Page 8 of 9
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:39 pm
by ColinWright
ORIGINAL: dude
... I've mearly been pointing out that the Confederates did not have a monopoly on great generals...
You've been claiming that; you haven't been 'pointing it out.' No argument has been posted that convincingly establishes the 'greatness' of any Union general. All that's been posted is a recitation of Union victories obtained with the aid of numerical superiority. As I've said, like me gaining three hundred yards in a Pee-Wee football game.
Not proof of athletic prowess...
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:04 pm
by chris0827
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
ORIGINAL: dude
... I've mearly been pointing out that the Confederates did not have a monopoly on great generals...
You've been claiming that; you haven't been 'pointing it out.' No argument has been posted that convincingly establishes the 'greatness' of any Union general. All that's been posted is a recitation of Union victories obtained with the aid of numerical superiority. As I've said, like me gaining three hundred yards in a Pee-Wee football game.
Not proof of athletic prowess...
Sounds like you can only be a great general if you are outnumbered. Someone tell Patton, Scipio Africanus, and Zhukov that they aren't great generals.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:27 pm
by ColinWright
ORIGINAL: chris0827
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
ORIGINAL: dude
... I've mearly been pointing out that the Confederates did not have a monopoly on great generals...
You've been claiming that; you haven't been 'pointing it out.' No argument has been posted that convincingly establishes the 'greatness' of any Union general. All that's been posted is a recitation of Union victories obtained with the aid of numerical superiority. As I've said, like me gaining three hundred yards in a Pee-Wee football game.
Not proof of athletic prowess...
Sounds like you can only be a great general if you are outnumbered. Someone tell Patton, Scipio Africanus, and Zhukov that they aren't great generals.
Actually, I tend to see this as a query against a general like Patton -- who knows how he would have performed without the big battalions? As to Zhukov, he definitely had his limitations -- read Glantz's book on
Operation Mars. Skippy I don't know enough to comment.
It's possible one could
be a great general and not be outnumbered. However, to convincingly
demonstrate it, one pretty much has to be outnumbered. One way or another, your generalship has to produce a success radically greater than that to be expected from the numbers. Hence Lee, Jackson, Forrest all convincingly demonsrated a claim to greatness. Few Union generals had the opportunity to make a similar demonstration, and none made it.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:35 pm
by ColinWright
Actaully, there is a tale from another arena which has bearing on this.
The New York Yankees, all through the thirties and into the early forties, were of course the dominant team in baseball. Now, one could employ logic similar to that employed by the Grant-lovers to see in this evidence of great management. So what if the Yankees had all the great players? They won, and so they must have had great management.
In point of fact, come the war -- and the draft -- the Yankees did abysmally. They -- unlike the various erstwhile cellar-dwellers who had their chance during the war years -- turned out not to know how to win when they didn't have the big guns.
So was Grant a great general? Absent any convincing track record of him gaining victory without the big battalions, one has to doubt it. Add that he certainly managed to fail to prevail against Lee for nearly a year even when he did have overwhelming superiority. Add his repeated penchant for launching disastrous assaults. Really, there's nil evidence for anything beyond undeniable determination. One could see Hood behaving in exactly the same way -- and given similar superiority, probably obtaining a similar level of success.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:47 pm
by chris0827
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Actaully, there is a tale from another arena which has bearing on this.
The New York Yankees, all through the thirties and into the early forties, were of course the dominant team in baseball. Now, one could employ logic similar to that employed by the Grant-lovers to see in this evidence of great management. So what if the Yankees had all the great players? They won, and so they must have had great management.
In point of fact, come the war -- and the draft -- the Yankees did abysmally. They -- unlike the various erstwhile cellar-dwellers who had their chance during the war years -- turned out not to know how to win when they didn't have the big guns.
So was Grant a great general? Absent any convincing track record of him gaining victory without the big battalions, one has to doubt it. Add that he certainly managed to fail to prevail against Lee for nearly a year even when he did have overwhelming superiority. Add his repeated penchant for launching disastrous assaults. Really, there's nil evidence for anything beyond undeniable determination. One could see Hood behaving in exactly the same way -- and given similar superiority, probably obtaining a similar level of success.
You seem to ignore everything Grant did before 1864. He did ok at Forts Henry & Donelson, Vicksburg, and Chatanooga. And Lee launched a few disastrous assaults himself without having the numerical superiority to afford it.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:11 pm
by dude
Thankfully the Union had a great general with determination. But determination will only get you so far. He had a great track record out west were he was on an equal footing with them so called great confederate genrals (just the confederate fan club hates to admit it or it would tarnish their perfect record.)
Yea.. I guess the confederates never launched a disaterous assault.. <cough> Picketts Charge <cough> (and besides... the confederates were on the DEFENSIVE! Big difference in tactics and strategy used.)
Grant at least admits to his two biggest mistakes (the last assualt at Cold Harbor and the assualt at Vicksburg) can't say that of any the Confederate generals. They were too busy making a name for themselves.
Never claimed to be a Grant lover... I just happen to respect him and think he was every bit a general as Lee.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:34 pm
by dude
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
It's possible one could be a great general and not be outnumbered. However, to convincingly demonstrate it, one pretty much has to be outnumbered.
whoa... is that a narrow view... I can say I've never heard that approach to judging a great general. That would rate right up there with someone who claims all losing generals suck since... well they lost.
If that's your only argument for greatness... "must have been outnumbered" then there's really no point in disccusing this further. But if you look at it objectively ... and consider ALL the factors (not just shear numbers but things like quality of troops) then you’d have to admit that Grant did a great job early war with an inferior force. Again…where were those “great” confederate Generals that could win when “supposedly” outnumbered… oh yea… they were getting beat by a better general.
Grant is also one of the few who looked at the war not just a seperate theaters of operation but in a larger picture and how those different area could support one another. His ability to see the larger picture far outshines anything any confederate General did. Most of whom could only look at their narrow front and see how to make a name for themselves.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:03 am
by General Quarters
I don't know of the 4 traits are considered more or less equally important but, assuming they are, I looked at the overall results, simply adding the 4 ratings: Lee, Grant, Jackson 31 each; Forrest, Stuart, Cleburne 28; Sherman, Sheridan 27; Longstreet 26; Thomas, Buford 25; Wheeler 24, Hood, AP Hill, Reynolds, Chamberlain 23; AS Johnson, Armistead, Meade, Hancock 22, Hardee, Hampton, Rosecrans, Doubleday, Morgan, Anderson, Pender, Rodes 21; JE Johnston, Beauregard, DH Hill, Pickett, Custer 20, and so forth. I think it is important to have the total rankings make sense, not just to get the right tactical for one general and the right initiative for another.
A specific concern: Some generals that never had high command (Chamberlain, Armistead, etc.) are ranked above some generals that performed somewhat well at the top. Yet we all know that some great corps commanders (Hood, and even Longstreet) performed less well at a higher level. And some who flunked as army commanders (Hooker, Pope) did well at a lower level.
As the ratings stand now, it would be better to have Chamberlain commanding the Union army than Meade, and Hood, Armistead, Anderson, Pender, or Rodes instead of Johnston. To take another example: if Bragg (who receives a 15) had been a division commander, he might well have been better than Rodes, and if Rodes had commanded the Army of Tenn, he might well have been worse than Bragg.
In short, some kind of credit should be added for generals who did show the ability to actually manage large masses of men, even if not always faultlessly.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:00 pm
by ColinWright
ORIGINAL: dude
Thankfully the Union had a great general with determination. But determination will only get you so far. He had a great track record out west were he was on an equal footing with them so called great confederate genrals (just the confederate fan club hates to admit it or it would tarnish their perfect record.)
You make this claim without any visible support. When did Grant whip an army twice the size of his own? When did he personally rally fleeing troops and lead them into a successful counterattack? He took on Lee in the Wilderness, outnumbering him 2-1. He barely avoids getting thrashed, and he's the equal of Lee?
...Never claimed to be a Grant lover... I just happen to respect him and think he was every bit a general as Lee.
I guess so. Remind me to go find the 2004 Olympic flyweight champion, pick a fight with him, and when I manage to fend him off, claim I'm every bit as good a boxer as he is.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:05 pm
by ColinWright
ORIGINAL: General Quarters
I don't know of the 4 traits are considered more or less equally important but, assuming they are, I looked at the overall results, simply adding the 4 ratings: Lee, Grant, Jackson 31 each; Forrest, Stuart, Cleburne 28; Sherman, Sheridan 27; Longstreet 26; Thomas, Buford 25; Wheeler 24, Hood, AP Hill, Reynolds, Chamberlain 23; AS Johnson, Armistead, Meade, Hancock 22, Hardee, Hampton, Rosecrans, Doubleday, Morgan, Anderson, Pender, Rodes 21; JE Johnston, Beauregard, DH Hill, Pickett, Custer 20, and so forth. I think it is important to have the total rankings make sense, not just to get the right tactical for one general and the right initiative for another.
A specific concern: Some generals that never had high command (Chamberlain, Armistead, etc.) are ranked above some generals that performed somewhat well at the top. Yet we all know that some great corps commanders (Hood, and even Longstreet) performed less well at a higher level. And some who flunked as army commanders (Hooker, Pope) did well at a lower level.
As the ratings stand now, it would be better to have Chamberlain commanding the Union army than Meade, and Hood, Armistead, Anderson, Pender, or Rodes instead of Johnston. To take another example: if Bragg (who receives a 15) had been a division commander, he might well have been better than Rodes, and if Rodes had commanded the Army of Tenn, he might well have been worse than Bragg.
In short, some kind of credit should be added for generals who did show the ability to actually manage large masses of men, even if not always faultlessly.
Personally -- and this discussion makes abundantly clear it would be a good idea -- I think it would be good if the players could modify the generals to their taste.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:07 pm
by ColinWright
...
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:13 pm
by ColinWright
....
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:13 pm
by ColinWright
ORIGINAL: dude
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
It's possible one could be a great general and not be outnumbered. However, to convincingly demonstrate it, one pretty much has to be outnumbered.
whoa... is that a narrow view... I can say I've never heard that approach to judging a great general. That would rate right up there with someone who claims all losing generals suck since... well they lost.
If that's your only argument for greatness... "must have been outnumbered" then there's really no point in disccusing this further. But if you look at it objectively ... and consider ALL the factors (not just shear numbers but things like quality of troops) then you’d have to admit that Grant did a great job early war with an inferior force.
Another one of your statements without visible support. When did Grant have this 'inferior force'? If you like, I'll concede that Belmont provides evidence that he was a potentially great brigadier.
Again…where were those “great” confederate Generals that could win when “supposedly” outnumbered…
? The Shendanoah Valley. The Peninsula. Second Manassas. Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville. Most of Forrest's battles. Olustee. The Red River Campaign. So where were the Confederate generals that could win when 'supposedly' outnumbered? Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Louisiana.
oh yea… they were getting beat by a better general.
Grant is also one of the few who looked at the war not just a seperate theaters of operation but in a larger picture and how those different area could support one another. His ability to see the larger picture far outshines anything any confederate General did. Most of whom could only look at their narrow front and see how to make a name for themselves.
This ignores the detail that no Confederate general was ever put in charge of all the Confederate armies -- not until it was too late. One might as well rate Eisenhower as a better general than Patton on account of Eisenhower taking a more global view of matters.
[/quote]
[/quote]
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:14 pm
by dude
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
ORIGINAL: dude
Thankfully the Union had a great general with determination. But determination will only get you so far. He had a great track record out west were he was on an equal footing with them so called great confederate genrals (just the confederate fan club hates to admit it or it would tarnish their perfect record.)
You make this claim without any visible support. When did Grant whip an army twice the size of his own? When did he personally rally fleeing troops and lead them into a successful counterattack? He took on Lee in the Wilderness, outnumbering him 2-1. He barely avoids getting thrashed, and he's the equal of Lee
[8|] I make the claim with lots of support for my point, take the time to actually go back and read... And thanks… you made my point yet again… any other general after the battle of the Wilderness would have scurried right back to Washington… Grant did what Lee did not expect him to do… he kept on the offensive… in other words… Lee’s fancy footwork no longer matter… too bad couldn’t figure this out. Doesn’t make Lee out to be too great either if he couldn’t get Grant to give up.
Like I said earlier though there’s no point in discussing with you the term “great” in relationship to generals if you’re only criteria is being outnumber… you haven’t given any other support to your claims and there sure are plenty of generals that are considered great that were never outnumbered.
...Never claimed to be a Grant lover... I just happen to respect him and think he was every bit a general as Lee.
I guess so. Remind me to go find the 2004 Olympic flyweight champion, pick a fight with him, and when I manage to fend him off, claim I'm every bit as good a boxer as he is.
[/quote]
I could make just as dumb a comment...
[8|] being the underdog and losing does not make one great... stupid for picking the fight... but not great.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:17 pm
by ColinWright
ORIGINAL: dude
I could make just as dumb a comment...
[8|] being the underdog and losing does not make one great... stupid for picking the fight... but not great.
I'm glad you referred to my comment as 'dumb.' I've been biting my tongue here. Is there anybody out there who wants to defend Grant
and who has a brain?
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:20 pm
by dude
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Another one of your statements without visible support...
I'm glad you referred to my comment as 'dumb.' I've been biting my tongue here.
makes two of us.... been biting my tongue as you make snide comments about my points too. If you'd like to politely discuss it I’m all for it.
I've been supporting everything I've posted including quotes from different sources... you just keep saying you have to be outnumbered to be great... with no suppor to that comment.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:25 pm
by ColinWright
ORIGINAL: dude
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Another one of your statements without visible support...
I'm glad you referred to my comment as 'dumb.' I've been biting my tongue here.
makes two of us.... been biting my tongue as you make snide comments about my points too. If you'd like to politely discuss it I’m all for it.
I've been supporting everything I've posted including quotes from different sources... you just keep saying you have to be outnumbered to be great... with no suppor to that comment.
Kind of funny. You make points that you fail to support, then back them up by claiming to have supported your points.
...well, go and look. I'm sure you supported some point you made. You may have even made some claim that was valid.
However, you have done nil to support your claim that Grant was a great general.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:27 pm
by dude
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Again…where were those “great” confederate Generals that could win when “supposedly” outnumbered…
? The Shendanoah Valley. The Peninsula. Second Manassas. Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville. Most of Forrest's battles. Olustee. The Red River Campaign. So where were the Confederate generals that could win when 'supposedly' outnumbered? Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Louisiana.
funny... I don't think Grant was at Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, most of Forrest's battles, or Olustee... I was refering to Grant. Please re-read my comment. Mississippi? Tennessee? Louisiana? I think Grant and Sherman defeated the confederates there.
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:29 pm
by dude
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
ORIGINAL: dude
ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Another one of your statements without visible support...
I'm glad you referred to my comment as 'dumb.' I've been biting my tongue here.
makes two of us.... been biting my tongue as you make snide comments about my points too. If you'd like to politely discuss it I’m all for it.
I've been supporting everything I've posted including quotes from different sources... you just keep saying you have to be outnumbered to be great... with no suppor to that comment.
Kind of funny. You make points that you fail to support, then back them up by claiming to have supported your points.
...well, go and look. I'm sure you supported some point you made. You may have even made some claim that was valid.
However, you have done nil to support your claim that Grant was a great general.
You right, this is just too funny to bother with anymore... [:o]
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:15 pm
by ezzler
There are NO serious history books on the civil war that do not accord almost equal status to the great skills of Lee and Grant.
If they weren't any good surely Foote or McPherson or Catton would have noticed.
Enough already, they were both very good.....
Next we'll be arguing Rommel was only defeated by superior numbers and could have got to Delhi with Monty's resources.....