Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 30th, 2016, 02:40 PM   #51

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,570

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga
I expanded it to add many more military commanders and am now pushing on 300.


Classic. The same would probably happen to someone like me or Mangekyou as well.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 30th, 2016, 02:48 PM   #52

Viperlord's Avatar
Tilting at Windmills
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,915
Blog Entries: 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
However, it is pure speculation that Lee could not have done anything to help Vicksburg. During WWII the high command speculated that Patton could not pull out of a winter battle to the south to help in the Ardennes.

Impossible is the most dangerous word in the English language.

Viperlord is extremely knowledgeable about the Civil War but in this case he is only asserting and speculating. He is asserting his own opinion not facts because the situation never came to fruition.
Grey fox's entire notion is pure speculation, so claiming my response is speculative is completely disingenuous. The burden of proof rests with grey fox, as the one who made the claim that Lee could have saved Vicksburg in his imaginary scenario. I have explained in some detail in the relevant thread my view of his claims.

Last edited by Viperlord; October 30th, 2016 at 02:50 PM.
Viperlord is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 02:55 PM   #53

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,570

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domnall Ballach View Post
Some members of the forum have moderated my stance, but I still don't rate Alexander the Great. Much of what he wins praise for was uninspired use of his father's work, or just obvious (besieging a city on an island? A bridge. Want to get up to the top of a summit? Climb. Burning hay bales rolling towards you? Move. It's not rocket science).
I don't recall Phillip ever putting battering rams on ships to knock down walls from the sea, or making tactical use of what was normally siege artillery to cover advance-attacks and withdrawals, or sending cavalry detachments around cleverly-concealed terrain to hit an enemy from the rear, or engaging in a classic river crossing maneuver, or using flying-wing reserves in battle so that one couldn't be out-flanked against a foe with much superior cavalry. I also don't see how the execution, and even the conception, of such things is always obvious. Some of what he did was, but much of it wasn't.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 04:21 PM   #54

Viperlord's Avatar
Tilting at Windmills
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,915
Blog Entries: 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165
At Second Manassas, he simply missed a tactical opportunity to inflict an even greater defeat on his enemy, and this is a common mistake that good generals still often make.
I would only add that his performance at Brawner's Farm was fairly pitiful tactically; with multiple divisions at his disposal and the element of surprise in his favor, he failed to get large portions of his command into action, dribbled in those he did get, and got outfought by a single rookie Union brigade as a consequence, albeit a Union brigade molded by the iron hand of John Gibbon.

Last edited by Viperlord; October 30th, 2016 at 05:47 PM.
Viperlord is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 05:28 PM   #55

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,570

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
I would only add that his performance at Brawner's Farm was fairly pitiful tactically; with multiple divisions at his disposal and the element of surprise in his favor, he failed to get large portions of his command into action, dribbled in those he did get, and got outfought by a single rookie Union brigade as a consequence, albeit a Union brigade molded by the iron hand of John Gibbon,
I don't disagree here, though tactically bad days were known to happen to even good Civil War generals. Even better ones like Longstreet struggled sometimes.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 06:03 PM   #56

Viperlord's Avatar
Tilting at Windmills
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,915
Blog Entries: 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
I don't disagree here, though tactically bad days were known to happen to even good Civil War generals. Even better ones like Longstreet struggled sometimes.
I do agree, though I'd make the case that Jackson never really improved tactically, whereas Longstreet is a general I see as evolving significantly; contrast Longstreet's piecemeal assaults at Glendale with the sledgehammer blows he struck at Second Manassas, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness, for instance. My personal view on Jackson is that he's the most overrated general of the war, but of course that's me.

Speaking of Napoleon's marshals though, how about Suchet? He strikes me as having been extremely effective; he had one loss to the Spanish general Blake, but he more than paid him back for that, and he seemed to be highly talented in both staff work and field command, and was definitely the most competent administrator of the French marshals in Spain.
Viperlord is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 06:13 PM   #57

grey fox's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 631

Viperlord, you always have a lot of pithy things to say. Why don't you give us some lists? How about some lists like top 10 generals of the American Civil War, top 10 generals since the advent of firearms, and/or top 10 generals of antiquity?
grey fox is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 06:15 PM   #58

Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar
General Without Peer
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,822
Blog Entries: 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post


Classic. The same would probably happen to someone like me or Mangekyou as well.
I have like 310 generals and am considering about 200 others for my list.

On a tangent when it comes to the French marshals I would probably rate the top 5 as follows.
1. Davout
2. Massena
3. Poniatowski
4. Lannes
5. Soult

No idea where the likes of Moreau and Lazare Hoche would go. I would imagine they might get somewhere around the level of Massena. Perhaps we might compare the performance of Moreau and Massena in 1799 and 1800 where their loss to victory ratio seems about even.
Lord Oda Nobunaga is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 06:28 PM   #59

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,570

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
I do agree, though I'd make the case that Jackson never really improved tactically, whereas Longstreet is a general I see as evolving significantly; contrast Longstreet's piecemeal assaults at Glendale with the sledgehammer blows he struck at Second Manassas, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness, for instance. My personal view on Jackson is that he's the most overrated general of the war, but of course that's me.

Speaking of Napoleon's marshals though, how about Suchet? He strikes me as having been extremely effective; he had one loss to the Spanish general Blake, but he more than paid him back for that, and he seemed to be highly talented in both staff work and field command, and was definitely the most competent administrator of the French marshals in Spain.
I definitely agree that Jackson's overrated (but still good), and that Longstreet's better.

As for Suchet, he was one of the best staff officers and possibly THE best administrator France had to offer. I don't think he has quite the same dynamic record in the field as the likes of Davout, Massena, and Lannes do though. It's not that the record he does have isn't as good from a sense of proportion, it's just that it isn't as large.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 06:37 PM   #60

Viperlord's Avatar
Tilting at Windmills
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,915
Blog Entries: 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
I definitely agree that Jackson's overrated (but still good), and that Longstreet's better.

As for Suchet, he was one of the best staff officers and possibly THE best administrator France had to offer. I don't think he has quite the same dynamic record in the field as the likes of Davout, Massena, and Lannes do though. It's not that the record he does have isn't as good from a sense of proportion, it's just that it isn't as large.
It seems to me that Suchet was wasted in a relatively meaningless command in Napoleon's last campaign; surely he would have been far better suited to the staff work that went to Soult, who in turn would have been freed up for the corps command level that he actually excelled at.
Viperlord is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
list, revisiting, top 100 generals



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
America's "Greatest" Writer: A Comprehensive List Nemo Neem American History 34 November 6th, 2016 06:53 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.