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

quote:

---

Alexander the Great, despite winning all 9 of his battles, accumulated fewer WAR largely because of his shorter and less prolific career.

---

It used to be one decisive battle determined the outcome of nations as most could not afford to replace an entire army

quote:

---

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

---

The brilliance was the coordination of multiple armies hitting the South at the exact same time. You had three armies led by Sherman going after Atlanta while another aimed for Mobile. One army was sent up the Shenandoah Valley while another moved down the Virginia peninsula. Then you had Meade's army facing Lee in northern Virginia. All of this happened at the exact same time.

Grant was a master of logistics, communication, and coordination. He commanded the ENTIRE Union war effort while also taking a leading role in the Army of the Potomac's fight against Lee. He had to balance all of that and he did it well.

That takes brilliance.

quote:

---

Wasn’t Alexander the Great undefeated in battle?

---

you skipped down the thread.

All well covered above.

(no message)

Alexander the Great isn't above Caesar...really?

Grant had to be stopped at Vicksburg, and possibly could have been. The strategic mistake that seriously hurt the Southern war effort was the decision to invade the North, and not relieve Vicksburg IMO.

Grant and Sherman were butting their heads against the fortifications there, and not making much headway. They starved Pemberton out. Had that man evacuated his civilians properly stocked his warehouses and prepared for a long siege, he could have pinned Grant there for a very long time.

Johnston had scraped together a force of 30K, and had Lee been able to send him First Corps and Longstreet, that's another 25K or so. Maybe Forrest comes in to harass Grant's communications, and you have a real problem for the Union to deal with then.

55K or so in Grant's rear, nearly 30K inside Vicksburg, and others across the river, Grant has a lot of graybacks swarming around. Maybe enough to force him to abandon the campaign, or defeat him altogether.

quote:

---

having so many troops that you don't care if 30k get killed every battle doesn't make you a great general.

---

That's not why he was ranked number one.

quote:

---

didn't read all that

---

Shocking.

quote:

---

Johnston had scraped together a force of 30K,

---

Johnston sitting on his arse in Jackson instead of relieving Pemberton was unforgivable, once the river was lost the war was over.

quote:

---

The strategic mistake that seriously hurt the Southern war effort was the decision to invade the North, and not relieve Vicksburg IMO.

---

This was definitely a mistake, but even if the decision had been made to attempt to relieve Vicksburg, there was no guarantee that a relief force could have gotten into the field in time to effect the outcome.

Southern railroads by this time were in piss poor condition and a move of Longstreet's Corps to Mississippi would have taken many weeks. Weeks that the Union Army of the Potomac would have taken advantage of with an attack yet again on Lee's front.

If Richmond falls, what happens at Vicksburg becomes irrelevant.

Lee still would have had most of his force with which to defend Richmond. Remember, Longstreet took much of his corps with him to the Chattanooga theater in 1863.

Yes the railroads were in terrible shape, but breaking Grant at Vicksburg was of paramount importance.There had even been talk of sending Lee himself to do it.

Johnston's force of 30, 000 was insufficient to break the siege. It is possible they could have opened a way for Pemberton's people to break out had they chosen to do so. But even this combined force would have been smaller than what Grant and Sherman had.