Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: IMG_0403.jpg (28KB, 380x370px) Image search:
[Google]
28KB, 380x370px
>wages conventional war with enemy he knew well was more industrialized and able to muster more men
>catastrophic losses and dying spirit following even his proudest victories does not deter him from doing the same thing for three years until he surrenders
>effective commander of rebel army and Davis' most trusted and favorite general, sees no need for the duration of his command to act independently of offensive-based grand strategy authored by Richmond in spite its evident flaws and seeing subordinates carry out irregular warfare with monumental efficaciousness
>saw Mexico fail in open field battles and succeed in guerrilla warfare and learns nothing from it
Even his proudest victory, Chancellorsville, saw no less than a quarter of his men killed, captured, or wounded. Why is Lee always looked on as such a brilliant mind in literally every post-war narrative?
>>
File: Bloody-bill-anderson.jpg (87KB, 442x561px) Image search:
[Google]
87KB, 442x561px
>saw Mexico fail in open field battles and succeed in guerrilla warfare and learns nothing from it
if he did, and the Confederates fell back into a bushwhacking/guerrilla campaign, shit would be real messy into the 1870s
>>
Gorilla warfare is most effective when you have a conventional army as well, to distract the attention of the enemy and keep them occupied as their rear is annihilated.
That said, Lee is indeed overrated as a general.
>>
>>3241220
guerrilla warfare only works if you are fighting enemies with some humanity and morals
this was not the case with the Union
>>
>>3241240
Do you want independence or not?
The American Revolution was barely eighty years prior. Figure you'd learn something from it.
>>
>>3241251
Proper warfare of any kind does not consider anything but the enemy's fighting capacity. War is hell. No two ways about it.
>no morals
If you really think it was that bad, I pray we see re-education camps in the next ten years.
>>
>>3241253
Lee wasn't the kind of guy who was about to dedicate 10+ more years of his life waging a guerilla war; he just wasn't that into the southern cause and was more in it because of loyalty and duty than any sort of ideological reasons.
There were some guys on the confederate side that probably would've done this (Forrest) but they could see the writing on the wall when Lee surrendered.
Also, some pro-confederate Rebels did continue to fight guerilla style after the war officially ended, but this mostly occurred in the west
>>
Surely that wasn't viable with the huge slave population and the fact the elites wanted to keep their vast wealth and holdings.
>>
>>3241270
we're talking about Lee, boy, not the Confederacy
and Lee's grounds for taking part in the Rebellion do not alleviate his lack of foresight.
>>
>>3241305
You've got pretty bad reading comprehension huh
I said that Lee wasn't willing to do that because he wasn't that heavily invested in the cause and could see the writing on the wall
>>
>>3241310
>pretty bad reading comprehension
likewise
this has nothing to do with when he surrendered, this is a matter of how he fought the war
it's fortunate he didn't surrender any later, but the fact is, had he been a better strategist, there's a chance he wouldn't have to
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2