- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: History Debate: Ulysses S. Grant vs. Robert E. Lee
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:47 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Perhaps you could cite some historic examples involving substantially underequipped, and vastly outnumbered forces performing comparably to Lee's over a span of regional campaigns?
How about the Iraqi insurgency, Hannibal and his legions, Washington and his colonials, William Wallace and his Scottish rebellion, and the French, Dutch, and Polish resistances in World War II?
1
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:02 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
How about the Iraqi insurgency, Hannibal and his legions, Washington and his colonials, William Wallace and his Scottish rebellion, and the French, Dutch, and Polish resistances in World War II?
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't know the difference guerilla and conventional warfare. Not one of those comes even close. Lee's men had for the most part been fighting barefoot and going into battle with five cartridges and living on next to nothing for two years and still managed to win against an opponent that was numerically superior and well supplied. The only way your scenario works is by ignoring several factors but by all means continue to be delusional.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News