re: Napoleon was the Best General Ever, and the Math Proves it.

Napoleon was just a stats accumulator like Eddie Murray or Raphael palmiero, don’t know if he used war peds or not

quote:

---

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.

---

A battle between Patton and Heinz Guderian would’ve been incredible to study.

quote:

---

McClellan would have had to get a complete makeover to annihilate Lee.

---

Not necessarily a complete makeover. There were moments in the battle that, had they gone a little differently, Lee would have most likely been forced to surrender at sundown. If there was ever a possibility for a decisive battle in the Civil War, Antietam was it.

Had Sumner's II Corps thrown all its weight against Stonewall Jackson instead of just a single division, Jackson's line collapses. Had McClellan decided to bring Franklin's VI Corps or Porter's V Corps out of reserve to exploit Richardson's breach of Lee's center, Lee's army is split completely in two and its escape route is cut off.

Had Burnside not taken his time to organize his men once he captured the bridge which now bears his name, he cuts the road to Harper's Ferry and cuts off Lee's escape route. Lee surrenders that evening.

Lee did everything wrong at Antietam and should have been wiped off the face of the earth.

TLDR, but Napoleon outnumbered every opponent by a large margin in just about every battle. “You can’t defeat me, I spend 30,000 lives a month” or something like that

quote:

---

And still McCleland didn’t beat him!!

---

Tactically the Battle of Antietam was a draw, but operationally and strategically, it was a decided Union victory. Lee lost over a third of his army in the campaign and failed to accomplish any of his objectives.

That’s a lot of “hads” and “ifs”

Ultimately, he did none of those things and it cost him.

quote:

---

Tactically the Battle of Antietam was a draw, but operationally and strategically, it was a decided Union victory. Lee lost over a third of his army in the campaign and failed to accomplish any of his objectives.

---

In the big picture it was a Southern loss, but yes tactically it was a draw.

Lee and the South couldn’t afford the big loss.

But looking at Antietam as a single battle, knowing that the North knew their opponents plan, and knowing how large of an advantage the North had; McClellan did a pitiful job and when he should have crippled Lee.

quote:

---

I judge generals by results. He not only stopped the Wehrmacht in front of Moscow and Leningrad he turned the tide at Stalingrad and was instrumental in rolling the Germans all the way back to Berlin.

---

Yes he did win all those battles for the Soviets, but it really doesn’t take a great general to launch human wave attacks on a numerically interior foe.

quote:

---

It was also interesting to see how high US Grant scored. Grant did extremely well in the Western Theater of the war before he got transferred to the east. Many people don't realize how critical his less-heralded early victories there were for the rest of the war.

---

Even later in the Civil War, I think Grant is underrated.

He saw what no previous Union general did, that a campaign of constant pressure and attrition was one Lee couldn't win. That was the fastest route to the end of the war.

So that's what he did. Conserving casualties in a single campaign doesn't work if it extends the war and increases the total number of casualties. Grant saw the way to the finish line and took it like no other Union general did. It helped he had Sherman to execute the Southern side of the same strategy.

To me, that's the mark of the best generals. Seeing the route to the fastest, most decisive way to achieve the objective and taking it.

It doesn’t take any brilliance to do that though.