Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That's like asking who is the better quarterback. The guy with the better stats or the guy who wins the supper bowl.I say Washington. Lee had better "stats," but Washington--while only winning three of nine major battles--won the war.Washington knew how to win the war. And did.I don't think Lee knew how to win the war because he was stuck in the Napoleonic era where single battles won wars. But even if Lee knew how to win, he lost. Antietam and Gettysburg were lost due to Lee's tactical errors, not Davis' micromanagement. Davis wanted to send Lee to reinforce Vicksburg, whereas Lee thought by invading the North that Grant would forced to lift the siege at Vicksburg. That didn't happen. Which is one of several reasons I think Lee, unlike Washington (and Grant), didn't see the big picture.
I have to disagree here. I believe Lee already knew the war was a foregone conclusion even as early as 1863, but he hoped to strike a political blow in the North that would topple Lincoln and cause Northern support for the war to falter. It was a gambit with higher risk and greater reward. He took a chance and it failed. Besides if he diverted resources to Vicksburg, he would have left himself and the capital very vulnerable which would have caused them greater harm. Davis ultimately decided that Kirby Smith was the only hope of saving Vicksburg and Smith proved unable to do so despite the best efforts of his best general, Richard Taylor, who tried to get Trans-Mississippi forces across the Mississippi River. The North had a 9:1 advantage in manpower and industrial output. The South simply couldn't maintain forces across such a vast amount of territory like the North could. It was all they could do to win a few battles here and there to delay the inevitable. Washington would have fared no better, and probably worse, if he faced similar odds with the British...which he didn't.
The list is missing mention of the "black helicopters." 😛
I think the black helicopters are either police or private, but they are out there.
Plato was definitely not awake. He was the biggest dreamer of all with his stupid Philosopher King crapola. He wouldn't know how to wear a tin-foil hat if somebody gave him the directions. He would just ask an endless number of questions until he infuriated everyone. At least Aristotle had more on the ball than his teacher.
This reminds me of that David Carradine movie Circle of Iron. You can play the role of Cord the seeker of enlightenment while I play the role of spirit guide. Now where did I put my flute?
Washington went out of his way to defer to the Continental Congress during the Revolution. The last thing he wanted to be seen as or act like was some kind of Generalissimo.
They weren't going to tell him how to run the war though.
To be honest I have never really studied him or any of the other Gilded Age presidents as they all seemed pretty boring to me in school.
This.
Well Klausewitz, Lee suffered from a bad political situation that Washington didn't. Washington was more or less the government (think of martial law style of government here), while Lee had a President who micromanaged everything about the war and overruled many of his tactical decisions such as enlisting slaves into the army. Despite the mismanagement of Jefferson Davis, Lee still prolonged the conflict and abused many of Lincoln's incompetent generals….or at least made them look incompetent. Finally, Lee simply didn't have the industrial resources to keep pace with the North, and the Civil War was the first “modern war.” But I will agree that he was stuck in the Napoleonic era tactically (but Lee was an old man and still of that generation).
Were there any that were just completely lopsided in terms of the size of the forces engaged? Not that I am aware of, at least none of the bigger ones.
What about Vicksburg? I know it was a siege for the most part, but Pemberton only had about 22,000 men and Joe Johnston's forces were separated from him and he only had about 34,000 I think. Meanwhile didn't Grant have over 100,000 men at his disposal at one point? Would that be considered lopsided?
First time responder, long time reader. i would have to take the Colonies over the Empire, although the Greeks and the Finns are great choices as well.
Welcome aboard!
Greeks vs Persians (Plataea and Thermopylae) hands down. That would be the equivalent of Canada defeating the United States.
