View single post by peon
 Posted: Wed Jun 16th, 2010 08:16 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
peon
Member
 

Joined: Mon Jun 14th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 7
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 On the other hand I found in a fairly old book an interesting comment on Lee vs. McClellan (both students of Napoleon, Lee arguably imitated his independent corps, corps d'armee, and offensive strategies). Lee also I believe said he "understood" McClellan, and that he feared the day Washington had a general he didn't understand.


McClellan forgot that in war it is impossible for a
general to be absolutely certain. It is sufficient, accord
ing to Napoleon, if the odds in his favor are three to
two; and if he cannot discover from the attitude of his
enemy what the odds are, he is unfitted for supreme
command.
The "attitude" that Lee was in the habit of assuming was the very thing that impressed his enemy with
the idea that his army was about twice as large as it
really was.
If Napoleon could determine the strength of his
enemy by his "attitude" it is clear that he had no Lees
to deal with.

http://www.archive.org/details/strategyofrobert00bowe