back to top
|gettysburger, i'm a diehard southerner, my favorite general is maxcy gregg, my second is jackson and my third is hancock. no matter whether you are from the north or south we all have our bias opinions but i'll admit if a northern general was better then a southern general. the whole point in me opening this discussion was because i've heard by several members that Grant was the better general. when i think of the last year of the war in the eastern theatre i'm reminded of stalingrad. The only reason the russians won stalingrad was because of there superior numbers. Any General with an unlimited amount of troops and resources can defeat an army of starving underclad troops that might number 40,000, with little to no replacements. I agree that Grant had the balls to do what other generals wouldnt, and realizing that he could do it because of the norths resources. I guess a good question would be, could grant have done the same if he had been promoted in '62?