- 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
1
Posted on 8/7/20 at 1:43 pm to lsupride87
quote:
But its simply the truth. Stonewall Jackson was the true genius for the south, when he died so did any and all chances.
Lee didnt really know what the hell he was doing
Lee did more with less. Can’t judge him on wins/losses imo. The south was never supposed to last as long as they did. Lee and Jackson are the only reasons the South ever had a shot. Gettysburg was Lee’s undoing though. Kind of like Stalingrad was the beginning of the end for Germany
Posted on 8/7/20 at 1:51 pm to deltaland
quote:
Lee did more with less.
The equation factored in troop numbers. So Lee apparently still doesn't come out looking good.
This post was edited on 8/7/20 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 8/7/20 at 1:52 pm to lowspark12
quote:
Nah man... Europe (headed by Austria) was invading France before Napoleon took power... the first coalition formed in the early 1790s in response to the revolution.
The French were just ahead of the curve on the rest of Europe... the leve on mass mobilized the whole nation for war... Napoleon took that fully mobilized nation and kicked everyone’s arse with it.
But Napoleon wasn’t reigning at the time of the war of the first coalition.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 2:17 pm to Dick Leverage
Nathaniel Greene was brilliant in his use of Fabian tactics.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 2:21 pm to doubleb
quote:
But Grant’s Vicksburg campaign was with superior numbers and superior resources. He did execute the campaign very well
None of the resources mean anything without the execution. Other generals in the Union had the same resources, and were not nearly as successful. The Vicksburg Campaign against an entrenched opponent in a very defensible position would have been too much for most generals of the era.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 2:25 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
The Vicksburg Campaign against an entrenched opponent in a very defensible position would have been too much for most generals of the era.
Robert E. Lee himself said Vicksburg was impregnable and thus impossible to capture.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 2:26 pm to crazy4lsu
Caesar rarely had numbers on his side. Often vastly outnumbered.
Agrippa might deserve an honorable mention somewhere.
Agrippa might deserve an honorable mention somewhere.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 2:27 pm to prplhze2000
This thread has made me realize that I read "Scipio Africanus" in the voice of Cassius from Gladiator
Posted on 8/7/20 at 2:40 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
None of the resources mean anything without the execution. Other generals in the Union had the same resources, and were not nearly as successful. The Vicksburg Campaign against an entrenched opponent in a very defensible position would have been too much for most generals of the era.
No doubt Grant was way better than the other generals, but we aren’t comparing him to them. We are comparing him to the all time greats.
Surrounding Vicksburg with twice as many soldiers, a large navy and all the supplies he needed and starving them out was not as if he defeated the opponent using great military tactics. He never beat the defenders. He starved them out because the South was impotent.
Grant was relentless. He charged on, he never backed up or quit pushing ahead trying to defeat his enemy. But in this case the enemy was rather passive, they sat back and did very little and let Grant alone until it was too late.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 2:41 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Napoleon's old nemesis,
banging out a man's sister, along with several of his mistresses, will do that...
and according to the mistresses, the Duke > Napoleon...
Posted on 8/7/20 at 2:46 pm to RollTide1987
I sent this to Black Twitter and they say that Napolean, Alexander tha Great, and Julius Ceasar were actually black, that history lied to us, and that this list is racist.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 3:07 pm to doubleb
quote:
Surrounding Vicksburg with twice as many soldiers
He didn't have twice as many soldiers when he started out. Pemberton had parity with him until the siege began. Grant only called for reinforcements when he realized he would have to besiege the city. By that time, Grant had fought and won five battles in roughly three weeks.
This post was edited on 8/7/20 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 8/7/20 at 3:10 pm to bgtiger
quote:
sent this to Black Twitter and they say that Napolean, Alexander tha Great, and Julius Ceasar were actually black, that history lied to us, and that this list is racist.
I know you’re lying Bc they would’ve claimed all the others on the list also.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 3:12 pm to crazy4lsu
Always appreciate your input in these history threads.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 3:20 pm to doubleb
quote:
Surrounding Vicksburg with twice as many soldiers, a large navy and all the supplies he needed and starving them out was not as if he defeated the opponent using great military tactics. He never beat the defenders. He starved them out because the South was impotent.
He won a series of battles before the siege to put himself in the position to siege Vicksburg in the first place. And it wasn't easy to surround Vicksburg at all. You're making some incredible operational work seem banal by virtue of numerical superiority, when the landscape and Confederate defensive positions favored the defenders.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 3:30 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
quote:
Ulysses S. Grant
Greatest American military man ever
If by military man you mean alcoholic then yes.
The original list is very misleading. In order to determine this you need to know more.
1). Was the man an innovator of tactics and or strategy?
2). How often did he fight from an advantage of strength (# of forces) vs a disadvantage?
3). Did he fight primary offensive or defensive battles?
4). Did they have a major technological advantage over their foes?
5). Was he a master of command and control or did he delegate the operation art to his field commanders?
Wins and losses simply won't capture those nuances.
This post was edited on 8/7/20 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 8/7/20 at 3:33 pm to Lonnie Utah
Don’t be mad because Grant whipped your boy’s booty.
Posted on 8/7/20 at 3:33 pm to deltaland
quote:how the lost cause lives on in 2020 is beyond me and depressing
Lee did more with less. Can’t judge him on wins/losses imo. The south was never supposed to last as long as they did
Posted on 8/7/20 at 3:36 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
He won a series of battles before the siege to put himself in the position to siege Vicksburg in the first place. And it wasn't easy to surround Vicksburg at all. You're making some incredible operational work seem banal by virtue of numerical superiority, when the landscape and Confederate defensive positions favored the defenders.
No doubt the campaign was brilliant once Grant finally ran his ships past Vicksburg. But during the entire campaign Grant had the numbers, he was better than the uncoordinated Southern Generals and had a navy which he effectively used.
Could he have done all what hd accomplished with half the men, and no navy? No. Did he recognize what he had to do and did he take full advantage of his assets and the poor leadership on the other side? Yes, he did.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News