Greatest Generals

Grant won because he didn’t care about the lives of his men.

@Yanny:

Grant won because he didn’t care about the lives of his men.

I wouldn’t say it in that manner, it’s just that he understood the fact that he had the men to simply grind the South down through attrition. He may not have been a great tactician, however the fact remains that after he took charge the Union began winning battles.

And they were also dieing at twice or three times the rate of Confederate Troops.

Teej,
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).

Yanny,
You use what you have to win. Evidence shows that many times in history a weaker force has defeated a superior force simply by attacking first.

NOTE: I am surprised that no one mentioned NBF before me. I think a previous poster had in discussions long ago. I think a lot of great lesser generals are often overlooked though. Some lesser generals, and even colonels, would have blossomed had these wars mentioned dragged on another year or two.

A 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.

General Robert E. Lee was an infinately better general than Grant ever was. If Grant was truely a great general, he wouldn’t of had to throw hundreds of thousands of Union lives to the meatgrinder.

Yanny, and I say this with the utmost respect for both you, and the rules of the forum. Shut Up. You do not know what you are talking about. It is easy to sit here and pick apart what Generals did, and criticize every little maneuvar (I know, I know, I do it to, but indulge me), but there are a few things to take into account:

1. hindsight is 20/20
2. this happened over 100 years ago
3. you are a civilian with no military training
4. you have no tactical training
5. i dont care what books you may have read, you are not a tactician
6. tactics on paper and tactics in the field are two different things
7. logistics comes into play
8. humanity comes into play
9. politics comes into play
10. morale comes into play

the reality is, Grant did the best job he could, with the situation he had. “a good general” wins wars. a great general does so without a massive loss of life. grant was a good general. lee was a good general who suffered the misfortune of not having any good support (i.e. nation, army, personnel, etc). you can argue that the north was in a strong enough position to win with anybody, but it is not so. a lesser general would have lost, especially facing such an implacable enemy as General Lee, an excellent tactician and leader. Grant, a lesser general, still managed to defeat him. He is (was) a good general.

@Janus1:

Yanny, and I say this with the utmost respect for both you, and the rules of the forum. Shut Up. You do not know what you are talking about. It is easy to sit here and pick apart what Generals did, and criticize every little maneuvar (I know, I know, I do it to, but indulge me), but there are a few things to take into account:

1. hindsight is 20/20
2. this happened over 100 years ago
3. you are a civilian with no military training
4. you have no tactical training
5. i dont care what books you may have read, you are not a tactician
6. tactics on paper and tactics in the field are two different things
7. logistics comes into play
8. humanity comes into play
9. politics comes into play
10. morale comes into play

the reality is, Grant did the best job he could, with the situation he had. “a good general” wins wars. a great general does so without a massive loss of life. grant was a good general. lee was a good general who suffered the misfortune of not having any good support (i.e. nation, army, personnel, etc). you can argue that the north was in a strong enough position to win with anybody, but it is not so. a lesser general would have lost, especially facing such an implacable enemy as General Lee, an excellent tactician and leader. Grant, a lesser general, still managed to defeat him. He is (was) a good general.

oh…then you have military training :-? …you are a tactician :roll: ?.. you are humane :wink: ??? j/k… 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… btw I honestly think I’m a tactician because if i was ever stuck in a military operation I know my mind would think, “how many bullets vehicle’s, tanks, weapons, and cans of soup can I get to my men.” most “men” :roll: in my opinion can probably do some form of leadership, in a war nd have a skill he will be remebered for if he sets his mind to it. So don’t slam Yanny YOU DON’T KNOW!!!

oh…then you have military training …you are a tactician ?

Notice the disclaimer in the first paragraph of the post? maybe you didnt. basically, it acknowledges that im being hypocritical in a way here, and asks you to ignore that, and indulge me for a moment. no, i do not have military training, nor am i a tactitian. but, i have not (that i can remember, correct me if im wrong) sat here and posted about how a general was bad. which, imo, no one here is really qualified to do, beyond agree with an accepted opinion of a general who is acknowledged to be bad.

you are humane ??? j/k…

by my standards, yes. by yours, maybe not.

most “men” in my opinion can probably do some form of leadership, in a war nd have a skill he will be remebered for if he sets his mind to it.

perhaps. naturally, there are the rare occurrences of generals who show natual talent from birth (or more likely when they become a leader), however, i doubt whether the vast majority of people have sufficient skill as a general that they could win a battle, much less a war. there are many more intricacies (sp?) then our feeble little minds could handle :wink: . generals typically go through West Point or ROTC, unless they show natural talent for the leadership, followed by years of battlefield experience (the good ones), and follow up leadership and tactics schools (im not sure of the names, but i could find them if i have to).

So don’t slam Yanny YOU DON’T KNOW!!!

Dont know what exactly? but i have a feeling i dont, like you and i said. my point is, nobody here knows.

wrt not slamming yanny, i can and will if i so choose, and like i said, it was done with the utmost respect and regard ( :D )

@El:

You use what you have to win. Evidence shows that many times in history a weaker force has defeated a superior force simply by attacking first.

Evidence also shows that many times in history a weaker force has defeated a stronger force simply by going defensive.

Falk, El Jefe, im not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you, but id like to see what examples each of you can provide.

Janus us in the exact same position I am in, we go to the same school.

Tell me, Why does General Grant deserve to be on the list of the best generals of all time?

I’ve already listed why he doesn’t deserve to be.

The oldest one:
Sparta vs Persia, 480 BC
Battle at the Thermopyles (sp?)

later example, of luring the enemy into an attack
British vs. French, 1415 AD
Battle of Agincourt

Another one:
The battles in the trenches in WWI, between 1915 and 1917.

General Grant does not deserve to be on the list of greatest generals of all time, neither does Lee imo. my point is they are both good generals. the greatest generals of all time, imo, include alexander the great, hannibal, etc.

Some random responses:

btw I honestly think I’m a tactician because if i was ever stuck in a military operation I know my mind would think, “how many bullets vehicle’s, tanks, weapons, and cans of soup can I get to my men.”

Technically, that makes you a logistician, not a tactician, and also it would depend on where you are at in said operation. :wink:

generals typically go through West Point or ROTC, unless they show natural talent for the leadership, followed by years of battlefield experience (the good ones), and follow up leadership and tactics schools (im not sure of the names, but i could find them if i have to).

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.*

later example, of luring the enemy into an attack
British vs. French, 1415 AD
Battle of Agincourt

Was 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.

*This is only applicable to the US army. :wink:

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 Agincourt

Was 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: