View single post by Mark
 Posted: Tue Nov 29th, 2011 01:02 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think probably a lot of people around here are familiar with the "Disunion" series in the New York Times. I think they are usually pretty good, but the one that ran today titled, "Lincoln's Do-Nothing Generals" was abysmal in my opinion.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/lincolns-do-nothing-generals/?smid=fb-disunion

1) The author does not understand the fundamental differences between Jomeni and Napoleonic theories of warfare

2) He takes Paddy Griffith completely out of context

3) He discounts the degree of strategic maneuvering taking place in places other than the Eastern theater of the war during late 1861 and early 1862 (Fort Donelson and Fort Henry perhaps?)

4) Most egregiously the author discounts the impact that the Mexican war had on future Civil War generals. Lee and Grant were not disciples of Napoleon or Jomeni. They were students of Scott and Taylor.

Am I going overboard?

Mark

 Close Window