@legeMontalto@JackSut75865817@HistoryWJacob You mean Cold Harbor, not Spotsylvania.. was a serious tactical failure, but Grant’s campaign still pinned Lee, stripped him of the initiative, and forced him into a siege he could not survive. Judging Grant entirely by Cold Harbor is like judging Lee entirely by Pickett’s Charge
@nabulionee2@campinthewoods7@TrueNorthish Wellesley better in tactics, Grant is far above in operational strategy. This isn’t even really a debate if you’re actually considering the terms we’re using to make the comparison
@ArchaicMachine@TheBestqueenx You should throw it out. Children need to learn how to fall safely and protect their head. They can’t do that if youre preventing them from learning. Falling from standing up and knocking their head has almost no risk if they aren’t knocking it on an edge or concrete.
@DaYankeyHater@MistrrMax@trueliberal1848 Grant operated deep in enemy country, far from base, in unfamiliar terrain, against forces that outnumbered him in aggregate. The operational problem Grant solved was meaningfully harder than the problems Lee solved when he “did several times” something superficially similar
@DaYankeyHater@MistrrMax@trueliberal1848 Lee’s “bold moves” (Jackson’s flank march at Second Manassas and Chancellorsville, the two invasions) were executed on interior lines in friendly or semi-friendly territory, with short supply chains, sympathetic civilians, and good intelligence. Some serious cope here
@Jeff_Davis1808 Generals are judged by strategy and outcomes. This doesn’t take away from Lee’s tactical gifts. But in terms of strategy and outcomes, nothing else really matters. Lost cause narratives will never square that circle