| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Do Nothing Generals |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Do Nothing Generals |
| Moderated by: javal1 |
|
||||||||||||||
| Do Nothing Generals | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29th, 2011 01:02 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Mark Member
|
I think probably a lot of people around here are familiar with the "Disunion" series in the New York Times. I think they are usually pretty good, but the one that ran today titled, "Lincoln's Do-Nothing Generals" was abysmal in my opinion. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/lincolns-do-nothing-generals/?smid=fb-disunion 1) The author does not understand the fundamental differences between Jomeni and Napoleonic theories of warfare 2) He takes Paddy Griffith completely out of context 3) He discounts the degree of strategic maneuvering taking place in places other than the Eastern theater of the war during late 1861 and early 1862 (Fort Donelson and Fort Henry perhaps?) 4) Most egregiously the author discounts the impact that the Mexican war had on future Civil War generals. Lee and Grant were not disciples of Napoleon or Jomeni. They were students of Scott and Taylor. Am I going overboard? Mark
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Nov 29th, 2011 02:38 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Hellcat Person 
|
I think the last paragraph is what the story is all about. This sounds like a set up for a story on "how superior Grant was."
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 04:26 am | |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Do Nothing Generals | Top |
