I mean, who could ever forget how Genghis Kahn invaded Vietnam?
Posted on 01/05/2018 9:50:10 AM PST by C19fan
Like Hannibal, I wanted to rank powerful leaders in the history of warfare. Unlike Hannibal, I sought to use data to determine a general’s abilities, rather than specific accounts of generals’ achievements. The result is a system for ranking every prominent commander in military history.
(Excerpt) Read more at towardsdatascience.com ...
Daniel Morgan.
MSU Georgi Zhukov.
Well thank you. I like other parts of history too. :)
As do I.
USA 18,399 (2,725 killed, 13,416 wounded, 2,258 captured/missing)
CSA 12,687(1,515 killed, 5,414 wounded, 5,758 captured/missing)
Another example Cold Harbor:
USA 12,738 total 1,845 killed 9,077 wounded 1,816 captured/missing
CSA 5,287 total 788 killed 3,376 wounded 1,123 captured/missing
USA 50% more casualties. Grant was a butcher. He could afford to be.
Being a successful general means being able to pay the butcher’s bill.
Lee and Grant knew that. General’s like Burnside knew it, but, couldn’t pay it. General’s like Brag could pay it, but, paid it poorly.
GARBAGE.
This author admits:
“I rely heavily on Wikipedia for data and the categorization of that data.”
Spotsylvania Court House, 17% Union casualties, 20% Confederate casualties, for the forces involved.
Cold Harbor 11.5% Union casualties for forces involved.
Gettysburg 34% casualties in the Army of Northern Virginia.
47% casualties for Pickett’s assault force.
Grant suffered more casualties, but as a percentage of forces involved, lower than Lee. But what is much more important to the issue is that within a few weeks, Lee’s Army will be locked up in Petersburg. There it will wither on the vine. Grant will be victorious. At least Grant, in his memoirs admitted “the assault on Cold Harbor was the worst mistake I ever made.” Lee, on the other hand not once admitted that 47% casualties suffered at Cemetery Ridge was a mistake on his part.
That’s what I got from your concise statement. I just made it verbose to spread your point even on a casual reading.
Chancellorsville.
Malvern Hill, Gettysburg
Interesting effort, but the question it asks is, “Given that you are going to fight Battle X, who would be the guy most likeley to win for you?That’s fine, but it doesn’t factor in the question, “Given that you are fighting War X, who would be the guy who can come out victorious not just in any particular battle but in a whole war?
Napoleon comes out great in winning battles. Winning wars, not quite so well. Conversely with George Washington, who didn’t win many battles, but stuck to a strategic vision which ultimately succeeded.
The concept of the Pyrhic victory enters in; the British won a lot of battles but not the war, which means that they failed to force and win the battles they needed to win.
Similarly the War of 1812 wound down with British defeat on Lake Champlain, failure to take Baltimore, and rout at New Orleans. When you lose the last battle of a war, prior successes will retrospectively come to seem Pyrhic in nature.
Thanks. I appreciate your contribution.
The way that Napoleon abandoned his soldiers in Russia was certainly an example of superior Generalship.
Patton didn’t seem all that worried about destroying armor. He wanted to cut through to the rear wherever possible. I may be wrong about that, but he’d gain ground in dozens of miles a day.
Napoleon also abandoned his soldiers in Egypt.
Thus in this thread who are so uncritical of Patton need to read this book
to get another perspective.
An incident in this book is the kernel of the movie ‘FURY’.
Thus = Those
You’re right. Forgot about that.
I mean, who could ever forget how Genghis Kahn invaded Vietnam?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.