VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:56:03 11/02/05 Wed
Author: fresne
Subject: And thus the case for the importance of an Indirect Strategy.
In reply to: What about that Stonewall 's message, "Re: Lee" on 14:43:26 10/31/05 Mon

Although, I must admit Sir Basil Liddell-Hart's book on Sherman did rather sway me in the direction of Sherman as best-ust of the Civil War lot.

Course, this is based less on external criteria than on that's the one book on Civil War military strategy that I've read.

Until I read it, I had this idea Sherman was some sort of sluggish lawnmower marching to the sea, rather than a darting sort of Huitlipochli.

And to sort of bring us back to Strategic thinking, campaigns aside, of the various commanders: Wellington, Napoleon, Lee, Grant, etc., which one's strategy and tactics would you (and I mean that in the plural ya'all sense) had the most affect on strategic/tactical thinking? Not the greatest (which is either subjective or we make a grid with the total count of campaigns, battles/victories or losses and pretend that has any meaning), but the most influence.

I'm inclined to Napoleon, because he seems to be quoted all over the place, "The moral is the physical as three to one," that strategy tree aphorism that I can never quite remember how it goes (it's a long past interest, not a current one), and as I recall had a direct effect on Clausewitz's thinking, who himself was a strategist of no small influence. Plus he was a short hyper-active git, and I always favor those.

Thoughts?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.