Grant US Grant ethics?

[GwilymT]

History is full of great military leaders who fought on losing sides. Would think its folly to not recognize that.

Certainly mediocre generals can also win when they hold all the cards, its not a sign of any greatness. Winning or losing a war is more reflective of the respective sides strength, performance in specific battles is reflective of military leadership in the battles.

I too have a soft spot for losers.

 

[RobertP]

Lee was mythologized and many people bought into the myth. Now, the myths are being discarded and as a result, Lee is viewed more realistically.

Wrong. The narrative is being changed by activist historians. The rehabilitation of Grant is just part of the process.

 

[archieclement]

I too have a soft spot for losers.

I dont, I just admire military accumen and prowess, which certainly can occur on both sides during a war.

 

[DanSBHawk]

History is full of great military leaders who fought on losing sides. Would think its folly to not recognize that.

Certainly mediocre generals can also win when they hold all the cards, its not a sign of any greatness. Winning or losing a war is more reflective of the respective sides strength, performance in specific battles is reflective of military leadership in the battles.

You're simply making up your own criteria. A great general can lose battles, and a mediocre general can win battles. There is far more to consider. Strategy, operations, logistics, political circumstances.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Wrong. The narrative is being changed by activist historians. The rehabilitation of Grant is just part of the process.

Nope. As the Lost Cause myths have receded, Lee is getting a realistic assessment.

 

[archieclement]

You're simply making up your own criteria. A great general can lose battles, and a mediocre general can win battles. There is far more to consider. Strategy, operations, logistics, political circumstances.

I use criteria virtually all historians use.

As most rankings of great CW generals will certainly include Confederates. Just as lists of WW2 will include Germans.

If anyone is making up criteria outside the commonly accepted, it's you.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I use criteria virtually all historians use.

As most rankings of CW generals will certainly include Confederates. Just as lists of WW2 will include Germans.

If anyone is making up criteria outside the accepted, it's you.

Then show examples of historians laying out the criteria.

I cited Clausewitz. Military greatness is a lot more involved than just battlefield tactics.

 

[archieclement]

Then show examples of historians laying out the criteria.

I cited Clausewitz. Military greatness is a lot more involved than just battlefield tactics.

Indeed as winning, when one has the numbers and should win, isn't particularly "great". A mediocre or average general should actually win when he has the advantages.

Why it's easiest to see greatness in generals who faced adversity or unfavorable conditions or odds, yet still won the battle or battles.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Indeed as winning, when one has the numbers and should win, isn't particularly "great". A mediocre or average general should actually win when he has the advantages.

Why it's easiest to see greatness in generals who faced adversity or unfavorable conditions or odds, yet still won the battle or battles.

Lee lost battles as well. And he lost the war. His strategy, whatever it was, failed. His offensives into the north failed. He was basically a one-theatre commander. He was a skilled opponent, but he failed.

 

[archieclement]

Lee lost battles as well. And he lost the war. His strategy, whatever it was, failed. His offensives into the north failed. He was basically a one-theatre commander. He was a skilled opponent, but he failed.

Again countries win or lose wars, not individual's. If one is comparing generals, one is comparing individual performances.

Such as winning when outnumbered compared to winning when odds say you should win. Obviously the former is considered more noteworthy.

Greatness is certainly also comparative if compare similiar situations or odds, who else put up Chancellorsville like performances with similar conditions? It's a rather short list. Perhaps Jacksons Valley campaign? Probably why both are still studied to this day as great performances that defied being outnumbered roughly 2-1.

 

[Belfoured]

Wrong. The narrative is being changed by activist historians. The rehabilitation of Grant is just part of the process.

Actually, Grant's "rehabilitation" (including through comparison with Lee) began in 1929 and 1933 with Maj. General J.F.C. Fuller's two studies. Among other things he planned the Allied tank offensive at Cambrai and after WWI he was a strong advocate of mechanized tactics. I would not characterize him as an "activist historian". He was a military professional who applied his training and experience to historical analysis.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Again countries win or lose wars, not individual's. If one is comparing generals, one is comparing individual performances.

Such as winning when outnumbered compared to winning when odds say you should win. Obviously the former is considered more noteworthy.

Greatness is certainly also comparative if compare similiar situations or odds, who else put up Chancellorsville like performances with similar conditions? It's a rather short list. Perhaps Jacksons Valley campaign? Probably why both are still studied to this day as great performances that defied being outnumbered roughly 2-1.

As I said earlier, biased people will come up with whatever criteria they need in order to believe their bias.

Grant rose to the top for a reason, and it wasn't because he was mediocre.

 

[archieclement]

As I said earlier, biased people will come up with whatever criteria they need in order to believe their bias.

Grant rose to the top for a reason, and it wasn't because he was mediocre.

Indeed biased people will, such as having to disqualifying half the generals through history............ to try to elevate their favorites who had no exceptional battles.

As it remains generals who engineered exceptional campaigns such as winning while outnumbered 2-1 is a rather shorter and exclusive list, then generals who managed to when with a 2-1 advantage, as that's rather expected of good commanders. I would suggest considering beating a smaller force is only really noteworthy if one feared how capable the smaller forces commander was. Otherwise it should be expected.

But the thread is actually ethics in Mexican War, based on his own comments.

 

[DanSBHawk]

But the thread is actually ethics in Mexican War, based on his own comments.

Yeah, I remember that you created the thread in order to suggest Grant was unethical, and that your assessment of Grant as mediocre was just a side trip. Was it in this thread that you also claimed Grant resigned because of drinking?

There seems to be a constant theme running through the thread.

 

[archieclement]

Yeah, I remember that you created the thread in order to suggest Grant was unethical, and that your assessment of Grant as mediocre was just a side trip. Was it in this thread that you also claimed Grant resigned because of drinking?

There seems to be a constant theme running through the thread.

No I created the thread because I read Grant himself said he thought the war unethical, and he lacked the moral courage to resign. Frankly that would be worthy of a thread if it concerned any other notable commander.

Certainly no shortage of historians who have noted Grants drinking, nor have I referred to Grant as mediocre, refering to someone as good isn't that at all......

The constant theme in the thread seems to be some attempt of cheerleading on your part. As I have certainly noted Grant was a good and capable commander, but that doesn't change he didn't do anything really exceptional militarily, which also applies certainly to other famous figures in our history. He won when numbers and the situation suggested he should win, that is a mark of a good commander. It is not the same however, as winning when the numbers and situation suggest you should have actually lost, that's exceptional. Multiple Grant campaigns hinged on naval/riverine aspects, which was another rather overwhelming advantage, mismatch to his opponents.

Grants "greatness" seems to largely stem from comparing him to prior inept commanders.......seems a false premise of greatness, as that simply suggests he was not also inept..........Indeed one then needed Lee to have been great, to suggest winning with a 2-1 advantage was somehow special or extraordinary........It was always a vital requirement to elevate winning with a large numerical advantage, that the underdog was some wily bugaboo to negate that you actually had the number and material advantages all along.

 

[DanSBHawk]

No I created the thread because I read Grant himself said he thought the war unethical, and he lacked the moral courage to resign. Frankly that would be worthy of a thread if it concerned any other notable commander.

Certainly no shortage of historians who have noted Grants drinking, nor have I referred to Grant as mediocre, refering to someone as good isn't that at all......

The constant theme in the thread seems to be some attempt of cheerleading on your part. As I have certainly noted Grant was a good and capable commander, but that doesn't change he didn't do anything really exceptional militarily, which also applies certainly to other famous figures in our history. He won when numbers and the situation suggested he should win, that is a mark of a good commander. It is not the same however, as winning when the numbers and situation suggest you should have actually lost, that's exceptional. Multiple Grant campaigns hinged on naval/riverine aspects, which was another rather overwhelming advantage, mismatch to his opponents.

Grants "greatness" seems to largely stem from comparing him to prior inept commanders.......seems a false premise of greatness, as that simply suggests he was not also inept..........Indeed one then needed Lee to have been great, to suggest winning with a 2-1 advantage was somehow special or extraordinary........It was always a vital requirement to elevate winning with a large numerical advantage, that the underdog was some wily bugaboo to negate that you actually had the number and material advantages all along.

It's a false premise to claim that Grant always had a 2:1 advantage during the Civil War.

It's a false premise to imply that a 2:1 advantage against dug-in troops is always a sure thing.

And it's definitely a false premise to assume that numerical/material advantages always guarantee a victory.

 

[archieclement]

It's a false premise to claim that Grant always had a 2:1 advantage during the Civil War.

It's a false premise to imply that a 2:1 advantage against dug-in troops is always a sure thing.

And it's definitely a false premise to assume that numerical/material advantages always guarantee a victory.

If comparing to Lee, certainly in Overland/Petersburg campaigns against Lee, he enjoyed 2-1 supply in manpower.

As I said his western campaigns usually involve naval aspects, where certainly advantage was more then 2-1.

War and battles certainly most often are a numbers game. And when it extends beyond just manpower, to artillery, naval, airpower, supplies, ect it very seldom isn't a numbers game, unless the smaller side has a huge technological edge such as western backed Israel.

Why its always been considered rather exceptional when a markedly smaller side wins battles or campaigns, unless a total mismatch technology wise.

 

[DanSBHawk]

If comparing to Lee, certainly in Overland/Petersburg campaigns against Lee, he enjoyed 2-1 supply in manpower.

As I said his western campaigns usually involve naval aspects, where certainly advantage was more then 2-1.

War is certainly most often a numbers game. And when it extends beyond just manpower, to artillery, naval, airpower, supplies, ect it very seldom isn't a numbers game, unless the smaller side has a huge technological edge such as western backed Israel.

Why its always been considered rather exceptional when a markedly smaller side wins battles or campaigns, unless a total mismatch technology wise.

Wars are lost by the bigger side all the time. There was far more to Grant's military career than the campaigns against Lee. And in fact, Grant was commanding the entire Union army during those campaigns.

 

[RobertP]

As I said earlier, biased people will come up with whatever criteria they need in order to believe their bias.

Grant rose to the top for a reason, and it wasn't because he was mediocre.

Are you really going to argue that today's History Depts. are full of unbiased actors?

 

[RobertP]

If comparing to Lee, certainly in Overland/Petersburg campaigns against Lee, he enjoyed 2-1 supply in manpower.

As I said his western campaigns usually involve naval aspects, where certainly advantage was more then 2-1.

Yep.