- 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 Wildest General From the Civil War
Posted on 12/31/21 at 2:19 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 12/31/21 at 2:19 pm to RollTide1987
To be fair to Joseph Hooker he was a solid corp commander. And he might of did better at Chancellorsville if he wasn’t probably concussed. I could write volumes about that battle.
This post was edited on 12/31/21 at 2:21 pm
1
Posted on 12/31/21 at 2:26 pm to ReeseBobby
Oh, I agree. Hooker wins the Battle of Chancellorsville nine out of 10 times. Lee got INSANELY lucky. BUT, after the battle, Hooker lost confidence in himself and started fearing Lee just as much as his predecessors had done.
Depending on how you view the battle, one could argue that Grant and Meade got jacked up at The Wilderness just as badly as Hooker had been at Chancellorsville. The difference? Grant never lost confidence in himself and ordered the army to continue south.
Hooker retreated back across the Rapidan with his tail between his legs.
Depending on how you view the battle, one could argue that Grant and Meade got jacked up at The Wilderness just as badly as Hooker had been at Chancellorsville. The difference? Grant never lost confidence in himself and ordered the army to continue south.
Hooker retreated back across the Rapidan with his tail between his legs.
This post was edited on 12/31/21 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 12/31/21 at 2:43 pm to RollTide1987
Head to head; Lee v Grant. How did the casualties stack up?
Posted on 12/31/21 at 3:04 pm to RollTide1987
You could assert that Lee inflicted more losses over time compared to Grant due to war weariness of his men. Loss of will and mistakes from fatigue eventually add up.
Grant was able to rely on fresh troops, delivered by rail car with new uniforms and rifles. Easier to keep morale up and men moving forward. Lee’s army didn’t have that luxury, in manpower or materials.
Grant was able to rely on fresh troops, delivered by rail car with new uniforms and rifles. Easier to keep morale up and men moving forward. Lee’s army didn’t have that luxury, in manpower or materials.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 3:07 pm to doubleb
quote:
Head to head; Lee v Grant. How did the casualties stack up?
About like you'd expect with one army attacking and another defending from behind fixed positions - such as trenches. The Union army lost 55,000 men in the Overland Campaign while the Confederate army lost 33,000. However, keep a few things in mind.
Lee's army was comprised entirely of veteran troops who had been fighting with each other since 1862 while the Army of the Potomac featured A LOT of green volunteers and draftees who had never seen combat. And they were on the offensive against Lee's 65,000 veteran troops.
The Union army lost 55,000 men from a force of 120,000. That's a combat loss ratio of 45%. Compare that to the 33,000 men Lee lost out of an army of 65,000 (50.7%) and you get a better picture of what happened to Lee's army in May and June of 1864. It became a shattered shell of its former self and had lost all offensive capabilities. The offensive is where Lee thrived. He could not launch attacks anymore due to the drainage in manpower.
No other commander had ever taken away Lee's ability to maneuver.
This post was edited on 12/31/21 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 12/31/21 at 3:16 pm to GFunk
quote:
JEB Stuart and Ashby were easily Forrest’s equals as cavalry commanders.
And little Phil Sheridan was probably the best cavalry commander of the entire war.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 3:22 pm to ned nederlander
quote:
And little Phil Sheridan was probably the best cavalry commander of the entire war.
Forrest was a nuisance and did sometimes affect offensive operations with his operations behind the lines. Phil Sheridan was essentially one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. What he did to the Shenandoah Valley was catastrophic.
This post was edited on 12/31/21 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 12/31/21 at 3:29 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
After the war, General Dan Sickles donated the leg to the Army Medical Museum
So he kept his amputated leg? Weird....
This post was edited on 12/31/21 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 12/31/21 at 3:31 pm to doubleb
quote:Like one guy said last night in another thread, “ An old Vietnam warrior and mentor once told me there are two officers, peacetime toadies and the other is in a container that's says break glass in case of war. The two don't mix well.”
Listening to this makes you wonder what were people thinking when they made this guy a general,
Some guys are like a human Claymore mine. Front Towards Enemy.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 3:39 pm to doubleb
quote:
Listening to this makes you wonder what were people thinking when they made this guy a general, but I know there were many others like Sickles in high command.
Sickles got his position due to his powerful reputation as a politician. He was a Democrat and this was a very political war. New York was a state Lincoln needed in his pocket.
There were a lot of political generals on both sides of the conflict, but especially in the North.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 4:01 pm to RollTide1987
Hide yo wives. Hide yo sistas. Hide yo daughters. Cause General Earl Van Dorn is in town.
This post was edited on 12/31/21 at 4:02 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News