- 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: Napoleon was the Best General Ever, and the Math Proves it.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:38 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:38 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
There’s a glaring omission in this guy’s list...Ghengis Khan.
Probably not a whole lot of reliable accounts of Ghengis khan battles.
Also, if anyone is interested in reading about Napoleon from a pure military aspect - The Campaigns of Napoleon by David G. Chandler is absolutely fantastic.
Its a big book at roughly 1,250 pages, but reads almost like fiction with all the action and descriptions of the battles. Goes through the campaigns, has battle maps, etc. and I can't recommend enough.
I got a used copy for about $20
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 11:42 am
1
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:41 am to Dick Leverage
quote:
How do you measure the stats for a General? Does a guy like Lee get credit for winning far more battles than he logically should have given the disadvantages of the confederate army? Lee’s Waterloo was Gettysburg. But like Napoleon, he won many battles against the odds. I think they are both in the top echelon of Generals.
Here's what he had to say about Robert E. Lee:
quote:
There were also generals that had surprisingly low total WAR despite a reputation as master tacticians. Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate States Army, finished with a negative WAR (-1.89), suggesting an average general would have had more success than Lee leading the Confederacy’s armies. Lee was saddled with considerable disadvantages, including a large deficit in the size of his military and available resources. Still, his reputation as an adept tactician is likely undeserved, and his WAR supports the historians who have criticized his overall strategy and handling of key battles, such as ordering the disastrous ‘Pickett’s Charge’ on the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg. In the words of University of South Carolina professor Thomas Connely, “One ponders whether the South may not have fared better had it possessed no Robert E. Lee.”
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:44 am to Sneaky__Sally
Sherman. 
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:48 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Manstein
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:53 am to TigerFanInSouthland
This is why I can never joxy. Lol
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:01 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
This guy’s data has McLellan ranked as a better General than Robert E. Lee.
List is shite in my opinion now.
List is shite in my opinion now.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:04 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
It's either Alexander or Julius Caesar.
I'll go with Caesar. Alexander was more in tune with the nuanced movements of armies, and saw thing that no one esle could see, but Caesar singlehandedly destroyed an entire nation and culture, and won the craziest, boldest victory of all time at Alesia.
I'll go with Caesar. Alexander was more in tune with the nuanced movements of armies, and saw thing that no one esle could see, but Caesar singlehandedly destroyed an entire nation and culture, and won the craziest, boldest victory of all time at Alesia.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:09 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Sorry you’re incapable of reading a longer post.
quote:
TigerFanInSouthland
Sorry you’re incapable of thinking most people aren’t going to waste time reading your long posts.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:14 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
This guy’s data has McLellan ranked as a better General than Robert E. Lee.
McClellan and Robert E. Lee faced off against each other in the following battles:
Oak Grove (Draw)
Beaver Dam Creek (Union victory)
Gaines's Mill (Confederate victory)
Savage's Station (Draw)
Glendale (Draw)
Malvern Hill (Union victory)
South Mountain (Union victory)
Antietam (Union victory)
Lee only defeated McClellan in one engagement out of eight. Lee was actually very lucky that McClellan was so timid. Had he been just a tad more aggressive, McClellan would have annihilated him outright at the Battle of Antietam.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:14 pm to Parmen
quote:
Sorry you’re incapable of thinking most people aren’t going to waste time reading your long posts.
Not true. If it’s too long and you can’t be bothered to waste your precious time to read it, why waste your precious time to post about it?
Furthermore, there’s a lot of people on this site that are very interested and really well versed in military history that would love to read and opine on this thread.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:17 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Had he been just a tad more aggressive, McClellan would have annihilated him outright at the Battle of Antietam.
But he wasn’t and he allowed the war to continue on for years more costing countless more lives. So that’s a massive negative for him in my opinion.
Part of good generalship is seizing on opportunities.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:26 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
This guy’s data has McLellan ranked as a better General than Robert E. Lee.
McClellan would do ok in WAR because he didn't engage much. If you have a smaller sample size, you won't deviate too far from zero in WAR, positively or negatively.
The more chances you have, the further you can deviate from zero, and Lee had a lot of battles.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:26 pm to Kcprogguitar
quote:another great one.
Manstein
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:29 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
But he didnt know when to stop and lost it all.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:32 pm to Rep520
quote:
McClellan would do ok in WAR because he didn't engage much. If you have a smaller sample size, you won't deviate too far from zero in WAR, positively or negatively.
I was just about to say, maybe this explains why McClellan so passive, he knew about WAR and was trying to make sure he stayed at or above zero
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:34 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
I was just about to say, maybe this explains why McClellan so passive, he knew about WAR and was trying to make sure he stayed at or above zero
Can't lose if you don't fight.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:37 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Part of good generalship is seizing on opportunities.
That is very true. However, he sincerely believed in his heart of hearts that Lee's army outnumbered his own at the Battle of Antietam. His failure to commit his last reserves to finish off the Army of Northern Virginia was based on the assumption that Lee had ample troops in reserve.
His failure to seize opportunities aside, he was 4-1-3 against Lee on the battlefield.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:43 pm to SabiDojo
“And when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept...for there were no more worlds to conquer.”
Hans Gruber
Hans Gruber
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:44 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Patton got gigged for, if I am reading this right, not being able to keep up with the changes in the way wars were fought. He pushed for tanks and the use of them and was the forerunner that broke away from WWI tactics. He has to be top five overall.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 12:54 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Alexander the Great
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News