(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
I put my vote in for Hannibal Barca… had in not been for the damned politicians in carthage… he would have owned rome…
Long live Carthage! Hoo-Rah!
:evil:
yea, someone probably already said this, but the choices on the poll are a little thin. they are all “modern” generals, the earliest dating back to the 1800’s. certainly MANY great generals lived before then, as many people seem to be “voting” for the likes of hannibal, and the khans, etc.
I put my vote in for Hannibal Barca… had in not been for the damned politicians in carthage… he would have owned rome…
I was wondering what you meant, then I remembered they called him home to defend Carthage, right? But it wouldn’t make too much sense to take Rome if Carthage was going to get taken.
yea, that would be a pyhrric (sp) victory
@Grigoriy:
I put my vote in for Hannibal Barca… had in not been for the damned politicians in carthage… he would have owned rome…
I was wondering what you meant, then I remembered they called him home to defend Carthage, right? But it wouldn’t make too much sense to take Rome if Carthage was going to get taken.
I did a research project on him…. buring is attack on rome, the politicians refused to send him anymore men or supplies… so he spent nearly ten years …
“. With his army in desperate need of reinforcements, Hannibal asked for help from his brother, who was defeated upon crossing the Alps. Hannibal’s army was diminished to guerilla warfare, while the Romans assaulted Carthage itself, causing him to withdraw from Rome…”
Hannibal spent years parading up and down Italy pillaging grain and the likes from farmers to feed his army.
The Romans used to have a sly way of keeping their children obedient… they had a saying which for the life of me i cant remember in latin, but in English its something like “Hannibal’s at the door!”… Hannibal was the first boogie man…
“uh… yeah thats me up there… sorry guys”
