Thread: SAM HOUSTON
View Single Post
 
Old 12-15-2013, 12:25 PM
Old TexMex's Avatar
Old TexMex Old TexMex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: South of the Nueces
Posts: 9,273
Likes: 23,812
Liked 20,090 Times in 5,871 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Faulkner View Post
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.
I agree with this. Even in my lifetime, I have seen wars declared "lost" by the government when their army was winning.

Perhaps Mark Twain would say the "size of the dog in the fight" is the general, but "the size of the fight in the dog" is the individual soldier.

In the context of this discussion, the Texians were rested and volunteers, the Mexicans were exhausted and conscripts. The Texians were fighting more for "their land" and the Mexican conscript troops had no real interest in being in the godforsaken swamp of east Texas. Santa Anna was by no means a military leader of any consequence. His defeat was much due to lack of security.
__________________
Halfway and one more step
Reply With Quote