Posted on 01/05/2018 9:50:10 AM PST by C19fan
Like Hannibal, I wanted to rank powerful leaders in the history of warfare. Unlike Hannibal, I sought to use data to determine a general’s abilities, rather than specific accounts of generals’ achievements. The result is a system for ranking every prominent commander in military history.
(Excerpt) Read more at towardsdatascience.com ...
bimp
For future reference: If you remove the contents of the “To:” box, you can BTTT and ping yourself without pinging anyone else.
Oh, and BUMP!
Bull Snipe, I hadn’t got to your comment. I hadn’t even read the first comment, I was bumping this thread so that I COULD read it later. It just so happens I BTTT’d your comment but it could have been anybody else’s.
I hate to think you think I’m attacking your Genghis Khan opinion, I hadn’t even read it yet when I bttt’d you! Now you probably think I’m a jerk for calling you a n00b - which you are - but really, I’m just trying to give you some FR acronyms so everything goes smoother for you. I LOVE new FReepers who love military history. Sorry I didn’t explain myself well about the bttt thing.
I am never going to get around to actually reading the thread at this rate, I’m having to spend the night explaining what BUMP is so I CAN read the thread ;)
Lee was one of the greatest ever.
Thanks for posting, this is a keeper for sure.
In defeating the Hessians, George Washington received Frederick the Great's sword in acknowledgement.
He was a micro manager who never heeded the advice of his military leaders. On top of that, he lost to the Iron Duke twice. What a load.
Because for the most part he didn't fight the battles in person? Because other generals (including some of his sons and whatnot) were the actual victorious (or not) generals? Because it took 23 years for him to defeat his most powerful enemy, the Jin Dynasty? Because his mob of mass-murdering cutthroats were mostly similar to many a people attacking on horseback, going back to antiquity? OTOH, he may have been the greatest mob boss in history...
Genghis Khan and his successors in that dynasty remind me also of the Assyrian Empire -- the Assyrian army would arrive, set up a siege and/or beat their victims in battle; the longer it took and more expensive it was, the higher the amount of tribute they'd levy on their conquests. If that amount was unrealistic and basically unbearable, the newly conquered were more likely to not send the tribute, which would result in the arrival of an Assyrian army which would again kick their asses. One difference is, the Assyrians had periods of ascendancy off and on for over a thousand years, and the Mongolian empire was around for perhaps 150 years, and only in a divided state (IOW, it wasn't a single monolithic empire).
When Great Al's dad conquered the city-states of Greece, he knocked them off on his own schedule, or if they came to him, and was victorious either way. That's interesting in another context, which is, during his first few years of conquering Persia, Alexander faced a lot of Greek soldiers who'd either grown up under Persian rule, or were mercenaries.
My guess is, Alexander would have taken the city-states one by one, gobbled them up, and wiped out armies arrayed against him. But of course, we'll never know.
That was a pretty cool compliment. :^)
I think you are proving my point, not yours. In 1864 Grant could afford to continuously destroy and reconstitute his own Army so he did. No genius military tactics there, just shear butchery and attrition. Nothing to really study or learn from on the Union side in that campaign.
Lee resorted to exactly the same tactics at Malvern Hill and at Gettysburg. No genius military tactics there. Nothing to learn or study from the Confederate side in the Gettysburg campaign. One difference, by the end of the Overland Campaign Grant won his objective, the ANV was locked up like a tiger in a cage at Petersburg. Lee’s Gettysburg campaign ended with the ANV retreating out of Pennsylvania having lost 1/3 of it’s soldiers as KIA, MIA, captured or wounded. Another difference, AOP casualties, in the Overland Campaign, contributed to victory. Casualties in the ANV, during the Gettysburg Campaign, contributed to defeat. In war, victory is the only thing that counts, there is no second place award.
Har!
Anyway the US Civil War is studied by war colleges all over the world. Lee's infantry tactics are the universal standard.
As is Grant’s Vicksburg Campaign.
Logistics -
A saying in the war gaming community was “The amateur is interested in strategy, while the professional is interested in logistics.”
(Patton) “The first to coordinate close air support with armor.”
The German victory in the Battle of France? (There were some early small-scale successes during the Spanish Civil War).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.