- 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: The Top 10 Greatest Generals of All-Time - According to Mathematics
Posted on 8/11/20 at 3:14 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 8/11/20 at 3:14 pm to RollTide1987
What's the WAR score for this General?
0
Posted on 8/11/20 at 3:15 pm to Nigel Farage
Yeah having grant on there over Ghenghis Khan is insane. Also Alexander should be top 3 with Hannibal.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 4:34 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
7. Ulysses S. Grant Grant's performance commanding Union troops in 16 battles earned him the seventh spot on the list – and the U.S. presidency. Although his performance on the battlefield is clearly much better than those of his contemporaries, it should be noted that his Civil War arch-rival, Robert E. Lee, is so far below him on the list that he actually has a negative score.
bullshite. His work in the western theater, specifically Vicksburg was superb, but when he faced Lee at the end if the war he did nothing but throw men at the confederates because he knew the Union outnumbered them. Tens of thousands of union men died because he couldn’t outsmart Lee.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 4:34 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The late Edward H. Bonekemper III published a study entitled Grant and Lee: Victorious American and Vanquished Virginian back in 2012 with these statistics. I can quote you the figures from his book. On page 395 he cites James McPherson, the leading historian on the subject of this generation, by quoting the following: "For the war as a whole, Lee's army had a higher casualty rate than the armies commanded by Grant. The romantic glorification of the Army of Northern Virginia by generations of Lost Cause writers has obscured this truth."
From 1862-1865, Bonekemper writes, Lee's army suffered 209,000 combined casualties while Grant's suffered a combined 153,642 casualties. While Lee inflicted 55,000 casualties on Grant's army (43% of his total force) in the Overland Campaign of 1864, he did so while on the defensive and lost over 30,000 (47% of his force) of his own soldiers in the process. So while Lee inflicted more casualties on Grant, Grant took out a more sizable chunk of Lee's army in the process.
Question, would it be correct to say that Lee fought more significant battles with larger armies than Grant did during the course of the war?
For example from December of 62-July 4 of 63 Grant fought a series of small battles against significantly smaller armies.
From December of 62- July 4 Lee fought three big battles against significantly larger armies. Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg.
Over that time frame I’d guess Lee lost way more men than Grant did. Comparing Grant’s casualty rate to Lee is really like comparing apples and oranges.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 4:38 pm to Ping Pong
quote:he didn't have to
Tens of thousands of union men died because he couldn’t outsmart Lee.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 4:49 pm to Ping Pong
quote:
bullshite. His work in the western theater, specifically Vicksburg was superb, but when he faced Lee at the end if the war he did nothing but throw men at the confederates because he knew the Union outnumbered them. Tens of thousands of union men died because he couldn’t outsmart Lee.
That’s the point I made in an earlier thread about Grant. Despite all the advantages he had in men, weapons and resources; he couldn’t use it to out maneuver Lee without losing so many troops.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 4:59 pm to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
quote:
. Arthur Wellesley
Isn't that Ron's dad on Harry Potter?
It's Arthur Weasley.
Posted on 8/11/20 at 6:54 pm to doubleb
quote:
Question, would it be correct to say that Lee fought more significant battles with larger armies than Grant did during the course of the war?
I would say that this is a fair statement.
quote:
For example from December of 62-July 4 of 63 Grant fought a series of small battles against significantly smaller armies.
From December of 62- July 4 Lee fought three big battles against significantly larger armies. Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg.
Over that time frame I’d guess Lee lost way more men than Grant did. Comparing Grant’s casualty rate to Lee is really like comparing apples and oranges.
You're confusing raw numbers with casualty rates. Yes, since Lee fought larger battles between larger armies, he will indeed lose more men. However, what casualty rate does is show the percentage of men lost in a given battle. If Grant were indeed a butcher as popular opinion regards him as, even though his armies out west were smaller, the percentage of men he lost would still be high. However, this is not the case.
Despite being on the strategic and tactical offensive for much of the war, Grant averaged a casualty rate of 15% when the losses in killed and wounded are added up for all of his campaigns. Robert E. Lee, despite being on the strategic defensive for much of the war, averaged a casualty rate of 20.2% in his campaigns, killed and wounded. In the 18 battles fought during the Civil War in which one side lost 19% or more of its troops, Grant is not in command for a single one of them. Lee was in command for three: Seven Days' (20.7%), Antietam (22.6%) and Gettysburg (30.2%).
Posted on 8/11/20 at 7:05 pm to doubleb
quote:
That’s the point I made in an earlier thread about Grant. Despite all the advantages he had in men, weapons and resources; he couldn’t use it to out maneuver Lee without losing so many troops.
It's a dumb point, which ignores the relative positions of the armies during the final stages of the war.
Posted on 8/12/20 at 9:01 am to RollTide1987
[quote]
You're confusing raw numbers with casualty rates. Yes, since Lee fought larger battles between larger armies, he will indeed lose more men. However, what casualty rate does is show the percentage of men lost in a given battle. If Grant were indeed a butcher as popular opinion regards him as, even though his armies out west were smaller, the percentage of men he lost would still be high. However, this is not the case.
Despite being on the strategic and tactical offensive for much of the war, Grant averaged a casualty rate of 15% when the losses in killed and wounded are added up for all of his campaigns. Robert E. Lee, despite being on the strategic defensive for much of the war, averaged a casualty rate of 20.2% in his campaigns, killed and wounded. In the 18 battles fought during the Civil War in which one side lost 19% or more of its troops, Grant is not in command for a single one of them. Lee was in command for three: Seven Days' (20.7%), Antietam (22.6%) and Gettysburg (30.2%).[/quote
Good points buddy. Lee’s strategy on defense was to counterattack a lot and to be aggressive. That lead to high casualties.
But keep in mind two of the three worst battles Lee had were while he was on offense. The other battle was against the best commander the Union had, Grant.
I do think mixing numbers from the Miss. theater with numbers from the Virginia theater is not realistic. The battles are smaller. The South is really feeble. The Union navy played a huge role. The armies are smaller. After Shiloh and until Missionary Ridge there weren’t any big battles. The South really didn’t challenge Grant in numbers.
ETA: Didn’t the Union have about 20% of it’s army list at Shiloh?
You're confusing raw numbers with casualty rates. Yes, since Lee fought larger battles between larger armies, he will indeed lose more men. However, what casualty rate does is show the percentage of men lost in a given battle. If Grant were indeed a butcher as popular opinion regards him as, even though his armies out west were smaller, the percentage of men he lost would still be high. However, this is not the case.
Despite being on the strategic and tactical offensive for much of the war, Grant averaged a casualty rate of 15% when the losses in killed and wounded are added up for all of his campaigns. Robert E. Lee, despite being on the strategic defensive for much of the war, averaged a casualty rate of 20.2% in his campaigns, killed and wounded. In the 18 battles fought during the Civil War in which one side lost 19% or more of its troops, Grant is not in command for a single one of them. Lee was in command for three: Seven Days' (20.7%), Antietam (22.6%) and Gettysburg (30.2%).[/quote
Good points buddy. Lee’s strategy on defense was to counterattack a lot and to be aggressive. That lead to high casualties.
But keep in mind two of the three worst battles Lee had were while he was on offense. The other battle was against the best commander the Union had, Grant.
I do think mixing numbers from the Miss. theater with numbers from the Virginia theater is not realistic. The battles are smaller. The South is really feeble. The Union navy played a huge role. The armies are smaller. After Shiloh and until Missionary Ridge there weren’t any big battles. The South really didn’t challenge Grant in numbers.
ETA: Didn’t the Union have about 20% of it’s army list at Shiloh?
This post was edited on 8/12/20 at 10:53 am
Posted on 8/12/20 at 6:37 pm to doubleb
quote:
Lee’s strategy on defense was to counterattack a lot and to be aggressive. That lead to high casualties.
Hence why I said he was on the strategic defensive for much of the war. However, he would occasionally take the tactical offensive.
quote:
The other battle was against the best commander the Union had, Grant.
None of those battles featured Grant as an opposing commander. McClellan was in command of the Union army during the Seven Days' Battles and Antietam; Meade commanded the field for the Union army at Gettysburg.
quote:
I do think mixing numbers from the Miss. theater with numbers from the Virginia theater is not realistic. The battles are smaller. The South is really feeble. The Union navy played a huge role. The armies are smaller. After Shiloh and until Missionary Ridge there weren’t any big battles. The South really didn’t challenge Grant in numbers.
And yet those battles, strategically, did more for the Union than any other battle in Virginia before 1865. Grant was taking large chunks of territory, capturing entire Confederate armies, and seriously reducing the Confederacy's ability to wage war while Lee was simply holding the line in Virginia. Even if Grant never leaves the Western Theater to command all Union forces from the field in Virginia, his armies would have eventually fallen upon Lee's rear via North Carolina.
But that's beside the point. Despite the battles featuring fewer troops, Grant expended fewer men at a lower rate than Lee did. He got much better results while suffering fewer casualties and keeping his army intact.
quote:
Didn’t the Union have about 20% of it’s army list at Shiloh?
Yes. But many of those casualties were inflicted upon the Army of the Ohio - commanded by Major General Don Carlos Buell.
This post was edited on 8/12/20 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 8/13/20 at 11:54 am to RollTide1987
quote:
quote:
Didn’t the Union have about 20% of it’s army list at Shiloh?
Yes. But many of those casualties were inflicted upon the Army of the Ohio - commanded by Major General Don Carlos Buell.
Grant got caught with his pants down at Shiloh.
He didn’t think the Rebs would attack him. Shiloh was on Grant.
Reality his leadership saved the Union from disaster there.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 12:29 pm to doubleb
quote:
Grant got caught with his pants down at Shiloh.
He didn’t think the Rebs would attack him. Shiloh was on Grant.
Grant's #1 flaw was his failure to account for the possibility that the enemy had designs for attacking him. He never really thought about what the Confederate army was doing out of sight and mind, only focusing on preparations for offensive operations of his own design. That can often be a positive trait but can sometimes land you in hot water as it makes you vulnerable to surprise attack.
Grant did not panic, however, and coolly reorganized his forces after the initial surprise wore off. His men grudgingly gave ground and by the evening of the first day had formed an impressive defensive line upon terrain the Confederate Army of Mississippi couldn't hope to overwhelm had they elected to attack the following day.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 3:04 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Grant did not panic, however, and coolly reorganized his forces after the initial surprise wore off. His men grudgingly gave ground and by the evening of the first day had formed an impressive defensive line upon terrain the Confederate Army of Mississippi couldn't hope to overwhelm had they elected to attack the following day.
Exactly, he took control, organized a defense, and stopped the Rebs. He then organized a counter attack which was very successful. No doubt about it, in a bind he did a great job.
But he did lose 20% of his men.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 3:15 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Although his performance on the battlefield is clearly much better than those of his contemporaries, it should be noted that his Civil War arch-rival, Robert E. Lee, is so far below him on the list that he actually has a negative score.
Oh this is too fricking good.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 6:00 pm to RollTide1987
The more you learn about Napoleon the more you realize that he was quite possibly the most impressive human being to have ever lived.
Ended Feudalism and spread the concept of equality under the law in addition to being the greatest general of all time.
Ended Feudalism and spread the concept of equality under the law in addition to being the greatest general of all time.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 9:07 pm to doubleb
quote:
But he did lose 20% of his men.
Incorrect. There were two Union armies at Shiloh - the Army of the Tennessee (Grant's) and the Army of the Ohio (Buell's). Combined they suffered roughly 20% casualties.
Posted on 8/13/20 at 9:09 pm to RollTide1987
Ah, more shite math cannot actually do impartially
The answer is going to come out based on what was put in.
The answer is going to come out based on what was put in.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News