Happy April 9

[nsacpi]

Yet somehow you’re the first person to bring Trump up yourself half the time.

It does betray a weird obsession to bring him up to complain about a thread about Grant

[sturg33]

Lol completely lost without him

[Tapate50]

Yet somehow you’re the first person to bring Trump up yourself half the time.

You are confused. It happens.

[zitothebrave]

There is that annoying nickname a LOT of his troops called him, especially in the last year to year and a half of the war....."Grant the Butcher". That's probably just a misunderstanding though.

I mean it isn't shocking, because Grant used his troops. Little Mac and others sat back. Grant took his advantages and kicked the south in the mouth. Overall he inflicted more casualties than sustained, which is generally the sign of a good general.

Lee is never called a butcher, even though he suffered more casualties to his men than Grant did in all the different theaters Grant fought. Lee on his home turf lost more men than Grant did on the offensive. It's clear to anyone with a brain that Grant was the most superior general of the civil war. If Lee fought a defensive war, he may have succeeded in wearing out the Union.

This is a fun article to read comparing the 2

https://www.historynet.com/the-butchers-bill.htm

[nsacpi]

I mean it isn't shocking, because Grant used his troops. Little Mac and others sat back. Grant took his advantages and kicked the south in the mouth. Overall he inflicted more casualties than sustained, which is generally the sign of a good general.

Lee is never called a butcher, even though he suffered more casualties to his men than Grant did in all the different theaters Grant fought. Lee on his home turf lost more men than Grant did on the offensive. It's clear to anyone with a brain that Grant was the most superior general of the civil war. If Lee fought a defensive war, he may have succeeded in wearing out the Union.

This is a fun article to read comparing the 2

https://www.historynet.com/the-butchers-bill.htm

data dont lie

[striker42]

The basic approach is to compile data on the forces each has at his disposal and also take into account which one is attacking and which one is defending. From that you formulate probability of winning. Let's say the odds are 70% General A wins the battle in question. If he wins then he gets a +0.3 and the other guy gets a -0.3. If he loses he gets a -0.7 and the other guy gets a +.7. Rinse and repeat for the rest of his career. It's a kind of Wins Above Replacement level concept, similar to baseball.

I don't see this methodology as valid. There are so many factors that can't be factored in. Terrain, weather, effectiveness of subordinate officers, communications, training level of soldiers, morale, demands of higher ups, etc.

[nsacpi]

I don't see this methodology as valid. There are so many factors that can't be factored in. Terrain, weather, effectiveness of subordinate officers, communications, training level of soldiers, morale, demands of higher ups, etc.

Like any model it has a number of simplifying assumptions.

https://towardsdatascience.com/napol...t-86efed303eeb

I then constructed a linear model from that sample of battles. For each battle, I separated the combatants’ forces into infantry, cavalry, artillery, air force, and navy. I could then weight a general’s numerical advantage or disadvantage compared to their adversary, and better isolate the general’s ability as a tactician. The resulting model was surprisingly conservative in its weights, suggesting that raw soldier quantities have a relatively small effect compared to other factors such as terrain or technology, which further research could investigate in more detail. In this project, however, the results potentially inflate the importance of a commander’s tactical acuity compared with other factors.

Among all generals, Napoleon had the highest WAR (16.679) by a large margin. In fact, the next highest performer, Julius Caesar (7.445 WAR), had less than half the WAR accumulated by Napoleon across his battles. Napoleon benefited from the large number of battles in which he led forces. Among his 43 listed battles, he won 38 and lost only 5. Napoleon overcame difficult odds in 17 of his victories, and commanded at a disadvantage in all 5 of his losses. No other general came close to Napoleon in total battles. While Napoleon commanded forces in 43 battles, the next most prolific general was Robert E. Lee, with 27 battles (the average battle count was 1.5). Napoleon’s large battle count allowed him more opportunities to demonstrate his tactical prowess. Alexander the Great, despite winning all 9 of his battles, accumulated fewer WAR largely because of his shorter and less prolific career.

There were also generals that had surprisingly low total WAR despite a reputation as master tacticians. Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate States Army, finished with a negative WAR (-1.89), suggesting an average general would have had more success than Lee leading the Confederacy’s armies. Lee was saddled with considerable disadvantages, including a large deficit in the size of his military and available resources. Still, his reputation as an adept tactician is likely undeserved, and his WAR supports the historians who have criticized his overall strategy and handling of key battles, such as ordering the disastrous ‘Pickett’s Charge’ on the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg. In the words of University of South Carolina professor Thomas Connely, “One ponders whether the South may not have fared better had it possessed no Robert E. Lee.”

German field marshal Erwin Rommel, nicknamed the ‘Desert Fox’ for his successes in North Africa during World War II, also performed poorly in this model, finishing with -1.953 WAR. This finding disputes the praise Rommel has received as a tactician from modern generals, including Norman Schwarzkopf and Ariel Sharon. However, like Lee, Rommel has been the subject of considerable historical debate. In particular, critics have attributed much of his reputation as a tactical genius to both German and Allied propaganda. British generals reportedly exaggerated Rommel’s tactical abilities in order to minimize disapproval regarding their defeats.

[striker42]

I actually think Grant and Lee compare favorably as generals and that's one of the reasons (among others) you never get a consensus about them.

Both had brilliant battles and both made massive mistakes. They both even made the same mistake of a frontal charge into a fortified position (Lee at Gettysburg, Grant at Cold Harbor).

I sometimes think these two get too much emphasis put on them. It didn't matter who was leading the armies, the only hope the South had was the North quitting. So long as the North kept fighting a bowl of fruit could have led them to victory and perfect generaling by the South wouldn't prevent it.

[nsacpi]

I actually think Grant and Lee compare favorably as generals and that's one of the reasons (among others) you never get a consensus about them.

I'm pretty sure there is something close to a consensus by now outside of Lost Cause historians.

The moneyball approach is mainly a fun exercise for discussion. But I suspect future military historians will try to refine and improve upon it.

[zitothebrave]

I don't think Grant really made a mistake. He probably made some suboptimal calls, but Cold Harbor while not Grant's best moment, was key in ending the war as it resoundingly contained and shut Lee's army down. Lead to the siege of Petersburg and Richmond,

[nsacpi]

The moneyball ranking of Zhukov provides some validation of the approach imo. He helped turn around a dire situation for the Russian army. No Zhukov and most of Europe would probably be speaking German today.

[zitothebrave]

I sometimes think these two get too much emphasis put on them. It didn't matter who was leading the armies, the only hope the South had was the North quitting. So long as the North kept fighting a bowl of fruit could have led them to victory and perfect generaling by the South wouldn't prevent it.

You're not wrong that the North didn't have a huge advantage. But the North was ran by a bowl of fruit for a long time. Little Mac could have ended Lee by 62, same with Burnside who screwed up royally.

The lost cause movement doesn't realize how dominant Sherman and Grant were. Or intentionally downplays it.

[nsacpi]

I don't think Grant really made a mistake. He probably made some suboptimal calls, but Cold Harbor while not Grant's best moment, was key in ending the war as it resoundingly contained and shut Lee's army down. Lead to the siege of Petersburg and Richmond,

In his memoirs, he says Cold Harbor is the battle he regrets the most. But even in that battle, he lost a smaller percentage of his men than Lee did.

The whole Petersburg-Richmond campaign provided a sort of preview to the trench warfare of WWI, especially with respect to the horrific casualties.

[zitothebrave]

In his memoirs, he says Cold Harbor is the battle he regrets the most.

I know, ainly because of hindsight. He realized later he didn't need it but that did probably shave off weeks off the war.

[Oklahomahawk]

I mean it isn't shocking, because Grant used his troops. Little Mac and others sat back. Grant took his advantages and kicked the south in the mouth. Overall he inflicted more casualties than sustained, which is generally the sign of a good general.

Lee is never called a butcher, even though he suffered more casualties to his men than Grant did in all the different theaters Grant fought. Lee on his home turf lost more men than Grant did on the offensive. It's clear to anyone with a brain that Grant was the most superior general of the civil war. If Lee fought a defensive war, he may have succeeded in wearing out the Union.

This is a fun article to read comparing the 2

https://www.historynet.com/the-butchers-bill.htm

Well then I guess you can put me into the "he doesn't have a brain" category. It's OK though, lots of other people here have done that years ago. :)

I mean, it's not like I've studied this stuff or anything. Grant was actually really really good in and around the Vicksburg campaign. I definitely give him props for that series of battles, Otherwise I'd consider him the New York Yankmees, practically unlimited resources tend to get you good results in the end, though thankfully it hasn't worked as well for the Yankmees.

[Oklahomahawk]

The moneyball ranking of Zhukov provides some validation of the approach imo. He helped turn around a dire situation for the Russian army. No Zhukov and most of Europe would probably be speaking German today.

You do make a good point with the comparison to Zhukov. Their tactics were very similar in many ways. Use your vastly superior numbers and resources and eventually the other side runs out of resources and you win. You definitely get the end results you wanted but they don't seem quite a brilliant if you're one of the guys getting sacrificed in all those frontal assaults designed to bleed the enemy.

[nsacpi]

Well then I guess you can put me into the "he doesn't have a brain" category. It's OK though, lots of other people here have done that years ago. :)

I mean, it's not like I've studied this stuff or anything. Grant was actually really really good in and around the Vicksburg campaign. I definitely give him props for that series of battles, Otherwise I'd consider him the New York Yankmees, practically unlimited resources tend to get you good results in the end, though thankfully it hasn't worked as well for the Yankmees.

That's a good analogy. But the Yankees (baseball version) had a long period in the 1980s and 1990s where they barely sniffed the playoffs. Let's call it the Buck Showalter era. The North had a similar period before Grant was given command. If he been in charge earlier the war would have ended much more quickly (though an argument can be made that the western campaigns gave him the experience he needed to grow as a commander).

Also agree that Vicksburg was his magnum opus.

[Krgrecw]

Ken Burns Civil War said ‘Lee head one of the greatest armies of all time’

Dude took a rag tag group of guys and held off a much bigger, stronger, more equipped army longer than anyone thought he could. The North should had easily squashed the south in a matter of months. Attrition is what did the south in.

[Oklahomahawk]

You're not wrong that the North didn't have a huge advantage. But the North was ran by a bowl of fruit for a long time. Little Mac could have ended Lee by 62, same with Burnside who screwed up royally.

The lost cause movement doesn't realize how dominant Sherman and Grant were. Or intentionally downplays it.

This is a very good point and you can add Sheridan to that list. Grant had great subordinates who knew how to get stuff done. Lee had Stonewall Jackson who was absolutely brilliant at offensive tactics and Longstreet who was brilliant at defensive tactics (neither were all that great the other's specialty). Lee was great at designing strategies but after he lost Jackson he really didn't have anyone very good to take his place. If you want to truly compare records check out Lee's W's and L's from when he took over command after Johnston's wounds, right before the 7 days battles that pushed McClellan back down the peninsula in June (mainly) of 1862 through Chancellorsville in 1863.

The South lost the war by not taking advantage of the North's mistakes after First Bull Run in 1861 and in my personal opinion maybe Lee's biggest mistake, after the drubbing he gave Burnside at Fredericksburg. Yes the Pickett's charge at Gettysburg looks dumb (and as it turns out it was) but had the most overrated general in the whole Civil War (either side) not screwed up his part of that battle Gettysburg might have turned out very differently.

[Oklahomahawk]

Ken Burns Civil War said ‘Lee head one of the greatest armies of all time’

Dude took a rag tag group of guys and held off a much bigger, stronger, more equipped army longer than anyone thought he could. The North should had easily squashed the south in a matter of months. Attrition is what did the south in.

Attrition and an almost total lack of supplies. The northern blockade hardly ever gets as much credit for the North's victory as it should.