|View single post by Texas Defender|
|Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 07:31 am||
Yes, precisely right.
You can compare all the qualities previously discussed to the genetic makeup of an individual. He needs certain: "genes", or qualities to have a chance to achieve greatness. But if he also has the: "bad luck" gene, then he doesn't get there no matter how strong his other qualities are. Thats all I'm saying. If you have the absence of luck, you don't get there. Thus, every great general must have some amount of luck or he wouldn't have been able to fulfill what became his destiny.
You can also argue that: "the times" make the great general. The emergency arises and those on the scene prove inadequate to deal with it. All of a sudden the: "right" person shows up and fills the position. Then things begin to function properly.
A good example of the: "right" person is of course, General Grant. He wasn't all that good at farming or shopkeeping, but he was the person that the times called for to lead the Union armies. He appeared at the right time and place to prove that he was the one who was needed. Eventually, he was recognized as being the: "right" person.
Grant had the qualities needed to advance to the top. Luckily for him, he did not also have the : "bad luck" gene. If he had, it might have been he who was mortally wounded in April of 1862 instead of Albert Sidney Johnston.
If things had happened that way, then Grant would not have been able to fulfill his potential. Lincoln would have had to find someone else for the job. Who that might have been and how that might have changed events can only be speculated on.