Greatest Generals

[Janus1]

oh…then you have military training …you are a tactician ?

Notice the disclaimer in the first paragraph of the post? maybe you didnt. basically, it acknowledges that im being hypocritical in a way here, and asks you to ignore that, and indulge me for a moment. no, i do not have military training, nor am i a tactitian. but, i have not (that i can remember, correct me if im wrong) sat here and posted about how a general was bad. which, imo, no one here is really qualified to do, beyond agree with an accepted opinion of a general who is acknowledged to be bad.

you are humane ??? j/k…

by my standards, yes. by yours, maybe not.

most “men” in my opinion can probably do some form of leadership, in a war nd have a skill he will be remebered for if he sets his mind to it.

perhaps. naturally, there are the rare occurrences of generals who show natual talent from birth (or more likely when they become a leader), however, i doubt whether the vast majority of people have sufficient skill as a general that they could win a battle, much less a war. there are many more intricacies (sp?) then our feeble little minds could handle :wink: . generals typically go through West Point or ROTC, unless they show natural talent for the leadership, followed by years of battlefield experience (the good ones), and follow up leadership and tactics schools (im not sure of the names, but i could find them if i have to).

So don’t slam Yanny YOU DON’T KNOW!!!

Dont know what exactly? but i have a feeling i dont, like you and i said. my point is, nobody here knows.

wrt not slamming yanny, i can and will if i so choose, and like i said, it was done with the utmost respect and regard ( :D )

[Guest]

@El:

You use what you have to win. Evidence shows that many times in history a weaker force has defeated a superior force simply by attacking first.

Evidence also shows that many times in history a weaker force has defeated a stronger force simply by going defensive.

[Janus1]

Falk, El Jefe, im not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you, but id like to see what examples each of you can provide.

[Yanny]

Janus us in the exact same position I am in, we go to the same school.

Tell me, Why does General Grant deserve to be on the list of the best generals of all time?

I’ve already listed why he doesn’t deserve to be.

[Guest]

The oldest one:
Sparta vs Persia, 480 BC
Battle at the Thermopyles (sp?)

later example, of luring the enemy into an attack
British vs. French, 1415 AD
Battle of Agincourt

Another one:
The battles in the trenches in WWI, between 1915 and 1917.

[Janus1]

General Grant does not deserve to be on the list of greatest generals of all time, neither does Lee imo. my point is they are both good generals. the greatest generals of all time, imo, include alexander the great, hannibal, etc.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

Some random responses:

btw I honestly think I’m a tactician because if i was ever stuck in a military operation I know my mind would think, “how many bullets vehicle’s, tanks, weapons, and cans of soup can I get to my men.”

Technically, that makes you a logistician, not a tactician, and also it would depend on where you are at in said operation. :wink:

generals typically go through West Point or ROTC, unless they show natural talent for the leadership, followed by years of battlefield experience (the good ones), and follow up leadership and tactics schools (im not sure of the names, but i could find them if i have to).

This is mostly correct. All generals, being officers, must go through either what you mentioned or OCS. The schools are also a necessity to advance that high, and battlefield experience would help if they can get it.*

later example, of luring the enemy into an attack
British vs. French, 1415 AD
Battle of Agincourt

Was this actually planned by England? I thought the French insistence on attacking made the British stand and defend, and they happened to have an excellent location to fight at.

*This is only applicable to the US army. :wink:

[El Jefe]

Jan…
First, I did not say U. S. Grant was a great general(see my list above on this page.) So your “utmost respect for both” of us does not apply here. Unless, of course, you are referring to more than one of Yanny’s multiple personalities….Oh, that’s my excuse! So it cannot be multi-Yannys to whom you refer.

Second, your argument would have been more acceptable without the “Shut Up.”

Third, SHUT…UP!!

Notice the socially acceptable manner in which the third point was made. The pause between the two words emphasizes the friendly manner in which the speaker is letting the listener know ‘I cannot believe you said that.’ The volume shown by the capital letters indicates ‘I don’t believe it!’ Most importantly the two exclamation marks demark a definte terminus is recommended for the listeners inane remarks. :roll: :wink:

[Janus1]

EJ, i wasnt even talking to you with any of those posts (not intended to sound rude or anything, just stating the truth) i was talkin to yanny, and the “both” you mentioned were yanny and the rules of the forum, not you.

This is mostly correct. All generals, being officers, must go through either what you mentioned or OCS. The schools are also a necessity to advance that high, and battlefield experience would help if they can get it.*

thank you for the correction, i knew it was something like that :wink:

*This is only applicable to the US army.

yes, i forgot to make the distinction.

[Guest]

@Grigoriy:

later example, of luring the enemy into an attack
British vs. French, 1415 AD
Battle of Agincourt

Was this actually planned by England? I thought the French insistence on attacking made the British stand and defend, and they happened to have an excellent location to fight at.

I have read so. French and English were standing in their positions some times, each of one side of the mud so to say. Then King Henry moved his lines a bit forward, so that the French were within the very maximum distance for his longbows. Firing them lead to the French charge… that’s what i read at least

[El Jefe]

So, in reality, it was a minor(British) offensive move that caused the major(French) offensive move on a major(British) defensive postion.

The French should have done what they do best…moved(left.)

[TG Moses VI]

Maybe the North had a good supply. However, I just read The Gray Fox by Davis. In it he mentions that some Confederate states ordered pikes for their units(1861).

Look no further than the Stonewall of Jackson. ;) Those Virginians were really something. 8)

NOTE: I am surprised that no one mentioned NBF before me.

When did you mention NBF?

good general doesn’t throw away lives. A good general finds a way to win the battle at the least possible cost to his men.

I have to disagree with your way of thinking. Caring to much for your men will often lose more battles than not. He who tries to save everyone, saves no one. Grant wasn’t a great general but a was at least a very good one. Lee “threw away lives” before, too.

I have to agree with you the north is always painted as bad military wise and they one by just a bare margin but then how do we get the name sherman on a tank….

I wouldn’t say so at all. Just look at Custer, Buford, Hancock, et al. The Union was in no shortage of good generals - a big part of it was something Janus mentioned, “politics.”

[Janus1]

:D I done good.

:wink:

[Guerrilla Guy]

@TG:

I have to agree with you the north is always painted as bad military wise and they one by just a bare margin but then how do we get the name sherman on a tank….

I wouldn’t say so at all. Just look at Custer, Buford, Hancock, et al. The Union was in no shortage of good generals - a big part of it was something Janus mentioned, “politics.”

I have heard some southerners talk about it (north having weaker generals) as more of a “holier than thou” context…. that is what I was talking about in that comment… thanks for clarifing though… better sources than what I think of…

[TG Moses VI]

I have heard some southerners talk about it (north having weaker generals) as more of a “holier than thou” context…. that is what I was talking about in that comment… thanks for clarifing though… better sources than what I think of…

Well, it’s harder to find better generals then Lee, Stonewall, Longstreet, and Stuart - no matter what war you find yourself in. They all just work so well together (with the only exception being Longstreet). It took time for the North to get their team together (Grant, Sherman, Custer), but they did. The main problem was that the North was lacking a High General, mainly because none of the good generals wanted the position, until Grant was “discovered.” No General wanted to be “commanded” by Washington, and “luckily” for the North, the politicans learned from their mistake and gave Grant the powers to run the army the way he wanted. Politics was why the North almost lost and why the South did lose.

[Janus1]

(Obviously among many other things) but politics was a big part of what lost the vietnam war. people in washington making decisions they werent qualified to make, without the right information, interfering with the commanders in the field. that was a big part of the “defeat” (quotes since they pulled out, and the defeat wasnt official)

[Guest]

I’m curious, how did politics contribute to the South losing the war, aside from succession {sp}?

Dubya also Gatorade

[TG Moses VI]

Many of the leaders of the South (esp. Virginia) wanted Lee to fight an OFFENSIVE War. This was the main reason why the Southerners lost at Gettysburg and consequently the War Between the States.

[Guerrilla Guy]

@TG:

I have heard some southerners talk about it (north having weaker generals) as more of a “holier than thou” context…. that is what I was talking about in that comment… thanks for clarifing though… better sources than what I think of…

Well, it’s harder to find better generals then Lee, Stonewall, Longstreet, and Stuart - no matter what war you find yourself in. They all just work so well together (with the only exception being Longstreet). It took time for the North to get their team together (Grant, Sherman, Custer), but they did. The main problem was that the North was lacking a High General, mainly because none of the good generals wanted the position, until Grant was “discovered.” No General wanted to be “commanded” by Washington, and “luckily” for the North, the politicans learned from their mistake and gave Grant the powers to run the army the way he wanted. Politics was why the North almost lost and why the South did lose.

I know I just think the “holier than Thou” context is kinda crazy….

[TG Moses VI]

Well the war was a very religious one at that. :wink: