The greatest general that ever lived.. [Archive]

Eddy's Geist

12-13-01, 09:54 AM

Aha! Maybe someone here could help me identify a general... there was an American man who served in China as a General (circa 1880 to 1910). He was educated at Stanford univ. and I belive he planned much of the Boxer revolt. He wrote several books on strategy that influenced everyone from Rommel to Patton. Guy was about 4'10" to maybe 5'2".

Anyone know who I'm talking abouut?

Grant, didn't Patton once say that he wished Eisenhower was more of a soldier and less of a politician? (being layed off and having the History channel is great http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Eddy's Geist (edited 12-13-2001).]

Eddy's Geist

12-13-01, 10:05 AM

Carl Spackler

12-13-01, 10:19 AM

Deja vu all over again.

Posted. Edited. Then posted again. I don't get it.

[This message has been edited by Carl the Groundskeeper (edited 12-13-2001).]

Eddy's Geist

12-13-01, 11:04 AM

Yeah.. me neither?Not sure why it happened.. oh wait.. I do know why it happend. I hit send and nothing happened for about 5 minutes. I'm on dial up and thought maybe the packets just got lost in the ether. So.. I hit Send again and it went through in about 10 seconds. Damn, dial ups...

Deamon

12-13-01, 03:27 PM

Why Patton? To me he appeared to be lacking in finesse.. I don't understand how anyone could have respect for WWII generals other than Tojo or Hitler, they were real innovators.. After that, it seems strategy just dissappeared from war

JBMoney

12-13-01, 03:54 PM

I can always count on Deamon to give me a chuckle.

Hitler wasn't a general by the way, and as far as I know never took the field in WW2. I think the highest he got was Corporal in WWI, but I could easily be wrong. If you want to talk about a good German general, Rommel is probably your best bet.

You're not talking about Pershing are you Eddy? I'm not real sharp on early 20th Century American military. I think Pershing led the American forces in WWI. Not sure what else he did. He may not have even been a General. Especially since I think he was a Marine and marines don't have generals. I don't know though.

Macbeth

12-13-01, 04:51 PM

To me he appeared to be lacking in finesse.. 

What the hell does "finesse" have to do with winning a war? They were not there to be diplomats and hold hands.

Macbeth

12-13-01, 05:00 PM

I don't understand how anyone could have respect for WWII generals other than Tojo or Hitler, they were real innovators.. After that, it seems strategy just dissappeared from war 

I think it is easy to understand why we respect WWII generals. For starters, they won.

What do you mean by innovators? Do you mean they changed things? Do you think they changed for the better. Innovator seems like a relative term here.

I guess the strategy did disappear along with Japan's armed forces.

Macbeth

12-13-01, 05:00 PM

Sun Tzu was the best general.

Eddy's Geist

12-13-01, 05:18 PM

ok.. here's one for ya!

Leonidas. The general who led 300 Spartans against Xerxes persian army.

Leonidas and the Spartans held the pass at Thermopylae for three days against upwards of a million troops. The Spartans were able to use the geography of the pass to their defensive benefit and killed thousands of the enemy before finally being betrayed by a greek goat farmer who showed Xerxes troops away around the pass through the surrounding mountains and thus Leonidas was outflanked. And... like true general.. Leonidas stayed with his troops and died in combat.

Some reports of the day tell that anywhere from 25,000 to 60,000 persian troops died in the three days. Not a bad ratio for a mere 300 soldiers http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif

Macbeth

12-13-01, 05:21 PM

Sun Tzu is still better!

JBMoney

12-13-01, 05:33 PM

If you're going to go that far back, I think Hannibal would clearly be one of the greatest generals ever.

Fought through several hundred (over a thousand?) miles of hstile tribes tk be the first general ever to manage crossing the Alps with a fighting force (except Hercules). Then, without any reasonable supply line, managed to supply his troops and kick any Roman armies ass that dared, IN ITALY, for several years running. That was a feat in itself, not to mention his genius during actual battles.

Eddy's Geist

12-13-01, 05:34 PM

no way chick! While Sun Tzu was kicking back in his pagoda sipping green tea out of those dainty lil cups and writing books on war.. leonidas was making pansy ass persians lick his boots clean!

Eddy's Geist

12-13-01, 05:36 PM

I hear that Hannibal had a kink for elephants http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

Macbeth

12-13-01, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Eddy's Geist:
and writing books on war.. leonidas was making pansy ass persians lick his boots clean!

You make it sound so easy. How about writing THE book on war. A book that goes way beyond military strategy. A book that if you apply the principles can get you just about anything you want. Did you leonidas write a book on war that is still relevant today?

By the way, if the persians were pansies than it probably wasn't too hard to kick their ass.

BresslerBot5000

12-13-01, 06:03 PM

Bottom line: Atilla the Hun

Don't need no stinkin' supply lines.

Eddy's Geist

12-13-01, 06:09 PM

Ouch! Damn Macbeth, thems was some good points!

I didn't realize that when applying the concepts within The Art of War to everyday life that one could get what ever they wanted! That means that the A of W is right up there with "I'm OK, You're OK" or "How to make friends and influence people" ! http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

Eddy's Geist

12-13-01, 06:10 PM

Macbeth

12-13-01, 06:16 PM

"How to make friends and influence people" is a really good book. Though personally, I have no time for diplomacy. A of W is a bit more about keeping your intentions a secret (that concept can be applied to everything, love, war, work, politics, family, etc.)

I have not yet read I'm OK, you're OK, can I borrow your copy? j/k

Eddy's Geist

12-13-01, 06:29 PM

oh oh.. Macbeth is a spooky girl!

I'd lend the book to you but I don't have it. I prefer not being ok. And as far as the other person being ok? I can really care less http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

Deamon

12-13-01, 06:43 PM

Atilla the hun? Pathetic barbarian with no strategy other than loot everything he came across and use that to keep his men fed. Sun Tzu? What did he know about war, his ideas were fine but when put into practice often didn't have the desired effect, he also permanantly set back japanese strategy to medieval times until the 20th century. Hannibal deserves alot of respect by what he did with so little, but he still couldn't beat scipio.. even in several battles, with the sides surprisingly equal. As for Hitler, he invented the Blitzkrieg and the sub 'wolfpack' Idea..

Macbeth

12-13-01, 06:47 PM

what does "often didn't have the desired effect" mean?

Napolean conqured Europe using Tzu's teachings.

wrecker05

12-13-01, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Deamon:
Sun Tzu? What did he know about war, his ideas were fine but when put into practice often didn't have the desired effect, he also permanantly set back japanese strategy to medieval times until the 20th century. 

Oh Deamon by the way Sun Tzu was a CHINESE General. Circa 500 B.C.

wrecker05

12-13-01, 09:10 PM

Hitler did not invent BLITZKRIEG Deamon

The foundation of mobile warfare has its roots in Ancient and Medieval World. The German Army late in World War I initially developed basic tactics that eventually evolved into modern mobile warfare. Germans developed those tactics in an attempt to overcome the static trench warfare on the Western Front. Elite "Sturmtruppen" (Stormtroops) infantry units were created to attack enemy positions using the momentum of speed and suprise but eventually failed because of the lack of mobility and support needed in order to continue advancing further into enemy controlled territory. During 1920s, British military philosophers Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart, General J.F.C. Fuller and General Martell further developed tactics of mobile warfare. They all postulated that tanks could not only seize ground by brute strength, but could also be the central factor in a new strategy of warfare. If moved rapidly enough, concentrations of tanks could smash through enemy lines and into the enemy's rear, destroying supplies and artillery positions and decreasing the enemy's will to resist. All of them found tank to be an ultimate weapon able to penetrate deep into enemy territory while followed by infantry and supported by artillery and airforce. In late 1920s and early 1930s, Charles De Gaulle, Hans von Seekt, Heinz Guderian and many others became interested in the concept of mobile warfare and tried to implement it in an organizational structure of their armies. Heinz Guderian organized Panzers into self-contained Panzer Divisions working with the close support of infantry, motorized infantry, artillery and airforce. From 1933 to 1939, Germany was on a quest to fully mechanize their army for an upcoming conflict.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/blitz.htm

wrecker05

12-13-01, 09:16 PM

SORRY again Deamon Admiral Doenitz was the "inventor" of the "Wolfpack"

The wolfpack was the British-coined name for the coordinated group attacks developed by Adm. Karl Doenitz. The U-boats formed patrol lines, and searched for convoys. One sub would be designated to shadow the convoy, and would signal command. The other boats in the pack would then surround the convoy, strike at the same time, and escape in the chaos.

wrecker05

12-13-01, 09:17 PM

My favorite general .........Alexander The Great

Here is an interesting site on him
http://www.pothos.co.uk/

[This message has been edited by wrecker05 (edited 12-13-2001).]

Deamon

12-14-01, 04:30 AM

I didn't say Sun Tsu wasn't chinise, just saying he messed up Japan, and how much time do you spend searching for things to prove me wrong?! Don't any of you guys have hobbies other than discounting EVERYTHING I say?! Anyway, back to subject, Alexander? Pfft, the guy didn't even lead in his battles, he wasn't even a general hardly, more of a hero. He didn't lead his troops as a general would, and just charged into the battle at the start, the battle was decided when this happened. Basically he used strategies already in practice, heavy infantry down the center, cavalry on the flanks, not too difficult, I'm still surprised noone like davout.

wrecker05

12-14-01, 06:35 AM

Deamon my research took all of 5 min. tops

Alexander did conquer the world as they knew it. What's wrong with fighting in engagements. Nothing is more irritating than someone who won't fight or die with their own men.

[This message has been edited by wrecker05 (edited 12-14-2001).]

GrantMan

12-14-01, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Deamon:
Why Patton? To me he appeared to be lacking in finesse.. I don't understand how anyone could have respect for WWII generals other than Tojo or Hitler, they were real innovators.. After that, it seems strategy just dissappeared from war

Wars are not won with finesse. They are won by killing more of your enemy or destroying their ideaology (ie Cold War), period.

If you can't understand why people respect WW2 generals that's your probelm not mine. You asked a question, I answered. I don't have to explain myself to you if I don't feel like it.

You, of all people, should hold Allied WW2 generals in high regard. Without them you wouldn't be able to post your antiAmerican or antiSemetic hate speech on message boards. You seem to love your freedom but don't seem to understand what it took for you to have it.

With your antiSemetic views I can see why you think Hitler was innovative. Tojo wasn't innovative. Neither was Yamamoto but he had to do something because his ass was on the line. After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor they didn't have much left and the rest is history. If Tojo, Hitler, or even Yamamoto were so brilliant and innovative they wouldn't have lost WW2. Do you not understand that? The only reason it took the Allies longer to stomp out Japan was because they were spread out throughout many islands. Some Japanese soldiers left behind on some of the smaller islands still thought the war was going on well up into the 1970s.

The more innovative generals and countries win wars, not lose them.

GrantMan

12-14-01, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Eddy's Geist:
Grant, didn't Patton once say that he wished Eisenhower was more of a soldier and less of a politician? (being layed off and having the History channel is great


Yes. Yes he did say something to about that. I remember reading something a while back about Patton wishing Eisenhower had used him for D-Day and not liking the politics of WW2 in general.

I've been watching the HIstory Channell any chance I can get to watch it.
Sorry to here about your job troubles. Things will pick back up again eventually.

[This message has been edited by GrantMan (edited 12-14-2001).]

JBMoney

12-14-01, 08:45 AM

I noted Deamon's propensity to pick losers and talk trash about successful military leaders. Good strategy, you and your comrades should stick with it and we'll all sleep a little easier. http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

Macbeth

12-14-01, 09:16 AM

how much time do you spend searching for things to prove me wrong?! Don't any of you guys have hobbies other than discounting EVERYTHING I say?! 

What makes you think anyone has to search? Maybe you should be more prepared before you step up to the plate.

You make it too easy to discount what you say.

Eddy's Geist

12-14-01, 09:31 AM

C'mon everyone.. we don't need to take out personal attacks on Deamon. A personal attack does nothing to dissuade Deamon from the fact that Davout was a poof. http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

Whether we agree with his views or not... this board would be a pretty sad place if we all had the same opinions and ideas. Besides, what good is fighting for the freedom of this country if we then turn around and censor anyone who may have a different view? The generals of WWII might as well have ordered their troops to surrender and begun the task of learning German and how to do the goosestep without looking silly.

Eddy's Geist

12-14-01, 09:38 AM

Grant, are you in california? The computer industry in Caifornia is fairly bad shape right now... it will pick up again just as it did back in '94 but it's still kind of spooky. Anyone ever hear the phrase "Go in to computers.. you'll never be out of a job" http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

Actually, California's seems to be in bad shape all around. Oh well.. it's just a cyclical downturn or sumthin'

It's kind of nice to have a break for awhile. Let's me get back to the gym (not to mention that I'm finally getting what I paid for out of my Cable box) http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif

Macbeth

12-14-01, 09:48 AM

you boys are too sensitive!

JBMoney

12-14-01, 09:56 AM

Eddy - For the record, I don't see anyone getting personal or any name-calling. Looks like a pretty good discussion to me. Not accepting everything Deamon has to say as gospel, and discussing his picks, is not the equivalent of flaming. Thanks for your concern though. At least most of us are staying on topic. http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

Daemon - Another good topic, by the way.

[This message has been edited by JBMoney (edited 12-14-2001).]

Eddy's Geist

12-14-01, 10:20 AM

Staying on topic? JB, are you implying that I have A.D.D.?? I'll have you kn... hey anyone want to go outside and ride bikes in the street???? http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

JBMoney

12-14-01, 10:21 AM

There was one?

Eddy's Geist

12-14-01, 10:24 AM

JB, do you ever get caught at work while posting/working on Bressler.org? What's your secret for getting away with it?

JBMoney

12-14-01, 10:53 AM

My secret today is that I'm at home. http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif

Generally, I don't work on Bressler.org or post to the Forum from my office, unless it's lunch or whatnot. I try to live up to that, unless there is a site "crisis". If you'll look, almost all of my updates to the site, except for the last week or so, occur late at night.

However, with the combination of very little access from home lately and the office's typical December slowdown, I have posted a little more to the Forum this week than usual. Last week, I don't think I posted to the Forum at all during the day.

Also, I run my own small network at the office, pretty much operate as a separate department, and generally, I can do all my work from home if I really wanted to.

There is also an interesting political climate here (hard to explain). As a result, if someone was monitoring my traffic and registered disapproval, it would be win-win for me. I could just say "fine, I'll work from home more often" and I'd be able to prove to "our" folks that they are being monitored, which would only enhance my position (I've been trying to convince them of that for years). It would also put the people doing the monitoring in a difficult position since they vehemently deny doing so. I'd finally have my proof, get it?

So, bottom line is that I don't think I'm "getting away" with anything.

JBMoney

12-14-01, 10:55 AM

AND... I have about 3 months of unused vacation. So I don't think there are too many complaints about my getting the work done.

Eddy's Geist

12-14-01, 11:06 AM

Actually, I kind of do understand the odd political climate. My last consulting job was at the headquarters of Parks and rec. and it was pretty ugly... it's amazing that so many people find so much time to "monitor" others and their job performance while somehow still fullfilling their own job duties. If the State never hires me for another task I'll be perfectly happy!

Eddy's Geist

12-14-01, 11:13 AM

ok, here's an interesting addition to the Generals topic.

I can't say that he was the greatest but his story is pretty fascinating. Frederick Townsend Ward is virtually unknown and was the most highly decorated military figure in China. Known for squelching the Taipang rebellion in the 1860s...

For more info:
http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/cacwpart23.html

(this isn't the General that I first referred to in the beginning of the topic..still searching...)

Deamon

12-14-01, 04:13 PM

Davout was NOT a poof... wars are won with finesse, just brutal killing does not win a war or the soviets would've beat the fins.. And I'm not anti-sematic, I'm anti facist, Israel is facist, I am thusly, anti-Israel, I have nothing against jews, and besides, its not everyone that hates everything mainstream, http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif keeps posts interesting

wrecker05

12-14-01, 06:47 PM

Ok Deamon I asked you this in another thread, how do you come up with the idea that Israel is a fascist government? Oh please don't use the they don't like Palestinians.

wrecker05

12-15-01, 07:57 PM

Fascist

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

So why do you call Israel a Fascist government Deamon?

shotglass

12-15-01, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by JBMoney:
. Especially since I think he was a Marine and marines don't have generals. .

A quick note to set the record straight.

Sorry to correct you, JB$, but the Marine Corps does have generals, 1,2,3, and 4 stars. What they will never have is a 5 star general, because the USMC is a department of the Navy, and as such, no Marine is allowed to outrank the Chief of Naval Operations (the highest rank in the Navy)

For this same reason, there cannot be a Marine as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

My pick for the greatest general would not actually be a general, but an American Indian, Sitting Bull.

[This message has been edited by shotglass (edited 12-15-2001).]

Eddy's Geist

12-16-01, 11:33 AM

Here's an interesting defintion of fascism:

"What is fascism? The name originated in Italy. Were all the forms of
counter-revolutionary dictatorship fascist or not (That is to say, prior
to the advent of fascism in Italy)?

The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large
masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian
movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It
issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even
to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former
socialist, is a 'self-made: man arising from this movement.

Primo de Rivera was an aristocrat. He occupied a high military and
bureaucratic post and was chief governor of Catalonia. he accomplished
his overthrow with the aid of state and military forces. The
dictatorships of Spain and Italy are two totally different forms of
dictatorship. It is necessary to distinguish between them. Mussolini
had difficulty in reconciling many old military institutions with the
fascist militia. This problem did not exist for Primo de Rivera.

The movement in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a
mass movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist
demagogy. This is necessary for the creation of the mass movement.

The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it
has a very large base -- the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities,
and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for
fascism....

It may be said, and this is true to a certain extent, that the new
middle class, the functionaries of the state, the private
administrators, etc., can constitute such a base. But this is a new
question that must be analyzed...."

Leon Trotsky, 1931

Eddy's Geist

12-16-01, 11:43 AM

Ahh.. here's a definition of Fascism from the MAN himself...IL Duce.
What's interesting is how the comment below illustrates many of the same arguments that Israel has been using to justify it's own actions towards the middle east (and the world). Daemon may have a point here people...

"...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it."

Benito Mussolini, 1932. (with the help of Giovanni Gentile)
(for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism)

wrecker05

12-16-01, 08:49 PM

I don't see your point Eddy?

wrecker05

12-16-01, 09:06 PM

Sorry JB$ but shotglass is correct.
Rear Admiral (lower half)=Brigadier General (1 star)
Rear Admiral(upper half)=Major General (2 stars)
Vice Admiral=Lieutenant General (3 stars)
Admiral=General (4 stars)

WARTHOG

12-16-01, 09:38 PM

To make it even more confusing the Navy has recently resurrected Commodore which also rates 1 star but has a different pennant that Rear Admiral (lower half). Well, OK not recently, they did it in the '80's while I was still in but they hadn't done that upper and lower half crap with rear admiral yet.

Nice post shotglass, I'll give ya a dollar if you can ever get a marine to admit being part of the Navy. LOL

WARTHOG

12-16-01, 09:46 PM

OOPS, I stand corrected. Apparently the Navy finally got rid of Commodore, must have been sometime after I got out. Twenty years is a long time in the past.

WARTHOG

12-16-01, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by JBMoney:

You're not talking about Pershing are you Eddy? I'm not real sharp on early 20th Century American military. I think Pershing led the American forces in WWI. Not sure what else he did. He may not have even been a General. Especially since I think he was a Marine and marines don't have generals. I don't know though.[/B]

Pershing was Army. In fact, Patton served with him.

JBMoney

12-16-01, 10:02 PM

I don't know though.

*shrug*

Good to know. Carry on...

[This message has been edited by JBMoney (edited 12-16-2001).]

wrecker05

12-17-01, 11:37 AM

Hows that go. The marines are part of the navy. The mens department.

I think commodore wasm formally dropped in 1952. Removed from the signal books in 1968. The flag was only used for retired commodores funerals after the 50's

[This message has been edited by wrecker05 (edited 12-17-2001).]

wrecker05

12-17-01, 11:54 AM

Ok how about these picks.............

Alexander the Great of Greece, Julius Caesar of Rome, Charlemagne of the Franks, Ghengis Kahn of the Mongols, Edward III of England, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, Frederick The Great of Sweden, Napoleon Bonaparte of France, US Grant, George Patton, Douglas MacArthur and Norman Schwartzkopf of the United States

Deamon

12-17-01, 05:33 PM

I think Pompeii deserves more respect than Ceaser, Ceaser fought Gauls, Pompeii fought Paranthians, spainiards and gauls, and won. The only reason he lost to ceaser was because he had inferior troops

WARTHOG

12-18-01, 09:45 AM

OK, let's not start a Navy Versus Marine Corps war here. I always repected the Marines and was really glad to have a couple around in a Naples bar fight.

wrecker05

12-18-01, 01:31 PM

Deamon who is Pompeii? I thought that was an ancient city destroyed by Mount Vesuvius(sp) .

Sorry Warthog, I know a lot of retired marines and navy personnel, their constant jokes back and forth kind of rub off you after awhile.

Deamon

12-18-01, 06:22 PM

Pompeii is a general that was Ceasar's arch rival for a long time until they fought a civil war and Pompeii lost

wrecker05

12-18-01, 09:10 PM

URL please Deamon.

Deamon

12-19-01, 04:06 PM

I didn't find it online, I read it in a book

mhans

12-19-01, 05:41 PM

I noticed that no one mentioned any of the American Civil War Generals. As far as field commanders go its hard to top Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. He was certifiably crazy, which made him fearless in battle. He would ride into battle with one arm held up because he said it made his blood balance. He also sucked on lemons during the entire battle. Things like this made him legendary and feared because he was psycho. But most importantly he used this to his advantage. When the War began most troops were so unorganized that they could only march a couple of miles a day, but not Jackson’s men. They would march 25 miles a day out of fear and respect for their general.

The best demonstration of Jackson’s greatness was his Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1862. He would come out of the hills and attack the Northern troops (The North always had superior numbers and supplies. North had about 60,000 troops to Jackson’s 25,000) until they started retreating, then he would march 25 miles around their lines and attack them again. What’s interesting about this is that his mission was two fold 1st keep the valley controlled by the South and 2nd keep as many Northern troops occupied as possible so Lee wouldn’t have to contend with them. So Jackson would let the North march south in the valley then attack them and send them packing northward. Then march around their lines and attack them and send them packing southward. Back and forth all summer long. The North couldn’t even get out of the valley if they wanted to. Imagine being such a good field commander that with inferior numbers and supplies you could not only send an enemy retreating one direction, but also then send them in another direction.

It was at Chancellorsville (a Southern victory) that Jackson lost his life by friendly fire near the end of the battle on his way back to camp and the Southern army was never again the same. The North retreated, and then met the South at Gettysburg where the North won and reversed the war for good. Interesting fact is that it was Jackson’s men that were the ones that lost at Gettysburg in what is known as Pickets Charge.

WARTHOG

12-19-01, 10:01 PM

It's ok Wrecker, I enjoy the barbs, I just didn't want to start a inter-service war, we get personal sometimes. I like to think tha it is all in good fun and mutual respect. The Navy just wouldn't be right without the USMC (uncle sam's mis-guided children), who would we f@@@ on a long deployment, sheep are too obvious, we need the Marines LOL.

------------------
GO NAVY!!!
GO DALLAS STARS!!!!

shotglass

12-21-01, 09:55 PM

That's funny, Warthog, you squid.

I seem to remember both of my deployments with the 13th MAU (Marine Amphibious Unit) a little differently. The first night, at taps, the announcement that came over the 1MC went "Taps, taps, lights out, all hands return to YOUR OWN bunk". It seems they had forgotten they were now transporting a battalion of Marines. We did not hear the lights out announcement that way any more after that. http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/smile.gif

Another vote for a great general would be Omar Bradley, but I'll admit to being a little prejudiced on that one, as I am part of the same family.

[This message has been edited by shotglass (edited 12-21-2001).]

WARTHOG

12-21-01, 10:45 PM

Now that someone has broached the subject of Civil War Generals, I want to mention James Longstreet. He was one of the Generals most respected and almost feared by the Union Army. His autobiography From Manassas to Appomattox is a fascinating read.

[This message has been edited by WARTHOG (edited 12-22-2001).]

Deamon

12-22-01, 05:07 AM

John Bell Hood of the Confederacy, was a great general, he was extremely aggressive, and his subordinates seemed to lack coordination and the ability to ever follow through on attacks but he had brilliant (and bizarre) ideas during the closing stages of the Atlanta campaign. They would've worked for any other general BUT him probably, but they were great plans and invovled alot more strategy than anything Johnston had managed to put out.

shotglass

12-22-01, 06:01 AM

The greatest American general can be none other than George Washington, without whom there may not have been a United States of America.

Think about it. His troops walked through snow without shoes for him, many losing feet and legs to frostbite. He must have been an inspiring man to cammand such loyalty.

WARTHOG

12-22-01, 07:40 AM

I think that many of the Generals of The Army of Northern VA were intelligent and had great plans, I also believe that they were hindered by their commander R.E. Lee who had a penchant for not listening to his Fellows. Had he taken the advice of general Longstreet at Gettysburg, the South may well have won the civil war.

Deamon

12-22-01, 06:42 PM

Pshh George washington was a awful general, our great traitor, benedict arnold, was a much better general and probably helped the revolutionary effort more than washington ever could. As for the south winning the civil war, it would've only been able to have been done if Beareguard and Johnston had taken advantage of the confusion and the beginning of the war and captured the north's capitol, after that, it was just fighting downhill, the north had enough moral to fight.

mhans

12-26-01, 02:48 PM

Deamon that is not entirely true about the South’s ability to win the war. Yes, they did miss the best opportunity to win when they had clearly defeated the North at 1st Manassas, but Gettysburg, had it not been for Pickett’s charge, could have also resulted in the South marching on Philadelphia and then the North negotiating some sort of a peace settlement. Prior to Gettysburg many in the North were looking for ways out of the war. The anti-war movement was very strong, similar to Vietnam and a Southern victory at Gettysburg combined with the taking of Philadelphia would have been disastrous for the North, especially Lincoln who would have definitely lost his reelection bid for the Presidency.

It should also be noted that Jackson tried to urge Beauregard to press on after the North’s defeat at 1st Manassas. Jackson, however, was relatively unknown and therefore commanded little respect so Beauregard wouldn’t listen to him. Jackson even offered to use only his troops and take Washington, but Beauregard would not allow it. Also remember that the South was losing at 1st Manassas until Jackson got involved. They lost at the Stone Bridge along Bull Run Creek and then were in full retreat at the bottom of Henry House Hill. Jackson reversed the entire battle on top of Henry House Hill with his well-positioned artillery and forced the Union troops into full blown retreat when he told his men to charge and “Yell like furies” (This was the invention of the “Rebel Yell”).

Warthog I think you are correct about Lee. He was a good General, but he was notorious for not listening to others. At Gettysburg, Pickett’s Charge seemed so obvious to everyone not to attempt except for Lee. They said his blood was boiling and he was yelling at Pickett to move forward. The news of the day used Pickett as a scapegoat for the disaster, but Lee had been told not to attempt the charge by his advisors and commanded it done anyways. I am not sure if Lee ordered it done because he could not afford a stalemate and was desperate or if he really thought it to be a good idea. Whatever the reason it sealed the South’s fate. Had Jackson been there and advised Lee not to charge I think Lee would have listened, but no other General commanded as much respect from Lee as did Jackson.

mhans

12-26-01, 03:00 PM

Deamon regarding George Washington you’re crazy. Yes he did get his butt kicked a lot during the war, but look at the odds he was dealing with. The Britts were the best army of the time and they even hired the Hessians to help out with the effort. We were a piss ant volunteer army. Of course Washington was going to get beat up, but his job was to harass the Britts long enough to get the French involved. He did just that and ultimately won the war. What more do you want from the guy?