Grant vs Wellington vs Scipio

?

  • Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

    Votes: 11 44.0%
  • Hiram Ulysses Grant

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

    Votes: 9 36.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Feb 2019
1,115
Serbia
I voted for Wellington. I find Grant to be a good strategist but a bit weak on tactics. Easily the greatest general of the American Civil War but not among the greatest of all time. Scipio was great but I still find Wellington's achievements more impressive.
 

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,693
San Diego
Grant.
The others were great generals of AN army.

Grant was great at managing ALL armies.
Generals who had individually failed became immediately more competent and capable under Grant's command.

That is a facility that the other's did not show. ( or- because of primitive communications technologies could never have developed. )

Wellington had the support of OTHER nation's armies and generals, and the advantage of not having to face Napoleon until after napoleon had lost two entire armies in other campaigns.
Grant also proved that tactical brilliance and individual battles have little to nothing to do with winning a war.
In that sense Wellington won due to attrition- as did Grant- but Wellington was not the author of that attrition, he was the beneficiary of it. ( It wasn't Wellington that destroyed Napoleon's army in Russia- )


Lee's abilities as a general had zero impact on Grant's ability to defeat him.

Scipio may have had the same basic relentlessness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nuclearguy165

nuclearguy165

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
4,865
Ohio, USA
Grant.
The others were great generals of AN army.

Grant was great at managing ALL armies.
Generals who had individually failed became immediately more competent and capable under Grant's command.

That is a facility that the other's did not show. ( or- because of primitive communications technologies could never have developed. )

Wellington had the support of OTHER nation's armies and generals, and the advantage of not having to face Napoleon until after napoleon had lost two entire armies in other campaigns.
Grant also proved that tactical brilliance and individual battles have little to nothing to do with winning a war.
In that sense Wellington won due to attrition- as did Grant- but Wellington was not the author of that attrition, he was the beneficiary of it. ( It wasn't Wellington that destroyed Napoleon's army in Russia- )


Lee's abilities as a general had zero impact on Grant's ability to defeat him.

Scipio may have had the same basic relentlessness.
The trend of advantage seems to always be for ancient commanders for some reason. I’m going to buck that and go for my homeboy Ulysses S. Grant. I really don’t care that he was weaker in tactics than the other 2, because he is probably more complete in all of the other, more important categories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kotromanic

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,080
Iowa USA
Difficult to make any meaningful comparisons of the character of Wellington and Grant. Their backgrounds have such stark contrasts, and if the people that train teachers know much by age eleven or twelve and a half at the latest anyone's personality is about fully formed.

I've read so much more on Grant than on Wellington, especially his record in India-Northwestern outlands.

The Roman nominee I'm way underinfomred about. Surely the end for Carthage was even worse than for the comfortable people of Charleston in '65.
 

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,080
Iowa USA
Appreciation of using Grant's given name. Of course as a young man he seemed to like "Sam" over Ulysses.
 

nuclearguy165

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
4,865
Ohio, USA
*sighs* It’s not sitting well with me that Wellington is ahead of both Scipio and Grant (I personally believe both are superior) and so I’m awfully tempted to summon Lord Oda.

To put it short, I believe those other 2 accomplished more on their own and that their own operations were more decisive for their cause than Wellington’s were. They also took fewer needless risks.
 
Nov 2019
15
The Arctic
Not to outright say Wellington should get my vote straight away but you have to remember Wellington had more severe restrictions in my opinion. Old Nosey gets a lot of criticism some of it no doubt deserved but the reason why most of his battles were "defensive" in nature was that Britain could not afford to lose another army. Had Scipio lost an army or a large portion of his manpower this could and would be rapidly replaced as was proven in the past. I'm no expert on Grant but this may well have applied to please correct/advise me. If you think Wellington should be the last in this poll or is overrated then fine but ask yourself this question first. Could Scipio or Grant have achieved what Wellington did in India, Iberia and Waterloo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: frogsofwar