09-01-2003 21:49									#31
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Was that because of Pickett's charge though or because of a bad decision by Gen. Meade?

Had Lee not attacked on the 3rd, when the weather was suitable and the armies facing each other, it would have been a certain signal that his army was too badly hurt to attack directly. (It wasn't, but vacillation would achieve the same effect). Instead Lee attacked on the 3rd, moved out under cover of heavy rain on the 4th, and it wasn't until the 6th that Meade's army engaged a rear guard of the ANV (this was the engagement where Johnston Pettigrew was killed).

Meade probed, and when the ANV fought hard, Meade just stalled and waited. Had Lee not attacked on the 3rd, the Army of the Potomac could have forced an engagement on at least equal ground, or gone on an offensive of its own, or at the very least, maintained contact on the 4th and 5th, preventing the ANV from digging in on the 6th to protect their engineer crossing.

quote: The South wasn't exactly in the best position in terms of manpower and so losing those forces had to a be tough sting to the South.

Any losses were hard to take, but you don't always have the luxury of avoiding decisive engagements.

quote: Grant took control of forces that had seen a good deal of defeat and won the war with them.

Very few of them were left. Grant exercised control over an army in name which had been defeated, but which had such high casualties overall that the vast majority of personnel which froze in the trenches outside Petersburg were replacements of personnel who'd died somewhere else previously.

quote: Lee had his chances to go up against some of the dumbest generals in American history and still couldn't put together a victory.

Yes, Lee's defeats at the Seven Days, when he set Jackson loose in the Valley, at Second Manassas, Harper's Ferry, the way his army was routed off the field at Sharpsburg, they way they broke and ran from Fredericksburg, and they way they "ingloriously flew" from Chancellorsville were just unconscionable.

quote: In any case, Grant is rightly remembered as an American hero for defeating the Slaveocracy of the South, Lee is rightly remembered as a villain because of his defense of the Southern Slavocracy.

By who? Especially since Lee opposed slavery, but more opposed the invasion of sovereign states by military force to solve a then-political dispute.

UR - the Chinese revolution or Octavius / Marc Antony are irrelevant comparisons. Lee had fixed terrain he was obligated to secure, and a national capital immediately in his rear the entire war. He didn't have the luxury of fighting a guerilla war, but his conduct of the war from taking command just before the Seven Days through the invasion of Maryland was textbook.

He started with a vastly superior enemy force seven miles from the suburbs of his state's and nation's capital. That force had better than a two to one advantage in manpower, a four to one advantage in field artillery, and a huge amount of siege artillery awaiting deployment. Lee moved a majority of his forces away from the fixed defensive positions, attacked a geographically isolated portion of McClellan's army so strongly and forcefully that he convinced McClellan his position was untenable. Merely weeks later, Lee showed up with his army reorganized and with higher than ever morale (mind you, he'd taken command of someone else's army and staff in the middle of a fight) 50 miles in the enemy's rear, at one of his vital supply points. Lee then routed a larger Yankee army in a classic attack, then went on the offense in enemy territory less than three months from taking command of poorly led rabble on the verge of defeat in their own capital.

	09-01-2003 22:00									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Besides he was a Virginian.

	09-01-2003 22:05									#33
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well that looks to have settled the argument. Everybody's moved on...

	09-01-2003 22:06									#34
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"Especially since Lee opposed slavery"

Apparently, he didn't oppose it too much.

	09-01-2003 22:09									#35
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Dan, he had his fingers crossed while killing Yankees.

	09-01-2003 22:13									#36
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Touche.

	09-01-2003 22:21									#37
	Tired of ads?

quote: He started with a vastly superior enemy force seven miles from the suburbs of his state's and nation's capital. That force had better than a two to one advantage in manpower, a four to one advantage in field artillery, and a huge amount of siege artillery awaiting deployment. Lee moved a majority of his forces away from the fixed defensive positions, attacked a geographically isolated portion of McClellan's army so strongly and forcefully that he convinced McClellan his position was untenable. Merely weeks later, Lee showed up with his army reorganized and with higher than ever morale (mind you, he'd taken command of someone else's army and staff in the middle of a fight) 50 miles in the enemy's rear, at one of his vital supply points. Lee then routed a larger Yankee army in a classic attack, then went on the offense in enemy territory less than three months from taking command of poorly led rabble on the verge of defeat in their own capital.

Thanks.

That about says enough. I was going to write something similar myself.

	09-01-2003 22:45									#38
	Remove this text

Perhaps. Without having done a research myself, its kinda hard to disprove him ain't it?

It's true that Lee is glorified. I mean the guy could have stayed with the Union but he decided to defend his homeland. Obvioulsy he is going to be glorified.

We here on north also get taught Lee is better than grant

	09-01-2003 22:53									#39
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS "Especially since Lee opposed slavery" Apparently, he didn't oppose it too much.

As things stood in 1861, the Federal government had no right to regulate slavery. And Lee was killing Yankee invaders who intended to forcibly "preserve the Union." If anyone had his fingers crossed on slavery, it was ol' Abe with that lawyerly used snakeoil salesman wording in the Emancipation Proclamation.

	09-01-2003 22:59									#40
	Remove this text

If Lee's "oppostion" to slavery was so much, then I have greatly and systematically overestimated the vigor of Southern opposition. Or we could just insert "complicity with" and strike "opposition to" and be forthright about it.

	09-01-2003 23:09									#41
	Put an end to popups!

Lee stated publicly and privately that he felt slavery should be abolished, but that it was a state matter and each state should see to it in it's own way. Like it or not, that view is consistent with the structure of government created under the Constitution, and the limited powers of the Federal government at that time.

If you want to go the complicity route, you can include a majority of the US population, who certainly benefited from the economic results of slavery, and weren't terribly inclined to inconvenience themselves for it's removal. There were principled abolitionists about, but they were a distinct minority.

	09-01-2003 23:55									#42
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

MtG: If I walk out my door, I could almost throw a stone and hit his wife's farm, where Lee "actively" managed a number of slaves. He also owned slaves himself. This is some of the most milquetoast opposition I've ever seen.

And no, most people did not own slaves.

	10-01-2003 00:25									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"Had Lee not attacked on the 3rd, when the weather was suitable and the armies facing each other, it would have been a certain signal that his army was too badly hurt to attack directly. (It wasn't, but vacillation would achieve the same effect). Instead Lee attacked on the 3rd, moved out under cover of heavy rain on the 4th, and it wasn't until the 6th that Meade's army engaged a rear guard of the ANV (this was the engagement where Johnston Pettigrew was killed)."

And instead of avoiding the apperance of being defeated, he actually went and made it a catastrophic defeat. If he felt a need to make some kind of an offensive, it should have been something other than "Duh, hey lets run up a big hill where our force will have to run for miles under heavy artillery file and attack the enemies most entrenched position!" That attack was devestating the Confederate Army and ordering such an attack hardly looks well for your case that Lee isn't a butcher.

"Very few of them were left. "

That makes Grant look even better then that he had to use forces that were new to the war against ANV veterans.

"Yes, Lee's defeats at the Seven Days, when he set Jackson loose in the Valley, at Second Manassas, Harper's Ferry, the way his army was routed off the field at Sharpsburg, they way they broke and ran from Fredericksburg, and they way they "ingloriously flew" from Chancellorsville were just unconscionable. "

You misunderstood what I said. I was talking about victory in the War of the Rebellion, not victory in the sense of a tactical engagement. He was able to wipe the floor with Union Troops, but all that amounted to was delaying his defeat at the hands of better Northern Generals. All the tactical genious in the world doesn't amount to anything if you can't put together a sucsseful grand strategy.

Lee was a fine tactician, sure. Hannibal is another good example of a great tactician who couldn't win a war. I would say both generals were over-rated however, because see I don't think you can call a general too good if he lost the war. Hannibal ran all over Italy and kicked Roman butt, however he was never able to occupy Rome and all he accomplished was prolonging the war until Scipio could come around to kick us. Similarly, Lee had the ability to crush Union Forces for a very long time early in the war, but what came out of that ability? Nothing. He fought hard in Virginia and defeated Union troops but was not able to do anything that would have given the CSA a victory. He then lost where it counted at Gettysburg, and from there on it was just more defeats for the CSA.

"Especially since Lee opposed slavery, but more opposed the invasion of sovereign states by military force to solve a then-political dispute."

Actions count more then words. If Lee had been sucsessful, slavery would continued for a while longer especially in places like Missisipi, and there would be no Northern politicians to force civil right down the South's throat. Because Lee's actions would have led to preservation of evil if they had been sucsessful, Lee should be remembered as one of history's bad guys.

"As things stood in 1861, the Federal government had no right to regulate slavery."

Legally no, but one could argue it is such a heinous moral evil you should act on it anyway.

"If anyone had his fingers crossed on slavery, it was ol' Abe with that lawyerly used snakeoil salesman wording in the Emancipation Proclamation."

Lincoln was a pragmatic leader who knew that to end slavery, victory over the Southern Slaveocracy would have to come first. Then Slavery could be ended, and it was.

	10-01-2003 00:46									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The short answer to this debate is that Lee is a bit overrated, and Grant a bit underrated.

IMO, Lee was brilliant at strategic defense. He wasn't very good on offense, though. One should probably cut him some slack for being outnumbered & outgunned all the time, though.

Grant I see kinda like Patton: he was a bulldog. He attacked, and never let the enemy go. The ANV didn't get to pull back and fix itself up: they had to keep fighting. The result of this was that the Union took hideous losses (Confed losses were high too, but significantly less, IIRC). However, given the military technology of the day, defense had the advantage over offense, which explains at least some of those higher Union losses.

Lee did some truely inspired things, whereas I see Grant as merely "solid" or "capable" who recognized that if he let Lee rest up & refit, the war would continue. I think he knew he was up against genious, and dealt with it accordingly. Wasn't his fault he was pitted against Lee and a very seasoned Army of North Virginia.

-Arrian

	10-01-2003 01:15									#45
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi "Had Lee not attacked on the 3rd, when the weather was suitable and the armies facing each other, it would have been a certain signal that his army was too badly hurt to attack directly. (It wasn't, but vacillation would achieve the same effect). Instead Lee attacked on the 3rd, moved out under cover of heavy rain on the 4th, and it wasn't until the 6th that Meade's army engaged a rear guard of the ANV (this was the engagement where Johnston Pettigrew was killed)." And instead of avoiding the apperance of being defeated, he actually went and made it a catastrophic defeat. If he felt a need to make some kind of an offensive, it should have been something other than "Duh, hey lets run up a big hill where our force will have to run for miles under heavy artillery file and attack the enemies most entrenched position!" That attack was devestating the Confederate Army and ordering such an attack hardly looks well for your case that Lee isn't a butcher.

"The war will be over by Christmas!" Hardly turned out to be a catastrophic defeat, as Kilpatrick's and Farnsworth's charge against Law's division proved afterwords.

You apparently haven't been to the battlefield, or don't remember it well. The assault had to be in the center, because that's where the last fresh troops were (all other divisions besides Pickett had been engaged on the 1st or 2nd), and the Union center had been the softest part of the line on the assaults of the 2nd. It was the least dug in and defended part of the Union line, as Cemetery Ridge just ain't much, espcially in comparison with the round tops and Culp's and Cemetery hills. Lee's attack was preceded with a heavy artillery preparation, and despite the dramatization of the damage the ANV received, the overall casualty numbers on the third day were proportionate to those on the second day, when both armies were fully engaged.

The distance was barely a mile, and the simple facts of life are that you can't assault an enemy position without coming under fire. Sounds like you would have been another McClellan.

quote: "Very few of them were left. " That makes Grant look even better then that he had to use forces that were new to the war against ANV veterans.

Hardly - the numerical superiority of the Union armies, and their vastly superior supply late in the war overwhelmed the man for man superiority of underclothed, underfed, underarmed, half starved veterans.

quote: "Yes, Lee's defeats at the Seven Days, when he set Jackson loose in the Valley, at Second Manassas, Harper's Ferry, the way his army was routed off the field at Sharpsburg, they way they broke and ran from Fredericksburg, and they way they "ingloriously flew" from Chancellorsville were just unconscionable. " You misunderstood what I said. I was talking about victory in the War of the Rebellion, not victory in the sense of a tactical engagement. He was able to wipe the floor with Union Troops, but all that amounted to was delaying his defeat at the hands of better Northern Generals. All the tactical genious in the world doesn't amount to anything if you can't put together a sucsseful grand strategy.

Not at all. First, grand strategy is political. Lee had zero control over economic decisions, supply and manpower allocation, war preparedness, diplomacy, out of theater forces, naval forces, etc. - all components of grand strategy. Lee can only be judged in terms of the scope of his command and how he did with the resources he had available to him.

quote: Lee was a fine tactician, sure. Hannibal is another good example of a great tactician who couldn't win a war. I would say both generals were over-rated however, because see I don't think you can call a general too good if he lost the war. Hannibal ran all over Italy and kicked Roman butt, however he was never able to occupy Rome and all he accomplished was prolonging the war until Scipio could come around to kick us. Similarly, Lee had the ability to crush Union Forces for a very long time early in the war, but what came out of that ability? Nothing. He fought hard in Virginia and defeated Union troops but was not able to do anything that would have given the CSA a victory. He then lost where it counted at Gettysburg, and from there on it was just more defeats for the CSA.

Some wars are simply unwinnable. Again, judging the quality of a general on the battlefield has to be limited to the scope of those things under that general's control, and the resources he had to work with. Given the overwhelming, win-at-all-costs determination of Lincoln, and the huge advantage in all resource areas the north had at the time, the war was simply unwinnable. The war should have been over and done with by the fall of 1862, but Lee managed to delay the inevitable for over two and a half years, despite the lack of support he had available to him.

quote: "Especially since Lee opposed slavery, but more opposed the invasion of sovereign states by military force to solve a then-political dispute." Actions count more then words. If Lee had been sucsessful, slavery would continued for a while longer especially in places like Missisipi, and there would be no Northern politicians to force civil right down the South's throat. Because Lee's actions would have led to preservation of evil if they had been sucsessful, Lee should be remembered as one of history's bad guys.

The so should all the founding fathers of the United States. Had we remained loyal colonists, slavery would have passed from the scene three decades earlier.

quote: "As things stood in 1861, the Federal government had no right to regulate slavery." Legally no, but one could argue it is such a heinous moral evil you should act on it anyway.

You could argue that, but that's not how the government was set up to work.

quote: "If anyone had his fingers crossed on slavery, it was ol' Abe with that lawyerly used snakeoil salesman wording in the Emancipation Proclamation." Lincoln was a pragmatic leader who knew that to end slavery, victory over the Southern Slaveocracy would have to come first. Then Slavery could be ended, and it was.

Nice touch of revisionism. Lincoln made clear his views that blacks could not function as equals in white society, and that his overriding concern was the preservation of the union. The emancipation proclamation was an offer to the seceded states that they could keep their slaves if they returned to big daddy like so many prodigal sons.

	10-01-2003 01:16									#46
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

MTG, play make-believe for a second with me. Say Lee gets away from Richmond/Petersburg and gets his forces to the railways to take them south. (At the end of the campaign.) And Grant is either delayed successfully or just chooses to consolidate Virginia. Lee (the master of maneuever) gets to the Carolinas and consolidates his forces with those of that dude (can't remember name) in the Carolinas (was a sizeable force) and attacks Sherman.

1. Any chance that he could defeat Sherman and capture his force?

2. Take one more leap and assume that he pulls off (1). What happens now?

Last edited by TCO on 10-01-2003 at 01:23

	10-01-2003 01:16									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

BTW, I'm heading out of town for work for the rest of the week and into the weekend, so y'all will have to continue without me, or bump the thread Sunday for further volleys.

	10-01-2003 01:20									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

NOOOOOOO!

Answer me, airborne ranger!

	10-01-2003 01:27									#49
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by GP MTG, play make-believe for a second with me. LEt's say Lee is able to get away from Richmond/Petersburg and get his forces to the railways to take them south. (at the end of the campaign) And Grant is either delayed successfully or chooses to consolidate Virginia. Lee (the master of maneuever) gets to the Carolinas and consolidates his forces with those that that dude (can't remember name) had in the Carolinas and attacks Sherman. 1. Any chance that he could defeat Sherman and caputer his force? 2. Take one more leap and assume that he pulls off (1). What happends now?

The time to have broken out would have been late fall of 1864, before the winter set in. Grant was inclined then to pursue Lee's army, not go after Richmond (he went after Richmond and Petersburg because Lee was there). By the spring of 1865, the exhaustion and malnutrition in the southern ranks was such that there was simply no hope - men dropped exhausted and waited to be captured or to die of exposure at night, and nobody bothered with the stragglers, because everyone realized the men were at the limits of their endurance. They still had the will to resist, but not the means. Even had they made the link up with Johnston's forces, either Sherman or Grant's armies had a two to one advantage in infantry, a 15 to 1 advantage in cavalry, and control of the supply routes and local farms.

It was just over at that point, and any decisive fight would have been a slaughter.

The only late chance to win would have been Lincoln's defeat for reelection, because the casualty lists coming out of Grant's campaign, coupled with the lack of progress towards Atlanta when Sherman was up against Johnston brought northern war-weariness to it's high point. Then Davis cans Johnston, orders Hood to take command and attack, and four quick, sharp victories and the capture of Atlanta convince the northern populace that the CSA really was on the verge of collapse.

There's simply no way in hell the south could have defeated the north in an overall military sense - it had to be a breaking of the northern political and popular will for preserving the Union. That was the only chance the south ever had.

	10-01-2003 01:49									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Lee is the finest General that the American continent has yet produced.

Wrong. The finest general the American continent had yet produced is a tie between Stonewall Jackson and Winfield Scott (for Scott, his campaign in the Mexican-American War was brilliant).

Lee is tied with Longstreet IMO. Longstreet was studied for years for his defensive tactics. I'd put Winfield Scott Hancock up on the list as well. Grant and Sherman are right behind Lee and Longstreet. Sheridan, Patton, and McArthur are not far behind at all.

	10-01-2003 02:53									#51
	Suffering from ads?

How does Benedict Arnold rate?

	10-01-2003 02:58									#52
	Suffering from ads?

Not bad... but the traitor thing always weighs against him .

Though I do believe Arnold was a better general than Washington.

	10-01-2003 03:36									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

That's not too hard.

-Arrian

	10-01-2003 03:36									#54
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Grant first took Kentucky at fort Donelson: then he beat back (no matter how bloody) attacks against him at Shiloh. Then he executed the very difficult campaign to take Vicksburg, which supposedly was impregnable. Then he was given command of the Unionm armies, drove Lee back, bottled the army of Northern Virginia at Petersburg, where it begun to disintegrate, much as the Confederacy at that point, and then he simply chased Lee to Appamatox Courthouse. Of course Lee pulled of the great and brilliant victory at Chancellorsville, but he never made it past Gettysburg and spent most of his time trying to figth the army of the Potomack in his own turf, even when comanded by fools such as McClelan.

Lee was a tactical genius, but in the fnd, it was Grant, as a military leader, who won the Civil War, for one isde or the other. Was Grant a better tactician? Perhaps not, but as an overall commander (not just of single, but multiple armies) he was a greater General.

	10-01-2003 04:24									#55
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"Hardly turned out to be a catastrophic defeat,"

Sure it was. It spelled the end of the invasion of Pennsylvania, sent Lee running, and made the CSA lose alot of troops. And had the Army of the Potomac had a better commander it could have been alot worse. I don't see how Pickett's charge stopped the Union's ability to persue they still had plenty of strong troops left and if they wanted to do so I think they could of. In fact Lincoln got very angry at Meade for not more agressively persuing.

"You apparently haven't been to the battlefield, or don't remember it well. "

I have been to the battlefield, and I remember it well enough to see why it is was a dumb manuever. They had to go a long stretch of field in open ground where US artillery had excellent shots and the climb up a large hill against entrenched Union fire. Some of the Confederate generals including Longstreet IIRC realized why this wouldn't work, and protested the idea. For all your rationalization of why the charge was a good idea, he reality of why it wouldn't work bore out in the assault- say goodbye to Pickett's division.

"and despite the dramatization of the damage the ANV received, the overall casualty numbers on the third day were proportionate to those on the second day, when both armies were fully engaged."

That's still very bad though, especially considering how if you combine 3 days Gettysburg was the bloodiest battle in the entire war(though Antietam was the bloodiest single day).

"Hardly - the numerical superiority of the Union armies, and their vastly superior supply late in the war overwhelmed the man for man superiority of underclothed, underfed, underarmed, half starved veterans."

Right, and Grant made the best of what he had. But as Rhea points out in the article, both armies had been retooled by that point. But you had already brought up the point of US logisitical superiorites, I was bringing up that when Grant and Lee fought Lee had the advantage of elite veteran troops.

"Lee can only be judged in terms of the scope of his command and how he did with the resources he had available to him."

He still had control of his army. And what did he do with those resources? Delay defeat. And that hardly makes you a very good general IMNSHO.

"The so should all the founding fathers of the United States. Had we remained loyal colonists, slavery would have passed from the scene three decades earlier."

Not really, because now you are bringing in alot of historical what ifs into play. Would there have been another rebellion during the Napoleonic wars that would have been a drag on British forces. Would the empire be so quick to abolish slavery if it would have controlled the US South? Even if it did, would it be abolished name only and would we simply see the practice of "forced labor" as had happened in Africa? Would there have been another revolt and some other point, maybe whenever they did get around to abolishing slavery, and if so would the South then just go on opressing blacks? I would imagine blacks might be loyal to the crown in the event of another revolt if it meant they would be free in the process- I would imagine Southerners would have unleashed their fury on them whenever they got the chance as a result. There are too many what ifs, as compared to a Republican dominated government waiting to abolish slavery when it became feasible.

"
You could argue that, but that's not how the government was set up to work."

Right, but the question is if the government should have done it anyway.

"Lincoln made clear his views that blacks could not function as equals in white society, and that his overriding concern was the preservation of the union. The emancipation proclamation was an offer to the seceded states that they could keep their slaves if they returned to big daddy like so many prodigal sons."

Most people interpert it as a political gesture aimed at avoiding Anglo/French intervention. As far as Lincoln saying blacks couldn't be equals, someone saying they could be would have made them an extreme radical at this point in the 19th century. Lincoln also had reason to put forth his main cause- there were plenty of whites in the North who would have opposed a war simply aimed at helping black people. Lincoln was simply being a pragmatist at a time when pragatism was very much needed.

	10-01-2003 05:05									#56
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

To judge between Grant and Lee, you have to consider more the tactics of the time. The attacking forces were always at a severe disadvantage. It very useful to compare battles fought by each army in similar circumstances.

The North (and Grant especially) was almost always forced into the attacking role, and the attacking army almost always lost more men. Yes Grant and the other Northern generals lost more men in most battles they fought. It is to be expected.

But what of Lee? On those occassions when Lee took on the attacking role, he fared no better than most of the Northern generals. He lost at Antietam and he lost at Gettysburg.

The discussion of Lee as a strategist confuses me. In my mind strategy is broader issues than individual battles. Taking the Mississippi to divide the South was a strategy, combining command of East and West theaters was a strategy. Encirclement and siege are strategies. Sherman's march to the sea was a strategy.

What Lee seemed good at was tactics. Identifying/creating local numerical superiority is a tactic. Manuvering is a tactic. In a way, keeping your army in defensive positions is a tactic.

Lee had another advantage that made him look (perhaps) better than he was. The South had the better group of top generals (because the South had a stronger tradition of and respect for) military service. The stronger group of subordinate generals that Lee had the advantage to command enabled him to engage in actions that the North could not match. It isn't just Lee, it is Jackson, Longstreet, Early, Stuart, etc.

It is fascinating to contemplate what would have happened had "all things been equal". But they weren't equal.

I think that Grant has to get the nod as the better overall general because he recognized and was able to exploit the advantages the North had. Other Northern generals had the same advantages available, but did not adapt to them. Grant did.

Just my opinion...

	10-01-2003 05:24									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Its a semantic point. I think people often use tactics to mean things at the actual operational level of an individual soldier, ship, etc.

	10-01-2003 08:22									#58
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GP Dan, he had his fingers crossed while killing Yankees.

Is that how you guys outnavigated the Rooskies underwater?

	10-01-2003 09:21									#59
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Given that Grant never functioned under real adversity in terms of manpower, material, indirect support, or being absolutely tied to defending specific ground, there is no basis for comparison to Lee's performance under those conditions. .

I beleive that there was a point in the Vicksburg campaign where Grant was manuevering a force through very difficult terrain around a larger force in order to close the ring around Vicksburg. Would that qualify?

I also recall that during th battle of Shiloh he pulled a victory out of a nearly complete defeat.

	13-01-2003 04:42									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

BUMP