"Face Off" Who's Your Go to Guy..??

"Face Off": Who's Your Go to Guy...?

  • Robert E. Lee---The "Gray Fox" of the south

    Votes: 38 45.8%
  • U. S. Grant----- Mr "Total War" of the north

    Votes: 19 22.9%
  • Other----------- Maybe another figure of history

    Votes: 26 31.3%

  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Can we go back in time to the days when the Roman short sword ruled the battlefield....

Hannibal: Who terrorized the Roman country side for a decade and remembered for victroies that are still talked about today as the general to led an army into one final battle for all the marbles...

Scipio: The who rose to led the Roman army against and defeat Hannibal at the Battle of Zama as the general to led an army into one final battle for all the marbles...

I think there a historical comparison with these two figures of histroy with Lee and Grant contest of our Civil War...



Your right there is a comparison. And which part of Florida are you currently residing at?
 
I would pick Lee...If he lost, which I don't think he would, at least the defeat it would be glorious and one remembered.
 
Picking from all time greats I'll go with Alexander Suvorov. Never lost a battle.
He has made his mark on Finnish soil too. Eastern Finland has lots of old castles and forts that were part of his line of defense to protect St. Petersburg against Swedes in 1790. That line was so impressive, that Swedes (and Finns with them) never even tried to take it.
 
I would probably go with in this order. 1. Subadai 2. Alexander 3.Scipio Africanus(he had a brother titled asiaticus) 4. Marlboro 5. Grant
Now who would you not turn too who but is thought of highly? 1. Ludendorff 2. McCarthur . Does anyone else have any nominations?
 
That is interesting. Did Suvorov design the forts?
Catherine The Great assigned him to make that line because of the lessons from the war with her cousin, Gustav III of Sweden. It showed that St. Petersburg was vulnerable for determined attack, though in that war it didn´t happen. He designed the whole line (actually three lines) of defense, rather than individual forts. Many of the old forts and castles were modified to meet that days requests, and most of all he made the roads suitable for defending (each road to Petersburg could be cut if necessary) rather than attacking, simply improved logistics with supply bases etc. Here is a Map with the places that had forts. I have problems to find info in english about that so that is in finnish, Pietari Is Petersburg in our language. More I study Suvorov, more I admire him. I still think that us Finns would have kicked his butt in 1808-09 if he had been still alive :smile:
 
Catherine The Great assigned him to make that line because of the lessons from the war with her cousin, Gustav III of Sweden. It showed that St. Petersburg was vulnerable for determined attack, though in that war it didn´t happen. He designed the whole line (actually three lines) of defense, rather than individual forts. Many of the old forts and castles were modified to meet that days requests, and most of all he made the roads suitable for defending (each road to Petersburg could be cut if necessary) rather than attacking, simply improved logistics with supply bases etc. Here is a Map with the places that had forts. I have problems to find info in english about that so that is in finnish, Pietari Is Petersburg in our language. More I study Suvorov, more I admire him. I still think that us Finns would have kicked his butt in 1808-09 if he had been still alive :smile:

Thanks for the info :thumbsup: Out of curiosity I read a few articles on the net about the Finnish war of 1808-09 and The Grand Duchy of Finland. Interesting.
 
Without Grant, there is no Sherman as history knows him. Remember that Sherman was vehemantly opposed initially to cutting supply lines when Grant decided the method he would use in his final campaign against Vicksburg. Without Grant, the war unquestionably lasts longer (Far too long), and the right side may have even lost.

I'm also not at all convinced that Lee was a better "one battle" tactical general.

However also without Sherman there would be no Grant. Great book on the subject is "The Friendship That Won The War". Sherman was crazy and Grant was a drunk however when they found each-other they were able to get through their problems together. IMO they were the two best generals in the war and a perfect team but you can't have one without the other.

Battle: probably stonewall Jackson I am very impressed with his actions in the shanendoah valley

Campaign: Sherman if we are talking about him after he met grant. Leading the march to the sea is good enough proof for me that he would be the man for the job.
 
Thanks for the info :thumbsup: Out of curiosity I read a few articles on the net about the Finnish war of 1808-09 and The Grand Duchy of Finland. Interesting.
Finnish war of 1808-1809 was a disgrace, still it had some initial successes mostly by the Finnish troops superb use of their well known terrain. Still I hope You look more into Winter War :smile:
 
The armies being equal-Lee is the man. Heck, look what he did being so outnumbered. If he would have had Grant under him with a corp and Jackson the other...
 
Back
Top