Lee, Hannibal, Rommel, Napoleon, Pericles. We have a remarkable tradition of venerating tacticians that lost
-
-
-
Nothing like a romantic hero to fire the soul
-
Though Napoleon doesn’t belong on that list. He won for a long time before his fortune turned. Hannibal too, to a certain extent. I have no time for Rommel or lee though
-
Napoleon was insanely good. But being insanely good isn't enough to conquer the world.
-
Note that this method finds that Lee and Rommel are both overrated.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Lee was a tac. genius no doubt. His strat. was sound too. CSA couldn't win long term war so he went for the kill early. Smart.
-
Nah, he mostly sat in Virginia and waited for the enemy to come to him. Once he invaded Pennsylvania but got whupped and retreated. Dumb.
-
He invaded the North twice! Almost worked too. Antietam and Gettysburg were close and could've won the war for South. Amazing
-
Amazing losses
-
Lee is rated appropriately nonetheless. McClellan, on the other hand, was a master of logistics and very underrated.
-
Nah, Lee wasted a ton of manpower, launched a failed invasion, and ultimately lost the war. Overrated as heck
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Media is blatantly misleading here to hurt Trump and further divide the country. Full quote shows Trump praising Lee for winning.pic.twitter.com/os49G3JDyX
-
And I'm saying Lee is overrated.
-
Damnit. Grant*
-
Yeah, and Trump is right that Grant is underrated.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Solid take. He either needed to figure out how to pull of an Austerlitz or Jena like Napoleon where you inflict a crushing and total defeat on a superior foe or dig in and play for the strategy of a political victory after northern will to fight drained away.
-
Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg were Austerlitz/Jena style defeats. Austria and Prussia gave up because their internal political dynamics didn't allow them to sustain long wars. The Union won when Lincoln wasn't politically forced to give up after Chancellorsville...
-
Eh. Chancellorsville only had a positive 4,000 casualty ratio in Lee's favor. Fredericksburg was purely defensive, so it's not really in the same category.
-
Yes, Napoleon was better than Lee (though Austerlitz was also sort of defensive). But Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg were major Union defeats, as was 2nd Bull Run. The crucial fact is that the Union didn't give up. And that was actually a close-run thing.
-
The key part of Austerlitz was Napoleon's attack when he shattered the allied center. He managed to take fully 36,000 soldiers out of commission killed, wounded, and captured out of an army of 85,000. When did Lee ever come close to inflicting that sort of blow?
-
This is kind of the point I have about Lee. He was a competent, but not great commander. He knew how to tactically hold his own. Strategically, he made colossal mistakes in both Antietam and Gettysburg. His battle plan at Gettysburg was also just plain bad.
-
And letting himself get pinned to Richmond lost the war. Should have combined with Johnston to fight Sherman and then turn on Grant, which is what Grant was worried he would to. Confederacy had internal lines and could manuever like that but rarely did.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.