Ranking of U.S. Presidents by historians

07-08-10, 08:21 PM

My personal opinion is the South had much better fighters (more fight in their blood) and much better Generals to lead them. Just look at the battles throughout the entire war and the evidence is written in the blood that was spilled.

Lee was a fricken genius in my book and knew how to make the most with the least amount of resources. Probably the most militaristic and strategic minded person this world has ever known. He's up there with Douglas MacArthur in my list of "men who knew how to fight a war". He was a very disciplined person and never received a single demerit at West Point during his 4 years there. That's unheard of for a school that's so strict!

To me, Grant wasn't a great General at all. And I'm not saying this because I'm so pro-South. The fact is, he just had a lot more men to throw at the South. Give him a small force and he'd lose. Give him a big force and he'd win, but you could rest assured that his big force would be nothing more than a handful of wounded men by the end of the battle. I think this led to him becoming such a bad drunk. It's got to be hard to swallow the "could of/should of" reality when you're responsible for the literally thousands of young lives being lost due in large part to your poor military tactics I can imagine.

It's my opinion that the north suffered such heavy losses during the war because of Grant's poor leadership. There were other northern Generals that used this same method as well. It's so easy to just throw numbers at the enemy to win. Anybody who's into RTS games will know this. We're all guilty of doing the same thing in games like Red Alert. Just create a ton of infantry and charge at the enemy with them and you'll most likely win no matter what equipment they have on their side or how they're strategically setup on the map. You're gonna suffer heavy losses but you're guaranteed to win.

07-08-10, 08:21 PM	#11
thorn69 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	My personal opinion is the South had much better fighters (more fight in their blood) and much better Generals to lead them. Just look at the battles throughout the entire war and the evidence is written in the blood that was spilled. Lee was a fricken genius in my book and knew how to make the most with the least amount of resources. Probably the most militaristic and strategic minded person this world has ever known. He's up there with Douglas MacArthur in my list of "men who knew how to fight a war". He was a very disciplined person and never received a single demerit at West Point during his 4 years there. That's unheard of for a school that's so strict! To me, Grant wasn't a great General at all. And I'm not saying this because I'm so pro-South. The fact is, he just had a lot more men to throw at the South. Give him a small force and he'd lose. Give him a big force and he'd win, but you could rest assured that his big force would be nothing more than a handful of wounded men by the end of the battle. I think this led to him becoming such a bad drunk. It's got to be hard to swallow the "could of/should of" reality when you're responsible for the literally thousands of young lives being lost due in large part to your poor military tactics I can imagine. It's my opinion that the north suffered such heavy losses during the war because of Grant's poor leadership. There were other northern Generals that used this same method as well. It's so easy to just throw numbers at the enemy to win. Anybody who's into RTS games will know this. We're all guilty of doing the same thing in games like Red Alert. Just create a ton of infantry and charge at the enemy with them and you'll most likely win no matter what equipment they have on their side or how they're strategically setup on the map. You're gonna suffer heavy losses but you're guaranteed to win.