Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Do Nothing Generals - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Nov 29th, 2011 01:02 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 885
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

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 07:41 am
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1477 seconds (18% database + 82% PHP). 25 queries executed.