re: History Debate: Ulysses S. Grant vs. Robert E. Lee

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.