Originally posted by: sonambulo
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverbody wins!
fanta-fanta! don't you want a fanta-fanta!
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.
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.
Lol. I would love to be a history major.![]()
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.
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.
Wrong. I have a nice job paying 6 figures.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.
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Wrong. I have a nice job paying 6 figures.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.
![]()
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.
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.
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.