• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who Wins?

T

Taggart

Diamond Member
The scenario: Lee commands Army of the Potomac and Grant commands Army of Northern Virginia. I think Lee wins with the Army of the Potomac.
 
lee was the better strategist in the sense he did more with what he had
however grant recognized his advantage in sheer numbers and milked it.

i'd have to say lee though.
 
This is what history majors do all day. Think up threads like this. It's not like they have a job to go to or anything.
 
As much as I love Grant (the man won because he had to balls to go through) I suspect that Lee would have won had he been in command of an army that was larger and better equipped than his opponenent (considering how long he held out with the meager hand he was dealt).
 
Originally posted by: UglyCasanova
Originally posted by: Nebor
This is what history majors do all day. Think up threads like this. It's not like they have a job to go to or anything.
Click to expand...

Lol. I would love to be a history major. 🙁
Click to expand...

ooo! me too! where do i sign up?
 
Lee obviously. Grant won in spite of Lee's better tactics, so if you had Lee's tactics along with a force equal to(or greater) than Grant's, Lee would win, hence my conclusion.
 
Originally posted by: Nebor
This is what history majors do all day. Think up threads like this. It's not like they have a job to go to or anything.
Click to expand...

If I could do undergrad again I'd probably major in history. I'd probably kill myself if I had to study 18th Century women's history or something, though 😛
 
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Lee obviously. Grant won in spite of Lee's better tactics, so if you had Lee's tactics along with a force equal to(or greater) than Grant's, Lee would win, hence my conclusion.
Click to expand...

yeap gotta agree with this.

hmm wonder how the US would be today?
 
Originally posted by: Nebor
This is what history majors do all day. Think up threads like this. It's not like they have a job to go to or anything.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I have a nice job paying 6 figures.


😉
 
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Nebor
This is what history majors do all day. Think up threads like this. It's not like they have a job to go to or anything.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I have a nice job paying 6 figures.


😉
Click to expand...

Well there are people out there with Gen. Ed. degrees making millions, pro atheletes. But that's a rarity, and seeing as how there's so many high school and college aged kids on the board, I was hoping to discourage them from planning on becoming a pro athelete (history major.) 😛
 
The side with the manpower and industrial advantage will almost always win no matter how big the disparity in leadership. The north would win with any leader with the mental capacity of a barely trained chimp. In fact, looking at the quality of the Union generals, many would make the argument that the north won with leaders lacking the mental capacity of a barely trained chimp. The simple fact is that 10 guys with guns will beat 5 guys with switchblades even if the leader of the guys with guns points in the wrong direction.
 
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The side with the manpower and industrial advantage will almost always win no matter how big the disparity in leadership. The north would win with any leader with the mental capacity of a barely trained chimp. In fact, looking at the quality of the Union generals, many would make the argument that the north won with leaders lacking the mental capacity of a barely trained chimp. The simple fact is that 10 guys with guns will beat 5 guys with switchblades even if the leader of the guys with guns points in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

I hear that argument a lot, but all the South had to do was make the North sue for peace, no conquest was necessary. The CSA was roughly the size of Western Europe (huge). Some actual command competence was necessary for the North to win. If Lincoln had not found Grant to fight Lee the war probably would have gone on much longer, or the CSA would have won it's independence. I think Grant was a highly effective general, though I think Lee was better.

My point is that industrial might and the numbers advantage for the USA alone didn't win the war.
 
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The side with the manpower and industrial advantage will almost always win no matter how big the disparity in leadership. The north would win with any leader with the mental capacity of a barely trained chimp. In fact, looking at the quality of the Union generals, many would make the argument that the north won with leaders lacking the mental capacity of a barely trained chimp. The simple fact is that 10 guys with guns will beat 5 guys with switchblades even if the leader of the guys with guns points in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

I hear that argument a lot, but all the South had to do was make the North sue for peace, no conquest was necessary. The CSA was roughly the size of Western Europe (huge). Some actual command competence was necessary for the North to win. If Lincoln had not found Grant to fight Lee the war probably would have gone on much longer, or the CSA would have won it's independence. I think Grant was a highly effective general, though I think Lee was better.

My point is that industrial might and the numbers advantage for the USA alone didn't win the war.
Click to expand...

The problem with that argument is that getting the side with numerical and industrial superiority to accept a stalemate is a losing proposition in itself. The longer a war lasts the more it favors the side with the better resources. The north would never have sued for peace unless it was losing and the only way to achieve that was through conquest. The south had to win a quick victory or it could not win at all and it could not win a quick victory by fighting a defensive war. Lee chose the only strategy that *could* have been effective. The fact that it ultimately failed is more proof of the souths untenable position than it was an indictment of the tactics used. Lee was by far the best commander in the war and he lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top