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


View Poll Results: Who was the greatest general in American military history?
George Washington 13 22.03%
Nathaniel Greene 3 5.08%
Winfield Scott 13 22.03%
Zachary Taylor 1 1.69%
Ulysses S. Grant 22 37.29%
Robert E. Lee 16 27.12%
William T. Sherman 3 5.08%
John J. Pershing 2 3.39%
Douglas MacArthur 5 8.47%
George C. Marshall 10 16.95%
Dwight D. Eisenhower 13 22.03%
Omar Bradley 4 6.78%
George S. Patton 4 6.78%
Matthew Ridgway 6 10.17%
Other 3 5.08%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 27th, 2017, 07:15 PM   #101
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 87

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post


It's a point that requires diplomacy and tact, something that Monty wasn't known for when working with those in theory equal or superior to him...

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernar...k_of_diplomacy

That sort of thing is NOT something that is indicative that he could persuade those in disagreement with him to do what he wanted.
Interesting you should bring Wiki into this because I happen to know that a South African is furiously making changes to every Wiki article that mentions Monty in order to peddle his crazy anti-Monty conspiracy views. His name is Wdford and you can find him on Monty's page, The Battle For Caen and several others. He has been blocked several times but keeps plugging away until he wears everyone down and makes his silly version of Monty the Wiki version. That is why Wiki will always be worthless as an authorative source.


From the Monty page you link and from the 'Talk' section:

Please help. I am working on building up the article for Battle for Caen, which was obviously part of Overlord. I started on the controversy about the fact that Montgomery failed to achieve some D-Day objectives, specifically capturing Caen, and then pretended that everything went according to his “real” original plan after all. Another editor is fiercely defending Montgomery, ruling that actual correspondence from Eisenhower and other commanders of the time are “primary sources” that must take second place to the secondary sources, even though the actual correspondence from Eisenhower and other commanders are presented in secondary sources, and that all the secondary sources which criticize Montgomery were written by people who simply failed to understand Monty’s genius plans, and who were part of a 1970’s conspiracy. It’s getting to be a bit of an alt-truth situation. Please could some other editors who are knowledgeable on the subject, assist on the Battle for Caen article? Wdford (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2017

Clearly his aim is to introduce the outright lies that were a staple of the post-war US books that blamed Monty for every wrong in WW2.
I bet you were unaware of that fact as well. Me? I always like to keep an eye on the Monty-bashing obsessives!

This is the Wiki Talk page for the Battle For Caen. Start at the bottom and work your way up to see how remorseless the troll Wdford is in his obsession to denigrate everything Monty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_for_Caen
mkenny is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 27th, 2017, 07:56 PM   #102

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,295

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkenny View Post
Interesting you should bring Wiki into this because I happen to know that a South African is furiously making changes to every Wiki article that mentions Monty in order to peddle his crazy anti-Monty conspiracy views. His name is Wdford and you can find him on Monty's page, The Battle For Caen and several others. ]
Thanks for pointing that out.

Do we need to remind members again? Wiki is not a reliable source!!!
Lord Fairfax is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 12:46 AM   #103

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,156

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
Thanks for pointing that out.

Do we need to remind members again? Wiki is not a reliable source!!!
No, Wiki is actually pretty reliable... until something like this happens, and reliable once again after 'theses happenings' are culled, which the admin. running Wiki is quick to do. Wiki articles require a judicious use of citations anyway and articles are almost always composed by experts in a field.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 03:45 AM   #104

Lord Fairfax's Avatar
Tickling the Dragons tail
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Rupert's Land ;)
Posts: 2,295

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
No, Wiki is actually pretty reliable... until something like this happens, and reliable once again after 'theses happenings' are culled, which the admin. running Wiki is quick to do. Wiki articles require a judicious use of citations anyway and articles are almost always composed by experts in a field.
Wiki is a place to aggregate information, it's not a historical source.
Try citing Wiki in your doctoral thesis and see how far that goes.
Lord Fairfax is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 05:03 AM   #105

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,156

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fairfax View Post
Wiki is a place to aggregate information, it's not a historical source.
Try citing Wiki in your doctoral thesis and see how far that goes.
Oh yes, you cannot cite Wiki in any formal research because tertiary sources are not permitted for those. Something like a thesis requires a diverse range of secondary and primary sources and while Wiki can provide guides to other sources, it will not do to be a source itself in formal research. It would simply be too easy doing it that way.

On the other hand, for casual historical discussion such as that which takes place here, Wiki is fine.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 05:53 AM   #106

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,672
Blog Entries: 21

Wikipedia is fine as long as you understand it's the beginning of research, not the end.
Viperlord is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 06:21 AM   #107
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: england
Posts: 87

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
No, Wiki is actually pretty reliable... until something like this happens, and reliable once again after 'theses happenings' are culled, which the admin. running Wiki is quick to do. Wiki articles require a judicious use of citations anyway and articles are almost always composed by experts in a field.
The biggest failing with Wiki is that a published source is considered the final word. Given that 70% of all books are written by people who read 10 books on a subject and write no 11 it is a recipe for disaster. At best Wiki points you in the right direction.
mkenny is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 06:28 AM   #108

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,672
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
Washington and Greene were excellent commanders in an asymmetrical sort of way rather than in a conventional sense.
The problem I have with that argument, particularly in regards to Washington, was that he was ultimately a conventional commander with a conventional army, he just didn't win many conventional victories. (Though I entirely reject the notion that Arnold was more important because of his subordinate role at Saratoga)
Viperlord is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:45 AM   #109
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
Both those wars took place in a far smaller amount of space than the American Civil War. The US put more men into the field overall in the ACW than both belligerents combined in the Austro-Prussian War, just spread across more theaters and more separate armies. The argument does not even survive basic logical scrutiny. Königgrätz involved between a half and a third of the military force of both belligerents, the military and political geography of the Civil War did not allow that level of concentration, despite larger bodies of men being involved.
There is another argument about obscurity of your civil war. When a part of 19th century superpowers (UK, Russia, Austro-Hungary, Germany, France) would have declared a secession, they would simply send in few divisions of regular army and have put down a secessionist movement. USA was having 15.000 of regular army (same as nothing) and Lincoln issued a request for 75.000 volunteers. First year of a war was one joke of a battle called first Bull Run (btw, why did not Beauregard just walk on Washington afterwards or sent some cavalry to kill off flying unionists, 10.000 slaughtered northerners and war would have ended before it's start).

Of course generals and soldiers have learned some hard lessons during 4 years but start was really lame.
macon is offline  
Old July 28th, 2017, 11:57 AM   #110
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 2,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
It was either ludicrous misinformation or deliberate deception on your part then, and repeating it now proves it to be the latter. Casualties in nearly every significant engagement of the war proved far higher than that. The existence of many minor skirmishes along with the major engagements does not distinguish American warfare from European warfare. In nearly every engagement where two major armies met, casualties were very high, often in both numbers and percentage. Below is a list of battle summaries of major engagements in the Civil War where the casualties were higher than what you claim; by proportion of troops engaged, there would be even more examples.


https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va014.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va017.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va022.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va026.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/md002.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/md003.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va028.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va032.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va033.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va107.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/pa002.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va046.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va048.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va062.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va110.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va111.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va116.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va063.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va071.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va072.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va073.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va075.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va074.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va119.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va120.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va122.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va123.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va088.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va089.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va093.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tn002.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tn003.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ky007.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ky009.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms002.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tn010.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ar006.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms009.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms011.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ga004.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tn024.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ga016.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ga017.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ga018.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tn036.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tn038.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/nc020.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ar001.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ar005.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/la018.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/la019.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/mo021.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/mo027.htm

https://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ks003.htm
Thanks for this list, there is one major problem with it: captured soldiers are included into casualties and I specified wia, kia and mia because these categories are a product of an intensity of a fight while lots of prisoners are a product of their low fighting quality, bad morale and/or bad decisions of their commanders. They don't say much about a difficulty of a battle and of commitment of troops.

I'm sure that my thesis stays and at least half of your claims falls from your list.
macon is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
american, general



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Greatest Medieval General? Haardrada Medieval and Byzantine History 71 July 22nd, 2017 10:28 AM
Greatest General in American History? red4tribe American History 352 March 2nd, 2013 03:09 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.