that comment… thanks for clarifing though… better sources than what I think of…
I have heard some southerners talk about it (north having weaker generals) as more of a “holier than thou” context…. that is what I was talking about in that comment… thanks for clarifing though… better sources than what I think of…
Well, it’s harder to find better generals then Lee, Stonewall, Longstreet, and Stuart - no matter what war you find yourself in. They all just work so well together (with the only exception being Longstreet). It took time for the North to get their team together (Grant, Sherman, Custer), but they did. The main problem was that the North was lacking a High General, mainly because none of the good generals wanted the position, until Grant was “discovered.” No General wanted to be “commanded” by Washington, and “luckily” for the North, the politicans learned from their mistake and gave Grant the powers to run the army the way he wanted. Politics was why the North almost lost and why the South did lose.
(Obviously among many other things) but politics was a big part of what lost the vietnam war. people in washington making decisions they werent qualified to make, without the right information, interfering with the commanders in the field. that was a big part of the “defeat” (quotes since they pulled out, and the defeat wasnt official)
I’m curious, how did politics contribute to the South losing the war, aside from succession {sp}?
Dubya also Gatorade
Many of the leaders of the South (esp. Virginia) wanted Lee to fight an OFFENSIVE War. This was the main reason why the Southerners lost at Gettysburg and consequently the War Between the States.
@TG:
I have heard some southerners talk about it (north having weaker generals) as more of a “holier than thou” context…. that is what I was talking about in that comment… thanks for clarifing though… better sources than what I think of…
Well, it’s harder to find better generals then Lee, Stonewall, Longstreet, and Stuart - no matter what war you find yourself in. They all just work so well together (with the only exception being Longstreet). It took time for the North to get their team together (Grant, Sherman, Custer), but they did. The main problem was that the North was lacking a High General, mainly because none of the good generals wanted the position, until Grant was “discovered.” No General wanted to be “commanded” by Washington, and “luckily” for the North, the politicans learned from their mistake and gave Grant the powers to run the army the way he wanted. Politics was why the North almost lost and why the South did lose.
I know I just think the “holier than Thou” context is kinda crazy….
Well the war was a very religious one at that. :wink:
The problem with this discussion, is it really is apples and oranges. How do you compare Douglas Macarthur - brilliant WW II pacific conqueror with all the resources of a smashed ULTRA (Nimitz as well) with Hannibal - who had elephants, but no battleships, or intercepted and decrypted enemy movement ciphers? We could base this on degree of success, in which case someone like Nelson (yes, i know - Navy puke) appears to be a lead candidate whereas someone like Stormin’ Norman and Tommy Franks - although American heroes - simply took a ton of intel, and vast technological and military superiority and applied that to what nearly amounts to mass murder of Iraqi soldiers (don’t get me wrong - it was well that we went in the first time).
Anyway, you get my point. Maybe it would be more appropriate to compare “Civil” war Generals (Grant, Forrest, Lee, Jackson et al.), WW II field marshalls/Generals (Rommell, Montgommery, Patton, MacArthur, Simmonds (Canadian general who got screwed by Monty’s “market garden”), Eisenhower, etc. Another category might be “generals of antiquity”, “generals of the Renaissance era” - you get my meaning.
You’re right, CC, but we’re not trying to compare generals on “that scale.” We just want to know the great generals of their respective time - doing what they did best.
i think we already had this discussion on this thread. at any rate, i dont think the time difference is a problem. yes, modern generals have more tech, but the enemy is more advanced as well. it is simply necessary to, when comparing say, Hannibal to Rommel for instance, take into account percentages rather than numbers, and look at tactics rather than logistics, as otherwise, modern generals clearly always win out.
you know, i just voted on this topic, and i noticed that Stonewall Jackson was leading the votes. I cant seem to understand this, as to my knowledge, he never made any significant tactical moves that would distinguish him. I remember him solely as an inspirational leader, and indeed, a stalwart leader, but not necessarily a great general. feel free to enlighten me if i am wrong.
you know, i just voted on this topic, and i noticed that Stonewall Jackson was leading the votes. I cant seem to understand this, as to my knowledge, he never made any significant tactical moves that would distinguish him. I remember him solely as an inspirational leader, and indeed, a stalwart leader, but not necessarily a great general. feel free to enlighten me if i am wrong.
You are very wrong, and it will take but one example to “enlighten” you :wink:
All you have to do is look into Jackson during the Shenandoah Valley Campaign. In it, Jackson, with a motly force of 15,000, managed to check and hold three union armies of a total of 40,000 men. You can read more about it at http://www.civilwarhome.com/valleycampaign.htm
If Stonewall was still alive after Chancellorsville, the Confederates would’ve won at Gettysburg IMHO.
ah, thanks for the correction TG. the civil war is not one im particularly interested in, so my knowledge isnt as extensive as it could be.
Teej,
@El:
…my simple votes are …
Nathan Bedford Forrest(Uneducated, started the Civil War as a private, but ended it as a general.)
Ghengis Khan
Sun Tzu(Great book!)
Robert E. Lee(Mexican War , Civil War and I believe he he helped caputure John Brown or some other nutcase. You realize he held a superior force at bay for years, though it was partly due to idiots like McClellan.)
George S. Patton
(Cow Cow and
Saladdressing
are okay, I guess.) :D
