View single post by Don
 Posted: Fri Mar 21st, 2008 12:33 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
Posts: 111

  back to top

At Joanie's request, I've started a new thread to focus on her original question, but let's not abandon this thread. There's too much good discussion here to lose. Yes, Ole, I want to have my cake and eat it too.

I think perhaps one of the 'qualities' that we're missing is the intangible. I happen to be a Thomas fan, and I think he was one of the better Union generals. But I don't think he was great. Very good, maybe another very for good measure, but not great.

Sheridan definitely not, Sherman possibly, Grant I'm pretty sure.

Jackson probably but I'm not completely convinced (see Thomas), Lee definitely, Stuart maybe, Longstreet possibly, Hampton probably.

Funny thing, though, the more I think about it, it's much easier to decide who isn't than who is!

Another thought: isn't the quality of the opposition a factor? IMO, that's keeping Forrest off of my list.

 Close Window