UK-Union War, 1864

His Russian campaign has to be put on the list of ways not to win wars, based solely on human behavior (Russian and his own). With or without the Swedes as an example.

Napoleon didn't do so well in Egypt, Syria. or Spain, either.
 
Napoleon didn't do so well in Egypt, Syria. or Spain, either.

Well, Spain in terms of his personal campaigning seems to have been okay, but yeah.

My point is, he does have a reasonably long list of actual successes based on something resembling actual ability.

Not Napoleon the Completely Invincible, but certainly not Napoleon the smartest moron, either.
 
That was awesome. :D

Grant has some nice quotes. When Sherman began his March to the Sea, Jefferson Davis gave a lengthy speech saying the March would be just like Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, with only a battered remnant of the Yankee army escaping. When Grant read Davis' speech in a newspaper, he commented that "Mr. Davis has neglected to mention who will be providing the snow."
 
In fairness to Lee, he was facing stiffer opposition in regards to the fightin' and bleedin' kind of problems than Grant was (Grant didn't need to deal with the kind of battles Lee did, to put it another way) - but that's an explanation, not an excuse.

True, but then Grant was a good enough general to avoid the self-inflicted near-disasters that turned into such bloodbaths in the first place. He had all of one case like that, the Battle of Pittsburg Landing and that's all it took: one for it to never happen again. Lee had them at Second Manassas (if Pope's battle perception matched his energy Lee's army would have been destroyed in detail), at Antietam, at Chancellorsville, at the Wilderness, at Spotsylvania, at Petersburg. Sure, he managed by extreme efforts and mistakes on the other side to repair them but it's worth asking why this kept happening to him and if a more effective general wouldn't have avoided this pattern recurring?

Grant has some nice quotes. When Sherman began his March to the Sea, Jefferson Davis gave a lengthy speech saying the March would be just like Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, with only a battered remnant of the Yankee army escaping. When Grant read Davis' speech in a newspaper, he commented that "Mr. Davis has neglected to mention who will be providing the snow."

My favorite Grant quotes are "If men make war in slavish obedience to rules then they will fail", and "I know two tunes, one's Yankee Doodle and the other isn't." :D
 
True, but then Grant was a good enough general to avoid the self-inflicted near-disasters that turned into such bloodbaths in the first place. He had all of one case like that, the Battle of Pittsburg Landing and that's all it took: one for it to never happen again. Lee had them at Second Manassas (if Pope's battle perception matched his energy Lee's army would have been destroyed in detail), at Antietam, at Chancellorsville, at the Wilderness, at Spotsylvania, at Petersburg. Sure, he managed by extreme efforts and mistakes on the other side to repair them but it's worth asking why this kept happening to him and if a more effective general wouldn't have avoided this pattern recurring?

I agree its worth asking. But I do think in terms of fighting an army likely to chew holes in his, Lee faced much more of that than Grant did - for instance, the Vicksburg campaign was met with the Confederates agreeably dancing to Grant's tune. Not to say he wasn't a master piper, so to speak, but it makes a huge difference when one is facing major battles in the first place versus facing opponents on terms where they don't come up.

There's a reason Grant's casualties versus such an army are his ugliest, after all. I'm not saying Lee wasn't overly lavish with blood, but if Lee faced the kind of things Grant did in the situations Grant did, their causality figures would probably be closer.

The idea (implied) that in Grant's shoes Lee is less likely to whallop a Grant in Lee's shoes...I decline to dispute that. :D

My favorite Grant quotes are "If men make war in slavish obedience to rules then they will fail", and "I know two tunes, one's Yankee Doodle and the other isn't." :D
The two sum up why Grant is hard not to root for.
 
Grant has some nice quotes. When Sherman began his March to the Sea, Jefferson Davis gave a lengthy speech saying the March would be just like Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, with only a battered remnant of the Yankee army escaping. When Grant read Davis' speech in a newspaper, he commented that "Mr. Davis has neglected to mention who will be providing the snow."

Usually reported as "who is to furnish the snow for this Moscow retreat?" which is much more epigrammatical.

Grant is underappreciated as a stylist? His memoir admittedly had Twain's help, but its impressively well-written and reportedly mostly his own work, while lots of Grant's quotes are just stunningly good in a laconic sort of way.
 
As a complete aside, you may find Owen Connolly interesting: amazon link

Amazon again.:( Still, based on the excellent reviews, it would appear that Connolly's only real mistake was a terribly misleading title*, leaving one to believe he is trashing Nappy, rather than praising him to the skies, as he does. Does he note Napoleon's loss of masterful subordinates as causing historians to see him as a changed (lesser) man after 1808?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-Sort of like the classic Sci-fi 50s film "I Married a Monster from Outer Space". Terrible title, but very well done in spite of that.
 
I agree its worth asking. But I do think in terms of fighting an army likely to chew holes in his, Lee faced much more of that than Grant did - for instance, the Vicksburg campaign was met with the Confederates agreeably dancing to Grant's tune. Not to say he wasn't a master piper, so to speak, but it makes a huge difference when one is facing major battles in the first place versus facing opponents on terms where they don't come up.

There's a reason Grant's casualties versus such an army are his ugliest, after all. I'm not saying Lee wasn't overly lavish with blood, but if Lee faced the kind of things Grant did in the situations Grant did, their causality figures would probably be closer.

The idea (implied) that in Grant's shoes Lee is less likely to whallop a Grant in Lee's shoes...I decline to dispute that. :D

True, though I might note that Grant turned sieges into the capture of entire armies and sieges tend to be more lethal for besieger than for besieged. My comment is just that in several cases Lee inflicted those chaotic situations on himself where Grant never put himself in such situations in the first place. Lee also won his earlier battles by fighting enemies who tended to dance to his tune so it's not like the one factor applies where the other does not.

The two sum up why Grant is hard not to root for.

I know, right? :D This is his maxim of war:
"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and as often as you can, and keep moving on."

It was arguably quite effective given he pretty much destroyed any general unfortunate enough to bump into him.
 
Top