Thread: SAM HOUSTON
View Single Post
 
Old 12-15-2013, 10:38 AM
Faulkner's Avatar
Faulkner Faulkner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arkansas Ozarks
Posts: 6,263
Likes: 7,264
Liked 33,953 Times in 3,676 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by finesse_r View Post
This nation has had two great generals, Washington and Jackson, and many just good ones. The south perished because Lee was a very good general, but not a great one like Washington and Jackson, and probably Houston belongs in that category.

Almost any good general can win when he has superior strength. Only the great ones manage to inflict devastating losses on a superior enemy.
Wow, this could lead to a long running discussion. Washington, Jackson, and Houston were great leaders and the right men at the right place and at the right time, but they were not necessarily great generals. At their peak Washington and Jackson lead a few thousand troops. Washington lost more battles than he won, and Jackson's high water event, the Battle of New Orleans, would have been considered not much more than a skirmish by Civil War standards.


Lee commanded a full army with tens of thousands of troops and did inflict devastating losses on a superior enemy in battle after battle for over three years.

Many military historians agree that Lee was the finest American general even if he did fight for the lost cause. No disrespect meant towards Washington, Jackson, and Houston, but they are not even in the same league as Lee.
__________________
- Change it back -

Last edited by Faulkner; 12-15-2013 at 10:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post: