- 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
0
Posted on 4/9/18 at 9:54 pm to magildachunks
I just told you why it worked, they were charging downhill. I don’t know what kind of bullshite gotcha question you’re getting at here but your personal vendetta against Confederate military leaders and your condescending responses to everybody that disagrees with you in here is pretty off putting to say the least.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:29 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
South weren't too bright. An economy based on slave labor and starting a war with an opponent with 10x the manpower and armaments. Dumb shits.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:31 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Grant apparently has a bad rap on this board, but he was a genius in his own right. Here's my take:
Lee was a Napoleon-style general. Grant was a Zhukov-style general. Lee was an old school romantic. Grant was ahead of his time. Lee loved to attack, and he used Napoleonic tactics to do so (splitting your smaller force to attack a larger force in two places -- pure Napoleon circa 1796-97). Grant hated to attack, but knew he had to throw bodies at the problem in order to win. It was a modern strategy for a modern army (sending wave after wave of soldiers to their certain death -- sounds a lot like Zhukov circa 1944).
If they were chess players, Lee would have been the romantic Adolf Anderssen, who attacked for the love of it. Grant was the scientific Wilhelm Steinitz, who valued position and numbers above all else. War was a symphony to Lee. It was a bulldozer to Grant.
Lee certainly had his chances to win. The idea that Gettysburg was complete folly is revisionist. It almost worked. But once it didn't, and once the North put Grant in charge, it was just a matter of the first modern general sticking to his strategy. Position and numbers won the day, and in the end the South was all out of attack.
Lee was a Napoleon-style general. Grant was a Zhukov-style general. Lee was an old school romantic. Grant was ahead of his time. Lee loved to attack, and he used Napoleonic tactics to do so (splitting your smaller force to attack a larger force in two places -- pure Napoleon circa 1796-97). Grant hated to attack, but knew he had to throw bodies at the problem in order to win. It was a modern strategy for a modern army (sending wave after wave of soldiers to their certain death -- sounds a lot like Zhukov circa 1944).
If they were chess players, Lee would have been the romantic Adolf Anderssen, who attacked for the love of it. Grant was the scientific Wilhelm Steinitz, who valued position and numbers above all else. War was a symphony to Lee. It was a bulldozer to Grant.
Lee certainly had his chances to win. The idea that Gettysburg was complete folly is revisionist. It almost worked. But once it didn't, and once the North put Grant in charge, it was just a matter of the first modern general sticking to his strategy. Position and numbers won the day, and in the end the South was all out of attack.
This post was edited on 4/9/18 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:49 pm to Loungefly85
Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back but the country couldn’t afford it. Had we only known what today would be like
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:53 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Jackson
Had some spectacular failures
His valley campaign is still studied as one of the greatest military defenses ever performed. Long before the citizens of the north feared REL, they sincerely feared Jackson. Read the newspaper accounts from New York, Philly and Baltimore. He had folks scared shitless.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:55 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Grant never had to.
The "genius" got shot by his own men.
Doesn't change the fact that he never defeated him on a field of battle.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:57 pm to magildachunks
quote:
But I’m not going to be so damn quick to say that ALL slave owners treated their slaves like shite. Lee didn’t
Well this is just bullshite.
Lee treated his father-in-law's slaves horrendously.
He was notorious for mistreatment among his slaves.
It never fails, you sons of bitches can't have a Civil War discussion based on the actual battles and strategies without brining up slavery. Damned, we're not here to discuss the reason behind the war, rather the war itself and its military leaders.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 12:29 am to browl
quote:
So when does the day come when people learn that the civil war was instigated by an external entity and not really about slavery at all?
Yeah lets just ignore that the South Carolina declaration of secession is a big arse bitch fest about how some states wouldn't enforce the fugitive slave act or that it was intolerable a President was elected who planned to ban slavery and focus on the facts!
This post was edited on 4/10/18 at 12:30 am
Posted on 4/10/18 at 12:29 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Grant hated to attack, but knew he had to throw bodies at the problem in order to win. It was a modern strategy for a modern army (sending wave after wave of soldiers to their certain death -- sounds a lot like Zhukov circa 1944).
Not all modern generals were frontal charge idiots; at least, the great ones weren't. The Ludendorff/Hindenburg combo was absolutely deadly on the Russian front in WWI with their flanking and surprise attacks at Tannenberg and Second Masurian Lakes.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 12:38 am to magildachunks
quote:
And if they'd have broken Chamberlain's line, he might not have had to make the charge.
This gets played up WAY too much. Before the movie came out in 1993, the area where the 20th Maine and 15th Alabama fought was overgrown and virtually inaccessible. It was a big part of the Union defense on July 2, no question, but one needs to remember that there were 15,000 fresh Union soldiers of the 6th Corps within striking distance of any Confederate breakthrough on Little Round Top.
People also need to remember that as crucial as Chamberlain's defense of Little Round Top was, the 1st Minnesota's defense of Cemetery Ridge an hour or so later was probably even more crucial. It's sad how little attention their sacrifice gets from casual students of the war.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 12:46 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Grant hated to attack
Not true at all. Grant was offensive-minded throughout the entire war. He, like his contemporaries, was schooled in Napoleonic warfare. And Grant was every bit as aggressive as Robert E. Lee was. Lee, however, adopted the offensive-defensive approach. He would take a defensive posture in Virginia until he saw an opportunity to strike. Grant was straight up offensive oriented. The only major battle he fought where he wasn't on the offensive was the first day of the Battle of Shiloh.
And I think you need to study Grant's tactics a little more closely because you don't understand them at all. Very rarely did he throw "wave after wave" of troops into enemy lines. The man is very underrated as a tactician. People judge him too harshly for what happened in Virginia between May 4 and June 18, 1864. Mainly because they don't look at what happened there in its proper context.
This post was edited on 4/10/18 at 12:51 am
Posted on 4/10/18 at 7:44 am to Decisions
quote:
The Ludendorff/Hindenburg combo was absolutely deadly on the Russian front in WWI with their flanking and surprise attacks at Tannenberg and Second Masurian Lakes.
Well, to be fair, you could blame Rennenkampf or Samsonov for the Tannenberg debacle. Not the military genius of Hindenburg and Luddendorff.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 7:52 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
It was a fake sword. The real sword is still out there, biding its time and plotting its revenge.
Solid post.
You get another up vote.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 8:39 am to Loungefly85
quote:
The north should have forced the south to ship all the slaves home.
Can we make that retroactive and start now?
Posted on 4/10/18 at 8:40 am to Martini
You truly disgust me. Get a life, freak.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 8:47 am to Martini
Martini stop
Posted on 4/10/18 at 9:32 am to Paul Allen
Oh look! The two homos still stalking me in yet another thread.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 9:45 am to Martini
I don’t know what it is with you three, but every time one of you posts in a thread, the other two have to start posting in it as well.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 9:53 am to TigerFanInSouthland
That bozo doesn’t have the gumption to remonstrate with the big boys.
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News