- 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 6:02 pm to RollTide1987
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.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:44 pm to bencoleman
quote:
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't know the difference guerilla and conventional warfare.
You never stipulated guerrilla vs. conventional warfare. You asked a broad question. In the case of conventional warfare, Hannibal and William Wallace are very comparable to Lee.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 8:06 pm to bencoleman
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?
Uh huh. Difference between set battles and guerilla warfare. That is why the Viet Minh are studies so much. One of the few guerilla forces to make a successful transition to a full scale army.
There were similarities between Hannibal and Lee. Tactical geniuses. Problem was what they had over the other side in terms of ability they lost in logistics and manpower. The Romans could throw men at Hannibal. Most of Hannibal's army ceased to be Carthaginian and was instead Gallic.
1. Hannibal did not intend to conquer Rome. Didn't have the army or technology for it as the Romans did. He sought to weaken Rome, cut it down to size. Rome fought total war against him. WHen Rome got through with that war, Carthage had little left.
2. Hannibal won his share of victories. Cannae was one of the worst defeats for the Romans. Hannibal's Austerlitz and he was unable to capitalize on it.
3. Logistics continued to work against Hannibal. Sound familiar? Could not resupply himself. Same problem the South had. Blockade hurt the South. Hannibal was cut off from resupply. His brother led a huge army to reinforce him only to be destroyed by the Romans.
4. Able Roman commanders rose to the top to fight Hannibal. PRoblem Lee and Hannibal faced, longer the wars went on, the more likely natural selection took place and better commanders faced him as the incompetent ones were weeded out. Also the longer the war went on, the more the enemy learned Hannibal's or Lee's tactics and how they thought.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 8:13 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News