Poll: I can win as long as I have....
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Capt. Pixel
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Tucson, AZ
Telme, oh, PLEASE, tell me you are not a "Lee was a great general" nut...Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
Uh..ohh you just had to ask....
Well I love an oppurtunity to shatter the myths about the Civil War and inject a little soutern pride.
"You see, in this world there's 2 kinds of people, my friend:
Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
-
Fallschirmjager
- Posts: 3555
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
- Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Since your from Indiana Ill forgive your sins.
Lee was a god on the battlefield find me one Federal general that was worth a damn....oh wait.....
History books might say Grant but he had no tactical genius he simply had the balls to slaughter his men to get the job done.
Federal camp aide: Sir the enemy is encamped upon that hill shall we try to turn that flank?
Grant: Naw that will take too long and we have enough men. Just assault it enough and they will give. If you need me Ill be drunk in my tent.
LOL dont flame me for this its just I carry a healthy does of the southern pride and the book knowledge to back it up.
Lee was a god on the battlefield find me one Federal general that was worth a damn....oh wait.....
History books might say Grant but he had no tactical genius he simply had the balls to slaughter his men to get the job done.
Federal camp aide: Sir the enemy is encamped upon that hill shall we try to turn that flank?
Grant: Naw that will take too long and we have enough men. Just assault it enough and they will give. If you need me Ill be drunk in my tent.
LOL dont flame me for this its just I carry a healthy does of the southern pride and the book knowledge to back it up.
OK - then Explain to me Pickett's Charge. Better yet, explain to me the 5th & 6th of July, 1863, when Lee, with his back to a RIVER, offerd battle against a vastly superior foe, instead of withdrawing back across that river to safety.Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
Since your from Indiana Ill forgive your sins.
Lee was a god on the battlefield find me one Federal general that was worth a ****....oh wait.....
History books might say Grant but he had no tactical genius he simply had the balls to slaughter his men to get the job done.
Federal camp aide: Sir the enemy is encamped upon that hill shall we try to turn that flank?
Grant: Naw that will take too long and we have enough men. Just assault it enough and they will give. If you need me Ill be drunk in my tent.
LOL dont flame me for this its just I carry a healthy does of the southern pride and the book knowledge to back it up.
Grant not a manuver-er? Hmmm... He seems to have turned Lee's flank, repeatedly, during teh battle for Richmond in 64.
Wan't Sherman's march to the sea nothign but a series of flanking manuvers?
The first books written after the war were written by Confederate officers that went intot he war convinced that God would not let them lose. They got a GRAPHIC demonstration on how wrong they were.
They had to explain it. Those books did so, in such a manner that these men, many of whom *would* duel to the death over an insult (somethign we wouldn't do today), were able to save face. They found a reason - it wasn't the hopelessness of hteir cause, God didn't abandon them, it's more a matter of Satan-made-manifest in a fighting general like Grant.
Key-Rist! Lee could NOT even form a working, useful staff. his was nothing mroe than a place to sen favorite sons of the South to keep them from getting killed.
Lee had one enduring, vastly professional trait. He cared for the lives of his men, he cared for his men deeply and didn't mind showing that concern. Grant was a more distant commander, but he cared not one bit less. The difference is that grant was painted a butcher (just like G.S.Patton, Jr. - and just as wrong).
Feel free to cite one of the books you say are available. I'll cite one here and now - "Uncertain Glory: Lee's Generalship Revisited"
Sorry if I seem to be flaming you, but I'm a military history/US History student and I dislike revisionism without cause. Some revisionism is good, when new facts are uncovered. But teh facts of Lee's conduct on the battlefield show, despite the many legions that want Lee to be a great general, that he was promoted past his ability.
"You see, in this world there's 2 kinds of people, my friend:
Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
-
Fallschirmjager
- Posts: 3555
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
- Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Ill not turn this into a Civil War forum but will adress your points.
Pickets charge and the entire battle of Gettysburg is simple to explain away in the fact that everyone thing the Army of Northern Virginia had done up to that point had been a success. Lee had tried both flanks and failed. The Union had weakened its center and Lee felt he could succed if taking it. Its funny how Pickets charge seems to be the only flaw critics of Lee can bring up. I could write volumes on the mistakes of Union generals. The South was much like the Germans. They had tasted victory everywhere they had been met on the field of battle so they thought nothing could stand in there way.
History is indeed written by the winners and after the war the Radical Republicans controlled all most all the media so of course the Union was put into a favorible light. Autobiographies are one of the worst pieces of historical writting you can read. What do you expect them to say? I was wrong? No man is going to say that. Soldiers scoff at history written by historians, but if you want the truth of the overall campaign its best to find a book written by someone with an objective point of view on the matter.
Lee did have staff problems at Gettysburg ill admit. But the Union did not have to start from nothing when it built its army. The South of course had to do so. After Chancerlorsville where Jackson was lost (another of histories greatest men) Lee had lost a Corps commander (Lee only had two Corps, armies at that time were of course smaller). He created a third right before the battle. Along with a string of divisional commanders, 2/3 of his army was under new command. So of course this led to problems.
Now for Grant. Ill admit Grant was above the usual crowd of his half dozen successors. The reason for his greatness was the simple fact that he had the balls to use the Norths greatest advantage. Manpower. He threw men into combat reguardless of the losses until he achived the victory. No man before this had the fortitude to use this. As far as the fact that he did outflank Lee before Richmond also has its reasons. When you are outnumbered 2:1 trying to defend a set point in the 1860's of course you are going to be outflnaked. Grant knew Lee was not going to attack so he had a free range of movement in the area around Richmond. Also the Southern men were exhausted. The area of Richmond and all of Northern Virginia was devastated by 3 years of war. It was winter so the crops were exhausted and their was no way for the men to live off the land. The North was untouched and grants force has ample food to live off of.
Also for the books Ill simply state the best that are avaliable on Lee. The epic called "R. E. Lee" by Douglas Southall Freeman this excellent 4 volume set is about as good as you can get on Lee and the campaigns of The Army of Northern Virginia. It won the 1935 Pulitzer Prize. If you are interested dong read the abridged version. I have the 4 volume set and that is the only "true" version in my eyes. The 4 volume is out of print so it would be difficult to track down.
To make you fell better I will state some decent Union Generals.
George Thomas. The best in my opinion
Hanncock Excellent corps commander
Sheridan Norths best cavlary product
Theirs a few more but they have slipped my mind at the moment
As far as Sherman I have no respect for him. He could not decisivily destroy the Army of the Tennesee so he took to destroying the land of the Southern people when it was not needed. The reason he was allowed to progress to Atlanta was because that Bungling moron John Bell Hood was placed in charge. J. E. Johnston was falling back quite well against Shermans advance. But Davis wanted him to attack promptly. Johnston said no. Hood had always felt he should attack so davis gave him the reigns. He promptly attacked badly outnumbered and lost two decisive battles.
The South was much like the Germans. Germany went into two world wars badly outnumbered, outgunned out produced. Yet they managed to almost win both. The South had the same disavantages. Yet they too almost pulled victory from the jaws of defeat. Both these cases have dozens of whats ifs that make them so intriguing. They are simply remarkable and I admire both of them.
I apoligize that I may of slammed Grant a little too harshly. its nice to find a soul as well read as you. I know Im not going to change your mind, but I make these posts so that the other forum goers can read them and hopefully become interested in the facts(then they too can come in and argue with us). Especially our European friends.
To Europeans. My current reading deals with the Franco Prussian war of 1870. What are the best books on this topic? I know the basics. France got invaded (seems to happen every 10 years) Sorry had to get one French joke in
Good Lord this is long.....and I didnt want to turn this into a Civil War forum.
Pickets charge and the entire battle of Gettysburg is simple to explain away in the fact that everyone thing the Army of Northern Virginia had done up to that point had been a success. Lee had tried both flanks and failed. The Union had weakened its center and Lee felt he could succed if taking it. Its funny how Pickets charge seems to be the only flaw critics of Lee can bring up. I could write volumes on the mistakes of Union generals. The South was much like the Germans. They had tasted victory everywhere they had been met on the field of battle so they thought nothing could stand in there way.
History is indeed written by the winners and after the war the Radical Republicans controlled all most all the media so of course the Union was put into a favorible light. Autobiographies are one of the worst pieces of historical writting you can read. What do you expect them to say? I was wrong? No man is going to say that. Soldiers scoff at history written by historians, but if you want the truth of the overall campaign its best to find a book written by someone with an objective point of view on the matter.
Lee did have staff problems at Gettysburg ill admit. But the Union did not have to start from nothing when it built its army. The South of course had to do so. After Chancerlorsville where Jackson was lost (another of histories greatest men) Lee had lost a Corps commander (Lee only had two Corps, armies at that time were of course smaller). He created a third right before the battle. Along with a string of divisional commanders, 2/3 of his army was under new command. So of course this led to problems.
Now for Grant. Ill admit Grant was above the usual crowd of his half dozen successors. The reason for his greatness was the simple fact that he had the balls to use the Norths greatest advantage. Manpower. He threw men into combat reguardless of the losses until he achived the victory. No man before this had the fortitude to use this. As far as the fact that he did outflank Lee before Richmond also has its reasons. When you are outnumbered 2:1 trying to defend a set point in the 1860's of course you are going to be outflnaked. Grant knew Lee was not going to attack so he had a free range of movement in the area around Richmond. Also the Southern men were exhausted. The area of Richmond and all of Northern Virginia was devastated by 3 years of war. It was winter so the crops were exhausted and their was no way for the men to live off the land. The North was untouched and grants force has ample food to live off of.
Also for the books Ill simply state the best that are avaliable on Lee. The epic called "R. E. Lee" by Douglas Southall Freeman this excellent 4 volume set is about as good as you can get on Lee and the campaigns of The Army of Northern Virginia. It won the 1935 Pulitzer Prize. If you are interested dong read the abridged version. I have the 4 volume set and that is the only "true" version in my eyes. The 4 volume is out of print so it would be difficult to track down.
To make you fell better I will state some decent Union Generals.
George Thomas. The best in my opinion
Hanncock Excellent corps commander
Sheridan Norths best cavlary product
Theirs a few more but they have slipped my mind at the moment
As far as Sherman I have no respect for him. He could not decisivily destroy the Army of the Tennesee so he took to destroying the land of the Southern people when it was not needed. The reason he was allowed to progress to Atlanta was because that Bungling moron John Bell Hood was placed in charge. J. E. Johnston was falling back quite well against Shermans advance. But Davis wanted him to attack promptly. Johnston said no. Hood had always felt he should attack so davis gave him the reigns. He promptly attacked badly outnumbered and lost two decisive battles.
The South was much like the Germans. Germany went into two world wars badly outnumbered, outgunned out produced. Yet they managed to almost win both. The South had the same disavantages. Yet they too almost pulled victory from the jaws of defeat. Both these cases have dozens of whats ifs that make them so intriguing. They are simply remarkable and I admire both of them.
I apoligize that I may of slammed Grant a little too harshly. its nice to find a soul as well read as you. I know Im not going to change your mind, but I make these posts so that the other forum goers can read them and hopefully become interested in the facts(then they too can come in and argue with us). Especially our European friends.
To Europeans. My current reading deals with the Franco Prussian war of 1870. What are the best books on this topic? I know the basics. France got invaded (seems to happen every 10 years) Sorry had to get one French joke in
Good Lord this is long.....and I didnt want to turn this into a Civil War forum.