Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Generals' Ratings >> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/19/2006 10:07:02 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
...

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 12/19/2006 10:23:36 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 151
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/19/2006 10:13:10 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
....

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 12/19/2006 10:23:05 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 152
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/19/2006 10:13:54 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

It's possible one could be a great general and not be outnumbered. However, to convincingly demonstrate it, one pretty much has to be outnumbered.


whoa... is that a narrow view... I can say I've never heard that approach to judging a great general. That would rate right up there with someone who claims all losing generals suck since... well they lost.

If that's your only argument for greatness... "must have been outnumbered" then there's really no point in disccusing this further. But if you look at it objectively ... and consider ALL the factors (not just shear numbers but things like quality of troops) then you’d have to admit that Grant did a great job early war with an inferior force.


Another one of your statements without visible support. When did Grant have this 'inferior force'? If you like, I'll concede that Belmont provides evidence that he was a potentially great brigadier.
quote:




Again…where were those “great” confederate Generals that could win when “supposedly” outnumbered…


? The Shendanoah Valley. The Peninsula. Second Manassas. Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville. Most of Forrest's battles. Olustee. The Red River Campaign. So where were the Confederate generals that could win when 'supposedly' outnumbered? Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Louisiana.
quote:



oh yea… they were getting beat by a better general.

Grant is also one of the few who looked at the war not just a seperate theaters of operation but in a larger picture and how those different area could support one another. His ability to see the larger picture far outshines anything any confederate General did. Most of whom could only look at their narrow front and see how to make a name for themselves.




This ignores the detail that no Confederate general was ever put in charge of all the Confederate armies -- not until it was too late. One might as well rate Eisenhower as a better general than Patton on account of Eisenhower taking a more global view of matters.



_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 153
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/19/2006 10:14:47 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

Thankfully the Union had a great general with determination. But determination will only get you so far. He had a great track record out west were he was on an equal footing with them so called great confederate genrals (just the confederate fan club hates to admit it or it would tarnish their perfect record.)


You make this claim without any visible support. When did Grant whip an army twice the size of his own? When did he personally rally fleeing troops and lead them into a successful counterattack? He took on Lee in the Wilderness, outnumbering him 2-1. He barely avoids getting thrashed, and he's the equal of Lee


I make the claim with lots of support for my point, take the time to actually go back and read... And thanks… you made my point yet again… any other general after the battle of the Wilderness would have scurried right back to Washington… Grant did what Lee did not expect him to do… he kept on the offensive… in other words… Lee’s fancy footwork no longer matter… too bad couldn’t figure this out. Doesn’t make Lee out to be too great either if he couldn’t get Grant to give up.

Like I said earlier though there’s no point in discussing with you the term “great” in relationship to generals if you’re only criteria is being outnumber… you haven’t given any other support to your claims and there sure are plenty of generals that are considered great that were never outnumbered.

quote:


...Never claimed to be a Grant lover... I just happen to respect him and think he was every bit a general as Lee.


I guess so. Remind me to go find the 2004 Olympic flyweight champion, pick a fight with him, and when I manage to fend him off, claim I'm every bit as good a boxer as he is.


I could make just as dumb a comment...
being the underdog and losing does not make one great... stupid for picking the fight... but not great.

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 154
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/19/2006 10:17:03 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dude



I could make just as dumb a comment...
being the underdog and losing does not make one great... stupid for picking the fight... but not great.


I'm glad you referred to my comment as 'dumb.' I've been biting my tongue here. Is there anybody out there who wants to defend Grant and who has a brain?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 12/19/2006 10:26:07 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 155
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/19/2006 10:20:22 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Another one of your statements without visible support...


I'm glad you referred to my comment as 'dumb.' I've been biting my tongue here.


makes two of us.... been biting my tongue as you make snide comments about my points too. If you'd like to politely discuss it I’m all for it.


I've been supporting everything I've posted including quotes from different sources... you just keep saying you have to be outnumbered to be great... with no suppor to that comment.



< Message edited by dude -- 12/19/2006 10:30:37 PM >


_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 156
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/19/2006 10:25:55 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Another one of your statements without visible support...


I'm glad you referred to my comment as 'dumb.' I've been biting my tongue here.


makes two of us.... been biting my tongue as you make snide comments about my points too. If you'd like to politely discuss it I’m all for it.


I've been supporting everything I've posted including quotes from different sources... you just keep saying you have to be outnumbered to be great... with no suppor to that comment.




Kind of funny. You make points that you fail to support, then back them up by claiming to have supported your points.

...well, go and look. I'm sure you supported some point you made. You may have even made some claim that was valid. However, you have done nil to support your claim that Grant was a great general.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 157
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/19/2006 10:27:22 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



Again…where were those “great” confederate Generals that could win when “supposedly” outnumbered…

? The Shendanoah Valley. The Peninsula. Second Manassas. Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville. Most of Forrest's battles. Olustee. The Red River Campaign. So where were the Confederate generals that could win when 'supposedly' outnumbered? Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Louisiana.


funny... I don't think Grant was at Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, most of Forrest's battles, or Olustee... I was refering to Grant. Please re-read my comment. Mississippi? Tennessee? Louisiana? I think Grant and Sherman defeated the confederates there.



_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 158
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/19/2006 10:29:06 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Another one of your statements without visible support...


I'm glad you referred to my comment as 'dumb.' I've been biting my tongue here.


makes two of us.... been biting my tongue as you make snide comments about my points too. If you'd like to politely discuss it I’m all for it.


I've been supporting everything I've posted including quotes from different sources... you just keep saying you have to be outnumbered to be great... with no suppor to that comment.




Kind of funny. You make points that you fail to support, then back them up by claiming to have supported your points.

...well, go and look. I'm sure you supported some point you made. You may have even made some claim that was valid. However, you have done nil to support your claim that Grant was a great general.



You right, this is just too funny to bother with anymore...

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 159
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/19/2006 11:15:22 PM   
ezz

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline
There are NO serious history books on the civil war that do not accord almost equal status to the great skills of Lee and Grant.

If they weren't any good surely Foote or McPherson or Catton would have noticed.

Enough already, they were both very good.....

Next we'll be arguing Rommel was only defeated by superior numbers and could have got to Delhi with Monty's resources.....

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 160
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/20/2006 2:41:18 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

There are NO serious history books on the civil war that do not accord almost equal status to the great skills of Lee and Grant.

If they weren't any good surely Foote or McPherson or Catton would have noticed.

Enough already, they were both very good.....

Next we'll be arguing Rommel was only defeated by superior numbers and could have got to Delhi with Monty's resources.....


Dunno about New Delhi -- Basra sounds reasonable. Anyway, I'll certainly grant that Grant was right up there with Montgomery. It's a good question, actually: who was the more inspired military genius? Grant or Montgomery? Any Haig fans around?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ezz)
Post #: 161
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/20/2006 4:25:39 AM   
Conhugeco

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 11/14/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You're not the only one posting here. Specifically, 'Conhugeco' approvingly quotes Sherman's assessment of Grant as 'the greatest soldier of our time if not all time.'


Yes, that was me, and yes, I agree with Sherman, at least on the "greatest soldier of our time" part.

DickH

_____________________________

In response to a critic: "General Lee surrendered to me. He did not surrender to any other Union General, although I believe there were several efforts made in that direction before I assumed command of the armies in Virginia."

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 162
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 12/20/2006 5:43:13 AM   
Feltan


Posts: 1150
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Lee.

A great tactician, and the one most often compared to Grant (of whom I have mixed thoughts previously posted).

However, Lee lost the war for the South. By committing so many resources for so long to the defense of Virginia, the rest of the Confederacy was relegated to begging.

Sure, Virginia was critical to the Confederacy and deserved more resources in its defense than, say, Arkansas. But any rational overall commander would have redeployed forces to defend Atlanta, or to liberate New Orleans -- the gateway to the Mississippi.

Lee was a general not of the Confederacy, but a general of Virginia -- first, last and always. In doing so, and being blinded by state patriotism, he doomed the Confederacy (and by association Virginia) to defeat.

In modern parlance, Lee never got the big picture. Any comparison of Lee against Grant needs to take this into account -- and by my reckoning a high ranking general who fails the grand strategy test fails as a high ranking general. Lee would have made a damn fine corps commander -- but he exerted influence on the Confederate approach to the war far in excess of his capabilites.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to Conhugeco)
Post #: 163
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 2/21/2007 7:19:19 PM   
jkBluesman


Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline
In the whole ratings, how is the level of command considered? There was a big discussion on Hood. He was a great division commander but a bad army commander. A.P. Hill lacked the health and the skill for keeping the bigger picture together but he did a great job as commander of the "Light Division".
There are examples on the Union side too though there (at least in the ARmy of the Potomac) the problem of "political" generals was bigger than in the AoNV.

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 164
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 2/21/2007 8:47:36 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
One of our new features for the patch is the chance for a general's ratings to drop when promoted, which should simulate that to some extent.

(in reply to jkBluesman)
Post #: 165
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 2/22/2007 2:08:55 PM   
jkBluesman


Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline
In your judgement of Lee you have to keep on thing in mind that was very different between Union and Confederacy. The South had with Davis a president, who had been Secretary of War of the United States and was a graduate of West Point. So while he considered Lee to be the best choice for the Eastern theater, he supported Bragg in the West, being himself in overall command. When Longstreet and others favoured a shift of units from East to West for another attempt to invade Kentucky, Lee argued that he would be weakened too much by this move in Virginia. Here you can critizise Lee for not looking at the big picture however, in this discussion he was defending his command and did not want to loose veteran troops to commanders in the West (where he had sent commanders whom Lee considered as bad).
The Union in contrast had a president who did not know much about warfare. Lincoln learned a lot over the years, but depended on Halleck and his commanders in the field.

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 166
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 3/2/2007 4:08:48 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
Davis also pulled Stevenson's large Division from Bragg's army and sent it to Vicksburg, thus depriving Bragg of this Division when he needed it at Murfreesboro.

Davis was in a tough spot all the way around, and made some errors, such as not canning Bragg etc. However, not anyone or anything is perfect.

Lincoln did have knowledge of military affairs, but did rely on his military advisors more so than davis, but Lincoln did make final decisions based on his final analysis and determination of the matters at hand.

Chris

(in reply to jkBluesman)
Post #: 167
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 3/2/2007 7:48:15 PM   
bubbak

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/24/2007
Status: offline
Felton
The debate between Lee and Grant is not a proper debate. Lee was not in command of all Confederate forces until the end of the war when it was to late to do anything, he was only in command of the ANV. Grant was in command of all Union forces and attached himself to the AOP. The only reason a debate is made between Lee and Grant is because of Grants attachment to AOP, Mead was in command of the AOP so the debate should be between Meade and Lee. Of course Lee was not going to release any of his forces to other commands because once he did he had no way to call them back, where as Grant could transfer units at his descreation and if he wanted them back he just had to order them back and he could give orders to the other armies opperating in the west, Lee could not. At the end of the Civil war Lee could only surrender the ANV and not the other armies.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 168
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 3/2/2007 7:57:35 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bubbak

Felton
The debate between Lee and Grant is not a proper debate. Lee was not in command of all Confederate forces until the end of the war when it was to late to do anything, he was only in command of the ANV. Grant was in command of all Union forces and attached himself to the AOP. The only reason a debate is made between Lee and Grant is because of Grants attachment to AOP, Mead was in command of the AOP so the debate should be between Meade and Lee. Of course Lee was not going to release any of his forces to other commands because once he did he had no way to call them back, where as Grant could transfer units at his descreation and if he wanted them back he just had to order them back and he could give orders to the other armies opperating in the west, Lee could not. At the end of the Civil war Lee could only surrender the ANV and not the other armies.


Lee became Commander in Chief of the Confederate army on Jan 23rd 1865 He had the authority to surrender the entire confederate army.

(in reply to bubbak)
Post #: 169
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 3/2/2007 8:34:15 PM   
bubbak

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 1/24/2007
Status: offline
Sorry, your right chris0827, like with some other things in the Civil war when I wrote that statement I was thinking about the surrender of the western armies after Lee surrendered. Am I wrong or didn't they consider carring on the fight, I know it was suggested to go gorilla which Lee did not want to do.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 170
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 3/2/2007 9:55:30 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
In the Trans Miss. the war went on until around June, 1865. Palmitto Ranch, TX was the last battle, officially that is.

Chris

(in reply to bubbak)
Post #: 171
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 9/20/2007 12:03:28 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: bubbak

Felton
The debate between Lee and Grant is not a proper debate. Lee was not in command of all Confederate forces until the end of the war when it was to late to do anything, he was only in command of the ANV. Grant was in command of all Union forces and attached himself to the AOP. The only reason a debate is made between Lee and Grant is because of Grants attachment to AOP, Mead was in command of the AOP so the debate should be between Meade and Lee. Of course Lee was not going to release any of his forces to other commands because once he did he had no way to call them back, where as Grant could transfer units at his descreation and if he wanted them back he just had to order them back and he could give orders to the other armies opperating in the west, Lee could not. At the end of the Civil war Lee could only surrender the ANV and not the other armies.


Lee became Commander in Chief of the Confederate army on Jan 23rd 1865 He had the authority to surrender the entire confederate army.


That Lee had the authority to surrender all Confederate armies might be a theoretically defensible view -- but the fact is that he did not. Lee and Johnston each surrendered separately and on behalf of their armies only. I think Forrest et al did the same thing: the legalities were secondary to the obvious physical fact that the war was finally lost.

I don't believe the South ever surrendered as a whole, per se. Rather, I think each individual military command threw in the towel as Jefferson Davis fled southwards, continuing to insist that he was head of an (increasingly fictional) Confederacy. For its part, the North tended to take the view that the Confederacy never had had any legal existence in the first place, so it wasn't interested in legitimizing it by negotiating terms either.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 172
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 8/18/2008 11:13:39 AM   
barker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
You know I take general leadership in 3 ways, revisionist history (the winner's point of view on battle history) or the general's biography (sometimes a self bloated ego trip) and the third I take to heart. Eyewitness accounts of leadership quality. For example: General Roddey 4th Alabama Cavalry. He rode with forrest and Wheeler but his men would follow him to the gates of hell. He froze with them, ate with them, fought with them. He endured the hardships as the men. Another Example Joe Wheeler, after the war he volunteered for the Spanish American war, was instrumental in the surrender. AS Johnston, A general that stood above all generals, was cut down short from a leg wound. Grants fame came from the Battle of Fort Henry and Donelson. The reason for grants win was that alot of the confederate men were sick and in the hospital, the 27th alabama was below half strength and no ammunition but they fought on. Even though the upper generals could not lead, the immediate leadership could and most often did. Grant was Grant. He had luck that fateful Feb. He tried to take fort henry with gun boats but they turned them back, supply was non existent so they went to dover. If you are a general and had the fate of your men and others, with no food or ammunition with no chance of supply....what would ou do?

By the way Forrest was one of the last generals to accept a pardon.

< Message edited by barker -- 8/18/2008 11:14:54 AM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 173
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 1/18/2009 4:12:00 PM   
jakethesnake

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/17/2009
Status: offline
When are these values going to be reflected in the Game?? In the 10.10.12 or whatever Patch? P.T. Beauregard seems to have come up short on votes for the the guy who was know as the "American Napoleon".  He pay be accused of dropping the ball at Shiloh but few recall that the day one battle plan was his and he was faced with overwhelming odds on day two.  He Commanded the field and rallied the CSA line at First Manasses, succeeded in preserving his army at Corith Juction.  Defended Charlston Harbor for 18 months while other CSA ports caved in a day.  And he prevented Petersburg from falling in 64 while outnumbered 5 to 1. I believe he should rate a 6 in both Initiative and Leadership. P.T. Beauregard would have had more notable commands if he hadnt become an enemy of the CSA President in 61 because of his open criticism of the CSA goverments "war efforts"

_____________________________

Jake the Snake

(in reply to andysomers)
Post #: 174
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 1/18/2009 5:54:42 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
I'm not sure what your question means -- the ratings voted on in this forum have been in the game since release, though I did lower his "Command" rating following discussion in the thread devoted to his bio. Since no one checks this sub-forum anymore, you might want to post your thoughts in that thread to see what others think. I'm not opposed to changing his ratings slightly if there's a consensus to do so.

Here's the thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1412430&mpage=1&key=beauregard�

_____________________________

Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.

(in reply to jakethesnake)
Post #: 175
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 1/4/2012 6:38:20 PM   
frederick II

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 1/4/2012
Status: offline
I just saw your general ratings. It looks like you have read toomany grant/sherman kool-aid. I have just read Master of war by Benson Bobrick. I also googled George henry Thomas. It was their opinion that General Geo Henry Thomas was the formost Union general of the war. Their opinion was that he was even greater then Lee.
His problem was he was from virginia and had no political backing and the political people didn't trust him. He won the 1st big battle of civil war for the north at Mill springs which destoyed the south right flank. He wanted to take eastern Tennessee but leaders over him dithered. It was his idea to go through snake river gap with the army of cumberland but Sherman didn't want him to get credit and sent Mcpherson's army of tennessee tnto the gap. Grant didn't like him because Thomas was assigned his army after Shioh. James Garfield, Rosecrans chief of staff and future president ahen asked by Lincoln who should be the next general of the Potomac after Gettysburg said only 1 man can operate that army and he said that it was Thomas. He was known as the Rock of Chicamauga and the sledgehammer of Nashville. He had the 1st modern army staff and was beloved by his Northern troops.It was his cavalry which destroyed Forrest.Wilson, a grant cav comdr said noome was better. The common word when asked about Thomas was that Thomas reminded them of Washington. Grant and Sherman lied in their reports and in their memoirs about Thomas.

_____________________________

frederick w. whittaker

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 176
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 1/15/2012 7:29:26 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
Thomas was certainly outstanding, and as I recall we gave him quite good ratings. But remember, it's not just a general's ratings that matter, but also the number and quality of special abilities he can teach, and Thomas certainly does well in that area.

Good to see someone still paying attention to generals! I do hope to return to the bios/ratings project, but it's going to have to wait a bit longer, as there are several higher priorities. Most of them not as fun, though.

_____________________________

Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.

(in reply to frederick II)
Post #: 177
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 6/27/2012 5:52:52 AM   
frederick II

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 1/4/2012
Status: offline
There are a coup;e more books out on General George Thomas. He is finally getting his due. Bruce Catton on one of his last interview thought that Thomas was the best general. He had the best modern staff, Hired the 1st woman doctor, 1st one to use railruad caes as hospitals. Broke the confederate flag codes. Created the cavalry force (fights on foot road to battle) and armed them with spenser repeating rifles. He directed Wilson in destroying Forrest and destroying the war material capability of Selma and Montgomery. Stanton, Hooker and other generals remarked that he was only general who matched up with Washington.As Mr Bobrick stated he was the master of war.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 178
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Generals' Ratings >> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141