Most Overrated General?

[Nathanb1]

Hmm. Is it time to ask who the most overrated lawyer/journalist/novelist/chef turned historian is?

No, it's not, and this will all come to a screeching halt at this moment, if anyone wants to walk away unscathed. Otherwise, stand in line. I've had a long, long day and I have a splitting headache and a throbbing knee. I will take Ole's axe and start whacking if everyone chooses to continue behaving in this juvenile manner. I don't like name calling. Before I was a teacher I didn't like name calling. Get over it, people.

I do appreciate those of you who have attempted to operate in a civil manner--very much.

Posted in Capacity as Moderator

 

[rbasin]

He has certainly been allowed to set his own agenda, and his memoirs are treated without the skepticism they deserve.

In fact when one steps back his war record is very mixed, and had he been relieved in July/August '64, which he very well could have been, as he was seen as an ignominious failure who had become "McClellanised" in siege lines and almost allowed Washington to be captured by Early, he would simply be another in a long line of so called "failures". Only 8-9 months more of slow siege would bring success and vindication.

First, let me say that Grant deserves a lot of credit for winning the CW. I do agree with what you wrote about his memoirs. I don't think he would have been relieved in 1864 for almost any reason, due to the election that fall. Lincoln would not have been re-elected if Grant had failed to the point where he was relieved. Besides, Grant, whether he failed or not, was too valuable a commander to have been shelved, which he would have had to have been due to his rank.

I guess, and I'm sure its me, my question about Grant is why did Lincoln allow him so much more time in 1864 then he did McClellan in 1862? The Urbanna Plan wasn't a bad plan, I don't think (I know you know more of that than I do). And why did Lincoln not make Grant leave enough troops to watch D.C., etc. as he did Mac? Imagine if Hancock had to stay around D.C. for the start of the Overland Campaign.

 

[Elennsar]

Foote wrote his series as a narrative, not as a novelist. Large distinction there.

A narrative without footnotes, endnotes, or any other aspirations to writing history instead of fiction.

Thus me saying he wrote as a novelist and not a historian. You can write a narrative and still write as a historian concerned with checking and providing sources and evidence.

I appreciate his way with words, and I'm not saying him including good stories is a minus - but I think he paid more attention to how it came together as a bit of storytelling then whether it was backed up by solid facts, and that's a novelist at work.

 

[rbasin]

A narrative without footnotes, endnotes, or any other aspirations to writing history instead of fiction.

Thus me saying he wrote as a novelist and not a historian.

I enjoyed the trilogy when I first read it, but as I learn more about the details of the war, maybe its lost some luster. That being said, I'd still tell someone who is just starting to read up on the ACW that its one of the 2 or 3 books I'd start with.

 

[Elennsar]

Maybe and I don't know enough to engage in this. But, Rhea's got Meade "balking" at the order and evidence holds that the men on the line knew they were going to die in this futile assault. Rhea explains in the video I posted up thread that Confederate engineers went out in the field and planted stakes at measured distance that would give artillerymen near perfect range at which to fire. This was a planned and predictable slaughter. The guys who were there said so, our opinions can't outweigh theirs.

The part in bold has no relevance to whether it was Meade or Grant, however.

 

[Drew]

No, it's not, and this will all come to a screeching halt at this moment, if anyone wants to walk away unscathed.

Uh, oh. I'm going to bed. Good night everybody.

 

[Elennsar]

I enjoyed the trilogy when I first read it, but as I learn more about the details of the war, maybe its lost some luster. That being said, I'd still tell someone who is just starting to read up on the ACW that its one of the 2 or 3 books I'd start with.

I generally agree. If you want an introduction to the big picture, and a sense of how dramatic and interesting a subject it is, Foote is a good read. But if you want to use it as a source for "And X happened at Y location", Foote ranges from mediocre to incredible - and I mean that as in not credible, not as in good.

Whether he was a Lost Causer or not bothers me less than the lack of footnotes or endnotes to things like his statement on Confederate numbers on January 1 (1865). Freeman was a far bigger Confederate (army, at least) fanboy but he at least provides those.

 

[Nathanb1]

Uh, oh. I'm going to bed. Good night everybody.

Gee. You were one of the two people not in line for an axe-whuppin.

 

[huskerblitz]

A narrative without footnotes, endnotes, or any other aspirations to writing history instead of fiction.

Thus me saying he wrote as a novelist and not a historian.

But neither did Fahrenbach. Granted, he had first hand experience but no footnotes or endnotes and his history of the Korean War is still considered the standard.

But again, what he wrote was enjoyable to read. I've read several books by historians and some wrote about as well as the statues sitting on the battlefields. No personality whatsoever. That's why Foote has the following he still does.

 

[rbasin]

I generally agree. If you want an introduction to the big picture, and a sense of how dramatic and interesting a subject it is, Foote is a good read. But if you want to use it as a source for "And X happened at Y location", Foote ranges from mediocre to incredible - and I mean that as in not credible, not as in good.

But, he does get all the players in some sort of perspective, even if he is a bit heavy on some.

My other book to a new reader is Catton's American Heritage classic, hardcover. The maps and illustrations are still some of the best, even if the writing is lacking. And I'm no fan of Catton.

 

[Elennsar]

But neither did Fahrenbach. Granted, he had first hand experience but no footnotes or endnotes and his history of the Korean War is still considered the standard.

"But someone else is also guilty of X." does not remove the first person's guilt, if you'll pardon me putting it a little harshly.

But again, what he wrote was enjoyable to read. I've read several books by historians and some wrote about as well as the statues sitting on the battlefields. No personality whatsoever. That's why Foote has the following he still does.

Oh definitely. I think people have gotten cared away with the fact Foote does that well and not looked to check his figures and facts, though.

 

[Elennsar]

But, he does get all the players in some sort of perspective, even if he is a bit heavy on some.

My other book to a new reader is Catton's American Heritage classic, hardcover. The maps and illustrations are still some of the best, even if the writing is lacking. And I'm no fan of Catton.

No argument here. I think between the two its enough to get someone started - areas scholarship has surpassed one or the other can be introduced after someone can recognize say, Meade.

 

[rbasin]

No argument here. I think between the two its enough to get someone started - areas scholarship has surpassed one or the other can be introduced after someone can recognize say, Meade.

Exactly. Thanks for saying what I would have taken 2 pages and write it in one sentence

 

[huskerblitz]

"But someone else is also guilty of X." does not remove the first person's guilt, if you'll pardon me putting it a little harshly.



Oh definitely. I think people have gotten cared away with the fact Foote does that well and not looked to check his figures and facts, though.

Well you're welcome to your opinion. I don't share it.

 

[Elennsar]

Exactly. Thanks for saying what I would have taken 2 pages and write it in one sentence

And thank you for naming the two authors to work with, because on my own I would be going "Uh. . . I dunno. I suck at recommending stuff for newbies." Can't argue with the picks when they're in front of me, I just don't tend to think of that element of study - blame it on being the guy who hates having to start at the beginning and work their way to the end with any project.

 

[Elennsar]

Well you're welcome to your opinion. I don't share it.

And that is why I am reluctant to regard recommendations by some people with confidence. I like footnotes and endnotes. Especially when talking figures or quotes - Fahrenbach might be able to talk about what he saw with his own eyes as "from my own observations", but I doubt he personally counted the troops deployed overall, for example.

If you like his work, I don't know the Korean War enough to present anything where it could be better. I do know enough on the ACW to find issues with Foote.

 

[cash]

But neither did Fahrenbach. Granted, he had first hand experience but no footnotes or endnotes and his history of the Korean War is still considered the standard.

It's a classic, but not the standard. Not sure there is one at this time. Fehrenbach is really too dated and has limitations dealing with its narrowness and its outdated view of the Cold War.

Stueck has better claim to that at this point.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5740.html

Though Jager is also in the running.

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Brothers-at-War/

But again, what he wrote was enjoyable to read. I've read several books by historians and some wrote about as well as the statues sitting on the battlefields. No personality whatsoever. That's why Foote has the following he still does.

I agree it was enjoyable. His narrative is a work of art.

 

[huskerblitz]

And that is why I am reluctant to regard recommendations by some people with confidence. I like footnotes and endnotes. Especially when talking figures - Fahrenbach might be able to talk about what he saw with his own eyes as "from my own observations", but I doubt he personally counted the troops deployed, for example.

He didn't write from that perspective. And he never acknowledge his service during his entire work on the Korean War.

In any case, this is off topic. Continue if you wish and I see no reason to irritate the mods this evening.

 

[huskerblitz]

It's a classic, but not the standard. Not sure there is one at this time. Fehrenbach is really too dated and has limitations dealing with its narrowness and its outdated view of the Cold War.

Stueck has better claim to that at this point.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5740.html

Though Jager is also in the running.

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Brothers-at-War/




I agree it was enjoyable. His narrative is a work of art.

Don't care. Thank you anyway.

Back to topic...

 

[rbasin]

And thank you for naming the two authors to work with, because on my own I would be going "Uh. . . I dunno. I suck at recommending stuff for newbies." Can't argue with the picks when they're in front of me, I just don't tend to think of that element of study - blame it on being the guy who hates having to start at the beginning and work their way to the end with any project.

well, next time, start at the end and work your way to the beginning! I had to do that study Eastern Roman History (Byzantine)