Started By
Message

re: The Top 10 Greatest Generals of All-Time - According to Mathematics

Posted on 8/8/20 at 9:54 am to
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36049 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 9:54 am to
quote:


Please go read a book on Vicksburg. The scale and execution of the operation is simply amazing. Again, the Confederates had extremely strong defensive positions. It wasn't simply a matter of resources and manpower. Execution is important, conceiving how to attack the problem, and then implementing a solution on a large scale is the essence of modern warfare.


I said once Grant ran his boats past Vicksburg he ran a brilliant campaign. He executed his plan very well. He realized after several tries that he wasn’t going to defeat the Rebs by storm the Reb defenses so he elected to starve them out. The strong defensive positions were not helping the Rebs. They ran out of good.
Grant realized his foe was passive, unorganized and unable to threaten him so he bided his time and made Vicksburg surrender taking 29,000 prisoners while other Rebel armies in the region did nothing to threaten him.
Posted by Dick Leverage
In The HizHouse
Member since Nov 2013
9000 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 10:04 am to
Greene was indeed a very good General.

Back to Arnold. He had already suffered a year of indignity at the hands of politicians after the heroics at Ticonderoga and the navy battle of Lake Champlain that stalled Carletons goal of sacking New York from the North. The battle itself was miraculous seeing that he hastily constructed a tiny flotilla to hinder British ships of the line but even more heroic was his escape out of Valcour Bay when escape from his cut off position seemed virtually impossible.

Then in 77 came Saratoga. He had already rallied the American left at Bemis Heights to prevent the British flanking maneuver when General Gates relegated him to the sideline to promote a friend of a politician to command of the left position. As the battle raged, Arnold was stuck inside a home in the rear begging Gates to allow him to join the fight. While Gates sat in a parlor debating the merits of the American cause with a recently captured British officer, Arnold mounted a horse and galloped off alone to join the battle. Gates sent a man after him to bring him back but Arnold told him to pound sand.

Upon arrival at the fighting, Arnold rallied the American forces and took on aggressive tactics that eventually settled the issue and resulted in the total surrender of Burgyones army.

Gates took credit for this victory and raced couriers to Congress to set a narrative that diminished Arnold’s role. While he sat drinking cordials in a gentlemanly debate with an officer as the battle raged, Arnold defied his order and rode into battle to lead the troops to victory and took a second bullet to the same leg that had been busted up in the assault that he led in Quebec a year earlier.

Washington advocated his merits to the politicians numerous times but all military officer appointments were decided by the politicians at that stage of the war. Arnold proved time and again to be the best that they had, but that man was done as wrong as any military officer has ever been done wrong. Sucks that a man who loved the cause so much was done so wrong on so many occasions that he would build up enough animosity just to be recognized for his ability.
Posted by Lynxrufus2012
Central Kentucky
Member since Mar 2020
12182 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 1:49 pm to
Thus the "Leg" Monument at Saratoga. No doubt Gates was a jackass. He proved it at Camden and screwed over both Washington and Arnold and was in the middle of the Newburgh conspiracy. Washington stuck his neck out for Arnold multiple times, even after his disastrous time in Philadelphia. Washington was back stabbed by Gates as well but he remained loyal to a country that didn't truly value him until the war was over. But being a traitor washed out Arnold's greatness. Even the Brits snubbed him and called him a turncoat. I'll take General Greene.





Posted by Lithium
Member since Dec 2004
61930 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 2:14 pm to
Vicksburg was a brilliant campaign. The Union gunships ran so close to the shore they were too close to fire the heavy artillery. Grant's Western Theater Campaign had an excellent strategy and execution.
His Eastern Theater was not nearly as well played but I think as Lincoln meddled and need some victories to secure his reelection this affected the battle plan
Posted by Nobelium
Member since May 2018
821 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 3:21 pm to
.
This post was edited on 4/16/21 at 10:26 am
Posted by PhilipMarlowe
Member since Mar 2013
20503 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 3:38 pm to
quote:

7. Ulysses S. Grant






Take that L pussies.
Posted by Mo Jeaux
Member since Aug 2008
58779 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 3:42 pm to
quote:

Grant sustained 9,135 men killed or wounded during the Vicksburg campaign while the Confederates suffered 5,291 combat casualties. Grant only "inflicted more casualties" if you factor in surrendered enemies.


Most attacking forces especially back then tended to take more casualties than forces in defensive positions.

Kind of a weak argument.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
36311 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 4:15 pm to
quote:

Grant sustained 9,135 men killed or wounded during the Vicksburg campaign while the Confederates suffered 5,291 combat casualties. Grant only "inflicted more casualties" if you factor in surrendered enemies.


That’s how a causality is defined by Francis Kennedy (and in general), as the Confederate forces were paroled on the condition that they could not take up arms against the Union again, denying the Confederacy of men. Surrounding Vicksburg, and forcing the surrender of an army of 30,000 men is no easy feat, and I don’t know why you would underrate it.
This post was edited on 8/8/20 at 4:19 pm
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
36311 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 4:17 pm to
quote:

Most attacking forces especially back then tended to take more casualties than forces in defensive positions.

Kind of a weak argument.


It’s surprising Grant took so few casualties given how long the campaign was. Not to mention that what happens to people at the conclusion of a siege, if they do not surrender.
Posted by biglego
Ask your mom where I been
Member since Nov 2007
76336 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 5:13 pm to
I’m glad this list didn’t put Saladin in the top 10. He was certainly good but he’s also overrated IMO. He couldn’t beat Richard and lost to Baldwin the leper too. He was saved by Richard’s constant feuding with Philip Augustus and he really dodged a bullet when Frederick died on the way with his army. That German army was dangerous.
Posted by biglego
Ask your mom where I been
Member since Nov 2007
76336 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 5:18 pm to
[quote]What about Asian generals[

I’ll be honest here, I find Oriental history to be impenetrable. I don’t have much base of knowledge of the area or the history. I tried listening to an audiobook on Chinese history and I was quickly lost by the place names and people names. Especially in audio form, which is how I consume books, it’s a lost cause for me.

Doesn’t help that I’m an idiot.
Posted by Red Stick Rambler
Member since Jun 2011
1178 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 5:20 pm to
quote:

If the South had won


Let me guess - we’d have it made and you would probably run for President of the Southern States????
Posted by ZenFNmaster
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Nov 2007
2476 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 5:43 pm to
Benedict Arnold is probably the most tragically misunderstood figure in American history.
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
65113 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 7:35 pm to
quote:

His Eastern Theater was not nearly as well played


Not as much room to maneuver in Virginia as there was in Tennessee and Mississippi. Virginia is ideal defensive terrain as the rivers flow east-west, unlike the Western Theater where they mainly flow north-south. He did about as well as you can against an entrenched foe with barriers such as the Rapidan and James Rivers to assist in defense.
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
65113 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 7:36 pm to
quote:

Benedict Arnold is probably the most tragically misunderstood figure in American history.


There's not much to misunderstand. The dude wanted sex from a loyalist female and the British used that, as well as his disgruntled feelings toward the Continental Congress, to their advantage.

Posted by lostinbr
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2017
9379 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 9:58 pm to
quote:

The original list is very misleading. In order to determine this you need to know more.
quote:

2). How often did he fight from an advantage of strength (# of forces) vs a disadvantage?

Did you even read the OP?
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36049 posts
Posted on 8/8/20 at 10:22 pm to
quote:


Not as much room to maneuver in Virginia as there was in Tennessee and Mississippi. Virginia is ideal defensive terrain as the rivers flow east-west, unlike the Western Theater where they mainly flow north-south. He did about as well as you can against an entrenched foe with barriers such as the Rapidan and James Rivers to assist in defense.

The quality of the opposition was much better in the East. Lee and his cohorts were much better than Pemberton and Johnston. The Rebel troops were battle toughened.
But he was fortunate to come East after Gettysburg and after the Rebs were exhausting their resources.
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
65113 posts
Posted on 8/9/20 at 8:51 am to
quote:

The quality of the opposition was much better in the East.


This is true. And the quality of the Army of the Potomac was lacking to a certain degree. While Lee was most definitely outnumbered by the Union army, many of the troops in the latter command were brand new, having never seen combat. Of the corps commanders that Meade had at his disposal, Hancock of the II Corps was not the same Hancock before his wounding at Gettysburg. This would become more and more obvious as the campaign dragged on. Warren of the V Corps was operating beyond his ability and should never have been given command of a corps to begin with. Sedgwick of the VI Corps was very popular among the troops but he lacked a killer instinct and would never take the initiative. He needed explicit orders to do something before he did it. And then Burnside of the IX Corps, though not originally attached to the Army of the Potomac due to his seniority of rank over Meade, was not a good commander of anything. And while Meade had made the right decision to consolidate his army into fewer corps, he definitely overcompensated as the corps he had in his army were now too big and unwieldy.

On the other side of the equation, Lee's leadership from the top down was battle hardened and had demonstrated an ability to command at a high level, though A.P. Hill was definitely struggling due to underlying health problems. Plus all 65,000 of Robert E. Lee's soldiers were battle hardened veterans and on the defensive. They had clear advantages over their Union counterparts (experience and defensive terrain being the most prevalent).

This post was edited on 8/9/20 at 8:55 am
Posted by dchog
Pea ridge
Member since Nov 2012
21271 posts
Posted on 8/9/20 at 9:11 am to
I think Lee was trying to win the war as fast as he could because the south couldn't keep up with the north in a prolonged war.

It was a numbers game and Lee understood the longer it went on, the less likely the south could win.
Posted by Porter Osborne Jr
Member since Sep 2012
40008 posts
Posted on 8/9/20 at 9:17 am to
Nah, Stonewall wanted to do that. He actually proposed going scorched earth like Sherman did to start the war.
Jump to page
Page First 6 7 8 9 10
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 8 of 10Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram