Who Ian the best General of all time, and why is it pic related?

Who Ian the best General of all time, and why is it pic related?

he wasn't even a top 5 general of the american civil war, take your bait to pol

sage

>this unfunny forced meme sherman shitposting again

t. assblasted southerners

>southerner
Not really, kiddo.

It's better than seize the means of production

Definitely not even one of the best generals of all time but certainly one of the best of the civil war. He and Grant were basically visionaries who employed the basics of industrial warfare before in an era where people were still about battlefield dick waving between generals. That is that wars are won by the nation who can replace it's men and material losses the quickest, not the most skilled generals winning battles. The same principal is what lost Germany WW1 and WW2.

I hate dixieboos as much as the next guy, but I can't even think of meme reasoning as to why Sherman would be better than Subutai, Napoleon, Fabius, or ibn-Walid

Do it again Uncle Billy.

Do it again Uncle Billy!

As a battlefield commander, he was sufficient. His operational methods and view of warfare in general were prescient, I think. Sometimes ideas can transcend skill.

Pure ideology my man

>one of the worst generals in the Civil War
>first major battle he lost and literally had to be relieved of command
"one of the best generals of the civil war"

Yankeeboo here, other user was right, he's top 10 Union general but probably not top 5. Here's the top 5:

1. Grant
2. Thomas
3. Hancock
4. Schofield
5. Warren

ps....fascinating character though, his whole family is pretty interesting too.

DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY

always bet on subotai

>alcoholic lunatic who cant win actual battles so he gets sent to fight women and children and burn down unarmed towns

whoa, so this is the power of the north huh?

jackson and lee were the best in the war by far. the union leaders unanimously sucked and they only won because they had way more resources. true facts.

Shelby Foote thinks you're a fucking idiot.

fully stocked fresh troops and equipment fighting starving men with no shoes and barely any supplies by the end of the war. its objectively true..

>no Little Mac
Fuck off Gorilla.

This. Logistics > tactics. It's about winning the war, not the battle.

Do it Again Uncle Billy

Sherman didn't do logistics either.

What about his family?

McClellan was great at organizing the army, but he was a terrible, awful field general.

You post this same "analysis" in every civil war thread but never elaborate. Nothing Sherman did was revolutionary or interesting. There's a reason observer Helmuth von Moltke called Sherman's command during the Atlanta campaign a "armed mob" where nothing of value could be learned.

>he was a terrible awful field general
No.

>No.
yes.

...

Dad was on Ohio supreme court. Brother was US Senator who ran for President. (one) Son became a jesuit Priest. stuff like that.

>the union leaders unanimously sucked

1. Grant
2. Thomas
3. Hancock
4. Schofield
5. Warren

none of these generals sucked.

also Sheridan, Meade and yes, Sherman...didn't suck.

No.

Sheridan was a good cavalry commander but seemed too bull headed to make any good strategic decisions and it was probably a good thing he was never promoted any higher. Also, he should have never lost to Hampton at Trevilians.

>No.
yes

yeah...that's why he's not top 5. fun thing about the civil war is that nobody has a spotless record, closest is probably Jackson, followed by Thomas and Cleburne.

>be thomas
>south hates you for siding with the north
>north doesn't like you for being a southerner
>family refuses to attend your funeral

I hope that yankee pussy was worth it

Total war is quite literally flexing your manpower, material and logistical prowess. Winning a few battles by outsmarting your opponents while being outsupplied, outmanned and outgunned is brownie points if you don't achieve your objective.

Andrew Johnson wanted to make him commander in chief of the US army, so it wasn't all bad. (he turned the offer down)

No, Gorilla.

Show us a battle Sherman won that wasn't him against a vastly smaller opponent's army or attributing victories subordinate commanders under him that also aren't against empty cities.

>No, Gorilla.

that's THE ORIGINAL Gorilla to you...

also...

yes.

>Show us a battle Sherman won that wasn't him against a vastly smaller opponent's

Atlanta?

Hood evacuated the city because Sherman had a much larger army that could easily surround the city, what are you smoking. There was barely a battle.

No you baboon..

>Fabius
>good general
Doing nothing doesnt count