Re: Point of view
- Mr. Rose,
To these, I would add:
Accomplishment of mission objectives as established by proper
military and political authorities.
Command and control
Efficient use of military intelligence
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?
--- 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
> 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
> them in spades.
> Are there any qualities here in which you think that Thomas was
> particularly deficient?
> I am curious as to what you consider to be "superior qualities of
> > generalship". In fact, what do you believe to be the principles
> > components of superior generalship, particularly as applied to
> > Thomas?
> > Jack Ehmer
> > --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
> > <<The reason for this is my determination
> > that he (Thomas) showed superior qualities of generalship.>>
----- Original Message -----
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
> > 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
> > 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.
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. :-)