Was there ever a greater strategist/logistician than him?

>>3036479
Grant? Because Grant is under appreciated and is forever stained because the South fucking hated him.

>>3036479
>>3036482
They were both exceptional but in somewhat different ways. They complemented each other. Neither were spectacular tacticians but they both were brilliant at figuring out how to actually end the war.

Alexander the great for one.

>>3036493
Alexander was so unbelievably good at every possible dimension of war that it's almost unfair to bring him up on any of the specifics

>>3036505
True but he sure beats this guy. What about Caesar?

>>3036512
>>3036493
tactics != strategy

File: Alexander.png (94KB, 250x150px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 250x150px

>>3036493
Reminder that Alexander was blonde and Aryan

>>3036487
I think Grant was a great tactician. Maybe not as good as Lee, but better than people give him credit for.

The '64-'65 campaign saw Grant up against Lee's veterans who were defending a series of heavy fortifications with internal lines of movement and communication. So yeah Grant was always going to take heavy casualties, but he doesn't just throw soldiers at the trenches. Aside from the gimmick of say Cold Mountain, which was fucked up by less competent subordinates, Grant keeps trying to turn Lee's flank, eventually stretching Lee's lines to a breaking point.

On the other side, Lee take twice as many absolute casualties as McCllelan does in the Seven Days Campaign.

>>3036531
He was Macedonian. And we have no idea what he looks like. Some account say ugly, some say perfect, some say brown hair, some say blonde. No clue though.

>>3036532
Grant had the right idea. He realized that the north's advantage was in manpower and production. He knew he would win a war of attrition. It was brutal but it worked.

>>3036537
t. butthurt mednigger

Every contemporary source says him blond/tawny

>>3036532
He was definitely underrated as a tactician; lost causers like to say he was a butcher who relied on luck but in reality the battles he fought tended to be naturally difficult ones such as the siege scenarios you described against heavy fortifications. That said, I still think he was only decent as a tactician. He didn't tend to have the kind of clever strokes that Lee did, even though Lee was a poor strategist.

>>3036542
>contemporary source
Okay-list them Faggot!

>>3036479
Genghis-fucking-Khan.

Mao Tse-tung

>>3036479
Vo Nguyen Giap.

The logistical and planning feats he performed over 30 years of warfare were amazing.

Even when he failed tactically/operationally: the Red River Delta campaign, Tet and the '72* offensive, the set up for those campaigns was brilliant. The ability to supply a half-way modern army with a logistical rail that was almost non-existent was amazing. He kept the VC supplied through the south during this whole period. Hell, he created the NVA out of a bunch of ragtag villagers.

*Re Tet and '72, Giap argued against both operations, but was forced to carry them out by the pro-China faction of the Communist party. At least in Tet, while all the prep work was great, they kinda fucked it at the last moment when different units were given different start times for the offensive, losing the element of surprise and allowing the Americans to defeat the enemy in detail. But that Giap was able to organise a mass offensive within Saigon itself says something.