Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Point of view

Expand Messages
  • Jack Ehmer
    Mr. Rose, To these, I would add: Moral courage Accomplishment of mission objectives as established by proper military and political authorities. Command and
    Message 1 of 124 , May 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr. Rose,

      To these, I would add:

      Moral courage
      Accomplishment of mission objectives as established by proper
      military and political authorities.
      Command and control
      Planning
      Efficient use of military intelligence
      Logistics
      Training

      Given this set of criteria (yours and mine), where do you feel that
      Thomas demonstrated superior generalship to Grant or any other Union
      general and where was he inferior?

      Jack Ehmer



      --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
      > Mr. Ehmer,
      >
      > Just offhand, I would list (and in no particular order):
      > Personal courage
      > Leadership on the field
      > Organizational ability
      > Knowledge and use of tactics
      > Ability to strategize effectively
      > Ability to communicate with superiors and subordinates
      > Concern for the soldiers' welfare
      > Initiative
      > Innovation
      > Steadfastness
      > Knowledge of engineering
      > Knowledge and use of combined arms (part of tactics)
      >
      > I can't see where Thomas had major problems with any of these with
      > the exception of communication with superiors and intiative. Most,
      > if not all, of the evidence against him on these points, however,
      > comes from Grant and, on the latter point, Sherman. I can't say
      > anything about his engineering skills or innovation, but my reading
      > provides a basis for thinking that, as to the other qualities, he
      had
      > them in spades.
      >
      > Are there any qualities here in which you think that Thomas was
      > particularly deficient?
      >
      > Joseph
      >
      > I am curious as to what you consider to be "superior qualities of
      > > generalship". In fact, what do you believe to be the principles
      and
      > > components of superior generalship, particularly as applied to
      > George
      > > Thomas?
      > >
      > > Jack Ehmer
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
      > >
      > > <<The reason for this is my determination
      > > that he (Thomas) showed superior qualities of generalship.>>
    • Vic Vernon
      ... From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:10 PM Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Generalship ... I think Nappy
      Message 124 of 124 , Jun 13, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <CashG79@...>
        To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:10 PM
        Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Generalship


        > --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Vic Vernon" <antietam@b...> wrote:

        > > Napoleon said it was always the army. If you defeat the army then
        > the
        > > territory is yours for the taking.
        > > Take the territory without defeating the army and you may be at a
        > > disadvantage because now you must defend the territory you just
        > captured.
        > >
        > > Vic
        > -------------------
        > In many cases, I'd agree. But if you can defend the territory and if
        > by taking the territory you cut off the army and force it to submit
        > without a fight, then that would seem at first glance more
        > preferable. Again, it depends on the situation.
        >
        > Regards,
        > Cash


        I think Nappy would agree with you on that one. Each campaign must determine
        it's own method depending on many factors. All of which comprise the
        situation. A good commander will make the correct decisions. A bad one will
        blame someone else. :-)

        Vic
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.