Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Praxus
You said, "Especially when you look at the American Civil War, I dont mean the generals are not military proficient or they are less determined to win, but the fact is they all have similar training experiences, and doctrines. To me Civil war leaders are like football coaches playing with the same book, they all have the plays and everybody else knows how to counter them."
I simply presented two Generals who were not as you stated and therefor completely disproves your statement.
|
I am dumbfounded how you can speak in such absolute terms just becasue you throw two names at me and give some sweeping statement you completely disprove me!!! Look I already explained why Shermans was mediocre, he was behind enemy lines, it was 1864 what defense was the confederates throwing up after multiple defeats and heavy losses at such places like Vicksburg, and the Tennessee campaign? IT doesnt take a great general or even a good one to keep an army in the field under some order as they raise farms, factories and other means of war. As a matter of fact it was amiracle that the MArch tot he sea didnt turn into a route, Sherman winged it and decided to live off the land, if the Confederates could have used a scorced earth policy, and has a sufficent foces to counter Sherman could have been crushed.
Now Forrest I am a little less aware of him, however, the man lakced any formal military training therefore unlike his peers he did not have the same mentality, and if you read my statement correctly I said the flaw with civil war generals is they have the same experiences and training. The equivalent of Forrest in the civil war would be some European general joining the Civil war, he doesnt think the same therefore his opponents have less ability to anticipate his moves. Also in Forrest's case he had good luck and idiot opponents in spades,
http://ngeorgia.com/people/forrest.html.